What the UN report on Gaza left out

Two pages of the United Nations Human Rights Council's recently released report on the 2014 Gaza conflict tell just about the whole story. The report, the work of the Human Rights Council's Independent Commission of Inquiry, provides 183 pages of facts, legal analysis and conclusions about the conduct of Israeli forces and Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza. Although the report attempts to present at least an appearance of balance, let's remember that beauty is only skin deep. Unfortunately, the report is replete with faulty legal analysis, unjustified presumptions and an astounding willingness to take Hamas's claims at face value coupled with an unrelenting skepticism about Israeli efforts to comply with the law of war.

Back to those two pages, which sum up neatly the flaws in the report's use and analysis of international law and its presentation of information. First, near the beginning, the commission summarizes the key principles of the law of war governing the conduct of hostilities: distinction, proportionality and precautions. What the report states about these principles is correct; it's what it omits that is so significant.

The principle of distinction states that all parties to a conflict must distinguish between those who are fighting and those who are not, and only direct attacks at the former. As such, it is an essential principle of the law of war and the foundation on which the law's core purpose of protecting civilians from the dangers of war rests.
The principle of distinction also requires, however, that persons who are fighting distinguish themselves from those who are not — if you are a soldier or fighter for an armed group, you must differentiate yourself (by uniform, arm band, insignia or other method) from civilians, those who are not fighting. This obligation is just as important as the first component of distinction explained above; indeed, it is easy to see how the obligation to distinguish oneself from uninvolved civilians is central to the protection of such civilians.

And yet the commission simply omits this aspect of the principle of distinction altogether. One is left with the impression, therefore, that the law of war only imposes obligations in choosing the target of an attack and ignores the dangers of fighters comingling with civilians, using civilian infrastructure for military purposes or disguising themselves as civilians to gain a tactical advantage (such as a suicide bomber). This impression, however, is entirely erroneous. The law of war prohibits perfidy (disguising oneself as a civilian in order to benefit from the law's protections while launching an attack); using protected objects, such as hospitals or religious buildings, for military purposes; and using civilians as human shields. All of these prohibitions rest on the principle of distinction and the obligation for those who are fighting to distinguish themselves from those who are not.

In the context of conflict in Gaza, where Hamas and other armed groups deliberately — as they themselves proclaim — comingle with the civilian population and turn the failure to distinguish into an art form, this omission is remarkable in its shortsightedness and the message it sends about the report's methodology.

The report repeats this error of omission in presenting the principle of precautions. The principle of precautions states that parties to a conflict must take all feasible precautions to protect civilians and minimize civilian suffering during military operations. In particular, as the report states, parties launching attacks must take specific precautions, such as verifying that the target is a military objective; using a means and method of attack that minimizes harm to civilians; providing an advance warning when feasible; and cancelling an attack that is likely to cause excessive harm to civilians given the anticipated military advantage. These obligations operationalize the principle of distinction and put the law's core purpose of protecting civilians into practice.

Once again, however, it's what the report fails to state that is consequential and revealing. The principle of precautions does not only apply to the launching of attacks. Defending parties also have precautions: to remove civilians from the vicinity of military objectives; avoid locating military objectives in or near densely populated areas; and take other measures to protect civilians from the dangers of military operations. It may come as no surprise that violations of these precautions are the mainstay of the Hamas playbook. And yet the commission does not even mention these fundamental obligations in its statement of the principle of precautions. A piecemeal presentation of the basic legal framework thus sets the stage for a flawed pick-and-choose analysis of the parties' conduct.

And now to the second of the two pages that tell the whole story of the report: the recommendations at the end. The commission issues numerous recommendations for the government of Israel and the Israeli military with regard to the conduct of hostilities, investigations into potential violations, the choice of weapons, the identification of targets, the issuing of warnings and broader "structural issues that fuel the conflict."

The recommendations directed at Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups call on such groups to end attacks on Israeli civilians and civilian objects — critically important, to be sure — but the commission makes no recommendations at all with regard to the use of civilians as human shields, comingling with the civilian population and using civilian objects and infrastructure for military purposes (such as launching rockets from hospitals, mosques or United Nations schools), or fighting while disguised as civilians. When these fundamental legal principles get short shrift in the statement of the legal framework, their wholesale absence from the recommendations section is a foregone conclusion.

With these two pages, the report hands Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups a free pass to continue their modus operandi. A report analyzing the conduct of Israel and Hamas under the law of war has to use all of that law. The report's glaring omissions of foundational legal principles emasculate the law, weakening the essential tools for the protection of civilians and emboldening those who use civilians as pawns for their own strategic gain.

Blank is clinical professor of law and director of the International Humanitarian Law Clinic at the Emory University School of Law.



http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/247041-what-the-un-report-on-gaza-left-out



Oh and whilst I am on a roll, evidence which backs what i stated that the UN recognised the role of Israel warning citizens, even from the biased Schabas himself. It is interesting he uses the same claim I admit to as a war crime with the capture of the Israeli soldier. He claims off hearsay a family wee given one minute which I do not buy. BBC weak talk it should be called, as you can see them bow down easily lol.






Fact finding lol based off Hamas themselves.

I shall await Irn to eat humble pie

The Gaza Report’s Treatment of Warnings: A Response to Blank

Laurie Blank published a post yesterday at Lawfare entitled “The UN Gaza Report: Heads I Win, Tails You Lose.” The post accuses the Independent Commission of Inquiry’s report on Operation Protective Edge (“Gaza Report”) of “completely undermin[ing] the foundational notion of equal application of the law” with regard to three areas of IHL: warnings, civilian vs military objects, and compliance. None of Blank’s criticisms are convincing, but in this post I want to focus solely on her first topic, warnings. Here is what she says about the Commission’s discussion of whether Israel complied with its obligation under IHL to provide civilians in Gaza with “effective advance warning” prior to attack:

Kevin Jon Heller rips Blank's article to shreds

http://opiniojuris.org/2015/07/03/the-gaza-reports-treatment-of-warnings-a-response-to-blank/

Kevin Jon Heller is currently Professor of Criminal Law. Until 2014, he was Associate Professor & Reader at Melbourne Law School, where he also served as Project Director for International Criminal Law at the Asia Pacific Centre for Military Law, a joint project of Melbourne Law School and the Australian Defence Force.  He holds a PhD in law from Leiden University, a JD with distinction from Stanford Law School, an MA with honours in literature from Duke University, and an MA and BA in sociology, both with honours, from the New School for Social Research

Some roll

And no hummble pir from Irn what a surpise.

Even your own link makes the same assertion Israel did warn.

It then makes the same error as the report itself does.

Now can Irn spot it?

Cuchulain wrote:And no hummble pir from Irn what a surpise.

Even your own link makes the same assertion Israel did warn.

It then makes the same error as the report itself does.

Now can Irn spot it?

Shame to rain on your parade Didge.

Oh, and Laurie Blank is on the speaker list for the Israeli Embassy to the USA.

What a surprise eh?

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:And no hummble pir from Irn what a surpise.

Even your own link makes the same assertion Israel did warn.

It then makes the same error as the report itself does.

Now can Irn spot it?

Shame to rain on your parade Didge.

Oh, and Laurie Blank is on the speaker list for the Israeli Embassy to the USA.

What a surprise eh?  

Irn avoids the points agai and like I said to you the report commends Israel does it not.


So what is the big gaff Irn has missed that also the report did also.

Its something I have spelt out time and time again about Gaza.

Cuchulain wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:And no hummble pir from Irn what a surpise.

Even your own link makes the same assertion Israel did warn.

It then makes the same error as the report itself does.

Now can Irn spot it?

Shame to rain on your parade Didge.

Oh, and Laurie Blank is on the speaker list for the Israeli Embassy to the USA.

What a surprise eh?  

Irn avoids the points agai and like I said to you the report commends Israel does it not.


So what is the big gaff Irn has missed that also the report did also.

Its something I have spelt out time and time again about Gaza.

You read a bit of the report and jumped in too quickly Didge in coming to thsat opinion. Go and read what he says again and you will realise your mistake.

Off you go......

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Irn avoids the points agai and like I said to you the report commends Israel does it not.


So what is the big gaff Irn has missed that also the report did also.

Its something I have spelt out time and time again about Gaza.

You read a bit of the report and jumped in too quickly Didge in coming to thsat opinion. Go and read what he says again and you will realise your mistake.

Off you go......

No mistake Irn. I suggest you watch the video first and foremost and then lets see some humble pie toyour error which you claimed i was lying when I was not.

Second the report is going off only the roof knock on effect.
Soething Israel does not even have to do with a ligitimate military Target.
Did this point escape your attention Irn?
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 populatio

Israelgoes above and beyond warning civilians, which the commison accepts they dowith leaflets and phone calls but questions the times with the roof knocking and it then eludes tomy favorite pointas to where the civillians should go., Now how interesting a question is that Irn?
So they donoteven have towarn if there is a ligeitmate military target. This is where the report is failing to come up to scratch Irn. Israelactually does try and minimize casulaties.

What a load rubbish that is. Stick to the report Didge and you will see you made a big mistake.

And wasn't Schabas the guy you were slamming just recently because of his bias and taking money from the PLO? Oh yes and now you hold him up as an honest broker.

He's a bit like you really

Irn Bru wrote:What a load rubbish that is. Stick to the report Didge and you will see you made a big mistake.

And wasn't Schabas the guy you were slamming just recently because of his bias and taking money from the PLO? Oh yes and now you hold him up as an honest broker.

He's a bit like you really

You really just do not know the rules of conflict Irn, that is what the beauty is here.

The best bit is what did they failto take into acount here or even state was wrong.

Yes where do civillians go to that hamas have not provided?

Bomb shelters

Oh they have tunnels and deny the civilians using them and what else do we know?

They callon them to stay put also.

This is why the report was so poor its embarressing as an offical document

Cuchulain wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:What a load rubbish that is. Stick to the report Didge and you will see you made a big mistake.

And wasn't Schabas the guy you were slamming just recently because of his bias and taking money from the PLO? Oh yes and now you hold him up as an honest broker.

He's a bit like you really

You really just do not know the rules of conflict Irn, that is what the beauty is here.

The best bit is what did they failto take into acount here or even state was wrong.

Yes where do civillians go to that hamas have not provided?

Bomb shelters

Oh they have tunnels and deny the civilians using them and what else do we know?

They callon them to stay put also.

This is why the report was so poor its embarressing as an offical document

Oh I can assure you that I do know the rules of conflict and so do the Israeli's - they're just not very effective at using them as the report points out.

Read the report again.

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

You really just do not know the rules of conflict Irn, that is what the beauty is here.

The best bit is what did they failto take into acount here or even state was wrong.

Yes where do civillians go to that hamas have not provided?

Bomb shelters

Oh they have tunnels and deny the civilians using them and what else do we know?

They callon them to stay put also.

This is why the report was so poor its embarressing as an offical document

Oh I can assure you that I do know the rules of conflict and so do the Israeli's - they're just not very effective at using them as the report points out.

Read the report again.

Yeah of course you do Irn lol

That is why you avoided every single point and keep deflecting

Move on son, letsomeone else who knows what they are talking about debate.

Never seen so many poor excuses yet again.

Maybe Irn should have keptreading on his own link lol:



The UN COI on Gaza 2014 (Schabas/Davis), like the Goldstone “report” of 2009, is a fiasco from beginning to end. The mandate was inherently biased, and then Schabas was forced to resign after failing to disclose a fundamental conflict of interest, (working for the PLO).
McGowan Davis thus inherited this fiasco, and continued to oversee a “cut and paste” documented using NGO allegations which lack any factual and legal credibility. For a detailed analysis and refutation of the NGO claims, see chapter 4 of http://www.ngo-monitor.org/2014_Gaza_Conflict.pdf
edited by Gerald Steinberg and Anne Herzberg.
Furthermore, although McGowan Davis has stated that the COI hired a “military expert”, the identity of the individual remains a closely guarded secret, making any assessment of his/her qualifications, if any, impossible. (One is reminded of HRW’s former “senior military expert”, Marc Garlasco, who had zero combat experience, and suddenly left the position after a scandal – the promised independent assessment of his reports has never been produced by HRW. — see http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/unanswered_questions_garlasco_and_hrw_s_israel_campaigns)
When confronted with the absurdity of the report to which his name was attached, Goldstone had the moral backbone to publicly disassociate himself from the exercise. McGowan Davis will eventually recognize that she too has given her name to a travesty.

Cuchulain wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

You really just do not know the rules of conflict Irn, that is what the beauty is here.

The best bit is what did they failto take into acount here or even state was wrong.

Yes where do civillians go to that hamas have not provided?

Bomb shelters

Oh they have tunnels and deny the civilians using them and what else do we know?

They callon them to stay put also.

This is why the report was so poor its embarressing as an offical document

Oh I can assure you that I do know the rules of conflict and so do the Israeli's - they're just not very effective at using them as the report points out.

Read the report again.

Yeah of course you do Irn lol

That is why you avoided every single point and keep deflecting

Move on son, letsomeone else who knows what they are talking about debate.

Never seen so many poor excuses yet again.

You keep avoiding the report and what it actually says and now you're scurrying off with a whole load of diversions.

Not quite the roll you thought you were on is it?

Read the report which rips up Bank's article - the one you had so much faith in.

I have read the report and the Un report, how many more times willyou deflect and avoid every single question I have posed to you.

Stop wasting my time with your drivel. You clearly have not the first clue and are justnow stalling

Cuchulain wrote:I have read the report and the Un report, how many more times willyou deflect and avoid every single question I have posed to you.

Stop wasting my time with your drivel. You clearly have not the first clue and are justnow stalling

The report does not commend Israel as you said it did.

You didn't read it all, did you?

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:I have read the report and the Un report, how many more times willyou deflect and avoid every single question I have posed to you.

Stop wasting my time with your drivel. You clearly have not the first clue and are justnow stalling

The report does not commend Israel as you said it did.

You didn't read it all, did you?

Oh my talk about not aditting you were wrong.
Watch the video, then lets see if you havethe decency to admit you were wrong.
Anyway you are not interested as seen in debating this and just continuing to waste my time with your usual child like games.
Never mind, as per usualyou come up very short

Cuchulain wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:I have read the report and the Un report, how many more times willyou deflect and avoid every single question I have posed to you.

Stop wasting my time with your drivel. You clearly have not the first clue and are justnow stalling

The report does not commend Israel as you said it did.

You didn't read it all, did you?

Oh my talk about not aditting you were wrong.
Watch the video, then lets see if you havethe decency to admit you were wrong.
Anyway you are not interested as seen in debating this and just continuing to waste my time with your usual child like games.
Never mind, as per usualyou come up very short

The report Didge. The one that rips Blank's article tp shreds - the one that you had so much faith in.

Where does that or where does the UN commend the IDF on it's behaviour?

You can run from it but you can't hide.