RE:
Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Well, as usual, you only tell half the story; and half of it is wrong.
What boycott? Google Chairman: Israeli tech second only to Silicon Valley
Google chief says Israeli tech second only to Silicon Valley
And that makes it OK to bomb the crap out of civilians in Gaza?
Is deflection all you have?
(COMMENT)
The assumption you are pushing is that the Gaza Strip Civilian Casualties are purely the fault of the Israelis. Of course that would be wrong. The casualties would not be under fire if the Gaza Strip Leaders did what they were suppose to do:
RULES: Customary IHL
- 23. Location of Military Objectives outside Densely Populated Areas
- 24. Removal of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objective
- 97. Prohibited Human Shields
Each party to the conflict must give effective advance warning of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit. The Israelis do this when the situation permits; for the purpose of efforts to minimize civilian casualties. The IDF:
Pursuant to Rule #20
- Makes Phone Calls and Text Messages
- Dropped Leaflets
- Roof-Knocking with a loud non-lethal devise on the roofs.
Pursuant to Rule #21 and Rule #14
• When a choice is possible between several military objectives for obtaining a similar military advantage, the objective to be selected must be that the attack on which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects.
• When there is no clear path to minimize civilian casualties, the aerial strike or artillery bombardment is aborted.
When the IDF executes these rules, it is expected that the Arab Palestinian remove Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objective or move legitimate Military Targets from the out and away from densely populated areas. When the Arab Palestinian intentionally and continually locate otherwise legitimate military targets in the vicinity of Civilian Objects, they are attempting to avoid Israeli Targeting.
"Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts (RULE 97).
"EXCERPTS ICRC REVIEW 10-12-2012" said:
"Among the rules that the parties to an armed conflict must respect when conducting hostilities, there is the prohibition of direct attacks against civilians and of indiscriminate attacks; the obligation to respect the principle of proportionality in attacks; and the obligation to take all feasible precautions so as to avoid as far as possible civilian casualties."
As is recalled in Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions, the mere fact that an armed group – be it labelled "criminal," "freedom fighters," "terrorist" or otherwise – is party to an armed conflict does not give it any particular status under IHL. It does, however, create legal obligations for the armed group, as for any party to an armed conflict – in particular, the obligation to ensure that its members respect IHL at all times.
But the application of IHL does not affect the sovereignty of a State or a government's right to suppress rebellion through armed force and to prosecute insurgents under its own laws.
SOURCE: 10-12-2012 Interview
Most Respectfully,
R
