@Glennn,
Quote:Will you make your position clear now?
I was hoping you'd respond to the
entire question I posed to you:
• Did Hamas organize and dispatch armed fighters (I won't use the freighted term, "terrorists") to cross a nation's border, enter its territory, and massacre (I won't use the freighted term "butcher") over a thousand innocent Israeli civilians – including women, children, and the elderly – and kidnap well over a hundred hostages – including women, children, and the elderly – and imprison them in Gaza, hidden in undisclosed bases in urban areas densely populated with civilians?
And you didn't indicate whether you think Hamas deserves to be treated with impunity for their violations of human rights...but, as I didn't repeat the entire question I guess I can't fault you for at least answering as much as you did. So yes, I believe that Israel has committed war crimes. The interesting thing, for me anyway, is that a certain degree of "collateral damage" is acceptable under the various Hague and Geneva conventions which form the basis for our "laws of war."
Quote:Military necessity is governed by several constraints: an attack or action must be intended to help in the defeat of the enemy; it must be an attack on a legitimate military objective, and the harm caused to protected civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Distinction is a principle under international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict, whereby belligerents must distinguish between combatants and protected civilians.]
Proportionality is a principle under international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict, whereby belligerents must make sure that the harm caused to protected civilians or civilian property is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected by an attack on a legitimate military objective. However, as Robbie Sabel, Professor of international law at the Hebrew University, who has written on this topic, notes: “Anyone with experience in armed conflict knows that you want to hit the enemy’s forces harder than they hit you… if you are attacked with a rifle, there is no rule that stipulates that you can only shoot back with a rifle, but using a machine gun would not be fair, or that if you are attacked with only one tank you cannot shoot back with two.”
Humanity is a principle based on the 1907 Hague Convention IV - The Laws and Customs of War on Land restrictions against using arms, projectiles, or materials calculated to cause suffering or injury manifestly disproportionate to the military advantage realized by the use of the weapon for legitimate military purposes. In some countries, like the United States, weapons are reviewed prior to their use in combat to determine if they comply with the law of war and are not designed to cause unnecessary suffering when used in their intended manner. This principle also prohibits using an otherwise lawful weapon in a manner that causes unnecessary suffering.
Honour is a principle that demands a certain amount of fairness and mutual respect between adversaries. Parties to a conflict must accept that their right to adopt means of injuring each other is not unlimited, they must refrain from taking advantage of the adversary's adherence to the law by falsely claiming the law's protections, and they must recognize that they are members of a common profession that fights not out of personal hostility but on behalf of their respective States. wikipedia/law of war
These rules are regularly broken by modern states engaged in warfare. But in the IDF's counterattack on Gaza violation of these rules was almost immediate. Schools and hospitals are considered off limits, and should not be attacked. But, when command centers are located within hospitals (where civilian patients are being cared for) and rockets are fired from schools (where civilians are seeking refuge) the lines get blurry. (See the "Military Necessity clause above) Had Israel ceased hostilities after a day, or a week, it's possible that the violations of "Proportionality" might have been excused as "collateral damage" but there was no way Hamas could have been defeated in such a short time. And what even constitutes "Hamas"? How does one self-enforce the rule of "Distinction" in battles with irregular forces not identified by uniforms and mixing with a civilian population? And how do you wipe out an ideology –an ideology fed and strengthened by the suffering and death of every civilian? How does an attacker avoid collective punishment when non-combatants cannot flee the field of battle?
Quote:Sounds like you live in a dictatorship.
Not really. More like a huge machine which has been running for seventy-five years with repairs made by different contractors, broken parts left in place, different manuals printed in foreign tongues, the original owners and builders long gone, and even the very functionality of the operating system called into question.
Quote:I'm going to not be so defeatist in my heart that I would shrug my shoulders and say nothing.
That's nice. Keep sending out those thoughts and prayers.
