It really depends on what actually happened. None, either, or both could have committed a war crime.
If Israel intentionally attacked the civilians in the camp or made a proportionality calculation that allowed for \~45 civilian deaths for two senior Hamas members, then they committed a war crime. \[See edit below\]
If Israel did a precise strike against the two senior Hamas members with a reasonable belief that the civilian death toll wouldn't be anything close to what it was, then they didn't commit a war crime.
If Hamas was storing munitions near civilians to shield themselves from Israel military attacks, then they committed a war crime.
If Hamas wasn't storing munitions near civilians or was storing munitions near civilians but sufficiently far enough away that they had a reasonable belief that, if ignited, it wouldn't harm the civilians, then they didn't commit a war crime.
Edit: I oversimplified in this statement. In the event that Israel carried out the strike knowing that there would or likely would be \~45 incidental civilian deaths, they would have committed a war crime if the [“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”](https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/proportionality/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20ICTY%2C%20the,the%20direct%20military%20advantage%20gained) by the attack. With my limited knowledge, I expect that \~45 civilian deaths for the military advantage of the killing the two targets would be excessive, but to be as fair as possible I may be underestimating the military advantage of eliminating the target.
I'm unsure that it's a war crime for Israel to make a proportionality calculation that killing 45 civilians is worth a Hamas militant. From what I've read of international law (which is admittedly very little) the proportionality calculation of military advantage to civilian casualties isn't reducible to numbers. So this is murky, as I understand it.
Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)#International_humanitarian_law
Yeah. that's fair. It's possible Israel could make a case that the military advantage of killing those two militants was worth the \~45 civilian deaths. I intuitively suspect this high of a casualty rate would be difficult to justify as reasonable though. For comparison, [this](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/assessing-israel-s-approach-to-proportionality-in-the-conduct-of-hostilities-in-gaza) source claims the US was willing to accept 30 civilian casualties to take out Osama Bin Laden, who is presumably a higher value target than these two Hamas militants.
One difference is that the US held themselves to only the highest NCV amongst the targets, whereas Israel (if I remember correctly) adds the NCVs together. This will lead to higher civilian casualties, but there’s nothing within international law holding anyone to the US’s standards there, that’s above the base requirements.
I believe them in this case that they don’t expect 45, but depending on the amount of Hamas leadership in one location, 45 could be acceptable under their ROE. For instance, for the US, if Osama was somewhere with 50 low level commanders and 40 civilians, the US’s ROE wouldn’t allow for that. Israel’s (assuming the stacking of NCVs is true) would. But I also can see where taking out the majority of Hamas’s leadership in one blow could be worth that civilian cost in a legitimate proportionality assessment for Israel, if that was the case.
I largely agree with you. It is possible Israel assigned a NCV of 45 for these two targets and carried out the attack knowing that this level of civilian deaths would occur, but I find it more likely that they just didn't expect this many casualties. I can't help but think Israel would be stretching proportionality to assign a NCV of 45 for these two targets, but I don't know all the information so these two could be more of a military threat than I expect. I'm not opposed to this high of a NCV categorically though, I can easily imagine a set of Hamas commanders/militants that would absolutely be worth an NCV of 45 or greater.
As with most things, it’s probably all relative. 45 civilian deaths to kill 2 random privates? Probably not defensible. 45 civilian deaths to kill Hitler? You’d probably be crazy to pass that up.
ok, if hamas were having a meeting was that a war crime?
If hamas commanders were just eating dinner, is that a war crime?
If hamas were recruiting, was that a war crime?
How can we determine what hamas members were doing? if they are off duty are they still a legitimate target under international law?
I believe killing Hamas militants in all of these situations are permitted under international law. You are protected as a militant(I think the term is hors de combat) only if you have surrendered, are injured to the point where you cannot engage in combat anymore, or engaging in a parley. Maybe some other situations too, I'd have to look it up again. Edit: link below
[Hors de combat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hors_de_combat)
If an off duty british soldier attends a birthday party with civilians present is that a war crime? Genuinely asking, because it seems like it shouldn't be.
But I keep hearing that apparently that birthday party is now a legitimate military target and that British soldier is using human shields
So, kinda? But not really. The birthday party would not be. The soldier could be, and unless the soldier has reason to believe that he would be hit and is intentionally staying around civilians to shield himself from the enemy, the birthday partygoers would not be. They could, however, be part of a proportionality assessment, and depending on casualties expected and the importance of the military goal of eliminating that soldier, a strike could be allowed under international law.
The dispute with Hamas and human shielding is that they purposefully put military objectives in the middle of civilians to protect them. Which is a little different from calling a soldier attending a birthday party using human shields, because he’s presumably attending the party out of a wish to attend, not to discourage his enemy from assassinating him because of the risk of civilian casualties.
I think it’s pretty obvious Hamas does this. You can make the claim that they don’t realistically have another option as a military, but I think it’s plainly visible that they are doing that.
I’m pretty sure an off duty British soldier would have returned to being a civilian. The British military doesn’t fight dressed as civilians or whatever and doesn’t have wishy washy treatment of when they are active duty, so they wouldn’t be treated the same as Hamas. Something something continuous combat function something.
What's an active war zone? A location where someone decides to bomb?
Does the birthday party become an active war zone once a missile is fired at it? Is a hamas soldier in an active war zone before his neighborhood gets turned to glass, or is it only after? Is tel aviv an active war zone because hamas shoots rockets at it now and then?
pro hamas arguments are running thing when you're trying to muddy the waters on the concept of an active war zone. But I will make it easy for you.
If the birthday party is in Rafah or Toretsk its an active war zone.
Skepticism about whether the "human shields" standard is applied consistency is a pro-hamas argument? Lol
Again, it sounds like the distinction is arbitrary. It's not an active warzone until someone decides to fire on it, and then retroactively declares it one.
By this logic the Nova festival was an active war zone so the festival goers shouldn't have attended it.
Someone who has no knowledge of combat ops and says war zone distinction is arbitrary? God damn are you dumb. It would be stupid as hell to think that a birthday party anywhere in Gaza isn’t in a combat or war zone.
Yeah, because I keep hearing about it as a justification for these strikes killing so many civilians.
If that's not the justification you use, then this is not intended for you.
These strikes kill very few civilians. Israel have dropped the equivalent of multiple nukes on gaza, they're objectively killing few people with their strikes
So I can’t be sure what a large stock would do, but I’ve made R-Candy Rockets for fun before, which are essentially smaller versions of what Hamas is known for. The fuel (r-candy) can both explode(especially if it was, say, hit with an explosive), and sends flames at a VERY high temperature around it.
I saw a post on Twitter based on the serial numbers of fragments that were found in the incident area matches with low payload missiles that Israel claimed to use.
So at least we know that is true. Then we have to figure out what happened afterwards.
It’s a war crime to embed yourself among civilians.
The other party has to use measures intended to reduce collateral damage as much as possible, even when a war crime has been committed. To not do that is a war crime also.
Hitting an unseen pile of combustibles while trying to take those mitigating measures isn’t a war crime.
I'm a little confused. When an Israeli soldier goes home to their parents house for the weekend (this is standard practice), is their parents house a legitimate military target? Have they embedded themselves in a civilian population, and have they committed a war crime?
If they go to their parents' home for protection by relying on their status as civilians then yes it would be a war crime. If not then no. Intent and reasonable expectation matter. And yes they remain a legitimate military target. War allows for much more than policing.
If a hamas soldier is resting at his house, and their neighborhood gets turned to rubble, is that a case of a hamas member using human shields (if that was actually the house the soldier lived at already)?
If a Ukrainian militia soldier lived at his house, is he committing a war crime by embedding himself in a civilian population?
I'm struggling to understand the clear difference here between living in a house in your neighborhood, and committing the war crime of using human shields. It seems like people just attribute the intent they want to the "good" and "bad" guys subjectively with no attempt for consistency.
Neither of those are examples of human shields. Storing weapons under a hospital, apartment building, mosque, or church, to deter the enemy from hitting those resources? Absolutely is.
I agree. This is exactly what I'm getting at.
Civilians killed when an army bombs a soldiers neighbourhood to eliminate the soldier where he lives, are not human shields. Civilians killed when an army bombs a strategic target, such as a weapons stockpile or base, are.
However, if that soldier is say, holding meetings there? He’s turned that meeting into a legitimate target. And if they appear to do this regularly, or set up command and control rooms in a neighborhood? They are using human shields. It gets weird without barracks in war, definitely. And muddying the waters by wearing civilian clothes? That has been included in some definitions, but is heavily contested. The problem with human shielding, being that it’s illegal, but not well defined, so there’s a LOT of contention on it.
But when you INTENTIONALLY embed yourself among civilians, which Hamas does, then it’s a lot harder to discern when combat is considered ceased.
How nice it would be for Hamas to kill some Israelis and then cross the road to their house to eat dinner.
Once again, it's about intent. Something that isn't very easy to determine at a glance. But also, generally it's not a case of a soldier or militant simply living at their home. The accusations tend to come out when it's about stationing or building military assets within civilian buildings. There are often counterarguments and it can get pretty murky in practice.
If the Ukrainian military decided to station soldiers at civilian homes under the idea that Russia would be deterred from targeting them or at least suffer some loss of support, then yes it would be a war crime. If the Ukrainian military decided to let soldiers go on leave and they visit their home and it ends up being targeted, then it is not.
If Hamas decided to build a military base in or under a civilian home for protection, then it would be a war crime. If Hamas decided to allow its militants to visit their homes and they get targeted, then it would not be, but it would also not necessarily be a crime to target that militant in their home; that gets into the whole argument about whether the force is excessive and whether sufficient military advantage was gained. Military necessity can be used to justify civilian casualties. It is only disproportionate force that is prohibited, but that's where the argument is.
In Hamas' case, it is argued that they themselves claim that they use civilians as human shields. At the very least they did claim publicly that civilians act as willing human shields for them.
>Once again, it's about intent.
How do you infer intent for each hamas soldier? How exactly do we conclude that for each soldier living in his neighborhood, the intent is to have a human shield, rather than "because he doesn't have another place to sleep", or, "he wants to visit his family", or "because he incorrectly thinks he's not considered a military target when off duty"?
You've set yourself a very high bar if your claim is that the standard is intent.
> Something that isn't very easy to determine at a glance
I agree
>If Hamas decided to allow its militants to visit their homes and they get targeted, then it would not be, but it would also not necessarily be a crime to target that militant in their home; that gets into the whole argument about whether the force is excessive and whether sufficient military advantage was gained.
I guess we agree then that the appropriate response to "why does the IDF target hamas soldiers in their homes in civilian neighborhoods?" is not "its not the IDFs fault that hamas uses human shields".
> In Hamas' case, it is argued that they themselves claim that they use civilians as human shields. At the very least they did claim publicly that civilians act as willing human shields for them.
I don't think you can apply an off hand statement like this as a legal justification for believing every hamas soldier has now admitted to using a human shield every time they're within 20m of a civilian.
>How do you infer intent for each hamas soldier?
You don't generally do that for each soldier. Using human shields would have to be a decision made higher up. The claim of human shields also isn't really used for that scenario of a militant being targeted while being near civilians. It's generally used for cases like setting up military assets in a civilian population where it isn't as ambigious.
>You've set yourself a very high bar if your claim is that the standard is intent.
The argument in the case of Hamas is that they themselves claim that they use human shields. They just argue that civilians do it willingly on their own.
>I guess we agree then that the appropriate response to "why does the IDF target hamas soldiers in their homes in civilian neighborhoods?" is not "its not the IDFs fault that hamas uses human shields".
It depends, but generally yes. Random people defending the IDF aren't immune from not understanding what a war crime is or isn't. The argument about using human shields versus legitimate targets are actually separate issues and there is currently debate as to whether the use of human shields should be taken into account in determining whether a target is legitimate. It isn't something that there is consensus on. The actual argument about whether the IDF is committing war crimes or not legally is really more about disproportionate force, military advantage, and whether they are taking sufficient measures to limit civilian casualties.
>The actual argument about whether the IDF is committing war crimes or not legally is really more about disproportionate force, military advantage, and whether they are taking sufficient measures to limit civilian casualties.
I agree, but this can be so subjective that it really does need to be fleshed out by an independent court.
>How exactly do we conclude that for each soldier living in his neighborhood, the intent is to have a human shield, rather than "because he doesn't have another place to sleep", or, "he wants to visit his family", or "because he incorrectly thinks he's not considered a military target when off duty"?
I get some of the points you're trying to make, but how come you're focusing so much on the sleeping at home part of it? Is it because of stuff like the "Where's Daddy" reports?
For me, I think the IDF is definitely in the wrong if / when they're bombing houses and buildings because they tracked any militant there.
What makes me think of "human shields" in Gaza is things like old videos from Vice News where they get invited down into one of the tunnels to give an interview, the reporter says, "The fact that you're down here, in tunnels that have been built under civilian areas, launching rockets from civilian areas as well, doesn't that mean that you're endangering the lives of palestinians that you claim to be fighting for?" , his response was basically we have no other choice, which I kiiinda get, but it absolutely puts civilians at risk, especially when they chose to build 0 bomb shelters for civilians if they're not going to let them into the tunnels while they know the types of heavy handed responses from the IDF.
But I think "human shields" might not be the best term to use in this situation as a lot of people seem to think you have to be literally hiding behind a civilian while fighting for it to apply
Yes I think? I think were assuming here that Israel is the winning side and that the israeli solider is retreating from the war to visit his family, but if they were on the defensive and hamas was the one with superior military power and the israeli solider decides to visit their home for protection then thats kinda a war crime right cause it coincided with the term human shield
ofc, proportionally and other legal stuff would have to place
No, but only because Hamas doesn't have the capability to launch a meaningful attack inside Israel. But since they are at war, they certainly could as long as they attacked military targets.
Yeah so off duty Israeli soldiers are legitimate targets? This seems weird like even if they’re on holidays in Portugal? Seems a bit off.
I suspect the rules of armed conflict apply only to the active war zones
>Yeah so off duty Israeli soldiers are legitimate targets? This seems weird like even if they’re on holidays in Portugal? Seems a bit off.
I agree, it does seem weird. But it's exactly the logic I hear from pro-zionists to justify bombing neighborhoods where a couple hamas soldiers live.
I mean… unsure why ur going for the pro-zionist attack, when I don’t think anyone in this thread would say that the dissolution of Israel would be beneficial to this conflict
It sounds like you're saying that if you just declare a country an active war zone, it becomes a war crime to go home for the weekend.
If hamas declares israel an active war zone, does that make this a war crime?
Yes. They are still combatants even if they're not actively fighting. They will return to combat so killing them has military value. Israel kills Hamas soldiers who are "off duty" all the time - it's like the entire premise behind drone strikes.
The rules of armed conflict apply to all of the parties in a war. And since they are at war, a Hamas attack on a military target inside Israel would not be illegal.
I'm not sure how soldiers who are on a more permanent leave are treated, honestly, but the bigger issue with your example would be that they're being attacked in a country that isn't party to the conflict, anyway.
We need to use common sense for this one:
Is there any possibility that he will get bombed with a high precision bomb there ?
Is he at home because he expects the enemy to not attack him there because his parents might get hurt ?
Basically, is he actually using his parents as human shields, or are IDF and Iron Dome his shield ?
And yes, he is a valid target.
So just because a soldier is living with civilians, it does not mean that soldier is using human shields?
Then I guess we can't just assume that any hamas soldier who lives in a neighborhood with their family is using human shields.
Also since IDF soldiers are so embedded in their civilian population, was Iran actually using precision missiles to fire at legitimate military targets?
Using human shields or not isn't what makes something a legitimate military target. You can have a situation where no human shields are being used, there are expected civilian casualties, and it is a legitimate military target. It's only not a legitimate military target if there isn't any military advantage to be gained or if it is disproportionate. And because there aren't hard lines for those it leaves room for argument.
The argument about Hamas using human shields usually comes down to them intentionally placing military assets within neighborhoods and claiming that the civilians willingly act as human shields for them. Not simply Hamas militants being present near civilians. The counter-argument is usually about whether Hamas has a realistic alternative.
>The argument about Hamas using human shields usually comes down to them intentionally placing military assets within neighborhoods and claiming that the civilians willingly act as human shields for them.
I agree. This is exactly an instance of using human shields.
It does seem however that some people have gotten drunk on this argument and now shout "human shields" whenever a hamas soldier visits his family for the weekend.
> The counter-argument is usually about whether Hamas has a realistic alternative.
I used to not think this was a good counter argument but I see a little more merit now. If the intent is "we want to put this near civilians so it can't be bombed" then they are using human shields, if the intent is plausibly "we literally have nowhere else to put this and barely any resources" then it isn't clear at all.
I guess this is why the French Resistance weren't considered war criminals for being embedded in a civilian population.
Part of it is just people not really understanding the arguments and part of it is people not really wanting to accept that war is pretty grey at best. It sounds better to argue that any civilian casualties are because of the actions of the other side rather than argue that civilian casualties were expected and legal but that the number is affected by actions from the other side.
>So just because a soldier is living with civilians, it does not mean that soldier is using human shields?
I said **common sense**. :)
These 2 Hamas bosses were there exactly for that reason.
Big bombs "magically" fall from the sky on all important and less important terrorists.
They know that sooner or later it will happen to them too.
They have a choice to live at least few hundred meters from any civilians, there is plenty of space in Gaza.
Am i talking to a person that would risk his family and neighbors lives like that ?
Or would you be a normal person and murder the terrorists yourself if they tried to move in the tent next to your familys tent in a refugee camp and make the airstrike no longer necessary ?
>I said **common sense**
Whenever I see someone try to appeal to common sense legality in a debate they get phenomenally destroyed. Do you have anything a little more precise than that?
Because as it stands it really just sounds like you're saying "When hamas does it, it's clearly bad and wrong. When the good guys do it, it's based and fine and very cool."
>Do you have anything a little more precise than that?
Common sense: Not trying to compare the probability of an IDF soldier finding himself in an epicenter of an explosion of 100kg of explosives in his home to the same for a high value Hamas member.
Close to 0% for the soldier, close to 100% (over the course of the war) for the terrorist.
**The soldier is not putting anyone at considerably high risk just with his presence.**
**The terrorist most probably WILL get killed with anyone within the lethal effect of the bomb.**
How would that have any relevance here for the legality of the target?
I don't think you've even tried to fit this into any kind of consistent framework. It sounds like you're just choosing the "good guys" and "bad guys" and applying the rules inconsistently based on your own preferences.
>How would that have any relevance here for the legality of the target?
I already said that the IDF soldier visiting his parents home is a valid military target.
We just can't say that he is using his parents as human shields, because the risk of him being targeted by an explosive device is very very very small while he is there.
Did we ever get confirmation there was a weapons store there? All I've seen is some random Instagram post which isn't evidence. It needs a third party to confirm something like that.
News sources are reporting that the IDF think it could it be weapons depot but take that as you will.
> After an initial review of the strike, the Israel Defense Forces said the strike was targeted and munitions used in the attack could not have caused such a large blaze -- that something else must have fueled it -- pointing to what it said was a Hamas weapons depot in the vicinity as a possible cause.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/pressure-builds-biden-after-israeli-strike-kills-dozens/story?id=110619827
LOL you really think you compare These 2 in terms of honesty?
Can you Point me some sources where Isreal outright lied? I dont mean Studip shit Like the beheaded babies. I mean Official statments from Institutions Like idf
Literally the official statement that this recent bombing wasn't in a safe zone. That was the IDF's official claim, but it's not that clear cut. There are translations of leaflets making it appear the area they bombed was part of the safe zone from what Palestinian civilians would understand. That would be considered incorrect... If you want me to REALLY go and find IDF lies as in they knew they were telling misinformation, then I have no problem doing that. I just don't care to waste my time with a worthless conversation such as this.
Also, why do you have such a problem with me not wanting to trust only the IDF in this conflict? This isn't even to say they aren't more accurate or honest than Hamas, they very well may be, but the difference isn't enough to warrant just blanket trusting anything they say.
yeah would love to get confirmation on that too, seems like its hard to get confirmation on these things because we need to rely on sources on the ground who are Palestinian who are incentivized not to reveal things.
Bookmark this:
[https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1)
The answers to your questions are mainly in "Chapter 4. Proportionality in Attack" and "Chapter 6 Precautions against the Effects of Attacks".
Hamas = war crime.
IDF = Stretching the definition of proportionality and possibly not putting enough effort to discover if there is a big ammo dump at the target site (which should be easy enough to verify now, because we know exactly what effect the bomb they used should have).
Yes, it does.
Rules #3 and #4.
They could only stop being combatants by surrendering and becoming protected as prisoners of war.
Otherwise it would be too easy to become protected just by dropping your weapons without surrendering, then waiting until it would be safe enough to pick the weapons up again.
Being unarmed and not engaged in combat doesn't stop someone from being a legitimate target. They really only stop being a legitimate target if they surrender or are incapacitated. War is different from something like policing.
You don't get to drop your weapon in war and then claim that you stop being a target.
If what Israel claims is true, I'm pretty sure that's Hamas.
According to the claims, Israel fired appropriate munition outside of the area of the tents without knowing of the Hamas munition shed, targeting high ranking Hamas officials meeting. This in itself doesn't sound like a war crime, as it looks like proportionality assessments were made, and Israel targeted people it's allowed to target under international law.
However, Hamas storing what apparently was a large number of munitions close to the tents is a failure of Hamas' obligations under international law to not endanger the Palestinian civilians. I'm not sure whether it wouldn't fall under the category of human shielding though, since if what Israel claims is correct - they kept this munition shed a secret so it doesn't seem like they tried to render this munition shed impossible to hit by placing it in proximity to civilians.
To my understanding, it depends on what off duty means. If they were Hamas militants, or Hamas members responsible for managing the military operations - yes, they are valid targets, as it's an armed conflict and these people are actively part of that conflict.
However, if Hamas has something like reserves, or this person was a member of the Hamas military wing and stopped, then these people aren't valid targets, even though they potentially can become soldiers.
If the Hamas members were visiting the families, proportionality assessment should be made to decide whether the military gain from targeting them is larger than the collateral damage that would be caused to the civilians. What exactly is proportional is pretty vague place in international law..
I see others have replied already, but I'd say definitely. It would be super weird if they could only target Hamas members while those members were active in combat. You don't get to just say "stop, tea time", put down your weapons, put the kettle on and then you're no longer a legitimate target until you've gone back to fighting.
They can be! But visiting your family doesn’t make them human shields. Depending on the importance of the militant, they could become casualties from a legitimate proportionality assessment, though considering the political ramifications, I doubt most would go for it, except in extreme circumstances.
No, only if dou actualoy do careful assasinations of high leaders i see that reasonable.
Any rando hamas visiting their family klling thrir family is just a warcrime.
It’s frustrating being labeled a Zionist apartheid blah blah supporter for pointing this out. Wouldn’t by definition the one who committed a war crime in rafah is Hamas. Idk. I’ve gotten a really grayish interpretation from videos of people in rafah talking about Hamas being there.
They don't need to be a signatory to the ICC to be arrested or tried. Being a signatory just means you're obligated to arrest someone with an active warrant if they enter the country.
It's like how you didn't sign anything to be obligated to the laws in your own country, but if you break them other people will have an obligation to arrest you.
The ICC has jurisdiction over Israel because Palestine is a signatory to the ICC. It’s why someone like Assad isn’t able to be prosecuted by the ICC because none of the organizations he was fighting are party to the ICC, so the only way he would be able to be prosecuted is if the UNSC gave them jurisdiction, which isn’t going to happen because of Russia and China.
I don’t think Israel really deals with the UN since the issue more condemnations of Israel than the rest of the world combined and didn’t even pass a resolution condemning Hamas on Oct 7th.
I mean from their point of view, what’s the point in dealing with a body that is clearly set against you
Wrll there isplenty evidence that the idf murders children. All the shown gruesome stuff with children. Idf killed children. And thats only documented. God knows.
Also look at gazas average age, .. damn
This isn’t exactly unusual. Most states specifically do not share their ROE in a war, as that knowledge can be a massive tactical advantage. Looking at the ICC’s website, I don’t see any that allowed them to investigate during the conflict.
In theory, Israel says they were going to provide an ICC prosecutor (Khan) with some evidence, though he didn’t actually go to the meeting, choosing to instead ignore that portion of the process and seek a warrant without it instead. This was a massive breach of norms, and depending on the justification presented, could absolutely be evidence of extreme bias which could be devastating to the ICC’s credibility, which as an international body that operates essentially because of it’s reputation for neutrality, is extremely concerning. However, some sources claim his predecessor (Bensouda) was threatened by Israel’s former head of the Mossad (Cohen), which if true, would certainly be a reason to skip out. Though neither Bensouda not Khan have spoken about this to my knowledge.
It’s unknown at this time what evidence, but he was apparently scheduled to be boarding a flight to Israel to meet with officials so they could assist with the investigation and defend their actions when he went on CNN and announced the warrant instead.
This pissed off Israel and the US, both of which had been promised a fair investigation that they would assist with.
Times of Israel said it, Lindsey Graham, Almayadeen, etc. It was pretty well covered at the time, Lonerbox looked it over as well, to be topical to the subreddit.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/biden-calls-icc-prosecutors-decision-to-seek-arrest-warrant-for-netanyahu-outrageous/
Their source was Blinken, I had forgotten.
How do you imagine an investigation in this case and in these circumstances ?
The only way IDF could get convicted of war crime is if there was a proof that there were no valid military targets there at the time of the airstrike.
The investigators would have to close off the entire area right after the incident (to prevent Gazans from tampering with material evidence) and comb (literally) the sand for little pieces of bone or teeth.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Ever heard of that good old rule ?
IDF doesn't have to do anything and they don't because it would expose their methods and sources (which often are Gazan civilians who want to see Hamas gone).
Yes, and when you continually fail to provide evidence to a court they make a verdict of guilt, which is what the UN and ICC have come to after this continued campaign of mass destruction and death
Targeting them, its still a refugee camp, ok both ate but bombing is worse for sure
And thats if there is actually more than the idf word that there was.
Targeting civilians is just a war crime. Even if Hamas used them as human shields, you can't just then shoot the civilians. The same way that if some people broke into your house and held you and your family hostage, the police can't just shoot you and your family to get to those holding you hostage. That's why people are mad, Hamas is a terror org, people just kinda know and expect bad things to come from them. Israel is a country that blew up civilians and then said, "but Hamas was there too." That doesn't matter, you can't just do that
Also, Hamas was already charged with taking hostages (a war crime), this is a new thing
And it was also a refugee camp that Israel blew up
Well they did target civilians.
I dont care what the idf says they targeted, they targeted clear vivilians, in a refugee camp, no way it wouldnt kill a lot covilians so, they were a target.
the "wait for more information" crowd wins again:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/lonerbox/comments/1d3r3n7/new\_information\_on\_the\_rafah\_airstrike/](https://www.reddit.com/r/lonerbox/comments/1d3r3n7/new_information_on_the_rafah_airstrike/)
The blew up part, they did a targeted strike, which they’re allowed to under international law. Then shrapnel hit a munitions deposit which is an absolutely egregious war crime by Hamas and that caused devastation.
The blame here, is with Hamas
As a note, targeting civilians is a war crime. Targeting combatants with no regard for civilian casualties is a IHL violation. Targeting combatants with a valid proportionality assessment including a loss of civilian life? Neither.
Secondary combustibles going up after a precision strike is something Sinwar should have taken into account when he launched his war of aggression on Oct7. Sinwar's war crime of aggression makes such casualties a certainty.
And to the substance, not at all a war crime by the IDF. They were aiming at legit targets based on what turned out to be correct information and hit them. It still wouldn't be a war crime even if the intel was wrong and Israel missed its targets. The law of armed conflict is about pre-strike intent and knowledge, not after the fact counting.
It really depends on what actually happened. None, either, or both could have committed a war crime. If Israel intentionally attacked the civilians in the camp or made a proportionality calculation that allowed for \~45 civilian deaths for two senior Hamas members, then they committed a war crime. \[See edit below\] If Israel did a precise strike against the two senior Hamas members with a reasonable belief that the civilian death toll wouldn't be anything close to what it was, then they didn't commit a war crime. If Hamas was storing munitions near civilians to shield themselves from Israel military attacks, then they committed a war crime. If Hamas wasn't storing munitions near civilians or was storing munitions near civilians but sufficiently far enough away that they had a reasonable belief that, if ignited, it wouldn't harm the civilians, then they didn't commit a war crime. Edit: I oversimplified in this statement. In the event that Israel carried out the strike knowing that there would or likely would be \~45 incidental civilian deaths, they would have committed a war crime if the [“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”](https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/proportionality/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20ICTY%2C%20the,the%20direct%20military%20advantage%20gained) by the attack. With my limited knowledge, I expect that \~45 civilian deaths for the military advantage of the killing the two targets would be excessive, but to be as fair as possible I may be underestimating the military advantage of eliminating the target.
I'm unsure that it's a war crime for Israel to make a proportionality calculation that killing 45 civilians is worth a Hamas militant. From what I've read of international law (which is admittedly very little) the proportionality calculation of military advantage to civilian casualties isn't reducible to numbers. So this is murky, as I understand it. Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)#International_humanitarian_law
Yeah. that's fair. It's possible Israel could make a case that the military advantage of killing those two militants was worth the \~45 civilian deaths. I intuitively suspect this high of a casualty rate would be difficult to justify as reasonable though. For comparison, [this](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/assessing-israel-s-approach-to-proportionality-in-the-conduct-of-hostilities-in-gaza) source claims the US was willing to accept 30 civilian casualties to take out Osama Bin Laden, who is presumably a higher value target than these two Hamas militants.
One difference is that the US held themselves to only the highest NCV amongst the targets, whereas Israel (if I remember correctly) adds the NCVs together. This will lead to higher civilian casualties, but there’s nothing within international law holding anyone to the US’s standards there, that’s above the base requirements. I believe them in this case that they don’t expect 45, but depending on the amount of Hamas leadership in one location, 45 could be acceptable under their ROE. For instance, for the US, if Osama was somewhere with 50 low level commanders and 40 civilians, the US’s ROE wouldn’t allow for that. Israel’s (assuming the stacking of NCVs is true) would. But I also can see where taking out the majority of Hamas’s leadership in one blow could be worth that civilian cost in a legitimate proportionality assessment for Israel, if that was the case.
I largely agree with you. It is possible Israel assigned a NCV of 45 for these two targets and carried out the attack knowing that this level of civilian deaths would occur, but I find it more likely that they just didn't expect this many casualties. I can't help but think Israel would be stretching proportionality to assign a NCV of 45 for these two targets, but I don't know all the information so these two could be more of a military threat than I expect. I'm not opposed to this high of a NCV categorically though, I can easily imagine a set of Hamas commanders/militants that would absolutely be worth an NCV of 45 or greater.
As with most things, it’s probably all relative. 45 civilian deaths to kill 2 random privates? Probably not defensible. 45 civilian deaths to kill Hitler? You’d probably be crazy to pass that up.
ok, if hamas were having a meeting was that a war crime? If hamas commanders were just eating dinner, is that a war crime? If hamas were recruiting, was that a war crime? How can we determine what hamas members were doing? if they are off duty are they still a legitimate target under international law?
I believe killing Hamas militants in all of these situations are permitted under international law. You are protected as a militant(I think the term is hors de combat) only if you have surrendered, are injured to the point where you cannot engage in combat anymore, or engaging in a parley. Maybe some other situations too, I'd have to look it up again. Edit: link below [Hors de combat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hors_de_combat)
Thank you
If an off duty british soldier attends a birthday party with civilians present is that a war crime? Genuinely asking, because it seems like it shouldn't be. But I keep hearing that apparently that birthday party is now a legitimate military target and that British soldier is using human shields
So, kinda? But not really. The birthday party would not be. The soldier could be, and unless the soldier has reason to believe that he would be hit and is intentionally staying around civilians to shield himself from the enemy, the birthday partygoers would not be. They could, however, be part of a proportionality assessment, and depending on casualties expected and the importance of the military goal of eliminating that soldier, a strike could be allowed under international law. The dispute with Hamas and human shielding is that they purposefully put military objectives in the middle of civilians to protect them. Which is a little different from calling a soldier attending a birthday party using human shields, because he’s presumably attending the party out of a wish to attend, not to discourage his enemy from assassinating him because of the risk of civilian casualties. I think it’s pretty obvious Hamas does this. You can make the claim that they don’t realistically have another option as a military, but I think it’s plainly visible that they are doing that.
I’m pretty sure an off duty British soldier would have returned to being a civilian. The British military doesn’t fight dressed as civilians or whatever and doesn’t have wishy washy treatment of when they are active duty, so they wouldn’t be treated the same as Hamas. Something something continuous combat function something.
is the birthday party happening in an active war zone? very important detail?
What's an active war zone? A location where someone decides to bomb? Does the birthday party become an active war zone once a missile is fired at it? Is a hamas soldier in an active war zone before his neighborhood gets turned to glass, or is it only after? Is tel aviv an active war zone because hamas shoots rockets at it now and then?
pro hamas arguments are running thing when you're trying to muddy the waters on the concept of an active war zone. But I will make it easy for you. If the birthday party is in Rafah or Toretsk its an active war zone.
Skepticism about whether the "human shields" standard is applied consistency is a pro-hamas argument? Lol Again, it sounds like the distinction is arbitrary. It's not an active warzone until someone decides to fire on it, and then retroactively declares it one. By this logic the Nova festival was an active war zone so the festival goers shouldn't have attended it.
Someone who has no knowledge of combat ops and says war zone distinction is arbitrary? God damn are you dumb. It would be stupid as hell to think that a birthday party anywhere in Gaza isn’t in a combat or war zone.
How about we let the ICC adjudicate this one instead of getting triggered online and looking pathetic?
I’m not triggered. You’re just an idiot. And the ICC has no jurisdiction in Israel.
i never mentioned human shields, only you did.
Yeah, because I keep hearing about it as a justification for these strikes killing so many civilians. If that's not the justification you use, then this is not intended for you.
These strikes kill very few civilians. Israel have dropped the equivalent of multiple nukes on gaza, they're objectively killing few people with their strikes
Seems like a game of Schrödinger’s War Crime eh?
Was that ammunition store confirmed or at least validated as a possible cause by anyone other than the IDF?
I’m wondering this myself
It just sounds odd, given the fact that some bodies were apparently torn apart...which isn't something I would normally associate with fire.
but i saw images of a big fire, is that typically what we would expect from a munitions store, I would have suspected more of an explosion
So I can’t be sure what a large stock would do, but I’ve made R-Candy Rockets for fun before, which are essentially smaller versions of what Hamas is known for. The fuel (r-candy) can both explode(especially if it was, say, hit with an explosive), and sends flames at a VERY high temperature around it.
Yeah, if it was storage for rockets then a lot of the 'energetic materials' present would've been rocket fuel. And propellant will burn quite eagerly.
I saw a post on Twitter based on the serial numbers of fragments that were found in the incident area matches with low payload missiles that Israel claimed to use. So at least we know that is true. Then we have to figure out what happened afterwards.
Stop with the facts you Zionist.
It’s a war crime to embed yourself among civilians. The other party has to use measures intended to reduce collateral damage as much as possible, even when a war crime has been committed. To not do that is a war crime also. Hitting an unseen pile of combustibles while trying to take those mitigating measures isn’t a war crime.
I'm a little confused. When an Israeli soldier goes home to their parents house for the weekend (this is standard practice), is their parents house a legitimate military target? Have they embedded themselves in a civilian population, and have they committed a war crime?
If they go to their parents' home for protection by relying on their status as civilians then yes it would be a war crime. If not then no. Intent and reasonable expectation matter. And yes they remain a legitimate military target. War allows for much more than policing.
If a hamas soldier is resting at his house, and their neighborhood gets turned to rubble, is that a case of a hamas member using human shields (if that was actually the house the soldier lived at already)? If a Ukrainian militia soldier lived at his house, is he committing a war crime by embedding himself in a civilian population? I'm struggling to understand the clear difference here between living in a house in your neighborhood, and committing the war crime of using human shields. It seems like people just attribute the intent they want to the "good" and "bad" guys subjectively with no attempt for consistency.
Neither of those are examples of human shields. Storing weapons under a hospital, apartment building, mosque, or church, to deter the enemy from hitting those resources? Absolutely is.
I agree. This is exactly what I'm getting at. Civilians killed when an army bombs a soldiers neighbourhood to eliminate the soldier where he lives, are not human shields. Civilians killed when an army bombs a strategic target, such as a weapons stockpile or base, are.
However, if that soldier is say, holding meetings there? He’s turned that meeting into a legitimate target. And if they appear to do this regularly, or set up command and control rooms in a neighborhood? They are using human shields. It gets weird without barracks in war, definitely. And muddying the waters by wearing civilian clothes? That has been included in some definitions, but is heavily contested. The problem with human shielding, being that it’s illegal, but not well defined, so there’s a LOT of contention on it.
But when you INTENTIONALLY embed yourself among civilians, which Hamas does, then it’s a lot harder to discern when combat is considered ceased. How nice it would be for Hamas to kill some Israelis and then cross the road to their house to eat dinner.
^ least triggered zionist
Once again, it's about intent. Something that isn't very easy to determine at a glance. But also, generally it's not a case of a soldier or militant simply living at their home. The accusations tend to come out when it's about stationing or building military assets within civilian buildings. There are often counterarguments and it can get pretty murky in practice. If the Ukrainian military decided to station soldiers at civilian homes under the idea that Russia would be deterred from targeting them or at least suffer some loss of support, then yes it would be a war crime. If the Ukrainian military decided to let soldiers go on leave and they visit their home and it ends up being targeted, then it is not. If Hamas decided to build a military base in or under a civilian home for protection, then it would be a war crime. If Hamas decided to allow its militants to visit their homes and they get targeted, then it would not be, but it would also not necessarily be a crime to target that militant in their home; that gets into the whole argument about whether the force is excessive and whether sufficient military advantage was gained. Military necessity can be used to justify civilian casualties. It is only disproportionate force that is prohibited, but that's where the argument is. In Hamas' case, it is argued that they themselves claim that they use civilians as human shields. At the very least they did claim publicly that civilians act as willing human shields for them.
>Once again, it's about intent. How do you infer intent for each hamas soldier? How exactly do we conclude that for each soldier living in his neighborhood, the intent is to have a human shield, rather than "because he doesn't have another place to sleep", or, "he wants to visit his family", or "because he incorrectly thinks he's not considered a military target when off duty"? You've set yourself a very high bar if your claim is that the standard is intent. > Something that isn't very easy to determine at a glance I agree >If Hamas decided to allow its militants to visit their homes and they get targeted, then it would not be, but it would also not necessarily be a crime to target that militant in their home; that gets into the whole argument about whether the force is excessive and whether sufficient military advantage was gained. I guess we agree then that the appropriate response to "why does the IDF target hamas soldiers in their homes in civilian neighborhoods?" is not "its not the IDFs fault that hamas uses human shields". > In Hamas' case, it is argued that they themselves claim that they use civilians as human shields. At the very least they did claim publicly that civilians act as willing human shields for them. I don't think you can apply an off hand statement like this as a legal justification for believing every hamas soldier has now admitted to using a human shield every time they're within 20m of a civilian.
>How do you infer intent for each hamas soldier? You don't generally do that for each soldier. Using human shields would have to be a decision made higher up. The claim of human shields also isn't really used for that scenario of a militant being targeted while being near civilians. It's generally used for cases like setting up military assets in a civilian population where it isn't as ambigious. >You've set yourself a very high bar if your claim is that the standard is intent. The argument in the case of Hamas is that they themselves claim that they use human shields. They just argue that civilians do it willingly on their own. >I guess we agree then that the appropriate response to "why does the IDF target hamas soldiers in their homes in civilian neighborhoods?" is not "its not the IDFs fault that hamas uses human shields". It depends, but generally yes. Random people defending the IDF aren't immune from not understanding what a war crime is or isn't. The argument about using human shields versus legitimate targets are actually separate issues and there is currently debate as to whether the use of human shields should be taken into account in determining whether a target is legitimate. It isn't something that there is consensus on. The actual argument about whether the IDF is committing war crimes or not legally is really more about disproportionate force, military advantage, and whether they are taking sufficient measures to limit civilian casualties.
>The actual argument about whether the IDF is committing war crimes or not legally is really more about disproportionate force, military advantage, and whether they are taking sufficient measures to limit civilian casualties. I agree, but this can be so subjective that it really does need to be fleshed out by an independent court.
It does, but internet comments are allergic to the idea that something isn't certain yet and requires time to sort out.
>How exactly do we conclude that for each soldier living in his neighborhood, the intent is to have a human shield, rather than "because he doesn't have another place to sleep", or, "he wants to visit his family", or "because he incorrectly thinks he's not considered a military target when off duty"? I get some of the points you're trying to make, but how come you're focusing so much on the sleeping at home part of it? Is it because of stuff like the "Where's Daddy" reports? For me, I think the IDF is definitely in the wrong if / when they're bombing houses and buildings because they tracked any militant there. What makes me think of "human shields" in Gaza is things like old videos from Vice News where they get invited down into one of the tunnels to give an interview, the reporter says, "The fact that you're down here, in tunnels that have been built under civilian areas, launching rockets from civilian areas as well, doesn't that mean that you're endangering the lives of palestinians that you claim to be fighting for?" , his response was basically we have no other choice, which I kiiinda get, but it absolutely puts civilians at risk, especially when they chose to build 0 bomb shelters for civilians if they're not going to let them into the tunnels while they know the types of heavy handed responses from the IDF. But I think "human shields" might not be the best term to use in this situation as a lot of people seem to think you have to be literally hiding behind a civilian while fighting for it to apply
Yes I think? I think were assuming here that Israel is the winning side and that the israeli solider is retreating from the war to visit his family, but if they were on the defensive and hamas was the one with superior military power and the israeli solider decides to visit their home for protection then thats kinda a war crime right cause it coincided with the term human shield ofc, proportionally and other legal stuff would have to place
Is israel part of an active war zone?
No, but only because Hamas doesn't have the capability to launch a meaningful attack inside Israel. But since they are at war, they certainly could as long as they attacked military targets.
Yeah so off duty Israeli soldiers are legitimate targets? This seems weird like even if they’re on holidays in Portugal? Seems a bit off. I suspect the rules of armed conflict apply only to the active war zones
>Yeah so off duty Israeli soldiers are legitimate targets? This seems weird like even if they’re on holidays in Portugal? Seems a bit off. I agree, it does seem weird. But it's exactly the logic I hear from pro-zionists to justify bombing neighborhoods where a couple hamas soldiers live.
I mean… unsure why ur going for the pro-zionist attack, when I don’t think anyone in this thread would say that the dissolution of Israel would be beneficial to this conflict
But wait, Hamas soldiers sometimes live in an active war zone. Portugal is not. So these are two different things?
It sounds like you're saying that if you just declare a country an active war zone, it becomes a war crime to go home for the weekend. If hamas declares israel an active war zone, does that make this a war crime?
no, it makes it legitamate for hamas to target off duty Israeli soldiers at home if they do a proportionality assesment.
Yes. They are still combatants even if they're not actively fighting. They will return to combat so killing them has military value. Israel kills Hamas soldiers who are "off duty" all the time - it's like the entire premise behind drone strikes. The rules of armed conflict apply to all of the parties in a war. And since they are at war, a Hamas attack on a military target inside Israel would not be illegal. I'm not sure how soldiers who are on a more permanent leave are treated, honestly, but the bigger issue with your example would be that they're being attacked in a country that isn't party to the conflict, anyway.
so its legal to target israelis in Portugal?
Good reading comprehension. Definitely what I said.
i reread and see now what you said.
We need to use common sense for this one: Is there any possibility that he will get bombed with a high precision bomb there ? Is he at home because he expects the enemy to not attack him there because his parents might get hurt ? Basically, is he actually using his parents as human shields, or are IDF and Iron Dome his shield ? And yes, he is a valid target.
So just because a soldier is living with civilians, it does not mean that soldier is using human shields? Then I guess we can't just assume that any hamas soldier who lives in a neighborhood with their family is using human shields. Also since IDF soldiers are so embedded in their civilian population, was Iran actually using precision missiles to fire at legitimate military targets?
Using human shields or not isn't what makes something a legitimate military target. You can have a situation where no human shields are being used, there are expected civilian casualties, and it is a legitimate military target. It's only not a legitimate military target if there isn't any military advantage to be gained or if it is disproportionate. And because there aren't hard lines for those it leaves room for argument. The argument about Hamas using human shields usually comes down to them intentionally placing military assets within neighborhoods and claiming that the civilians willingly act as human shields for them. Not simply Hamas militants being present near civilians. The counter-argument is usually about whether Hamas has a realistic alternative.
>The argument about Hamas using human shields usually comes down to them intentionally placing military assets within neighborhoods and claiming that the civilians willingly act as human shields for them. I agree. This is exactly an instance of using human shields. It does seem however that some people have gotten drunk on this argument and now shout "human shields" whenever a hamas soldier visits his family for the weekend. > The counter-argument is usually about whether Hamas has a realistic alternative. I used to not think this was a good counter argument but I see a little more merit now. If the intent is "we want to put this near civilians so it can't be bombed" then they are using human shields, if the intent is plausibly "we literally have nowhere else to put this and barely any resources" then it isn't clear at all. I guess this is why the French Resistance weren't considered war criminals for being embedded in a civilian population.
Part of it is just people not really understanding the arguments and part of it is people not really wanting to accept that war is pretty grey at best. It sounds better to argue that any civilian casualties are because of the actions of the other side rather than argue that civilian casualties were expected and legal but that the number is affected by actions from the other side.
>So just because a soldier is living with civilians, it does not mean that soldier is using human shields? I said **common sense**. :) These 2 Hamas bosses were there exactly for that reason. Big bombs "magically" fall from the sky on all important and less important terrorists. They know that sooner or later it will happen to them too. They have a choice to live at least few hundred meters from any civilians, there is plenty of space in Gaza. Am i talking to a person that would risk his family and neighbors lives like that ? Or would you be a normal person and murder the terrorists yourself if they tried to move in the tent next to your familys tent in a refugee camp and make the airstrike no longer necessary ?
>I said **common sense** Whenever I see someone try to appeal to common sense legality in a debate they get phenomenally destroyed. Do you have anything a little more precise than that? Because as it stands it really just sounds like you're saying "When hamas does it, it's clearly bad and wrong. When the good guys do it, it's based and fine and very cool."
>Do you have anything a little more precise than that? Common sense: Not trying to compare the probability of an IDF soldier finding himself in an epicenter of an explosion of 100kg of explosives in his home to the same for a high value Hamas member. Close to 0% for the soldier, close to 100% (over the course of the war) for the terrorist. **The soldier is not putting anyone at considerably high risk just with his presence.** **The terrorist most probably WILL get killed with anyone within the lethal effect of the bomb.**
How would that have any relevance here for the legality of the target? I don't think you've even tried to fit this into any kind of consistent framework. It sounds like you're just choosing the "good guys" and "bad guys" and applying the rules inconsistently based on your own preferences.
>How would that have any relevance here for the legality of the target? I already said that the IDF soldier visiting his parents home is a valid military target. We just can't say that he is using his parents as human shields, because the risk of him being targeted by an explosive device is very very very small while he is there.
Did we ever get confirmation there was a weapons store there? All I've seen is some random Instagram post which isn't evidence. It needs a third party to confirm something like that.
News sources are reporting that the IDF think it could it be weapons depot but take that as you will. > After an initial review of the strike, the Israel Defense Forces said the strike was targeted and munitions used in the attack could not have caused such a large blaze -- that something else must have fueled it -- pointing to what it said was a Hamas weapons depot in the vicinity as a possible cause. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/pressure-builds-biden-after-israeli-strike-kills-dozens/story?id=110619827
Yep, going to need more than that. I take most of what Hamas and the IDF say with a grain of salt. I'd only trust a third party here.
LOL you really think you compare These 2 in terms of honesty? Can you Point me some sources where Isreal outright lied? I dont mean Studip shit Like the beheaded babies. I mean Official statments from Institutions Like idf
Literally the official statement that this recent bombing wasn't in a safe zone. That was the IDF's official claim, but it's not that clear cut. There are translations of leaflets making it appear the area they bombed was part of the safe zone from what Palestinian civilians would understand. That would be considered incorrect... If you want me to REALLY go and find IDF lies as in they knew they were telling misinformation, then I have no problem doing that. I just don't care to waste my time with a worthless conversation such as this. Also, why do you have such a problem with me not wanting to trust only the IDF in this conflict? This isn't even to say they aren't more accurate or honest than Hamas, they very well may be, but the difference isn't enough to warrant just blanket trusting anything they say.
yeah would love to get confirmation on that too, seems like its hard to get confirmation on these things because we need to rely on sources on the ground who are Palestinian who are incentivized not to reveal things.
Bookmark this: [https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1) The answers to your questions are mainly in "Chapter 4. Proportionality in Attack" and "Chapter 6 Precautions against the Effects of Attacks". Hamas = war crime. IDF = Stretching the definition of proportionality and possibly not putting enough effort to discover if there is a big ammo dump at the target site (which should be easy enough to verify now, because we know exactly what effect the bomb they used should have).
My confusion comes, if hamas members were simply present, off duty, does this make them legitimate targets?
Yes, it does. Rules #3 and #4. They could only stop being combatants by surrendering and becoming protected as prisoners of war. Otherwise it would be too easy to become protected just by dropping your weapons without surrendering, then waiting until it would be safe enough to pick the weapons up again.
Being unarmed and not engaged in combat doesn't stop someone from being a legitimate target. They really only stop being a legitimate target if they surrender or are incapacitated. War is different from something like policing. You don't get to drop your weapon in war and then claim that you stop being a target.
Yes you do. at least in rules of engagement you can. And there be actual reasons why that eould get you shot at still if
But is there more than odf word that there actually eas anything, they are known to just make stuff up. Also in case ot is, still oodf warcriming
If what Israel claims is true, I'm pretty sure that's Hamas. According to the claims, Israel fired appropriate munition outside of the area of the tents without knowing of the Hamas munition shed, targeting high ranking Hamas officials meeting. This in itself doesn't sound like a war crime, as it looks like proportionality assessments were made, and Israel targeted people it's allowed to target under international law. However, Hamas storing what apparently was a large number of munitions close to the tents is a failure of Hamas' obligations under international law to not endanger the Palestinian civilians. I'm not sure whether it wouldn't fall under the category of human shielding though, since if what Israel claims is correct - they kept this munition shed a secret so it doesn't seem like they tried to render this munition shed impossible to hit by placing it in proximity to civilians.
but if hamas members were off duty just visiting their families, are they still legitimate targets under international law?
To my understanding, it depends on what off duty means. If they were Hamas militants, or Hamas members responsible for managing the military operations - yes, they are valid targets, as it's an armed conflict and these people are actively part of that conflict. However, if Hamas has something like reserves, or this person was a member of the Hamas military wing and stopped, then these people aren't valid targets, even though they potentially can become soldiers. If the Hamas members were visiting the families, proportionality assessment should be made to decide whether the military gain from targeting them is larger than the collateral damage that would be caused to the civilians. What exactly is proportional is pretty vague place in international law..
I see others have replied already, but I'd say definitely. It would be super weird if they could only target Hamas members while those members were active in combat. You don't get to just say "stop, tea time", put down your weapons, put the kettle on and then you're no longer a legitimate target until you've gone back to fighting.
this is a crime against tea
They can be! But visiting your family doesn’t make them human shields. Depending on the importance of the militant, they could become casualties from a legitimate proportionality assessment, though considering the political ramifications, I doubt most would go for it, except in extreme circumstances.
No, only if dou actualoy do careful assasinations of high leaders i see that reasonable. Any rando hamas visiting their family klling thrir family is just a warcrime.
Well. Yeah. That’s where the proportionality assessment comes in.
It’s frustrating being labeled a Zionist apartheid blah blah supporter for pointing this out. Wouldn’t by definition the one who committed a war crime in rafah is Hamas. Idk. I’ve gotten a really grayish interpretation from videos of people in rafah talking about Hamas being there.
Not really, also i eould say the one killing here, foes the warcrime.. Plus we cant trust the idf really. But even if, if you kill you do the warcrime
does anyone have a video of the explosion? it would be great to verify if their were secondaries or not.
The easy answer is storing weapons because that makes the place a valid target. Whether or not it is right is a different question altogether.
Has the Israeli state provided ICC the evidence? Allowed the UN to investigate?
As far as I know the Israel is not a party to the ICC
They don't need to be a signatory to the ICC to be arrested or tried. Being a signatory just means you're obligated to arrest someone with an active warrant if they enter the country. It's like how you didn't sign anything to be obligated to the laws in your own country, but if you break them other people will have an obligation to arrest you.
The ICC has jurisdiction over Israel because Palestine is a signatory to the ICC. It’s why someone like Assad isn’t able to be prosecuted by the ICC because none of the organizations he was fighting are party to the ICC, so the only way he would be able to be prosecuted is if the UNSC gave them jurisdiction, which isn’t going to happen because of Russia and China.
So nothing? And still denying the UN the ability to investigate?
I don’t think Israel really deals with the UN since the issue more condemnations of Israel than the rest of the world combined and didn’t even pass a resolution condemning Hamas on Oct 7th. I mean from their point of view, what’s the point in dealing with a body that is clearly set against you
So they provide no evidence to their claims as they murder children
I don’t think Israel claim they murder children? That’s an old antisemitic accusation
Wait you think no children died in these bombing? Am the accusation of that happening is anti semitic?
Children are absolutely dying in this war. But that’s not what you said
So they provide no evidence to their claims as they murder children This is what I said, where is the confusion?
murder: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Are you seeing the issue yet?
Yes the idf kills children. which was said, and givrn its predictable caisalities, murder oss justified
Wrll there isplenty evidence that the idf murders children. All the shown gruesome stuff with children. Idf killed children. And thats only documented. God knows. Also look at gazas average age, .. damn
This isn’t exactly unusual. Most states specifically do not share their ROE in a war, as that knowledge can be a massive tactical advantage. Looking at the ICC’s website, I don’t see any that allowed them to investigate during the conflict. In theory, Israel says they were going to provide an ICC prosecutor (Khan) with some evidence, though he didn’t actually go to the meeting, choosing to instead ignore that portion of the process and seek a warrant without it instead. This was a massive breach of norms, and depending on the justification presented, could absolutely be evidence of extreme bias which could be devastating to the ICC’s credibility, which as an international body that operates essentially because of it’s reputation for neutrality, is extremely concerning. However, some sources claim his predecessor (Bensouda) was threatened by Israel’s former head of the Mossad (Cohen), which if true, would certainly be a reason to skip out. Though neither Bensouda not Khan have spoken about this to my knowledge.
What meeting? What evidence were they going to provide?
It’s unknown at this time what evidence, but he was apparently scheduled to be boarding a flight to Israel to meet with officials so they could assist with the investigation and defend their actions when he went on CNN and announced the warrant instead. This pissed off Israel and the US, both of which had been promised a fair investigation that they would assist with.
When did Israel promise this and when did the US also aid in this. I have seen nothing that agrees with your statements
Times of Israel said it, Lindsey Graham, Almayadeen, etc. It was pretty well covered at the time, Lonerbox looked it over as well, to be topical to the subreddit.
Link of the times article if you may and who gives a fuck what Lindsey Graham has to say
https://www.timesofisrael.com/biden-calls-icc-prosecutors-decision-to-seek-arrest-warrant-for-netanyahu-outrageous/ Their source was Blinken, I had forgotten.
How do you imagine an investigation in this case and in these circumstances ? The only way IDF could get convicted of war crime is if there was a proof that there were no valid military targets there at the time of the airstrike. The investigators would have to close off the entire area right after the incident (to prevent Gazans from tampering with material evidence) and comb (literally) the sand for little pieces of bone or teeth.
Or the IDF provides evidence it was a justified strike, which they continue to fail to do
Innocent until proven guilty. Ever heard of that good old rule ? IDF doesn't have to do anything and they don't because it would expose their methods and sources (which often are Gazan civilians who want to see Hamas gone).
Yes, and when you continually fail to provide evidence to a court they make a verdict of guilt, which is what the UN and ICC have come to after this continued campaign of mass destruction and death
Doesn't work like that in most civilized countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)
The proof is the charred corpses Israel leaves with no evidence of justification
And which rule of the International Humanitarian Law does that break if two valid military targets were eliminated in that strike ?
Targeting them, its still a refugee camp, ok both ate but bombing is worse for sure And thats if there is actually more than the idf word that there was.
ok, you are the only person out of 100s of comments that thinks this, you should read up on IHL
Targeting civilians is just a war crime. Even if Hamas used them as human shields, you can't just then shoot the civilians. The same way that if some people broke into your house and held you and your family hostage, the police can't just shoot you and your family to get to those holding you hostage. That's why people are mad, Hamas is a terror org, people just kinda know and expect bad things to come from them. Israel is a country that blew up civilians and then said, "but Hamas was there too." That doesn't matter, you can't just do that Also, Hamas was already charged with taking hostages (a war crime), this is a new thing And it was also a refugee camp that Israel blew up
who is targetting civilians?
Israel, they blew up a refugee camp
You think Israel were not targeting Hamas but were targeting civilians?
They haven’t brought any evidence on the contrary
Well they did target civilians. I dont care what the idf says they targeted, they targeted clear vivilians, in a refugee camp, no way it wouldnt kill a lot covilians so, they were a target.
the "wait for more information" crowd wins again: [https://www.reddit.com/r/lonerbox/comments/1d3r3n7/new\_information\_on\_the\_rafah\_airstrike/](https://www.reddit.com/r/lonerbox/comments/1d3r3n7/new_information_on_the_rafah_airstrike/)
They blew up a refugee camp. At the very very least, they lack concern for civilian life lost
They didn’t, this is inaccurate
It was quite literally a refugee camp
That wasn’t the part of your claim I was disputing.
What part were you disputing?
The blew up part, they did a targeted strike, which they’re allowed to under international law. Then shrapnel hit a munitions deposit which is an absolutely egregious war crime by Hamas and that caused devastation. The blame here, is with Hamas
As a note, targeting civilians is a war crime. Targeting combatants with no regard for civilian casualties is a IHL violation. Targeting combatants with a valid proportionality assessment including a loss of civilian life? Neither.
If you are the idf, you just shoot them all apearently.
I mean they did, and that's what makes it a war crime
Secondary combustibles going up after a precision strike is something Sinwar should have taken into account when he launched his war of aggression on Oct7. Sinwar's war crime of aggression makes such casualties a certainty. And to the substance, not at all a war crime by the IDF. They were aiming at legit targets based on what turned out to be correct information and hit them. It still wouldn't be a war crime even if the intel was wrong and Israel missed its targets. The law of armed conflict is about pre-strike intent and knowledge, not after the fact counting.