HAMAS, THE GAZA WAR AND ACCOUNTABILITY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

[JB Globe]

Do these Islamist fighting groups ignore the international laws of armed conflict? They do not. It would be a grave mistake to conclude that they do. Instead, they study it carefully and they understand it well.

They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses.

It is not simply that these insurgents do not adhere to the laws of war. It is that they employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. Their entire operational doctrine is founded on this basis.

The idea that terrorists do immoral things is something I learned as a child. The idea that these acts don't justify a state doing immoral things in response is something I learned as an adult.

And in sophisticated groupings such as Hamas and Hizballah, the media will be exploited also as a critical implement of their military strategy.

Which is wrong, but of course, EVERY military outfit (national army or otherwise) uses misinformation and the media as a key part of their strategy. It's wrong when Hamas does it, and it's wrong when Israel does it.

In Gaza, according to residents there, Hamas fighters who previously wore black or khaki uniforms, discarded them when Operation Cast Lead began, to blend in with the crowds and use them as human shields.

Which is wrong, and frankly, it's just as bad as when the IDF uses Palestinian children as human shields. The only difference is in one case it's the official policy of the military outfit, whereas with the other it's an unofficial policy - whereby many people knows it happens, but they keep quiet about it until some evidence emerges, then someone has to be the fall guy and claim that they were acting alone.

I don't know which is worse - openly embracing an immoral act, or committing immoral acts on a regular basis but not owning up to it.

So what did the IDF do in Gaza to meet their obligation to operate within the laws of war? When possible the IDF gave at least four hours' notice to civilians to leave areas targeted for attack.

The problem with this is of course, there is no where else to go in Gaza - it's one of the most populated places on earth and all of it was a combat zone. This is an example of someone else's immoral actions not justifying your own. Hamas' decision to operate in dense civilian areas doesn't automatically relieve Israel of moral responsibility in deciding to shell and bomb those areas.

During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza.

Not according to the Red Cross.

Leaflets also urged the people to phone in information to pinpoint Hamas fighters vital intelligence that could save innocent lives.

Apparently the Colonel is not aware that in any deeply polarized conflict between two ethnic groups, providing intelligence to the other side is an act of treason, and that people will rather suffer a great deal than be seen assisting the enemy. On the ground in Gaza, even if folks disliked Hamas, they dislike Israel a great deal more, and it shouldn't be surprising that they weren't jumping at the chance to snitch to the enemy. Especially considering if caught they would have been shot, just like collaborators are in any conflict.

Frankly I'm shocked that someone with this guy's experience could be so naive, it's not as if the IDF was liberating Gazans from a universally despised regime - in that case, you'd definitely get people assisting the liberators.

Blaming the victims in all of this is a punk move.

The IDF phoned over 30,000 Palestinian households in Gaza, urging them in Arabic to leave homes where Hamas might have stashed weapons or be preparing to fight. Similar messages were passed in Arabic on Israeli radio broadcasts warning the civilian population of forthcoming operations.

Despite Israel's extraordinary measures, of course innocent civilians were killed and wounded.

What did the colonel expect? That people who have seen with their own eyes the injustices committed against them their whole lives by the state of Israel would suddenly look upon these phone calls and radio broadcasts as messages from a benign and loving country? Of course not - in a deeply polarized ethnic conflict those things are looked upon with large helpings of suspicion and cynicism.

Expecting Palestinians to take the word of the IDF at face value is like expecting Israelis to take the word of Hamas. Do you think someone who witnessed a suicide bombing is going to believe Hamas when they say "give up Palestine and we'll declare peace?" - of course not.

Which is of course, why Hamas' entire strategy of terrorism is as redundant as Israel's strategy of occupation - both of them fail miserably to achieve their goals, cause the conflict to become incredibly polarized and thus more difficult to deal with, and kill a lot of people in the process.

Edited August 11, 2009 by JB Globe

[M.Dancer]

The problem with this is of course, there is no where else to go in Gaza - it's one of the most populated places on earth and all of it was a combat zone.

That of course is incorrect on a few counts.

1) All of it wasn't a war zone, in fact only a small % received any attacks

2) It is not "one of the most populated places on earth"....not even top 10.

In fact, New York City is far more densley populated....and they have the second largest urban park in north american in it.

[DogOnPorch]

That of course is incorrect on a few counts.

1) All of it wasn't a war zone, in fact only a small % received any attacks

2) It is not "one of the most populated places on earth"....not even top 10.

In fact, New York City is far more densley populated....and they have the second largest urban park in north american in it.

Agreement. If one cranks-up Google Maps, it's clear to see that there were plenty of places to evacuate the civilian population to if Hamas had so desired. During Leningrad, there was 'nowhere to go' as well...but they still got 2 million civilians across the ice road while the Luftwaffe was dropping bombs on them. Anything is possible.

[DogOnPorch]

JB Globe: Which is wrong, but of course, EVERY military outfit (national army or otherwise) uses misinformation and the media as a key part of their strategy. It's wrong when Hamas does it, and it's wrong when Israel does it.

Israel has to have some of the worst PR people on the planet. Their official videos include cheesy sinister music while gravel-voiced announcers make everything sound like The End Is Nigh. They really do need help. Hamas is equally as bad if not many factors worse...but they're often playing to the home crowd and can get away with outrageous propaganda (like execution videos).

[jbg]

The idea that terrorists do immoral things is something I learned as a child. The idea that these acts don't justify a state doing immoral things in response is something I learned as an adult.

And the idea that terrorists will respond to reason is something I've unlearned as an adult.

Terrorists create civilian casualties by sheltering amid a civilian population, and even worse fight out of uniform so that the civilized forces cannot know who they're "fighting". The desire to save innocent lives should not prevent the West from exercising self-defense.

Which is wrong, and frankly, it's just as bad as when the IDF uses Palestinian children as human shields.

Are you saying Palestinian children are at the disposal of the IDF the way thery're at their parents' disposal? Novel and interesting.

The problem with this is of course, there is no where else to go in Gaza - it's one of the most populated places on earth and all of it was a combat zone. This is an example of someone else's immoral actions not justifying your own. Hamas' decision to operate in dense civilian areas doesn't automatically relieve Israel of moral responsibility in deciding to shell and bomb those areas.

So what should Israel do, die?

[M.Dancer]

Hamas' decision to operate in dense civilian areas doesn't automatically relieve Israel of moral responsibility in deciding to shell and bomb those areas.

Actually it does. Legally and morally. Legally from the point of view of international law and morally in that it is the moral duty of the ISraeli government to fight their enemies. Once decided the only obligation that israel is under is to weigh the human cost against the military value and act accordingly.

There were a high number of civilian deaths, the onus for this is on those who choose the battlefield.

[Rue]

JBG you made an allegation that and I quote; "the IDF uses Palestinian children as human shields.... it's an unofficial policy... many people knows(sic) it happens, but they keep quiet about it until some evidence emerges, then someone has to be the fall guy and claim that they were acting alone."

I would like to see your references for what you base the above allegations on and then I and perhaps others can respond further. It seems to be though if you are going to make such allegations you should prove a reference.

[DogOnPorch]

Did jbg say that, Rue?

[Bonam]

Did jbg say that, Rue?

He was referring to JB Globe's post, I would imagine.

[DogOnPorch]

He was referring to JB Globe's post, I would imagine.

I see. Roger that.

[Rue]

Yes sorry JBG I meant JB Globe. Apologize. Do you have a reference for the Israeli

soldiers in Gaza using civilians as shields?

[jbg]

JBG you made an allegation that and I quote; "the IDF uses Palestinian children as human shields.... it's an unofficial policy... many people knows(sic) it happens, but they keep quiet about it until some evidence emerges, then someone has to be the fall guy and claim that they were acting alone."

That was JB Globe. I believe he patterns his handle after me. I can't stand he/she/it.

[jbg]

Yes sorry JBG I meant JB Globe. Apologize. Do you have a reference for the Israeli

soldiers in Gaza using civilians as shields?

Apology accepted.

[JB Globe]

The desire to save innocent lives should not prevent the West from exercising self-defense.

West? Are there different rules of war depending on where your country is located on a map? Was that a slip of the Clash of Civilizations? Or just a typo?

Here's the thing - when the amount of innocent lives lost is far greater than the actual security gains you're going to get, a decent politician is supposed to call off the attack.

But unfortunately, this is the Middle East, and there are three things which are in very short supply:

1 - Water

2 - Decent Politicians

3 - Mustache trimmers

The Gaza invasion put short-term security ahead of long-term security.

That and it made Labor look really, really, badass running into the elections, which made Olmert look as badass as ever running up to the elections, too bad for him war isn't everything in Israel anymore.

Are you saying Palestinian children are at the disposal of the IDF the way thery're at their parents' disposal?

No, of course not - Palestinian parents can't throw teargas at their kids for fun.

BTW - I wasn't aware that happening to live in an apartment with your kids on the same Gaza street as a government health clinic was one in the same as strapping a local kid to the hood of a jeep while paroling hostile territory.

So what should Israel do, die?

How about for starters: stop using the actions of terrorists to excuse your own continual failure to do what's best for your long-term security and bring peace to your own people.

Incidentally, this sounds a lot like my opinion on what Palestinians should do differently . . .

[JB Globe]

Agreement. If one cranks-up Google Maps, it's clear to see that there were plenty of places to evacuate the civilian population to if Hamas had so desired.

Walking out into the middle of a field in plain sight of IDF artillery positions to sit and wait for an Israeli offensive to finish sounds suicidal to a Palestinian.

Kind of like for an Israeli - slapping on your Israeli-flag-Yarmulke, hoping the fence and going for a nice stroll in downtown Gaza is an activity reserved only for those with a death-wish.

[JB Globe]

Once decided the only obligation that israel is under is to weigh the human cost against the military value and act accordingly.

And of course, acting accordingly would have meant not attacking Gaza.

There were a high number of civilian deaths, the onus for this is on those who choose the battlefield.

Now on my end, I've always derided Hamas for choosing the worst tactic (terrorism) when dealing with a democratic state that loves to pat itself on it's back for being morally superior. I think that Palestinians could have complete control over their land if they took to large-scale civil disobedience. So when I ask this question, I'm not talking about Israel-Palestine . . .

But I do recognize that in some circumstances militant groups don't really have much of a choice: the government they're fighting is totalitarian, if they operate in a conventional military style they'll be crushed - so they do what they can, which may involve operating in civilian areas.

Do they still bare total responsibility? Even if they have legit grievances against the government (ie - the government is committing crimes against them?)

[JB Globe]

That was JB Globe. I believe he patterns his handle after me. I can't stand he/she/it.

It's true. My parents gave me the initials JB just so that a few decades later I could pattern myself after you.

Get over yourself.

[JB Globe]

Yes sorry JBG I meant JB Globe. Apologize. Do you have a reference for the Israeli

soldiers in Gaza using civilians as shields?

Gaza specifically? Yes:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07...port/index.html

Admittedly I'd like more than anonymous testimony, but given the situation in Gaza at the time (no media allowed, people are too poor to be "citizen journalists" and have a camera handy to film this stuff) it's the best we have.

However given the numerous past incidents, I think it's safe to assume that if the IDF has been found to be using human shields in places where they don't have such an information stranglehold, that they'd definitely be using human shields when they're able to operate in the dark in the information vacuum that was the Gaza invasion.

Especially considering that the IDF openly admitted it used human shields until the Israeli Supreme Court squashed this as a violation of the Geneva code in 2005.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4333982.stm

Given how frequently it's happened since then, or reported to have happened (because of course, cameras aren't allowed during Israeli operations), I don't think it's too far-fetched to think that there's a chunk of soldiers in the IDF who are pissed off at Supreme Court decision, could care less, and are continuing the policy. I also think that there's a lot of soldiers who look the other way, because they don't want to be a snitch (police have blue shirts mostly - so it's the "no snitch" barrier is called the blue wall, with the military, is it the olive-wall?).

And btw, while it might seem nice that the IDF former policy on human shields demanded that soldiers get permission first - there have been many cases where people cited in IDF reports as willing shields have later said that they or their families were threatened into complying.

I know there's going to be a knee-jerk reaction (not you specifically Rue) to deny that Israel does bad things, because after all, this is a cosmic war and us Jews are the good guys - but really that speaks to the ignorance and naivety of the people who react that way to the entirety of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Dirty wars make good folks do unspeakable things - this isn't a radical concept.

[DogOnPorch]

Walking out into the middle of a field in plain sight of IDF artillery positions to sit and wait for an Israeli offensive to finish sounds suicidal to a Palestinian.

Kind of like for an Israeli - slapping on your Israeli-flag-Yarmulke, hoping the fence and going for a nice stroll in downtown Gaza is an activity reserved only for those with a death-wish.

You're apologizing for terrorists. If Hamas so desired, the entire civilian population of Gaza could have been evacutated to the countryside allowing them to duke it out with the IDF in Gaza City as desired. But, they didn't...prefering to use their civilians as targets for the 6 o'clock news.

[jbg]

But I do recognize that in some circumstances militant groups don't really have much of a choice: the government they're fighting is totalitarian, if they operate in a conventional military style they'll be crushed - so they do what they can, which may involve operating in civilian areas.

Do they still bare total responsibility? Even if they have legit grievances against the government (ie - the government is committing crimes against them?)

And if the civilians allow that to happen they're putting themselves on the 10 yard line.

Remember, Hamas is an elected government, chosen by the people. The people are getting what they deserve.

[M.Dancer]

And of course, acting accordingly would have meant not attacking Gaza.

No of course not. Not attacking would mean the continuation of terror by unguided missile attacks. to act accordingly is to kill as many Hamad as possible while limiting the number of non belligerant fatalities as possible.

There is no formula for doing this but...

Lets say,..... The date is 1940, British intelligence knows that hitler will be attending the opening of a nursery school in Bremin. They have a 100% chance of killing hitler and his entire entourage, there by decapitating the NAZI war effort and possibly ushering in a political group amiable for peace. Doing this will no doubt kill 100 children plus teachers and parents.

Do you order the strike?

Lets say.....the date is 1944. Canadian troops have spotted a German armoured column heading towards them. Artillery is in place and can be brought down upon the column...right in the middle of a small french town. If the column passes through the town, the Canadians will be caught in a devasting cross fire.

Do you order the strike?

Lets say...the date in july 1945. The President has been given an option of using the most powerful bomb ever devised. Dropping 2 of them on two different Japanese ciities will surely show the Japanese the was is lost. Analysts believe the Japanese will surrender. They also believe if they don;t surrender, the war could go on for another 2-3 years inflicting over one million new casualties to the allies alone.

Do you order the strike?

[JB Globe]

You're apologizing for terrorists.

How? By stating that the civilian population in Gaza is deeply distrustful of the IDF and that's why they won't camp out in a field in plain sight of the IDF? In their minds it would make them sitting ducks. I didn't even mention Hamas in this context - how could I be apologizing for them?

Quit it with these knee-jerk reactions to people with a different interpretation of the situation.

If Hamas so desired, the entire civilian population of Gaza could have been evacutated to the countryside allowing them to duke it out with the IDF in Gaza City as desired. But, they didn't...prefering to use their civilians as targets for the 6 o'clock news.

I think Hamas should have tried, (and for the record I think it's criminal that they didn't) but I don't think by their will alone they could've gotten the whole population out of the cities - there would still be too many people too frightened to do it, which speaks to the Palestinian opinion of the IDF if they would rather sit it out in the middle of the conflict.

This shouldn't be something that's hard to understand - you've got a group of people who's only interaction with a military force has resulted in oppression, humiliation, and violence - what reason do Palestinians, from their perspective have to trust the IDF? Notice I'm not even saying their perspective is valid or invalid, I'm just saying that the reality of Occupation means that there's no way to have even a working relationship between the IDF and Palestinian civilians. You could say the same thing about what terrorism does to the relationship as well.

Edited August 13, 2009 by JB Globe

[JB Globe]

And if the civilians allow that to happen they're putting themselves on the 10 yard line.

Remember, Hamas is an elected government, chosen by the people. The people are getting what they deserve.

Can you read? Or are you misrepresenting my argument as usual? Here's my full post:

Now on my end, I've always derided Hamas for choosing the worst tactic (terrorism) when dealing with a democratic state that loves to pat itself on it's back for being morally superior. I think that Palestinians could have complete control over their land if they took to large-scale civil disobedience. So when I ask this question, I'm not talking about Israel-Palestine . . .

But I do recognize that in some circumstances militant groups don't really have much of a choice: the government they're fighting is totalitarian, if they operate in a conventional military style they'll be crushed - so they do what they can, which may involve operating in civilian areas.

Do they still bare total responsibility? Even if they have legit grievances against the government (ie - the government is committing crimes against them?)

Notice I said SPECIFICALLY I didn't think that Hamas had a legitimate claim to use violence - that no one ever really tried large-scale organized civil disobedience before resorting to violence.

I said SPECIFICALLY that I wasn't talking about Israel-Palestine when asking the second question, yet you cut those parts out of your quote so that you could claim that I was somehow supporting Hamas' legitimacy.

Is it possible for you to debate without resorting to misinformation?

[jbg]

Is it possible for you to debate without resorting to misinformation?

And you personal attacks?

[JB Globe]

No of course not. Not attacking would mean the continuation of terror by unguided missile attacks.

This assumes of course, that there is no other option the military force. Considering Hamas had a legitimate reason for their illegitimate actions (the blockade) that left the door open for negotiation. But of course, negotiations with Hamas and Israel are always difficult - mainly because it's hard to negotiate when you won't get in the same room as the person on the other side of the table.

However, I think negotiations would have worked, would have prevented a lot of civilian deaths, and Israel's reputation would not have taken the hammering that it did during the Gaza War.

All in all, I think Israel's long-term interests were better served by NOT going to war in this case.

There is no formula for doing this but...

Lets say,..... The date is 1940, British intelligence knows that hitler will be attending the opening of a nursery school in Bremin. They have a 100% chance of killing hitler and his entire entourage, there by decapitating the NAZI war effort and possibly ushering in a political group amiable for peace. Doing this will no doubt kill 100 children plus teachers and parents.

Do you order the strike?

Lets say.....the date is 1944. Canadian troops have spotted a German armoured column heading towards them. Artillery is in place and can be brought down upon the column...right in the middle of a small french town. If the column passes through the town, the Canadians will be caught in a devasting cross fire.

Do you order the strike?

Lets say...the date in july 1945. The President has been given an option of using the most powerful bomb ever devised. Dropping 2 of them on two different Japanese ciities will surely show the Japanese the was is lost. Analysts believe the Japanese will surrender. They also believe if they don;t surrender, the war could go on for another 2-3 years inflicting over one million new casualties to the allies alone.

Do you order the strike?

I know you have better examples than ones from WWII.

Besides, most of the highest ranking military officials at the time didn't believe it was necessary to drop the a-bomb to end the war.