The Israeli military does not target civilians' - video

[Hollie]

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?

Are you presuming an entitlement for Islamic terrorists committing acts of war from civilian neighborhoods?

 

[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?

Deflection.

Not at all. I'm holding Islamic terrorists responsible for their actions.

 

[Shusha]

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?

Its not a tit-for-tat numbers game. Do you have an example you want to bring up? A particular neighborhood that Israel "flattened" and want to discuss the military objectives within that neighborhood? I'm game.

 

[CMike]

'The Israeli military does not target civilians' - video



They do

The left wing reporter was very hostile.

The Israeli rep was spot on.

Hamas used human shields, therefore, they, and they alone are responsible for those deaths.

 

[CMike]

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

They want to kill all the Jews.

Actually if they were Israeli citizens they would have equal rights. Equal or civil rights doesn't exist in Arab dictatorships.

 

[CMike]

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?"

Houses of terrorists.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

So prove that the needs have been cut off, and that they are not receiving adequate supplies as dictated by international law ?

 

[Phoenall]

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?"

More to the point how many military installations were destroyed, remember that buildings are military objects and valid targets. Take out a building that has a supply of weapons secreted in it and you save lives in the long run

 

[Phoenall]

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?

For me it is one, after which Israel should respond proportionally, as in if the rocket is the best weapon hamas has then Israel should respond with their second best weapon.

 

[Phoenall]

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?

None it only needs there to be a military installation for the Israelis to demolish those installations. So build 30 rocket launch sites in an area and that area will be flattened. If the terrorists are so cowardly that they run for the hills when the shooting starts that is not Israel's problem.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

No it is a direct correlation to your question, problem is it shows that the terrorists deliberately provoke Israeli response for propaganda purposes.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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?

Its not a tit-for-tat numbers game. Do you have an example you want to bring up? A particular neighborhood that Israel "flattened" and want to discuss the military objectives within that neighborhood? I'm game.

OK, here are a couple.







How many militants were killed in all of this?

 

[Indeependent]

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?

Its not a tit-for-tat numbers game. Do you have an example you want to bring up? A particular neighborhood that Israel "flattened" and want to discuss the military objectives within that neighborhood? I'm game.

OK, here are a couple.







How many militants were killed in all of this?

Probably none except that the militants kill any non-militants who evacuate.

 

[Shusha]

OK, here are a couple.

<snip>

How many militants were killed in all of this?

The videos posted do show destruction of buildings in Gaza. But no one is disputing that this happened, least of all me. We are discussing whether or not this is permissible according to international law. If you are attempting to show that it is not -- you need to demonstrate more than just the fact that destruction of buildings occurred. You have to show that Israel was deliberately targeting only civilians and that there was no military objective in the building or area in question, that it was not an error, a failure of technology or intelligence, or demonstrate that it was disproportionate with respect to the anticipated military advantage. You have not demonstrated any of this.

About half of the 2200ish people who were killed in Operation Protective Edge were combatants. A 1:1 ratio of combatants to civilians killed is a phenomenal success, actually the BEST ever achieved in a military conflict. A ration of 1:4 or HIGHER is typical in most conflicts.

 

[Phoenall]

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?

Its not a tit-for-tat numbers game. Do you have an example you want to bring up? A particular neighborhood that Israel "flattened" and want to discuss the military objectives within that neighborhood? I'm game.

OK, here are a couple.







How many militants were killed in all of this?

Not the reason for the attacks, you should be asking how many military targets were destroyed in these attacks. If each incident had say 10 military objectives then the destruction has been validated. As in the rocket launchers set up in the hospital grounds by hamas, anything in a 100 yard radius is in danger of being destroyed.

 

[Phoenall]

OK, here are a couple.

<snip>

How many militants were killed in all of this?

The videos posted do show destruction of buildings in Gaza. But no one is disputing that this happened, least of all me. We are discussing whether or not this is permissible according to international law. If you are attempting to show that it is not -- you need to demonstrate more than just the fact that destruction of buildings occurred. You have to show that Israel was deliberately targeting only civilians and that there was no military objective in the building or area in question, that it was not an error, a failure of technology or intelligence, or demonstrate that it was disproportionate with respect to the anticipated military advantage. You have not demonstrated any of this.

About half of the 2200ish people who were killed in Operation Protective Edge were combatants. A 1:1 ratio of combatants to civilians killed is a phenomenal success, actually the BEST ever achieved in a military conflict. A ration of 1:4 or HIGHER is typical in most conflicts.

The relevant International law can be found in the Geneva conventions that states any civilian building used for a military purpose ( deliberately left open ended ) is henceforth a valid military target. This means that any house that is lived in by a terrorist is open to demolition as it has been used for a military purpose.

 

[montelatici]

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?

Its not a tit-for-tat numbers game. Do you have an example you want to bring up? A particular neighborhood that Israel "flattened" and want to discuss the military objectives within that neighborhood? I'm game.

OK, here are a couple.







How many militants were killed in all of this?

Probably none except that the militants kill any non-militants who evacuate.

Usual ZIonist propaganda.

"One of the more contentious issues of the war is human shields, where a civilian is abducted for the purpose of protecting the life of fighters or forced to carryout military duties. Israel has maintained throughout Hamas used Palestinian civilians as human shields, yet the United Nations found no evidence that this occurred. - See more at: UN report on Gaza war includes stories of civilian executions, attacks on ambulances and targeting of humanitarian facilities

 

[Hollie]

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?

Its not a tit-for-tat numbers game. Do you have an example you want to bring up? A particular neighborhood that Israel "flattened" and want to discuss the military objectives within that neighborhood? I'm game.

OK, here are a couple.







How many militants were killed in all of this?

Probably none except that the militants kill any non-militants who evacuate.

Usual ZIonist propaganda.

"One of the more contentious issues of the war is human shields, where a civilian is abducted for the purpose of protecting the life of fighters or forced to carryout military duties. Israel has maintained throughout Hamas used Palestinian civilians as human shields, yet the United Nations found no evidence that this occurred. - See more at: UN report on Gaza war includes stories of civilian executions, attacks on ambulances and targeting of humanitarian facilities

Usual Islamist propaganda.

The thread addresses the alleged targeting of civilians by Israel and there is nothing to indicate that occurs.

There is ample documentary evidence that the Islamic terrorists in Gaza and elsewhere in the disputed territories put civilians in harms way.

 

[Phoenall]

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?

Its not a tit-for-tat numbers game. Do you have an example you want to bring up? A particular neighborhood that Israel "flattened" and want to discuss the military objectives within that neighborhood? I'm game.

OK, here are a couple.







How many militants were killed in all of this?

Probably none except that the militants kill any non-militants who evacuate.

Usual ZIonist propaganda.

"One of the more contentious issues of the war is human shields, where a civilian is abducted for the purpose of protecting the life of fighters or forced to carryout military duties. Israel has maintained throughout Hamas used Palestinian civilians as human shields, yet the United Nations found no evidence that this occurred. - See more at: UN report on Gaza war includes stories of civilian executions, attacks on ambulances and targeting of humanitarian facilities

Usual Islamist propaganda.

The thread addresses the alleged targeting of civilians by Israel and there is nothing to indicate that occurs.

There is ample documentary evidence that the Islamic terrorists in Gaza and elsewhere in the disputed territories put civilians in harms way.

More so after the journalists provided ample examples of this taking place last summer, and this is why the Nazi's have to go back many more years to when the UN was told to lie by the Islamic contingent

 

[Hollie]

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?

Its not a tit-for-tat numbers game. Do you have an example you want to bring up? A particular neighborhood that Israel "flattened" and want to discuss the military objectives within that neighborhood? I'm game.

OK, here are a couple.







How many militants were killed in all of this?

Not enough?


Palestinian armed groups killed civilians on both sides in attacks amounting to war crimes in Gaza conflict | Amnesty International

PALESTINIAN ARMED GROUPS KILLED CIVILIANS ON BOTH SIDES IN ATTACKS AMOUNTING TO WAR CRIMES IN GAZA CONFLICT

Palestinian armed groups displayed a flagrant disregard for the lives of civilians by repeatedly launching indiscriminate rockets and mortars towards civilian areas in Israel during the conflict in July and August 2014, said Amnesty International in a new report published today.