The Israeli military does not target civilians' - video

[Roudy]

If you want the stabbing's to stop give the Palestinians Either equal right's or Guns

Yeah right, give the Muslim terrorist animals better weapons so that they can kill more innocent people.

 

[Shusha]

If you want the stabbing's to stop give the Palestinians Either equal right's or Guns

So are you saying that killing civilians is justified to achieve political goals or are you saying that killing civilians is a legitimate act of war? 'Cause the former is morally yucky and the latter is legally incorrect.

And if you agree with either you have effectively shut down this thread because you have legitimized the killing of civilians.

 

[RoccoR]

Fanger, Roudy, Shusha, et al,

If you want the stabbing's to stop give the Palestinians Either equal right's or Guns

Yeah right, give the Muslim terrorist animals better weapons so that they can kill more innocent people.

(COMMENT)

Once you make the threat of the use of force to extort a demand ("stabbing's to stop give the Palestinians"), you have crossed the line between a Freedom Fighter and have embarked on the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective; the very definition of Terrorism.

“Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.” (Walter Laqueur)​

• The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or idelogical.
–Joint Publication 3-07.2, Joint Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Antiterrorism
​

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. [UN Charter, Article 2(4)] All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.[UN Charter, Article 2(3)]

• You cannot use force (conventional, non-conventional, or asymmetric) to resolve a dispute.
• Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
​

If you want the stabbing's to stop give the Palestinians Either equal right's or Guns

So are you saying that killing civilians is justified to achieve political goals or are you saying that killing civilians is a legitimate act of war? 'Cause the former is morally yucky and the latter is legally incorrect.

And if you agree with either you have effectively shut down this thread because you have legitimized the killing of civilians.

(COMMENT)

• The Arab-Palestinians, no matter what they perceive themselves to be, cannot purposely target innocent civilians.
• The Arab-Palestinians, no matter what they perceive the Israelis to be, cannot purposely target innocent civilians.
​

Currently, there is no exemption or exception for the Arab-Palestinian, that "legitimizes the killing of civilians." (There is no such thing.)
See UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Roudy]

Fanger, Roudy, Shusha, et al,

If you want the stabbing's to stop give the Palestinians Either equal right's or Guns

Yeah right, give the Muslim terrorist animals better weapons so that they can kill more innocent people.

(COMMENT)

Once you make the threat of the use of force to extort a demand ("stabbing's to stop give the Palestinians"), you have crossed the line between a Freedom Fighter and have embarked on the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective; the very definition of Terrorism.

“Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.” (Walter Laqueur)​

• The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or idelogical.
–Joint Publication 3-07.2, Joint Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Antiterrorism
​

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. [UN Charter, Article 2(4)] All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.[UN Charter, Article 2(3)]

• You cannot use force (conventional, non-conventional, or asymmetric) to resolve a dispute.
• Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
​

If you want the stabbing's to stop give the Palestinians Either equal right's or Guns

So are you saying that killing civilians is justified to achieve political goals or are you saying that killing civilians is a legitimate act of war? 'Cause the former is morally yucky and the latter is legally incorrect.

And if you agree with either you have effectively shut down this thread because you have legitimized the killing of civilians.

(COMMENT)

• The Arab-Palestinians, no matter what they perceive themselves to be, cannot purposely target innocent civilians.
• The Arab-Palestinians, no matter what they perceive the Israelis to be, cannot purposely target innocent civilians.
​

Currently, there is no exemption or exception for the Arab-Palestinian, that "legitimizes the killing of civilians." (There is no such thing.)
See UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001)

Most Respectfully,
R

In other words, they want a blank check to target all The Jews they can, but get upset when Israel takes care of business.

Rocco, are you seriously trying to teach them ethics and morals? That's truly admirable. But...As with 7Up and nuns, never had it, never will!

 

[P F Tinmore]

Fanger, Roudy, Shusha, et al,

If you want the stabbing's to stop give the Palestinians Either equal right's or Guns

Yeah right, give the Muslim terrorist animals better weapons so that they can kill more innocent people.

(COMMENT)

Once you make the threat of the use of force to extort a demand ("stabbing's to stop give the Palestinians"), you have crossed the line between a Freedom Fighter and have embarked on the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective; the very definition of Terrorism.

“Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.” (Walter Laqueur)​

• The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or idelogical.
–Joint Publication 3-07.2, Joint Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Antiterrorism
​

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. [UN Charter, Article 2(4)] All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.[UN Charter, Article 2(3)]

• You cannot use force (conventional, non-conventional, or asymmetric) to resolve a dispute.
• Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
​

If you want the stabbing's to stop give the Palestinians Either equal right's or Guns

So are you saying that killing civilians is justified to achieve political goals or are you saying that killing civilians is a legitimate act of war? 'Cause the former is morally yucky and the latter is legally incorrect.

And if you agree with either you have effectively shut down this thread because you have legitimized the killing of civilians.

(COMMENT)

• The Arab-Palestinians, no matter what they perceive themselves to be, cannot purposely target innocent civilians.
• The Arab-Palestinians, no matter what they perceive the Israelis to be, cannot purposely target innocent civilians.
​

Currently, there is no exemption or exception for the Arab-Palestinian, that "legitimizes the killing of civilians." (There is no such thing.)
See UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001)

Most Respectfully,
R

“Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.” (Walter Laqueur)​

Do mean like bombing the crap out of the people in Gaza to get them to turn against Hamas?

 

[Hollie]

Fanger, Roudy, Shusha, et al,

If you want the stabbing's to stop give the Palestinians Either equal right's or Guns

Yeah right, give the Muslim terrorist animals better weapons so that they can kill more innocent people.

(COMMENT)

Once you make the threat of the use of force to extort a demand ("stabbing's to stop give the Palestinians"), you have crossed the line between a Freedom Fighter and have embarked on the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective; the very definition of Terrorism.

“Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.” (Walter Laqueur)​

• The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or idelogical.
–Joint Publication 3-07.2, Joint Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Antiterrorism
​

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. [UN Charter, Article 2(4)] All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.[UN Charter, Article 2(3)]

• You cannot use force (conventional, non-conventional, or asymmetric) to resolve a dispute.
• Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
​

If you want the stabbing's to stop give the Palestinians Either equal right's or Guns

So are you saying that killing civilians is justified to achieve political goals or are you saying that killing civilians is a legitimate act of war? 'Cause the former is morally yucky and the latter is legally incorrect.

And if you agree with either you have effectively shut down this thread because you have legitimized the killing of civilians.

(COMMENT)

• The Arab-Palestinians, no matter what they perceive themselves to be, cannot purposely target innocent civilians.
• The Arab-Palestinians, no matter what they perceive the Israelis to be, cannot purposely target innocent civilians.
​

Currently, there is no exemption or exception for the Arab-Palestinian, that "legitimizes the killing of civilians." (There is no such thing.)
See UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001)

Most Respectfully,
R

“Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.” (Walter Laqueur)​

Do mean like bombing the crap out of the people in Gaza to get them to turn against Hamas?

It would be accurate to amend your hysterics with "using precision strikes to respond to acts of Islamic terrorism".

It's remarkable that you presume an entitlement to acts of Islamic terrorism and no expectation of a response.

It does seem odd that the beggars and squatters in Gaza would put a franchise of Islamic Terrorism Int. Inc., into a governing role and then expect those Islamic terrorist to assume a role of managing civil affairs.

The Pal'istanians got what they wanted. Now they're getting what they deserve.

 

[fanger]

What goes around, comes around

 

[Phoenall]

Fanger, Roudy, Shusha, et al,

If you want the stabbing's to stop give the Palestinians Either equal right's or Guns

Yeah right, give the Muslim terrorist animals better weapons so that they can kill more innocent people.

(COMMENT)

Once you make the threat of the use of force to extort a demand ("stabbing's to stop give the Palestinians"), you have crossed the line between a Freedom Fighter and have embarked on the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective; the very definition of Terrorism.

“Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.” (Walter Laqueur)​

• The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or idelogical.
–Joint Publication 3-07.2, Joint Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Antiterrorism
​

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. [UN Charter, Article 2(4)] All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.[UN Charter, Article 2(3)]

• You cannot use force (conventional, non-conventional, or asymmetric) to resolve a dispute.
• Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
​

If you want the stabbing's to stop give the Palestinians Either equal right's or Guns

So are you saying that killing civilians is justified to achieve political goals or are you saying that killing civilians is a legitimate act of war? 'Cause the former is morally yucky and the latter is legally incorrect.

And if you agree with either you have effectively shut down this thread because you have legitimized the killing of civilians.

(COMMENT)

• The Arab-Palestinians, no matter what they perceive themselves to be, cannot purposely target innocent civilians.
• The Arab-Palestinians, no matter what they perceive the Israelis to be, cannot purposely target innocent civilians.
​

Currently, there is no exemption or exception for the Arab-Palestinian, that "legitimizes the killing of civilians." (There is no such thing.)
See UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001)

Most Respectfully,
R

“Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.” (Walter Laqueur)​

Do mean like bombing the crap out of the people in Gaza to get them to turn against Hamas?

LINK proving your statement. Something like the hamas official admitting that they deliberately target Israeli children for the terror factor will do.

 

[Phoenall]

What goes around, comes around

And the atrocities of the arab muslims on the Jews since 635 C.E. has come full circle and they are crying over being on the wrong side of the fence.

 

[Hollie]

What goes around, comes around

Goofy slogans aren't helpful. The Pal'istanian welfare fraud has succeeded only in perpetuating the myth of Pal'istanians as a national identity. The fraud has brought fabulous wealth to a few arab-islamist con artists but nothing else.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Did I say that? I almost always stress that you cannot "target" civilian people or objects. That is simply the first Basic Rule.

Respect for civilian persons and objects and protecting them against the effects of hostilities is an important raison d’eˆtre of international humanitarian law (IHL). The basic rule – enshrined in Article 48 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions – requires that parties to a conflict distinguish between civilian persons and objects on the one hand, and combatants and military objectives on the other, and that they direct their operations against military objectives (persons or objects) only.
Source: J-F. Que´guiner – Volume 88 Number 864 December 2006

Basic Rule: In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives. Source: Article 48 of Additional Protocol I

“Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.” (Walter Laqueur)

Do mean like bombing the crap out of the people in Gaza to get them to turn against Hamas?

(COMMENT)

There is a difference between the intentional targeting of civilians which cause casualties; and the unintentional casualties that come as a result of the legitimate targeting of a military object.

However, it remains legally accepted that, in the harsh reality of war, civilian persons and objects may be incidentally affected by an attack directed at a legitimate military objective. Euphemistically referred to as ‘‘collateral casualties’’ or ‘‘collateral damage,’’ civilians may be victims of mistaken target identification or of unintended but inevitable side effects of an attack on a legitimate target in their vicinity. According to the principle of proportionality, these collateral casualties and damages are lawful under treaty and customary law only if they are not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Source: ibid

"Collateral damage/casualties" (a term that has a bad connotation) or "incidental damage/casualties" occurs when attacks targeted at military objectives cause civilian casualties and damage to civilian objects. In the Arab-Israeli conflict it is often can occurs if military objectives such as military equipment or soldiers are situated in densely populated or close to civilians. Military Missions that are expected to cause "incidental damage/casualties" are not prohibited per se, but the laws of armed conflict restrict indiscriminate attacks. Article 57 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions states that: "In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.”

In relation to the allegation of "bombing the crap out of the people in Gaza," --- The objective of each IDF mission is to neutralize a specifically identifiable hostile military target. No attack, per se, has your allegation as a political agenda. But as a strategy there are three variants that come to the forefront:

• Attrition warfare – A strategy of wearing down the enemy to the point of collapse through continuous loss of personnel and matériel;

• Exhaustion – A strategy that seeks to erode the will or resources of a country;

• Persisting strategy – A strategy that seeks to destroy the means by which the enemy sustains itself.
​

Included in any successful operations plan, is the intention that the enemy will surrender. The decision to surrender is based on the rational decision that the opponent:

• Can no longer mount an adequate defense.
• No longer has the means to continue the struggle.
• Can no longer maintain its ability to pursue activity; lack of basic needs.

All of these thing, and more, are part of the general objective in military campaigns.

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[Roudy]

Fanger, Roudy, Shusha, et al,

If you want the stabbing's to stop give the Palestinians Either equal right's or Guns

Yeah right, give the Muslim terrorist animals better weapons so that they can kill more innocent people.

(COMMENT)

Once you make the threat of the use of force to extort a demand ("stabbing's to stop give the Palestinians"), you have crossed the line between a Freedom Fighter and have embarked on the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective; the very definition of Terrorism.

“Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.” (Walter Laqueur)​

• The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or idelogical.
–Joint Publication 3-07.2, Joint Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Antiterrorism
​

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. [UN Charter, Article 2(4)] All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.[UN Charter, Article 2(3)]

• You cannot use force (conventional, non-conventional, or asymmetric) to resolve a dispute.
• Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
​

If you want the stabbing's to stop give the Palestinians Either equal right's or Guns

So are you saying that killing civilians is justified to achieve political goals or are you saying that killing civilians is a legitimate act of war? 'Cause the former is morally yucky and the latter is legally incorrect.

And if you agree with either you have effectively shut down this thread because you have legitimized the killing of civilians.

(COMMENT)

• The Arab-Palestinians, no matter what they perceive themselves to be, cannot purposely target innocent civilians.
• The Arab-Palestinians, no matter what they perceive the Israelis to be, cannot purposely target innocent civilians.
​

Currently, there is no exemption or exception for the Arab-Palestinian, that "legitimizes the killing of civilians." (There is no such thing.)
See UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001)

Most Respectfully,
R

“Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.” (Walter Laqueur)​

Do mean like bombing the crap out of the people in Gaza to get them to turn against Hamas?

According to Tinmore, the Jews that Hamas kills in suicide bombings, stabbings, and by shooting thousands of rockets at Israeli cities aren't considered innocent civilians. Hence the warped ideology of a Hamas supporter.

 

[Roudy]

What goes around, comes around

Apparently Palestinians can't handle the what comes around part.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Did I say that? I almost always stress that you cannot "target" civilian people or objects. That is simply the first Basic Rule.

Respect for civilian persons and objects and protecting them against the effects of hostilities is an important raison d’eˆtre of international humanitarian law (IHL). The basic rule – enshrined in Article 48 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions – requires that parties to a conflict distinguish between civilian persons and objects on the one hand, and combatants and military objectives on the other, and that they direct their operations against military objectives (persons or objects) only.
Source: J-F. Que´guiner – Volume 88 Number 864 December 2006

Basic Rule: In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives. Source: Article 48 of Additional Protocol I

“Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.” (Walter Laqueur)

Do mean like bombing the crap out of the people in Gaza to get them to turn against Hamas?

(COMMENT)

There is a difference between the intentional targeting of civilians which cause casualties; and the unintentional casualties that come as a result of the legitimate targeting of a military object.

However, it remains legally accepted that, in the harsh reality of war, civilian persons and objects may be incidentally affected by an attack directed at a legitimate military objective. Euphemistically referred to as ‘‘collateral casualties’’ or ‘‘collateral damage,’’ civilians may be victims of mistaken target identification or of unintended but inevitable side effects of an attack on a legitimate target in their vicinity. According to the principle of proportionality, these collateral casualties and damages are lawful under treaty and customary law only if they are not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Source: ibid

"Collateral damage/casualties" (a term that has a bad connotation) or "incidental damage/casualties" occurs when attacks targeted at military objectives cause civilian casualties and damage to civilian objects. In the Arab-Israeli conflict it is often can occurs if military objectives such as military equipment or soldiers are situated in densely populated or close to civilians. Military Missions that are expected to cause "incidental damage/casualties" are not prohibited per se, but the laws of armed conflict restrict indiscriminate attacks. Article 57 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions states that: "In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.”

In relation to the allegation of "bombing the crap out of the people in Gaza," --- The objective of each IDF mission is to neutralize a specifically identifiable hostile military target. No attack, per se, has your allegation as a political agenda. But as a strategy there are three variants that come to the forefront:

• Attrition warfare – A strategy of wearing down the enemy to the point of collapse through continuous loss of personnel and matériel;

• Exhaustion – A strategy that seeks to erode the will or resources of a country;

• Persisting strategy – A strategy that seeks to destroy the means by which the enemy sustains itself.
​

Included in any successful operations plan, is the intention that the enemy will surrender. The decision to surrender is based on the rational decision that the opponent:

• Can no longer mount an adequate defense.
• No longer has the means to continue the struggle.
• Can no longer maintain its ability to pursue activity; lack of basic needs.

All of these thing, and more, are part of the general objective in military campaigns.

Most Respectfully,
R​

Can no longer maintain its ability to pursue activity; lack of basic needs.​

If you cut off the needs of non combatants, that is a war crime.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Did I say that? I almost always stress that you cannot "target" civilian people or objects. That is simply the first Basic Rule.

Respect for civilian persons and objects and protecting them against the effects of hostilities is an important raison d’eˆtre of international humanitarian law (IHL). The basic rule – enshrined in Article 48 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions – requires that parties to a conflict distinguish between civilian persons and objects on the one hand, and combatants and military objectives on the other, and that they direct their operations against military objectives (persons or objects) only.
Source: J-F. Que´guiner – Volume 88 Number 864 December 2006

Basic Rule: In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives. Source: Article 48 of Additional Protocol I

“Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.” (Walter Laqueur)

Do mean like bombing the crap out of the people in Gaza to get them to turn against Hamas?

(COMMENT)

There is a difference between the intentional targeting of civilians which cause casualties; and the unintentional casualties that come as a result of the legitimate targeting of a military object.

However, it remains legally accepted that, in the harsh reality of war, civilian persons and objects may be incidentally affected by an attack directed at a legitimate military objective. Euphemistically referred to as ‘‘collateral casualties’’ or ‘‘collateral damage,’’ civilians may be victims of mistaken target identification or of unintended but inevitable side effects of an attack on a legitimate target in their vicinity. According to the principle of proportionality, these collateral casualties and damages are lawful under treaty and customary law only if they are not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Source: ibid

"Collateral damage/casualties" (a term that has a bad connotation) or "incidental damage/casualties" occurs when attacks targeted at military objectives cause civilian casualties and damage to civilian objects. In the Arab-Israeli conflict it is often can occurs if military objectives such as military equipment or soldiers are situated in densely populated or close to civilians. Military Missions that are expected to cause "incidental damage/casualties" are not prohibited per se, but the laws of armed conflict restrict indiscriminate attacks. Article 57 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions states that: "In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.”

In relation to the allegation of "bombing the crap out of the people in Gaza," --- The objective of each IDF mission is to neutralize a specifically identifiable hostile military target. No attack, per se, has your allegation as a political agenda. But as a strategy there are three variants that come to the forefront:

• Attrition warfare – A strategy of wearing down the enemy to the point of collapse through continuous loss of personnel and matériel;

• Exhaustion – A strategy that seeks to erode the will or resources of a country;

• Persisting strategy – A strategy that seeks to destroy the means by which the enemy sustains itself.
​

Included in any successful operations plan, is the intention that the enemy will surrender. The decision to surrender is based on the rational decision that the opponent:

• Can no longer mount an adequate defense.
• No longer has the means to continue the struggle.
• Can no longer maintain its ability to pursue activity; lack of basic needs.

All of these thing, and more, are part of the general objective in military campaigns.

Most Respectfully,
R​

There is a difference between the intentional targeting of civilians which cause casualties; and the unintentional casualties that come as a result of the legitimate targeting of a military object.​

Israel destroyed thousands of houses.

How many militants were killed in those "military objects?"

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Did I say that? I almost always stress that you cannot "target" civilian people or objects. That is simply the first Basic Rule.

Respect for civilian persons and objects and protecting them against the effects of hostilities is an important raison d’eˆtre of international humanitarian law (IHL). The basic rule – enshrined in Article 48 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions – requires that parties to a conflict distinguish between civilian persons and objects on the one hand, and combatants and military objectives on the other, and that they direct their operations against military objectives (persons or objects) only.
Source: J-F. Que´guiner – Volume 88 Number 864 December 2006

Basic Rule: In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives. Source: Article 48 of Additional Protocol I

“Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.” (Walter Laqueur)

Do mean like bombing the crap out of the people in Gaza to get them to turn against Hamas?

(COMMENT)

There is a difference between the intentional targeting of civilians which cause casualties; and the unintentional casualties that come as a result of the legitimate targeting of a military object.

However, it remains legally accepted that, in the harsh reality of war, civilian persons and objects may be incidentally affected by an attack directed at a legitimate military objective. Euphemistically referred to as ‘‘collateral casualties’’ or ‘‘collateral damage,’’ civilians may be victims of mistaken target identification or of unintended but inevitable side effects of an attack on a legitimate target in their vicinity. According to the principle of proportionality, these collateral casualties and damages are lawful under treaty and customary law only if they are not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Source: ibid

"Collateral damage/casualties" (a term that has a bad connotation) or "incidental damage/casualties" occurs when attacks targeted at military objectives cause civilian casualties and damage to civilian objects. In the Arab-Israeli conflict it is often can occurs if military objectives such as military equipment or soldiers are situated in densely populated or close to civilians. Military Missions that are expected to cause "incidental damage/casualties" are not prohibited per se, but the laws of armed conflict restrict indiscriminate attacks. Article 57 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions states that: "In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.”

In relation to the allegation of "bombing the crap out of the people in Gaza," --- The objective of each IDF mission is to neutralize a specifically identifiable hostile military target. No attack, per se, has your allegation as a political agenda. But as a strategy there are three variants that come to the forefront:

• Attrition warfare – A strategy of wearing down the enemy to the point of collapse through continuous loss of personnel and matériel;

• Exhaustion – A strategy that seeks to erode the will or resources of a country;

• Persisting strategy – A strategy that seeks to destroy the means by which the enemy sustains itself.
​

Included in any successful operations plan, is the intention that the enemy will surrender. The decision to surrender is based on the rational decision that the opponent:

• Can no longer mount an adequate defense.
• No longer has the means to continue the struggle.
• Can no longer maintain its ability to pursue activity; lack of basic needs.

All of these thing, and more, are part of the general objective in military campaigns.

Most Respectfully,
R​

There is a difference between the intentional targeting of civilians which cause casualties; and the unintentional casualties that come as a result of the legitimate targeting of a military object.​

Israel destroyed thousands of houses.

How many militants were killed in those "military objects?"

Of the thousands of rockets launched at Israel by Islamic terrorists, what number represents the threshold at which Israel is obliged to retaliate to defend its citizens?

 

[Shusha]

Israel destroyed thousands of houses. How many militants were killed in those "military objects?"

But this is the point. The fact that a house, a hospital, a mosque, a grocery store, a school or a hotel is the target of a military operation has absolutely no bearing in international law when considering whether or not it was a legitimate military objective. The fact that it is a house (hospital, school, mosque) does not render it immune from attack if it is also a military objective. The measure of a military objective is three fold: 1. Will the elimination or destruction of that target reduce the opponent's ability to conduct warfare against you? 2. Does the military operation consider all available technology and intelligence to minimize incidental damage? 3. Is the anticipated incidental damage disproportionate to the anticipated goal?

Further, the responsibility to protect non-combatants lies with every actor in the conflict. Thus it is the responsibility of each party not to place military objects in the vicinity of protected non-combatants. So when a rocket, as an example, is launched from the vicinity of a school, it becomes a military objective and thus a valid permissible target, and the responsibility for making it a military objective lies with those who placed the rocket in the vicinity of the school.

 

[Shusha]

Of the thousands of rockets launched at Israel by Islamic terrorists, what number represents the threshold at which Israel is obliged <snip> to defend its citizens?

One

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel destroyed thousands of houses. How many militants were killed in those "military objects?"

But this is the point. The fact that a house, a hospital, a mosque, a grocery store, a school or a hotel is the target of a military operation has absolutely no bearing in international law when considering whether or not it was a legitimate military objective. The fact that it is a house (hospital, school, mosque) does not render it immune from attack if it is also a military objective. The measure of a military objective is three fold: 1. Will the elimination or destruction of that target reduce the opponent's ability to conduct warfare against you? 2. Does the military operation consider all available technology and intelligence to minimize incidental damage? 3. Is the anticipated incidental damage disproportionate to the anticipated goal?

Further, the responsibility to protect non-combatants lies with every actor in the conflict. Thus it is the responsibility of each party not to place military objects in the vicinity of protected non-combatants. So when a rocket, as an example, is launched from the vicinity of a school, it becomes a military objective and thus a valid permissible target, and the responsibility for making it a military objective lies with those who placed the rocket in the vicinity of the school.

How many militants need to be in an area for Israel to flatten an entire neighborhood? How many militant deaths would you need to make that legitimate?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Did I say that? I almost always stress that you cannot "target" civilian people or objects. That is simply the first Basic Rule.

Respect for civilian persons and objects and protecting them against the effects of hostilities is an important raison d’eˆtre of international humanitarian law (IHL). The basic rule – enshrined in Article 48 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions – requires that parties to a conflict distinguish between civilian persons and objects on the one hand, and combatants and military objectives on the other, and that they direct their operations against military objectives (persons or objects) only.
Source: J-F. Que´guiner – Volume 88 Number 864 December 2006

Basic Rule: In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives. Source: Article 48 of Additional Protocol I

“Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.” (Walter Laqueur)

Do mean like bombing the crap out of the people in Gaza to get them to turn against Hamas?

(COMMENT)

There is a difference between the intentional targeting of civilians which cause casualties; and the unintentional casualties that come as a result of the legitimate targeting of a military object.

However, it remains legally accepted that, in the harsh reality of war, civilian persons and objects may be incidentally affected by an attack directed at a legitimate military objective. Euphemistically referred to as ‘‘collateral casualties’’ or ‘‘collateral damage,’’ civilians may be victims of mistaken target identification or of unintended but inevitable side effects of an attack on a legitimate target in their vicinity. According to the principle of proportionality, these collateral casualties and damages are lawful under treaty and customary law only if they are not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Source: ibid

"Collateral damage/casualties" (a term that has a bad connotation) or "incidental damage/casualties" occurs when attacks targeted at military objectives cause civilian casualties and damage to civilian objects. In the Arab-Israeli conflict it is often can occurs if military objectives such as military equipment or soldiers are situated in densely populated or close to civilians. Military Missions that are expected to cause "incidental damage/casualties" are not prohibited per se, but the laws of armed conflict restrict indiscriminate attacks. Article 57 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions states that: "In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.”

In relation to the allegation of "bombing the crap out of the people in Gaza," --- The objective of each IDF mission is to neutralize a specifically identifiable hostile military target. No attack, per se, has your allegation as a political agenda. But as a strategy there are three variants that come to the forefront:

• Attrition warfare – A strategy of wearing down the enemy to the point of collapse through continuous loss of personnel and matériel;

• Exhaustion – A strategy that seeks to erode the will or resources of a country;

• Persisting strategy – A strategy that seeks to destroy the means by which the enemy sustains itself.
​

Included in any successful operations plan, is the intention that the enemy will surrender. The decision to surrender is based on the rational decision that the opponent:

• Can no longer mount an adequate defense.
• No longer has the means to continue the struggle.
• Can no longer maintain its ability to pursue activity; lack of basic needs.

All of these thing, and more, are part of the general objective in military campaigns.

Most Respectfully,
R​

There is a difference between the intentional targeting of civilians which cause casualties; and the unintentional casualties that come as a result of the legitimate targeting of a military object.​

Israel destroyed thousands of houses.

How many militants were killed in those "military objects?"

Of the thousands of rockets launched at Israel by Islamic terrorists, what number represents the threshold at which Israel is obliged to retaliate to defend its citizens?

Deflection.