International High Level Military Group Commends Israel Defense Force's "Scrupulous Adherence to Laws"

by Guest Mon Jun 22, 2015 9:14 pm

The High Level International Military Group [HLIMG] published preliminary findings of its inquiry into the conduct of the Israeli Defense Forces during its summer 2014 military operation in Gaza. The report is available on the web site of UN Watch. UN Watch is an organization dedicated to exposing and combatting the corruption of the United Nations human rights mission.
The HLIMG report concludes:

Our overall findings are that during "Operation Protective Edge" last summer, in the air, on the ground and at sea, Israel not only met a reasonable international standard of observance of the laws of armed conflict, but in many cases significantly exceeded that standard. We saw clear evidence of this from the upper to the lower levels of command. A measure of the seriousness with which Israel took its moral duties and its responsibilities under the laws of armed conflict is that in some cases Israel’s scrupulous adherence to the laws of war cost Israeli soldiers’ and civilians’ lives.

The Group's findings refute and repudiate the findings of an inquiry by the United Nations Human Rights Council [UNHRC]. The UNHRC inquiry was headed by veteran anti-Israel activist William Schabas until he was forced to resign when it was revealed he was on the Palestinian payroll.
According to Hillel Neuer of UN Watch, the UNHRC is a key part of a bureaucratic infrastructure created at the UN that is dedicated to isolating and undermining the world's only Jewish state. UN Watch recently observed, "The 47-nation body has condemned Israel in 80% of its country censures, in 20 of 25 resolutions." Meanwhile, massive abusers of human rights like the governments of Sudan, North Korea and Iran receive only a fraction of the condemnation directed at Israel.
UN Watch criticized the council for elevating two of the worst human rights offenders, Iran and Saudi Arabia, to leadership positions in the UNHRC. The appointments make a mockery of the UN's obligation to defend human rights worldwide.

In sharp contrast to the UNHRC inquiry, the HLIMG group found that "The measures taken [by the Israel Defense Forces] were often far in excess of the requirements of the Geneva Conventions. They sometimes placed Israeli lives at risk."
Members of the High Level International Military Group are listed below:
Giulio Terzi – former Foreign Minister of Italy.
General Klaus Naumann – former Chief of Staff of the Bundeswehr and Chairman of the NATO Military Committee.
General Vincenzo Camporini – former Chief of the Defence Staff of Italy.
Admiral Jose Maria Teran – former Chief of the Joint Staff of Spain.
Ambassador Pierre-Richard Prosper – former US State Department Ambassador at Large for war crimes issues.
Mr Rafael Bardaji – former National Security Adviser for the Spanish government.
Lieutenant General David A Deptula – former Standing Joint Force Air Component Commander, United States Pacific Command.
Major General Jim Molan – former Chief of Operations, Headquarters Multi National Force, Iraq and Commander of the Australian Defence College.
Colonel Eduardo Ramirez – Member of Colombian Congress and former Chief of Security, Colombia.
Colonel Vincent Alcazar – former senior United States Air Force officer in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Colonel Richard Kemp – former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2015/06/post_151.html

by Irn Bru Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:29 am

What an absolute load of nonsense that is. A number of people cherry-picked by a group called 'Friends of Israel' carry out an investigation into how Israel conducted itself and without even speaking to any Palestinian's or even visiting the West Bank or Gaza they come up with that.
Of course they were wined and dined for around 5 days as well and I'm sure they laped up the hospitality showered on them.
Strange that Israel decided to cooperate fully with their investigation but they couldn't cooperate with the UN investigation.
It's a propaganda exercise and nothing more than that.

by Guest Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:33 am

Irn Bru wrote:What an absolute load of nonsense that is. A number of people cherry-picked by a group called 'Friends of Israel' carry out an investigation into how Israel conducted itself and without even speaking to any Palestinian's or even visiting the West Bank or Gaza they come up with that.
Of course they were wined and dined for around 5 days as well and I'm sure they laped up the hospitality showered on them.
Strange that Israel decided to cooperate fully with their investigation but they couldn't cooperate with the UN investigation.
It's a propaganda exercise and nothing more than that.

So men of countless years of armed experince is nonsense to a lowly Jock who knows very little about the rules of engagement in war.
That is not a couter.
So again Irn does the old trick of trying to demonize the people who easily show the applications of war.
For once in your life debate against the points not the people making the arguments.
Look we know you are a terrorist apologist of Hamas, but they know far better about combat than you will ever hope to learn.

by Irn Bru Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:42 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:What an absolute load of nonsense that is. A number of people cherry-picked by a group called 'Friends of Israel' carry out an investigation into how Israel conducted itself and without even speaking to any Palestinian's or even visiting the West Bank or Gaza they come up with that.
Of course they were wined and dined for around 5 days as well and I'm sure they laped up the hospitality showered on them.
Strange that Israel decided to cooperate fully with their investigation but they couldn't cooperate with the UN investigation.
It's a propaganda exercise and nothing more than that.

So men of countless years of armed experince is nonsense to a lowly Jock who knows very little about the rules of engagement in war.
That is not a couter.
So again Irn does the old trick of trying to demonize the people who easily show the applications of war.
For once in your life debate against the points not the people making the arguments.
Look we know you are a terrorist apologist of Hamas, but they know far better about combat than you will ever hope to learn.

Well all that little investigation was in aid of was to demonize the people carrying out the investigation on behalf of the UN and you're a mug for falling into the trap of believing it all.

Well yes, thay were mostly all military men who didn't even look at both sides so that tells you all you need to know.

by Guest Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:50 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

So men of countless years of armed experince is nonsense to a lowly Jock who knows very little about the rules of engagement in war.
That is not a couter.
So again Irn does the old trick of trying to demonize the people who easily show the applications of war.
For once in your life debate against the points not the people making the arguments.
Look we know you are a terrorist apologist of Hamas, but they know far better about combat than you will ever hope to learn.

Well all that little investigation was in aid of was to demonize the people carrying out the investigation on behalf of the UN and you're a mug for falling into the trap of believing it all.

Well yes, thay were mostly all military men who didn't even look at both sides so that tells you all you need to know.

Hearsay and again not taling on the points made.
You are not disputing their expertise and claiming bias.
So you would agree that the UN is biased against israel based on the double stanards it appliues to them or how they have many human rights abusers in nations on their united nations human rights council.
Again all you can do is make unfounded accusations.
You are not even taking on the points and making very feeble claims and questioning their integrity.

by Guest Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:06 am

International High Level Military Group Commends Israel Defense Force's "Scrupulous Adherence to Laws" Article-2695793-1FB707CF00000578-861_964x957

Haunting: This picture has emerged showing four Palestinian boys from the same family running on a beach in Gaza moments before they were killed by an Israeli shell

Watched with horror by British journalists and reported with outrage, whitewashed by Israel.

If it wasn't so evil that someone would actually believe the tripe of the OP is would be laughable.

by Guest Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:09 am

It was a complete trajedy they were killed.
If only Hamas and the Arab nations had accepted Israel existing from the start in 1948 and before the last conflict, those boys would be alive today as well as hundreds of thousands of people.

Anyway to the points on the rules of engagement of war, which nobody has made a single point on yet.

by Irn Bru Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:11 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

So men of countless years of armed experince is nonsense to a lowly Jock who knows very little about the rules of engagement in war.
That is not a couter.
So again Irn does the old trick of trying to demonize the people who easily show the applications of war.
For once in your life debate against the points not the people making the arguments.
Look we know you are a terrorist apologist of Hamas, but they know far better about combat than you will ever hope to learn.

Well all that little investigation was in aid of was to demonize the people carrying out the investigation on behalf of the UN and you're a mug for falling into the trap of believing it all.

Well yes, thay were mostly all military men who didn't even look at both sides so that tells you all you need to know.

Hearsay and again not taling on the points made.
You are not disputing their expertise and claiming bias.
So you would agree that the UN is biased against israel based on the double stanards it appliues to them or how they have many human rights abusers in nations on their united nations human rights council.
Again all you can do is make unfounded accusations.
You are not even taking on the points and making very feeble claims and questioning their integrity.

Israel wouldn't even cooperate with the UN in their investigation. You're a mug for believing that Israel never did anything wrong because that's pretty much what that ridiculous report is saying.

by Irn Bru Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:13 am

Here's the view of someone who is Jewish. Even he see's how ridiculous that report is. Read it and weep.

http://www.jeremiahhaber.com/2015/06/the-high-level-international-military.html

Charles H. Manekin, an orthodox Jewish studies and philosophy professor, who divides his time between Israel and the US.

by Guest Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:13 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Hearsay and again not taling on the points made.
You are not disputing their expertise and claiming bias.
So you would agree that the UN is biased against israel based on the double stanards it appliues to them or how they have many human rights abusers in nations on their united nations human rights council.
Again all you can do is make unfounded accusations.
You are not even taking on the points and making very feeble claims and questioning their integrity.

Israel wouldn't even cooperate with the UN in their investigation. You're a mug for believing that Israel never did anything wrong because that's pretty much what that ridiculous report is saying.

They had a very valid reason because the leader of the investigation later resigned due to bias.
Where did I claim israel never did anything wrong?
Never have and in fact condemn them where the evidence points they have.
You are just being childish again now.

So points on the rules of engagement?

Or more lefty drivel?

by Guest Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:15 am

Irn Bru wrote:Here's the view of someone who is Jewish. Even he see's how ridiculous that report is. Read it and weep.

http://www.jeremiahhaber.com/2015/06/the-high-level-international-military.html

Charles H. Manekin, an orthodox Jewish studies and philosophy professor, who divides his time between Israel and the US.

lol so again someone with little military experince.
Yes I did weep with laughter Irn

Again points on rules of engagement?

by Irn Bru Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:16 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Hearsay and again not taling on the points made.
You are not disputing their expertise and claiming bias.
So you would agree that the UN is biased against israel based on the double stanards it appliues to them or how they have many human rights abusers in nations on their united nations human rights council.
Again all you can do is make unfounded accusations.
You are not even taking on the points and making very feeble claims and questioning their integrity.

Israel wouldn't even cooperate with the UN in their investigation. You're a mug for believing that Israel never did anything wrong because that's pretty much what that ridiculous report is saying.

They had a very valid reason because the leader of the investigation later resigned due to bias.
Where did I claim israel never did anything wrong?
Never have and in fact condemn them where the evidence points they have.
You are just being childish again now.

So points on the rules of engagement?

Or more lefty drivel?

You are promoting a report that is basically saying Israel hasn't done anything wrong.

You really are a mug right enough

by Guest Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:19 am

It never ceases to amaze me how much Israeli propaganda Didge can swallow without actually puking.

by Guest Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:20 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

They had a very valid reason because the leader of the investigation later resigned due to bias.
Where did I claim israel never did anything wrong?
Never have and in fact condemn them where the evidence points they have.
You are just being childish again now.

So points on the rules of engagement?

Or more lefty drivel?

You are promoting a report that is basically saying Israel hasn't done anything wrong.

You really are a mug right enough

Incorrect.
Israel has made errors in the war and conflict.
That means they have done wrongs. What needs to be shown is if any criminal acts were made.
What you avoid is the rules of engagement and how Israel more than any nation goes out of its way to minimize casulaties.

So again you cannot even debate their points now.
You do not even talk about the rules of engagement by Hamas.
You are only interested about Israel, which proves you are a Hamas apologist.
At least I wish to discuiss both

by Guest Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:21 am

risingsun wrote:It never ceases to amaze me how much Israeli propaganda Didge can swallow without actually puking.

Actually I look with an open mind sassy.
Look at this here.
Neither of you have talked about Hamas in the conflct and only Israel.
I can happily conceed if evidence proves they have committed wrongs to freely admit this.
Both of you ignore any debate on the rules of engagement and just offer the most childish replies back.
That is not debating but trying to shout down the posters as you the left constantly do

by Guest Thu Jun 25, 2015 7:37 pm

LONDON — As a British officer who had more than his share of fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Balkans, it pains me greatly to see words and actions from the United Nations that can only provoke further violence and loss of life. The United Nations Human Rights Council report on last summer’s conflict in Gaza, prepared by Judge Mary McGowan Davis, and published on Monday, will do just that.

The report starts by attributing responsibility for the conflict to Israel’s “protracted occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip,” as well as the blockade of Gaza. Israel withdrew from Gaza 10 years ago. In 2007 it imposed a selective blockade only in response to attacks by Hamas and the import of munitions and military matériel from Iran. The conflict last summer, which began with a dramatic escalation in rocket attacks targeting Israeli civilians, was a continuation of Hamas’s war of aggression.

In an unusual concession, the report suggests that Hamas may have been guilty of war crimes, but it still legitimizes Hamas’s rocket and tunnel attacks and even sympathizes with the geographical challenges in launching rockets at Israeli civilians: “Gaza’s small size and its population density make it particularly difficult for armed groups always to comply” with the requirement not to launch attacks from civilian areas.

There is no such sympathy for Israel. Judge Davis accuses the Israel Defense Forces of “serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law.” Yet no evidence is put forward to substantiate these accusations. It is as though the drafters of the report believe that any civilian death in war must be illegal.

Referring to cases in which Israeli attacks killed civilians in residential areas, Judge Davis says that in the absence of contrary information available to her commission, there are strong indications that the attacks were disproportionate, and therefore war crimes. But all we get is speculation and the presumption of guilt.

The report is characterized by a lack of understanding of warfare. That is hardly surprising. Judge Davis admitted, when I testified before her in February, that the commission, though investigating a war, had no military expertise. Perhaps that is why no attempt has been made to judge Israeli military operations against the practices of other armies. Without such international benchmarks, the report’s findings are meaningless.

The commission could have listened to Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said last November that the I.D.F. had taken extraordinary measures to try to limit civilian casualties. Or to a group of 11 senior military officers from seven nations, including the United States, Germany, Spain and Australia, who also investigated the Gaza conflict recently. I was a member of that group, and our report, made available to Judge Davis, said: “None of us is aware of any army that takes such extensive measures as did the I.D.F. last summer to protect the lives of the civilian population.”

The report acknowledges that Israel took steps to warn of imminent attacks but suggests more should have been done to minimize civilian casualties. Yet it offers no opinion about what additional measures Israel could have taken. It even criticizes Israel for using harmless explosive devices — the “knock on the roof” — as a final warning to evacuate targeted buildings, suggesting that it created confusion. No other country uses roof-knocks, a munition developed by Israel as part of a series of I.D.F. warning procedures, including text messages, phone calls and leaflet drops, that are known to have saved many Palestinian lives.

Judge Davis suggests that the I.D.F.’s use of air, tank and artillery fire in populated areas may constitute a war crime and recommends further international legal restrictions on their use. Yet these same systems were used extensively by American and British forces in similar circumstances in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are often vital in saving the lives of our own soldiers, and their curtailment would jeopardize military effectiveness while handing an advantage to our enemies.

The I.D.F. is not perfect. In the heat of battle and under stress its commanders and soldiers undoubtedly made mistakes. Weapons malfunctioned, intelligence was sometimes wrong and, as with all armies, it has some bad soldiers. Unnecessary deaths resulted, and these should be investigated and the individuals brought to trial if criminal culpability is suspected.

The reason so many civilians died in Gaza last summer was not Israeli tactics or policy. It was Hamas’s strategy. Hamas deliberately positioned its fighters and munitions in civilian areas, knowing that Israel would have no choice but to attack them and that civilian casualties would result. Unable to inflict existential harm on Israel by military means, Hamas sought to cause large numbers of casualties among its own people in order to bring international condemnation and unbearable diplomatic pressure against Israel.

Judge Davis’s report is rife with contradictions. She acknowledges that Israeli military precautions saved lives, yet without foundation accuses “decision makers at the highest levels of the government of Israel” of a policy of deliberately killing civilians. Incredibly, she “regrets” that her commission was unable to verify the use of civilian buildings by “Palestinian armed groups,” yet elsewhere acknowledges Hamas’s widespread use of protected locations, including United Nations schools.

Most worrying, Judge Davis claims to be “fully aware of the need for Israel to address its security concerns” while demanding that it “lift, immediately and unconditionally, the blockade on Gaza.” Along with the report’s endorsement of Hamas’s anti-Israel narrative, this dangerous recommendation would undoubtedly lead to further bloodshed in both Israel and Gaza.

Richard Kemp, a retired British Army colonel, is former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/opinion/the-uns-gaza-report-is-flawed-and-dangerous.html?_r=2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Kemp

Of course some absurd extreme lefties think they know better than people who have spent their lives in the Military, having to fully understand the rules of engagement and be advisers to the UN. Where they can only claim some wet view to bias which is just trying to ignore facts. As seen throughout the whole thread neither could debate on rules of engagement or the points at hand. Same old tactic, try to poorly demonize them.

by eddie Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:44 pm

risingsun wrote:
Haunting: This picture has emerged showing four Palestinian boys from the same family running on a beach in Gaza moments before they were killed by an Israeli shell

Watched with horror by British journalists and reported with outrage, whitewashed by Israel.

If it wasn't so evil that someone would actually believe the tripe of the OP is would be laughable.

That's terribly sad. Poor little babies x

by Irn Bru Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:54 pm

Richard Kemp

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/hardcore-christian-zionism-israels-favorite-british-colonel

He speaks to the dead even.

International High Level Military Group Commends Israel Defense Force's "Scrupulous Adherence to Laws" Kemp_i10

International High Level Military Group Commends Israel Defense Force's "Scrupulous Adherence to Laws" Kemp_i10

He isn't biased of course.

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:57 pm

Complete nut job. Well, Christian Zionists have to be, as Zionists want to wipe out all other religions, even the Jewish one that doesn't agree with them.

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:59 pm

So two people with no understanding of being in the military and have failed at every turn to address the rules of engagement decide the person is biased.
Incredible really.

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:04 pm

"The principle of proportionality is a concept in the law of armed conflict defined in the Geneva Convention. It doesn’t relate in any way to “you’ve got 2,000 Palestinians dead and 100 Israelis dead.” That doesn’t even come into it.

If you’ve got a rocket launcher and there’s a group of 10 people around it, or 20 people or whatever it might be, if I hit that rocket launcher, then 20 people might die. If I don’t hit it, then the rocket will launch and it will fly towards Israel. Now it might be knocked out of the sky by Iron Dome, but you can’t assume. You’ve got to assume it won’t be. You’ve got to assume it’s going to go into a school room and kill 30 people, or even 10 people, or 5 people. And therefore, by attacking that, that’s proportionate. It’s proportionate to the risk that would be presented if you didn’t attack. That’s the proportionality principle."

by Irn Bru Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:33 pm

Cuchulain wrote:So two people with no understanding of being in the military and have failed at every turn to address the rules of engagement decide the person is biased.
Incredible really.

So go on then. Tell me what the Israeli rules of engangement are and were they applied at all times by their armed forces.

What about Desmond Travers from the UN?

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:36 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:So two people with no understanding of being in the military and have failed at every turn to address the rules of engagement decide the person is biased.
Incredible really.

So go on then. Tell me what the Israeli rules of engangement are and were they applied at all times by their armed forces.

What about Desmond Travers from the UN?

Already posted above for you, which shows you have not read the thread have you Irn

As to Desmond:

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2010/02/more_evidence_of_goldstone_com.html

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1733

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:45 pm

He just loves his Israeli propaganda sites.

by Irn Bru Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:46 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:So two people with no understanding of being in the military and have failed at every turn to address the rules of engagement decide the person is biased.
Incredible really.

So go on then. Tell me what the Israeli rules of engangement are and were they applied at all times by their armed forces.

What about Desmond Travers from the UN?

Already posted above for you, which shows you have not read the thread have you Irn

As to Desmond:

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2010/02/more_evidence_of_goldstone_com.html

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1733

I read it but if you are saying that's the entire Israeli rules of engagement and that they were applied at all times then no wonder they were firing indiscriminately. I'm looking for the rules of engagement not a short abstract.

Desmond Travers was a miltary commander in the Irish Army assigned to the UN on peacekeeping duties and has more credibility than Kemp could ever muster.

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:46 pm

So still no debate on the actual rules of engagement already posted here.

Right maybe back later

Goodbye sassy and Irn

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:48 pm

But you were asked for them. Can't give them then?

by Irn Bru Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:53 pm

risingsun wrote:But you were asked for them. Can't give them then?

He wants to debate the rules of engagement but can't tell me what they are.

No point continuing really.

I was disapointed at his attitude to a respected military commander experienced in the field of peacekeeping in military conflicts

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:57 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Already posted above for you, which shows you have not read the thread have you Irn

As to Desmond:

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2010/02/more_evidence_of_goldstone_com.html

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1733

I read it but if you are saying that's the entire Israeli rules of engagement and that they were applied at all times then no wonder they were firing indiscriminately. I'm looking for the rules of engagement not a short abstract.

Desmond Travers was a miltary commander in the Irish Army assigned to the UN on peacekeeping duties and has more credibility than Kemp could ever muster.

Will answer before I go

Irish army? As seen from the links, his makes some very bad points over eveidence finding
I never stated Israel applied at all times the rules of engagement. I already showed you where on at least one occasion they did not.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t10212-operation-hannibal

That to me is not following the rules of engagement
Though still nobody is actually talking about the rules which Israel in the vast majority applied.
Even the latest UN report had to concede Israel tries to minimize casualties and stated that they did save lives by methods.

The report acknowledges that Israel took steps to warn of imminent attacks but suggests more should have been done to minimize civilian casualties. Yet it offers no opinion about what additional measures Israel could have taken. It even criticizes Israel for using harmless explosive devices — the “knock on the roof” — as a final warning to evacuate targeted buildings, suggesting that it created confusion. No other country uses roof-knocks, a munition developed by Israel as part of a series of I.D.F. warning procedures, including text messages, phone calls and leaflet drops, that are known to have saved many Palestinian lives.

So after countless points made, neither of you have made any points on the rules of engagement

That is boring and you are both deflecting, so it seems I am wasting my time waiting for you to do so.
Shame really

All the best

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:59 pm

risingsun wrote:But you were asked for them. Can't give them then?

Then you clearly need to check your eyesight, even Irn admitted to seeing where they are by stated he read them.

As I say, the pair of you are just making the poorest deflections not even taking on the points of the rules of engagement.
So I will leave you two, to talk to yourselves

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:01 pm

Nope, we have both asked you to give them. So, what are the Israeli rules of engagement?

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:08 pm

Cuchulain wrote:

"The principle of proportionality is a concept in the law of armed conflict defined in the Geneva Convention. It doesn’t relate in any way to “you’ve got 2,000 Palestinians dead and 100 Israelis dead.” That doesn’t even come into it.

If you’ve got a rocket launcher and there’s a group of 10 people around it, or 20 people or whatever it might be, if I hit that rocket launcher, then 20 people might die. If I don’t hit it, then the rocket will launch and it will fly towards Israel. Now it might be knocked out of the sky by Iron Dome, but you can’t assume. You’ve got to assume it won’t be. You’ve got to assume it’s going to go into a school room and kill 30 people, or even 10 people, or 5 people. And therefore, by attacking that, that’s proportionate. It’s proportionate to the risk that would be presented if you didn’t attack. That’s the proportionality principle."

DOH

To add to the above for the fact Sassy seems to be blind:

Under Article 85(3)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, “launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2 a) iii) is a grave breach

https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cha_chapter4_rule14

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:15 pm

That's not the Rules of Engagement, that is proportionality principle. So, Rules of Engagement?

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:17 pm

IDF outlines rules of engagement in populated areas
Army incorporates lessons gleaned from Operation Cast Lead, Goldstone report and reports by human rights groups.

For the first time, the IDF has produced a document defining rules of engagement for the military during combat in areas of civilian population. It incorporates lessons gleaned from Operation Cast Lead, the Goldstone report and reports by human rights groups on IDF activities in Gaza.

The document, prepared two weeks ago in the IDF's Concepts and Doctrine Section headed by Colonel Meir Finkel, is the army's first attempt to formulate a theory regarding IDF commanders' expected conduct during combat in a populated area.

A senior ground forces officer said "most of the instructions in the document already exist, but following Operation Cast Lead we decided these issues needed clarifying, because today we look at them differently."

For example, the document instructs IDF commanders to make every effort to evacuate civilians from an area where combat is expected.

Despite attempts to make the population leave combat areas in Operation Cast Lead, with warning fliers released from the air, cellular phone messages and breaking into Palestinian media broadcasts, many families and individuals remained in the areas that IDF forces entered. Now commanders are instructed to fire a few warning shells on entering areas that may still be inhabited by civilians. They are also told to exercise judgment and use more accurate weapons, or lower-impact weapons.

The IDF realized following the Gaza offensive that due to the Strip's size, civilians have fewer places to run to.

The demand to clarify the rules of engagement in a populated area was also raised by field commanders, who were exposed to media reports and human rights watchdog groups' reports. The discourse in the IDF following the Goldstone report also led to extending international law studies and rules of engagement in advanced officers' courses and in the chief of staff's decision to appoint military legal advisers in combat divisions.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/idf-outlines-rules-of-engagement-in-populated-areas-1.292674

Back in 2010

That's your starter for 10, there are 100s of others.

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:21 pm

risingsun wrote:That's not the Rules of Engagement, that is proportionality principle. So, Rules of Engagement?

International High Level Military Group Commends Israel Defense Force's "Scrupulous Adherence to Laws" 3489511464

That is one of the rules of engagement which is important to this debate.
Oh my.

Lieber Code
Article 15 of the 1863 Lieber Code states: “Military necessity admits of all direct destruction of life or limb of ‘armed’ enemies, and of other persons whose destruction is incidentally ‘unavoidable’ in the armed contests of the war.

Hague Rules of Air Warfare
Article 24(4) of the 1923 Hague Rules of Air Warfare states:

In the immediate neighbourhood of the operations of land forces, the bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings is legitimate provided that there exists a reasonable presumption that the military concentration is sufficiently important to justify such bombardment, having regard to the danger thus caused to the civilian population.

https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cha_chapter4_rule14

Doh

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:23 pm

They are not part of the ISRAELI Rules of Engagement, which you were asked for over and over again and could not give. Now I've given you a starter, try again.

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:24 pm

It just proves you do not read the links sassy:

Israel
With reference to Israel’s Law of War Booklet (1997), the Report on the Practice of Israel states: “The IDF [Israel Defense Forces] would not attack a target in cases in which it is expected that the attack would cause civilian loss, injury or damage excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated.”
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) states:
Even when it is not possible to isolate the civilians from an assault and there is no other recourse but to attack, this does not constitute a green light to inflict unbridled harm on civilians. The commander is required to refrain from an attack that is expected to inflict harm on the civilian population that is disproportionate to the expected military gain.
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states:
In any attack, it is a duty to ensure that:
…
- That the military gain expected from the attack is proportional to the expected damage that would be caused to civilians as a result of the offensive.

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:26 pm

Didn't follow them did they? Shelling civilians on purpose in retaliation.

And you do realise the Rules of Engagement are details and pages and pages long.

by Guest Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:30 pm

Yes I do know they are many sassy, I showed you a very important rule on the rules of engagement. Which at every turn you have avoided.
Which is very important to understand in regards to Hamas firing rockets:

Hence why Kemp stated:

"The principle of proportionality is a concept in the law of armed conflict defined in the Geneva Convention. It doesn’t relate in any way to “you’ve got 2,000 Palestinians dead and 100 Israelis dead.” That doesn’t even come into it.

If you’ve got a rocket launcher and there’s a group of 10 people around it, or 20 people or whatever it might be, if I hit that rocket launcher, then 20 people might die. If I don’t hit it, then the rocket will launch and it will fly towards Israel. Now it might be knocked out of the sky by Iron Dome, but you can’t assume. You’ve got to assume it won’t be. You’ve got to assume it’s going to go into a school room and kill 30 people, or even 10 people, or 5 people. And therefore, by attacking that, that’s proportionate. It’s proportionate to the risk that would be presented if you didn’t attack. That’s the proportionality principle."

by Sponsored content