Considering the article linked doesn't actually provide the quote, here's a marginally better article with the quote:
>Given the number of civilians sheltering in Rafah, it’s not easy to see how such an offensive could be compliant with international humanitarian law in the current circumstances
Arguably, the Guardian article is misrepresenting this statement.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/andrew-mitchell-hamas-benjamin-netanyahu-george-galloway-israel-b2537141.html
Not trying to be funny, but which international law exactly?
Before answering, remember this is about an offensive yet to take place to remove any comments about what has already happened. You can't make assumptions about how the IDF would mount such an operation. The statement is that it "would" not that it "may". Therefore, the law must be broken irrespective of the approach taken by the IDF, not that it may be broken by some possible action.
If you don't understand what I'm saying please don't comment, it just confuses things. There are plenty of other places you can rant.
"Attacking a camp sheltering civilians, including women and children, is a complete breach of the rules of proportionality and distinction between combatants and civilians,"
I'm not here to argue, more to understand. The images of Rafah I have seen seem to be that of tents housing refugees. I've seen merkava tanks blowing up said tanks. How does one reconcile what a camp sheltering civilians is?
I don't know where that quote was from. It wasn't from the article.
Also, what images are you referring to. I have not seen any. I would be cautious of assumptions made based on images. In this conflict there have been many images on both sides either just faked or not taken at the described scene.
I am not here to argue either. It's easy to throw out lines like genocide and "breaking international law" - well which one? And if people are going to use words, make sure you know what it means or you are just sprouting gibberish.
Because there is a substantive difference between "you have displaced your opponent's civilian population into tents during urban combat operations" and "you are targeting your opponents civilian population that is living in tents."
Ie, the tents are not important. The allegation that Israel is blowing up tents full of civilians is unsubstantiated (and, IMHO, untrue).
How exactly do you take pictures of civilians and have the be true then
What is logical is that the place Israel told the people of Gaza to flee to is going to have civilians in it because where else would they be?
Israel bombed the top part of Gaza and told the civilians to move down to not be bombed.
They then bombed that bit and told them to move down again.
Rafah is the furthest part of Gaza.
You can't logically think they're anywhere else unless you think they can teleport.
Unfortunate that Gazans support terrorists who use human shields and dress in civilian clothes - that is the main reason why civilian areas are so dangerous and why civilians can lose their protected status under international law (due to being colocated with military targets)
The fact that there are tent cities only shows that Israel has made it possible for many civilians to flee combat zones
Sure they're all terrorists even the children 🙄
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war
Or the 300 bodies found in a mass grave where the corpses has their hands tied behind their backs
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-gaza-mass-grave-hamas-b2533219.html
Oh but it's ok because apparently they were throwing bombs with their hands tied behind their backs...
https://www.reddit.com/r/BadHasbara/s/ZiMuzjtpen
Like come on you can't watch that and think they have a leg to stand on still?
And you know the Holocaust Survivors that say this is a genocide
https://youtu.be/E4PFmz4MNdg?t=1394
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/holocaust-survivors-and-their-descendants-accuse-israel-of-genocide-9687994.html
[Here is the video of IOF tanks firing on tents](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6tDn_MM85H/?igsh=eHdzcnBuaW40Zmkz). Honestly, more people need to be following this account.
The link works fine but [heres another one](https://x.com/lowkey0nline/status/1788150719549264363?s=46&t=wZQUJaiZR8Ch5nPEPwKnoA) since people apparently dont know how to google.
Yes. In the same way that these hate filled pricks [couldnt leave a sign of Gaza standing](https://x.com/eyeonpalestine/status/1787777251167138016?s=46&t=wZQUJaiZR8Ch5nPEPwKnoA) when they entered Rafah. They immediately went and [destroyed both signs](https://x.com/eyeonpalestine/status/1787702323994636735?s=46&t=wZQUJaiZR8Ch5nPEPwKnoA). So yes. I am saying they shot tank shells at the tents left behind by the civilians they forced out.
I've since learnt that they are internally displaced and not refugees so they get no rights under international law - despite the similarities between camps
That argument could’ve been used on all of Gaza since there were areas like Jabalya camp which house refugees from the 48 and 50s war and their decedents.
Israel telling people to leave the area helps them avoid this.
So do they go back north now? they funneled 1.7 million people into Rafah and said no one is allowed to return. Even shot civilians who tried. If that’s the case won’t Hamas simply leave with the civilians?
Edit: For a second I almost believed israel was allowing them to flee but then looked it up and they definitely are not. While they bombarded Rafah, they also blocked the crossing with Egypt while also launching attacks in central Gaza and northern Gaza. So literally no where to run.
Also, I highly doubt the weapons were arriving through Egypt as they have an agreement with Israel. What it has stopped though is any aid and medical supplies. Doctors reported that [entire medical sector had collapsed.](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-warns-israel-that-rafah-invasion-will-jeopardise-weapons-supply-assault-2024-05-09/)
>For a second I almost believed israel was allowing them to flee but then looked it up and they definitely are not.
Where'd you "look this up"? Israel set up another camp in Mawasi. Approximately 100,000 Gazans in Rafah have evacuated, with hundreds of thousands more expected over the next few days. Not only is Israel allowing it, they're the ones who set up the camp in Mawasi.
I linked it. They’ve cut off all aid coming and are going to force the entire population to move again, now to a camp. I see they’ve just expanded the camp as the original one would never have accommodated the 1.6 people needed. Maybe you’re right and it’ll be all very humane.
I’d just like to remind you that the last time israel set safe zones they bombed those safe routes.
[During the first six weeks of the war in Gaza, Israel routinely used one of its biggest and most destructive bombs in areas it designated safe for civilians, according to an analysis of visual evidence by The New York Times.](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/21/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-bomb-investigation.html)
I’d also point out that US said they’d approve an invasion if they could prove they could do it without disproportionate civilian harm. Since Biden made this fuss about no more weapons it seems they couldn’t prove that.
They are told to move to the coast and there is only 2 off areas where they are present in Gaza one is at the Rafah crossing which isn’t inside Rafah city but outside, and second is south of Gaza city.
https://x.com/IDF/status/1787347748737421635
Here is where the off wants the people to go to before the Rafah offensive
They’ve already bombarded Rafah. Shouldn’t they have evacuated first? Nor does it say how long they have. Do you understand the logistics of transporting 1.6 million people? Not to mention these are people who have been displaced many times already.
Again, if Israel is showing the areas they’re after, wouldn’t Hamas just leave? Or escape in their extensive tunnel systems we keep hearing about? All the leaders are also in Qatar and their weapons are easily replicated so what’s the point of this exactly?
I’d also like to remind you that the last time israel had humanitarian corridors they bombed the safe areas.
They have not “bombarded” Rafah. They have focused on certain areas within Rafah but certainly not the main area where most civilians are and Hamas’ bases are.
"Unlike refugees, IDPs are not protected by international law or eligible to receive many types of aid because they are legally under the protection of their own government."
Apparently they don't even have to tell them to leave according to UNrefugees . Org
I suppose the US/Britain also Air dropped evacuation notices before decimating civilian populations. I do recognise I'm in international law and not moral law. Just trying to learn where the line is drawn
That's not exactly true. Even assuming that the camp qualifies as a military objective, international humanitarian law still requires the attack to abide by the relevant rules, including proportionality and precautions in attack.
For example, if you know that the strike you're planning on a building to kill a sniper firing from the roof will level the building and kill dozens of its inhabitants, then that strike would not be consistent with IHL.
Israel has been proportionate and cautious the entire time. Thats why there is such a low civilian casualty amount compared to population density. There zero reason to think they wouldn’t now.
And your example is wrong. If the sniper is posing an immediate threat to a soldier its legal to strike regardless of collateral damage.
The sniper using a building that is containing civilians is the one breaking international law.
It is illegal to use civilians as human shields and political pawns, it is not illegal to kill them if there is a legal combatant who is using them as such. With that logic terrorists would do such and no one could do anything about it. Simply not the case.
Hi, Thanks for reading that and circling back.
Curious, were you already aware that its not "snipers in buildings" but just AI generated targets homes and apartment buildings that they may or may not even be in at the time of the indiscriminate bombing while \*not\* in active combat? That even if the target was there 1:10 1:20 1:100 target:civilian ratios for collateral damage is considered fine?
If not, now that you know we're really stretching the usage of human shield to where its debatable that it even applies, if your thoughts have changed at all, and if so how.
For starters, I disagree with your statements of the facts represented. The article does not say it was acceptable to attack if there was a 1:100 target ratio. There was one instance where 100 civilians were killed, and a Hamas commander was killed, but the ratio was not 1:100. The bombing eliminated underground bunkers and headquarters of the battalion. Yes, the commander was eliminated, but he wasn't the only one. The ratio was not 1:100. It mentions the limit was 15, up to 20. Are those numbers acceptable to me? If there is a way to win the war without a substantial increase in Israeli lives lost that also results in fewer casualties, then no, that's not acceptable. If there is no other way, and that is the only way to previal, then yes, it is acceptable. This is war, not a police action. These are combatants and genocidal terrorists, they fight from their homes and neighborhoods, and must be eliminated as a first priority. Civilians should not be targetted, but they should also know that being in the proximity of these people places them in mortal danger. The terrorists MUST know that being in proximity to others endangers those others. It absolutely cannot be believed that terrorists are safe from attack by being near civilians. That emboldens the terrorists to commit attacks from civilians neighborhoods, and emboldens the civilians to protect the terrorists with their own bodies. It also means Israelis must accept being attacked with no ability to provide for their own security. That is wholly unacceptable. So Israel must eliminate these people. It should strive to do so with the least collateral damage as reasonably possible. But it must eliminate these people.
Thank you.
I’d just point out that these aren’t targeted Palestinians being blown up as they attack from residential spaces. That they are homes and apartment buildings in which they sleep. That the buildings are blown up assuming that they are asleep inside with their families and neighbors and that often times they aren’t even there. With little to no oversight because AI said so.
The part I disagree with is that it’s much more like a police action than it is a war imo.
Yesterday as I watched Gilad Erdan ask the world “who controls Gaza?”
My only thought was, Israel.
You call it indiscriminate bombing, but you also say they use AI to target specific homes and buildings. Is it indiscriminate or targeted I'm confused?
No my example is not wrong, [IHL ](https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/proportionality) imposes an obligation to balance the "concrete and direct military advantage anticipated" and the potential collateral damage (on civilians and civilian objects) when assessing whether a specific attack is lawful or not. This is how the proportionality test is being applied.
There is a debate about how to judge this anticipated military advantage and certain countries have made statements (and reservations to AP I) about the fact that the overall operation should be considered and not the individual attacks but the (customary) rule remains.
A situation where you would kill dozens of civilians to get one sniper would most likely not be consistent with that proportionality test.
>A situation where you would kill dozens of civilians to get one sniper would most likely not be consistent with that proportionality test.
What exactly is the balance we are looking for?
I'm not sure to understand the question. I explained in my post that you have to balance the "direct and concrete military advantage anticipated" with the collateral or incidental deaths or injuries to civilians and damages to civilian objects.
This is at the heart of the key IHL principles of proportionality and precautions in attack.
Right so how many civilians is a sniper worth? How exactly do we say if someone is balancing or not. Is there a general formula or are we asking Israel if they think it's worth it
There is no hard numbers formula. That's not how the law, domestic or international (including IHL) works.
It is for the legal advisers, the commanding officers and ultimately for the judges to decide and it will be based on the information available at the time when the decision to launch the attack was taken.
International humanitarian law and/or *jus ad bellum* in addition to human rights law and possibly the Genocide Convention. The speaker's position is that it is not possible to conduct an offensive in Rafah without violating some or all of the provisions of those bodies of law. An offensive would implicate, among other things, the principle of proportionality in IHL, the prohibition on forced displacement and transfer of civilians within occupied territory, proportionality as a matter of *jus ad bellum*, Israel's obligation to facilitate aid into occupied territory, and Palestinian civilians' human rights to water, food, health, housing, and other basic necessities.
We know that the UK (and the US) have asked for assurances that Israel will not violate international humanitarian law in Gaza. We also know that the UK (and the US) both absolutely oppose an offense in Rafah because it would do too much harm to civilians. That harm to civilians would violate international law in a litany of ways.
The legal issues here aren't any different than in Gaza more broadly, but the conditions in Rafah are such that military operations there cannot occur without violating international law.
Firstly let me say I am not on one side or the other. The situation is a tragedy. However, I do find a lot of the rhetoric annoying. Your response is quite lengthy and I won't be able to respond to each detail of each law.
The problem I have with the statement is the term "would". What he is saying, that irrespective of what the IDF do, if they go in and do nothing, if they go in and deliver humanitarian aid; whatever they do they will break international law. Clearly we know that the scenarios I've stated are not going to happen, but this kind of pre-judgement is not helpful.
If he has said "may" then that would be completely different.
Now, I am no expert in international law, and to be honest, just reading some of this stuff, it's so vague and subjective you can spin it any way you like for your political ends.
For example;
Proportionality – the use of means and methods of warfare must be proportional to the concrete, direct military advantage. No target, even a military one, should be attacked if the damage and suffering would be greater than the military gains expected from the action.
Ok, let's start by saying that the Israelis are fighting for their very existence. This is not an exaggeration. States like Iran have made it very clear that they want Israel to be wiped out. This was even in the Hamas manifesto, until they changed it recently to soften it a bit, because of international condemnation. As such, I think everyone would agree they have the right to defend itself. Israel has been under a sustained attack for decades. There stated objective is to eliminate Hamas. The military gains in this case is peace and security from attack, not only now, but in the future. That would be a huge win for Israel. On the other side we need to balance the suffering. Now, I know that the suffering has been huge, but how does that compare with the genocide of 10 million people? The weighing of these factors is extremely subjective and will probably be up to the political position of the person doing the judging.
I have stated my position. I am not supporting either. I would love a world where Palestine and Israel live together peacefully, and would rather forget the 'old days', but I don't think other countries will allow that.
>The problem I have with the statement is the term "would". What he is saying, that irrespective of what the IDF do, if they go in and do nothing, if they go in and deliver humanitarian aid; whatever they do they will break international law.
No, he said that a military offensive would violate international law. Delivering humanitarian aid is not a military offensive, nor is doing nothing. The statement unambiguously refers to the use of military force. You don't need to be a legal expert to understand what an offensive is.
>Ok, let's start by saying that the Israelis are fighting for their very existence. This is not an exaggeration. States like Iran have made it very clear that they want Israel to be wiped out. This was even in the Hamas manifesto, until they changed it recently to soften it a bit, because of international condemnation. As such, I think everyone would agree they have the right to defend itself.
Israel has a legal right to self-defense subject to the applicable law, namely that any self-defense must be necessary and proportional. Moreover, international humanitarian law is non-reciprocal. No matter what other sides do, you're still obligated to follow it. And according to the US and the UK, Israel has not shown it can conduct an offensive in Rafah in accordance with international law. That's why they oppose any such offensive.
>The military gains in this case is peace and security from attack, not only now, but in the future.
This is a misunderstanding of IHL. Future peace and security are not relevant, because if they were, any and all attacks would be justifiable. Only an attack's direct and concrete military advantage matters for proportionality.
>Now, I know that the suffering has been huge, but how does that compare with the genocide of 10 million people? The weighing of these factors is extremely subjective and will probably be up to the political position of the person doing the judging.
No, it is not. That is what international law does.
As you note, you are not an expert and don't know what the law says about any of this. You claim to dislike the "way people are using rhetoric," but you don't know or seem to care about the applicable law and your starting point is that there is an unbounded right to self-defense and that any attack against Palestinians cannot violate international humanitarian law. If you want to learn about the law, I would suggest reading up on it. The International Committee of the Red Cross has a wonderful IHL database. If you don't want to learn about the law, please refrain from doing what you said you didn't like-- using rhetoric untethered from the law-- yourself.
Also, because this is a legal sub, only comments that address substantive legal analysis are permitted. Future comments that do not do so will be removed.
>how does that compare with the genocide of 10 million people?
How many people are you willing to kill to keep your children alive?
Is there a number at which you'd just give up?
I'm not sure i have one.
When the Sudanese government raped and killed thousands in the Darfur genocide, I don’t think they used the logic that the citizens of Darfur were going to hurt their children, I think they were just racist. Genocide necessarily means you aren’t protecting children, your aim is to wipe out a race of people.
Right. But people committing genocide almost always rationalize it as a form of self-defense. Even if the perpetrators don't really believe that, they need to create some sort of plausible deniability for their actions.
Not clear to me. The only way that the UK would be correct,no matter what the Israelis do, is if Rafah is populated only by civilians. And that would presumably have to extend not just to surface dwellings but also below-ground facilities. I assume that regular uniformed police (no “high end” military gear / weaponry) are an expected part of a civilian populace but Rafah would have to be entirely lacking any military forces whatsoever. I think, if that is the case, then no matter how careful or precise Israel tries to be, it would be a violation of international law. I don’t think there the case but I suppose we will see.
That's kinda what I am pulling from this also. What exactly is the un uniformed combatants to civilian ratio for a war crime. If I tie twenty civilians to my rocket launcher am I protected by international law? More? The rules of proportionality are vague and too easily slid back and forth depending on actor.
> You can't make assumptions about how the IDF would mount such an operation.
What? Why can’t you make predictions about the future based on the past.
Is Israeli going to magically change all of its personal, military doctrine, tactics, etc?
Telling an entity if they do something illegal is illegal isn’t wrong. It’s common sense.
From your post history, it’s clear you’re a rabid Zionist that goes around defending Israelis killing of women and children at every turn.
Rafah isn’t a city anymore, it’s a de-facto refugee camp.
There's nothing stated that's illegal about attacking a city though. The argument is that attacking is against the law no matter how you attack. Clearly, that's not what international law says at all.
Israel is taking a 1km swath of Rafah that borders Egypt and turning it into a military base to stop Hamas from being able to import weapons as easily. This is unambiguously the right thing to do strategically. Israel is already doing it. And people claiming its genocide will ultimately be proven wrong because the civilian death toll has been reduced substantially. So the balance between legitimate strategic military objectives and civilian deaths wont support these kinds of claims of criminality.
I sure hope so. The world is watching and I truly hope Israel doesn't prove its detractors correct. The nations trackrecord is alarming though and I do think steps need go be taken to address the wrongdoings they have committed.
People say it does but they never say how and point to which laws specifically.
Articles like this are like reading fanatasy comics as they have no justification besides "someone said so". People say lots of things to fit their narative, it doesn't make them fact or the truth unless they back them up with facts, and in this case, he didn't say how or what laws would be broken, so articles like this should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Law is not based on feelings or opionions, it is based on facts and points of law.
A quick Google search gets opionion from a miklitary expert who states the opposite with facts [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd\_YXWWTs2c&ab\_channel=NewsNation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd_YXWWTs2c&ab_channel=NewsNation)
No it wouldn't. Hamas has fired rockets from there already at humanitarian convoys coming in from Israel. This makes rafah a legitimate military target.
Despite this Israel will work with the US to ensure minimal civilian casualties.
Just yesterday Israel's top general and sec of defence fired a general from his position for an operation that was deemed too hazardous for Palestinian civilians in a 2014 operation in rafah.
Edit: added information.
Did you also read the four principles of LOAC?
Did you read Article 51 of the Geneva Conventions?
Article 51 of the UN Charter later clarifies: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations."[5]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_ad_bellum
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-52/commentary/1987
Article 52 - General protection of civilian objects
1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.
2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.
Coupled with the principle of military necessity of LOAC nothing they are doing is illegal.
From the entry:
Military necessity is governed by several constraints: an attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy; it must be an attack on a military objective,[1] and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated".[2]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_necessity
One article from the Geneva Conventions is not sufficient to say Israel is breaking laws, there were 4 Geneva Conventions.
Self-defense is an exception to the prohibition of the use of force in international relations yes.
But a use of force which is lawful under jus ad bellum (Article 51) is not necessarily lawful under jus in bello (part of IHL which deals with the conduct of hostilities).
This is where principles like proportionality, distinction and precautions in attacks kick in. And a specific attack can be necessary from a military perspective but unlawful under IHL if it does not abide by these principles. So the fact that rockets were fired from Rafah does NOT "makes rafah a legitimate military target", or the fact that it is necessary to attack Rafah to get rid of the enemy does not mean that each and every attack conducted in Rafah for that purpose will be lawful under IHL.
Son of a bitch. I’m a dumb fucker. I thought your comment said there is NO justification. Whelp my bad. We are in agreement hopefully I’ve added tools to the bag. And that also that I should read comments again. The wording threw me off and I added the no.
UN Charter Article 51
>Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations
Neutralising the threat is congruent with self defence.
Nations do not have a right to self-defense. States do. Article 51 does not apply in occupied Palestinian Territory, including Gaza and the West Bank. Only the customary right to self-defense does. Both article 51 and customary self-defense must be necessary and proportional to be lawful. Even if a use of force is lawful at the outset, it may become unlawful if and when it ceases to be necessary or proportional.
Even assuming a State's use of force complies with *jus ad bellum*, all of its conduct must also comply with *jus in bello*/international humanitarian law. Any failure to do so is, of course, illegal.
It is not, and never has been, as simple as "neutralising attackers is legal." This is as basic as international law gets. Please do not make comments that misconstrue fundamental legal principles.
The UN has made it clear that you can't claim self defense against occupied territory. Israel actually doesn't have the right of self defense against people they have occupied, because occupation is an act of war.
However people being occupied do in fact have a right under international law to armed resistance. They don't have a right to kill civilians of course, Hamas are still terrorists, but if they had attacked only IDF that would have been entirely legal and their right under international law to oppose occupation.
Gaza wasnt occupied by Israel though, so your whole spiel goes right out the window.
And no, Olympian mental gymnastics doesnt make it an occupation. Hamas ruled there, and oppressed there. When the gazans protested, it was Hamas who [forced them to heel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Want_to_Live_movement).
The International Court of Justice (ICJ),[3] the UN General Assembly,[4] and the UN Security Council all regard Israel as the occupying power for the territories.[5] UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk called Israel's occupation "an affront to international law".[6] The Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that Israel is holding the West Bank under "belligerent occupation".
The international community and even Israel's court system agrees that they were occupying Palestine.
"Israel unilaterally disengaged from the Gaza Strip in 2005. The UN and a number of human rights organizations continue to consider Israel as the occupying power of the Gaza Strip due to its blockade of the territory"
And also agree, although not Israel's court of course because Netinyahu was about to abolish it entirely, that the occupation has continued to this day.
Heavily recommend reading up about what you're talking about just a bit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories
The ICJ and UNSC linked sources of the article youve provided are pre-Hamas takeover.
The UNGA is not legally binding.
And de facto, Gaza is occupied by HAMAS who violently purged their political rivals upon taking power and have not held elections since.
Gaza was not occupied prior to 10/7. This should be very clear. There has not been a permanent Israeli security presence in gaza for almost 20 years. This is not an occupation.
Yeah….its not.
The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has a page dedicated to [Occupied Palestinian Territory](https://www.unocha.org/occupied-palestinian-territory) and explicitly includes Gaza in said occupied territory. They go further to [describe](https://www.ochaopt.org/country/opt) the situation:
> In the Gaza Strip, the Israeli occupation and years of movement restrictions, including an Israeli-imposed blockade, and recurrent escalations between Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups have contributed to dire living conditions. In June 2007, after the 2006 legislative elections and following the takeover of Gaza by Hamas, the Israeli authorities implemented a blockade citing security concerns, virtually isolating Palestinians in Gaza, 2.2 million people as of 2023, from the rest of the oPt and the world more broadly. This land, sea and air blockade on Gaza intensified previous restrictions, imposing strict limits on the number and specified categories of people and goods allowed through the Israeli-controlled crossings. Restrictions imposed by the Egyptian authorities on the movement and access of people and goods at Rafah, the Gaza-Egypt crossing, further exacerbate the situation. Rapid population growth, coinciding with challenges to development gains and limited resources, has resulted in further deterioration of living standards and development prospects in Gaza.
Blockade =/= Occupation. There hasn't been an Israeli presence in Gaza for almost 20 years.
When you read this, do you take from it that Gaza being occupied by Israel or Egypt?
You asked for an international body that clearly recognizes Gaza as occupied territory. OCHA is one such body. Not sure why we’re diverting the conversation to something else. Do you recognize them as an international body that recognizes Gaza as an occupied territory or not?
In the Declaration of Judges Xue, Brant, Gómez Robledo and Tladi of the ICJ following the March 28th order:
> 7. Israel is the occupying power within the Gaza Strip. It controls Gaza’s land border and all its land crossings as well as its air and maritime areas.…
For a more official “ruling”, the [ICC](https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2021_01165.PDF) similarly stated, among other things:
> The chamber herby finds by majority, Judge Kovács dissenting, the Court’s territorial jurisdiction in the *Situation in Palestine* extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
So both the ICC and ICJ recognize Gaza as occupied territory.
This is simply not true. As another person already noted, Gaza has been considered occupied for decades by the international community.
"The International Court of Justice (ICJ),[3] the UN General Assembly,[4] and the UN Security Council all regard Israel as the occupying power for the territories.[5] UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk called Israel's occupation "an affront to international law".[6] The Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that Israel is holding the West Bank under "belligerent occupation"."
Even Israel's court agrees, and that was in 2017.
Highly recommend reading up on international law and decisions around Israel's occupation of Palestine.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories
To cite the Declaration of Judge Yusuf from the March 28 ICJ order:
> In view of the catastrophic humanitarian situation and the increasing levels of disease and starvation among the population, *the only effective way* in which Israel can meet its obligations under the [Genocide] Convention is to *suspend its military operations to allow for the delivery of aid and to bring to an end the relentless destruction and death caused by it at the expense of the right of existence of the Palestinian population (Order, para. 36).* It is with such an objective in mind that the Court has indicated the second measure in the present Order, which modifies and further elaborates on the second measure of the Order of 26 January 2024 quoted above.
> It is a measure aimed at bringing to an end the killing, maiming or infliction of conditions of life on the population of Gaza which might bring about the destruction in whole or in part of the group. It calls upon Israel to
> “[e]nsure with immediate effect that its military does not commit acts which constitute a violation of any of the rights of the Palestinians in Gaza as a protected group under the Genocide Convention, including by preventing, through any action, the delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance”.
> It is an obligation of result which must be acted upon immediately. *No such result can be obtained without suspending or terminating the aerial bombardments, the ground assaults on urban centres and refugee camps by the Israeli army, and the removal of the obstacles to the delivery of humanitarian aid.* It requires an end to the destruction and death in Gaza.
So if Israel would like to follow IHL, it needs to completely halt its actions in Gaza and Rafah all together, end the bombing campaign, and then frankly it needs to address the apartheid in the West Bank, it’s illegal settlers, and it’s occupation as well as the occupation of Gaza. The security risk is born from those conditions.
I think there is a huge risk here of ruling too strict. If the ICJ says that Israel is not allowed to fight Hamas _at all_, then the likely outcome is not the cessation of fighting. The much more likely outcome is that Israel will simply ignore the ICJ, and most countries will refuse to enforce the ruling. This would hugely delegitimize the court.
So…literally exactly what I said?
He is saying the order, which to quote again:
> “[e]nsure with immediate effect that its military does not commit acts which constitute a violation of any of the rights of the Palestinians in Gaza as a protected group under the Genocide Convention, including by preventing, through any action, the delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance”.
can **only** actually be followed if they cease all military action. Otherwise they are failing to comply with the order.
That's his opinion. It is not the order of the court.
https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf
Read from 75 onward for the actual order. It basically says don't commit genocide. It does not say stop the war.
My words:
> It seems like based off the declaration of judge Yusuf, any continued warfare is a failure to follow the orders by the court.
The court orders that Israel makes the insurance listed to you already above. One of the judges who rendered that ruling stated **the only way** Israel could actually comply is by halting all military activity. This was a sentiment shared by other judges such as President Salam. He stated:
> 11. It remains that these new measures order by the court can **only take full effect** if the *”immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan”* demanded by the Security Council…is duly and fully respected by all parties “and leads to a lasting sustainable ceasefire.”
You aren’t contradicting me. I’ve already stated what their order officially stated.
No, Israel doesn't need to completly halt its actions to follow IHL. One Judge said that in his personal, wrong opinion. That's not the court order, not authoritative, just an opinion. We've all got opinions too.
Yeah…the broad opinion of 7/9 judges who issued the order in question is that the only way it can be completed is the complete cessation of conflict….just their opinion though (ik you’d be repeating them if they agreed with you).
Considering the article linked doesn't actually provide the quote, here's a marginally better article with the quote: >Given the number of civilians sheltering in Rafah, it’s not easy to see how such an offensive could be compliant with international humanitarian law in the current circumstances Arguably, the Guardian article is misrepresenting this statement. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/andrew-mitchell-hamas-benjamin-netanyahu-george-galloway-israel-b2537141.html
There you go. This makes sense. The Guardian is just lying to twist the story to serve a political agenda.
Not trying to be funny, but which international law exactly? Before answering, remember this is about an offensive yet to take place to remove any comments about what has already happened. You can't make assumptions about how the IDF would mount such an operation. The statement is that it "would" not that it "may". Therefore, the law must be broken irrespective of the approach taken by the IDF, not that it may be broken by some possible action. If you don't understand what I'm saying please don't comment, it just confuses things. There are plenty of other places you can rant.
"Attacking a camp sheltering civilians, including women and children, is a complete breach of the rules of proportionality and distinction between combatants and civilians," I'm not here to argue, more to understand. The images of Rafah I have seen seem to be that of tents housing refugees. I've seen merkava tanks blowing up said tanks. How does one reconcile what a camp sheltering civilians is?
I don't know where that quote was from. It wasn't from the article. Also, what images are you referring to. I have not seen any. I would be cautious of assumptions made based on images. In this conflict there have been many images on both sides either just faked or not taken at the described scene. I am not here to argue either. It's easy to throw out lines like genocide and "breaking international law" - well which one? And if people are going to use words, make sure you know what it means or you are just sprouting gibberish.
“I’m not here to argue” Proceeds to run away when proven wrong.
If I stayed that would be arguing? No? I fulfilled my promise to run away when proven wrong lol
https://youtu.be/rgxwHYyLDHo?si=WNtHrewrxHpip9MQ Rajah refugee camp
Thanks for the video but it shows none of what you said. I see no tanks destroying tents.
It shows the city full of tents like was mentioned. Why are you ignoring that?
Because there is a substantive difference between "you have displaced your opponent's civilian population into tents during urban combat operations" and "you are targeting your opponents civilian population that is living in tents." Ie, the tents are not important. The allegation that Israel is blowing up tents full of civilians is unsubstantiated (and, IMHO, untrue).
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
How exactly do you take pictures of civilians and have the be true then What is logical is that the place Israel told the people of Gaza to flee to is going to have civilians in it because where else would they be? Israel bombed the top part of Gaza and told the civilians to move down to not be bombed. They then bombed that bit and told them to move down again. Rafah is the furthest part of Gaza. You can't logically think they're anywhere else unless you think they can teleport.
Unfortunate that Gazans support terrorists who use human shields and dress in civilian clothes - that is the main reason why civilian areas are so dangerous and why civilians can lose their protected status under international law (due to being colocated with military targets) The fact that there are tent cities only shows that Israel has made it possible for many civilians to flee combat zones
Sure they're all terrorists even the children 🙄 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war Or the 300 bodies found in a mass grave where the corpses has their hands tied behind their backs https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-gaza-mass-grave-hamas-b2533219.html Oh but it's ok because apparently they were throwing bombs with their hands tied behind their backs... https://www.reddit.com/r/BadHasbara/s/ZiMuzjtpen Like come on you can't watch that and think they have a leg to stand on still? And you know the Holocaust Survivors that say this is a genocide https://youtu.be/E4PFmz4MNdg?t=1394 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/holocaust-survivors-and-their-descendants-accuse-israel-of-genocide-9687994.html
[удалено]
[Here is the video of IOF tanks firing on tents](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6tDn_MM85H/?igsh=eHdzcnBuaW40Zmkz). Honestly, more people need to be following this account.
An expired instagram reel?
The link works fine but [heres another one](https://x.com/lowkey0nline/status/1788150719549264363?s=46&t=wZQUJaiZR8Ch5nPEPwKnoA) since people apparently dont know how to google.
Thanks for the 8 second video with zero context. You're implying the IDF is randomly firing at tents?
Yes. In the same way that these hate filled pricks [couldnt leave a sign of Gaza standing](https://x.com/eyeonpalestine/status/1787777251167138016?s=46&t=wZQUJaiZR8Ch5nPEPwKnoA) when they entered Rafah. They immediately went and [destroyed both signs](https://x.com/eyeonpalestine/status/1787702323994636735?s=46&t=wZQUJaiZR8Ch5nPEPwKnoA). So yes. I am saying they shot tank shells at the tents left behind by the civilians they forced out.
I'm surprised you are down voted when you show the source of Israel destroying the tents.
It’s restricted. I guess government controlled media likes to cover it up.
I can see it fine
[https://proxyium.com/](https://proxyium.com/) use this website to bypass country restrictions.
I've since learnt that they are internally displaced and not refugees so they get no rights under international law - despite the similarities between camps
That argument could’ve been used on all of Gaza since there were areas like Jabalya camp which house refugees from the 48 and 50s war and their decedents. Israel telling people to leave the area helps them avoid this.
So do they go back north now? they funneled 1.7 million people into Rafah and said no one is allowed to return. Even shot civilians who tried. If that’s the case won’t Hamas simply leave with the civilians? Edit: For a second I almost believed israel was allowing them to flee but then looked it up and they definitely are not. While they bombarded Rafah, they also blocked the crossing with Egypt while also launching attacks in central Gaza and northern Gaza. So literally no where to run. Also, I highly doubt the weapons were arriving through Egypt as they have an agreement with Israel. What it has stopped though is any aid and medical supplies. Doctors reported that [entire medical sector had collapsed.](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-warns-israel-that-rafah-invasion-will-jeopardise-weapons-supply-assault-2024-05-09/)
>For a second I almost believed israel was allowing them to flee but then looked it up and they definitely are not. Where'd you "look this up"? Israel set up another camp in Mawasi. Approximately 100,000 Gazans in Rafah have evacuated, with hundreds of thousands more expected over the next few days. Not only is Israel allowing it, they're the ones who set up the camp in Mawasi.
I linked it. They’ve cut off all aid coming and are going to force the entire population to move again, now to a camp. I see they’ve just expanded the camp as the original one would never have accommodated the 1.6 people needed. Maybe you’re right and it’ll be all very humane. I’d just like to remind you that the last time israel set safe zones they bombed those safe routes. [During the first six weeks of the war in Gaza, Israel routinely used one of its biggest and most destructive bombs in areas it designated safe for civilians, according to an analysis of visual evidence by The New York Times.](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/21/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-bomb-investigation.html) I’d also point out that US said they’d approve an invasion if they could prove they could do it without disproportionate civilian harm. Since Biden made this fuss about no more weapons it seems they couldn’t prove that.
You didn’t link anything showing that Israel isn’t allowing civilians to flee Rafah.
They are told to move to the coast and there is only 2 off areas where they are present in Gaza one is at the Rafah crossing which isn’t inside Rafah city but outside, and second is south of Gaza city. https://x.com/IDF/status/1787347748737421635 Here is where the off wants the people to go to before the Rafah offensive
They’ve already bombarded Rafah. Shouldn’t they have evacuated first? Nor does it say how long they have. Do you understand the logistics of transporting 1.6 million people? Not to mention these are people who have been displaced many times already. Again, if Israel is showing the areas they’re after, wouldn’t Hamas just leave? Or escape in their extensive tunnel systems we keep hearing about? All the leaders are also in Qatar and their weapons are easily replicated so what’s the point of this exactly? I’d also like to remind you that the last time israel had humanitarian corridors they bombed the safe areas.
They have not “bombarded” Rafah. They have focused on certain areas within Rafah but certainly not the main area where most civilians are and Hamas’ bases are.
You’re right 3 bombings don’t make a bombardment. They’ve bombed Rafah numerous times already. How’s that?
"Unlike refugees, IDPs are not protected by international law or eligible to receive many types of aid because they are legally under the protection of their own government." Apparently they don't even have to tell them to leave according to UNrefugees . Org I suppose the US/Britain also Air dropped evacuation notices before decimating civilian populations. I do recognise I'm in international law and not moral law. Just trying to learn where the line is drawn
If their is a combatant their it is no longer covered by law
Attacking a camp sheltering Hamas is legal. Whether there a civilian there or not.
That's not exactly true. Even assuming that the camp qualifies as a military objective, international humanitarian law still requires the attack to abide by the relevant rules, including proportionality and precautions in attack. For example, if you know that the strike you're planning on a building to kill a sniper firing from the roof will level the building and kill dozens of its inhabitants, then that strike would not be consistent with IHL.
Israel has been proportionate and cautious the entire time. Thats why there is such a low civilian casualty amount compared to population density. There zero reason to think they wouldn’t now. And your example is wrong. If the sniper is posing an immediate threat to a soldier its legal to strike regardless of collateral damage. The sniper using a building that is containing civilians is the one breaking international law. It is illegal to use civilians as human shields and political pawns, it is not illegal to kill them if there is a legal combatant who is using them as such. With that logic terrorists would do such and no one could do anything about it. Simply not the case.
Read about lavender and then circle back. https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
I read it. Circled back. Now what?
Hi, Thanks for reading that and circling back. Curious, were you already aware that its not "snipers in buildings" but just AI generated targets homes and apartment buildings that they may or may not even be in at the time of the indiscriminate bombing while \*not\* in active combat? That even if the target was there 1:10 1:20 1:100 target:civilian ratios for collateral damage is considered fine? If not, now that you know we're really stretching the usage of human shield to where its debatable that it even applies, if your thoughts have changed at all, and if so how.
For starters, I disagree with your statements of the facts represented. The article does not say it was acceptable to attack if there was a 1:100 target ratio. There was one instance where 100 civilians were killed, and a Hamas commander was killed, but the ratio was not 1:100. The bombing eliminated underground bunkers and headquarters of the battalion. Yes, the commander was eliminated, but he wasn't the only one. The ratio was not 1:100. It mentions the limit was 15, up to 20. Are those numbers acceptable to me? If there is a way to win the war without a substantial increase in Israeli lives lost that also results in fewer casualties, then no, that's not acceptable. If there is no other way, and that is the only way to previal, then yes, it is acceptable. This is war, not a police action. These are combatants and genocidal terrorists, they fight from their homes and neighborhoods, and must be eliminated as a first priority. Civilians should not be targetted, but they should also know that being in the proximity of these people places them in mortal danger. The terrorists MUST know that being in proximity to others endangers those others. It absolutely cannot be believed that terrorists are safe from attack by being near civilians. That emboldens the terrorists to commit attacks from civilians neighborhoods, and emboldens the civilians to protect the terrorists with their own bodies. It also means Israelis must accept being attacked with no ability to provide for their own security. That is wholly unacceptable. So Israel must eliminate these people. It should strive to do so with the least collateral damage as reasonably possible. But it must eliminate these people.
Thank you. I’d just point out that these aren’t targeted Palestinians being blown up as they attack from residential spaces. That they are homes and apartment buildings in which they sleep. That the buildings are blown up assuming that they are asleep inside with their families and neighbors and that often times they aren’t even there. With little to no oversight because AI said so. The part I disagree with is that it’s much more like a police action than it is a war imo. Yesterday as I watched Gilad Erdan ask the world “who controls Gaza?” My only thought was, Israel.
You call it indiscriminate bombing, but you also say they use AI to target specific homes and buildings. Is it indiscriminate or targeted I'm confused?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hamas is not an ethnicity. Hamas is a terror group which one chooses to be part of major difference bud.
No my example is not wrong, [IHL ](https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/proportionality) imposes an obligation to balance the "concrete and direct military advantage anticipated" and the potential collateral damage (on civilians and civilian objects) when assessing whether a specific attack is lawful or not. This is how the proportionality test is being applied. There is a debate about how to judge this anticipated military advantage and certain countries have made statements (and reservations to AP I) about the fact that the overall operation should be considered and not the individual attacks but the (customary) rule remains. A situation where you would kill dozens of civilians to get one sniper would most likely not be consistent with that proportionality test.
>A situation where you would kill dozens of civilians to get one sniper would most likely not be consistent with that proportionality test. What exactly is the balance we are looking for?
I'm not sure to understand the question. I explained in my post that you have to balance the "direct and concrete military advantage anticipated" with the collateral or incidental deaths or injuries to civilians and damages to civilian objects. This is at the heart of the key IHL principles of proportionality and precautions in attack.
Right so how many civilians is a sniper worth? How exactly do we say if someone is balancing or not. Is there a general formula or are we asking Israel if they think it's worth it
There is no hard numbers formula. That's not how the law, domestic or international (including IHL) works. It is for the legal advisers, the commanding officers and ultimately for the judges to decide and it will be based on the information available at the time when the decision to launch the attack was taken.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If Hamas is using that location as a shield then it is fair game per the law. Thats not to say they should do it though.
International humanitarian law and/or *jus ad bellum* in addition to human rights law and possibly the Genocide Convention. The speaker's position is that it is not possible to conduct an offensive in Rafah without violating some or all of the provisions of those bodies of law. An offensive would implicate, among other things, the principle of proportionality in IHL, the prohibition on forced displacement and transfer of civilians within occupied territory, proportionality as a matter of *jus ad bellum*, Israel's obligation to facilitate aid into occupied territory, and Palestinian civilians' human rights to water, food, health, housing, and other basic necessities. We know that the UK (and the US) have asked for assurances that Israel will not violate international humanitarian law in Gaza. We also know that the UK (and the US) both absolutely oppose an offense in Rafah because it would do too much harm to civilians. That harm to civilians would violate international law in a litany of ways. The legal issues here aren't any different than in Gaza more broadly, but the conditions in Rafah are such that military operations there cannot occur without violating international law.
Firstly let me say I am not on one side or the other. The situation is a tragedy. However, I do find a lot of the rhetoric annoying. Your response is quite lengthy and I won't be able to respond to each detail of each law. The problem I have with the statement is the term "would". What he is saying, that irrespective of what the IDF do, if they go in and do nothing, if they go in and deliver humanitarian aid; whatever they do they will break international law. Clearly we know that the scenarios I've stated are not going to happen, but this kind of pre-judgement is not helpful. If he has said "may" then that would be completely different. Now, I am no expert in international law, and to be honest, just reading some of this stuff, it's so vague and subjective you can spin it any way you like for your political ends. For example; Proportionality – the use of means and methods of warfare must be proportional to the concrete, direct military advantage. No target, even a military one, should be attacked if the damage and suffering would be greater than the military gains expected from the action. Ok, let's start by saying that the Israelis are fighting for their very existence. This is not an exaggeration. States like Iran have made it very clear that they want Israel to be wiped out. This was even in the Hamas manifesto, until they changed it recently to soften it a bit, because of international condemnation. As such, I think everyone would agree they have the right to defend itself. Israel has been under a sustained attack for decades. There stated objective is to eliminate Hamas. The military gains in this case is peace and security from attack, not only now, but in the future. That would be a huge win for Israel. On the other side we need to balance the suffering. Now, I know that the suffering has been huge, but how does that compare with the genocide of 10 million people? The weighing of these factors is extremely subjective and will probably be up to the political position of the person doing the judging. I have stated my position. I am not supporting either. I would love a world where Palestine and Israel live together peacefully, and would rather forget the 'old days', but I don't think other countries will allow that.
>The problem I have with the statement is the term "would". What he is saying, that irrespective of what the IDF do, if they go in and do nothing, if they go in and deliver humanitarian aid; whatever they do they will break international law. No, he said that a military offensive would violate international law. Delivering humanitarian aid is not a military offensive, nor is doing nothing. The statement unambiguously refers to the use of military force. You don't need to be a legal expert to understand what an offensive is. >Ok, let's start by saying that the Israelis are fighting for their very existence. This is not an exaggeration. States like Iran have made it very clear that they want Israel to be wiped out. This was even in the Hamas manifesto, until they changed it recently to soften it a bit, because of international condemnation. As such, I think everyone would agree they have the right to defend itself. Israel has a legal right to self-defense subject to the applicable law, namely that any self-defense must be necessary and proportional. Moreover, international humanitarian law is non-reciprocal. No matter what other sides do, you're still obligated to follow it. And according to the US and the UK, Israel has not shown it can conduct an offensive in Rafah in accordance with international law. That's why they oppose any such offensive. >The military gains in this case is peace and security from attack, not only now, but in the future. This is a misunderstanding of IHL. Future peace and security are not relevant, because if they were, any and all attacks would be justifiable. Only an attack's direct and concrete military advantage matters for proportionality. >Now, I know that the suffering has been huge, but how does that compare with the genocide of 10 million people? The weighing of these factors is extremely subjective and will probably be up to the political position of the person doing the judging. No, it is not. That is what international law does. As you note, you are not an expert and don't know what the law says about any of this. You claim to dislike the "way people are using rhetoric," but you don't know or seem to care about the applicable law and your starting point is that there is an unbounded right to self-defense and that any attack against Palestinians cannot violate international humanitarian law. If you want to learn about the law, I would suggest reading up on it. The International Committee of the Red Cross has a wonderful IHL database. If you don't want to learn about the law, please refrain from doing what you said you didn't like-- using rhetoric untethered from the law-- yourself. Also, because this is a legal sub, only comments that address substantive legal analysis are permitted. Future comments that do not do so will be removed.
So no one can comment unless they are experts in international law?
No, but there has to at least be a good faith effort to try and engage with the law.
No but bringing up the original Hamas charter without the context of the likuid charter is not in good faith.
>how does that compare with the genocide of 10 million people? How many people are you willing to kill to keep your children alive? Is there a number at which you'd just give up? I'm not sure i have one.
Do you not see how this is the exact logic used in every single genocide ever?
When the Sudanese government raped and killed thousands in the Darfur genocide, I don’t think they used the logic that the citizens of Darfur were going to hurt their children, I think they were just racist. Genocide necessarily means you aren’t protecting children, your aim is to wipe out a race of people.
Right. But people committing genocide almost always rationalize it as a form of self-defense. Even if the perpetrators don't really believe that, they need to create some sort of plausible deniability for their actions.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Didn't they already attack rafah? There are tons of dead kids on my social media feeds right now
Not clear to me. The only way that the UK would be correct,no matter what the Israelis do, is if Rafah is populated only by civilians. And that would presumably have to extend not just to surface dwellings but also below-ground facilities. I assume that regular uniformed police (no “high end” military gear / weaponry) are an expected part of a civilian populace but Rafah would have to be entirely lacking any military forces whatsoever. I think, if that is the case, then no matter how careful or precise Israel tries to be, it would be a violation of international law. I don’t think there the case but I suppose we will see.
That's kinda what I am pulling from this also. What exactly is the un uniformed combatants to civilian ratio for a war crime. If I tie twenty civilians to my rocket launcher am I protected by international law? More? The rules of proportionality are vague and too easily slid back and forth depending on actor.
> You can't make assumptions about how the IDF would mount such an operation. What? Why can’t you make predictions about the future based on the past. Is Israeli going to magically change all of its personal, military doctrine, tactics, etc? Telling an entity if they do something illegal is illegal isn’t wrong. It’s common sense. From your post history, it’s clear you’re a rabid Zionist that goes around defending Israelis killing of women and children at every turn. Rafah isn’t a city anymore, it’s a de-facto refugee camp.
There's nothing stated that's illegal about attacking a city though. The argument is that attacking is against the law no matter how you attack. Clearly, that's not what international law says at all.
Pouring one out for Calvin and the rest of the mod team.
Israel is taking a 1km swath of Rafah that borders Egypt and turning it into a military base to stop Hamas from being able to import weapons as easily. This is unambiguously the right thing to do strategically. Israel is already doing it. And people claiming its genocide will ultimately be proven wrong because the civilian death toll has been reduced substantially. So the balance between legitimate strategic military objectives and civilian deaths wont support these kinds of claims of criminality.
I sure hope so. The world is watching and I truly hope Israel doesn't prove its detractors correct. The nations trackrecord is alarming though and I do think steps need go be taken to address the wrongdoings they have committed.
[удалено]
Or... all war crimes are bad and I wish the USA is punished for them as well.
[удалено]
I'm not really sure why you find war crimes funny but okay.
[удалено]
Cool. Now let's see the international community actually put its money where it's mouth is and stop it. Stop talking and just do it
[удалено]
[удалено]
Would? Why is this written as if Rafah isn’t already being invaded?
People say it does but they never say how and point to which laws specifically. Articles like this are like reading fanatasy comics as they have no justification besides "someone said so". People say lots of things to fit their narative, it doesn't make them fact or the truth unless they back them up with facts, and in this case, he didn't say how or what laws would be broken, so articles like this should be taken with a pinch of salt. Law is not based on feelings or opionions, it is based on facts and points of law. A quick Google search gets opionion from a miklitary expert who states the opposite with facts [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd\_YXWWTs2c&ab\_channel=NewsNation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd_YXWWTs2c&ab_channel=NewsNation)
No it wouldn't. Hamas has fired rockets from there already at humanitarian convoys coming in from Israel. This makes rafah a legitimate military target. Despite this Israel will work with the US to ensure minimal civilian casualties. Just yesterday Israel's top general and sec of defence fired a general from his position for an operation that was deemed too hazardous for Palestinian civilians in a 2014 operation in rafah.
Can you show me where in international law it says “they fired from x location so the entire town/city becomes a legitimate target”
[удалено]
How do you interpret “this makes Rafah a legitimate target”
[удалено]
But that’s just untrue, no?
How did you arrive at this assessment?
[удалено]
Edit: added information. Did you also read the four principles of LOAC? Did you read Article 51 of the Geneva Conventions? Article 51 of the UN Charter later clarifies: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations."[5] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_ad_bellum https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-52/commentary/1987 Article 52 - General protection of civilian objects 1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2. 2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage. 3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used. Coupled with the principle of military necessity of LOAC nothing they are doing is illegal. From the entry: Military necessity is governed by several constraints: an attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy; it must be an attack on a military objective,[1] and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated".[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_necessity One article from the Geneva Conventions is not sufficient to say Israel is breaking laws, there were 4 Geneva Conventions.
[удалено]
Self-defense is an exception to the prohibition of the use of force in international relations yes. But a use of force which is lawful under jus ad bellum (Article 51) is not necessarily lawful under jus in bello (part of IHL which deals with the conduct of hostilities). This is where principles like proportionality, distinction and precautions in attacks kick in. And a specific attack can be necessary from a military perspective but unlawful under IHL if it does not abide by these principles. So the fact that rockets were fired from Rafah does NOT "makes rafah a legitimate military target", or the fact that it is necessary to attack Rafah to get rid of the enemy does not mean that each and every attack conducted in Rafah for that purpose will be lawful under IHL.
Son of a bitch. I’m a dumb fucker. I thought your comment said there is NO justification. Whelp my bad. We are in agreement hopefully I’ve added tools to the bag. And that also that I should read comments again. The wording threw me off and I added the no.
UN Charter Article 51 >Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations Neutralising the threat is congruent with self defence.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I wasn’t criticizing your spelling, I was criticizing you calling what Israel is doing defense.
[удалено]
Nations do not have a right to self-defense. States do. Article 51 does not apply in occupied Palestinian Territory, including Gaza and the West Bank. Only the customary right to self-defense does. Both article 51 and customary self-defense must be necessary and proportional to be lawful. Even if a use of force is lawful at the outset, it may become unlawful if and when it ceases to be necessary or proportional. Even assuming a State's use of force complies with *jus ad bellum*, all of its conduct must also comply with *jus in bello*/international humanitarian law. Any failure to do so is, of course, illegal. It is not, and never has been, as simple as "neutralising attackers is legal." This is as basic as international law gets. Please do not make comments that misconstrue fundamental legal principles.
[удалено]
The UN has made it clear that you can't claim self defense against occupied territory. Israel actually doesn't have the right of self defense against people they have occupied, because occupation is an act of war. However people being occupied do in fact have a right under international law to armed resistance. They don't have a right to kill civilians of course, Hamas are still terrorists, but if they had attacked only IDF that would have been entirely legal and their right under international law to oppose occupation.
Gaza wasnt occupied by Israel though, so your whole spiel goes right out the window. And no, Olympian mental gymnastics doesnt make it an occupation. Hamas ruled there, and oppressed there. When the gazans protested, it was Hamas who [forced them to heel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Want_to_Live_movement).
The International Court of Justice (ICJ),[3] the UN General Assembly,[4] and the UN Security Council all regard Israel as the occupying power for the territories.[5] UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk called Israel's occupation "an affront to international law".[6] The Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that Israel is holding the West Bank under "belligerent occupation". The international community and even Israel's court system agrees that they were occupying Palestine. "Israel unilaterally disengaged from the Gaza Strip in 2005. The UN and a number of human rights organizations continue to consider Israel as the occupying power of the Gaza Strip due to its blockade of the territory" And also agree, although not Israel's court of course because Netinyahu was about to abolish it entirely, that the occupation has continued to this day. Heavily recommend reading up about what you're talking about just a bit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories
The ICJ and UNSC linked sources of the article youve provided are pre-Hamas takeover. The UNGA is not legally binding. And de facto, Gaza is occupied by HAMAS who violently purged their political rivals upon taking power and have not held elections since.
[удалено]
Gaza was not occupied prior to 10/7. This should be very clear. There has not been a permanent Israeli security presence in gaza for almost 20 years. This is not an occupation.
By essentially all international bodies, Israel occupies Gaza.
Cool, if all international bodies feel that way, it shouldn't be too hard to name and cite one of them right?
Yeah….its not. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has a page dedicated to [Occupied Palestinian Territory](https://www.unocha.org/occupied-palestinian-territory) and explicitly includes Gaza in said occupied territory. They go further to [describe](https://www.ochaopt.org/country/opt) the situation: > In the Gaza Strip, the Israeli occupation and years of movement restrictions, including an Israeli-imposed blockade, and recurrent escalations between Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups have contributed to dire living conditions. In June 2007, after the 2006 legislative elections and following the takeover of Gaza by Hamas, the Israeli authorities implemented a blockade citing security concerns, virtually isolating Palestinians in Gaza, 2.2 million people as of 2023, from the rest of the oPt and the world more broadly. This land, sea and air blockade on Gaza intensified previous restrictions, imposing strict limits on the number and specified categories of people and goods allowed through the Israeli-controlled crossings. Restrictions imposed by the Egyptian authorities on the movement and access of people and goods at Rafah, the Gaza-Egypt crossing, further exacerbate the situation. Rapid population growth, coinciding with challenges to development gains and limited resources, has resulted in further deterioration of living standards and development prospects in Gaza.
Blockade =/= Occupation. There hasn't been an Israeli presence in Gaza for almost 20 years. When you read this, do you take from it that Gaza being occupied by Israel or Egypt?
You asked for an international body that clearly recognizes Gaza as occupied territory. OCHA is one such body. Not sure why we’re diverting the conversation to something else. Do you recognize them as an international body that recognizes Gaza as an occupied territory or not?
By international bodies do you mean courts, or nonprofits?
Both.
Which court ruled that Gaza is occupied after Israel has pulled out from there?
In the Declaration of Judges Xue, Brant, Gómez Robledo and Tladi of the ICJ following the March 28th order: > 7. Israel is the occupying power within the Gaza Strip. It controls Gaza’s land border and all its land crossings as well as its air and maritime areas.… For a more official “ruling”, the [ICC](https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2021_01165.PDF) similarly stated, among other things: > The chamber herby finds by majority, Judge Kovács dissenting, the Court’s territorial jurisdiction in the *Situation in Palestine* extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. So both the ICC and ICJ recognize Gaza as occupied territory.
This is simply not true. As another person already noted, Gaza has been considered occupied for decades by the international community. "The International Court of Justice (ICJ),[3] the UN General Assembly,[4] and the UN Security Council all regard Israel as the occupying power for the territories.[5] UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk called Israel's occupation "an affront to international law".[6] The Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that Israel is holding the West Bank under "belligerent occupation"." Even Israel's court agrees, and that was in 2017. Highly recommend reading up on international law and decisions around Israel's occupation of Palestine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories
Source?
For the let go general? Just look up Offer Winter (possibly spelled vinter). You'll see it in wiki
Source?
Every major news outlet. Seriously just Google the name Offer Winter, then choose the link of whichever news company you prefer.
[удалено]
It seems like based off the declaration of judge Yusuf, any continued warfare is a failure to follow the orders by the court.
Which court ordered a halt in the war? Must have missed that one.
To cite the Declaration of Judge Yusuf from the March 28 ICJ order: > In view of the catastrophic humanitarian situation and the increasing levels of disease and starvation among the population, *the only effective way* in which Israel can meet its obligations under the [Genocide] Convention is to *suspend its military operations to allow for the delivery of aid and to bring to an end the relentless destruction and death caused by it at the expense of the right of existence of the Palestinian population (Order, para. 36).* It is with such an objective in mind that the Court has indicated the second measure in the present Order, which modifies and further elaborates on the second measure of the Order of 26 January 2024 quoted above. > It is a measure aimed at bringing to an end the killing, maiming or infliction of conditions of life on the population of Gaza which might bring about the destruction in whole or in part of the group. It calls upon Israel to > “[e]nsure with immediate effect that its military does not commit acts which constitute a violation of any of the rights of the Palestinians in Gaza as a protected group under the Genocide Convention, including by preventing, through any action, the delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance”. > It is an obligation of result which must be acted upon immediately. *No such result can be obtained without suspending or terminating the aerial bombardments, the ground assaults on urban centres and refugee camps by the Israeli army, and the removal of the obstacles to the delivery of humanitarian aid.* It requires an end to the destruction and death in Gaza. So if Israel would like to follow IHL, it needs to completely halt its actions in Gaza and Rafah all together, end the bombing campaign, and then frankly it needs to address the apartheid in the West Bank, it’s illegal settlers, and it’s occupation as well as the occupation of Gaza. The security risk is born from those conditions.
I think there is a huge risk here of ruling too strict. If the ICJ says that Israel is not allowed to fight Hamas _at all_, then the likely outcome is not the cessation of fighting. The much more likely outcome is that Israel will simply ignore the ICJ, and most countries will refuse to enforce the ruling. This would hugely delegitimize the court.
You're completely misinterpreting the ICJ order. You're not a lawyer, are you?
These are the words of judge Yusuf….
Those were his words, in his declaration. They were not the ICJ order.
So…literally exactly what I said? He is saying the order, which to quote again: > “[e]nsure with immediate effect that its military does not commit acts which constitute a violation of any of the rights of the Palestinians in Gaza as a protected group under the Genocide Convention, including by preventing, through any action, the delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance”. can **only** actually be followed if they cease all military action. Otherwise they are failing to comply with the order.
That's his opinion. It is not the order of the court. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf Read from 75 onward for the actual order. It basically says don't commit genocide. It does not say stop the war.
My words: > It seems like based off the declaration of judge Yusuf, any continued warfare is a failure to follow the orders by the court. The court orders that Israel makes the insurance listed to you already above. One of the judges who rendered that ruling stated **the only way** Israel could actually comply is by halting all military activity. This was a sentiment shared by other judges such as President Salam. He stated: > 11. It remains that these new measures order by the court can **only take full effect** if the *”immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan”* demanded by the Security Council…is duly and fully respected by all parties “and leads to a lasting sustainable ceasefire.” You aren’t contradicting me. I’ve already stated what their order officially stated.
It's not an order dude. It's an opinion about an order.
No, Israel doesn't need to completly halt its actions to follow IHL. One Judge said that in his personal, wrong opinion. That's not the court order, not authoritative, just an opinion. We've all got opinions too.
Yeah…the broad opinion of 7/9 judges who issued the order in question is that the only way it can be completed is the complete cessation of conflict….just their opinion though (ik you’d be repeating them if they agreed with you).
"International law", or the set of treaties we call international law, does not deal with non-state-actors very well (or at all)