Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumPalestinians admit building Israel bombed was a Hamas office, not merely a luxury residence.
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Lithos (a host of the Israel/Palestine group).
Under international law, a terrorist office can be bombed, even if it means inconveniencing non-terrorists. As the article below explains, no one died in the bombing. And Israel was humane, even calling everyone in the building to evacuate. The NY Times reports:
“She asked him which floor or which apartment are you going to hit,” recalled Mr. Mathkour, who is known as Abu Rani. “He said we’re going to hit the whole building. She said that’s haram — forbidden — she was appealing to him. He said yala yala — let’s go, let’s go — goodbye. She came to me, hey, Abu Rani, they are going to bring down the whole building. I told her he is joking. He wants to terrify you.”
Mr. Ibrahim said he needled Mr. Mathkour about how many bombs it would take to topple the tower. The proud builder said 10. Turned out two did the job.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/15/world/middleeast/at-gaza-tower-israel-leveled-lost-homes-and-dreams.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSumSmallMediaHigh&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Maybe now Palestinians will take seriously the fact that harboring terrorists is a war crime, to which Israel can respond, in conformity with international law. The remainder of the article explains:
GAZA CITY — The men of Zafer Tower No. 4 sit in the shade across the street from the wreckage.
Somewhere in there is Dr. Mohammad Abu Rayya’s stethoscope. Buried, too, is a hard drive filled with 15 years of articles, photos and notes by Hisham Saqalla, a journalist and blogger. And a three-foot replica of the Eiffel Tower that Faraj Shorafa, a 72-year-old lawyer, brought from Paris in 1999.
Nobody was killed in Israel’s destruction of the tower, the first of three high-rises felled in the finale of this summer’s fighting with Hamas, the militant Palestinian movement that dominates the Gaza Strip. But about 500 people lost more than their homes. “They have destroyed our dreams,” said Dr. Abu Rayya, 38.
Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE
Palestinians scrambled to run from exploding debris after an Israeli bomb hit an apartment building in Gaza City on Saturday.Israeli Strike Destroys Apartment Tower in GazaAUG. 23, 2014
Children in Gaza City studying damage to their classroom on Sunday, their first day of school after the 50-day war with Israel. Psychological counseling was arranged for many Gazan students. slideshow Back to School in Gaza After War’s DevastationSEPT. 14, 2014
Photo Essay: On the Ground in Israel and GazaAUG. 28, 2014
Zafer 4 was erased by two powerful explosions around 7 p.m. on Aug. 23, 17 years to the day after it opened with two penthouses and 40 three-bedroom apartments of 1,615 square feet that originally sold for $60,000. Filled by high-ranking government officials and private-sector professionals, the 11-story tower was an alternative to the Gaza way of extended families living in compounds. It was part of a construction empire whose founder quit school after ninth grade to pick tomatoes in Israel and now lives in a four-story villa with its own elevator and a mosaic-tiled pool in the basement, where Zafer 4’s evacuees waited out the attack.
Continue reading the main story
Interactive Map: Assessing the Damage and Destruction in Gaza
The Israeli military said the building was “a command and control center” where “multiple floors” were “used regularly by Hamas for operational activities” throughout the seven-week battle. Military officials refused to say what types of activities, why the entire tower was targeted or what type of bombs were used.
In interviews, more than half the tower’s occupants said that Hamas had taken over one of the penthouse apartments in 2007 for what several said was a “media office” filled with computers and communications equipment. Residents said the unit was abandoned during the war, and that teenagers passed many nights on that floor using PlayStation as bombers buzzed overhead.
Atef Adwan, one of 28 Hamas lawmakers elected in 2006, bought a first-floor apartment five years ago for his second wife, and spent much of the summer there with her and their two young sons, fearing the Israelis would target his home in the border town of Beit Hanoun. (They did not.)
“There was concern and people are still concerned” about Hamas presence in the building, said Wael Abu Najja, 47, who lived on the ninth floor, “but they can’t talk about this publicly.”
Most of the tower was taken by leaders of Hamas’s rival, Fatah, men who continued to receive salaries but had not actually worked in the security services or the president’s office since 2007, when Hamas routed Fatah from power in Gaza.
So when residents received mobile-phone evacuation orders that Saturday from an Arabic-speaking Israeli soldier named Mousa, they never expected the entire tower to be destroyed. Many fled without the emergency bags that Gazans keep packed with cash, documents and mementos.
Continue reading the main story
“Hamas is everywhere — in every building, they have an apartment,” said Mohammed Owda H. Abu Mathkour, the wealthy mogul who runs the Zafer contracting company and lives in the villa across Safed Street from the fallen tower. “Israel has no right to destroy the whole building because of one apartment.”
Mr. Mathkour said he could rebuild the tower in eight months for $3 million, a fraction of the $7 billion the Palestinian leadership estimates is required to reconstruct some 11,000 demolished and more than 50,000 damaged structures across Gaza. Besides the money, the massive effort depends on a new arrangement for the import of cement and steel, which Israel has restricted for fear it would be used to manufacture rockets or build tunnels like those militants used to repeatedly penetrate Israeli territory this summer.
First, though, there is the rubble — 2.5 million tons of it. Removal alone could cost $10 million, and the minister of public works said his five bulldozers are not enough to tackle the task.
The pile that was Zafer 4 is perhaps three stories high, topped by a Palestinian flag that Mr. Saqalla’s 17-year-old son, Shafiq, planted with pride. Mattresses and bedclothes peek out between the sandwiches of concrete floors — or ceilings?
There is an Angry Birds notebook and papers from an engineering course explaining “probability theory” and “The Normal Distribution.” A flower pot. A green suitcase, a mangled bathtub, a cracked microwave. Protruding from the back is a crushed white Kia Sportage that belonged to Mr. Adwan, the Hamas lawmaker.
Zafer was the name of a cousin of Mr. Mathkour’s who died of cancer in an Israeli prison in 1993, the year the company was founded.
Mr. Mathkour said three of his 14 Zafer towers were hit by Israel this summer, including the curved glass No. 9, an office building where Gaza’s first rooftop restaurant opened June 13 (his wife’s birthday). On July 17, he said, a missile hit an interior-ministry antenna on Zafer 9’s roof; over the next two weeks, tank shells sprayed the tower three times.
The Israeli military, in an emailed statement, called Zafer 9 “a hub of Hamas terror activity” that had “been ‘on the radar’ for years” and housed “several senior Hamas members.” The statement said the tower was “struck with precise Air Force fire,” though Mr. Mathkour has the tank shells in his office, and walls on several floors were clearly pockmarked by them.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Were all of the other buildings destroyed 'harboring Hamas offices' as well? If so, Hamas must be enormously bigger than everyone thought it was.
sabbat hunter
(7,099 posts)being used as storage for weapons by hamas. But definitely not all.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)'11000 destroyed and 50000 damaged', that was going to be an awful lot. I thought they were estimated to have around 10000 rockets. Apparently they were storing one rocket in each destroyed building, and I guess a rifle in each of the damaged ones.
Mao Shung
(55 posts)You misstate that there were 11,000 "buildings" destroyed. The article says "Mr. Mathkour said he could rebuild the tower in eight months for $3 million, a fraction of the $7 billion the Palestinian leadership estimates is required to reconstruct some 11,000 demolished and more than 50,000 damaged structures across Gaza."
It says "structures," not buildings. I don't know what they consider a structure. But in all events no one takes seriously Hamas' estimate. Everyone considers Hamas leaders to be lying on this. They are not subject to democratic constraints, which make it more difficult (though not impossible) for Israel and the US to lie.
"The UN estimates more than 17,000 homes have been destroyed, leaving 100,000 people homeless." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/26/israel-bombs-two-gaza-city-tower-blocks
The UN estimate people believe. There is no way destroying 11,000 buildings and damaging 50,000 could have left only 100,000 people homeless, when in Gaza something like 6 people live in the average aparment unit. In short, Gaza is almost all apartment buildings. And for only 17,000 apartment units to be destoryed, assuming 50 apartment units per building, only the equivalent of 340 apartment buildings were destroyed, which shows Hamas' claim of thousands is ludicrious.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Maybe you shouldn't be posting things that are factually incorrect if you don't want people to be using 'wrong facts' in responses.
Mao Shung
(55 posts)The NY Times article says Palestinian leaders claim 11,000 structures were destoryed, and 50,000 damaged. This is a far cry from the NY Times saying these numbers are true.
Everybody accepts that democracies have difficulty making ridiculous claims. If some Israeli or US official posted some crazy claim that thousands of their soldiers were killed, the media would show the claim was false, and the government would be embarassed and fire the author. So officials are restrained.
Hamas is not a democracy. No one expects their claims to be accurate. No one gets fired in Hamas for making crazy claims. The lesson is that you have to take what Hamas claims as not necessarily factual, but perhaps propaganda.
MFM008
(20,042 posts)for the carnage wrecked on that area, none, zero. Israel is on another land grab bender.
They should be up on war crimes charges nd hopefully will be soon enough.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The ethical decay of the state of Israel continues unabated.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)ann---
(1,933 posts)SO full of militants. That isn't "self-defense." That is pre-meditated murder by israel.
Mao Shung
(55 posts)You cannot run a large scale military without offices. Every military has command and control centers. Bombing such offices is legal under international law. It is not a crime, upon the theory that the offices are coordinating, but not actually pulling the triggers.
When an office is destroyed, the military organization is forced to divert some of its resources from the field (that is the trigger pullers) into office work. This is how military organizations work.
So bombing an office saves lives, and this bombing did not even kill anyone, or have collateral damage. So you cannot call this "premeditated murder." (Not everything bad gets the label murder.)
In other words, if you donate money for the Peace Corps office infrastructure, you are just as much feeding the hungry as if you donated food that was going to be distributed.
shira
(30,109 posts)What a terrible, murderous war crime to kill poor, innocent Hamas fascists.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)it's to be expected
23. Jews have a right to defend themselves against Hamas fascists.
If that means going to war where innocents will inevitably be killed, then that's what must happen.
How many ways do I have to say YES, I agree with Lozowick?
The Rabbi from the OP in posts #1 and #2 said the exact same thing:
We will do what we must to protect our people. We have that right. We are not less deserving of life and quiet than anyone else.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=81012
Mao Shung
(55 posts)to kill civilians, so long as the it is proportionate to the miliary objective.
So if someone has his trigger on a nuclear bomb that will kill 1,000 people, it is legal to bomb the entire house he is in, even if it will kill 100 civilians.
In the Palestinian case, it is legal to kill innocent civilians, if it is proportionate to the need to kill militants who can fire rockets.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)There is grounds for an opinion that the military threat to Israel was small, considering that only 70 Israelis died, and that killing 2,000 Palestinians, many of whom were civilians was disproportionate. I just wish people debated the issue of proportionality. Instead, people speak in absolutes: "It is murder to kill civilians." It is not always murder to kill civilians. It is sometimes legal. If you want to argue it is murder, give evidence of proportionality.
The fact that only 70 Israelis died does not settle the issue. There is grounds for an opinion that a lot more would have died, but not for Israel's harsh response. And the real issue is how many Israelis were saved by killing 2,000 Palestinians. This is the issue that should be debated, and never is.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'll bite. How many Israelis were saved by killing all those people, Mao? Kick that debate off, give us a number.
shira
(30,109 posts)If 10 Hamasniks were killed and 1 civilian, is that a war crime in your opinion? How about 10:3, 10:11, or 10:20? When do we call for war crime investigations?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Response to shira (Reply #10)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It details the fact that Israel doesn't just kill innocent civilians, it also destroys homes -- over 100,000 people were left homeless in Gaza after the latest attacks.
The sentence "Under international law, a terrorist office can be bombed, even if it means inconveniencing non-terrorists" is your own editorializing. The NYT wouldn't actually write that. In fact, nobody with the slightest regard for human rights would write that.
Mao Shung
(55 posts)Homes are destroyed in every war. Experts on international law don’t focus on the destruction of property, but believe, if there was a violation of international law, it is more likely to have occurred from casualties.
The NY Times does not discuss international law, but when I say "Under international law, a terrorist office can be bombed, even if it means inconveniencing non-terrorists," I am not editorializing. This is international law.
If you doubt this is international law, read this from the Council on Foreign Relations, which is not a pro Israel group, but an expert on international law.
“The doctrine originated with the 1907 Hague Conventions, which govern the laws of war, and was later codified in Article 49 of the International Law Commission's 1980 Draft Articles on State Responsibility (PDF). The doctrine is also referred to indirectly in the 1977 Additional Protocols of the Geneva Conventions. Regardless of whether states are party to the treaties above, experts say the principle is part of what is known as customary international law. According to the doctrine, a state is legally allowed to unilaterally defend itself and right a wrong provided the response is proportional to the injury suffered. The response must also be immediate and necessary, refrain from targeting civilians, and require only enough force to reinstate the status quo ante. That said, experts say the proportionality principle is open to interpretation and depends on the context. "It's always a subjective test," says Michael Newton, associate clinical professor of law at Vanderbilt University Law School.”
http://www.cfr.org/israel/israel-doctrine-proportionality/p11115
DanTex
(20,709 posts)They also aren't CFR's words. In fact, the CFR statement has absolutely nothing to do with yours. Quite the opposite. It emphasizes that a response must be "proportional to the injury suffered" -- obviously, killing 1000 civilians and leaving 100,000 homeless not proportional to the damage suffered by Israel. It also points out that only "enough force to reinstate the status quo ante" must be used. Obviously, Israel fails this also. And so on.
Nobody with any respect for human rights would describe what Israel did to Palestinians as "inconveniencing". The sheer callousness of your statement is, unfortunately, all too common among apologists, but the good thing is that it makes it clear to everyone your disregard for Palestinian civilians.
Human rights groups like Amnesty International and HRW have extensively detailed Israeli war crimes.
And the war crime detailed in the NYT article you linked to is a perfect example. The supposed "Hamas command center" wasn't even being used by Hamas during the war. It was a media center before the war, and during the war, kids were playing video games there. So it wasn't even a legitimate target to begin with. And Israel didn't just blow up the supposed Hamas office, they destroyed the entire building, leaving 500 people homeless.
shira
(30,109 posts)...what Israel's military was allowed to do under IHL in a proportionate manner. Not what Israel WASN'T allowed to do, but what it COULD do legally.
See, the problem is that Israel's most hostile critics are NEVER able to articulate what a proportionate response would look like. It's because they don't believe Israel is allowed to respond in ANY manner whatsoever. Its citizens should just "take it". There's an article on this here at DU:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113472374
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The threat was minor -- I believe 4 Israelis were killed in the rocket attacks. This is like a weekend in Chicago. The response was disproportionate (and also, I'd add, unlikely to make Israel actually safer, given that killing civilians en masse tends to create more terrorists than it destroys.
Israel could have instead responded in a proportionate manner, being cautious to avoid civilian casualties and damage to non-military structures like water lines and sewage plants and hospitals and power plants. Instead Israel decided to launch a massive attack which killed 1000 civilians and left 100,000 people homeless.
I'll add that the same argument is used to excuse war crimes on both sides. I'm sure you've heard people say "what are the Palestinians supposed to do" in defense of rocket attacks against civilians. The answer there is the same: don't fire rockets against civilians, that's a war crime.
shira
(30,109 posts)All those hundreds of thousands of Israelis running to bomb shelters day and night is just like a weekend in Chicago.
How do you think any other nation would respond to hundreds of rockets on its cities?
Be honest.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The difference between you and I is that I condemn war crimes on both sides. You only condemn one side.
Another example of downplaying war crimes is this OP. The 500 civilians who lived in the building destroyed have lost their homes, and yet the OP describes this as an "inconvenience". I'm sure that if someone described going to a bomb shelter as an "inconvenience" you'd be quick to attack them. And yet you stand approvingly silent when someone dehumanizes Palestinians and minimizes their suffering by calling being left homeless an "inconvenience".
I'll say again, Hamas firing rockets is a war crime. But, by any rational measure the damage inflicted on Gaza by Israel in response is grossly disproportionate. Civilians killed? People left homeless? People displaced -- I've read that over 1/4 of the Gaza population was displaced. Damage to infrastructure and economic means?
shira
(30,109 posts)Not to the hundreds of thousands of Israelis affected, running to and from bomb shelters day and night. Iron Dome doesn't exist because of minor little inconveniences. They're a serious threat and any other nation attacked (without Iron Dome) would have suffered MASSIVE losses.
You also don't know what's legal vs. illegal. The casualty numbers once again indicate a ratio of civilians to combatants being around 1:1 again, just like Cast Lead back in early 2009. If a 1:1 ratio is disproportionate and illegal then let's at least agree that what NATO, the US, UK, and France have done the past few decades is even MORE illegal as their ratios of civilians to combatants has been anywhere from 2:1 to 4:1. My point being if you want to argue what's illegal and disproportionate, it has to be in COMPARISON to other nations at war. Israel's record shows it's significantly MORE careful regarding civilians than any other nation (including all western ones) during war time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Kemp
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It was used to describe the situation of 500 people who were left homeless after Israel destroyed an entire apartment building. Do you agree with that characterization? To me, it's part of a broader pattern of attempts to dehumanize Palestinians and minimize their suffering.
I can understand the urge, because defending Israeli aggression puts one in an untenable contradiction. On one hand, one has to argue that crimes against Palestinians are "not that bad". Witness, for example, the recent OPs (some by you I think), about how the Western press pays too much attention to the Gaza massacre, that it's really not such a big deal, only a few thousand died, worse things are being done elsewhere in the world, and so on. But at the same time, there is the need to inflate the harm that threat that Israel faces from Hamas in order to justify the military aggression. The problem is, it just doesn't add up.
In any case, I called the Hamas rocket fire a "war crime," not an inconvenience. I (correctly) compared the death toll to a weekend in Chicago. Do you think that gun violence is merely an "inconvenience" to residents of lower income Chicago neighborhoods that are infested with gangs? I agree that the death toll is not the only measure of severity of war crimes. For example, nobody was killed when Israel destroyed this apartment building, but leaving 500 people homeless is still a substantial harm.
Thing is, if we go beyond death toll, the disproportionality of the Israeli response becomes even more pronounced. 100,000 people left homeless, 1/4 of the Gaza population displaced, extensive damage to civilian infrastructure, etc.
Obviously, civilian to combatant casualty ratio is not the only measure of war crimes. The circumstances and proportionality of the acts matter as well. For one obvious example, only 5 Israeli civilians were killed in the Gaza fighting, along with some 60 or 70 soldiers. In the Goldstone report that Kemp is objecting to, you will find detailed examples of Israeli war crimes. You can also find them in reports by Amnesty and HRW and a host of other human rights groups.
comparing that inconvenience to the absolute destruction of dense packed areas. The Iron dome swatted down those rockets and the IDF used 500 pound bunker busters on sleeping kids. Yeah maybe a crime...but Israel should be first up on the ICCt docket.
shira
(30,109 posts)Or from Cast Lead 2008-09.
Mao Shung
(55 posts)You are just being sloppy. But do not be embarrassed. A lot of people get sloppy. You claim Israel “destroyed the entire building, leaving 500 people homeless.” The article says “about 500 lost” their homes, but also says there were only 40 apartments, one of which was a Hamas office, and the rest of which were for rich people. For 500 people to have been left homeless with 39 apartments, means these rich people had an average of 12.8 per apartment (500/39). You are not examining the facts, and are being duped.
You also say “obviously, killing 1000 civilians and leaving 100,000 homeless not proportional to the damage suffered by Israel,” but you give no support for this. It is not obvious. According to you CFR “emphasizes that a response must be "proportional to the injury suffered.”" But you misunderstand what this means. The full quote is “a state is legally allowed to unilaterally defend itself and right a wrong provided the response is proportional to the injury suffered. The response must also be immediate and necessary, refrain from targeting civilians, and require only enough force to reinstate the status quo ante.”
The term “proportional to the injury suffered” qualifies the term “right a wrong.” It does not qualify the term “defend itself.” I’ve used brackets, so you can understand what CFR says" “a state is i) legally allowed to unilaterally defend itself and ii) right a wrong provided the response is proportional to the injury suffered.”
In other words to defend itself, a state does not have to give a “response is proportional to the injury suffered.” In other words, if a terrorist is about to launch an missile that will kill 10 civilians, and the only way to stop the launching is to bomb the house that the terrorist is in, which will kill 2 civilians, it is legal to kill the 2 civilians. This is the case, even if Israel has suffered zero casualties. Your interpretation is nonsensical. Under your interpretation, a terrorist can have his hand on the trigger of a nuclear bomb, and Israel cannot do a thing because it has not yet suffered any injury.
You also state “It also points out that only "enough force to reinstate the status quo ante" must be used.” False again. This sentence refers to when a military is “right[ing] a wrong,” not when the military is “defend[ing] itself.” Again, under your misinterpretation, a military cannot attack a terrorist with his hand on a nuclear trigger because no damage was done yet.
Moreover calling the destruction of property a “war crime” is nothing short of novel. As far as I have heard, war crimes refer to causing casualties. You think anything that sounds bad to you fits the legal criteria of a “war crime,” but this term has a specific definition. The NY Times says rebuiding the building costs only $3 million, which is less damage than a casualty.
You also misunderstand that the NYT is reporting that the office was not being used anymore. The NY Times was reporting that this was the Palestinian claim, the same way it was reporting that the Palestinians make the obviously false claim that 11,000 (plus 50,000) structures were harmed, when the UN denies this.
Since blowing up a building while causing no casualties is not a war crime, Israel has wide latitude in doing so, even if it means collective punishment. Gaza is not a democracy, and as with most non-democracies the big shots have disproportionate say. By blowing up this building, the big shots suffered. A war crime was committed here, in that the building owner knowingly rented an office to a terrorist group that was targeting civilians. Because of the Israeli response, Palestinian big shots will discourage Hamas from doing this again. Before moving in, they will ask future building owners whether they are renting out Hamas offices, and the building owner won’t do so. So property was destroyed, in exchange for lives being saved. It was a good trade off.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's not my problem that you disagree with the facts reported by the NYT article that you decided to post (and retitle, contrary to forum rules, I might at) in order to create a deliberately misleading OP.
It's also funny when Israeli defenders start talking wild analogies with a guy holding a nuclear bomb, or WW2, or anything else preposterous. The facts are clear. 4 Israeli civilians were killed. There was no guy with his hand on a nuke. The rockets Hamas launches don't have the capacity to inflict major civilian casualties. They have no guidance, and most of them get blocked by the Iron Dome. Israel responded with a massacre and extensive damage to homes an infrastructure. It was grossly disproportionate.
Oh, and, yes, destroying civilian property is a war crime. You can't just go around destroying homes of innocent civilians (or power plants, water lines, sewage plants, hospitals, etc.). Yes, even when Israel does it.
https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cha_chapter16_rule50?OpenDocument&highlight=property
Under Article 23(g) of the 1899 Hague Regulations, it is especially prohibited “to destroy or seize the enemy’s property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war”.
Hague Regulations (1907)
Under Article 23(g) of the 1907 Hague Regulations, it is especially forbidden “to destroy or seize the enemy’s property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war”.
IMT Charter (Nuremberg)
Article 6(b) of the 1945 IMT Charter (Nuremberg) lists “wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity” as a war crime.
Geneva Conventions I, II and IV
According to Article 50 of the 1949 Geneva Convention I, Article 51 of the 1949 Geneva Convention II and Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, “extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly” are grave breaches.
Geneva Convention IV
Article 53 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV stipulates:
Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
ICC Statute
Under Article 8(2)(a)(iv) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[e]xtensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly” is a war crime in international armed conflicts. Under Article 8(2)(b)(xiii), “[d]estroying or seizing the enemy’s property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war” is also a war crime in international armed conflicts.
Under Article 8(2)(e)(xii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[d]estroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict” is a war crime in non-international armed conflicts
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I guess they feel the same way about forum rules as international law -- only one side is obligated to follow it.
Mao Shung
(55 posts)that you can’t assume everything you read is correct, and when the NY Times writes something that is contradictory, you have to read carefully enough to notice it. I do not vouch for an entire article because I cite the article for one fact. And when I cite the article for one fact, I don’t see why there would be a rule saying I have to use the article’s headline which is irrelevant to what I cite it for.
Your facts are wrong. Four civilians did not die. Five died. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict Near the end of the war, a 4 year old in Israel was bombed and died and became the fifth victim. In large part, the number of Israeli casualties is low because people kept running to bomb shelters within 15 seconds according to plan, which is not a situation that a population will tolerant indefinitely. Hence, a military response.
It is unreliable to cite the number of Israelis who died to argue proportionality. That low number might just mean that Israel’s harsh tactics saved many lives. The only relevant number is how many Israelis were saved by the Gaza war, which is not an ascertainable number and can only be guessed at.
Whether destroying the apartment building is a war crime is subject to a difference of opinion because the test of proportionality is so vague. But I cannot imagine anyone thinks destroying a $3 million building, inflicting no casualties, is as draconian as causing a casualty.
DanTex is right when he says one thing. “I guess they feel the same way about forum rules as international law -- only one side is obligated to follow it.” Yes, there is no dispute that Israel at least has apologists. Hamas’ launching of rockets aimed at civilians is not apologized for and is conceded to be the war crime of murder under international law. “The response must also . . . refrain from targeting civilians.” http://www.cfr.org/israel/israel-doctrine-proportionality/p11115
King_David
(14,851 posts)
This is the 1st time I've seen you complaining about it too.
As far as it goes this time , there was no need as you already did the complaining .
See how it works ? It's a collaboration.
Cheers
DanTex
(20,709 posts)where extremists want only one side held accountable for their war crimes.
Mao Shung
(55 posts)anyone objective would say that I won the arguement, I still hope for DanTex's sake that one day he will see the light.
Lithos
(26,609 posts)Title is not that of the article. Also, full article is cited... Please repost accordingly.
Lithos