Thank you
I found this on the UK Parliament website. I guess it will come down to whether Israel can show that it targets military combatants, which seems to be the case according to press releases etc. Certainly Israel have been releasing details of military leaders they have eliminated. It's muddied by there not being traditional military infrastructure like barracks etc and that the mitary is so heavily embedded amongst the civilian population. Hamas of course doesn't differentiate between military and civilians in its casualty figures
Limits to the Fourth Geneva Convention
The coverage of the Geneva Convention and the two Additional Protocols of 1977 is extensive. However, there are limits to the extent to which they enable the protection of civilians in conflict. Some of these limits are by design, in that the Convention is written to be pragmatic – and as such recognises that at a time of war, civilians are likely to be harmed. As Jamie A Williamson, the Head of Unit of the International Committee of the Red Cross Unit on Relations with Arms Carriers and Security Forces, explains:
… under the Convention, a certain level of harm to civilians can be deemed acceptable as long as the belligerents have fully complied with the three key principles regulating the conduct of hostilities, namely ‘distinction’, ‘proportionality’, and ‘precaution’, before and during an attack.
While a civilian is not to be directly targeted, as long as an attack is not deemed indiscriminate, incidental harm to civilians (‘collateral damage’) is acceptable if it is not excessive in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage. Similarly, a building which appears to the general observer to be a civilian object may be a legitimate military target if it, by its ‘nature, location, purpose or use makes 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’.
As such, even if commanders cause civilian casualties during an attack, they will not necessarily be liable for any wrongdoing under IHL if they can show that they took all feasible precautions in the planning and launching of the attack, and exercised constant care to spare the civilian population throughout the hostilities.
Williamson concludes that ‘while IHL provides a solid and extensive legal framework for protecting civilians in conflict, the protection it affords is inherently qualified’.