Harry’s Place

That cheers me up then. I was having constant nightmares and my hair started to fall outbecause I was worried people would call me ant semetic if I was against the IDF action. Phew! I feel better

The full article says
International law requires that military operations meet standards of proportionality

Could someone please point me to that segment of “International Law” since I seem to remember when this issue came up during The Lebanon War and international lawyers all stated that the existing laws governing conduct in war could not define ‘proportionality’ and that any charge of ‘disproportionality’ wouldn’t stick.

I will say this again, as I have several times, that there is no definition of what proportionality is.

Also, why is it that when the phrase “War Crimes” appears then its tagged against Israel and yet the UN said and did nothing about the War Crimes of Hamas (you know the supposed government of Gaza) when they fired at civilians with missiles and rockets and fired FROM civilian populations so enfangering them. When a bomb factory blows up and kills Gazans or a truck of missiles blows up during a Hamas parade then that is a War crime of endangering civilians.

UNWRA have been in Gaza so long that they ARE All Hamas now! So are UNHCR, so they can hardly be neutral.

ant semetic if I was against the IDF action. Phew! I feel better

I would easily call UNHCR and UNWRA antisemitic for their ignoring Hamas War Crimes but suggesting the IDF is guilty of them

Large numbers of civilian deaths aren’t a War Crime if the civilians aren’t targetted. Israel has demonstrably avoided civilian casualties.

It doesn’t matter how much contraception you use, if you get pregnant then it was OBVIOUSLY your INTENTION to get pregnant according to the type of rules they wish to use.

“Is Israel seeking merely to end the rocket attacks, which is legally justifiable, or aiming to completely destroy Hamas as an organization and political force, which is not.”

I don’t understand this. I think the analogy of Hamas to a country -a country, recognized by the UN, should not be destroyed- is wrong. Adam?

The nazis were destroyed as a political force. Why is not legally justifiable?

Should Britain be in the dock for a War Crime following the bombing of German cities where they intention was to kill whoever was under the bombs? Of course not because it wasn’t a war they started and they were responding to a foe who had no second thoughts about killing civilians and so they had to take extreme action to stop the War.

But, in this case Israel doesn’t even attack civilians as a policy.

Fabian - what I understand is that it is not legally justifiable under current international law to try and destroy non-terrorist-military parts of Hamas, eg, the police, schools, the universities that they operate.

That is why bombing the police parade ground could be a war crime - and is more likely to be than accidentally hitting the UN school. A lot of this depends on intent. The intent was clearly to kill the policemen who were non-combatants, at least at the time, but there was no intent to kill people the people sheltering in the school.

“how the fighting between Israel and Hamas — and its extremely high non-combatant casualty rate”

Wrong.

Awful thought the Palestinian civilian casualties are, the percentages are low compared to other conflicts.

Israel thinks they have killed around 500 to 600 Hamas in a total of around 1000 deaths.

That would be a lower civilian casualty rate than almost any other conflict (take Iraq and Afghanistan as most recent examples). I admit that the way the war is being reported leads one to feel like it is one mass ‘women and children only slaughter fest’ though.

War Crimes are, inevitably, political. Is Prince whoever it was a ‘War Criminal’ for calling in Air Strikes on targets in Afghanistan, inevitably causing civilian casualties. Definitely ‘no’ in my opinion;
but these things are in the eye of the beholder.

Countries are often very comfortable talking about the ‘War Crimes’ of other nations, as the UK is now in relation to Israel/Hamas; it moves the debate into a more comfortable sphere.

Personally…all war is a crime; and the rest is just b***sh** really.

MattG

I would hate to think that the IDF are deliberately targeting civilians to achieve a result. Nothing so far convinces me that they are doing so. And why should Israel announce their goals to the world - they should only be announced to their troops.

Rockets were fired from The Lebanon at Israel towns today. Is UNHCR and UNWRA shhouting “War Crmes!? Nope, and that is why this is a non-issue.

Adam: sorry, but your reasoning is confusing.

The reason you supposedly cannot bomb the police is because they were not engaged in hostilities at that moment, not because they are part of the political non-terrorist organization.

Anyway, maybe you suggest that Israel should destroy the terrorist organization of Hamas and then occupy Gaza and do a process of de-hamazification?

(The reason you supposedly cannot bomb the police is because they were not engaged in hostilities at that moment, not because they are part of the political non-terrorist organization.)

I add, because policemen or other Hamas militants could engage in hostilities in other moments.

Fabian (and others)

I am not suggesting anything about what Israel should or should not do or what Hamas should or should not do, militarily, politically or in other respect in this article. I am trying to examine their actions under current international humanitarian law and the laws of wars. It doesn’t matter what I think is right or wrong, what matters is what the jurisprudence says.

Under international law you should not bomb Hamas police on parade because:

1. They were not engaged in combat
2. The Hamas police force is not a combat organisation as such
3. If members of the Hamas police engage in combat, in or out of uniform, then they do become legitimate targets
4. You cannot bomb people because they might, at some future stage, engage in combat or are part of a wider organisation one branch of which engages in combat. This is precisely Hamas’ arguments as to why they fire rockets at Israeli civilians, which is also a war crime.

I see Maven hasn’t been pruned.

Wake up David; you will be late for work

Adam l - would the Dambusters raid now be judged as a war crime ? I presume the Dresden bombing would. What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki ?

Also why was there no mention of war crimes investigation at the UN when Hamas was lobbing thousands of rockets at Israel ?

leBor is to be praised.

I asked David T yesterday why HP hasn’t blogged about the UN man stating Israel might be commiting a war crime.

Kudos HP for looking at this now

Adam, I understand what you say, but what I don’t understand is why the IDF could not destroy the political wing of the Hamas, for example by disbanding or interveening all its institutions. That should be legally justifiable.

And of course, applying force as necessary in order to do so. For example, against those who would violently object the disbanding of a Hamas mosque.

One party’s war crimes are not generally considered to be cancelled out simply because the other side has committed similar violations, constant reference to Hamas rocket attacks, themselves condemned or at least criticised around the world may be relevant to the issue of IDF war crimes but can be used somewhat disengenuously. Both Hamas and the IDF have demonstrably targeted civilians (for the latter, a good example would surely be bombing medical clinics, notifying them shortly in advance either through phone calls or warning shots, one of which was run by that notorious terrorist group, Christian aid.) I would also argue UNHCR and UNWRA can potentially be considered partisan in their statements on Gaza but not anti-semitic. The former is still a cause for concern but not nearly as hateful as what is being alleged.

I think it is always best to reduce international relations to individual interaction when looking at the morality (remembering that you have no effective police force, judiciary or government in your neighbourhood).

I know professionals don’t like that but I have never found an example where this isn’t useful.

It seems to me that if you had a neighbour who was lobbing deadly weapons on to your property which coudl kill your children you would be right to act in a way which would require him to desist, even perhaps killing someone in the process.

Of course, if there is a way to make him desist without killing anyone that would be preferable. But perhaps you tried something like that before and it didn’t work.

If you go round there to kill the person who has been lobbing the deadly weaponry but they are holding one of their children close to them, of course you should not fire your own weapon if you have a choice, were that to be put the life of the child at risk. But if in this deadly situation you take aim and fire when you think you can kill the assailant without killing the child, but at the same time the child is brought back into the target area and dies, then blame does not attach to the individual.

Remember:

1. This is a v. difficult situation where there is no overarching system of law to protect everyone.

2. You are perhaps dealing with a madman gripped by delusional beliefs.

3. Further difficulties arise because in fact there has been an ongoing property dispute and all of the residents have reasonable arguments to put about ownership. There is no clear and undisputed title.

4. This sort of action could only be justified where genuine efforts have been made to talk things through and where you are facing a real threat to your own life and property.

Adam l - would the Dambusters raid now be judged as a war crime ? I presume the Dresden bombing would. What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki ?

Also why was there no mention of war crimes investigation at the UN when Hamas was lobbing thousands of rockets at Israel ?

Fabian, the text is accurate and balanced. the questions you pose reveal the difficulty in fighting a force that uses both conventional and non-conventional, subversive techniques.
Completely destroying Hamas is impossible. Even in cases where the strongest side (in terms of military might) was ready to use much more violence than Israel, they had great difficulty in eradicating subversive movements, freedom fighters, terrorists. It has to be with the very nature of such movements. Israel of course is aware of that. In the end only a negociated solution will solve this problem.
My guess: by weakening the Hamas as much as they can, it will make it easier to make progresses in reaching a lasting compromise with fatah, and then expect that Fatah itself deals with Hamas and other groups, which is also in Fatah’s interest.

As ever when we’re discussing law, there are conflicts. Hamas is the government of a recognised geographical region and as such Israel could at least make a fist of a self-defence, er, defence, given Hamas’ couple of thousand acts of war against Israel in the last few years. In law, as I understand it, Israel is entitled to take steps to neutralise that threat, albeit bringing to bear the minimum force necessary in order to achieve that - which does not necessarily exclude taking out Hamas altogether if Israel can show that this is the sine qua non of any expectancy she can enjoy a peaceful existence.

On the other hand, the Hamas police recruits were, at the very least, hors de combat, and perhaps even entitled to non-combatant status.

Of course, how is Israel expected to neutralise the Hamas threat if great swathes of the organisation are untouchable?

The issue is that the Geneva Conventions - despite one or two amendments in recent years - were mostly written to govern how two beliigerent nation states might go about trying to vanquish one another on the battlefield. They aren’t much of a blueprint for how a democracy is expected to combat a terrorist pseudo-state on its borders.

Good post Adam.

Alan Dershowitz said last night on Newsnight that it was only in England that this is even regarded as a close question.

Be that as it may, the nature of the accusations against Israel, particularly the comparisons with the Warsaw ghetto, means that it would be good to establish that there really is no case.

Can this be done? Unfortunately, the law is fuzzy and political - so probably not.

That said, I think it’s very important globally that international law is credible and respected. And opponents of Israel should be mindful not to make war crime law absurd.

Prof Norman Scobie of SOAS appeared to argue on Newsnight that Israel, essentially, has no right of self-defence against rocket attacks. He reached this conclusion by arguing that the requirement, broadly, that the military means used must be proportionate to their objective, was, in fact, a bodycount test, and that Israel could not take any steps which would be likely to cause a greater number of casualties in Gaza than the casualties that would be suffered in Israel as a result of the rocket attacks continuing.

Accordingly, despite the rocket attacks themselves constituting a war crime for being intentional attacks on civilians, they are effectively a free hit since Israel should be prevented by international law from taking any effective action against them.

If people really want to argue this line they will make a mockery of the concept of international law, and real war criminals like Al Bashir in Sudan will be able to continue their crimes with no fear of intervention.

As per Brownie, I think international law needs to be changed when states are dealing with groups like Hamas using extreme human shield tactics.

What would happen if Hamas had 2000 rockets that could hit Tel Aviv kept in a building filled with 2000 school children and 500 top Hamas guerrillas ? How would Israel take that out without committing a war crime ? Would it depend on what kind of rockets they were ? Would they be allowed to starve the guerrillas and children out as an alternative to killing them (I presume not) ?

Of course, how is Israel expected to neutralise the Hamas threat if great swathes of the organisation are untouchable?

The answer of course is that they’re not. Jews aren’t allowed to defend themselves. You should know that by now.

“Adam l - would the Dambusters raid now be judged as a war crime ? I presume the Dresden bombing would. What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki ?”

Field, as I understand it, no, yes, yes and yes. The dambusters raid was May 1943, a time when the outcome of the war was not clear. The other three took place in 1945 when German and Japanese defeat had become inevitable.

The key question is whether the allied war aim of forcing unconditional surrender by Germany and Japan was lawful under current law.

And according to the arguments that Scobie described, it was not.

The IRC and Milipede and this ridiculous ‘commission’ are simply ignorant in law and in fact, and are not remotely objective. Maven and Fabian and Morgoth have addressed the relevant points.

Doug is rambling. The fact that the rocket attacks were ‘criticised’, even (goodness me!) condemned is neither here nor there. A criticised rocket attack still murders Jewish civilians.
This is not 1942. Suck it up.

The other three took place in 1945 when German and Japanese defeat had become inevitable

Isn’t hindsight wonderful?

Nearly Oxfordian “The fact that the rocket attacks were ‘criticised’, even (goodness me!) condemned is neither here nor there. A criticised rocket attack still murders Jewish civilians.”

Exactly my point. Similarly Israeli airstrikes on civilian targets still murder Palastinian civilians.
I was just suggesting that both of these can be considered in their own right without the constant bleating on threads like these that ‘the other lot do it too’ acting as some sort of false justification.
But I accept your point about the rambling!

Doug - the Israeli action would not have been necessary if the UN had stopped the Hamas war crimes over the years. Why didn’t they cite the entire Hamas leadership for war crimes previously ? Hamas had openly been committing war crimes, there is no possible doubt about that.

On the Israeli side you will see from the article there is far more debate about the guilt if any. There is certainly no evidence of deliberate uncontested war crimes as a matter of policy.

I was just suggesting that both of these can be considered in their own right without the constant bleating on threads like these that ‘the other lot do it too’ acting as some sort of false justification. - Doug

You said it right. The Israelis should have lobbed chocolates and candies. That`d have stopped the hamas.

And according to the arguments that Scobie described, it was not.

That just proves what complete tossers Scobie and the rest of the Liberal Quaker/Pacifist axis are. They are not content with having their own (utterly dangerous, idiotic and immoral) personal philosophy but they seek to impose it on others. In short, they want others to die so they can feel personally smug.

I can’t speak for the UN and I’m certainly no Hamas apologist. The rocket attacks on civilian targets would seem to qualify as violations of international law and norms, the debate then seems to centre around whether they can be justified by the surrounding circumstances. (the usual arguments relating to the blockade, rockets attacks being the only means at their disposal)
R
egarding possible Israeli war crimes, the absence of independent journalism in Gaza makes clear evidence more difficult to obtain, and there is ongoing debate over whether particular actions qualify as war crimes - bombing schools, clinics, and other civilian targets. My point is that their status as war crimes needs to be determined independently of circumstance and then it can be determined whether they are necessary/justified violations.

rockets attacks being the only means at their disposal

That is not an excuse under international law as far as I know - do you have evidence to the contrary ?

That is not an excuse under international law as far as I know - do you have evidence to the contrary ?

No I don’t - it’s proponents seem to regard it as a justification for discarding international law not as an appeal to it. (A moral necessity going beyond the legal level)
I’m not saying this is my argument just one I’ve seen brought up elsewhere

Just as a matter of interest, can anyone tell me how often the UNHRC has discussed war crimes in Darfur, the DRC, Chechnya or Georgia?

Great article in the Guardian by Jonathan Freedland about the crisis.

Similar to what I have been saying here at HP - the Halevy track.

Less bombing, more thinking, please - on all sides.

Doug - If the rocket attacks were directed at the military then you might have a point. But they aren’t they are clearly directed at civilian targets.

Case in point; during the build up to the ground invasion did HAMAS launch rockets and mortars at:

a) The troop concentrations on the borders with Gaza.
b) Sderot and other cities.

Well if the object is to hold parties accountable for war crimes, wouldn’t all parties have to charged?

Its very true that Hamas has been targeting civilians - clearly a war crime. That’s put to bed. Period.

As for Israeli war crimes, there is going to be much debate about that. However, I think one aspect that in a sense fuels the debate is the fact that so many more civilians have been killed in Gaza. Its is very upsetting to see so many die like this - certainly to me. I try to make a point of thinking about them sometimes.

I think its a bit simplistic to blame them all this death directly on Hamas, just as its simplistic to not recognise Hamas’s techniques of combat.

My observation is that in the media - including Channel 4 and the BBC - has an asymmetry of war crime accusations against Israel.

This in the face of Hamas’ thousands of acts of war and war crimes towards Israel over a number of years, when there was a deafening silence.

What the fuck did this bunch of chattarati idiots think was going to happen and why didn’t they get gobby a whole lot sooner? The one sided premise and assumption in the news - Channel 4 news last night was a classic - is really quite something to behold as is the obsession with this over other, far more bloody conflagrations.

And where on earth did this tit for tat ‘proportionality’ argument come from? A wonderful amalgam of the trite and disingenuous. The arguments condemn Israel to no defense, which I strongly suspect is exactly the intent.

“If the rocket attacks were directed at the military then you might have a point. But they aren’t they are clearly directed at civilian targets.”

I would agree with that, valid tactic, invalid targets. I’m just saying that this doesn’t affect the status of other questions, such as whether bombing a school or another civilian building is a valid tactic, even if you suspect it contains some valid targets.

With regards attacks on civilian structures and the potential for civilian casualties Luis Moreno-Ocampo Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court had this to say with regards the conduct of the invasion of Iraq:

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are “clearly” excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was “clearly excessive” in relation to (b).

You can get the full text here and the requisite passages are on pages 4-5.

I thought this was pretty funny. Does anyone know where this placard was?

see Sarah Palin pictures

So that ICC definition applied to my example could arguably mean the deaths of 2000 children were proportionate in order to kill 500 Hamas soldiers and stop 2000 large long range rockets ?

Maybe? It depends on the military imperative of killing those the troops and destroying the rockets.

Another thing to remember is that whilst Israeli knowledge of the battlespace is very good it’s not perfect.

So if the Hamas soldiers included all their top brass that would make it more acceptable in law as it would be enormous military advantage ?

Blimey I wonder how many of our pacifist types realise what international law is really like on these matters.

Ma’an actually names some of the people who were killed today in Gaza. Out of the 27 people named, 22 were known “militants” and two are ambiguous. All were men.

If we exclude the two who are unclear, this means that 88% of those named were confirmed terrorists.

One in particular is of interest: Muhammad Nader Abu Sha’ban, aged 17. He was fighting at the time he was killed, but there is no doubt that Gazan doctors will count him as a child civilian, not as a “militant.”

Over the years, a significant number of the “children” that Israel has killed in various operations have been 16 or 17, far out of proportion to what one would expect in a normal distribution - and a great number of them were engaged in violent actions at the time they were killed.

Over half of the “child” victims in Gaza over the past year have been 15 or older. There is no reason to think that this number is any different now.

Keep that in mind every time someone quotes a statistic on how many children the IDF killed. Many if not most of them are very likely to have hardly been innocent.

http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=34937

Ma’an News Agency (the Palestinian News Agency) is running various polls during the current Gaza conflagration. It asks Palestinians in all walks of life their opinions and I was quite surprised to see the sophistication of the average Palestinian at discerning the truth from the lies told by its leaders. While they are certainly nfar from being head over heels about Israel, the survey results will amaze you!
[]
But Ma’an and and those polled are not the only ones who recognize Hamas’ murderous engineering of the current conflict, other Arabs do as well! You can see it in my posts here and here, for example. You can also see some interesting videos that point the finger at Hamas.

Will these useful idiots, these tools of Teheran, at least believe the Words of Fathi Hamad, a Hamas MP or will they also dismiss him as a tool of Zionism?

http://www.freedomscost.net/?p=1679

MMN - The other thing to consider is the moral implications of hitting such a target. Whilst it may be technically legal it may not be morally acceptable to the government or the population at large. Even if the moral responsibility should be on the persons using 2000 kids as human shields there is a moral dimension in the decision to attack that target.

Which is where your pacifists would say that IHL is bankrupt.

Happy to debate this with you Adam but your statement:

“not all breaches of international humanitarian law are war crimes: shouting at a POW or refusing POWs food and water, for example, is illegal but is not a war crime. War crimes usually demand intent to cause death or injury among non-combatants, actually causing death or injury, or such gross negligence in carrying out military operations that civilian causalities are inevitable”

is complete rubbish.

You are mixing up the distinction between cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment on the one hand with torture on the other (and you are also mixing up the distinction between severity of treatment and intent).

Intentionally denying a POW food and water could quite clearly be a war crime and so could the intentional infliction of serious mental distress. War crimes can be carried out on combatants and non-combatants and to take your point about ‘inevitability’ to its logical conclusion then no military strike which caused civilian casualities would ever be illegal (because even an intentional strike on a civilian target could miss or malfunction).

David, I will take you at your word about pruning. I am happy to debate the substantive points here - because it is important - but I won’t be engaging with idiots who libel or threaten me.

Making use of hospitals, schools and mosques for military operations also constitutes a war crime under international law.

“So that ICC definition applied to my example could arguably mean the deaths of 2000 children were proportionate in order to kill 500 Hamas soldiers and stop 2000 large long range rockets ?”

I think it would depend on the significance of the military target. It might be proportionate if the attack could reasonably be expected to win the war, but not if it was considered a minor military objective in the context of the whole conflict. This is the trouble with concepts like ‘proportionality’.

“I was quite surprised to see the sophistication of the average Palestinian:” I would like to believe that, particularly the earlier polls where the majority blame Hamas for loss of life and for ending the truce, but what makes you sure these are all Palestinians voting- it is an online poll where anyone can vote. I just did, to test it.

The guidance of proportionality is that your actions are proportionate to the threat. The notion of proporionate casualties is nonsense.

I’m really confused now.

Adam, are you saying that Israel could, in theory, be guilty of war crimes for attacking Hamas when it is embedded within civilian populations, and yet Hamas, which is an elected government, and “democratically” elected as its supporters never tire of pointing out, cannot be similarly prosecuted in spite of the fact that it deliberately acts in ways to put its civilians in danger?

If that’s the case then the law is, as Dickens writes, a ass.

And as for proportionality, can that response not be dependent of the intent of Hamas, which, if it had the weaponry would not hesitate to bomb Israel flat? Its genocidal intent is in the public domain. Are you arguing that Israel should have waited to see whether it actually would?

He reached this conclusion by arguing that the requirement, broadly, that the military means used must be proportionate to their objective, was, in fact, a bodycount test, and that Israel could not take any steps which would be likely to cause a greater number of casualties in Gaza than the casualties that would be suffered in Israel as a result of the rocket attacks continuing.

This guy is a PROFESSOR??? How cheaply they make professors these days. I’m never went to Uni but I can take this guy apart in 30 seconds.

“Dear Prof, if you decide you are allowed to kill three more Palestinians to make up the numbers but you accidentally kill 30 then does this mean you have to step aside while Hamas fires rockets and tries to kill 27 more Israelis? Also, if it takes Hamas three years to achieve this target then do you let 6,000 rockets fall without reply? If Hamas fire 6,000 rockets then can Israel fire 6,000 back?”

Let’s try and work out how you arrived at your statement. You looked at all the action that Israel has taken and then basically put a verbal “NOT” in front of it.

To me the ONLY definition of ‘proportionality’ that works is to use teh amount of force needed to achieve a target as long as that target is legal (ie NOT to make a target to kill 10,000 people).

Since Hamas have stilled fired rockets then what Israel has one so far is under-proportional.

Now, remember that I have said that a moral dimension must be applied. If any reasonable person would have stopped firing rockets by now but Hamas insist they are prepared to martyr 1.8m Gazans then clearly there is a point where you have to stop.

As it so happens we appear to be near this point with Israeli military leaders saying that they are unlikely to achieve much more and maybe there should be a ceasefire.

Now, a ceasefire is a victory for Israel if they declare one because although Hamas will say they haven’t been beaten I will assume any rocket fire by Hamas will be targetted back by a missile by Israel. They can’t lose this one!

For practically EVERY SINGLE conflict that we have data, MORE casualties are civilian than combat. If you look at every conflict in history going back perhaps 150 years, civilians ALWAYS fare worse than combat troops.

I wish the UN, being in this business would do their homework.

I just did, to test it. - ami

Thank you for your vote

I also posted yesterday that we don’t get told how many of 900 deaths are Hamas.

I also posted that the word ‘child’ can be used to describe a dead Hamas fighter aged between 14 and 18. It is known that children attend Hamas Summer Camps and can fire an AK-47

Exactly my point. Similarly Israeli airstrikes on civilian targets still murder Palastinian civilians.

Drivel. Rockets designed specifically to kill civilians are a war crime. Defensive action by the attacked country, designed to target the rocket launching sites and infrastructure, are not.
Now go and read a book. Any book. The Ladybird Primer on the Right of the Jews to Defend Themselves?

You cannot bomb people because they might, at some future stage, engage in combat or are part of a wider organisation one branch of which engages in combat

Confused and wrong. You are saying that you cannot bomb e.g. an arms depot or arms factories of the enemy in wartime, because the personnel there are not engaged in combat at that specific moment. That is lunacy.

This guy is a PROFESSOR??? How cheaply they make professors these days. I’m never went to Uni but I can take this guy apart in 30 seconds.

You never said a truer word.
OK, paragraph.
Similar commentws can be applied to the ‘court’ ‘ruling’ about the separation fence. These idiots based most of their so-called ‘arguments’ on the myth that the Green Line was/is an international border. And they are supposed to be lawyers??! And don’t even know that it was never a legal border between any two countries? And that even a ceasefire line ceases to exist legally when one side launches a war across it on the other?
That is why I treat the pronouncements of such prats with contempt.

And where on earth did this tit for tat ‘proportionality’ argument come from? A wonderful amalgam of the trite and disingenuous. The arguments condemn Israel to no defense, which I strongly suspect is exactly the intent.

Indeed. Hence my comments that the underlying motive is antisemitic.
And why Israel should tell said idiot chatterati to fuck off.

Here Le Bor is using Arab Palestinian Jihadist sources to give these figures. One in 3 killed by Jews a child!

Just as he did in Yugoslavia, he used Muslim Jihadist sources.

What a spreader of Jihadist lies

Against Serbs and Jews.

For a critique of these pro jihadist lies see

http://4international.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/adam-le-bor-is-spreading-arab-jihadist-lies-against-israel-just-as-he-did-in-yugoslavia-against-the-serbs/

Israel has gone further than any other country to avoid civilian casualties, including the following:

o Dropping leaflets to warn of imminent attacks.
o Phoning warning messages to houses about to be destroyed.
o Firing a warning shot near a target where civillians are being used a shields to scare them into evacuating.

Meanwhile we have Hamas:

o Deliberately targetting civillians with rockets.
o Firing said rockets from civillian areas (including schools).
o Fighting in civillian clothing.
o Using mosques and hospitals as HQs.

Whether you agree or disagree with Israels decision to enter Gaza, I would be interested to hear any further tactics Israel could employ to reduce civillian casualties without unacceptably endagering the lives of her troops.

I’ll try to dig out the ‘article’ in which LeBor shills for the supposed ‘progressive’ and ’superior’ nature of Arab civilisation and science over the millenia. It’s full of either lies, or ignorant nonsense: I can’t decide which, but it’s pathetic.

1. The IAF is also using munitions that are specifically designed not to explode dropping them on roof tops of targeted buildings where Hamas or Hamas sympathisers send civilians to congregate after being warned by the Israelis by leaflet or cell phone that the building is a target. The purpose of employing the non exploding munition is to persuade civilians to evacuate before a strike.

2. Hamas (currently) and Hizb’allah (in Aug.2006) forcibly prevented non-belligerent non-combatants from evacuating war zones. These are war crimes which it seems to me to be escaping condemnation by NGOs.

3. If, as some NGOs interpret, International law deems the targeting of any combatant not engaging in belligerent activities at the time they are being targeted, a war crime, then according to this definition it follows that:

a) as soon as a Palestinian belligerent launcher completes his rocket launch and runs away, he is no longer considered a belligerent and targeting him is a violation of International law and/or a war crime;

b) targeting of any IDF army personnel not currently engaged in a belligerent act by a Palestinian belligerent is a violation of International law and/or a war crime;

If on the other hand International Law is interpreted (as I suspect Israeli legal counsel to the IDF does) as deeming a belligerent combatant any member of a combatant organization who has not relinquished his/her weapons, quit the combatant organization, surrendered, defected or been injured to the extent that he/she is disabled from participating in further belligerent activity, then targeting either the Palestinian belligerent launcher who has completed his rocket launch and run away, or the IDF army personnel not currently engaged in a belligerent act can not be considered a breech of International Law or a war crime.

This determination about who is and who isn’t considered a combatant according to International Law also impinges on how combatant casualties are counted. Presumably then the NGOs who subscribe to the definition of a combatant as one who isn’t engaged in belligerent activity while being targeted would list and count the Palestinian rocket launcher who isn’t hit while setting off his rocket, a civilian.

4) It is my understanding that it is a war crime to target combatant belligerent personnel with those classes of weapons designed specifically not to be anti-personnel weapons (i.e. certain armor piercing rockets). If that is the case, then both Hizb’allah (in 2006) and Hamas are escaping condemnation for war crimes by NGOs.

“Brett
14 January 2009, 12:46 pm
The guidance of proportionality is that your actions are proportionate to the threat. The notion of proporionate casualties is nonsense.”

Brett, based on Ian Scobie’s statements last night, elements of the left are trying to redefine this, with absurd consequences to international law, and with the effect of inciting prejudice and hatred against Israel.

Scobie’s argument - which he skipped over, he didn’t mention the concept of “threat” at all as I recall - must be that to construe the meaning of “threat” in relation to any particular circumstance, it is necessary to quantify it.

Hence, in this case, it is necessary to quantify the likely Israeli deaths that would result from Hamas’ rockets continuing.

And that number, the body-count, should form an effective cap on permissible casualties resulting from actions taken in self-defence.

And any breach of this cap should constitute a war crime, requiring prosecution in international courts or national courts with claimed international jurisdiction.

It seems to me that this is bad law, and bad thinking, which so far as I know is unsupported by any respectable national or international legal precedent.

Based on the events of WW2, and since then, this interpretation cannot possibly have been the intent of the treaty signatories as most of them would have been condemning themselves and withdrawing their own rights of self-defence.

Or as you say: it’s nonsense.

If, as some NGOs interpret, International law deems the targeting of any combatant not engaging in belligerent activities at the time they are being targeted, a war crime

As you and I know full well, int’l law says no such thing and this is utter nonsense. How otherwise would you ever target ANY military facility (incl. say a warship), where there are bound to be (e.g.) cooks, and soldiers resting, and soldiers sitting on the toilet, and commanding officers not actually planning military activities at that precise microsecond but telling someone off for leaving their top button undone, and any other number of categories of personnel not engaging in belligerent activities at the time.

Those who claim that shooting at a warship or an airforce base or indeed a munitions factory is a ‘war crime’ for that reason, is either:

a. a complete twerp who doesn’t know the first thing about what happens in a war,
b. a certifiable lunatic,
c. both of those.

And those who single out Israel for that reason, are a. or b. or c. + an antisemitic waste of protoplasm.

As you and I know full well, int’l law says no such thing and this is utter nonsense

I think that some NGOs do indeed define the targeting of a combatant who at the time of targeting is not participating in a belligerent activity, a breech of International law and/or a war crime, precisely because as far as I understand International Law says nothing about this type of distinction leaving space for such interpretations. For the record, I agree with you that this type of distinction is extremely problematic. But I am curious to know what Conor’s (@12:11 pm) take on this issue would be.

shouting at a POW

We are all bonkers now!