Israel-Hamas War 2023

[crazy canuck]

I understand Pf. Byers has expertise in international law and specifically the law of war, as he literally wrote a book on the subject.

However, his claims the Israel is violating international law by failing to supply electricity and fuel does not seem to be supported by any of written sources.  His statement: "the siege does not distinguish between civilians and militants and is therefore illegal" is simply not correct other than perhaps as a matter of his own aspirational opinion.  The AP commentary and the US gloss I quoted above contemplates that siege warfare is not prohibited by international law even though civilians will be impacted.  Obviously, Israel has no means of denying supplies specifically to Hamas militants only.  There are limitations based on concepts of proportionality and feasibility but after mentioning them, Pf. Byers then proceeds to ignore them in presenting his conclusion.

It appears that Israel is massing very substantial forces for an imminent assault, an enormous logistical undertaking and one under the circumstances requiring the most rigorous operational security.  Yet Pf. Byers does not discuss the feasibility of simultaneously opening up flight corridors for 2 million people or of organizing and vetting relief convoys.  Of course, if the status quo persists for months with IDF forces simply remaining in place and enforcing a siege, that analysis would change.  But it seems to me Pf. Byers is leaping to judgment without warrant and in contravention to the very legal principles he admits apply to this situation.

What you have said is not consistent with the text you quoted earlier.

As just one example:

Starvation is a legitimate method of warfare, but it must be conducted in accordance with
the principles of distinction and proportionality, as well as other law of war rules. Starvation of
civilians as a method of combat is also prohibited in non-international armed conflict.608
5.20.1 Starvation – Distinction. It is a legitimate method of war to starve enemy
forces.
609 For example, it is permitted to destroy food intended as sustenance for enemy forces with a view towards weakening them and diverting their resources.610 Enemy forces, for the
purpose of this rule, means those persons constituting military objectives.611

Nothing there says Israel can knowingly starve civilians and armed forces.  The professor's point is that there also needs to be distinctions made between civilian and military targets.

[crazy canuck]

Right, something to remember is the laws of war never tried to criminalize war itself--the United Nations sought to stop aggressive wars as a principle, but when the Security Council became dysfunctional a few seconds after the Soviets realized they were doing it wrong when they let the UNSC vote on the Korean War, that concept has basically died. This wouldn't be considered an offensive war in any case, Israel was attacked, on its own territory--not even in the territory that is broadly considered Palestinian, but in territory that was Israel's as part of the 1947 UN partition plan.

A lot of really weird international law claims people are making about Israel would make it almost impossible to prosecute a war, which again, not how the laws of war were designed. They were designed to minimize the brutality of war, and done with a recognition you can't just ban war by legislative fiat--so you have to make amends with reality.

Military necessity is a valid justification for many things in war, and that is also often ignored. It doesn't give you carte blanche.

People are also willfully confusing the requirements of an occupying power with a power at war--Israel was arguably an occupying power of Gaza (even that is complex due to the nature of the Gaza "walling off"), but they have formally declared war against Hamas lead Gaza. They are allowed to siege their strongholds, they are allowed to bomb them in ways that are designed to facilitate an eventual invasion. They are allowed to do those things even if it kills civilians.

The laws of war prohibit certain specific technologies (most of those laws are in later GC APs that have not been signed by Israel), and the deliberate targeting of noncombatants.

I notice a lot of these pundits try to introduce terms like "collective punishment", which are usually used in evaluating the behavior of an occupying power responding to criminality or rebel activity. E.g. a village has a sniper shoot a soldier, so the army punishes the whole village. It stretches the traditional usage of the term "collective punishment" to the brink of absurdity to classify a pre-invasion bombing campaign as "collective punishment" because their bombs are hitting parties who weren't directly involved in the attack.

That isn't how it works. That would be like saying the Allies weren't allowed to shell the beaches of Normandy, since some of those shells could hit civilian targets, and the civilians weren't the ones who declared war on the Allies. Like...no. That isn't what collective punishment means. It isn't collective punishment to wage war against someone who attacked you.

Well, yes, the rules were  created to protect civilian populations.  Not to make war easy.  If your interpretation was accepted the rules become meaningless.

[Josquius]

Apparently Russia has said nothing to Israel.
Not even the smallest of words of condolence.
And Israel is pissed.
It sees that it has made an active effort to remain neutral on Ukraine despite Russia obviously being in the wrong there and completely against Israels other allies. It expected at least a little sorry in return.

Given the stories of Russia smuggling weapons in too...

Hopefully this can be sorted quick and with a minimum of further bloodshed. As interesting times ahead with a solid Israel - Ukraine vs Iran - Russia.

[crazy canuck]

As interesting times ahead with a solid Israel - Ukraine vs Iran - Russia.

I sure hope not.  And if that does occur, I sure hope the Russian nukes don't work.

[Grey Fox]

They don't.

[Josquius]

As interesting times ahead with a solid Israel - Ukraine vs Iran - Russia.

I sure hope not.  And if that does occur, I sure hope the Russian nukes don't work.

I don't see Russia going nuclear over Israel bombing the shit out of Irans drone factories and warehouses.
Even with Israeli troops in ukraine, which is so unlikely to go off into sillyville, I don't think trying to nuke Israel would be their go to.

[The Minsky Moment]

Nothing there says Israel can knowingly starve civilians and armed forces.  The professor's point is that there also needs to be distinctions made between civilian and military targets.

I think we read the words differently.  "Starvation is a legitimate method of warfare" seems pretty straightforward.
The question is not whether there is a distinction between civilian and military targets; of course that distinction exists.  The real question is with respect to the conduct of siege warfare - which is lawful under international law - how can that distinction be feasibly operationalized in particular situations?  Armies do not and cannot lay siege to specific, designated individuals, they lay siege to geographic positions, and everyone in that position is necessarily impacted.  That is especially so dealing with an opponent like Hamas, whose standard M.O. involves blurring civilian-militant distinctions and using civilian buildings, facilities and human bodies for self-protection and to conduct military activities.

The real issue is what sort of obligation Israel has to facilitate humanitarian assistance consistent with its legitimate interest in denying resources to Hamas.  At this stage it is way too premature to be throwing around judgments.

My sense is that the Professor has jumped the gun to make accusations without adequate foundation.  He may have done so in the belief that the Israeli government is staffed by bad actors who are looking for excuses to run roughshod over international norms.  He may be right about it but IMO it makes matters worse to make knee jerk claims before sufficient justification exists.  That feeds the opposing narrative that whatever Israel does will always be condemned so why try?

[The Minsky Moment]

Well, yes, the rules were  created to protect civilian populations.  Not to make war easy.  If your interpretation was accepted the rules become meaningless.

The rules were created on that understanding that states regretfully are going to engage in war, but given that what rules realistically can be imposed that will limit the negative impacts of war on civilian populations but that states will still accept as consistent with their perceived rights to purse nationald defense and security obligations?  It is a balance between competing considerations, which is why many of the rules are not bright line but use "rule of reason" concepts like proportionality and feasibility.

If you interpret the rules in a way that forces combatants to place the safety of enemy populations over the safety and security of their own populations and armed forces, the rules become meaningless because no combatant will abide by them.

[crazy canuck]

Nothing there says Israel can knowingly starve civilians and armed forces.  The professor's point is that there also needs to be distinctions made between civilian and military targets.

I think we read the words differently.  "Starvation is a legitimate method of warfare" seems pretty straightforward.
The question is not whether there is a distinction between civilian and military targets; of course that distinction exists.  The real question is with respect to the conduct of siege warfare - which is lawful under international law - how can that distinction be feasibly operationalized in particular situations?  Armies do not and cannot lay siege to specific, designated individuals, they lay siege to geographic positions, and everyone in that position is necessarily impacted.  That is especially so dealing with an opponent like Hamas, whose standard M.O. involves blurring civilian-militant distinctions and using civilian buildings, facilities and human bodies for self-protection and to conduct military activities.

The real issue is what sort of obligation Israel has to facilitate humanitarian assistance consistent with its legitimate interest in denying resources to Hamas.  At this stage it is way too premature to be throwing around judgments.

My sense is that the Professor has jumped the gun to make accusations without adequate foundation.  He may have done so in the belief that the Israeli government is staffed by bad actors who are looking for excuses to run roughshod over international norms.  He may be right about it but IMO it makes matters worse to make knee jerk claims before sufficient justification exists.  That feeds the opposing narrative that whatever Israel does will always be condemned so why try?

You are right. We are definitely reading the words differently. You are reading out the word "but" after the phrase that starvation can be used while I am not reading it out.

[Sheilbh]

I can barely understand politics in the US, and I live here and interact regularly with Trump voters.  I definitely can't understand politics in Israel.  What you say makes sense; logic suggests that there should be accountability for such a massive security failure, especially one so easily traceable to ministry policy of monomaniacal focus on WB settlements.  Everyone knows Bibi is corrupt and played out; his only card left was a rep for "security" and he just presided over Israel's worst security catastrophe in 50 years.  But what do I know? If logic prevailed this shameful excuse of a government never would have got near to power in the first place, much less endured this long.

You're totally right.

I think the main thing I just keep thinking is that Israel's been incredibly divided in recent years and Saturday's attacks land directly on those divides. Tonight you have people lighting a candle for each victim, reading their names and saying "their blood is on your hands" outside the house of a minister. The word I keep thinking is that it'll be combustible, and that the politics will affect Israel's response in ways we don't know - I've no idea. And it may be unpredictable.

But also that I think the psychological shock is going to be profound and I think unpredictable. Israel's sense of security and perhaps invulnerability was earned. Again, I've no idea what that will mean.

Edit: I just think that in talk of "Israel's 9/11" we also think about the broad unity and support for Bush - I really don't think that's what seems to be happening.

Edit: And on this point Jerusalem post reporting that 86% of respondents (including 79% of coalition supporters) say the attack was a failure of Israel's leadership. 94% say the government must bear some responsibility for the lack of security readiness, over 75% say the goverment holds most of the responsibility - and over 50% think both Netanyahu and the defence minister should resign once military operations are over.

I just saw a story about several CEOs asking for names of Harvard students that wrote a statement blaming Israel for the Hamas attacks, openly saying that the intention was to blacklist them from employment.  For the strong supporters of "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences", are you okay with this?

Broadly speaking I think political belief should not be grounds for dismissal.

Speech that is unlawful - for example certain hate speech or public order offences - shouldn't be protected in the same way, even if it is based on the same political belief. But it also shouldn't necessarily mean dismissal, but that's more a judgement call.

I also think there are some political beliefs that are not, to nick a phrase, "worthy of respect in a democratic society" for example through a clash with someone else's fundamental rights (even if not unlawful) - for example if they were targetting Jews or Israelis in some way (harassment, mocking etc). I'd say that could be grounds for dismissal.

I'm not sure I'd necessarily support a proper blacklist in any context.

Edit: Although on double standards I am very uncomfortable that the FA is apparently not lighting up Wembley Arch in Israeli colours because they are concerned about the response - it has been lit up in French, Turkish and Ukrainin colours in solidarity. The FA has taken stances on BLM and LGBT+ rights. I think that has been all correct, but I feel like perhaps they shouldn't and should just say they're "neutral"/apolitical etc.

Especially when, today, two Jewish schools in London have had to close for security reasons. Including the 300 year old Jewish Free School which, so far, has had two former pupils among the 4 identified British victims (of over 10) - which is incredibly grim.

[Legbiter]

Israeli commandos retaking a military post near gaza. Pretty sanitized and they rescue a group of Israelis at the end. Apparently the IDF identifies friend from foe by having them recite Shema Israel. 

https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1712579906423431208

[chipwich]

Not foolproof. Should have asked them to pronounce shibboleth.

[jimmy olsen]

1.1 million people must evacuate northern Gaza. This seems like a prelude to Israel trying to drive the whole population into Egypt and daring them to stop them. This is going to spiral completely out of control.

https://www.cnn.com/webview/middleeast/live-news/israel-news-hamas-war-10-12-23/index.html?adobe_mc=TS%3D1697169907%7CMCMID%3D65993415993841894238424722505577525822%7CMCAID%3D2FFE3D54BD348460-40000C5A2A4AAEC9%7CMCORGID%3D7FF852E2556756057F000101%40AdobeOrg&iid=cnn-mobile-app

United Nations team leaders in Gaza on Thursday were informed by their liaison officers in the Israeli military that the entire population north of Wadi Gaza should evacuate to southern Gaza within 24 hours, according to Stephane Dujarric the spokesperson for the UN secretary general.

Israel gave the message to the UN team in Gaza at just before midnight local time on Thursday, the UN said.

"This amounts to approximately 1.1 million people. The same order applied to all UN staff and those sheltered in UN facilities — including schools, health centres and clinics," the UN statement said. "The United Nations considers it impossible for such a movement to take place without devastating humanitarian consequences."
The UN's statement added: "The United Nations strongly appeals for any such order, if confirmed, to be rescinded avoiding what could transform what is already a tragedy into a calamitous situation."

[OttoVonBismarck]

I don't think this is a prelude to Israel trying to drive the whole population into Egypt. For one, Israel knows Egypt won't let them, the border is not physically that big. It isn't likely to happen.

It seems more likely to me Israel is actually following its obligations as a country that seems to at least care about the formal requirements of the laws of war (we can always debate how much it follows them in practice), which require minimization of civilian casualties.

Israel is essentially attempting to do that by making it fairly clearly large military operations will be happening in the Northern half of Gaza, and people in that area could very easily be hurt or killed in the cross fire.

Most likely, since that is where Gaza City is, and Israel has had intel studying Gaza for 15 years, they likely believe the core of Hamas's prepared tunnels and other infrastructure is up there, and they intend to dismantle it. The fewer Gazans in their homes when that happens, the better--both for IDF strategically, and for humanitarian reasons.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I find takes like this really confusing:

Progressive US Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has denounced Israel's push to remove more than 1.1 million Palestinians from northern Gaza in an apparent effort to pave the way for a ground invasion of the territory.

"Any person can see that ordering 1+ million people to move in under 24 hours is not possible. It is unacceptable," the congresswoman wrote in a social media post.

"The UN has already deemed the order 'impossible' without 'devastating humanitarian consequences'. Humanity is at stake. Nearly half are children. We must halt this."

Would she prefer they not warn the civilians at all, and just tell them "well, we are conducting a major invasion, which will include artillery, tanks, and other heavy equipment fighting in urban warfare likely for the next month or more, stay in your houses right in the middle of this and hope for the best."

These people confuse me. No army in history has held off an invasion because it might be inconvenient for the civilian population of their enemy.