Israel In Gaza: Understanding The Doctrine Of Proportionality And Why Some Rabbis' Calls For Carpet Bombing Were Wrong

Now that the fighting in Gaza appears to be over, the war against Israel will shift to the diplomatic front and to attempts to prosecute Israel for alleged war crimes. Those attempts will be based on a principle of international law, the doctrine of proportionality. Here is a quick primer.

  

The above video clearly shows what Israel faced in fighting the Gaza war, and it accounts for much of the destruction of Gaza.

The question is, how can something like what is seen in that video, which is a clear war crime committed by Hamas, be legally responded to by Israel?

The Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court who investigated allegations of war crimes during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, published an open letter containing his findings in which he discusses the Doctrine of Proportionality:

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[7] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv)).

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:

Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:

(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).

How does this apply to Israel in Gaza?

Michael Walzer has an excellent explanation written for the New Republic. Here's an excerpt:

…But this choice, Israel over Hamas, is difficult for many people to make because of the rising tide of Palestinian casualties, dead and wounded, in the Gaza war. Israel, people say, is the strongest military power in the Middle East, so what can it possibly fear from Hamas? Why is it killing so many people, not militants only, but also civilians? Indeed, Israel is the Middle East Goliath. But readers of the Bible will know that it wasn't Goliath who won the battle with little David. In a conventional war with Hamas, Israel would win—not in six days as in the 1967 war, but in six hours. Asymmetric warfare, however, is a very different story. Despite its high-tech army, the best in the world, the United States lost an asymmetric war in Vietnam and may soon turn out to have lost another such war in Afghanistan. In the last decade, Israel, with what may be an even higher-tech army, was unable to win asymmetric wars in Lebanon and Gaza.

The reason has a lot to do with civilian casualties. In asymmetric warfare, low-tech forces—call them terrorists, militants, or the more neutral "insurgents," which I will use—aim at the most vulnerable targets, civilians, and they launch their attacks from the midst of the civilian population. The high-tech forces respond, in defense of their own or of allied civilians, and end up killing large numbers of enemy civilians. The more civilians they kill—this is the sad, but not morally puzzling truth—the better it is for the insurgents. If you kill civilians in places like Vietnam or Afghanistan, you lose the battle for "hearts and minds." If you kill civilians in a place like Gaza, you lose the battle for global support. The two losses are different: America was defeated in Vietnam, while Israel in Gaza (in 2006) was merely forced to accept a cease-fire, and so prevented from winning. Indeed, the cost of winning would probably have been unbearable.

But it can't be the case that the insurgents, by hiding among civilians, make it impossible for the other side to fight against them. There has to be a just, or justifiable, way of responding to indiscriminate rocket attacks. Hence the doctrine of double effect and the rule of proportionality: If you are aiming at military targets (rocket launchers, for example) and know that your attack will also cause civilian casualties (collateral damage), you must make sure that the number of dead or injured civilians is "not disproportionate" to the value of the military target. Needless to say, this is a highly subjective calculation and has rarely been much of a limit on military attacks: This target is very valuable, the generals say; almost any number of civilians deaths is justifiable. Nor has proportionality provided much of a guideline for moral judgments: Even a very low number of civilians deaths, the moralists say, is disproportionate and a war crime.

Along with many others, I have argued for another rule: that the attacking forces must make positive efforts, including asking their own soldiers to take risks, in order to minimize the risks they impose on enemy civilians. How much risk has to be accepted? There is no precise answer to that question. But some risk is necessary, and if it is taken, then I think that the major responsibility for civilian deaths falls on the insurgents who are fighting from homes and schools and crowded streets. And if responsibility is understood and assigned in that way by the global public, it will be possible to fight and win an asymmetric war.

Is Israel fighting that kind of war? Warning civilians to leave a house or a neighborhood, as the IDF has been doing, probably reduces civilian deaths; and it may involve increased risks for the attackers, if the attack is coming on the ground rather than from the air, since defending forces will also be warned. But warnings, as the U.S. learned in Vietnam, aren't enough. People don't leave, or not all of them leave: they are caring for elderly or sick parents; they can't bear to abandon a home of 30 years, with all its accumulated belongings; they don't know where to go; or there isn't any safe place to go. Except when they are being used for some military purpose, houses where people live are not legitimate targets—even if the people who live there include Hamas officials. These attacks are wrong because the officials live with their families, who can't be called human shields.

It is always necessary to figure out who is there, in the house, in the school, in the yard, before an attack begins—and that will often require the attacking soldiers to take risks. I suspect that some Israeli soldiers are doing that, and some are not. That's the way it is in every war; a lot depends on the intelligence and moral competence of the junior officers who make the most critical decisions on the ground. Judging these issues from a distance is especially difficult. But I would strongly advise anyone contemplating the loss of life in Gaza to think carefully about who is responsible, or primarily responsible, for putting civilians at risk. The high-tech army, for all its claims to precision, is often callous and clumsy. But it is the insurgents who decide that the death of civilians will advance their cause. We should do what we can to ensure that it doesn't.

This should explain to you why Rabbi Avichai Rontski should have been dismissed from the IDF when, as the IDF Chief Rabbi several years ago he advocated having no mercy for civilians in Gaza or West Bank.

But he wasn't fired. Instead, he served for several more years before being quietly forced out.

However, he was still a reserve combat officer and he repeated very similar statements to troops at the staging area just outside Gaza during this war.

Rontzki isn't the only IDF officer to talk like this, and many of them appear to be Zionist Orthodox. The rhetoric they often parrot is the rhetoric of Zionist Orthodox settler rabbis like Dov Lior and Yitzchak Ginsburgh.

Not barring Rontski and other officers like him from access to the troops may also be an issue Israel is forced to deal with internationally.

It is also important to remember that the same international law that prohibits Hamas from targeting Israeli civilians and makes much of its missile fire into Israel a war crime also arguably prohibits destroying an apartment house and killing 15 people because one terrorist is inside, and this is what Israel will now have to answer for.

Hamas is already viewed and treated as a terrorist group by the US and by several other countries and is generally treated as a pariah by many others because it is openly anti-Semitic and because it openly targets Israeli civilians and uses its own civilians as human shields.

There is no moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas.

But that does not legally justify intentional or indiscriminate attacks on Gaza Palestinian civilians, and it may not justify attacks that kill and wound dozens of civilians in order to kill one or two fighters who are not actively firing on Israelis.

It is by no means clear Israel intentionally or indiscriminately targeted Palestinian civilians, and it is in fact highly likely that it did not. But even so, those are the allegations it will now have to face.

Citations from the Torah calling for genocide or rabbi's calls for carpet bombing civilian areas may play well with the right-wing, right-wing Zionist Orthodox and haredi base, but they don't play well in the real world. And now you know why.

Comments

[yidl613]

Would you say the same if, say, bombing Hitler's head quarter in 1942 would have resulted in 1,000 civilian deaths?
It would have, in perfect hind sight, saved millions of Jews, Russians &, yes, Germans too.

[Yisroel]

Here we have Shmarya's stupidity again, while trying to sound like an intellectual.

1) The degree of negative response that Israel is getting is clearly a case of the world's history of antisemitism. 80% of Israel is under attack, in a defensive war, with extremely difficult fighting conditions, doing more than any other army in history to protect civilian life and still when 100 Palestinians are killed more attention is paid to them than to Western countries that aren't under direct attack that kill many more civilians and don't do nearly as much.

So do go on about the claims against Israel (which let's say in theory are justified) and not pay attention to the obviously bigger issue, is once again Shmarya zoning in on what fits his agenda while missing the obvious and clear bigger picture. Not to mention this in every article is to feed into it.

2) Regarding the institutions judging Israel, like the UN, it's the same story. There is 1 thing and 1 thing only - BIAS. Not to point that out each and every time, and really not to only point that out, is to agree with this open antisemitism

3) It's been proven time and again by previous wars that Israel acts in a way that is fully in accord with international law. The degree of danger they put the army under and the extent that they show concern for human life is unprecedented. And there are those from the British and American army that say that as well.

But Shmarya lives in his own world with his own agenda. To show he's an intellectual and to hate the Frum community. Well we all know that by now, mission accomplished, you can move on to other things. Go build a family, be good to yourself and be good to your family, and try your best to fully live life.

[Garnel Ironheart]

Enough with proportionality. Proportionality has become a code word that means "We support Israel's right to defend itself except for any act it actually takes to defend itself".
The government of Israel's responsibility is to protect the welfare of its citizens. The army's job is to enforce that mandate. Israeli soldiers should not be asked to take extra risks because Hamas uses human shields. Fat, soft liberals sitting in their mom's basements should be screaming about Hamas' tactics using human shields, storing rockets in schools, etc. instead of whinging about Israel.

[Yahoshua David]

I saw a video on Youtube and the professir said: "most of us would have never thought we were 'that kind' of people who kill innocent children and such, now we have to come to terms that we are'. I should post the link. It was a good speach in Australia. He said that the Jewish story is being questioned. The identity is now being questioned.

My premise is this fall of Judaism is something from the 1940's till today, this 'curse of zionism'. This Judaism of late has been a jaded/false Judaism.

What a FEW people decided in Israel was wrong. The methid of attack and how they went about this was unprecidented. Shameful. And they didnt even finish the job. Lives gone for nothing.

You should have seen the sight of the dead 4 year olds and mothers going nuts. I never seen that kind of hell on earth. The Israel funerals were bad also. Every day multiple funerals. People breaking down crying freaking out. Jumping on caskets, 18 year olds! The Israeli news not showing them.

The whole notion of being Jewish is changing after this. Is there a 'we' anymore? Is that just old Russian communist speak? Or are jews meant to retun to how things were in the past back to integrating and taking leadership roles for the cause of the nations, not just the insular Jewish world.

Im a zionist I want Gazans OUT, but i'm certainly not on board with those methods of attack and all the lives lost. This isnt folklore either. Yisroel really killed hundreds of innocent children while an iron dome was protecting them. They hit that UN school even. They took at that family of humanitarians. This is a black eye in the book of history. A real fact that we all lived through. And i'm not proud of their actions and cant defend what they did in good faith. Now theres a UN mess ahead. Just put in perspective what Israel really did. It's almost like I can't believe it in 2014 this just happened in real life. This is not good for the souls of Jews and will effect mainstream 'jewishness' for many people. Before our generation Israel wasnt reall a topic of discussion so what did jews befor us do all day? They were normal integrated people.

Wow.. All these lives for nothing but some tunnels.

[WoolSilkCotton; I must be seen to be believed]

There are some people in this world- the intractable enemies of America, Israel, and the free world- that do not understand sanctions, negotiation, or conventional wars. Such people, unfortunately, will only understand total destruction.
America's victories over Japan and Germany were not because we won their 'hearts and minds'. It is because they were utterly devastated with unprecedented bombing, and so they surrendered.
And so it is with Hamas, al-Quidah, etc., and the people who elect them to be their leaders. As Churchill said, "They sowed the wind, now let them reap the whirlwind".

The American government had total control of the media during WW2; everything was heavily censored prior to publication. That will never happen again, for better or for worse.

A simple solution for Gaza and other Palestinians- stop f^cking with Israel, and nobody gets hurt.

[Elliot]

The problem we have here is the added complexity of Hamas trying to force the Palestinian citizenry to knowingly be human shields. I understand the logical argument about killing 15 civilians to get one military target, when you drop leaflets and fire warning shots telling people to flee before doing it, I would certainly think that the Israeli level of moral culpability is greatly diminished.

[barry]

Michael Walzer writes:

'Along with many others, I have argued for another rule: that the attacking forces must make positive efforts, including asking their own soldiers to take risks, in order to minimize the risks they impose on enemy civilians.'

Walzer does not address the question as to what the position should be if by soldiers not taking action to avoid enemy civilian casualties, it is not just their lives that are put at risk of being lawfully ended, but the rather the lives of their own civilians are put at risk of being unlawfully ended.

The US civilian population were not under serious risk of attack during Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan, let alone in both World Wars so this question never came up.

A nation must be prepared to limit its actions to avoid lawful military casualties and lawful civilian casualties (that is lawful 'collateral damage'). It need not limit its actions to avoid unlawful civilian casualties (which untargeted attacks deliberately aimed at civilian targets are).

It is very dangerous to introduce the concept of proportionality as regards preventing unlawful civilian casualties because it undermines the distinction between military and civilian.

It may be unlawful for a pilot to drop a bomb on an area from which enemy artillery is being targeted at his sides' troops if disproportional damage on the enemy civilian population will be inflicted by that bomb, however it may not be unlawful to drop that bomb, if the artillery is being fired indiscriminately at his sides civilian population.

Palestinians regularly claim that there is no such thing as Israeli civilians so all attacks on them are militarily justifiable. By introducing the concept of proportionality as regards preventing unlawful attacks on civilians, you are in effect accepting that argument.

[Sarek]

The new discovery of a Hamas manual for using civilians as shields may help Israel in defending itself against a war crimes claim.

(If the international bodies were impartial, that is, which we all know they ain't.)

[BERNARD]

Even in light of the cited International Law I question the author's application. It seems that anything short of destruction would result in Hamas rearming and repeating their attacks. Chants of "FROM THE RIVER TO SEA . . . " strongly imply the Jews would be removed no two state fantasy. Experience to only way to eject gangs and thugs from a neighborhood is zero tolerance for broken glass. I am not necessarily advocating civilian deaths however Hamas uses civilian homes and neighborhoods for terror tunnels and missile launches and had diverted humanitarian aid like building materials and electricity to prepare invasion tunnels etc....It has been argued that since some of the women and children surrounding launch sites are there willingly they are not human shields but then wouldn't that make them combatants?
So there is a real question how innocent are these civilians? Additionally the relevant question for the sovereign State of Israel is what is in the best interest of its population? The seemingly perpetual attacks for Gaza are unacceptable and must end and it seems compromise is not in the Arab lexicon therefore what choice does Israel have but Zero tolerance?

[Andrew Avraham]

This "excellent" analysis is deeply flawed.

The Gaza population are willing accomplices & unlawful combatants themselves who offer their homes as weapons stores & guerrilla warfare positions.

And that trope you parrot from the media that most Gaza deaths are "civilians" is otherwise also not true. The majority have been fighters from the Hamas armed wing & other terrorist factions.

The US & Britain also warned Saddam that if he used chemical weapons against their troops they will respond with tactical nuclear weapons. That would technically be against some farcical international law but who cares when your very survival depends on it. You have to use common sense which the world powers at that time did. Unlike the man in lieu of President who snivels that "we tortured some folks which was against our values". Even Democrat guru Bill Clinton admitted this month he made a mistake by sparing bin Laden at one point because he was surrounded by women & children.

[WoolSilkCotton; I must be seen to be believed]

http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/30/italian-journalist-defies-hamas-out-of-gaza-far-from-hamas-retaliation-misfired-rocket-killed-children-in-shati/

http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/29/media-watchdog-asks-why-wsj-reporters-deleted-twitter-photos-implicating-hamas-in-war-crimes/

[lj]

All your intelligent analysis is terrific, you sound so educated, Shmarya as always of course. But why EXACTLY was Hamas created in the first place. The occupation of Israel of Palestine: Hamas: Grew out of the First Intifada [Palestinians and their supporters regard the Intifada as a protest against Israeli repression including extrajudicial killings, mass detentions, house demolitions, forced migrations, relocations and deportations]ect..see Jabalia Ref. Camp. etc. "focus shifting to Diplomatic fronts" (??)...there are how many physicians on their way to Gaza at this moment "from the US and elsewhere" probably wondering how they are to treat the homeless, the wounded...no waste water treatment plant, no water, power plant destroyed, or shelter...your main concern should be humanitarian efforts to prevent mass casualties via Typhoid g"f etc..and other diseases and to treat those wounded, to make sure there is fresh water (as though there was before)...and I don't really see any major movements in the cleaning up the humanitarian crisis that has ensued, from the so called "Jewish" state. I'm so ashamed. Shameful. The only campaign I see is Hasbara..and your appearance in the media and world front..and news efforts, and the ..you have to "provide" scholarships for even this. So put that diplomatic "front' to use and get humanitarian aide to these people..instead of your constant 'diplomatic" bs.

[Andrew Avraham]

Seeing lj's scribblings is like reading the comics. I never thought I would see Failed Messiah attacked for not being enough to the Left.

[Jewish Cynic]

Walzer writes:
"... the attacking forces must make positive efforts, including asking their own soldiers to take risks, in order to minimize the risks they impose on enemy civilians."

"Except when they are being used for some military purpose, houses where people live are not legitimate targets—even if the people who live there include Hamas officials. These attacks are wrong because the officials live with their families, who can't be called human shields."

Walzer is confusing military action with police action.
He, and others have put the responsibility for civilian safety on the attacking force but the responsibility primarily on the attacked side to protect it's own civilians.
And soldiers are people too. A military command is responsible for the lives of its soldiers and should not put them at unnecessary risk.

Walzer acknowledges Israel has taken measures to protect Palestinian civilians, even putting it's soldiers in danger to do so. But somehow this isn't enough, does he not realize part of Hamas' strategy is to draw Israeli ground forces in so Hamas can inflict casualties?

When has an army been restricted from attacking the enemy leadership because they has civilians around them? By applying this standard to Israel the world has guaranteed Hamas etc surround themselves with civilians.
BTW is Walzer calling Obama a war criminal for his drone war? - an activity that's caused a much higher proportion of civilian casualties and involved little risk taken to save civilians.

Somehow not enough Israeli blood has spilled to make Walzer comfortable.

[lj]

And saving lives is only a "left" idea..you have this "opportunity given to you" to do the right thing...there is not left/right, or in between when it comes to saving lives and preventing more deaths g"f...who are you>?

[Andrew Avraham]

As if saving the lives of terrorists & their enablers is worth squandering innocent civilians & soldiers on the opposing side. How generous of you at their expense. Putz!

[Rocky]

WoolSilkCotton @ 8:02am Well stated.

Allied bombing raids over Dresden claimed about 35,000 lives within a few days in early 1945. I suspect that most of victims were women, children and old men. But war is war. After being almost totally flattened by the end of the war, Germany finally got the message that maintaining a warlike culture did not work. Even into the 1960's, West Germany and the US refused to recognize the the Oder-Ness line as the post war boundary between East Germany and Poland. But they got over their objections and no one in the German or US government talks about reclaiming Breslau or Konigsberg for the Fatherland these days.

The Arabs were offered the best deal they were going to get in the UN partition of 1947. Every war since then has made things worse for them. The best chance they have of defeating Israel will occur when the Haredi population grows to a point where it bankrupts Israel.

[Shmarya]

The problem with your argument is that international law changed after WW2 and is now more strict.

You can't simply say, look what X did 69 years ago or Y did 100 years ago and claim that as justification any more than you can have whites only water fountains today because Alabama had them in 1962.

Israel's real problem will likely be some of the strikes on or adjacent to UN shelters. If no fire was coming from them or adjacent to them when the strikes happened, they would appear to be a violation of international law, and that could easily mean countries like the UK will stop arms sales and sales of arms components to Israel.

My fear is that some of those strikes on UN shelters were carried out by Rontski/Ginsburgh inspired soldiers. If that would be proven and if Israel does not prosecute those soldiers (and, likely, Rontski, Ginsburgh or whoever else encouraged them), Israel could face very serious international problems that far surpass blocking arms sales.

The point is, we don't live in a world of our own particular understanding (or our own fantasies, in the case of Faglin, Ginsburgh, et al).

1945 Hiroshima is not the guide for what 2014 war crimes, like it or not.

[Allan]

@lj - “But why EXACTLY was Hamas created in the first place. The occupation of Israel of Palestine”

The Jews are “occupying Palestine” about as much as Frenchmen are occupying France or Englishmen are occupying England. Except Jews have lived in their native land since long before countries like England or France ever existed.

But in the alternate universe of the Israel haters, everything would have gone along beautifully if the Zionists had not declared a Jewish State in 1948 and Jews would have experienced nothing but brotherly love from their Arab neighbors. Nope, that Hebron massacre of 67 Jews in 1929, or the support by Arab leaders for Nazi Germany is just vicious propaganda. Or else, those Jews had it coming for even daring to live in the land where their history goes back 3,000 years.

[barry]

Again it needs to be stressed, that it is one thing to tell a soldier to withhold fire so as to avoid enemy civilian casualties, when he or another soldier is being lawfully targeted (as was the situation in Vietnam). It is quite another thing to tell a soldier to withhold fire when 'his' civilians are being unlawfully targeted (as in Israel), so as to avoid enemy civilians being killed.

The doctrine of proportionality only 'weighs' the lawful military advantage against an enemy civilian disadvantage. It does not seek to value the life of one set of civilians against another. The only test when it comes to killing enemy civilians to protect ones own civilians is necessity. So a tank crew may not fire at a enemy soldier about to fire an anti tank missile at them if there are many enemy civilians about, even if this puts them at considerable risk. However if they see a missile about to be fired at their civilian population, they may fire at it notwithstanding that this missile presents no threat to them at all, and little, but some threat to their civilian population.

The whole purpose of laws of war is to restrict war to combatants which would be undermined if countries could not respond disproportionately to attacks deliberately targeting their civilians.

[Jewish Cynic]

Barry:
"So a tank crew may not fire at a enemy soldier about to fire an anti tank missile at them if there are many enemy civilians about, even if this puts them at considerable risk."

Really?
Even Walzer says : "But it can't be the case that the insurgents, by hiding among civilians, make it impossible for the other side to fight against them".

The way your post reads, all a combatant has to do is operate near civilians or grab some civilians and they'll be able to fire on their enemy army with impunity.

I'll wait for some clarification...

[Jewish Cynic]

Speaking of "proportionality", a caller to a radio show (can't remember which) pointed out that in order to obtain the relase of one ordinary Israeli soldier (Shalit, Israel had to release 1000 Palestinian prisoners. So it seems the ratio of proportionality is 1:1000.
About 60 Israelis have been killed, but no where near 60,000 Palestinians so what's the fuss?
(Of course Israel does not operate under that assumption and works to limit casualties period).

[Rodin]

Let's prosecute the B2 pilot that dropped the a-bomb on Hiroshima.

[Barry]

That is the point. No one has ever been prosecuted for inflicting disproportionate loss on civilians in pursuit of a legitimate military target. War criminals have only been prosecuted for killing civilians outside of military action.

[SimoneF]

Rodin, did you not read what Shmarya wrote?

The problem with your argument is that international law changed after WW2 and is now more strict.

You can't simply say, look what X did 69 years ago or Y did 100 years ago and claim that as justification any more than you can have whites only water fountains today because Alabama had them in 1962.

1945 Hiroshima is not the guide for what 2014 war crimes, like it or not.

[Rocky]

Did the US face any sanctions from any western country for going to war against North Vietnam in 1964-1975 and for covering much of the area with napalm? I don't recall North Vietnam ever firing rockets into California. Even the Gulf of Tonkin incident was later shown to be a charade.

[Foxhole]

Barry, if the world's anti-Semites have their way with the help of Shmarya, Israel would be the first prosecution and likely also the last with no other country being "convicted" in their kangaroo courts.

[Foxhole]

SimoneF, who appointed you as Shmarya's echo chamber?

Are you the SimoneF on Twitter who follows Barack Hussein Obama & Ellen DeGenerate? Figures

[oyvey]

If on top of an Arab apartment building in Brooklyn, terrorists were shooting rockets to kill people everywhere, and there is no way to kill them without killing many innocent elderly people in the building with them who can't go out, and you can't go and save them without being killed.

What is the international law in this scenario? Did they think of it yet?
This is the case of Israel & Gaza.

According to what you say above, there is no choice but to let them shoot, because otherwise it will be a war crime to bomb the building.

[SimoneF]

Foxhole: "Are you the SimoneF on Twitter who follows Barack Hussein Obama & Ellen DeGenerate? Figures"

No I'm not. But apparently you're some kind of weird stalker.

Foxhole: "Who appointed you as Shmarya's echo chamber?"

I'm not Shmarya's echo chamber, but since the poster had clearly not read what he wteo, I repeated it. Apparently that's too complex for you to comprehend.

Apparently, what's also too hard for you to comprehend is that Israel would NOT "be the first prosecution and likely also the last with no other country being "convicted" in their kangaroo courts."

Are you really THAT ignorant of world affairs and history? Seems like it. The whole of world history for you is a fantasy world to you, containing nothing other than antisemitism and Jews as unique victims. Regardless of the facts.

Oh, and a word to the wise (or the dumb, in your case): Avoid giving yourself internet aliases where "hole" is a part of your name.

[Joe Field]

Shmarya,
A cohesive and well written article.

[Shmarya]

Thank you.

[Joe Field]

“1945 Hiroshima is not the guide for what 2014 war crimes, like it or not.”

Some of these people fail to recognize that the world standards of wars are altering every day. Yes some fanatical Arabs and Jews alike would like to subjugate or even eliminate noncombatants even woman children. That is a direct result of religious fanaticism.

[Yahoshua David]

We can legal our way out of it, but watching hours of the UN meetings this past month as well as the UK Parlementarian video, the common concensous is the force was 'too excessive' and that israeli's had no regard for Palistinian lives.

My personal issue is it was all wasted effort. We're back at square 1 but this time with serious, serious concequences that may occur.

This isnt tales or folklore. You were all here to whitness this first hand. You just whitness Israel, or more romantically, or 'homeland' kill over a thousand people. Mostly women and children. The numbers counted by UN on the ground and legit. The funerals with pictures and video. Israeli's werent in harms way. No one will buy into that. Birthright Israel didnt even stop their trips and all you see is pics of fun and partying being uploaded during this whole thing.

My head is hung in shame. I cant believe this. Word on the street is no one is wearing their kippah's in Europe. Why couldnt Israel just exile them out to Egypt. It was such good timing. Wasnt there an earthquake all over Israel?

We're under the blood moons.. I knew something big would happen. But I never thought it could be something like Gaza getting soverignty. If the UN declares them soverign then wow theres big problems ahead. I have this sinking feeling. Things are changing. Jewish identity will change from this. This is a black eye in our history.

[korax corvus]

I understand proportionality, if an intruder breaks in your house and has a knife then I should not go for my gun but get a knife of similar size and if the intruder is small then let the wife take him on so as to have proportionality in the situation same with Israel they should respond with cheap rockets and give hamas an iron dome too!