Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)
2. Some Hamas militants were under 18, which is contrary to international law.
Thu Jul 21, 2016, 10:19 PM
Jul 2016

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
"Additionally, 17 children were killed while participating in the hostilities..." oberliner Jul 2016 #1
Some Hamas militants were under 18, which is contrary to international law. Little Tich Jul 2016 #2
Child militants is a war crime. No need to defend Hamas. n/t shira Jul 2016 #4
"Did not take part in hostilities" does not mean "innocent civilians". shira Jul 2016 #3
i'm skeptical 6chars Jul 2016 #5
That's why it is important to know which foreign governments fund which organizations nt King_David Jul 2016 #7
B'tselem counts dead terrorists as innocent civilians. One of many examples... shira Jul 2016 #6
It seems as if the people in the café didn't participate in hostilities - they were watching TV. Little Tich Jul 2016 #8
They were terrorists, not innocent civilians killed for no reason whatsoever. shira Jul 2016 #9
Google can make anyone an instant expert... Little Tich Jul 2016 #10
So where is this 'continuous combat function' nonsense in IHL? shira Jul 2016 #11
Let's go over that paragraph from B'tselem... shira Jul 2016 #12
It seems as if you have a problem with the fundamental purpose of IHL, which is to protect civilians Little Tich Jul 2016 #15
IOW, you lost the argument. Bottom line is B'tselem lied, you know that.... shira Jul 2016 #16
You seem to misunderstand the IHL notion of direct participation of hostilities, Little Tich Jul 2016 #17
You should read my last post to you more carefully... shira Jul 2016 #18
The other B'tselem lie is WRT the Hamas dudes killed in the cafe.... shira Jul 2016 #19
The children's blood is on Hamas' hands FBaggins Jul 2016 #13
Exactly right King_David Jul 2016 #14
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Israel/Palestine»50 Days: More than 500 Ch...»Reply #2