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?

Again, you've misunderstood which is expected.

The debate at hand regarding protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure under LOAC is concerned with LAW.

Law and morality aren't the same things.

So, you are personally using proportionate in terms of the civilian understanding which explains your post.

But it was on Law Of Armed Conflict you were attempting to debate with me on and that isn't about morality. LOAC is clear - a civilian infrastructure and civilians both lose protection when used for non-humanitarian reasons.

It isn't a good idea to mix two very different concepts in a debate as though they're the same which is what you've done there.

If you're not actually interested in a discussion on LOAC, then you should say so and that'd be the end of that aspect.

And I didn't ignore any of your links. Indeed, I responded to them. 🤦‍♂️

@DownNative

Do you believe in ‘Law’ like international law? Law with regards to war? With humanitarian Law? Or just the clauses in war that let powerful countries away with atrocities?

Careful with the Ad Hominems, @Green777.

There is no personal attacks in my posts. Stating someone has misunderstood what has been said isn't a personal attack.

Emotion based rants like yours is something I'm not interested in. Frankly, discussion of what Law Of Armed Conflict says is far more interesting than that! 🤷‍♂️

Cheerio....

What clauses are you talking about "that let powerful countries away with atrocities"?

Someone posted arguing hospitals and such should be protected and attacks are war crimes. I simply showed this isn't necessarily the case citing the appropriate articles in the Geneva Convention.

Its just the reality of LOAC which isn't an emotional piece of law.

Just the same thing from you.

All I'm going to say to you at this point is you've already had a post deleted for Ad Hominem attacks. 🤦‍♂️

It is neither emotional nor extremist to point out exactly what the Law Of Armed Conflict states.

@DownNative

That is where you are wrong again. Oh dear.

You did manage to get me suspended to a week, reporting all of my posts as ‘anti-semetic’. Touché.

However, after asking Mumsnet WHY I suspended it is because my comments were repeatedly reported. I did not report any of your comments strangely enough.

When I asked Mumsnet why I was being suspended it was said what ‘my posts weren’t in the spirit of being helpful to parents. Not due to anything of the sort you are accusing me of, which would have warranted a ban.

Sorry your plan of framing me as anti semetic and getting me banned didn’t quite work out for you. I guess this is another of your ‘facts’ that wasn’t quite right.

I see you’re back to reporting any of my posts…oh dear.

You've lost me there as I can assure you those are the only ones of yours I've personally reported which is only in this thread.

Someone else must've reported you. The only thing I've reported you for is your personal attacks towards me in this thread. @Mumsnet can confirm I reported personal attacks.🤷‍♂️

And I suggest you simply don't post Ad Hominems towards me in this or any other thread.

Simply stick to the discussion at hand if you can.

Think we'll leave it there. 👍

@DownNative

I suggest you do the same and leave your tactics of trying to imply anyone who challenges you is stupid ‘you misunderstood as expected’ etc, constantly questioning posters understanding of terminology in an attempt to undermine or make them second guess themselves, deflection from any good points made by others, constantly belittling anyone else’s opinion or facts that don’t align with your own and then reporting people for ‘ad hominem’ attacks for saying you have a condescending manner 🙄

Again, pointing out that some have misunderstood something isn't an example of a personal attack. Indeed, I was able to show how proportionality in Law Of Armed Conflict isn't defined by how others previously thought.

All opinions aren't equal, you know.

As can be seen from my responses above, you were reported for personal attacks. Not for merely saying you believe I'm condescending which I don't view as a personal attack. You might feign ignorance, but I still have the text of your posts, you know.

So, I suggest we focus on the actual topic of the thread? 🤷‍♂️

You’ve made this the topic of the thread.

All my previous points still stand and you can carry on reporting the ‘personal attacks’ all you like.

There is no reasoning with people like yourself that can only see one side to the story. Good luck with that as the civilian deaths, war crimes and atrocities continue to mount. Peace.

I may personally have an opinion on what is proportionate- but I sent you a guardian link which suggested that legal experts are also raising concerns about the proportionality of Israeli actions! You have not at any point responded to this link?

I read your link

please see point 9 of it:

1. Attacks that disproportionately harm civilians = war crimesA fundamental precept in LOAC is the rule of proportionality.

The rule is straightforward: Combatants must refrain from a military attack if the expected loss of civilian life or injury to civilians incidental to the attack would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained.
Violations of this rule can be a war crime.

You wrote:

“LOAC is clear - a civilian infrastructure and civilians both lose protection when used for non-humanitarian reasons. “

your own link suggests that you are wrong?

It’s a shame they couldn’t just flood the tunnels or fill them with some kind of vast amount of industrial expanding foam type substance, the only people they would be targeting then would be Hamas

"In 2005, the Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, executed a strategic move known as the Gaza disengagement. This operation involved the withdrawal of Israeli military forces and the evacuation of Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip. From a geopolitical perspective, Sharon aimed to enhance Israeli security by minimizing tensions in Gaza and consolidating control over key settlement blocs in the West Bank.

The decision to withdraw from Gaza was underpinned by a rationale that reducing Israeli presence in the territory would lead to a more defensible security posture. By streamlining their military focus and diminishing potential flashpoints in Gaza, the Israeli government sought to improve the overall security situation. The evacuation of settlers and military personnel was carried out in August 2005, though the move was met with internal and international controversy."

No, my link does not suggest I'm wrong.

What you've done by quoting point 9 is confuse "the rule of proportionality" as it states with the loss of protection for civilians and civilian infrastructure.

These are two different things. See attachment from Geneva Convention to refresh your memory. Article 19 makes it clear that civilian hospitals lose protection if "they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy."

Article 28 makes it clear that certain points and areas cannot be granted immunity against military attack by the presence of a protected person. States can lawfully attack a military target even when civilians are present.

Finally, you failed to take in what point 9 stated about what the rule of proportionality means in LOAC. I've attached it for you - again.

In short, the expected civilian harm is in relation to the "concrete and direct military advantage that is expected to be gained at the time of an attack."

It reflects what I've been saying.

And your Guardian link was responded to. Hence, the "Ditto" earlier.

There you go- you’re using the Strawman Argument Fallacy against me.

Where have I said that they civil targets loose protection? The only thing I have spoken about is the need for any military action to be proportional. And so have links I have posted, including the Guardian one that you really haven’t had an adequate response to.

Don’t you actually care what actual legal experts have to say when they are concerned about the legality of Israel’s actions?

You quote the Geneva Convention:

Here’s what article 51 says about prohibited indiscriminate attacks:

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

If we take a conservative estimate that 8000 people in Gaza have died since the 7th of October, that’s the equivalent of over 240,000 having being killed in the UK in just over 3 weeks.

That compares to 40,000 civilians that died in the Blitz in WW2 over a 7 month period.

It compares to over 160,000 people being killed in Iraq over a 3 week period - if you want to compare to another military area. In the Iraq war, estimates for the most civilians killed in a YEAR was 28,000.

Please don’t tell me actual numbers don’t count- because on one level you’re right - they don’t. The bombing by the Israeli of the ambulance shows that potential war crimes don’t actually need thousands to be killed, as do the actions of Hamas on the 7th.