Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Conflict in the Middle East

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

OP posts:
Thread gallery
48
HelenHen · 10/06/2024 23:18

MissConductUS · 10/06/2024 23:17

Israel never signed or ratified the Protocol I amendment to the GC.

I don't understand what you're saying, or why you're saying it to me!

Thisagainandagain · 10/06/2024 23:19

Februaryfeels · 10/06/2024 22:08

Which conicided with the arrival of any particular posters?

Such a shame. The celebration of the release of these poor innocent hostages has gone the way of every other thread.

Sadly the same posters overrun all these threads. Whilst saying they aren't welcome they post more than anyone else. They all go the same way. It's very predictable. Misunderstanding, random claims of war crimes without substance.

noblegiraffe · 10/06/2024 23:21

"It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy "

But they didn't disguise themselves in order to kill, injure or capture their adversaries, they disguised themselves to rescue hostages from terrorists. So that would seem to be irrelevant.

HelenHen · 10/06/2024 23:21

Thisagainandagain · 10/06/2024 23:19

Sadly the same posters overrun all these threads. Whilst saying they aren't welcome they post more than anyone else. They all go the same way. It's very predictable. Misunderstanding, random claims of war crimes without substance.

For me it was the racism, homophobia and islamophobia that derailed it... and that was not from any pro-palestinians.

DownNative · 10/06/2024 23:21

ConnieCounter · 10/06/2024 23:07

@MissConductUS it can be a crime, actually.

Article 37 - Prohibition of perfidy.

It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:

(a) The feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
(b) The feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
(c) The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and
(d) The feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.

@MissConductUS I didn't want to presume so I thought I'd double check the source but you appear to be hostile towards the question.

Edited

No, @MissConductUS is correct and you, Connie are incorrect.

The bit you quoted is simply you taking it out of context in relation to the actual circumstances of Operation Summer Seeds aka Arnon.

The prohibition against "The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status" comes into play for military operations where the mission is to kill, injure or capture an adversary.

Operation Summer Seeds aka Arnon was NOT an operation where the mission was to kill, injure or capture an adversary!

It was a mission to find, locate and rescue four hostages Hamas illegally abducted to use as bargaining chips which is also prohibited under IHL.

In order to do that successfully and without being caught by Hamas, the soldiers obviously needed camouflage to enter Nuseirat which is permissible. That includes civilian attire and civilian vehicles.

Once they were at a location where they could prepare for their operation to rescue, they could continue.

And that means their weapons would have been very openly displayed!

This then means there is no perfidy committed by the Israel Defence Force operatives as I previously explained.

You've clearly misunderstood or deliberately misused the Prohibition of Perfidy rule whilst not referencing the Ruses Of War just below what you quoted.

MissConductUS · 10/06/2024 23:22

ConnieCounter · 10/06/2024 23:07

@MissConductUS it can be a crime, actually.

Article 37 - Prohibition of perfidy.

It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:

(a) The feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
(b) The feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
(c) The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and
(d) The feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.

@MissConductUS I didn't want to presume so I thought I'd double check the source but you appear to be hostile towards the question.

Edited

It might be a treaty violation if Israel had ratified Protocol I, but it has not done so.

Thisagainandagain · 10/06/2024 23:26

noblegiraffe · 10/06/2024 23:21

"It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy "

But they didn't disguise themselves in order to kill, injure or capture their adversaries, they disguised themselves to rescue hostages from terrorists. So that would seem to be irrelevant.

Exactly the mission was to rescue and they did.

Thisagainandagain · 10/06/2024 23:27

HelenHen · 10/06/2024 23:21

For me it was the racism, homophobia and islamophobia that derailed it... and that was not from any pro-palestinians.

Can you point out where you have seen this?

DownNative · 10/06/2024 23:28

ConnieCounter · 10/06/2024 22:55

Is this a US military source?

Seriously?!

The link itself says "ICRC" which I'm sure you can figure out what it stands for....🧐

ConnieCounter · 10/06/2024 23:31

noblegiraffe · 10/06/2024 23:21

"It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy "

But they didn't disguise themselves in order to kill, injure or capture their adversaries, they disguised themselves to rescue hostages from terrorists. So that would seem to be irrelevant.

I don't think they envisaged having to write a law for an army who pretend to refugees that they are also refugees before bombing their camp, so no, this exact situation isn't in the law. Because it's so far from accepted norms the law doesn't exist.

But you can infer that if it's prohibited against combatants it's also prohibited against civilians if you go on to bomb them and kill hundreds as part of that "operation"/massacre.

If you want to keep pretending the bombing didn't happen it's pointless talking to you.

Anyway, my initial and only point was that the IDF would not be able to admit that they'd dressed up as refugees as it is possibly a war crime and this appears to be the case: https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-hostages-casualties-1458f5a1dfe7bd4d908231bb7090a559

DownNative derailed the thread, not me. I tried not to engage.

Palestinians look at the aftermath of the Israeli bombing in Nuseirat refugee camp, Gaza Strip, Saturday, June 8, 2024. (AP Photo/Jehad Alshrafi)

How an Israeli raid freed 4 hostages and killed at least 274 Palestinians in Gaza

Based on previous operations, at least some of the special forces who took part in the raid likely dressed like Palestinians and spoke fluent Arabic.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-hostages-casualties-1458f5a1dfe7bd4d908231bb7090a559

Thisagainandagain · 10/06/2024 23:32

@HelenHen it seems the derailing comes from the same people arguing it's a war crime( without substance). People are attempting to say why a mission that intends to rescue and then needs to defend itself after coming under heavy fire isn't a purposeful massacre as individual suggested.

This on a thread that says it's great that hostages that should never have been kidnapped and held for months have been rescued. Sad. Predictable.

HelenHen · 10/06/2024 23:33

Thisagainandagain · 10/06/2024 23:27

Can you point out where you have seen this?

It's been deleted!

DownNative · 10/06/2024 23:33

HelenHen · 10/06/2024 23:09

I think missconductus seems to be using the same source as downnative 🙊

The ihl source

Eh?

IHL just means International Humanitarian Law.

The actual source @MissConductUS used was ICRC aka International Commission of the Red Cross. Essentially, they study what IHL says about certain things.

But ICRC doesn't have combat experience.

noblegiraffe · 10/06/2024 23:33

I don't think they envisaged having to write a law for pretending to refugees to be refugees before bombing their camp, so no, this exact situation isn't in the law. Because it's so far from accepted norms the law doesn't exist.

So you want to write a new law that doesn't yet exist for this specific situation and then appeal to that? Because the one you offered doesn't work.

If you want to keep pretending the bombing didn't happen it's pointless talking to you.

I haven't pretended the bombing didn't happen and now you're just making shit up.

ConnieCounter · 10/06/2024 23:36

noblegiraffe · 10/06/2024 23:33

I don't think they envisaged having to write a law for pretending to refugees to be refugees before bombing their camp, so no, this exact situation isn't in the law. Because it's so far from accepted norms the law doesn't exist.

So you want to write a new law that doesn't yet exist for this specific situation and then appeal to that? Because the one you offered doesn't work.

If you want to keep pretending the bombing didn't happen it's pointless talking to you.

I haven't pretended the bombing didn't happen and now you're just making shit up.

Well usually armies don't deliberately attack civilians, so there isn't much humanitarian law covering it, no.

DownNative · 10/06/2024 23:37

ConnieCounter · 10/06/2024 23:31

I don't think they envisaged having to write a law for an army who pretend to refugees that they are also refugees before bombing their camp, so no, this exact situation isn't in the law. Because it's so far from accepted norms the law doesn't exist.

But you can infer that if it's prohibited against combatants it's also prohibited against civilians if you go on to bomb them and kill hundreds as part of that "operation"/massacre.

If you want to keep pretending the bombing didn't happen it's pointless talking to you.

Anyway, my initial and only point was that the IDF would not be able to admit that they'd dressed up as refugees as it is possibly a war crime and this appears to be the case: https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-hostages-casualties-1458f5a1dfe7bd4d908231bb7090a559

DownNative derailed the thread, not me. I tried not to engage.

Edited

Incorrect!

You made claims of war crimes and I simply challenged them.

Trying to shift the blame onto me isn't a good look for you.

"I don't think they envisaged having to write a law for an army who pretend to refugees that they are also refugees....my initial and only point was that the IDF would not be able to admit that they'd dressed up as refugees as it is possibly a war crime..."

Actually, that's covered under IHL. See Ruses of War which applies to the circumstances of Operation Summer Seeds aka Arnon.

HelenHen · 10/06/2024 23:38

MissConductUS · 10/06/2024 22:49

Not really.

COLLATERAL DAMAGE AND INNOCENT BYSTANDERS IN WAR

Proportionality
The rules of LOAC provide some protections for civilians, but civilians can lawfully be killed in war. The LOAC principle of distinction prohibits attacks directed against civilians, meaning it is unlawful to intentionally target civilians. Civilians, however, may be incidentally harmed or killed in attacks directed at military objectives. The LOAC principle of proportionality only prohibits attacks against military objectives if the attack is expected to cause incidental harm to civilians or civilian objects that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Thus, the principle of proportionality implicitly authorizes the knowing or foreseeable (but not intentional) killing of civilians in certain circumstances. Indeed, the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths has increased over the past century, particularly with the advent of aerial warfare, the development of more destructive weapons, and the urbanization of societies.

Innocence v. Non-Innocence

Civilians, like combatants, can forfeit their moral immunity through their conduct. Civilians who are responsible for waging, or those who make material contributions to, an unjust war can be deemed non-innocent. Non-innocent civilians can be permissibly harmed by States exercising their right of self-defense (although they retain their legal immunity from direct attack). Thus, attacks expected to cause incidental harm to non-innocent civilians, such as an attack against an enemy munitions factory, may be morally justified.

@DownNative I see 'ihl' in the link

HelenHen · 10/06/2024 23:40

Somehow the link didn't come through, but it's there...

noblegiraffe · 10/06/2024 23:40

ConnieCounter · 10/06/2024 23:36

Well usually armies don't deliberately attack civilians, so there isn't much humanitarian law covering it, no.

I'm pretty sure there are laws against armies deliberately attacking civilians.

However, you were claiming there was a law against disguising yourself to rescue hostages held by terrorists.

Thisagainandagain · 10/06/2024 23:42

DownNative · 10/06/2024 23:37

Incorrect!

You made claims of war crimes and I simply challenged them.

Trying to shift the blame onto me isn't a good look for you.

"I don't think they envisaged having to write a law for an army who pretend to refugees that they are also refugees....my initial and only point was that the IDF would not be able to admit that they'd dressed up as refugees as it is possibly a war crime..."

Actually, that's covered under IHL. See Ruses of War which applies to the circumstances of Operation Summer Seeds aka Arnon.

It's pretty obvious that you are well versed in this area. Thank you for succinctly challenging incorrect comments.

DownNative · 10/06/2024 23:43

ConnieCounter · 10/06/2024 23:11

You can continue to make rude comments and argue in favour of the "lawful" killing of civilians if that makes you happy but you're wrong, and your personal comments are not accurate.

As I said at the beginning I have no interest in debating this with you. Talking to people who are genuinely trying to justify the killing of civilians makes my skin crawl and I'd rather not subject myself to it.

I think you'll find I didn't make rude comments towards you. 🤔

Stating what IHL says in response to your own claims is perfectly valid and legitimate to do.

If you have no interest in debating this with me, then I strongly suggest you simply not respond.

That suits me. 👍

MissConductUS · 10/06/2024 23:45

HelenHen · 10/06/2024 23:38

@DownNative I see 'ihl' in the link

There's no mystery about the link. It's from a scholarly article published by the Lieber Institute.

https://lieber.westpoint.edu/articles-of-war/about/

DownNative · 10/06/2024 23:46

HelenHen · 10/06/2024 23:38

@DownNative I see 'ihl' in the link

Yes, and look further to your right where you will see "icrc"!

That tells you the source of the link is the ICRC.

IHL isn't a body as such. It's a text relating to the regulation of warfare. IHL is also known as LOAC = Law Of Armed Conflict.

I could just switch from IHL to LOAC, but I prefer to use IHL.

DownNative · 10/06/2024 23:48

MissConductUS · 10/06/2024 23:45

There's no mystery about the link. It's from a scholarly article published by the Lieber Institute.

https://lieber.westpoint.edu/articles-of-war/about/

They've got some fantastic articles on various issues, scenarios and situations of warfare.

Different experts in their fields write articles. You even see experts debating each other with article after article!

Excellent resource, IMO.

HelenHen · 10/06/2024 23:49

DownNative · 10/06/2024 23:46

Yes, and look further to your right where you will see "icrc"!

That tells you the source of the link is the ICRC.

IHL isn't a body as such. It's a text relating to the regulation of warfare. IHL is also known as LOAC = Law Of Armed Conflict.

I could just switch from IHL to LOAC, but I prefer to use IHL.

Ah seems you two certainly speak the same language 😊

Shame we're not in a courtroom.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread