If it's all about destroying terrorist targets hidden underneath civilian areas...

[Icefoot]

Why would you bomb them? Surely the whole point of underground tunnels is that they're protected from attacks from above?

Don't Israel have some of the best special forces in the world, if it's all about removing military/terrorist hideouts, isn't there a way to do it without killing children, that's probably more effective too?

Actually, he DOES make the very point I made which is quoted below:

"And I want to be quite clear so there's no misunderstanding: In relation to every dwelling house, in relation to any school, any hospital, any church, any mosque – those places are protected, unless the protective status has been lost."

See relevant attachments again.

And I didnt argue there was a "blank cheque", so you tried using the Strawman Argument Fallacy too. 🤷‍♂️

I'm afraid you're being selective here.

Interesting question. Tunnel warfare is notoriously difficult, the US had huge problems with this in Vietnam. They engaged in a lot of carpet bombing there to deal with it, from what I read. It seems the most effective way to deal with tunnels is either cut off access, air or power to them, flood them or invade them. A very, very difficult type of situation to deal with.

We could both argue that each other is using the Strawman Fallacy Argument- not going to get us much further though is it?

Do you think Israel will be able to provide the evidence required to show their actions were proportionate - as suggested in the part of the quote I pasted that you have not referred to?

I look forward to hearing how the bombing of a refugee camp for one Hamas commander by the Israeli army was propionate at the ICC.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/31/dozens-killed-after-israeli-airstrikes-on-gaza-refugee-camp

The disproportionate attack on Gaza Strip is causing more hatred in the Middle East and setting up future generations of terrorists. The fact that it’s being said Hamas will end due to this genocide is just wrong. It won’t.

I wonder what will be done about the illegal land grabbing going on in the West Bank by Israel that Netanyahu’s gov’t turns a blind eye to. Western leaders pay lip service to it but don’t really care.

How people can condone this mass killing and war crimes by saying it’s the only way to stop terrorism is beyond ignorant and evil.

On the contrary, I've not used the Strawman Argument Fallacy against you so no, your statement falls. Understand what a Strawman Argument Fallacy actually is first.

I don't think proportionality under LOAC is something you've properly understood. See attachment.

There is no real merit in discussing war crimes vis a vis States since this cannot be known at this point. There's an excellent article by a security academic on this I might dig out later on.

I am not sure where you have got that quote from, but here is a further quote for you and a link to the website where prior concerns about Israeli actions are discussed (the information is written by specialists in Humanitarian law):

”The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantageanticipated”.
In other words, the principle of proportionality seeks to limit damage caused by military operations by requiring that the effects of the means and methods of warfare used must not be disproportionate to the military advantage sought.”

https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/proportionality#:~:text=The%20principle%20of%20proportionality%20prohibits,and%20direct%20military%20advantage%20anticipated”.

The above is not in contradiction of what I've been saying, in all honesty. It appears you've posted it believing it is which shows you don't understand what proportionality means under Law Of Armed Conflict.

LOAC doesn't define proportionality in terms of numbers of dead on one side versus another. Rather, it defines it in terms of lives lost in comparison with a military objective.

Using your quote:

"The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”.

The second quote you used makes the same point:

"In other words, the principle of proportionality seeks to limit damage caused by military operations by requiring that the effects of the means and methods of warfare used must not be disproportionate to the military advantage sought.”

The link to the screenshot I provided in my last post to you explains all this, including referencing the ICRC website you have quoted from:

https://www.justsecurity.org/89489/expert-guidance-law-of-armed-conflict-in-the-israel-hamas-war/

Screenshot attached again.

So, in LOAC proportionality is based on the military advantage reasonably sought, anticipated and/or expected.

Not numbers of dead for the simple reason there can be zero guarantees by ANY State that civilian deaths can be prevented in conflicts.

@DownNative as usual excusing anything and everything Israel do with regards to their war crimes, with a lovely dose of condescension always thrown in.

Always doggedly at the defence of the indefensible.

You’ve made it very clear the lives of Israeli innocents are so much more valuable in your eyes as the innocent Palestinians, always reminding of why they somehow deserve it.

this

I know this question is intended for the OP, but if you asked me, I would say that any global conflict that has caused the death of so many unarmed innocent children would be given this level of thought.
In fact, the many many social media posts and videos showing the mass genocide of kids is all I’ve been thinking about recently. I’ve even cried at some of the images of dead/injured babies. I ask myself how is this happening in 2023?

And you are being very disingenuous there, @Green777!

What part of what I've said in relation to the Law Of Armed Conflict is actually incorrect?

Choosing to personalise a debate is a sign you have nothing of substance to add and losing. Choosing to misrepresent what someone says suggests likewise too.

I suggest you refrain from attempting to make personal attacks. 🤔

I have never suggested that there can be NO casualties- checked the thread- so not sure why you thought that?

This started with you stating:

“Geneva Convention makes it clear that using civilians does NOT grant immunity against an attack. If you want to blame anyone for that, blame Hamas who actively put civilians in harm's way.”

This can be reversed by saying that the Geneva Convention does NOT grant Israel immunity to use excessive force that is disproportionate to its military objectives.

Neither of us are lawyers able to argue what is proportional. I have already sent a link with the International Criminal Court’s prosecutor raising concerns about Israel’s actions.

Here is another link to about legal experts in UK expressing concerns about the legality of Israel’s actions:

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/27/british-lawyers-call-on-government-to-press-for-ceasefire-in-gaza

@DownNative

I did not say your information is ‘factually incorrect’. It is morally though, extremely wrong.

And come off it, calling you out on your condescension is hardly a personal attack. Have you reported it yet as you did any other posts that sympathised with Palestinian innocents? Even though I sympathised with the Israeli innocents too?

Thats the difference between you and most posters, your alliance and sympathy and dogged defence of all the wrong being committed by Israel is almost fanatical.

By the way - as you do appear to have misinterpreted my position, it would suggest you were using the Straw man Argument Fallacy against myself? Hope I did understand the meaning correctly 😉

”Straw man fallacy occurs when someone distorts their opponent’s argument by oversimplifying or exaggerating it, for example, and then refutes this “new” version of the argument—called a straw man argument.”

I didn't say at any point that YOU said "there can be NO casualties". I'm merely explaining why LOAC doesn't define proportionality in terms of numbers of dead on either side. It is not a practical way of carrying out warfare.

"This can be reversed by saying that the Geneva Convention does NOT grant Israel immunity to use excessive force that is disproportionate to its military objectives."

Implied Strawman Argument Fallacy since that's hardly what I've said all along.

"I have already sent a link with the International Criminal Court’s prosecutor raising concerns about Israel’s actions."

As I said previously, concerns are fine to note but it doesn't actually mean the direction of your previous arguments. Ditto your second link.

And the aforementioned prosecutor helpfully backed up the Geneva Convention article I used.

The whole point of my bringing that particular article in was due to previous comments believing a breach of Geneva Convention had been made. It simply showed a lot of people really don't understand LOAC.

And the other Geneva Convention article demonstrates that civilian infrastructure such as hospitals have conditional immunity. That is, use it for purposes that's not humanitarian and it's legitimate to target it.

No, I haven't misunderstood YOUR position since it was your own contention that the ICC prosecutor "he does not use your words".

That was referring to what I'd said about civilian hospitals losing protection under the Geneva Convention which he did highlight.

So, your argument hasn't been distorted. Your whole argument has been about pushing back against loss of civilian protection and the fact that civilians cannot be used to render areas immune from military attack. The reason for this is clear - Sovereign States would be severely hobbled in fighting against terrorist groups like Hamas.

At no stage did I state, suggest or imply a "blank cheque" in relation to military action. 🤷‍♂️

I think you’re saying the same as me then? It needs to be proportionate?

I am glad you used the term conditional in your last post- as the 250 lawyers including KCs do raise concerns about the legality of IDF’s actions- as referred to in the Guardian article

I’m loving this - thank you @Happyvalleyfan for countering such tiresome counter word salad arguments that are morally just very wrong.

Hamas themselves, evil subhuman monsters that they are, have already said that THEIR OWN PEOPLE'S "spilled blood is a necessity". They know what they are doing, using their own citizens as human shields. They said themselves when the citizens voted them into power" we will destroy Israel!" whilst everyone cheered, and they will do what it takes to achieve that and FUCK THEIR OWN CITIZENS because it's "necessary".

Are you still using the term "proportionate" in the civilian manner?

LOAC never states it in that way, but in terms of relation to military action objectives. That's a crucial difference.

And I used the term "conditional" in reference to civilian hospitals which many widely but falsely misunderstand has total protection at all times. That's what Geneva Convention says.

"Hamas has said repeatedly over and over again (for as long as they've been in power) that their goal is to keep going until Israel no longer exists. If Israel stopped tomorrow, gave in to all the demands for land this would not change. Hamas would continue to send suicide bombers and rockets and before too long probably attempt another large scale murderous invasion. Hamas wants Jerusalem and for all Jews to be dead. That's the goal"

Indeed. Their election promise was "to destroy Israel!". Ben Shapiro said it well - were Israel to lay down arms, and ask for peace, Hamas would slaughter them all. And the Islamic world would cheer.

@Green777, that's your problem right there - you're talking about morality when the debate itself is actually revolving around Law Of Armed Conflict.

A very different thing altogether. They are not the same things.

@DownNative

Again, you are wrong. It is not a problem of mine to focus on morality. It is a long held problem of yours, since the atrocious attack on Israeli innocents, to promote the IDF by any means possible and look for any technical excuse you can find to be an apologist.

I’m proud to be a human person, who hates the killing of any Israeli innocent and any Palestinian innocent.

Keep your ‘facts’, condescending style and your robotic defence of evil. I prefer to focus on humanity and morality.

@Green777
This is now getting tiresome.

@DownNative
My feelings about what is proportionate are driven by my humanity- being a mother who is able to hug her child and kiss her goodnight every night as I safely tuck her into bed. I count my blessings these days given the atrocities on both sides.

But you will see by my links - which you differentially quote or indeed ignore- there are senior lawyers who are referring to the illegality of the war and who are undoubtedly using the “legal” definition of proportionate?

Very well said.

I’m afraid it is the goal of certain posters to wear you down with ‘facts’.

There is still some humanity left in this world