In some cases, where the military objective is unknown because Israel has made no claims, it is nevertheless hard to conceive of a military advantage that would justify the predictable scale of harm to civilians and civilian objects. For instance, the strikes on Jabalya market on 9 October killed at least 42 persons, including 14 children and one woman, and Taj3 Tower on 25 October killed at least 105 persons, including 47 children and 32 women.Israel published a response within an amazing five days that demolishes the argument of the UN.
OHCHR does not hold a full understanding of the facts and circumstances surrounding the mentioned attacks, except for what was published by the IDF, which is limited due to security and operational considerations, as well as others. For example, though not published at the time by the IDF spokesperson, the strike at Jabalya on 9 October comprised of several military targets including a terror tunnel with tunnel shafts, which was part of a Hamas compound that also held a rocket launcher and Hamas military infrastructure, alongside Hamas militants. Any proper legal assessment of the strike must take into consideration the military advantage of all the targets which were struck, compounded by the fact that at the time there were no alternatives for ground operations.Lack of information regarding the strike on 25 October requires similar caution in legal conclusions. While the sensitivity of the information prevents a more elaborate response, it can be mentioned that on that day, the IDF struck several unique and high value Hamas military assets and infrastructure, which were used by Hamas’ highest level of military commanders, both above and underground.
The State of Israel firmly rejects the conclusions and factual assertions portrayed in the background note, as they are methodologically flawed. The note aims to assess the legality of aerial strikes, though lacking many crucial facts and understandings that are crucial for any sound legal discussion. It is apparent that the document suffers from hindsight and methodological biases which cast a shadow on the credibility of its legal assessment.
It also appears that the authors of the background note lack operational expertise to fully grasp the rationale of military operations and the need for specific munitions in an operational reality.
What is obvious whenever one reads Israel's responses to allegations like these is that the IDF is playing chess while the "experts" are judging them with a knowledge of tic-tac-toe, and often not even knowing the rules of that.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. Read all about it here! |
|