"If its true that more than 100 women and children died", then "Israel violated International Law" during hostage rescue, says former executive director of Human Rights Watch

[HelenHen]

This is a very good read and seems to address many issues that were raised in other threads. Written by Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch (1993-2022)

"International humanitarian law requires that a military refrain from launching an assault if the anticipated civilian toll “would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”. It is reasonable to conclude that the Israeli operation fell short of this standard"

"International humanitarian law requires militaries to take “all feasible precautions” to spare civilians, which Hamas violated by holding the hostages in two apartment buildings in Nuseirat, but that does not relieve Israel of the separate duty to avoid an attack that causes disproportionate harm to civilians. Palestinian civilians do not stop being civilians just because they are endangered by Hamas."

"The duty to take all feasible precautions also applies to the Israeli military. One obvious precaution is to launch military operations at a time of day when fewer civilians are present, but the Israeli military launched the rescue operation shortly before noon, hoping to surprise Hamas, which would have expected a night-time operation. That may have made the operation safer for the Israeli soldiers involved, but it transferred the risk to the many Palestinian civilians who were out and about in the middle of the day, particularly in the nearby market, greatly increasing the death toll"

"What were the “dozens of nearby targets” that the Israel air force attacked? Was it able to strike Hamas fighters with any precision in the chaos of that moment? Or did it simply drop bombs in the vicinity, hoping to clear a path for the rescuers to flee despite the area being filled with civilians? We don’t know, but an independent investigation is clearly needed. Indiscriminate attacks are a war crime."

"While soldiers are allowed to engage in ruses – for example, feinting left while going right – they are not allowed to pretend to be a protected person, such as a civilian, because it endangers civilians when hostile forces cannot distinguish them from opposing military forces. That is why soldiers in combat wear uniforms."

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/13/international-criminal-court-investigation-israel-hostage-rescue-raid

The same Kenneth Roth who was Community Noted for incorrect information. 🤦‍♂️ 👇

He doesn't seem to understand its legal for Special Forces soldiers to wear plain clothes. Once SF weapons are on show, there is no question of perfidy and they become legitimate targets.

Just like a civilian who engages in hostilities, e.g. has a weapon in their hands, etc.

So, I'd also have little faith in his understanding of the rule of proportionality amongst other issues.

As former executive director of Human Rights Watch, I'd imagine he understands it pretty well.

If you read the full article that I linked to (not just the quotes i pasted), it is clear that the intent could NOT have been to avoid engaging in hostilities. He recognises that it is a grey area, which is why he is saying it should be investigated.

So no, it's not incorrect information.

Also worth bearing in mind that Community Notes on X/Twitter aren't the final arbiter of things; they're applied by an algorithm which is not infallible and has been recognised as having vulnerabilities to misinformation. It's better than nothing, but it isn't perfect by any means.

Of course there should be a proper investigation where there is a suspicion of war crimes. I hope those who have committed them are held fully to account, including at the highest levels.

This guy seems to have deliberately misquoted the law though, so I'm not sure what his agenda is.

His article says "That may constitute the war crime of perfidy, which prohibits soldiers from dressing as civilians during military operations when it leads to death or injury."

That doesn't match what he has linked to in his article, and doesn't match the law that has been linked to on other threads.

And from the video that has been posted of the hostage rescue, the rescuers were dressed in military uniforms.

Is that right?

When he claims soldiers are required to wear uniforms due to the principle of distinction, that's incorrect.

The actual ICRC link makes that clear as well. What he claims doesn't match the IHL. Indeed, you can find plenty of examples of Special Forces regiments wearing plain clothes in missions.

Uniform isn't the only method of distinguishing military from civilian. 🤦‍♂️

But we know from video that soldiers were in uniform when carrying out the rescue. And Special Forces wearing civilian clothes to enter Nuseirat undetected and move to target location is also a legitimate ruse of war.

Roth was misleading people. In my view, very deliberately so.

And that community note has also been removed, which indicates that after review by the "community" voted it as not helpful.

https://x.com/KenRoth/status/1799787922083725343

Yes, it applies to Hamas which also includes their deliberate placing of a legitimate military targets in a heavily populated area.

After all, they are not permitted to render an area immune from military operations by the presence of protected status individuals, i.e., civilians.

Military operations CAN proceed and if the enemy behaves recklessly as a result responsibility for that is on them.

Otherwise some are arguing for terrorist groups everywhere to have all the advantages and Sovereign States having zero. That's not a practical way of warfare.

And finally the thread title you chose to go with also doesn't match Roth's article. He uses the term "If" at the start of his sentence leading to your title.....🤷‍♂️

Such a small word, must have been missed by accident 😏

Israel MAY have committed war crimes during the hostage rescue.

Nobody here has enough information to say one way or the other whether they definitely have. An investigation will be carried out, and then we may have a clearer idea. At present, based on what is known, some independent experts believe crimes have been committed.

Given that an independent investigation found both Israeli government and Hamas guilty of war crimes, we must keep an open mind to the possibility. To close off the possibility without having enough information to do so, and in the context of the criminal issues surrounding both groups would be small minded.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/06/1150946

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckddzvl9x00o

I agree with you.Hamas have done all they can deliberately to put Gazans at risk in order to minimise their own harm.

Is the heading a quote or a factual statement?

I don't see quotation marks

That it has been voted unhelpful doesn’t mean that it was inaccurate though.

The article the Guardian links to says “killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army”.

The link from his tweet suggests: “The US Air Force Pamphlet states that Article 23(b) of the Hague Regulations has been construed as prohibiting “assassination, proscription, or outlawry of an enemy, or putting a price upon an enemy’s head, as well as offering a reward for an enemy ‘dead or alive’”

That clearly doesn’t apply here.

The link from his tweet also says “While the Hague Regulations prohibit “to kill or wound treacherously”, Additional Protocol I prohibits “to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy”

And it discusses dressing as a civilian.

However the soldiers did not dress as civilians in order to kill adversaries, but to rescue hostages, so this would also seem not to apply.

BUT, if Ken Roth has read both those documents, then he has serious questions to answer as in his Guardian article linked to in the OP he says

“That may constitute the war crime of perfidy, which prohibits soldiers from dressing as civilians during military operations when it leads to death or injury”

That is a clear misrepresentation of what the law says, and what the documents he himself linked to say.

He has changed the active - perfidy in order to kill, into the passive - perfidy which leads to deaths. These are not the same thing at all.

It was during the rescue of hostages while dressed in military uniforms that the deaths occurred, and from the description of events, the dressing as civilians was to avoid deaths, not cause them.

If he has been the Director of Human Rights Watch, he should be able to read documents and interpret them correctly, so in this case he has chosen to misinterpret.

Why?

Is there any doubt that more than 100 were killed? I don't see anyone legitimately disputing those numbers?

It specifically says women and children, not 100 total.

I did wonder what a community note was... like is it some kind of legally binding mic-drop 😂 (I'm not on X)

Is that even in dispute?

I’m confused. Are all men automatically counted as Hamas?

I'd have thought all figures are in dispute that come out of Hamas.

I've not seen a figure specified for women and children by anyone.

64 children and 57 women I read. That's more than 100.

Please don't dispute the numbers. In the absence of international observers, we can only go by the internationally reported numbers.

Just read it in the article

"The ministry does not distinguish combatants from civilians, but it reports that the dead included 64 children and 57 women, or 44% of the total. Given that many of the men who were killed in the course of the operation were in a nearby market, we must assume that a good proportion of them were civilians as well. That is a horrible civilian toll."

Of course I'm going to suggest numbers coming from a terrorist organisation might not be entirely reliable. Don't be silly. Everyone should be sceptical.

Israel put the figures at under 100. Do you believe those "internationally reported numbers"? I would suspect that you are sceptical of those.