Israel strikes Hard at Hamas In Gaza- Dec/ 27/ 2008

[Edward Campbell]

Earlier on this thread I  had asked about the use of WP arty rounds and was accused of trolling. It was also explained that there are a variety of legitimate military uses for WP (such as smoke screens). The Globe and Mail article Mr. Campbell posted mentioned the use of WP, stating that it was illegal in urban areas. So are the photos we are seeing of WP evidence of war crimes? Or are they photos of a legitimate use of WP?

Please read that again, Kilo_302. Prof. Byers, being a good lawyer, hedged his words. He asserted that the "use of white phosphorous shells is almost certainly illegal in a densely populated area such as Gaza." There's sufficient intellectual wiggle room there through which to manoeuvre a Leopard II tank because there remain a whole hockey sock full of applications for which WP is quite acceptable - even when civilians are lollygagging in the area of operations.

 

[Kilo_302]

even when civilians are lollygagging in the area of operations

Interesting choice of words. Where do you suggest the Gazans should go?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008621030_gaza13.html

Note the bit about lack of effective shelter. People are using office buildings and schools, which are clearly no longer safe.

So what are some examples of legit military applications considering that it is an urban area? Assuming the WP was being used for concealment, does the IDF still not have an obligation under int'l law to avoid indiscriminate death and destruction? Would this reality not rule out the use of WP in urban areas where civilians are no doubt present?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

NO

 

[1feral1]

Kilo, with the whole world watching, I am sure the IDF are treading carefully as it is. They are goin out of their way to win this war.

Smk has many purposes, from target indication to providing cover.

I can't see them willfully selecting innocent civilians and showering them with WP simply to terrorise them.

Limp wristers, bleeding hearts, lefties and supporters of Hamas and other similar terrorist organistions will always try to find a cheap excuse, and continually point the finger at Israel as the evil in this war, when it is in fact Hamas and their supporters themselves.

[Edit:  Off the wall comment removed by Mod]

Regards,

Wes

 

[Bo]

NO

YES

"Israel's violation of specific provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention

a) Humane treatment

Article 27: 'Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity"


http://www.jfjfp.org/factsheets/geneva4.htm

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

What??

civilians who find themselves in enemy hands as a result of a conflict or an occupation.


Oh, missed that part??......yea, sure ya did.

 

[Bo]

Kilo said "does the IDF still not have an obligation under int'l law to avoid indiscriminate death and destruction?"

To which Bruce said: "NO"

That's why I posted the 4th Geneva Convention to show that the IDF does in fact have an obligation to avoid indiscriminate death and destruction.

Oh wait, my bad, I just realized something. Israel ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention with effect from 6 July 1951

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
So what are some examples of legit military applications considering that it is an urban area? Assuming the WP was being used for concealment, does the IDF still not have an obligation under int'l law to avoid indiscriminate death and destruction? Would this reality not rule out the use of WP in urban areas where civilians are no doubt present?

Those are, essentially, technical questions, Kilo_302, and we have technically qualified people here on Army.ca who can and, I hope, will answer them for you.

I'm not ducking the issue but I've always had some problems with selective prohibitions of certain weapons. I know that the effects of WP can be very, very painful, but so can the effects of almost anything, including the club. WP is no more indiscriminate than any other mortar/artillery round and it is, I believe a very effective smoke round - better than the others. Yes it has some nasty side effects but, at the risk of being though insensitive to the suffering of others, I have never found that a sound justification for prohibiting restricting its use.

Here, for some 'light' reading is an article about the use of WP in combat. I gather that WP is grouped with incendiaries is the problem as is the 'superfluous' injury rule.

The problem with viewing the use of WP munitions ... as violations of this prohibition is that use of such munitions for marking, illuminating, screening, and (in certain circumstances) incendiary weapons against enemy targets has long been recognized as legitimate with full knowledge of its potential effects on the human body. The prohibition against using a weapon in a manner that produced superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering might more directly apply if WP munitions were used for the specific purpose of killing or injuring enemy combatants.

 

[1feral1]

That's why I posted the 4th Geneva Convention to show that the IDF does in fact have an obligation to avoid indiscriminate death and destruction.

What about firing HE rockets into populated areas, or bombers with suicide vests entering shops? This has all gone on in the past.

VBIEDs?

Israel did not start this war, but they will finish it.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
... the IDF does in fact have an obligation to avoid indiscriminate death and destruction.
...

I think the IDF has an obligation to avoid intentionally causing indiscriminate death or destruction. That prohibition is one of the reasons, I believe, the term "collateral damage" entered the lexicon. When a legitimate military target is attacked, using as much 'discrimination' as technology and the situation permit, and death and injury to innocent civilians, including women, children and 'protected' persons (like UN aid workers) the question must be asked: "Was all appropriate - for the situation - and available 'discrimination' used? If the answer is yes then the issue ought to be closed as the unavoidable consequences of battle. If one does not wish to close the issue then, it seems to me, one should ask: "Who put the innocent civilians in harm's way?" That person has a lot to answer for, to his gods if not to a war crimes tribunal.

 

[Bo]

What about firing HE rockets into populated areas, or bombers with suicide vests entering shops? This has all gone on in the past.

VBIEDs?

I'm not excusing Hamas's attacks on Israeli citizen's. Those are also war crimes.

Israel did not start this war, but they will finish it.

Actually, Israel did start this war.

But on June 19, 2008, Hamas and Israel commenced a six-month truce. Neither side complied perfectly. Israel refused to substantially ease the suffocating siege of Gaza imposed in June 2007. Hamas permitted sporadic rocket fire -- typically after Israel killed or seized Hamas members in the West Bank, where the truce did not apply. Either one or no Israelis were killed (reports differ) by rockets in the half year leading up to the current attack.

Israel then broke the truce on Nov. 4, raiding the Gaza Strip and killing a Palestinian. Hamas retaliated with rocket fire; Israel then killed five more Palestinians. In the following days, Hamas continued rocket fire -- yet still no Israelis died. Israel cannot claim self-defense against this escalation, because it was provoked by Israel's own violation.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123154826952369919.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

That was so slanted I'm amazed my screen stayed upright.

Listen, both sides suck huge and I really don't give a rats ass about any of them but this is what happen when you poke a bear with a stick....ask Georgia.

 

[1feral1]

I'm not excusing Hamas's attacks on Israeli citizen's. Those are also war crimes.

Actually, Israel did start this war.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123154826952369919.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Says who? Look what source wote the article. It might be the WSJ, but came from an 'opinion' column.

Hence he is biased.

Bo, please do have a read.

Here is a blurb on your source. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2095

George Bisharat is an American of Palestinian descent and a Professor at Hastings Law School, who speaks frequently around California to peace groups and liberal Jewish groups and is featured at pro-Palestinian events. He is disarming. His tone is moderate and conciliatory, quite different from the bombast of the late Edward Said or of Hanan Ashrawi. He speaks with an academic objectivity in keeping with his impressive academic credentials. And he is polished. He avoids inflammatory assertions. Instead, he quotes Zionist and Israeli leaders, using fragments of their statements to make his case. He builds his argument by piling on facts.

But Bisharat is not a moderate. He presents a wholly one-sided, simplistic view of the conflict, despite his academic pedigree. He recycles Arab propaganda and arguments that date from the 1930s, though he cloaks them in modern human rights jargon. And he calmly reiterates extreme Palestinian positions --powerful Zionists "stole Palestine" from helpless Palestinians; the Palestinian "right of return" is enshrined in law and morality; a one-state solution is the just and moral resolution to the conflict. He buttresses his arguments by citing Israel's "new historians." And, despite his posture of objectivity, he regularly stoops to emotion-laden examples and comparisons -- how Israelis "stole" his "ancestral" home in Jerusalem; how the Palestinians' plight resembles that of the Native Americans; and how Californians would feel if foreigners came, took over their land, and forced them at gunpoint, in the dead of night, to leave their homes and flee into the Nevada desert with only the clothes on their backs (this, he claims, is what happened to the Palestinians in 1948.

Bisharat's main focus is on the right of return. He rejects any peace plan that does not include it. He even objected to the liberal, failed, Geneva Accords because they did not call for a right of return. Bisharat's unique contribution to the Palestinian argument fits his deceptively conciliatory tone. He argues that Israel should apologize to the Palestinians and frequently entitles his talks "The Power of Apology and the Palestinian Right of Return," arguing that "A sincere Israeli apology would be a milestone toward reconciliation that no Palestinian could ignore."

But Bisharat's seemingly benign recommendation is insidious. It assumes that Zionists and then Israel committed all the wrongs in the conflict and that Palestinians have simply been helpless, blameless victims.

Beleive what you wish Bo. The last bit in RED sums it up.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[MARS]

Has anybody talking about indiscriminate death and destruction actually looked at the definition?

To wit:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079

Art 51. - Protection of the civilian population

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:
(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:
(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.

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.
----------------------------
I am a naval officer, so I have no experience using WP.  However, I think the operative word in the Article is “attack”.  I don't see the words “indiscriminate death and destruction” anywhere, only “indiscriminate attacks”.  So, if you want to talk about that, then you have to define the use of WP as an attack.  Perhaps someone in green could enlighten me if it is used in an offensive role – I honestly have no idea.

And if you can define the use of WP as an attack, then you need to apply that to para 5(b), specifically whether it is deemed “excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”. 

And someone called out Mr. Campbell on his choice of words, specifically “lollygagging”, well; I don't know where the civilians are supposed to go.  In all wars, certainly wars in built up areas, civilians have little place to go.  But my read of para 7 seems to indicate that the IDF doesn't necessarily have to refrain from engagement where they are present.

Perhaps I am confusing the issue or have missed some critical aspect of the arguments.  If so, apologies.  If not, can anyone clarify this for me?

MARS

 

[Shec]

"The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations."   

So, who is the war criminal now?

The IDF which,  by the way, has a code of ethics:   

1.Devotion to the Mission
2.Responsibility
3.Reliability
4.Personal Example
5.Human Life
6.The Purity of Arms
7.Professionalism
8.Discipline
9.Loyalty
10.Worthiness to Represent the State of Israel
11.Comradeship

with Purity of Arms being defined as:
"The soldier will use his arms and his power to subdue the enemy in the necessary degree, and will restrain himself in order to prevent unnecessary harm to human life, limb, honor and property."

"The Purity of Arms of the IDF soldier is the restrained use he makes of his weapons and strength in the performance of his mission in the required degree only, without causing unnecessary harm to human life, limb, honor and property, of soldiers, of civilians, and especially the helpless, in times of war and during regular security operations, during periods of quiet and in time of peace."

And #5. "Human Life" :

"The soldier will protect human life to the utmost, out of awareness of its highest importance, and will only place himself or another at risk to the degree required to carry out the mission."

"The sanctity of life for the IDF soldier will be expressed in everything he does: in careful and meticulous planning, in considered training and in correct performance which correspond to the mission, the necessary level of danger, and the suitable level of caution, in a professional manner, and with the constant effort to keep loss of life to the minimum required by the mission."   This doesn't refer only to the lives of soldiers, but to any loss of life.

http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/about/doctrine/ethics.htm.

Or,

Hamas who take cover in schools and in bunkers under hospitals?   I'd just love to see their code of ethics.

 

[George Wallace]

YES

"Israel's violation of specific provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention

a) Humane treatment

Article 27: 'Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity"


http://www.jfjfp.org/factsheets/geneva4.htm

I wouldn't rely on a biased Blog factsheet for this information, but rather go to the actual articles.  They would hold a lot more credibility.


For instance this point that your Blog site left out:

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

For your info; the REAL Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

 

[Bo]

Ok Wes, how's this source:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/1230/1230581467173.html

From the point of view of protecting Israeli citizens, the ceasefire was a success. If the Israeli government had the protection of Israeli civilians as its first priority, it would have done its best to have the ceasefire continued indefinitely.

But it didn't. On the contrary, it broke the ceasefire by killing six Palestinians in Gaza on the night of November 4th, while the world was watching the election of Barack Obama.

 

[tourza]

The former is at least one thing we can agree upon.  

Now to the latter.  Sadly, the long term implication is the continuation of the on-going war that Hamas & Hezbollah's Mukawama Doctine, whether real or perceived, perpetuates with it's principles that include:

1.   peace agreements are not an option because they require the recognition of Israel's right to exist; and,
2.   cease-fires are but temporary respites to replenish.

Does that reflect the Realpolitik from my side?  I think so.  What do you think?

Shec,

My apology for the delay in my response.

I believe that the geographic and demographic realities that Israel faces today have conspired together to do to Israel what the PLO, Hamas, Hizballah, et. al. couldn't. It appears that you have lived in Israel, so you'll understand better than most the realities to which I refer. Academics and semantics aside, every occupation eventually comes to an end. It ends either to the benefit or detriment of the occupier or occupied. The Israeli gov't has difficult decisions to make, and every day that passes, every day that the Israeli gov't and its people foolishly believe that it's possible to maintain the status quo, through Merkavas, or settlements, or F16's, or collective punishment, or dead Palestinian children, the balance of power shifts. Ignoring the sabre rattling coming from the Arab camps, I think that the single most difficult issue the Israeli gov't has to confront is settlements.

Shec, what do you think?

Regards.

 

[Bo]

Shec, your argument is almost laughable. You're trying to defend the IDF's clear human rights violations by quoting their code of ethics?? Is this a joke?

The UN's senior human rights body approved a resolution yesterday condemning the Israeli offensive for "massive violations of human rights". A senior UN source said the body's humanitarian agencies were compiling evidence of war crimes and passing it on to the "highest levels" to be used as seen fit.

The Israeli military are accused of:

• Using powerful shells in civilian areas which the army knew would cause large numbers of innocent casualties;

• Using banned weapons such as phosphorus bombs;

• Holding Palestinian families as human shields;

• Attacking medical facilities, including the killing of 12 ambulance men in marked vehicles;

• Killing large numbers of police who had no military role.

Israel's most prominent human rights organisation, B'Tselem, has written to the attorney general in Jerusalem, Meni Mazuz, asking him to investigate suspected crimes including how the military selects its targets and the killing of scores of policemen at a passing out parade.

"Many of the targets seem not to have been legitimate military targets as specified by international humanitarian law," said Sarit Michaeli of B'Tselem.

Rovera has also collected evidence that the Israeli army holds Palestinian families prisoner in their own homes as human shields. "It's standard practice for Israeli soldiers to go into a house, lock up the family in a room on the ground floor and use the rest of the house as a military base, as a sniper's position. That is the absolute textbook case of human shields.

"It has been practised by the Israeli army for many years and they are doing it again in Gaza now," she said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/13/gaza-israel-war-crimes

 

[Shec]

Tourza,

If you'll flip back to reply #282 you'll find a couple of links I posted which address the militarily defensive rationale for holding the high ground.  On this ground settlements are necessary, in fact consistent with the stockade and tower settlements held by the farmer-soldiers of Nahal of the early 20th century,  While this would apply to Golan the Arabs can have the all rest in their own state.