Reply #80: Definition of non - military targets that Israel is obligated to

[Solly Mack]

abide by:


Additional Protocol I, Article 51:

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm


Article 51: Protection of the Civilian Population
The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

- those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
- those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective;

- or those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

- an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;

- and an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

(this part means you don't bomb if the military advantage gained doesn't out-weigh the loss to civilian life - and did the attack on Qana gain Israel any military advantage at all? much less one that outweighed the loss of civilian life? Simply proclaiming that all civilians unable to leave must mean they are terrorists doesn't make it true. It doesn't in any way satisfy Israel's legal obligation.)

- Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

- The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

- Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.

Chapter III: Civilian Objects

Article 52: General Protection of Civilian Objects

Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.

Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.




Please don't ask me to believe that Israel didn't know there were civilians in large numbers present at Qana.

Dropping leaflets in no way satisfies Israel's legal obligation to follow the law.

The right to defend yourself does not include the right to violate the law. Neither does the right to exist mean you can break the law.

And that goes for everyone who does break the law while claiming the right to defend themselves.

The acts of Hezbollah in no way relieves Israel of their own obligation to follow the law.

And you can't use the excuse that Israel is fighting a group that doesn't respect international law - Bush uses that exact same excuse about Iraq and Afghanistan to justify illegal detentions and torture,and Bush is just plain wrong.

I don't support the crimes of any country - for any reason. Those laws matter - and if they don't, then we are all screwed. Those laws are there for a reason - even when they restrict a nation from lashing out in outrage...especially because nations will lash out in outrage.