50 Days: More than 500 Children: Facts and figures on fatalities in Gaza, Summer 2014

[Little Tich]

Source: B'tselem, 20 Jul 2016

1394, or 63%, of the 2,202 Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces in Operation "Protective Edge" did not take part in the hostilities. Of these, 526 – a quarter of all Palestinians killed in the operation – were children under eighteen years of age. These are some of the figures published today by Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem to mark two years since the operation, which took place in July-August 2014. Additionally, 17 children were killed while participating in the hostilities, and for an additional 3, B'Tselem was unable to ascertain whether they had taken part in the hostilities .Of the 72 Israelis killed in the operation, six were civilians (one of them a Thai national), including a four-year-old child, and 62 were soldiers killed by Palestinians. Three soldiers were killed by other soldiers, and one in an operational accident.

B’Tselem’s data are based on a meticulous, exhaustive investigation carried out by the organization’s field researchers in Gaza, which were cross referenced with other publicly available sources. The information is also available in an interactive format that enables searches by age, gender, location, and other criteria.

The high number of civilian fatalities – including women, children, and the elderly – casts doubt on Israel’s claim that all the targets were legitimate and that the military adhered to the principle of proportionality during the attacks and took precautions to reduce harm to civilians. While the fighting was still in progress, B’Tselem already cautioned against the predictable lethal consequences of the military’s open-fire policy, which included air strikes on homes that killed many civilians who were not taking part in the hostilities (see B’Tselem report Black Flag). Decision makers continued to apply this policy, in spite of these results.

Of the Palestinians killed who did not take part in the hostilities, 180 were babies, toddlers, and children under the age of six. Another 346 were children from age six through seventeen, and 247 were women between the ages of 18 and 59. Another 113 were men and women over the age of sixty.

B’Tselem’s investigation found that 762 of the Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces were taking part in the hostilities at the time of their death, or held a continuous combat function in an armed group in the Gaza Strip. Regarding another 46, B’Tselem was unable to ascertain whether they had taken part in the hostilities.

Read more: http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20160720_fatalities_in_gaza_conflict_2014


Interactive map of casualties here: http://www.btselem.org/2014_gaza_conflict/en/

[oberliner]

1. "Additionally, 17 children were killed while participating in the hostilities..."

That means the Palestinians were using children as soldiers, which is a war crime.

What percentage of the Palestinians who "participated in the hostilities" were children I wonder.

Perhaps B'tselem has those figures as well. Or, if not, some similar Palestinian human rights group.

[Little Tich]

2. Some Hamas militants were under 18, which is contrary to international law.

Wrongs were committed by both sides, but the most serious accusation is that Israel was in breach of international humanitarian law by targeting civilians.

Black Flag: The legal and moral implications of the policy of attacking residential buildings in the Gaza Strip, summer 2014
Source: B'tselem, Jan. 2015
(snip)

Given this reality, the issue at hand is what conclusions policymakers may draw from it. The prime minister’s statements indicate he believes that Hamas and the military share the responsibility to take precautions. Yet this interpretation is designed to block, a priori, any allegations that Israel breached IHL provisions. Accepting it would mean that there are no restrictions whatsoever on Israeli action and that whatever method it chooses to respond to Hamas operations is legitimate, no matter how horrifying the consequences. This interpretation is unreasonable, unlawful, and renders meaningless the principle that IHL violations committed by one party do not release the other party from its obligations toward the civilian population and civilian objects.

Read more: http://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/201501_black_flag

[shira]

4. Child militants is a war crime. No need to defend Hamas. n/t

[shira]

3. "Did not take part in hostilities" does not mean "innocent civilians".

So for example, a Hamas militant leader guilty as hell of multiple war crimes can be considered as not having taken part in hostilities if the IDF finds out where he and other Hamasniks are hiding and blows them up. He's a legit target but casualty numbers show he's not a combatant & wasn't at the time he was blown the hell up because he was in hiding at that particular moment. It's ridiculous, but that's how NGO's work with Hamas against Israel.

What would be more interesting is the percentage killed for no apparent reason whatsoever.

[6chars]

5. i'm skeptical

B'Tselem says B'Tselem's study was meticulous. That is not an objective observation.

[King_David]

7. That's why it is important to know which foreign governments fund which organizations nt

[shira]

6. B'tselem counts dead terrorists as innocent civilians. One of many examples...

Last edited Fri Jul 22, 2016, 08:17 AM - Edit history (1)

This was big news at the time. Alleged "proof" that Israel indiscriminately killed civilians in Gaza...

Bilal al-Astal recounts bombing that killed 9 in Gazan café, where he and others were watching a World Cup match
http://www.btselem.org/testimonies/20140710_gaza_bombing_al_astal

Turns out many (maybe all) from that incident were terrorists...
https://www.facebook.com/KtaybAlshhydAhmdAbwAlryshSrayaAlqaydmrwAbwStt/photos/pb.163774007144138.-2207520000.1436077974./427044097483793/

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/Data/articles/Art_20687/E_124_14B_472268844.pdf

Cross-check names for proof.

[Little Tich]

8. It seems as if the people in the café didn't participate in hostilities - they were watching TV.

The interactive map worked, and it was no problem finding information about the attack on the café. The people in the café were not a legitimate object of attack according to international humanitarian law:

Explanation of statistics on fatalities
Source: B'tselem, 20 Jul 2016
(snip)

Since Operation Cast Lead, which began on 27 December 2008, B'Tselem has based its determination of whether the person killed was taking part in the hostilities, among other factors, on the new approach of the International Committee of the Red Cross regarding the direct participation of civilians in hostilities.

Under international humanitarian law, civilians are entitled to protection and may not be the object of an attack, “unless and for such time as they participate directly in hostilities.” The study initiated by the ICRC was intended to clarify the circumstances in which a civilian loses special protection and is deemed to have participated directly in hostilities. The final report, which is based on six years of activity by work groups composed of experts in international humanitarian law, states that persons belonging to two categories lose the protection given to civilians in an armed conflict between a state and an organized armed group:

Persons who fulfill a “continuous combat function.” Such persons are legitimate objects of attack even if they are not participating directly in hostilities at the moment of attack. This category includes persons whose ongoing function involves the preparation, execution, or command of combat acts or operations. An individual recruited, trained, and equipped by such a group to continuously and directly participate in hostilities can be considered to assume a continuous combat function even before the person carries out a hostile act. On the other hand, persons who continuously accompany or support an organized armed group but whose function does not involve direct participation in hostilities maintain their status as civilians and are not legitimate objects of attack. Thus, recruiters, trainers, and funders may contribute to the general war effort, but as long as they do not directly participate in hostilities, they are not a legitimate object of attack.

Persons who do not fulfill a “continuous combat function” are a legitimate object of attack only when taking a direct part in hostilities (for example, on their way to fire a rocket, during the firing of the rocket, and on the way back).

Wherever there is a doubt regarding the actions of a person, the doubt works in the individual's favor, and it is forbidden to target the person for attack.

Read more: http://www.btselem.org/statistics/casualties_clarifications

[shira]

9. They were terrorists, not innocent civilians killed for no reason whatsoever.

And there is no such International Law protecting these terrorists because they aren't fulfilling some make-believe continuous combat function.

I challenge you to show the exact IHL.

[Little Tich]

10. Google can make anyone an instant expert...

Protocol I
Source: Wikipedia

Protocol I is a 1977 amendment protocol to the Geneva Conventions relating to the protection of victims of international conflicts, where "armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regimes" are to be considered international conflicts.[1] It reaffirms the international laws of the original Geneva Conventions of 1949, but adds clarifications and new provisions to accommodate developments in modern international warfare that have taken place since the Second World War.

---

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 technology such as biological weapons, nuclear weapons and land mines, whose scope of destruction cannot be limited.[6] A total war that does not distinguish between civilian and military targets is considered a war crime.

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I


Customary IHL
Source: International Committee of the Red Cross

Rule 6. Civilians’ Loss of Protection from Attack
Rule 6. Civilians are protected against attack, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

Summary
State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. The use of human shields is the subject of Rule 97.

International armed conflicts
The rule whereby civilians lose their protection against attack when and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities is contained in Article 51(3) of Additional Protocol I, to which no reservations have been made.

Read more: https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule6#Fn_45_1


INTERPRETIVE guidance on the notion of Direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law
Source: ICRC, 2009
https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc-002-0990.pdf

[shira]

11. So where is this 'continuous combat function' nonsense in IHL?

Last edited Fri Jul 22, 2016, 12:20 PM - Edit history (1)

What makes Osama bin Laden a non-combatant since he was killed?

Nothing.

There is no such IHL making the killing of OBL illegal.

QED.

[shira]

12. Let's go over that paragraph from B'tselem...

Under international humanitarian law, civilians are entitled to protection and may not be the object of an attack, “unless and for such time as they participate directly in hostilities.” The study initiated by the ICRC was intended to clarify the circumstances in which a civilian loses special protection and is deemed to have participated directly in hostilities. The final report, which is based on six years of activity by work groups composed of experts in international humanitarian law, states that persons belonging to two categories lose the protection given to civilians in an armed conflict between a state and an organized armed group:

The persons killed in the cafe watching the world cup were not civilians. This does not apply to them.

Now what are these 2 categories of persons?

Persons who fulfill a “continuous combat function.” Such persons are legitimate objects of attack even if they are not participating directly in hostilities at the moment of attack. This category includes persons whose ongoing function involves the preparation, execution, or command of combat acts or operations. An individual recruited, trained, and equipped by such a group to continuously and directly participate in hostilities can be considered to assume a continuous combat function even before the person carries out a hostile act.

Exactly. Legit kill by the IDF, end of story.

[div class ="excerpt"]On the other hand, persons who continuously accompany or support an organized armed group but whose function does not involve direct participation in hostilities maintain their status as civilians and are not legitimate objects of attack. Thus, recruiters, trainers, and funders may contribute to the general war effort, but as long as they do not directly participate in hostilities, they are not a legitimate object of attack.

Such persons are not relative to the situation as the ones killed, again, were terrorists.

Persons who do not fulfill a “continuous combat function” are a legitimate object of attack only when taking a direct part in hostilities (for example, on their way to fire a rocket, during the firing of the rocket, and on the way back).

Nonsensical.

Seems it should be "Persons who fullfill". Otherwise it makes no sense.

But here's more...

The police officers that Israel killed only because they belonged to the Palestinian Police are not included in any of these categories. Israeli officials explained during the course of Operation Cast Lead that it was Israel's approach that all members of the Palestinian Police had participated or would in the future participate in hostilities against Israel, making them legitimate objects of attack. B'Tselem doubts whether the Palestinian Police, as an institution, can be considered a combat force in the sense that its members carry out ongoing combat action. In light of the presumption that persons are civilians who may not legitimately be attacked, it seems that, lacking unequivocal evidence that they participated in hostilities, they were not legitimate objects of attack. However, since B'Tselem does not have sufficient information on the functions of the Palestinian Police and its connection with the organized armed groups, it cannot be stated with certainty whether the police officers were a legitimate object of attack. For this reason, B'Tselem established a separate category for Palestinian police officers killed by Israel.

That bolded part is an absolute lie by B'tselem since this was just updated 2 days ago. Hamas admitted 6 years ago the police force were combatants (Hamas and martyrs from other factions). An outright lie by B'tselem.

[Little Tich]

15. It seems as if you have a problem with the fundamental purpose of IHL, which is to protect civilians

from harm. Perhaps you should send a complaint to the ICHRC or the signatories of the Geneva Convention...

[shira]

16. IOW, you lost the argument. Bottom line is B'tselem lied, you know that....

....and you have nothing in response. They lied about not knowing whether Hamas police were civilian or combatant.

You also mentioned International Law but never pointed to that exact law. ICRC interpretations are not international law. Their experts couldn't even come to a majority opinion on defining civilians. So you really have no idea what you're talking about & B'tselem lied again when they presented a non-majority expert opinion from the ICRC as well-defined International Law.

Besides, civilians are not combatants. Presumably, Osama bin Laden - a combatant and in no way a civilian - could fire a rocket at Israel in plain clothes, run off in some direction without a weapon, and get killed by Israel a few minutes later. You believe Bin Laden should then be counted as a civilian under IHL. That's absurd and not what the ICRC is talking about. OBL is a combatant, considered uniformed army and not a civilian. If you as an ordinary civilian wanted to spontaneously help OBL in some way (hide Osama in your home or let him fire a rocket at Israel from your backyard) that's another story altogether. That's when the ICRC definitions of civilians come in.

Get it now?

Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists are de-facto militants at the time they're killed, not civilians. Whether they dress as military or try to hide in civilian clothing. They're considered uniformed army, not civilians. They're not protected like civilians.

Consider yourself refuted. Utterly.

I also don't expect to see you using discredited, dishonest lying sources such as B'tselem anymore.

[Little Tich]

17. You seem to misunderstand the IHL notion of direct participation of hostilities,

and how it's used by B'tselem in Gaza. B'tselem didn't lie - they never lie. I found a passage in the ICRC report that explains why it's contrary to IHL to automatically assume that some civilians are to be considered combatants at all times:


INTERPRETIVE guidance on the notion of Direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law
Source: ICRC, 2009
(snip p44-45)

Where civilians engage in hostile acts on a persistently recurrent basis, it may be tempting to regard not only each hostile act as direct participation in hostilities, but even their continued intent to carry out unspecified hostile acts in the future. However, any extension of the concept of direct participation in hostilities beyond specific acts would blur the distinction made in IHL between temporary, activity-based loss of protection (due to direct participation in hostilities), and continuous, status or functionbased loss of protection (due to combatant status or continuous combat function). In practice, confusing the distinct regimes by which IHL governs the loss of protection for civilians and for members of State armed forces or organized armed groups would provoke insurmountable evidentiary problems. Those conducting hostilities already face the difficult task of distinguishing between civilians who are and civilians who are not engaged in a specific hostile act (direct participation in hostilities), and distinguishing both of these from members of organized armed groups
(continuous combat function) and State armed forces.

In operational reality, it would be impossible to determine with a sufficient degree of reliability whether civilians not currently preparing or executing a hostile act have previously done so on a persistently recurrent basis and whether they have the continued intent to do so again. Basing continuous loss of protection on such speculative criteria would inevitably result in erroneous or arbitrary attacks against civilians, thus undermining their protection which is at the heart of IHL. Consequently, in accordance with the object and purpose of IHL , the concept of direct participation in hostilities must be interpreted as restricted to specific hostile acts.

Read more: https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc-002-0990.pdf

[shira]

18. You should read my last post to you more carefully...

1. B'tselem lied about not knowing whether 248 police officers killed by the IDF in 2008 were combatants. Hamas admitted they were in 2010 and yet B'tselem just updated their page 2 days ago, still claiming they don't know. Yeah, right. They've known better for 6 years. So that's an outright lie by B'tselem and you know it.

B'tselem never lies? Please.

2. No one is assuming civilians are combatants. Militants are combatants. Militants are not civilians. The way you wish to interpret IHL is to give folks like Osama bin Laden the benefit of the doubt. He was a militant, uniformed or not. When the US killed him, he was not a civilian. Thus, no war crime. Same as Israel taking out Hamas militants. Osama wasn't even carrying out a continuous combat function. Didn't matter though, you know why? Because he wasn't a civilian. No war crime committed. Think about that one. If taking out Osama was legal, then Israel taking out Hamasniks is legal too. You lose this one, utterly.

ETA

Even assuming the Osama bin Laden killing was illegal, no one claims he was an innocent civilian. He wouldn't count as a civilian in any civilian to combatant kill ratio. Same WRT Hamas militants. The police and world cup dudes don't count as civilians. Take all these bogus "civilians" out of the picture and Israel's ratio of civilians to combatants killed really is around 1:1, which is the best ratio of any western military or NATO, proving once again Israel is more careful WRT civilians than any other country. That's why the leading military American General admitted it recently himself, giving Israel credit and acknowledging that America is learning from Israel how to better protect civilians.

Stop demonizing Israel as though they're the worst WRT civilians when it turns out they're the best. When you portray it backwards - deliberately - that's just hatred, pure and simple. Maligning a group of people for crimes they do not commit is the definition of bigotry.

[shira]

19. The other B'tselem lie is WRT the Hamas dudes killed in the cafe....

....watching the World Cup.

Hamas claimed them as militants, just as they did the 248 police. Militants do not enjoy the same protections as civilians.

To prove it, let's see where B'tselem or Amnesty, etc.. deal with the fact Hamas claimed the police & World Cup dudes were militants. They deny or ignore it altogether, pretending these militants were innocent civilians. If they had a case about these militants requiring protection, they should make it. They shouldn't have any problem admitting they were militants in the first place requiring civilian type protection. But as you know, militants are not civilians. That's the dishonesty here.

So yeah, these NGO's lie and that's why it's important to figure out their sources of foreign income.

[FBaggins]

13. The children's blood is on Hamas' hands

Hamas wanted as many dead Palestinian children as possible... and planned their actions to maximize those deaths... not Israel.

[King_David]

14. Exactly right