Is it Time for a New Law of War?

Which side has the advantage – terrorists firing rockets behind human shields or armies trying to stop them?
Judging by how quickly the media and international organizations adopt a narrative of war crimes against the IDF, Hamas and other terrorists currently enjoy the upper hand. They hide behind civilians to attack Israel indiscriminately, and Israel suffers the blame when Palestinian civilians are killed in counter-terror operations.
Indeed, the Israeli army is currently awaiting the result of a war crimes investigation from the UN’s Human Rights Council, a procedure that has been dubbed “Goldstone II” in some circles, in reference to the Goldstone Report of 2009, which accused Israel or war crimes. (But which Goldstone himself “reconsidered” two years later.)

“Armies must carry out their duties without fear of war crimes accusations,” said Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, head of the Shurat HaDin organization, which held a conference this week in Jerusalem to examine how well the laws of war stand up to the demands of the modern battlefield. “The Geneva Conventions never envisioned the mass rocket campaigns of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.”
Darshan Leitner said the Towards a New Law of War conference was meant to start a discussion about whether the laws of war need to be updated. She said she planned to make it an annual event “until it is not longer needed.”

Former IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz, who delivered the keynote address, said there were three wars with Hamas during his tenure at the head of the army. “Each campaign, we lost before we started, as far as the international community was concerned.” The days of “the battlefield” – where fighting took place away from civilian areas – have effectively ended, he said. “We need to go back to when the laws of war were meant to limit the bad guys.” Col. Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, said the laws of engagement and proportionality should be widened to look at an army’s overall objective, rather than the narrow lens of a particular mission. The current situation has become a strategic advantage for Hamas, he said, and the media was partly complicit in the situation. The media, he said, places its emphasis on civilian deaths, not the use of human shields that endanger those civilians. Public discourse, he said, has to focus on the ones who use human shields.

“Hamas’s real objective to use human shields is not to protect its weapons,” he added. “It’s to get the human shields killed, to have Israel accused of killing civilians.”
Other speakers, including Professor Rachel Vanlandingham of Southwestern Law School, and Professor Geoffrey Corn of the South Texas College of Law, argued that the current laws of war were sufficient, even for today’s battle conditions.
Prof. Corn said the meaning of legal terms such as proportionality had become distorted from their original meaning, and needed to be restored, not changed. Prof. Vanlandingham warned that changes to the law could backfire, leading to more constraints on the battlefield, not less.

http://honestreporting.com/is-it-time-for-a-new-law-of-war/

Horrible though it is....

why are wars fought???

Good point.

Israel left Gaza, so why are they continuing war?

No wall would have been built if not they had decided to continue a war committing terrorist acts in Israel, the wall being so successful, it has prevented these attacks.

3 times the Palestinians could have had a state, 3 times they have rejected this.

Normally a nation which is attacked in the past and takes lands off aggressors is able to cede that land to their nation. Well when it is was Israel resolution 242 was introduced to deny this. Israel said they would accept this and make peace with Egypt, Jordan and Syria and what did the PLO do? Reject it flat out.

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242


So the only reason for the PLO to reject this, is because they will not accept or recognize the state of Israel.

What is Israel to do? They withdrew from the Sinai, Lebanon and Gaza and the only contention now is settlements in parts of the West Bank. So Israel can certainly do more, but is it ever going to be enough? At present clearly not, because it has to happen both ways for peace to happen, which is clear to me Hamas and Fatah have no intention for peace. The more civilians die, they hope Israel can be weakened to the extent they are over run and then what will be looking at?

Another genocide?

@ darkness

Religion and politics...

I would like to add also, when Gaza and the West Bank was under both Egyptian and Jordanian control the PLO never called for the liberation of these areas, what it called for was for Israel to be taken and ethnically cleansed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_National_Covenant


Once you see the history of this conflict the same pattern appears, where it is clear the intent is never to accept or recogise Israel. No matter if Arafat fooled the world, of which even his own people stated he lied.

So what is Israel to do against such naked hate and aggression?

The interests of big business and the never ending fight to keep hold of oil.

ah...maybe that was badly worded......

whats the intent in war????

Power, to make money and to protect oil interests.

to win??

Rising scum... the EU is working for big business, not the people... wake up!!!

darknessss wrote:to win??

is there winners or is there survivors

and what is winning what do you want to win? land, resources, wealth, control?

good points veya

but no one surely goes to war with the intent of losing (except the European Duchy of Grand Fenwick..."the mouse that roared" )

so....