Israel ‘exceeded legal standards’ in Gaza conflict, military group tells UN

[shira]

A multinational military group comprised of former chiefs of staff, generals and politicians submitted a report to the United Nations on Friday indicating that Israel went to great lengths to adhere to the laws of war and to protect Palestinian civilians during last summer’s 50-day war with Hamas in and around the Gaza Strip.

The report was submitted to the official UN probe into Operation Protective Edge, the UN Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry, which is expected to issue its own report in the coming days. The findings are set to be discussed at the end of the month before the council.

The High-Level International Military Group on the Gaza Conflict in 2014 held a fact-finding mission to Israel between May 18-22. It was sponsored by a pro-Israel group, was reportedly given unprecedented access to senior officials, and investigated allegations of war crimes and disproportionality.

The group found that “during Operation Protective Edge last summer… Israel not only met a reasonable international standard of observance of the laws of armed conflict, but in many cases significantly exceeded that standard.”

They wrote that “in some cases Israel’s scrupulous adherence to the laws of war cost Israeli soldiers’ and civilians’ lives.”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-did-not-commit-war-crimes-in-gaza-says-multi-national-military-group/

[shira]

1. “Israel’s war was just,” reports Australian general after mission on Gaza conflict

http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2015/06/12/israels-war-was-just-reports-australian-general-after-mission-on-gaza-conflict/

The Australian, June 1o, 2015

By Major-General Jim Molan (Ret.)

We sat in the Israeli kibbutz 800m from the closest Gaza Strip buildings. Four Israeli women told ­stories of life during Operation Protective Edge, the 50-day conflict last year between Israel and Hamas, of the rain of rockets and mortars, 15 seconds’ warning, days in shelters and of a four-year-old child killed by shrapnel. The rockets impacted on every aspect of life but the effect of finding one of the many sophisticated tunnels dug over several years at the very door step of the kibbutz for Hamas fighters to kill civilians more precisely and personally was an even greater shock.

“It is not the people of Gaza,” the woman said still visibly disturbed. “It is Hamas. We are of the Left of Israeli politics and want peace so much. The sound of our planes flying overhead to bomb Gaza challenged every belief I have. But we will not live with terror. Before Hamas we had Palestinian friends in Gaza and we care for those people, it is not their fault. Perhaps we will be friends again one day.”

Having spent a week in Israel courtesy of a pro-Israel organisation, I found myself saying rather gratuitously: “As a foreigner with only a week in ­Israel, I say that your military truly reflects your care for the people of Gaza.” I meant well, knowing that perhaps 2200 Gazans died of all causes in the latest clash, but she turned on me, saying: “Of course they do. They reflect our values. They are our sons.”

A week before I would not have been prepared to make the statement that the Israeli military “cared”. Despite the negative inference of most reporting, I had expected that Israel observed international law. This requires that wars be just, and fought in ­accordance with principles of proportionality, humanity, discrimination and necessity. Of course there is vast room for interpretation, with one man’s proportionality being the Human Rights Council’s war crime.

I suspect that I was invited to Israel because I had publicly criticised the bizarre 2010 UN Goldstone Report on a previous war in Gaza, and I was as a general in Iraq experienced in the practical application of the laws of armed conflict on a similar battlefield. Now having spent a week in ­Israel with a group of senior military, police and lawyers researching Israel’s moral approach to warfighting, the results exceeded my expectation. I do not take a position on Israel’s legitimacy, the two-state solution, settlements or the occupation. With a moral and professional eye, I focused on this one conflict. As a result, I am much more comfortable now that I can make the case I expected to make, ­although our assessment process still has some time to go.

I can say that Israel’s prosecution of Operation Protective Edge not only met a reasonable international standard of observance of the laws of armed conflict, it ­exceeded them significantly, often at cost to Israeli soldiers and citizens. It did this to preserve the life and property of those trying to kill Israeli citizens. Where there were individual failures, Israel is taking transparent legal action.

In war any military can exceed the “reasonable” standard. ­According to the strict internal ­review methods that were applied to my conduct of military operations back in Iraq, my actions were ­always legal, and where I could, I exceeded them. The IDF did this and more. Many will still question how ­Israel can have acted legally given its losses were markedly less in soldiers and civilians. Israel is so strong and Hamas so weak. We all saw the grainy videos of houses being demolished by bombs.

Those who hate Israel will continue to make the case that everything Israel does is bad and that Hamas was struggling nobly for Palestinian freedom. I do not ask anyone to necessarily believe what I say, but at least there is an obligation to be equally sceptical of what Hamas says....

[shira]

2. New rules allow more civilian casualties in air war against ISIL

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has approved airstrikes that risk more civilian casualties in order to destroy Islamic State targets as part of its increasingly aggressive fight against the militant group in Iraq and Syria, according to interviews with military officials and data.

Since last fall, the Pentagon has delegated more authority to the commander of the war, Army Lt. Gen. Sean MacFarland, to approve targets when there is the risk that civilians could be killed. Previously, authority for missions with the potential to kill innocents had been made by the higher headquarters of U.S. Central Command. Seeking approval from above takes time, and targets of fleeting opportunity can be missed.

Six Defense Department officials, all speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to describe how Islamic State targets are selected and attacked, described a sliding scale of probable civilian casualties based on the value of the target and the location. For example, a strike with the potential to wound or kill several civilians would be permitted if it prevented ISIL fighters from causing greater harm.

Before the change, there were some limited cases in which civilian casualties were allowed, the officials said. Now, however, there are several targeting areas in which the probability of 10 civilian casualties are permitted. Those areas shift depending on the time, location of the targets and the value of destroying them, the officials said.

more...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/19/new-rules-allow-more-civilian-casualties-air-war-against-isil/83190812/

[shira]

3. The U.S.-Led Fight Against ISIS Has Killed Far More Civilians Than It Admits

...Nearly one year after the Obama administration launched its campaign of airstrikes to target ISIS and other extremists in Syria, claims of civilian casualties are piling up. The Syrian Network for Human Rights, a local monitoring group, said there have been 242 civilian casualties from strikes by the U.S.-dominated coalition bombing the country, while the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights also puts the civilian death toll at more than 200. Airwars, a U.K.-based project to collect and evaluate claims of civilian casualties in Syria, has identified 86 events during which coalition-inflicted civilian deaths are alleged, said Chris Woods, the investigative journalist who runs it. Of those, he said, 53 incidents had at least two credible sources and warranted further investigation. These incidents alone accounted for between 280 and 340 reported civilian deaths, he said.

Yet after more than 2,400 attacks from the coalition’s drones and fighter jets in Syria, the U.S. Central Command (Centcom), which oversees the campaign as well as investigations into civilian deaths, has admitted that just one bombing run in the northern town of Harem had “likely” killed two young girls. And according to a Centcom spokesperson, only five incidents are currently under formal investigation. “This tells us that something here is broken,” Woods said. “We are tracking three times more alleged civilian casualty events than they have picked up.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mikegiglio/the-us-led-coalition-bombing-syria-has-killed-more-civilians#.jyzggPkr6

[shira]

4. Previously, Obama called for ZERO civilian casualties...

Last edited Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:27 AM - Edit history (1)

“When we agreed we were going to do airpower and the military said, this is how it would work, he (Obama) said, ‘No, I do not want any civilian casualties,’” Keane explained. “And the response was, ‘But there’s always some civilian casualties. We have the best capability in the world to protect from civilians casualties.’”

However, Obama’s response was, “No, you don’t understand. I want no civilian casualties. Zero,’” Keane continued. “So that has driven our so-called rules of engagement to a degree we have never had in any previous air campaign from desert storm to the present.”

This is likely the reason that U.S. pilots are being told to back down when Islamic State targets are in site, Keane said, citing statistics published earlier this year by U.S. Central Command showing that pilots return from sorties in Iraq with about 75 percent of their ordnance unexpended.

“Believe me,” Keane added, “the French are in there not using the restrictions we have imposed on our pilots.”

- See more at: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/us-pilots-confirm-obama-admin-blocks-75-percent-of-isis-strikes/#sthash.RGbj5F2z.dpuf

Same story here...
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/policy-strategy/245932-us-aims-for-zero-civilian-casualties-in-war-vs-isis

[King_David]

5. Of course the world found that ,

Israel is the Jewish state ... Nothing new here or for the last 2000 years.

[shira]

6. Double standard. There's zero outrage WRT civilian casualties in the fight vs. ISIS.

No rallies against France or the USA.

The Jew haters only come out when the Jewish state dares to defend its people against Hamas maniacs. Think about that - because Israel is actually UNDER ATTACK when they battle Hamas. The USA and France are under no threat whatsoever, but Israel is bashed - not the "more civilized" USA or France.

[leftynyc]

7. I stopped giving a crap

about what the UN had to say long ago. Apologist for the worst of the worst on this planet.

[shira]

8. You can bet your ass closet Jew haters here will bash Israel next time....

....Hamas decides to attack Israel with all they have.

Same Jew hating, Hamas supporting scum that can't be bothered to object to civilians killed by the US and France vs. ISIL by crying "baby killers", etc.

My stomach is churning thinking about it.

[shira]

9. Kerry's hot mic WRT Israel/Gaza: "Helluva pinpoint operation"

Seven OP's started here at DU as a result:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025266194
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025266260
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11094128
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025280069
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11335725
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014851122
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025307382

Now that US troops have the green light to kill up to 10 civilians for every 1 combatant, where are all the OP's?

Unlike Israel, US citizens aren't under attack so why the double standard here? No one argues the kill ratio for Israel/Gaza was worse than 2:1. It was actually closer to 1:1. Yet America allows for up to 10:1 now.

We all know why this hypocrisy exists. It's a no-brainer actually.

[shira]

10. Pentagon Adopts Israeli Tactic In Bombing ISIS

Where's HRW to condemn the US for this? Israel does it to prevent civilian casualties, it's a war crime.

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN)The U.S. has adopted a unique Israeli battlefield tactic in its fight against ISIS: exploding a missile above a building to warn civilians inside that it's about to be bombed.

Israeli forces have widely used the so-called knock-on-the-roof operations in Gaza attacks in recent years to try to get civilians out before they are hit.

The first public revelation of the U.S. using a "knock operation" came Tuesday at a press briefing by Air Force Maj. Gen. Peter E. Gersten, deputy commander for operations and intelligence for the anti-ISIS Operation Inherent Resolve.

Gersten described a strike against an ISIS financial storage center on April 5 in southern Mosul, Iraq. The U.S. had been closely watching the house of an ISIS finance operative, or "finance emir" in the words of Gersten.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/26/politics/u-s-uses-israeli-tactic-isis-bombing/

[shira]

13. Pentagon adopts Israeli measures to better prevent civilian casualties.....

From the US Joint Chiefs Chairman (Highest ranked military officer in the USA)

[shira]

11. Israel’s Military Accused of Being Too Careful to Avoid Civilian Casualties

Israel’s Military Accused of Being Too Careful to Avoid Civilian Casualties

http://unitedwithisrael.org/israels-military-accused-of-being-too-careful-to-avoid-civilian-casualties-in-gaza-war/

The Israeli army is being faulted by international military experts for setting a dangerous precedent and high standard that other armies cannot meet.

New research into the IDF’s actions during Operation Protective Edge in Gaza reveals that the army was outstandingly sensitive when it came to warning citizens of pending attacks on terror targets in their vicinity.

The Weekly Standard published a feature on the IDF’s international law unit, describing the lengths to which the IDF and its legal division went in order to avoid civilian casualties when carrying out airstrikes on confirmed terror targets.

“The IDF may, variously, gather detailed intelligence on who lives in the building; call or text those who reside in a particular building with a warning that a strike is coming; drop Arabic-language leaflets over the area warning residents; fly a drone with sophisticated surveillance cameras overhead as an extra set of eyes to make sure the civilians have vacated; drop a small charge on the roof that shakes the building as a final warning signal that a strike is coming; and employ a highly precise and carefully chosen weapon system which, IDF lawyers and commanders hoped, would destroy only the weapons cache [or other terror targets] but not surrounding rooms,” the feature explains.

“It was abundantly clear that IDF commanders had gone beyond any mandates that international law requires to avoid civilian casualties,” Willy Stern, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School, writes.

The IDF command running the campaign in Gaza was ultra-sensitive, and “although most strikes were carried out without harm to innocent bystanders, IDF field commanders nixed other approved strikes in Gaza, despite these multiple layers of precautions to prevent civilian casualties.”

“There is no symmetry in international law,” states Lt. Col. Robert Noyfield, the Dabla [Hebrew acronym for international law division] attorney in charge of targeting. “We do it out of moral obligation; we do it for ourselves. We are a democratic country that abides by the rule of law. By doing so, of course, we also hope to avoid criticism from the international community. How can we be faulted when abiding by the law?”

Experts: IDF Sympathies Set Dangerous Precedent

The IDF has actually been criticized for its over-sensitivity. Stern, in the article, quotes Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg, a distinguished expert on military law at European University Viadrina in Frankfurt, as saying that the IDF takes “many more precautions than are required…it is setting an unreasonable precedent for other democratic countries of the world who may also be fighting in asymmetric wars against brutal non-state actors who abuse these laws.”

Michael Schmitt, director of the Stockton Center for the Study for International Law at the US Naval War College, agrees that the IDF is creating a dangerous precedent that could harm the West in its fight against terrorism.

“The IDF’s warnings certainly go beyond what the law requires, but they also sometimes go beyond what would be operational good sense elsewhere,” he warned. “People are going to start thinking that the United States and other Western democracies should follow the same examples in different types of conflict. That’s a real risk,” said Schmitt.

[font color = "red"]Stern then quotes a report from the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), who reviewed Israel’s conduct in the fighting last summer. The report noted that “contrary to accusations of widespread unlawful military conduct, we observed that Israel systemically applied established rules of conduct that adhered to or exceeded the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) in a virtually unprecedented effort to avoid inflicting civilian casualties, even when doing so would have been lawfully permitted, and to satisfy the concerns of critics. However, it is the conclusion of this Task Force that Israel’s military restraint unintentionally empowered Hamas to distort both the law and facts for their own purposes to the ultimate detriment of civilians’ safety, for which Hamas bears sole responsibility.”

[/font]

[6chars]

12. Once again Israel endangers the world

Love this. "The IDF is creating a dangerous precedent that could harm the West in its fight against terrorism. The IDF’s warnings certainly go beyond what the law requires, but they also sometimes go beyond what would be operational good sense elsewhere,” he warned. “People are going to start thinking that the United States and other Western democracies should follow the same examples in different types of conflict. That’s a real risk.”

Why not take one more thing Israel does right and frame it as a negative, right?