Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: The Laws of Armed Conflict

Showing posts with label The Laws of Armed Conflict. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 17, 2024

Yes, UN facilities used by Hamas may be attacked under international law

Last month, UNRWA chief Philippe Lazzarini said:

Attacking, targeting or using UN buildings for military purposes are a blatant disregard of International Humanitarian law. UN staff, premises and operations must be protected at all times.

Since the war in Gaza began, over 180 Unrwa buildings were hit and more than 450 displaced people were killed as a result.

Unrwa shares the coordinates of all its facilities (including this school) with the Israeli Army and other parties to the conflict.

Targeting UN premises or using them for military purposes cannot become the new norm. This must stop and all those responsible must be held accountable.

Does international law give UN facilities any additional protections beyond what all civilian objects receive?

From reading recent articles about Israel striking Hamas members in UN facilities, that seems to be the impression given. For example, NPR said, "Striking U.N. facilities is prohibited under international law. But Israel argues that Hamas' use of those facilities also violates international law and makes them a legitimate target." The use of the word "also" makes it sound like Israel's argument is that it admits that hitting the UN facilities violates international law but that the law doesn't apply in this case, when that is not Israel's argument. Israel says that when Hamas uses those facilities, they are no longer considered civilian.

It doesn't make sense that UN facilities should be more protected than, say, a non-UN school or a mosque. If it is hosting terrorists or military assets, it becomes a military asset.

A 2017 paper published by the US Naval War College deals with exactly this point. "The Limits of Inviolability:The Parameters for Protection of United Nations Facilities during Armed Conflict" examines when UN facilities become legal to attack.

UN facilities around the world enjoy protections enshrined in the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (CPIUN). In particular, Article 3 affirms that “the premises of the United Nations shall be inviolable.” This protection helps to enable the UN—and its many components, agencies and other offshoots—to carry out the critical work of protecting, feeding and supporting individuals and communities around the world in tense and violent situations. At the same time, in situations of armed conflict, LOAC governs the conduct of hostilities, including the targeting of persons and objects and the protection of civilians, the civilian population, civilian objects, and specially-designated objects from attack. The interplay between these two legal frameworks provides the foundation for understanding the protection of UN premises during armed conflict—and the limits of that protection.

The 58-page paper analyzes various situations that apply directly to the current war:

UN facilities that are used for military purposes will become military objectives and liable to attack, like any other civilian object. Indeed, the claim of absolute inviolability rests on the incorrect notion that there are some objects that can never be attacked, notwithstanding the fact that one side is using them to launch attacks or for other military purposes. LOAC simply does not include such a concept as “never target.”
Rather, the analysis under Article 52(2) of Additional Protocol I centers on whether the use of the object in question makes an effective contribution to military action—the first part of the definition of military objective—and whether its destruction, capture or neutralization offers a definite military advantage. Many of the examples reported during the 2014 Gaza conflict and earlier conflicts—storing weapons in residential buildings, schools, mosques, churches or hospitals; and launching rockets from in or near civilian buildings—fit directly within this construct. As the U.S. Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual states, “objects that contain military objectives are military objectives,” including storage and production sites for military equipment (which certainly includes mortars and rockets) and buildings or other facilities “in which combatants are sheltering or billeting.” For example, the 2014 UN Board of Inquiry examining incidents from the 2014 Gaza conflict noted that in one incident, where Israeli forces destroyed portions of an UNRWA school being used as an observation post and command and control structure, Israeli forces found “a Palestinian Islamic Jihad operational map and other military equipment” in the school.

The author's conclusion is that the inviobility of UN facilities is not absolute, and in fact essentially the same as for any civilian objects under the laws of armed conflict (LOAC.)

LOAC provides the appropriate analytical legal tools to understand the protections UN facilities enjoy during armed conflict and the limits of those protections. Beyond the formal relationship between the privileges and immunities law of the UN and LOAC and aside from the inherent limits on the CPIUN’s application to military operations, LOAC’s framework demonstrates precisely why absolute inviolability, even in the face of military use, cannot be the rule for UN facilities or any other protected objects during armed conflict. Each of the protections, obligations and rules examined above contribute directly to and form the foundation for LOAC’s core goal of protecting civilians during conflict. They also represent the delicate balance between military necessity and humanity that lies at the heart of LOAC. Interpreting rights, obligations and protections during conflict in a manner contrary to LOAC’s core purposes will only serve to exacerbate suffering during conflict, thus undermining the law’s central objective of enabling “armed forces to achieve their strategic military objective while mitigating, to the extent feasible, the humanitarian suffering re-sulting from armed conflict.” If UN facilities are absolutely inviolable with regard to both attacks and use for military purposes, there is no mechanism to protect against the use and exploitation of such facilities for military purposes. First, the prohibitions against such use are insufficiently enforced. Second, the armed groups and armed forces that engage in such improper use are clearly not concerned about LOAC compliance or any possible public condemnation. Third, such groups gain an unreasonable operational benefit as a result if they can shield their military forces and equipment from attack; and fourth, these groups reap a substantial propaganda windfall in the event of any attack on their forces, equipment or positions near or in such facilities because the attacking party automatically faces public condemnation and criminal responsibility.

Inviolability of UN facilities in all locations and situations is essential. However, the idea of absolute immunity, as framed by many responses to damage to UN facilities in Gaza, runs counter to the very framework of LOAC, which balances the protection for certain sites (such as hospitals or religious and cultural property) with the legitimate needs of military operations in the face of fighters abusing that protection. Although the urge to demand that such inviolability be absolute is understandable, granting protection to those misusing protected sites ultimately harms only the civilians in desperate need of the UN’s services.

Those complaining about Israeli strikes on UN facilities that are hiding Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists rarely express any condemnation of the misuse of those facilities that force Israel to attack to begin with.

(h/t Irene)

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!

Antisemites framing the discussion so Israel can't win

Israel-haters/antisemites often use an exceptionally effective method to win in the court of public opinion, known a "framing." When one sets the ground rules of what is and is not up for debate, they can create a playing field where the Zionist or Jewish side cannot win. Forcing Jews to argue within those parameters gives them a huge handicap.

One classic example is to pretend that the history of Israel starts with modern Zionism. If you exclude any talk about the history of the Jews in the Land of Israel before the 19th century, they look just like the foreign colonialists that the haters claim we are.

With Operation Iron Swords, the framing has been elaborate and very effective.

The false framework goes like this:

* Telling civilians to move, whether within or without their territory, is a war crime.

* Neighboring countries have no obligation to accept refugees.

* Killing lots of civilians is a war crime by definition.

* Limiting humanitarian aid to a war zone is a war crime.

All discussions of the war on TV is bound by this framework. These four "rules" are not always explicit, which makes it harder to go against them. Who wants to see dead civilians?

The framing statements are incorrect. But the framework is carefully created to ensure that Israel cannot achieve its military objective of destroying Hamas.

* In fact, in a war zone, the attacker is obligated to tell civilians to move out of the war zone - which Israel has done and Hamas has tried to stop.

* While I don't think that Egypt is legally obligated to open its border, it never had a problem with taking in hundreds of thousands of other refugees from elsewhere. It certainly has a moral obligation to do so.

* Targeting civilians is a war crime. Knowing that civilians will die during an attack on a legitimate military target is acceptable as long as the casualties are not excessive, and international law has a much more liberal view of what is excessive than what Israel does.

* Israel has every right to inspect and limit aid to ensure that Hamas does not get it.

But the first four rules are accepted as the framework on CNN and Al Jazeera. Most news shows don't bother explaining the truth about international law because nuance is not TV-friendly.

Spokespeople on TV must break the framework by saying that they do not accept these parameters and creating their own, accurate framework:

* Hamas started this war with an unprecedented, horrific attack on Israel.

* Hamss has made it clear that they will never change or reform. This is who they are.

* The only moral choice is to utterly destroy them.

* Hamas has turned the entire Gaza Strip into a huge human shield for its army and vast subterranean military complex.

* Israel scrupulously follows international law even under these difficult constraints.

* Therefore, while Israel tries to minimize casualties, every civilian death is purely Hamas' fault.

How many TV shows or newspaper articles have you read that accepts these accurate statements as their framework?

It's going to be a long war, and Israel needs to reframe the discussion.

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!

Another "innocent child" in Jenin who was a combatant

Defense for Children International-Palestine writes:

Rafat Omar Ahmad Khamayseh, 15, was shot by Israeli special forces while leaving his grandfather’s house in Jenin refugee camp around 7:30 p.m. on September 19, according to documentation collected by Defense for Children International - Palestine. As he left the house, Rafat saw Israeli special forces exiting three Palestinian licensed cars and surround the home of the father of a Palestinian man wanted for arrest. Rafat fled, yelling, “Special forces! Special forces!” One Israeli soldier chased Rafat and shot him in the abdomen from a distance of 10 meters (33 feet).

While nearly all of the reports on the Jenin incident identify Khamayseh as being 22 years old, photos indicate that he probably really was 15.

And that he was not exactly an innocent child.

Yet even if we take DCI-P at their word that all he was doing was warning terrorists that the IDF was there, that makes him legally a militant and a legitimate military target.

The US Department of Defense Law of War Manual (revised July 2023) says that a civilian is considered to be taking a direct part in hostilities when he or she is "acting as a guide or lookout for combatants conducting military operations."

The ICRC agrees. In its document "Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities Under International Humanitarian Law" it says, "a person serving as one of several lookouts during an ambush would certainly be taking a direct part in hostilities although his contribution may not be indispensable to the causation of harm."

This is exactly what DCI-P is admitting that Khamayseh was doing. His warning endangered the Israeli forces and therefore he became a combatant and legitimate target, no matter what his age.

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!

Israel haters were given a huge gift this week courtesy of anti-government protester Shira Eting.

Eting, interviewed by Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes, said, "I was a combat helicopter pilot…. If you want pilots to be able to fly and shoot bombs and missiles into houses knowing they might be killing children, they must have the strongest confidence in the people making those decisions."

The modern antisemites have been having a field day with an attractive and articulate Israeli woman matter of factly saying that Israelis knowingly shoot missiles into homes that kill children. Here we have proof of how monstrous Israelis are - even leftist Israelis!

A number of years ago, I looked at a B'Tselem report on families killed in their homes during 2014's Operation Protective Edge. Even that incomplete report showed that many families were acting as human shields for the terrorists - sometimes the shields were the terrorists' own families, and sometimes the terrorists were sheltering in an innocent family home.

I did further research and listed over a hundred children who were used as human shields to protect terrorists, often senior terrorists.

This is only what I could find out with open source research. But it proves the point: Israel is not going to bomb a house unless it has excellent intelligence that the house is a legitimate military target. Perhaps a senior terrorists is inside, perhaps a weapons cache is underneath, perhaps a command and control center is in the apartment next door.

As long as the military advantage outweighs the collateral damage, this is a moral decision and also legal under international law. While we are not privy to the specific calculus that Israel uses in making those decisions, it employs teams of lawyers to review every airstrike and goes to great lengths - never reported in the media - to ensure that it minimizes mistakes. Israel goes above and beyond the requirements of the Laws of Armed Conflict in its own policy decisions.

Eting caused more harm to Israel with her out of context quote than the proposed judicial reforms she is protesting could possibly do. But she wasn't wrong in what she said: in the real world, in real wars, decisions must be made that sometimes mean children would die.

In the case of Gaza, that is entirely the fault of the terrorists who deliberately choose to locate military targets in residential areas.

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!

Today's Jenin raid was remarkable - and it shows how Israel adheres to human rights law in even impossible conditions

From Times of Israel:

The Israeli military arrested three members of the Hamas terror group during a raid in the Jenin refugee camp in the northern West Bank on Monday morning, marking the first overt entry of forces to the camp since a major operation was carried out in the area two months ago.

In a joint statement, the Israel Defense Forces, Shin Bet security agency, and Border Police said troops entered the camp and nabbed Abdullah Hassan Mohammed Sobeh, Ward Sharim, and Mus’ab Ja’aydah.

The IDF said troops opened fire at the wanted gunmen as they attempted to flee a building when the forces arrived. One of the armed Palestinians shot in the leg and seriously wounded, and was taken by helicopter to Rambam Hospital in Haifa.

An assault rifle belonging to one of the wanted Palestinians was seized, the IDF said.

The IDF said troops also responded with live fire against Palestinian gunmen who opened fire at forces in the area, and Palestinian rioters hurling stones.

A local wing of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror group said its gunmen opened fire at Israeli forces on the outskirts of the camp.

The Palestinian Authority health ministry said four people were lightly wounded by Israeli fire in the area and taken to nearby hospitals.

No Israeli soldiers were wounded in the operation.

The IDF did injured the captured terrorists, and transported them by helicopter to a hospital.

Imagine the difficulty of such an operation.

The goal, as always, is to arrest terrorists - not to kill them. The IDF knows that it will be attacked from all directions in a crowded camp that is filled with booby-traps, IEDs and angry youth with stones, firebombs and automatic weapons.

And in the end, no one was killed on either side. The terrorists were captured alive.

This must have involved many, many hours of planning, intelligence and practice.

But this result is always what the IDF wants to see. It doesn't want to kill people, but when under fire, soldiers must return fire towards the source. Nearly every person killed in the past two years were involved in fighting or members of terror groups. For urban warfare, this is incredible, and military experts know this.

But the media ignores all of that. "Human rights groups" insist on perfection in a war zone and that the IDF use peacetime, law enforcement standards when the enemy is often a heavily armed military group. As much as they can, Israel tries to live up to those standards, and it showed that today, even if it is not at all clear that the more flexible laws of armed conflict wouldn't apply to Jenin today.

The world is so obsessed with demonizing Israel that it ignores how unique it is for an army to have so few civilian casualties in urban war zones.

Try to find stories where US or British troops entered a crowded town and extracted wanted men under constant fire without killing anyone. If it has ever happened, it is incredibly rare. Yet the IDF strives to do that each and every time - and its success today proves 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!

Human Rights Watch report on Palestinian "children" killed proves it prioritizes anti-Israel propaganda over real human rights

Human Rights Watch issued a new front-page press release today to attack its favorite target, Israel:

The Israeli military and border police forces are killing Palestinian children with virtually no recourse for accountability.

Last year, 2022, was the deadliest year for Palestinian children in the West Bank in 15 years, and 2023 is on track to meet or exceed 2022 levels. Israeli forces had killed at least 34 Palestinian children in the West Bank as of August 22. Human Rights Watch investigated four fatal shootings of Palestinian children by Israeli forces between November 2022 and March 2023.

We've seen this approach before. HRW describes scores of potential Israeli crimes, but chooses to "investigate" only a small number of them.

By sheer coincidence, the ones they are "investigating" are the ones that seem the most likely to be innocent victims.

In other words, HRW knows quite well that the vast majority of "children" killed by Israeli forces are legal combatants - teens who are acting as spotters, or hurling firebombs or IEDs, or even shooting weapons themselves. The majority are child soldiers. They are recruited by terror groups, violating accepted international law.

But HRW doesn't want to say anything bad about Hamas or Islamic Jihad. Their reports are meant to be anti-Israel, so they cherry-pick the specific incidents that seem to imply Israeli malfeasance.

Yet even in this constricted, biased choice of trying to stack the deck against Israel, they rely on lies and don't tell you the whole story.

Their "star" is Mahmoud al-Sadi, 17, who "according to witnesses" was hundreds of meters from any fighting when he was shot and he wasn't holding any weapons.

To emphasize his alleged innocence, HRW gives a photo montage of al-Sadi being a teenage boy.

They missed this one:

Does it make sense that well-trained soldiers would shoot hundreds of meters away from the fighting for no reason? HRW seems to think so, but Palestinian witnesses are notoriously unreliable (even according to NGOs) and they will say what their leaders want them to say. Very few ever admit that the "innocent child" is not so innocent.

Other cases that HRW think are a slam dunk are anything but. Even the NGO admits that they were all involved in active fighting.

In the other cases investigated, the security forces killed boys after they had joined other youths confronting Israeli forces with stones, Molotov cocktails, or fireworks. While these projectiles can seriously injure or kill, in these cases, Israeli forces fired repeatedly at chest-level, hitting multiple children, and killed children in situations where they do not appear to have been posing a threat of grievous injury or death, which is the standard for the use of lethal force by law enforcement officers under international norms. That would make these killings unlawful.

HRW admits that the "children" were actively engaged in fighting.

HRW claims that Israel must adhere to the standards of "law enforcement" in these situations, when the "criminals" are heavily armed fighters whose aim is to destroy Israel. It is true that the line isn't clear between what is legally considered a law enforcement situation and what is governed by the laws of armed conflict (LOAC) but to breezily decide that these situations where armored vehicles and scores of soldiers are needed is "law enforcement" is, at the very least, an oversimplification.

The ICRC says "An armed conflict arises whenever there is fighting between States or protracted armed violence between government authorities and organized armed groups or just between organized armed groups."

Sure sounds more like an armed conflict than a law enforcement operation, especially since Islamic Jihad and Hamas have been bragging that they really control, organize and fund these seemingly local armed groups.

Of course, if the laws of armed conflict apply, then any fighter - no matter what age - is a legitimate target. So HRW doesn't want you to even consider that possibility.

But let's look at the innocent children HRW lists:

Here is video from a proud relative (starting at 0:12) showing Wadia Abu Ramuz shooting fireworks at Israeli troops.

Mohammed al-Sleem, 17, was a member of the Al Aqsa Brigades and also shot incendiary devices at soldiers.

We've previously discussed Adam Ayyad, 15. He went into battle intending to die and left a "will" in his pocket saying how happy he was to be about to be martyred. He was a member of the PFLP and buried wearing a PFLP flag.

These aren't innocent children by any definition. But HRW is trying to hide the truth.

Moreover, the number of children who are admitted members of armed groups prove that there is a real human rights concern here - that of recruiting child soldiers - and HRW has, as far as I can tell, not once said a word against the PFLP, Hamas or Islamic Jihad for that reprehensible practice of using children as bait meant to be killed.

HRW's dishonesty is clear to all, and they are playing their role to put a respectable face on modern antisemitism to the hilt. and even when they clearly know that dozens of the children killed were members of armed groups, they don't say a word of condemnation.

That's only for Israel.

(h/t Adin Haykin)

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!

No matter what they do, Palestinians are victims

The official spokesman for Mahmoud Abbas, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, said today that the "assassination" of "three young men" by the IDF near the gate of Mount Gerizim in Nablus is a "war crime", and it is a continuation of the policy of "collective punishment" to which our Palestinian people are subjected.

The "victims" were terrorists who opened fire on the Israeli troops and were killed in response.

The "young men" were 32, 33 and 43 years old.

While the Palestinian Authority in English says that they were innocent victims of Israeli aggression, Hamas says it is proud of "this group of the al-Qassam Brigades' mujahideen, who set out with all their faith and certainty to confront this criminal enemy."

There is no universe where soldiers killing those who fire at them first are war criminals - except in Palestinian fantasy land.

Unfortunately, fantasies are often treated as reality when people want them to be true.

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!