Hamas invaded Israel 2023

[ueo]

There certainly isn't anyone protesting Hamas's behavior from inside Gaza. Like "Hey stop firing rockets from our civilian neighborhoods". Or "Hey Hamas stop indoctrinating our children". [2007, 2013 , 2023 ]


What's your thought process with throwing out this suggestion? Do you NOT feel strongly about babies being shot in their car seats and set on fire? Or men women and children being stolen from their homes and brought to Gaza?


This isn't a case of 1% baddies and 99% innocent bystanders being held at gunpoint. You can see the support for Hamas yourself in videos. There are plenty of videos of unarmed Palestinians challenging IDF soldiers or throwing rocks at them. Here is a lovely video of a father pushing his 6 or 7-year-old son to challenge IDF soldiers including telling his kid to pick up rocks and throw them at the soldiers.

If they can do this to IDF then they can do it to Hamas.

My point exactly.

 

[RangerRay]

Unfortunately I can’t disagree with this.

Netanyahu and Trump show that you can’t fight culture wars and win actual wars

The new conservatives betray the nations they claim to love

open.substack.com

 

[Kirkhill]

Unfortunately I can’t disagree with this.

Netanyahu and Trump show that you can’t fight culture wars and win actual wars

The new conservatives betray the nations they claim to love

open.substack.com

I can.

The author is arguing against national sovereignty and preaching internationalism. I reject that fundamental premise.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Realistically, there are likely to be cases of misconduct that aren’t imagined.

Yes. And those will be exploited in "this, therefore that" fashion. Unfortunate, but just part of a well-established historical pattern.

 

[RangerRay]

I can.

The author is arguing against national sovereignty and preaching internationalism. I reject that fundamental premise.

I don’t see that at all. He says “conservatives” have taken their eyes off the ball and sacrificed national security in favour of culture war. Makes a lot of sense to me based on what I’m seeing.

If the right ignores national security, will the left fill the void? I doubt it. But they will be quick exploit it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Not according to Additonal Protocol I of the Geneva Convention.

Needs an amendment that people conducting amphibious assaults are not "shipwrecked" if their landing craft is wrecked and are treated identically to descending paratroops. There is no reasonable doubt that in any prior war, troops struggling to get ashore would not join the troops already there in the fight rather than walking up the beach hands held high to surrender.

 

[Brad Sallows]

.

 

[KevinB]

Needs an amendment that people conducting amphibious assaults are not "shipwrecked" if their landing craft is wrecked and are treated identically to descending paratroops. There is no reasonable doubt that in any prior war, troops struggling to get ashore would not join the troops already there in the fight rather than walking up the beach hands held high to surrender.

In that case they are not shipwrecked. They are simply combatants who’ve been deprived of mobility.

 

[Brad Sallows]

In that case they are not shipwrecked. They are simply combatants who’ve been deprived of mobility.

Be better if it was black-letter law. Evolution could start with a new customary practice, though. Combatants could state a new interpretation openly and apply it.

 

[McG]

The author is arguing against national sovereignty and preaching internationalism. I reject that fundamental premise.

If that’s your concern, then should we not be calling on our national parties to remove themselves from these organizations where they start defining their political identities & importing their philosophies from a political international instead of from grassroots.

• International Democratic Union
• Liberal International
• Progressive Alliance

… but that is starting to look like a discussion for another thread.

 

[TacticalTea]

Needs an amendment that people conducting amphibious assaults are not "shipwrecked" if their landing craft is wrecked and are treated identically to descending paratroops. There is no reasonable doubt that in any prior war, troops struggling to get ashore would not join the troops already there in the fight rather than walking up the beach hands held high to surrender.

Would help if @Infanteer would specify exactly what articles he is referring to.

At any rate, the protocol states that one is shipwrecked provided that they are in peril and not engaged in any hostility, and that the shipwrecked are to be respected and protected (Art 10).

Article 8(b), AP1 GC

(b) "Shipwrecked" means persons, whether military or civilian, who are in peril at sea or in other waters as a result of misfortune affecting them or the vessel or aircraft carrying them and who refrain from any act of hostility. These persons, provided that they continue to refrain from any act of hostility, shall continue to be considered shipwrecked during their rescue until they acquire another status under the Conventions or this Protocol;

May be interpreted as such, as per the ICRC:

313 The fact that the "shipwrecked" covered here must be in peril ' as a result of misfortune ' does not mean that the field of those concerned should be excessively restrained. Persons who are in distress as a result of their inexperience or their recklessness, are also protected. The aim was to exclude those who voluntarily put themselves in peril in order to accomplish a mission, such as military commandos or individual frogmen of the military commandos.

314 However, it should be noted that if such men are in difficulties or in distress, and they give up their mission and all other acts of hostility, they will also enjoy the status of the "shipwrecked".

What remains to be done is the determination of whether the Hamas invaders were indeed in difficulties or distress AND had given up on their mission and all acts of hostility.

My mind isn't made but I would err on the side of the shipwrecked because:
a) humans regularly drown even in seemingly benign conditions,
b) one could not reasonably assume every enemy combatant is wearing a water-proof suicide vest, and
c) it would render much of the conventions inoperable if you excluded "terrorists" from the protections afforded by provisions regarding non-international conflicts, because every country prosecuting such a conflict would argue (and already does, see Russian anti-terrorism) that they are combatting terrorists.

---

HOWEVER, none of that matters because Israel is not, in fact, party to that Protocol.

 

[FJAG]

Re the boat and the LOAC.

If an APC is disabled and the section scoots.....

It's been a while since I've delved into this stuff, but I think this scenario actually reaches back to the original Convention II. There's a commentary on that which reads:

1391  When it comes to a landing by armed forces, it will not always be possible while the attack is in progress to distinguish between an attacker trying to reach land and a soldier in danger of drowning. Similarly, in the case of persons specialized in underwater attacks, it may not always be evident when they are in peril and need assistance. In such instances, persons in distress who renounce active combat can only expect the adversary to respect and rescue them if they make their situation clear by use of signals that are comprehensible to the adversary.

It sets the tone for the Additional Protocols.

 

[Kirkhill]

If that’s your concern, then should we not be calling on our national parties to remove themselves from these organizations where they start defining their political identities & importing their philosophies from a political international instead of from grassroots.

• International Democratic Union
• Liberal International
• Progressive Alliance

… but that is starting to look like a discussion for another thread.

It is a great discussion for another thread.

The role of supranationalism?

@RangerRay responded to me with a comment about National Security. My thoughts were about National Sovereignty.

Safety. Freedom.

Add in who gets to decide and the optimum size of a community (somewhere between 100 and 1000) vs 7,888,000,000 people. At best that is 7,888,000 communities. And 7,888,000,000 opinions on what is an acceptable answer.

 

[Booter]

From my understanding there is a broadcast they make giving instructions to the people in the water on what they are supposed to do. If they don’t they haven’t ceased hostilities.

This is being discussed NOW but they have had the same circumstances with boats prior- including where this unit pulled a person out of the water and they tried to use a grenade on the rescue boat.

None of this is hypothetical to them. They have procedures for this stuff because they live it.

Of course having a process doesn’t mean it can’t be abused either.

 

[Brad Sallows]

HOWEVER, none of that matters because Israel is not, in fact, party to that Protocol.

It matters a great deal because parts of the APs are regarded as customary international law - in particular, the parts that basically amplify the original conventions without introducing new ideas. Whether "other waters" is novel is in a grey area. It doesn't distinguish between people landing in small boats from the sea or people in small boats crossing a river.

I take it as fact that soldiers aren't going to march past their buddies into the enemy's hands just because their boat overturned or was holed by small arms or shellfire, and it's close to unreasonable to expect defenders to temporarily withhold fire on people who might be trying to kill them in five minutes. They might choose to do so, but an obligation is unreasonable.

 

[Infanteer]

Would help if @Infanteer would specify exactly what articles he is referring to.

At any rate, the protocol states that one is shipwrecked provided that they are in peril and not engaged in any hostility, and that the shipwrecked are to be respected and protected (Art 10).

Article 41. If I am a commander and my force destroys an enemy vessel, floundering enemy occupants of that vessel who are just trying to avoid drowning would seem to me to be hors de combat. Driving around them and shooting them when they are doing so would constitute a breach of the convention protecting combatants that are hors de combat.

That being said, if they continue swimming to the shore, I would consider them legitimate targets as they are continuing their military tasks. Same if they resisted any effort to fish them out of the water (perfidity).

I won't comment on the applicability of any of this to the video as it is curated content and I don't know the context.

HOWEVER, none of that matters because Israel is not, in fact, party to that Protocol.

It does matter if Israel wants to continue to maintain the degree of international support it has. This is customary international law whether someone signs it or not - hence why we drag rogue Rwanadans and Serbians to The Hague to account for their actions.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Article 41. If I am a commander and my force destroys an enemy vessel, floundering enemy occupants of that vessel who are just trying to avoid drowning would seem to me to be hors de combat. Driving around them and shooting them when they are doing so would constitute a breach of the convention protecting combatants that are hors de combat.

That being said, if they continue swimming to the shore, I would consider them legitimate targets as they are continuing their military tasks. Same if they resisted any effort to fish them out of the water (perfidity).

I won't comment on the applicability of any of this to the video as it is curated content and I don't know the context.



It does matter if Israel wants to continue to maintain the degree of international support it has. This is customary international law whether someone signs it or not - hence why we drag rogue Rwanadans and Serbians to The Hague to account for their actions.

Is there any difference for non uniformed terrorists vice a uniformed force ?

 

[Infanteer]

Is there any difference for non uniformed terrorists vice a uniformed force ?

According to Article 45, no. Once you take part in armed hostilities, you are considered a lawful combatant unless a tribunal strips you of that status.

 

[Halifax Tar]

According to Article 45, no. Once you take part in armed hostilities, you are considered a lawful combatant unless a tribunal strips you of that status.

Merci

 

[TacticalTea]

It does matter if Israel wants to continue to maintain the degree of international support it has. This is customary international law whether someone signs it or not - hence why we drag rogue Rwanadans and Serbians to The Hague to account for their actions.

Serbians and Rwandans, as far as I'm aware, were tried for crimes against humanity, not mere transgressions in otherwise regular warfare.

The ICRC does not identify Article 41 AP1 GC as part of customary international law. One should not assume that the entirety of widely-ratified treaties automatically constitute customary intl law.

It does recognize Articles 8 and 10, however. But the historical and operational context provided by @FJAG and @Booter tend to show 1) those articles weren't meant to protect amphibious assaulters not manifestly imperiled and 2) Israel does engage in some amount of diligence in this regard.

At any rate, I do think your operationalization of those concepts is quite reasonable.