Israel/Gaza - Here we go again...

Joat42 wrote:Now, one of the parties in this war is a signatory and are bound to follow it. They are also bound to uphold the convention against engaged parties that aren't signatories, see 2GC IV, Article 2. So your question about "who's the heavy here" has a clear answer: Both.

Sorry, but you are 100% wrong in your reading of the relevant clause.

2GC IV, Article 2, 3rd paragraph wrote:Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the
present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain
bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be
bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter
accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

This is saying that if, for example, Russia were to join the conflict on the side of Hamas then Russia and Israel would be bound to treat each other under the terms the the Convention. That 2nd sentence makes it clear that Hamas only gains the protections of the GC if they agree to abide by it and actually do so. Said action would require that they stop shooting their rockets into Israel's civilian areas, which they are only going to do when they run out of them.

Joat42 wrote:When the likely result is the innocent people who you are sworn to protect being killed instead.
If we take your simple answer to its logical conclusion, it's always okay to kill innocent people belonging to an adversary. It also means you have given Hamas a valid reason for what they did.

Well, Hamas has explicitly denied that it has responsibility for protecting Gaza's civilians.

Joat42 wrote:

• Articles 51 and 54 outlaw indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations, and destruction of food, water, and other materials needed for survival. Indiscriminate attacks include directly attacking civilian (non-military) targets, but also using technologies whose scope of destruction cannot be limited. A total war that does not distinguish between civilian and military targets is considered a war crime.
• Articles 56 and 53 outlaw attacks on dams, dikes, nuclear electrical-generating stations, and places of worship. The first three are "works and installations containing dangerous forces" and may be attacked only in ways that do not threaten to release the dangerous forces (i.e., it is permissible to capture them but not to destroy them).
• Articles 76 and 77, 15 and 79 provide special protections for women, children, and civilian medical personnel, and provide measures of protection for journalists.

The GC also contains articles about hiding active combatants among civilians, which is forbidden but it's something every major power does.

You might note Article 28 which explicitly specifies that civilian presence does not rule out the use of military force even if they may be killed, depending on circumstances. And Article 19 while you're at it.

Now, one of the parties in this war is a signatory and are bound to follow it. They are also bound to uphold the convention against engaged parties that aren't signatories, see GC IV, Article 2. So your question about "who's the heavy here" has a clear answer: Both.

Article 2:

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof

That is, if you have country A on one side and countries B & C on the other, the GC applies to conduct between A and B. It applies to C if they "accepts and applies the provisions thereof". Did Hamas do so?

It should also be noted that Israel is not a signatory to Protocol I.

Arol wrote:Let me get this straight Joat42.
Your contention is that Israel had no right; according to your interpretation of the GC, to reply to Gaza’s attack on October seventh, because in so doing, it would endanger civilians? This even if the rockets fired from residential areas was endangering Israeli lives and property?

Point to where I contend that. Plus, read up on the Law of Proportionality. Current statistics say 1200 people was killed by Hamas, more than 11000 Palestinians have been killed by IDF. What is an acceptable ratio of dead civilians?

Arol wrote:I don’t know what reality you are living in, but I can’t think of a single nation in this realty that would not have replied if it had the means and opportunity.

Did I say otherwise? The actual question is how would any one else have acted and how it would differ from Israel.

Arol wrote:

Joat42 wrote:I can only come to the conclusion that a lot of people are rationalizing away the killing of innocent people by saying "Hamas are evil terrorists, they need to be stopped regardless of the cost in lives".

You're half right: as long as they are Hamas lives!!!

Ie, dead civilians doesn't count.

Robert_A_Woodward wrote:I did not mention Hamas in my reply; I used the expression "terrorist organization".

When we are talking about what's going on in Gaza, saying "terrorist organization" is the same as saying Hamas.

Robert_A_Woodward wrote:Thus, I hold that YOU are dodging the question, which is how can a country respond to an attack on its population? Allowing the agents that did so to escape consequence and be free to repeat IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE OPTION!!! That is a betrayal of that government's responsibility to its citizens.

I'm not dodging the question at all, you asked me that question for two reasons which you aren't intellectually aware of. 1. you are trying to put the burden on me for your rationalizing, 2. you don't understand my question.

And that's why your question is irrelevant as a response to my question which you will realize once you understand it, and my question isn't particularly hard to answer if people would actually apply a bit of reason instead of whatever form of emotional outrage that seem to occupy their faculties.

zyffyr wrote:

Joat42 wrote:Now, one of the parties in this war is a signatory and are bound to follow it. They are also bound to uphold the convention against engaged parties that aren't signatories, see 2GC IV, Article 2. So your question about "who's the heavy here" has a clear answer: Both.

Sorry, but you are 100% wrong in your reading of the relevant clause.

2GC IV, Article 2, 3rd paragraph wrote:Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the
present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain
bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be
bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter
accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

This is saying that if, for example, Russia were to join the conflict on the side of Hamas then Russia and Israel would be bound to treat each other under the terms the the Convention. That 2nd sentence makes it clear that Hamas only gains the protections of the GC if they agree to abide by it and actually do so. Said action would require that they stop shooting their rockets into Israel's civilian areas, which they are only going to do when they run out of them.

You are entirely correct, I misread that statement.

Joat42 wrote:

Robert_A_Woodward wrote:I did not mention Hamas in my reply; I used the expression "terrorist organization".

When we are talking about what's going on in Gaza, saying "terrorist organization" is the same as saying Hamas.

I was not that specific. Your challenge was general; my question was one as well.

Joat42 wrote:

Robert_A_Woodward wrote:Thus, I hold that YOU are dodging the question, which is how can a country respond to an attack on its population? Allowing the agents that did so to escape consequence and be free to repeat IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE OPTION!!! That is a betrayal of that government's responsibility to its citizens.

I'm not dodging the question at all, you asked me that question for two reasons which you aren't intellectually aware of. 1. you are trying to put the burden on me for your rationalizing, 2. you don't understand my question.

And that's why your question is irrelevant as a response to my question which you will realize once you understand it, and my question isn't particularly hard to answer if people would actually apply a bit of reason instead of whatever form of emotional outrage that seem to occupy their faculties.

I am applying more reason than you. I am thinking of consequences of saying "never". My belief is that military action in a city will result in civilian fatalities. Thus, with your lack of effort to argue that my belief is not correct, I conclude that your challenge is sanctimonious posturing.

Joat42 wrote:Point to where I contend that. Plus, read up on the Law of Proportionality. Current statistics say 1200 people was killed by Hamas, more than 11000 Palestinians have been killed by IDF. What is an acceptable ratio of dead civilians?

That's not what proportionality means in the laws of war. It means that if there's a military target, it can still be attacked even if civilians could be harmed, but the harm to civilians must be proportionate to the value of the target. It's not about achieving some acceptable ratio of deaths on both sides.

NTM that we don't actually know how many Palestinian civilians were killed, since if we go by their figures Hamas has apparently suffered 0 losses. And that's not counting that Hamas has been killing Palestinians both deliberately (they've been shooting evacuating civilians, among other things) and accidently (around 1000 Palestinian rockets landed in Gaza) or that in previous conflicts the GMOH has counted all deaths in the period as killed by Israel, even if the death was completely unrelated.

Robert_A_Woodward wrote:I am applying more reason than you. I am thinking of consequences of saying "never". My belief is that military action in a city will result in civilian fatalities. Thus, with your lack of effort to argue that my belief is not correct, I conclude that your challenge is sanctimonious posturing.

You think you are applying more reason than I am, but you aren't because you are conflating two different things so let met educate you:

It's never okay to kill civilians, period. Because the alternative is that it's okay which means the enemy can use exactly the same rationalizing and excuses as some here have voiced. Just remember, the "bad guys" never consider themselves to be the bad guys - it's their enemy that are the bad guys.

Your (and others) logical error here is assuming that I'm saying that you can't attack a military target if there is even the slightest possibility of collateral damage in the form of dead civilian, which I'm not. The unfortunate reality of war is there will always be collateral damage, but it is never okay.

Frankly, I find it frustrating that this concept eludes people. The simple fact is that it's not okay for civilians to die in a war, regardless of any justification or rationalizing. But if that's not how you feel, imagine if one of your loved ones become collateral damage in a military action. You may agree with the military action, but you will never be okay with loosing a loved one in it.

Do you get it now?

Eyal wrote:That's not what proportionality means in the laws of war. It means that if there's a military target, it can still be attacked even if civilians could be harmed, but the harm to civilians must be proportionate to the value of the target. It's not about achieving some acceptable ratio of deaths on both sides.

So how many dead civilians is a Hamas-fighter or target worth? That's what I'm asking, I just used the number of dead as a reminder that there are thousands upon thousands of dead civilians.

Eyal wrote:NTM that we don't actually know how many Palestinian civilians were killed, since if we go by their figures Hamas has apparently suffered 0 losses. And that's not counting that Hamas has been killing Palestinians both deliberately (they've been shooting evacuating civilians, among other things) and accidently (around 1000 Palestinian rockets landed in Gaza) or that in previous conflicts the GMOH has counted all deaths in the period as killed by Israel, even if the death was completely unrelated.

So what? You are still rationalizing that it's okay that there are dead civilians and you are using one opponents actions against another as an justification for it.

And in regards to the amount of dead in Gaza, let me quote Barbara Leaf who is assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs at the White House:

Barbara Leaf wrote:We think they're very high, frankly, and it could be that they're even higher than are being cited.

And by cited, she means the numbers the health ministry in Gaza publishes.