India-Pakistan through the Israel-Palestine Mirror

[VCheng]

there is a huge difference between whats happening in FATA and GAZA. in FATA people were warned and given time to leave the area. if anyone didnt heed the govt's or military's advise then what can you do. in GAZA its pure 'genocide'. just like at the lebanese refugee camp 'shatilla' in 1982. israels history is replete with such incidents against the palestinians.

The difference is claimed, yes, but not verifiable. There is independent media coverage of what is happening in Gaza, but there is no independent media coverage in FATA, only ISPR.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Hospitals, schools, UN camps, mosques and other civilian infrastructures are all legitimate targets?

All these examples are normally protected, but protection is depending on that they are not misused.
If any of these buildings are used for military purposes, then they become legitimate targets.
Storing military materiel, or tunnels typically would render the protection void.
If buildings are occupied by military personel, they also become military targets.

According to the Geneva Conventions, presence of civilians (Human Shields) does not
make an attack on a military target illegal.

Hospitals have a special status. Even if they are used for military purposes, they cannot be attacked
unless a special procedure is followed. First, the hospital has to be informed that it is considered
as a military target. The hospital can then make sure that military equipment and personel leave the hospital
(except wounded of course). If it does not make sure that this happens, then the hospital becomes
a legitimate target.

UN schools have unilateraly been declared neutralized zones.
Protected zones must not have military personel, nor military material.
They must not be defended.
Firing from inside such a zone, or in the vicinity, renders the protection void.

• "When the Parties concerned have agreed upon the geographical position, administration, food supply and supervision of the proposed neutralized zone, a written agreement shall be concluded and signed by the representatives of the Parties to the conflict. The agreement shall fix the beginning and the duration of the neutralization of the zone."

"There is literally no safe place for civilians" in Gaza.[37]

There is no reason why Hamas cannot make a decision to evaquate a part of Gaza
from all military activities and declare a neutral zone, sign the neccessary agreements with Israel,
and then such a zone becomes a safe place for civilians.
Obviously such a zone should have margins for errors.

Most if not all is in the 4th Geneva Convention http://www.icrc.org/ihl/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5

 

[VCheng]

There is no reason why Hamas cannot make a decision to evaquate a part of Gaza
from all military activities and declare a neutral zone, sign the neccessary agreements with Israel,
and then such a zone becomes a safe place for civilians.
Obviously such a zone should have margins for errors.

Obviously, first of all, for any of that to happen, Hamas must recognize the right of Israel to exist as a State.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Obviously, first of all, for any of that to happen, Hamas must recognize the right of Israel to exist as a State.

Yes, they have this choice, and obviously they rather sacrifice the Palestinians.

 

[VCheng]

Yes, they have this choice, and obviously they rather sacrifice the Palestinians.

Well, there is a certain effectiveness to their strategy which vilifies Israel by highlighting these deaths cause by Hamas policies.

 

[Secur]

All these examples are normally protected, but protection is depending on that they are not misused.

Beyond belief seriously, the extent you people go to, to support the heinous crimes perpetuated by the state of Israel. There are some really nice rationalizations and excuses, I get there, from informing hospitals before the attack to the circumstances under which protection of UN refugee camps and schools have their protection rendered void. Answer me, what exactly was found in these "supposedly kosher targets under circumstances" places to warrant the bombing? Was it declared to the world? How do I know that this isn't one of the usual Israeli lies to continue targeting civilians indiscriminately under Dahiya doctrine? The same lies being peddled again and again, I have lost track of the "human shields" or "weapons/fighters" which are everywhere to found according to IDF. Still 84% of all causalities are civilians. Have a look.

Monica Awad, the spokeswoman of the UNICEF, condemned civilian deaths from Israeli airstrikes and accused Israel of targetting women and children, saying that Israeli forces had deliberately killed 296 children in Gaza.[160][161][162][163] According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 1,525 Palestinians have been killed, 84% being civilians.[15]

Using civilian structures to store munitions and launch attacks from is unlawful. However, Amnesty International stated that "Indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks (where the likely number of civilian casualties or damage to civilian property outweighs the anticipated military advantage to be gained) are ... prohibited."[157]It said that "Israel’s relentless air assault on Gaza has seen its forces flagrantly disregard civilian life and property".[174] It has also criticized the shelling of hospitals saying "there can be no justification for targeting medical facilities at any time."[175] Human Rights Watch has said that in many cases "the Israeli military has presented no information to show that it was attacking lawful military objectives or acted to minimize civilian casualties."[176] An investigation by Human Rights Watch found that "in most of the sites we investigated so far (in this conflict) we found no valid military targets".[177]

Gazans have stated that "nobody is safe and nobody can flee anywhere because everywhere is targeted."[108] Many reporters, including from the BBC,[185] the Independent[186] and the Guardian[178] have said that they have found no evidence of Hamas forcing Palestinians to stay and become unwilling human shields.

Amnesty International has reported in a statement that it "does not have evidence at this point" that Palestinian civilians have been intentionally used by Hamas or Palestinian armed groups during the current hostilities to "shield" specific locations or military personnel or equipment from Israeli attacks". It additionally said that "public statements referring to entire areas are not the same as directing specific civilians to remain in their homes as "human shields" for fighters, munitions, or military equipment" and that "even if officials or fighters from Hamas or Palestinian armed groups ... did in fact direct civilians to remain in a specific location in order to shield military objectives ..., all of Israel's obligations to protect these civilians would still apply."[157] Human Rights Watch said many of the attacks on civilian targets appeared to be "disproportionate" and "indiscriminate".[176]

P.S. I understand your post, but unfortunately I have a habit of reading between the lines.

Obviously such a zone should have margins for errors.

Yes, of course. Expected. As if the virtual prison like Auschwitz - Gaza blockaded by Israel on three sides and by Egypt on the last isn't enough for you guys, you need "margins" even if there's a safe place is negotiated for the citizens of the city to remain safe. Beyond belief, I would say again.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Beyond belief seriously, the extent you people go to, to support the heinous crimes perpetuated by the state of Israel. There are some really nice rationalizations and excuses, I get there, from informing hospitals before the attack to the circumstances under which protection of UN refugee camps and schools have their protection rendered void. Answer me, what exactly was found in these "supposedly kosher targets under circumstances" places to warrant the bombing? Was it declared to the world? How do I know that this isn't one of the usual Israeli lies to continue targeting civilians indiscriminately under Dahiya doctrine? The same lies being peddled again and again, I have lost track of the "human shields" or "weapons/fighters" which are everywhere to found according to IDF. Still 84% of all causalities are civilians. Have a look.

Monica Awad, the spokeswoman of the UNICEF, condemned civilian deaths from Israeli airstrikes and accused Israel of targetting women and children, saying that Israeli forces had deliberately killed 296 children in Gaza.[160][161][162][163] According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 1,525 Palestinians have been killed, 84% being civilians.[15]
Using civilian structures to store munitions and launch attacks from is unlawful. However, Amnesty International stated that "Indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks (where the likely number of civilian casualties or damage to civilian property outweighs the anticipated military advantage to be gained) are ... prohibited."[157]It said that "Israel’s relentless air assault on Gaza has seen its forces flagrantly disregard civilian life and property".[174] It has also criticized the shelling of hospitals saying "there can be no justification for targeting medical facilities at any time."[175] Human Rights Watch has said that in many cases "the Israeli military has presented no information to show that it was attacking lawful military objectives or acted to minimize civilian casualties."[176] An investigation by Human Rights Watch found that "in most of the sites we investigated so far (in this conflict) we found no valid military targets".[177]

Gazans have stated that "nobody is safe and nobody can flee anywhere because everywhere is targeted."[108] Many reporters, including from the BBC,[185] the Independent[186] and the Guardian[178] have said that they have found no evidence of Hamas forcing Palestinians to stay and become unwilling human shields.

Amnesty International has reported in a statement that it "does not have evidence at this point" that Palestinian civilians have been intentionally used by Hamas or Palestinian armed groups during the current hostilities to "shield" specific locations or military personnel or equipment from Israeli attacks". It additionally said that "public statements referring to entire areas are not the same as directing specific civilians to remain in their homes as "human shields" for fighters, munitions, or military equipment" and that "even if officials or fighters from Hamas or Palestinian armed groups ... did in fact direct civilians to remain in a specific location in order to shield military objectives ..., all of Israel's obligations to protect these civilians would still apply."[157] Human Rights Watch said many of the attacks on civilian targets appeared to be "disproportionate" and "indiscriminate".[176]

P.S. I understand your post, but unfortunately I have a habit of reading between the lines.


Yes, of course. Expected. As if the virtual prison like Auschwitz - Gaza blockaded by Israel on three sides and by Egypt on the last isn't enough for you guys, you need "margins" even if there's a safe place is negotiated for the citizens of the city to remain safe. Beyond belief, I would say again.

1. My post is about International Law. I don't claim that any specific attack is either lawful or unlawful.
2. An attack can only be deemed lawful/unlawful after an investigation by an unbiased committee.
3. Real investigations have not started yet, so it is too early. Israel has made some statements but real proof has not been shown or verified.
4. The key is what information is available to the attacker. If the attacker has reasons to believe that a target had military significance, and it turns out that information is flawed, then the attack is a mistake and not a crime.
5. If a target is missed and a civilian target is hit, then again it is a mistake. Attacking a civilian area with unguided missiles is not allowed.
6. Indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks are forbidden, but there is little agreement on what "disproportionate attacks" mean. In recent conflicts, the view that "if a professional military commander would deem the attack neccessary, to meet his military objectives, then the attack is not disproportionate" has been used. A lot of people make statements on this issue with the underlying assumption that if civilians are killed, it is disproportionate. As an example, if an attacker moves into a city, and many houses are boobytrapped, and are blown up, when the house is entered, a professional officer may decide to blow up the houses first, and the attack is not disproportionate. If there are no such boobytrapping going on, that would not be allowed. Blowing holes in walls of civilian buildings to advance without using streets is standard infantry tactics, and not disproportionate attacks.
7. A single Hamas soldier is a military target, but some organisations prefer to ignore this.
8. Amnesty International believes that attacking medical facilities is always a war crime. They are wrong.
9. Margins are a practical thing. If someone fires from the vicinity of a protected area, it is allowed to fire back. If there are no margins, then people inside the protected area can get hurt. If no civilian is in the perimeter of the protected area, then they have much more protection. Designating single buildings as protected areas simply does not work. A perimeter of 50-100 meters without civilians would probably reduce civilian casualties a lot.

Civilians have, as it is shown, very little protection in practice. This is why war should be avoided, and if it does occur, it needs to be stopped ASAP.

 

[acid rain]

your posts stinks of hypocrisy calling us anti semites when you bhartis are the biggest islamophobes on the face of this earth. Go sanitize ur country its lacking toilets. Go teach ur men not to rape. Sick indian tharki perverted mind.

A pakistani doesnt have the ground to talk about rapes and toilets and pervertness because you lot fare worse than us.

Get back to the topic.