RoccoR
Gold Member
montelatici, et al,
Customary and Statutory International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is never written with one nation in mind --- or (for or against) any single nation in particular. It is written for all nations everywhere; applicable all the time, in every dispute (international and non-international) that threaten peace and security. In this particular commentary, you've asked a complex question involving both an allegation and an accusatory statement:
(OBSERATATIONS & REFERENCES)
Rule 1. The Principle of Distinction between Civilians and Combatants Customary and Statutory International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
Article 50 --- Definition of civilians and civilian population Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions
Rule 97. The use of human shields is prohibited. Customary and Statutory International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
(COMMENT)
There is no law, international or otherwise, that condones or permits the murder (as your question is framed) of civilians. The prevailing thought is that violations of IHL are not due to the inadequacy of its rules. Rather, the civilian casualties stem from several conditions that occur in hostile conflict.
Unlike the Palestinian, the State of Israel has no political policy, war strategy, hidden agenda, covenant, charter, project or plan, to further any objective that would constitute Article 6 Genocide goals or to otherwise inflict the maximum number of casualties upon Palestinian Civilians as defined under Rule #5 or Article 50. The Israeli objective has been and continues to be the exercise of the inherent right to self-defence against the armed attack by the Palestinians against the sovereign State of Israel; a Member of the United Nations and pursuant to Chapter VII, Article 51.
The State of Israel neither promotes or glorifies the human cost in lives and the collateral damage inflicted in the same way the the Palestinians announce the "Heroic Actions" of their state sponsored terrorist components. The State of Israel goes to extraordinary lengths to give Rule 20 Advanced Warning, prior to a strike, and no attack is launched in violation of Rule 14 Proportionality --- in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects … which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.” Each Israeli attack has a clear and concise military objectives selected that which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects is set forth in Article 57(3) of Additional Protocol I, to which no relevant reservations have been made. Nearly every attack by the Israelis has some outcome to a specific military advantage:
The Israelis know that for them, the unnecessary infliction of civilian casualties is NOT to their advantage. But it is to the advantage of the Hostile Arab Palestinian leadership to sacrifice as many of their citizens as they can in order to gain what international sympathy that strategy may garner.
If there is murder involved in a planned political scale, it is on the part of the Hostile Arab Palestinian and a violation of Rule #97.
Most Respectfully,
R
Customary and Statutory International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is never written with one nation in mind --- or (for or against) any single nation in particular. It is written for all nations everywhere; applicable all the time, in every dispute (international and non-international) that threaten peace and security. In this particular commentary, you've asked a complex question involving both an allegation and an accusatory statement:
- "[Y]ou claim that under this mythical International Law, ---- condones the murder of women and children by the Israelis."
- "Is this International Law of yours written especially for Jews and gives them the right to murder as long as the victims are non-Jews?"
(OBSERATATIONS & REFERENCES)
Rule 1. The Principle of Distinction between Civilians and Combatants Customary and Statutory International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
The parties to the conflict must at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants. Attacks may only be directed against combatants. Attacks must not be directed against civilians.
Rule 5. Definition of Civilians Customary and Statutory International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.
Ibrahim Kreisheh, the Palestinian delegate to the UN Human Rights Council, stated: “The missiles that are now being launched against Israel, each and every missile constitutes a crime against humanity, whether it hits or missed, because it is directed at civilian targets… Therefore, targeting civilians, be it one civilian or a thousand, is considered a crime against humanity.” PUBLISHED July 13th 2014
Rule 7. The Principle of Distinction between Civilian Objects and Military Objectives Customary and Statutory International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
The parties to the conflict must at all times distinguish between civilian objects and military objectives. Attacks may only be directed against military objectives. Attacks must not be directed against civilian objects.
Article 50 --- Definition of civilians and civilian population Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions
1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.
2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.
3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: [ Rule 11. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Rule 12. Indiscriminate attacks are those: ]
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: [ Rule 11. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Rule 12. Indiscriminate attacks are those: ]
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction
(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and
(b) 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.
(b) 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.
This definition of indiscriminate attacks represents an implementation of the principle of distinction and of international humanitarian law in general. Rule 12(a) is an application of the prohibition on directing attacks against civilians (see Rule 1) and the prohibition on directing attacks against civilian objects (see Rule 7), which are applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. Rule 12(b) is also an application of the prohibition on directing attacks against civilians or against civilian objects (see Rules 1 and 7). The prohibition of weapons which are by nature indiscriminate (see Rule 71), which is applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts, is based on the definition of indiscriminate attacks contained in Rule 12(b).
State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. Weapons that are by nature indiscriminate are those that cannot be directed at a military objective or whose effects cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law. The prohibition of such weapons is also supported by the general prohibition of indiscriminate attacks (see Rules 11–12).
Lastly, Rule 12(c) is based on the logical argument that means or methods of warfare whose effects cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law should be prohibited. But this reasoning begs the question as to what those limitations are. Practice in this respect points to weapons whose effects are uncontrollable in time and space and are likely to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
Rule 97. The use of human shields is prohibited. Customary and Statutory International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
In the context of international armed conflicts, this rule is set forth in the Third Geneva Convention (with respect to prisoners of war), the Fourth Geneva Convention (with respect to protected civilians) and Additional Protocol I (with respect to civilians in general). 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.
Article 7 - Crimes Against Humanity, Rome Statutes, International Criminal Court (ICC)Is Hamas using human shields in Gaza? The answer is complicated
By Michael Martinez, CNN
updated 8:23 AM EDT, Wed July 23, 2014
By Michael Martinez, CNN
updated 8:23 AM EDT, Wed July 23, 2014
- Conclusive Proof Hamas Uses Palestinians as Human Shields...
Conclusive Proof Hamas Uses Palestinians as Human Shields Jewish Israel News Algemeiner.com
Aug 07, 2014 · For the past four weeks, as the war has raged in Gaza, Israel has repeatedly pointed to the Hamas strategy of using civilians as human shields.
- Hamas Spokesperson Encourages Use of Human Shield -YouTube
Hamas Spokesperson Encourages Use of Human Shield - YouTube
Jul 09, 2014 · The spokesperson for Hamas in Gaza, Sami Abu Zuhri, spoke on Al Aqsa TV about the use of civilians as a human shield. He refers to the night of June 8 …
"Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;
(COMMENT)
There is no law, international or otherwise, that condones or permits the murder (as your question is framed) of civilians. The prevailing thought is that violations of IHL are not due to the inadequacy of its rules. Rather, the civilian casualties stem from several conditions that occur in hostile conflict.
- An unwillingness to respect the rules,
- An insufficient means to enforce them,
- An uncertainty as to their application in some circumstances,
- A lack of awareness and understanding of the rules,
- The purposeful use of civilians to shield potential military targets and to initiate a propaganda effort. Rule: #97.
Unlike the Palestinian, the State of Israel has no political policy, war strategy, hidden agenda, covenant, charter, project or plan, to further any objective that would constitute Article 6 Genocide goals or to otherwise inflict the maximum number of casualties upon Palestinian Civilians as defined under Rule #5 or Article 50. The Israeli objective has been and continues to be the exercise of the inherent right to self-defence against the armed attack by the Palestinians against the sovereign State of Israel; a Member of the United Nations and pursuant to Chapter VII, Article 51.
The State of Israel neither promotes or glorifies the human cost in lives and the collateral damage inflicted in the same way the the Palestinians announce the "Heroic Actions" of their state sponsored terrorist components. The State of Israel goes to extraordinary lengths to give Rule 20 Advanced Warning, prior to a strike, and no attack is launched in violation of Rule 14 Proportionality --- in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects … which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.” Each Israeli attack has a clear and concise military objectives selected that which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects is set forth in Article 57(3) of Additional Protocol I, to which no relevant reservations have been made. Nearly every attack by the Israelis has some outcome to a specific military advantage:
- Compelling Palestinian to undertake certain actions or denying Palestinian the ability to coerce or attack Israel.
- Achieving strategic paralysis in Palestinian by targeting political leadership, command and control, strategic weapons, and critical economic nodes.
- A strategy of wearing down the Palestinian to the point of collapse through continuous loss of personnel and material.
The Israelis know that for them, the unnecessary infliction of civilian casualties is NOT to their advantage. But it is to the advantage of the Hostile Arab Palestinian leadership to sacrifice as many of their citizens as they can in order to gain what international sympathy that strategy may garner.
If there is murder involved in a planned political scale, it is on the part of the Hostile Arab Palestinian and a violation of Rule #97.
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
