Showing posts with label civilian casualties. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civilian casualties. Show all posts

Sunday, August 07, 2022

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights puts out bulletins that are the most detailed available on airstrikes in Gaza. 

It blames all incidents on Israel, of course. But a little reading between the lines shows that many of the supposed strikes are actually from Islamic Jihad rockets falling short in Gaza.

The IDF has documented well over a hundred of such failed rocket launches:


When PCHR writes about an IDF "shell" causing deaths or damage, it can safely be assumed that this was a rocket. IDF bombs are devastating in the damage they cause and IDF intelligence is quite good at targeting; as far as I can tell the IDF is not using any artillery yet in Gaza. 

IDF strikes look like this:



If there is only a small hole in the roof, it isn't from the IDF.

When PCHR says random people are killed by "shells" that indicates a failed Gaza rocket launch.

Here are some:
8/5 16:20: an artillery shell fell on a house belonging to ‘Adnan ‘Atiyah al-‘Amour in al-Fokhari area, eastern Khan Younis.  As a result, the owner’s 22-year-old daughter, Doniana, was killed after sustaining shrapnel wounds all over her body.

At approximately 23:20 on Friday, 05 August 2022, 5 Palestinians, including a mother and her 3 children, were injured after an artillery shell landed on Foad Ghazi ‘Abdullah Farajallah’s house in Jabalia refugee camp, causing material damage to it.

At around 00:15 on Saturday, 06 August 2022, an artillery shell fell on the roof of Al-Quds Open University building in Beit Lahia, north of the Gaza Strip, causing a hole in its roof and damage to the study halls. 
15:55: IOF fired a shell at a group of people gathering in front of Hussein ‘Ali al-Zuwaidi’s house, northeastern Beit Hanoun, northern Gaza Strip.  As a result, 2 civilians, including the house owner’s son, Nour Al-Deen (18), sustained shrapnel wounds all over their bodies.  Due to their serious condition, they were referred to al-Shifa Hospital, where Nour al-Deen was pronounced dead at around 18:30.

We've documented PCHR lies many times. By default, they assume every death is from Israeli fire, and they never correct their information after it is shown that they are wrong. 




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!

 

 

Thursday, July 14, 2022

Jewish Voice for "Peace" Political Director Beth Miller reveals that the organization supports dead Jews.

In a bizarre attempt at far-Leftist humor, she writes:

Israel bringing Iron Dome batteries to the tarmac for Biden is like wearing the sweater your aunt gave you whenever she comes over. If your aunt was an imperial military power and you'd begged her for the sweater in order to maintain military control over the people you occupy.  
Usually people don't want to wear their aunts' sweaters, but Israel definitely loves Iron Dome.

Notwithstanding Millers lack of understanding how jokes work, she is calling Iron Dome - a purely defensive system meant to save Israeli lives, that has never hurt a single Palestinian - as something meant "to maintain military control over the people you occupy."

Meaning, according to Miller and JVP, Iron Dome should never have been built. Hamas and Islamic Jihad has every right to shoot rockets aimed specifically at Israeli civilians in Israeli population centers, under this sickening concept of morality.

Iron Dome allows Israel to brush off rocket attacks that otherwise would require a major military response. It saves at least as many Palestinian lives as it saves Israeli lives. But JVP doesn't care about the Palestinians in Gaza or elsewhere; their entire purpose is to oppose Jewish rights and Jews living in security.

Never has the both the "Jewish" and "peace" part of their name been proven more Orwellian. 



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!

 

 

Thursday, June 09, 2022

In 2015, Amnesty International created a website called the Gaza Platform, created with Forensic Architecture, that claimed to identify every casualty in the 2014 Gaza war and the circumstances around the incident.

As I showed at the time, the database was filled with inaccuracies, and many of the people that they claimed were civilian were in fact terrorists. Amnesty was aware of my research showing terrorists in their uniforms with guns that they called "civilian" and chose to keep the lies in the database - which is still available, today.

Airwars is another NGO that purports to document the innocent victims of war, and they do just what Amnesty did - they are calling legitimate military targets "civilians."

This is a Twitter thread by open source researcher DigFind on this:

Our investigation finds that award winning non-profit company @airwars is whitewashing terrorism with the help of high profile donors.

Airwars' interactive map project detailing the "civilian casualties" in Gaza was nominated for @amnesty media awards 2022.
ImageImage
Airwars is based at Goldsmiths, University of London @GoldsmithsUoL. Chris Woods @chrisjwoods is the founder and until yesterday the director. Chris also sits on Forensic Architecture @ForensicArchi's Advisory Board. 
Previously, Amnesty International @amnesty and Forensic Architecture @ForensicArchi teamed up to create the "Gaza Platform", an online data visualization app that describes many known Palestinian terrorists as civilian casualties of the 2014 Gaza War.ImageImage
Mohammed Barham Abu Draz (محمد برهم على أبو دراز) was a member of Al Qassam Brigades - a terrorist organization. He is listed as civilian casualty.
gazaplatform.amnesty.org/#1528

Same for Alaa’ Jamal Barda (علاء جمال بردع). He was a field commander with the same terror group.
ImageImageImageImage
Airwars receives funding from Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust @jrct_uk, Open Society Foundations @OpenSociety, Stichting Democratie en Media, Reva and David Logan Foundation, and J. Leon Foundation. 
Some examples of "civilian casualties" that were actual Hamas, Fatah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists.

Ezz El-Din Mohamed Helles (عز الدين محمد حلس) - member Al Qassam Brigades
Image
Muhammad Yahya Abu Al-Atta (محمد يحيى أبو العطا) - field commander al-Quds Brigades, the armed wing of Palestinian Islamic Jihad.Image
Muhammad Saeed Abu Al-Atta (محمد سعيد ابوالعطا) - field commander Al Qassam Brigades.Image
Osama Ashraf Abu Rida (اسامه اشرف ابو ريده) - Activist Fatah youth. Fatah Movement Eastern Region referred to him as their martyr hero.Image
Zaher Atya Anbar (زاهر عطية عنبر) - member of Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades - Nidal Al-Amoudi Brigade, a Gaza based armed group.ImageImage
Yasser Al-Masry Abu Musab (ياسر المصري ابو مصعب) - Commander of the Deir al-Balah Brigade in Saraya al-Quds. Recently he died of injuries sustained in May 2021. Airwars' assessment of the IDF strike on Al-Masry - "civilian harm"ImageImage



I'd like to add that when someone is misidentified as a civilian, it not only affects the raw statistics of the victims. If the IDF has a legitimate target that was of a high enough value, then under the laws of armed conflict they are allowed to attack it even if there are civilians that will be harmed. This is not a carte blanche to attack anyone without regard to civilians, but if the target is someone or something that is important enough, some collateral damage is acceptable according to the principle of proportionality.

This means that any civilians who were effectively used as human shields by the terrorists cannot be treated as if they were killed far away from any target. Unlike how NGOs like Amnesty and HRW frame it, their deaths are legal. Only if there was no military gain from the attack does it violate the laws of war. When NGOs pretend that every civilian is a victim of Israel, they have it backwards: they died because Hamas and other terrorists hid behind them.



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!

 

 

Sunday, January 16, 2022


Is the US Holding Israel’s Iron Dome Hostage to an Iran Nuke Deal?

While President Biden, Senate, and Congress slow-walk and bicker over replenishing Jerusalem's dwindling defensive missile shield supplies, PM Bennett says his country won't be bound to any rickety renewed nuke deal - nor stand idly by to Iran's increasingly genocidal threats

By Dave Bender, northern Israel

Administration and Capitol political horse-traders and ideologues are holding hostage the lives of some two million Israelis -- specifically the Gaza Envelope and northern border areas. Their domestic foot-dragging endangers Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze, and Bedouin citizens, alike.

This, while P5+1 group (US, UK, China, France, Germany, Russia, and the EU) reps wrangle with Iran in Vienna through - so far - no less than eight contentious sessions over terms of restarting the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

But Jerusalem doesn’t trust the Viennese diplomatic waltz nor Iranian double-crossing promises; they’re preoccupied with Tehran’s ruling and military leaders’ incessant, bellicose threats to “turn Tel Aviv and Haifa into dust,” “wipe Israel off the map,” and taking note of videos of simulated strikes against Israel’s cities, military targets, and reputed nuclear facilities.

“...the Zionist regime has forgotten that Iran is more than capable of hitting them from anywhere,” the Tehran Times histrionically boasted in a December 2021 front-page article, entitled, “Just One Wrong Move.” https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/tehran-times-publishes-targets-iran-will-attack-in-israel-688785

On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett, told the Knesset parliament’s crucial Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee that, “Israel is not a party to the agreements,” and warned that the Jewish State “is not bound to what will be written in the agreements if they are signed,” according to a JNS report. https://www.jns.org/bennett-sends-message-to-iran-vienna-talks-wont-tie-israels-hands/

And so, Israel is “investing in security rearmament,” to the tune of an immense NIS 60 billion ($19.2 billion) due to what Bennett called an “[Iranian] octopus that constantly threatens Israel.”

Military analyst Seth Frantzman at The Jerusalem Post breaks down the tentacled threat matrix:

“Both Hamas and Hezbollah maintain large stockpiles of ballistic rockets, in addition to mortars, anti-tank missiles, and other munitions. While Hamas does have Iranian-made weaponry, a significant amount of its arsenal has historically been indigenously made, as a result of the ongoing blockade against the Gaza Strip. Hamas has produced several types of rockets, notably the Qassam series. Hezbollah’s stockpile has in the past consisted of former Soviet models, including Grads and Katyushas, but, like Hamas, now has Iranian-made heavy and long-distance rockets like the Fajr series.

“Estimates of Hezbollah rocket stockpiles vary from 150,000-200,000, while Hamas’ is estimated to be around 10,000.”  https://www.jpost.com/tags/rocket-attack-on-israel

Additionally, the Alma Research and Education Center, reports that Iran has deployed a wide array of medium-range and long-range surface-to-surface missiles inside fortified shafts,” at a site near Palmyra, in eastern Syria. https://israel-alma.org/research/

The missiles we mentioned above can threaten almost the entire territory of the State of Israel: Northern Israel (distance of about 186 miles, about 300 kilometers, from Mount Muhammad Ben Ali by air), Haifa area (distance of about 223 miles, about 360 kilometers), Tel Aviv area (distance of about 261 miles, about 420 kilometers) and even threaten the area of ​​the city of Beer Sheva and south of it.

But while last summer's unfulfilled promises to resupply crucial defensive measures remains a vital concern to Israelis, the regional conflagration the delay could yet ignite apparently remains - seriously and serially - misjudged and maybe even selectively ignored by the US Administration and its cohorts.

The May conflict with Gaza saw over four thousand rockets fired at metropolitan areas, and some 16 Hamas-Hezbollah rockets fired south out of southern Lebanon into civilian areas later in the year, with the Iron Dome successfully downing some 90 percent of them.

However, 12 Israeli civilians and an IDF soldier were killed, and over 300 wounded, and millions of dollars in economic damage was sustained in the 11-day operation, according to Israel’s Foreign Ministry https://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Terrorism/Palestinian/Pages/Operation-Guardian-of-the-Walls-10-May-2021.aspx

In Gaza, the IDF said some 460 misfired rockets fell short within the coastal enclave, killing and maiming an unclear number of reported non-combatants. Hamas-affiliated medical officials reported some 260 deaths to the UN and Human Rights Watch, although Israeli researchers say almost 50 percent of them were affiliated with terror groups.

So without freeing up funding (which is invested in American jobs to design and construct the strictly defensive interceptors), recalcitrant US lawmakers need to plainly know: your foot-dragging is likely to get many more people killed.

We in Israel see you and we hear you, and the results, if not intent, of your deeds - and misdeeds - are clear to us:

If the State of Israel is hit in any future conflict by volleys of even more thousands of incoming rockets or payload-carrying UAVs and cannot respond sufficiently due to a lack of Tamir interceptors, the government and IDF will have no other choice but to respond with far more kinetic firepower than anything seen so far - and at targets very near and very far - in order to suppress and stop the deadly salvos aimed at heavily-populated civilian areas and strategic facilities.

And even at that, despite the “standalone measure that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support,“ but still withheld in the Senate, rebuilding the supply of interceptors takes time, due to the relatively slow manufacturing process, with cost (and likely Covid) being an inhibitor.

On the other hand, Hamas and PIJ [Palestinian Islamic Jihad] use less sophisticated - but no less deadly - rockets that are manufactured quickly, at a much lower cost.

In order to stop them before they are even launched, the sanctimonious caterwauling over previous IDF pinpoint strikes on terror targets on and cross-border will be deafened into silence by the unleashed fury out of Zion.

Speaking as a nearly-two-decade IDF artillery NCO and infantry grunt (St.Sgt.- ret.) who served in and around Gaza, and as a two-decade reporter in Israel please understand: the howling existential threats uttered by Iranian-financed, trained, and led regional proxies and their determination to eradicate us will not deter us, but the countdown to the next steel rainstorm is ticking very loudly in our ears these days.

So forgive us for being distracted by the growing chorus calling for our demise; beyond the virtuous, virtual moral Disneyland of “knowing what's best for us" hectoring, "America first!" jingoism, and unrequited "tough love" missives penned from six thousand miles away - we’ll bleed real blood and treasure due to those withheld projectiles.

And so, in order to defend our families and the sole Jewish homeland against sworn foes bent on our collective destruction - despite an unspoken defensive arms embargo - don’t be too surprised by the justified ferocity and extent of Israel’s response.

And our lack of apology for stopping our would-be killers and their murderous plans.

---

Dave Bender is a US-born, four-decade Israeli immigrant and self-described, two-decade “ever-recovering reporter,” in Israel, and was an award-winning reporter at two NPR affiliates in the States. Since then, he’s developed a photography/videography career and would, mostly, just as soon be beekeeping with his wife, and enjoying his kids and grandkids.







Sunday, November 14, 2021




JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security in America, created a Gaza Task Force to go to Israel and report on what they found out about the Gaza conflict last May. 

The members of the task force are:

LTG Robert Ashley, USA (ret.), Former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency 
LTG John M. Bednarek, USA (ret.), Former Senior Defense Official in Iraq; former Chief of Office of Security Cooperation in Baghdad 
LTC Geoffrey S. Corn, USA (ret.) Former Chief International Law for U.S. Army Europe 
Lt Gen Jon Davis, USMC (ret.) Former Deputy Commandant for Aviation 
LTG Karen Gibson, USA (ret.) Former Deputy Director for National Intelligence for National Security Partnerships 
LTG Stephen Lanza, USA (ret.) Former Commanding General of I Corps and Joint Base Lewis McChord
 RADM Brian Losey, USN (ret.) Former Commander of Naval Special Warfare Command 
Lt Gen Richard Natonski, USMC (ret.) Former Commander of U.S. Marine Corps Forces Command 
LTG Raymond Palumbo, USA (ret.) Former Deputy Commander of U.S. Army Special Operations Command 
GEN David Rodriguez, USA (ret.) Former Commander of United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) 
Lt Gen Thomas Trask, USAF (ret.) Former Vice Commander of United States Special Operations Command 
Gen Charles Wald, USAF (ret.) Former Deputy Commander of United States European Command (EUCOM)
I'd say that this group has orders of magnitude more expertise in the laws of armed conflict than the entire staffs of Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, the UN Human Rights Council and Oxfam combined.

They released their report last month, with nearly no coverage in the media. And no wonder: they prove that the media and the NGOs they adore have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to international law.

The report does not only discuss what Israel did right. It also expands on Israel's missteps, mostly with messaging (the bombing of the Al Jalaa media building and the apparent deception to the world media that a ground operation was starting, for two.) It describes how Hamas learned lessons from previous wars and how they attempted to gain specific advantages. It discusses what lessons other democracies can learn from how Israel fought terrorists who are willing to make their own people human shields.

The report emphasizes how Hamas and its allies used the media to spread lies about the laws of armed conflict. Two examples of egregious ignorance about the laws of war from two popular comedy news hosts are given:

Trevor Noah, The Daily Show 
On May 11, 2021, Trevor Noah did a segment on The Daily Show in which he argued that, because Israel is more militarily capable, it should refrain from defending itself: “If you were in a fight where the other person cannot beat you, how hard should you retaliate when they try to hurt you?”
 John Oliver, Last Week Tonight 
Oliver’s viral May 16, 2021, segment about Israeli actions included the unfounded accusation that it “targeted the al-Aqsa mosque during Ramadan,” and that the IDF’s strike on a multi-story building in Gaza used by Hamas “sure seems like war crime, regardless of whether you send a courtesy heads-up text.” Oliver dismissed Hamas' firing of rockets at Israeli civilian population centers because “most of the rockets aimed toward Israeli citizens this week were intercepted.”

Both of these examples were multiplied, subtly or not, by mainstream media coverage that amplified Hamas' and its supporters' lies that every civilian killed in a war is a war crime. 

Two of the members of the task force wrote an op-ed in the New York Post today that summarized the findings and what it means for America in the future:

In its conflict with Hamas in May, Israel endured a barrage of rockets — as well as war-crime accusations. Iron Dome intercepted most of the former. The latter are more dangerous, for Israel and even the United States.

After reviewing the Israeli Defense Forces’ operations during the Gaza conflict as retired senior US military officers, we find these accusations spurious — fed by Hamas’ disinformation and a widespread misunderstanding of the Law of Armed Conflict, or LOAC. These dynamics could soon feature in conflicts involving the US military.

Delegitimizing Israeli operations — not military victory — was one of Hamas’ main objectives in this conflict. “The real crimes,” Hamas’ spokesperson told the media, “were committed by [Israel] targeting civilians … killing more than 100 children and women and demolishing buildings.”

With such false claims, Hamas casts any civilian casualty as illegal. Unfortunately, many in the media and public embraced this false narrative.

“Destroying a civilian residence sure seems like a war crime,” comedian John Oliver opined on his show. Seeming like a war crime and being one are quite different.

LOAC requires militaries to distinguish between — and only attack — military, not civilian, targets. Commanders are obliged to make a good-faith effort to take all feasible precautions to mitigate civilian risk.

These rules do not preclude unavoidable civilian casualties. It is a sad but undeniable reality of war that international law tolerates harm to civilians if it’s not deliberately inflicted, caused by indiscriminate attacks and avoidable with feasible precautions.

In our professional opinion, Israeli actions in Gaza reflected a consistent and good-faith commitment to respect and implement these LOAC principles.
As we've noted numerous times, modern wars involve messaging no less than munitions. The report shows that Israeli officials are almost resigned to the fact that the world will report unfairly anyway, but that doesn't mean they should give up improving how they get the truth across. The spokespeople should be involved nearly as much as the lawyers are in determining how to target and what information needs to be available instantly after an operation.





Monday, January 21, 2019

Latest in the series...

Nearly six years ago I gave a lecture at Yeshiva University on how to answer anti-Israel arguments. Since the lecture was over an hour and twenty minutes, I decided to break it up into 20 sections, one each to answer one popular anti-Israel argument.

Here is part 18..






We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.3

Sunday, April 19, 2015

From JPUpdates:

Terror has become a tragic reality in Israel’s fight for existence. Just last week, Shalom Yohai Sherki was killed and Shira Klein critically injured in a car terror attack in French Hil Jerusalem. To honor Yom Hazikaron, the day on which Israel honors its fallen soldiers and victims of terror, the National Insurance Institute has published a report documenting the number of Israeli civilians killed in hostilities since the War of Independence, focusing especially on those killed in the past year.

The past year has seen a sharp rise in terror attacks, with 31 Israelis murdered since last Remembrance Day, as compared to the same period last year in which only 2 Israelis were killed. This can be attributed to the horrific murders in the Har Nof Synagogue, in which four Jews worshippers and a heroic Druze policeman were killed, as well as the murder of 3 young men in Gush Etzion which preceded the War in Gaza. There were also a string of car attacks, one of which killed a small infant.

2,538 Israeli civilians have been murdered in terror attacks since the birth of the Jewish state in 1948. This figure also includes the 122 foreign tourists and workers killed in attacks. This number increases by more than 900 if you include acts of terror before Israel became a state.

Since the beginning of the Second Intifada in 2000 until the present, some 1,017 civilians have been killed in acts of terrorism. During the first intifada, 200 Israelis were murdered. Since the beginning of the first intifada which began at the end of 1987, over 1630 Jews have been killed in Israel.

This includes 18 Israelis killed abroad in terror attacks directed specifically against Israeli targets, and 3 American diplomatic personnel killed in Gaza. The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs lists the names of those killed since the year 2000.

The report states that terrorist attacks have left 2,997 children with one parent, and 101 children complete orphans. A total of 850 widows and widowers lost their spouses to attacks, as well as 943 parents who lost their children.

Sunday, August 03, 2014

I have described how Hamas is violating at least 19 principles of international law in the current fighting.

Now, is Israel?

The criticism most often given of Israel's actions is that it is violating the "principle of distinction." The Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol 1, article 52, states it this way:

1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.

2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make 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.

3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.
Many countries, when they ratified this article, clarified it to ensure that collateral damage is not covered by the first sentence of paragraph 2. So, for example, Canada wrote:
It is the understanding of the Government of Canada in relation to Article 52 that ...the first sentence of paragraph 2 of the Article is not intended to, nor does it,deal with the question of incidental or collateral damage resulting from an attack directed against a military objective.
Italy, Australia, the UK, France and New Zealand added similar language (CIHL II para. 83-91)

Logic dictates that it cannot be otherwise. If these caveats aren't in place, then anyone can make any military target immune from attack placing a civilian there, or placing the target in a house or church or hospital that is still used as such. So, for example, Australia's Defence Force Manual states:
The presence of noncombatants in or around a military objective does not change its nature as a military objective. Noncombatants in the vicinity of a military objective must share the danger to which the military objective is exposed.
Note that we are not saying that the existence of civilians at a military target can be ignored; that is part of the Proportionality discussion that will be forthcoming. But clearly international law allows the attack on military targets even if there are some civilians there.

Who determines whether something is a military target or not?

It is not reporters, or eyewitnesses, or residents of nearby houses, or human rights organizations. That decision is given to the military commander, based on the best available information at the time.

So, for example, The Military Manual of the Netherlands says that “the definition of ‘military objectives’ implies that it depends on the circumstances of the moment whether an object is a military objective. The definition leaves the necessary freedom of judgement to the commander on the spot."

Sweden's IHL manual states "it is up to the attacker to decide whether the nature, location, purpose or use of the property can admit of its being classified as a military objective and thus as a permissible object of attack. This formulation undeniably gives the military commander great latitude in deciding, but he must also take account of the unintentional damage that may occur. The proportionality rule must always enter into the assessment even though this is not directly stated in the text of Article 52." (para. 335, 338)

The military commander is not only concerned with the safety of the civilians in the area. The commander is also concerned with the safety of his or her own troops. The US Naval Handbook says "Military advantage may involve a variety of considerations, including the security of the attacking force." (para. 339)

Civilian sites can become valid military objectives. So, for example, Australia’s Defence Force Manual lists among military objectives “objects, normally dedicated to civilian purposes, but which are being used for military purposes, e.g. a school house or home which is being used temporarily as a battalion headquarters”. The manual specifies that "For this purpose, 'use' does not necessarily mean occupation. For example, if enemy soldiers use a school building as shelter from attack by direct fire, then they are clearly gaining a military advantage from the school. This means the school becomes a military objective and can be attacked." (para. 687)

Israel's Manual on the Laws of War goes even further to protect civilians: (para 694)
A situation may arise where the target changes its appearance from civilian to military or vice versa. For instance, if anti-aircraft batteries are stationed on a school roof or a sniper is positioned in a mosque’s minaret, the protection imparted to the facility by its being a civilian object will be removed, and the attacking party will be allowed to hit it . . . A reverse situation may also occur in which an originally military objective becomes a civilian object, as for instance, a large military base that is converted to a collection point for the wounded, and is thus rendered immune to attack.

However, attacks may not be indiscriminate.

It is ultimately up to the commander to determine the nature of the specific, fluid situation. Everything hinges on his or her intent - not on the judgment of other observers and not on finding out better information in hindsight. As stated by Rüdiger Wolfrum and Dieter Fleck in The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, "The prerequisite for a grave breach (of IHL) is intent; the attack must be intentionally directed at the civilian population or individual civilians, and the intent must embrace physical consequences."

In order to find that the commander has committed a war crime, the bar is set quite high. ICRC commentary on art 85 of the Additional Protocol states:

The accused must have acted consciously and with intent, i.e., with his mind on the act and its consequences, and willing the ("criminal intent" or "malice aforethought"); this encompasses the concepts of "wrongful intent" or "recklessness"....

As long as the IDF did not deliberately attack civilians, and the local commander had a military purpose for each target based on the best information available at the time, there is no violation of the principle of distinction.

Clearly, the observers on the ground and around the world who are looking at the results through the distorted lens of TV cameras cannot possibly know what the intent of the IDF commanders are. They don't know the specific intelligence available, the real-time situation on the ground, the danger to IDF troops or Israeli civilians (in the case of targeting rocket launchers,) the topography of the area (when, for example, the IDF needs to take hgh ground in order to protect its troops) - none of that is available to the armchair analysts who breezily and ignorantly say that IDF actions could amount to war crimes. The bar to determine that is incredibly high, and is not decided by people at Human Rights Watch who change international law at will for their purposes.

The argument that Israel is deliberately attacking civilians has another fatal flaw: if the policy was to attack civilians, then is it difficult to explain how thousands of air strikes and thousands more artillery strikes have killed so few. If the objective is civilian, then there would be tens of thousands of civilian victims. One cannot claim that the IDF is both a uniquely bloodthirsty army using precision weapons to target civilians and at the same time maintain that the IDF is so poor at targeting. Anyone claiming that the IDF is deliberately targeting civilians is either grossly ignorant of how wars are waged, or they are willfully slandering the army.


Caveat - I am not a lawyer. I am getting much of this from the IDF initial response to the Goldstone Report, and as of yet I have not seen a single scholarly rebuttal to the legal aspects mentioned in that report. If someone has written such a rebuttal, please let me know.

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive