(07-22-2014 06:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  There has been a lot of talk about violations of international law on here. International law is a bit of a nebulous concept because there is not some code of laws that must be followed. It is based on custom, tradition, treaties (which govern the ratifying parties), and the rulings of international organizations. There is no black letter international law.

The most relevant regarding the use of human shields would be the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which is essentially a statement of what has been custom and tradition (international "common law," for want of a better term).

Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: "The presence of a protected person (i.e., a civilian) may not be used to render certain... areas immune from military operations." Article 51 of the 1977 amendment to the 1949 Geneva Convention elaborated, "The presence... of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain... areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objects from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations." Keeping in mind that the presumption is dealing with prisoners in wartime, the principle stated in Article 83 is also relevant, "The Detaining Power shall not set up places of internment in areas particularly exposed to the dangers of war."

Section 51(7) of Protocol I of 1977 states, "The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations."

Article 58 of Protocol I provides, "Precautions against the effects of attacks. The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible: (a) without prejudice to Article 49 of the Fourth Convention, endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives; (b) avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas; © take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations."

The actions of Hamas and the Palestinian authorities would clearly appear to violate several of the above provisions.

What are the attacker's duties when the defender is using human shields?

Sections 4 and 5 of Article 51 of Protocol I provide, "4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or © those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
"5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and (b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated."

The proportionality provision of section 5 would seem to apply here. It is a bit troublesome to apply because the factual issues are difficult to prove. The International Committee of the Red Cross’ model manual provides what may be a more useful standard, "The attacking commander is required to do his best to protect [civilians used to shield] but he is entitled to take the defending commander’s actions into account when considering the rule of proportionality." But even that is hardly clear cut.

I would tend to give Israel the benefit of the doubt here, although others may differ.

What is really needed is an agreed standard. The customs and traditions upon which the Geneva Conventions were based have developed over centuries, driven primarily by European nobles playing by the rules. Those rules don't really apply here. This is a very different kind of warfare, fought by people whose customs and traditions are not those of western Europe. The only way to stop the practice is to make human shielded targets fair game, which greatly limits the effectiveness of human shields. That's harsh, but in the long run less harsh than any other approach. Even if legal, the party which attacks a human shielded target will have to endure the TV images of dead civilians, and question whether the price paid in the international court of public opinion is worth the gain.

There is no good answer. I'm not a fan of the proportionality standard in international law generally, because history has proved repeatedly that proportionality breeds quagmire, and almost certainly more death and destruction in the long run than simply using overwhelming force and getting it over.

That could be the first paragraph in an IL textbook.

(07-22-2014 06:23 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  That could be the first paragraph in an IL textbook.

Probably is somewhere. It's pretty much the first PowerPoint in my intro lecture.

(07-22-2014 06:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 06:23 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  That could be the first paragraph in an IL textbook.

Probably is somewhere. It's pretty much the first PowerPoint in my intro lecture.

Something very similar was in my International Business litigation textbook back in school. It was so close it triggered that memory.

But all sides in the conflict would have to agree to the provisions.
What are the odds Hamas would?

(07-22-2014 08:06 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  But all sides in the conflict would have to agree to the provisions.
What are the odds Hamas would?

Low. Pretty much everyone but Hamas has said they're ready and willing to come to the table, but even when they use human shields and then claim Israeli genocide against their people they still refuse to negotiate.

Hamas is nothing but a front for those who want to harass Israel without getting nuked back. They are using the Palestinians, who really have no choice. Hamas won't negotiate because they don't want it resolved.

(07-22-2014 02:23 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 02:21 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 01:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Civilian death numbers prove the allegation.

Hardly.

Would it make you feel better if the Israelis let a couple hundred of the thousands of missile Hamas is lobbing their way through, so as to even the "score" a bit?

Is it the Israels fault they have better technology and better weapon and weapon defense systems? Should more Jews die, just to make it fair?

Not at all.

The more civilians that die the more rockets end up raining down on Israel.

It's a cycle of violence and one I'd hope a civilized democracy would find a way to break. The fact they are only interested in intensifying the violence says there is more at play here.

The Palestinians are going to lose and it will be EPIC, and here is Why.

THE CHARTER OF ALLAH: THE PLATFORM OF THE ISLAMIC RESISTANCE MOVEMENT (HAMAS)

Article Seven

"The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: 0 Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!


The Palestinians laid down with the dog HAMAS.

They are FUBAR.

HOD, keep putting lipstick on that pig.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both issued new reports showing evidence that Israeli forces are intentionally targeting Palestinian civilians.

"An immediate investigation is needed into mounting evidence that the Israel Defense Forces launched apparently deliberate attacks against hospitals and health professionals in Gaza, which have left six medics dead, said Amnesty International as it released disturbing testimonies from doctors, nurses, and ambulance personnel working in the area."

"International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) reported that on July 25, a Red Crescent volunteer [the equivalent of the Red Cross] was mortally wounded in an Israeli attack in Khuza’a, and other volunteers who tried to rescue him were fired on."
 
"Human Rights Watch investigated several incidents between July 23 and 25 when, local residents said, Israeli forces opened fire on civilians trying to flee Khuza’a, but no Palestinian fighters were present at the time and no firefights were taking place."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-07...ng-civilia

And a former IDF commander claims that soldiers within the IDF have admitted to targeting civilians (and he has now been arrested).

" Last week, on Tuesday, July 29, Efrati announced on Facebook that his confidential sources within the IDF had informed him that the “real reason” for the recent IDF Shuja’iyya massacre, which had been carried out just over a week earlier, on July 20, was that IDF soldiers were deliberately targeting civilians as “punishment” and “retribution” for the deaths of fellow soldiers in their units."

" Today I can report that the official command that was handed down to the soldiers in Shujaiyya was to capture Palestinian homes as outposts. From these posts, the soldiers drew an imaginary red line, and amongst themselves decided to shoot to death anyone who crosses it. Anyone crossing the line was defined as a threat to their outposts, and was thus deemed a legitimate target. This was the official reasoning inside the units. I was told that the unofficial reason was to enable the soldiers to take out their frustrations and pain at losing their fellow soldiers (something that for years the IDF has not faced during its operations in Gaza and the West Bank), out on the Palestinian refugees in the neighborhood. Under the pretext of the so-called “security threat” soldiers were directed to carry out a pre-planned attack of revenge on Palestinian civilians."

http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/08/id...er-arrest/

That's the general concern I have with Israel putting boots on the ground in Gaza. The problem is that you have individual soldiers or platoons that hold guns and decide when and who to shoot, and they bring their own biases. Targeting from the air tends to be done by professional army and officers that you would expect to make better decisions.

Most of the incidents that I've seen coming from the IDF that rise to what I would consider criminal or potential war crimes are coming from infantry on the ground. But, you still have to distinguish things that are a matter of policy versus poor discipline of its soldiers.

The nature of the Israeli army is such that they cannot have enough professional soldiers to defend their country. They rely on the equivalent of national guard callups to handle any kind of sustained military action.

(08-08-2014 10:03 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both issued new reports showing evidence that Israeli forces are intentionally targeting Palestinian civilians.

"An immediate investigation is needed into mounting evidence that the Israel Defense Forces launched apparently deliberate attacks against hospitals and health professionals in Gaza, which have left six medics dead, said Amnesty International as it released disturbing testimonies from doctors, nurses, and ambulance personnel working in the area."

"International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) reported that on July 25, a Red Crescent volunteer [the equivalent of the Red Cross] was mortally wounded in an Israeli attack in Khuza’a, and other volunteers who tried to rescue him were fired on."
 
"Human Rights Watch investigated several incidents between July 23 and 25 when, local residents said, Israeli forces opened fire on civilians trying to flee Khuza’a, but no Palestinian fighters were present at the time and no firefights were taking place."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-07...ng-civilia

And a former IDF commander claims that soldiers within the IDF have admitted to targeting civilians (and he has now been arrested).

" Last week, on Tuesday, July 29, Efrati announced on Facebook that his confidential sources within the IDF had informed him that the “real reason” for the recent IDF Shuja’iyya massacre, which had been carried out just over a week earlier, on July 20, was that IDF soldiers were deliberately targeting civilians as “punishment” and “retribution” for the deaths of fellow soldiers in their units."

" Today I can report that the official command that was handed down to the soldiers in Shujaiyya was to capture Palestinian homes as outposts. From these posts, the soldiers drew an imaginary red line, and amongst themselves decided to shoot to death anyone who crosses it. Anyone crossing the line was defined as a threat to their outposts, and was thus deemed a legitimate target. This was the official reasoning inside the units. I was told that the unofficial reason was to enable the soldiers to take out their frustrations and pain at losing their fellow soldiers (something that for years the IDF has not faced during its operations in Gaza and the West Bank), out on the Palestinian refugees in the neighborhood. Under the pretext of the so-called “security threat” soldiers were directed to carry out a pre-planned attack of revenge on Palestinian civilians."

http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/08/id...er-arrest/

Amnesty International isn't exactly an unbiased observer. There is nothing wrong in a combat situation drawing a line to demarcate a 'No Mans Land"

(08-08-2014 10:03 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both issued new reports showing evidence that Israeli forces are intentionally targeting Palestinian civilians.
"An immediate investigation is needed into mounting evidence that the Israel Defense Forces launched apparently deliberate attacks against hospitals and health professionals in Gaza, which have left six medics dead, said Amnesty International as it released disturbing testimonies from doctors, nurses, and ambulance personnel working in the area."
"International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) reported that on July 25, a Red Crescent volunteer [the equivalent of the Red Cross] was mortally wounded in an Israeli attack in Khuza’a, and other volunteers who tried to rescue him were fired on."
"Human Rights Watch investigated several incidents between July 23 and 25 when, local residents said, Israeli forces opened fire on civilians trying to flee Khuza’a, but no Palestinian fighters were present at the time and no firefights were taking place."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-07...ng-civilia
And a former IDF commander claims that soldiers within the IDF have admitted to targeting civilians (and he has now been arrested).
" Last week, on Tuesday, July 29, Efrati announced on Facebook that his confidential sources within the IDF had informed him that the “real reason” for the recent IDF Shuja’iyya massacre, which had been carried out just over a week earlier, on July 20, was that IDF soldiers were deliberately targeting civilians as “punishment” and “retribution” for the deaths of fellow soldiers in their units."
" Today I can report that the official command that was handed down to the soldiers in Shujaiyya was to capture Palestinian homes as outposts. From these posts, the soldiers drew an imaginary red line, and amongst themselves decided to shoot to death anyone who crosses it. Anyone crossing the line was defined as a threat to their outposts, and was thus deemed a legitimate target. This was the official reasoning inside the units. I was told that the unofficial reason was to enable the soldiers to take out their frustrations and pain at losing their fellow soldiers (something that for years the IDF has not faced during its operations in Gaza and the West Bank), out on the Palestinian refugees in the neighborhood. Under the pretext of the so-called “security threat” soldiers were directed to carry out a pre-planned attack of revenge on Palestinian civilians."
http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/08/id...er-arrest/

You do understand that,
1) the people and organizations quoted here are not exactly unbiased observers, and
2) even if factually true, these allegations to not constitute proof that Israel intentionally targets Palestinian civilians.

(08-08-2014 09:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-08-2014 10:03 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both issued new reports showing evidence that Israeli forces are intentionally targeting Palestinian civilians.
"An immediate investigation is needed into mounting evidence that the Israel Defense Forces launched apparently deliberate attacks against hospitals and health professionals in Gaza, which have left six medics dead, said Amnesty International as it released disturbing testimonies from doctors, nurses, and ambulance personnel working in the area."
"International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) reported that on July 25, a Red Crescent volunteer [the equivalent of the Red Cross] was mortally wounded in an Israeli attack in Khuza’a, and other volunteers who tried to rescue him were fired on."
"Human Rights Watch investigated several incidents between July 23 and 25 when, local residents said, Israeli forces opened fire on civilians trying to flee Khuza’a, but no Palestinian fighters were present at the time and no firefights were taking place."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-07...ng-civilia
And a former IDF commander claims that soldiers within the IDF have admitted to targeting civilians (and he has now been arrested).
" Last week, on Tuesday, July 29, Efrati announced on Facebook that his confidential sources within the IDF had informed him that the “real reason” for the recent IDF Shuja’iyya massacre, which had been carried out just over a week earlier, on July 20, was that IDF soldiers were deliberately targeting civilians as “punishment” and “retribution” for the deaths of fellow soldiers in their units."
" Today I can report that the official command that was handed down to the soldiers in Shujaiyya was to capture Palestinian homes as outposts. From these posts, the soldiers drew an imaginary red line, and amongst themselves decided to shoot to death anyone who crosses it. Anyone crossing the line was defined as a threat to their outposts, and was thus deemed a legitimate target. This was the official reasoning inside the units. I was told that the unofficial reason was to enable the soldiers to take out their frustrations and pain at losing their fellow soldiers (something that for years the IDF has not faced during its operations in Gaza and the West Bank), out on the Palestinian refugees in the neighborhood. Under the pretext of the so-called “security threat” soldiers were directed to carry out a pre-planned attack of revenge on Palestinian civilians."
http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/08/id...er-arrest/

You do understand that,
1) the people and organizations quoted here are not exactly unbiased observers, and
2) even if factually true, these allegations to not constitute proof that Israel intentionally targets Palestinian civilians.

You're right. HRW has a well-documented pro-Israel slant. Thanks for highlighting that. I guess Efrati is just another anti-Semite.

And if these allegations are true, then it absolutely proves Israel is targeting civilians. That was kind of the main point of every link.

(08-09-2014 09:53 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  And if these allegations are true, then it absolutely proves Israel is targeting civilians.

Nope.
None of those allegations address the possibility that valid military targets might be present in every one of those situations.

Is a hospital a valid military target? No, of course not.
But what if it's next to a weapons cache? Is the weapons cache a valid military target? Absolutely. And none of the allegations address that.

Firing on workers tending to an injured volunteer. Firing on fleeing civilians where there were no enemy fighters present. Soldiers stating that they were given orders to kill civilians for revenge. I don't know how it could be any clearer.

(08-09-2014 10:19 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Firing on workers tending to an injured volunteer. Firing on fleeing civilians where there were no enemy fighters present. Soldiers stating that they were given orders to kill civilians for revenge. I don't know how it could be any clearer.

Have you ever been in combat?

(08-09-2014 10:19 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Firing on workers tending to an injured volunteer. Firing on fleeing civilians where there were no enemy fighters present. Soldiers stating that they were given orders to kill civilians for revenge. I don't know how it could be any clearer.

Clearer? What you liberals aren't hiding behind the "fog of war" meme anymore? Shocking!!!! This is biased coverage and being clear is not the objective here.

This entire concept is just a repackaging of the Blood Libel myth to put a new more modern face on anti-Semetism. Although it isn't "proper" to be an anti-Semite, you can comfortably be an anti-Zionist.

Three blind mice... Three blind mice.....

(08-17-2014 11:32 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Three blind mice... Three blind mice.....

You earned your clown card.

Willfully ignorant. Not a way to live life.