Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Threviel]

IAL but there are more legitimate military targets than one would think.

A hospital is not a military target. If you put a gun on the roof of the hospital and shoot at the enemy planes you've turned that hospital into a military target.

Israel, before this latest war often did a few things to mitigate civilian casualties on their air strikes. They, when possible, sent out texts to phones in the vicinity warning them. They used leaflets and so on. When it was time to strike they first knocked by sending a dud into the roof a few minutes before the actual strike and then they struck.

They did this to lessen the harm on civilians. The reason they even bombed places with civilians is that Hamas has made a habit of hiding amongst civilians. Weapon factories in the basements of schools and hospitals, forcing civilians to stand on roofs of houses being attacked and so on. Using the rules to their advantage, which I might say is understandable operationally.

Now war is declared and that changes a few things. To quote Wiki:

Any attack must be justified by military necessity: an attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective,[1] and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated".[1]

Some targets are clearly legitimate, including all military personnel directly engaging in hostilities on behalf of a belligerent party who are not hors de combat or are not members of a neutral country.[2] Some civilian infrastructure, such as rail tracks, roads, ports, airports, and telecommunications used by the military for communications or transporting assets, are all considered to be legitimate military targets.[2]

The legal situation becomes more nuanced and ambiguous if the harm to civilians or civilian property is "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated". During World War II, there was a song called a thing-ummy-bob, which contains the lines "And it's the girl that makes the thing that holds the oil, that oils the ring that works the thing-ummy-bob, that's going to win the war".[3] Whether such a girl is a legitimate target is an area that probably has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. However, Protocol I suggests that if it is not clear, then the parties to the conflict should err on the side of caution, as Article 52 states: "In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house, or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used".[1][2]

What Israel is doing now is far more humane than what the allies did during WWII. Blockade is not something new either, just look at Germany in WWI. It's horrible, it's bad, it can be seen as immoral, but I'm not very sure that what Israel is doing is against international law.

[Razgovory]

Hamas doesn't just hide among civilians it forbids civilians from leaving.  Hamas is sending out messages telling people to not leave their homes and instead die there.  Israel has been sending cell phone alerts for people to flee.

[Josquius]

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?

Thats scary.
Sounds like quite a different situation to usual cases of someone saying something dumb and getting themselves 'cancelled'. Here it sounds like the employers are specifically asking for a list of names of people who have views that agree with something pretty broad.
If someone says on twitter "Haha dead Israelis brought it on themselves" then they deserve everything coming their way.
If in a private university discussion though they said this attack was seriously awful but if we are now going to discuss the Israel-Palestine situation we should discuss the full context, where Israel takes a lot of fault, rather than just kneejerk reactions to this, and they agree with a statement condemning the Israeli government whilst at the same time they condemn Hamas.... Sounds like a lot of such reasonable folks will be thrown in with the "Die Jews die" bunch.

[The Minsky Moment]

I just heard an interview with an international law prof, who took the position that the indiscriminate siege of Gaza is contrary to international law. He noted that Israel needs to take a proportional response, which differentiates between legitimate targets and civilians. The act of shutting off access to water and energy will kill civilians, and the Israelis know it.

The Geneva Conventions do not restrict siege warfare.  Such restrictions were added in the Additional Protocol adopted in 1977 which states the general principle: "Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited."  The commentary addresses the question of blockade more specifically:

The prohibition of starvation as a method of warfare does not prohibit siege warfare as long as the purpose is to achieve a military objective and not to starve a civilian population. This is stated in the military manuals of France and New Zealand.[19] Israel's Manual on the Laws of War explains that the prohibition of starvation "clearly implies that the city's inhabitants must be allowed to leave the city during a siege".[20] Alternatively, the besieging party must allow the free passage of foodstuffs and other essential supplies, in accordance with Rule 55. States denounced the use of siege warfare in Bosnia and Herzegovina.[21] It was also condemned by international organizations.[22]

Israel is not a signatory to the AP; neither is the USA, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Thailand, among others.
However, most countries have signed it.

I don't have access to Israel's manual of war cited in the commentary, but I would assume it is fairly similar to the US manual, which states as follows:

5.19 SIEGES AND ENCIRCLED AREAS
It is lawful to besiege enemy forces. Commanders must seek to make arrangements to
permit the passage of certain consignments and should seek to make arrangements for the
passage of certain categories of civilians, and of religious and medical personnel. Different rules
apply to blockade.589
5.19.1 Siege and Encirclement Permissible. It is lawful to besiege enemy forces, i.e., to
encircle them with a view towards inducing their surrender by cutting them off from
reinforcements, supplies, and communications with the outside world.
590 In particular, it is
permissible to seek to starve enemy forces into submission.


5.20 STARVATION
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
Starvation specifically directed against the enemy civilian population, however, is
prohibited.612 For example, it would be prohibited to destroy food or water supplies for the
purpose of denying sustenance to the civilian population.
5.20.2 Starvation – Proportionality. Military action intended to starve enemy forces,
however, must not be taken where it is expected to result in incidental harm to the civilian
population that is excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated to be gained.613
Feasible precautions to reduce the risk of harm to the civilian population or other
reasonable measures to mitigate the burden to the civilian population may also be warranted
when seeking to starve enemy forces.
614 For example, it may be appropriate to seek to
compensate civilians whose food has been inadvertently destroyed.615 Moreover, an Occupying Power would have additional duties to ensure food and water for the civilian population.
616
5.20.3 Starvation and Other Law of War Rules. Starvation as a method of warfare must
comply with other applicable law of war rules. For example, it would be unlawful to poison
food or water.617 Additionally, starvation, for example, may involve sieges or encirclement,
blockades, attacks, or the seizure and destruction of enemy property.618 In each case, the rules
applicable to those situations must be followed.

The US manual provisions on this subject seem consistent with the AP rule, notwithstanding the lack of an official US signature.

Based on these materials, I do not see how a conclusion could be reached NOW about the legality of Israel's siege of Gaza. It is premature. There is no reason to believe the siege lacks connection with legitimate military objectives and good reason to think that such a connection exists given the apparent plans for a ground offensive.  Cutting off electricity is permissible.  Cutting of food and water to an entire 2 million person civilian population is not permissible if it results in starvation without opening corridors for either relief or flight.  But Gaza has not run out of supplies yet.  If Israel simply remains in its current posture and blocks all supplies it will be violating international law if it fails to open up relief corridors.  But if it proceeds expeditiously to a ground offensive and then takes reasonable steps to feed the civilian population, it will be in compliance.

[The Minsky Moment]

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?

I am a supporter of the principle but I'm not OK with this application.

[Razgovory]

The Israelis turning off the water and electricity probably doesn't matter much.  The pipes and power lines were going to be damaged by the bombing anyway.  Currently Hamas is digging up watermains to make more rockets.

[garbon]

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?

I am a supporter of the principle but I'm not OK with this application.

I'm not sure this is even practical. They block everyone with that name who has a Harvard degree? Do these CEOs have super-powered HR staff?

[OttoVonBismarck]

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?

No, I don't think it is a good move or something that should be done. As a free speech issue though, like they are private employers they have the right to decline employment for any reason aside from membership in a protected class.

[DGuller]

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?

No, I don't think it is a good move or something that should be done. As a free speech issue though, like they are private employers they have the right to decline employment for any reason aside from membership in a protected class.

That's not a free speech issue you're talking about, that's a First Amendment issue.  Freedom of speech is a cultural value, First Amendment is a necessary but not sufficient condition for this culture to exist.  In a culture that values freedom of speech, everyone has a responsibility to sometimes grit their teeth and let awful people say awful things without trying to crush them for it, it's not just the government's responsibility to do that.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I guess I would say--private organizations don't have an obligation to respect free speech, even if it is a general cultural value. As a matter of specific practice, I don't like the idea of a corporation trying to do a "witch hunt" of Harvard student groups, and I would hope Harvard would never comply with such a thing.

[Threviel]

Regarding the siege/blockade. Is it a siege or is it a blockade?

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't think it's either yet; it's just steps in preparation for a city assault. But we'll see.

[crazy canuck]

I just heard an interview with an international law prof, who took the position that the indiscriminate siege of Gaza is contrary to international law. He noted that Israel needs to take a proportional response, which differentiates between legitimate targets and civilians. The act of shutting off access to water and energy will kill civilians, and the Israelis know it.

The Geneva Conventions do not restrict siege warfare.  Such restrictions were added in the Additional Protocol adopted in 1977 which states the general principle: "Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited."  The commentary addresses the question of blockade more specifically:

The prohibition of starvation as a method of warfare does not prohibit siege warfare as long as the purpose is to achieve a military objective and not to starve a civilian population. This is stated in the military manuals of France and New Zealand.[19] Israel's Manual on the Laws of War explains that the prohibition of starvation "clearly implies that the city's inhabitants must be allowed to leave the city during a siege".[20] Alternatively, the besieging party must allow the free passage of foodstuffs and other essential supplies, in accordance with Rule 55. States denounced the use of siege warfare in Bosnia and Herzegovina.[21] It was also condemned by international organizations.[22]

Israel is not a signatory to the AP; neither is the USA, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Thailand, among others.
However, most countries have signed it.

I don't have access to Israel's manual of war cited in the commentary, but I would assume it is fairly similar to the US manual, which states as follows:

5.19 SIEGES AND ENCIRCLED AREAS
It is lawful to besiege enemy forces. Commanders must seek to make arrangements to
permit the passage of certain consignments and should seek to make arrangements for the
passage of certain categories of civilians, and of religious and medical personnel. Different rules
apply to blockade.589
5.19.1 Siege and Encirclement Permissible. It is lawful to besiege enemy forces, i.e., to
encircle them with a view towards inducing their surrender by cutting them off from
reinforcements, supplies, and communications with the outside world.
590 In particular, it is
permissible to seek to starve enemy forces into submission.


5.20 STARVATION
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
Starvation specifically directed against the enemy civilian population, however, is
prohibited.612 For example, it would be prohibited to destroy food or water supplies for the
purpose of denying sustenance to the civilian population.
5.20.2 Starvation – Proportionality. Military action intended to starve enemy forces,
however, must not be taken where it is expected to result in incidental harm to the civilian
population that is excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated to be gained.613
Feasible precautions to reduce the risk of harm to the civilian population or other
reasonable measures to mitigate the burden to the civilian population may also be warranted
when seeking to starve enemy forces.
614 For example, it may be appropriate to seek to
compensate civilians whose food has been inadvertently destroyed.615 Moreover, an Occupying Power would have additional duties to ensure food and water for the civilian population.
616
5.20.3 Starvation and Other Law of War Rules. Starvation as a method of warfare must
comply with other applicable law of war rules. For example, it would be unlawful to poison
food or water.617 Additionally, starvation, for example, may involve sieges or encirclement,
blockades, attacks, or the seizure and destruction of enemy property.618 In each case, the rules
applicable to those situations must be followed.

The US manual provisions on this subject seem consistent with the AP rule, notwithstanding the lack of an official US signature.

Based on these materials, I do not see how a conclusion could be reached NOW about the legality of Israel's siege of Gaza. It is premature. There is no reason to believe the siege lacks connection with legitimate military objectives and good reason to think that such a connection exists given the apparent plans for a ground offensive.  Cutting off electricity is permissible.  Cutting of food and water to an entire 2 million person civilian population is not permissible if it results in starvation without opening corridors for either relief or flight.  But Gaza has not run out of supplies yet.  If Israel simply remains in its current posture and blocks all supplies it will be violating international law if it fails to open up relief corridors.  But if it proceeds expeditiously to a ground offensive and then takes reasonable steps to feed the civilian population, it will be in compliance.

What do you have quoted sure seems to sound like the Israelis are offside.


You Otto and others may be interested in hearing the interview for yourselves. 

https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-91-the-early-edition/clip/16015161-understanding-canadian-politicians-response-israel-hamas-conflict

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.