@SmedlyButler,
et al,
This is a very valid set of points; and a set that is often a matter of perception. This issue has three separate and distinct major components to it (not counting .
EXCERPT:
Please don't make the mistake of accusing me of being a Hamas supporter or of not defending Israel's right to self-defense. As I've stated before what I'm criticizing is the apparent tactic of un-measured response in many of these events. Using civilians as shields is obviously a barbaric Hamas PR ploy. Israel should not accomodate them by
actions that feed into the propaganda.
(OBSERVATION)
Rule 14 Proportionality in Attack:
Launching 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, is prohibited.
(CONCEPT IDEAS)
The idea behind the proportionality rule is based on a comparison. Rephrased --- one could say that:
- The (concrete and direct military advantage anticipated) ≥ (incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects).
The idea behind the Hospital and Safety Zone rules is based on the humanitarian view that all life (in a non-combatant roll) has value and needs protected.
The idea that behind the Human Shield Prohibition rule is based on the humanitarian view that all life (in a non-combatant roll) has value and needs protected.
(STRATEGY & POLITICS)
By HAMAS of attempting to launch attacks from the shadow of a Hospital and Safety Zone is a win-win strategy for HAMAS. If the IDF returns fire, and induces "incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects" --- the IDF is vilified and demonized. If the IDF restrains fire, the effect of the human shield has allowed the launch of lethal force without consequence. Either way, HAMAS wins. It has been a very effective strategy.
The UN, via the High Commissioner for Human Rights (Navi Pillay) has effectively given tacit approval for HAMAS to violate
Rule 11 - Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited and HAMAS has tacit approval to fire in violation of Rule 97 on Human Shields --- while emphasizing Israeli need to absorb without response, over 14,000 rocket and mortar attacks over the last 120 months; and that any Israeli response to HAMAS Rule 97 launches would be considered a violation. This effectively denies Israel the right of self-defense.
[ame="http://youtu.be/FWGIR6s_nDE"]Gaza Reporter Startled by Palestinian Rocket Launch during Live Broadcast[/ame]
(COMMENT)
When one examines the rules, one has to look at the overall picture. It is clear that everyone knows that rockets are fired from populated areas. If you believe that Israel has an obligation to protect its sovereign integrity and citizenry then --- the question is, how is Israel to interdict rocket and mortar launches?
Part of the military response is to convince the opponent that there are consequences to an attack. To allow HAMAS to fire indiscriminately and with an exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action it to grant a concrete and direct military advantage to HAMAS. HAMAS may fire indiscriminately into Israel, yet Israel may not return fire. This is the inverse to Rule 14 through the application of Rule 97 under the protection of Rule 35.
This then only allows for the application of Rule 20; where each party to the conflict must give effective advance warning of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit. However, such warning often result in the escape of the opponent.
How is this resolved?
Most Respectfully,
R
