Anonymous wrote:There would be palestinian casualties if they had not launched rocket attacks unprovoked onto Israel.

There would be much fewer casualties if Hamas would launch the rockets away from the shelters. Instead, it appears that a strategic decision has been made by the Hamas military to place the civilians in harms way by launching adjacent to shelters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There would be palestinian casualties if they had not launched rocket attacks unprovoked onto Israel.

There would be much fewer casualties if Hamas would launch the rockets away from the shelters. Instead, it appears that a strategic decision has been made by the Hamas military to place the civilians in harms way by launching adjacent to shelters.

That's not really responsive to the question posed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There would be palestinian casualties if they had not launched rocket attacks unprovoked onto Israel.

There would be much fewer casualties if Hamas would launch the rockets away from the shelters. Instead, it appears that a strategic decision has been made by the Hamas military to place the civilians in harms way by launching adjacent to shelters.

That's not really responsive to the question posed.

Palestine does....they can legally attack Israeli military units....there would be minimal civilian casualties as Israel does not embed the military within the civilian spaces. Launching precision rockets at the Negev airbase....legal. The problem is Hamas embeds the military with the civilian population, significantly increasing the risk to civilians.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There would be palestinian casualties if they had not launched rocket attacks unprovoked onto Israel.

There would be much fewer casualties if Hamas would launch the rockets away from the shelters. Instead, it appears that a strategic decision has been made by the Hamas military to place the civilians in harms way by launching adjacent to shelters.

That's not really responsive to the question posed.

Palestine does....they can legally attack Israeli military units....there would be minimal civilian casualties as Israel does not embed the military within the civilian spaces. Launching precision rockets at the Negev airbase....legal. The problem is Hamas embeds the military with the civilian population, significantly increasing the risk to civilians.

So we have established that Hamas has the right to launch rockets into Israel as long as they do not target civilians, collateral damage notwithstanding. Correct?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There would be palestinian casualties if they had not launched rocket attacks unprovoked onto Israel.

There would be much fewer casualties if Hamas would launch the rockets away from the shelters. Instead, it appears that a strategic decision has been made by the Hamas military to place the civilians in harms way by launching adjacent to shelters.

That's not really responsive to the question posed.

Palestine does....they can legally attack Israeli military units....there would be minimal civilian casualties as Israel does not embed the military within the civilian spaces. Launching precision rockets at the Negev airbase....legal. The problem is Hamas embeds the military with the civilian population, significantly increasing the risk to civilians.

So we have established that Hamas has the right to launch rockets into Israel as long as they do not target civilians, collateral damage notwithstanding. Correct?

Anonymous wrote:Actually, international law, Hamas has to have a reasonable expectation to hitting a target:

A December 24 report by Human Rights Watch, “Gaza: Palestinian Rockets Unlawfully Targeted Israeli Civilians” sharply criticizes Palestinian resistance groups that fired rockets at Israeli population centers:

Under international humanitarian law, or the laws of war, civilians and civilian structures may not be subject to deliberate attacks or attacks that do not discriminate between civilians and military targets. Anyone who commits serious laws-of-war violations intentionally or recklessly is responsible for war crimes. . .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, international law, Hamas has to have a reasonable expectation to hitting a target:

A December 24 report by Human Rights Watch, “Gaza: Palestinian Rockets Unlawfully Targeted Israeli Civilians” sharply criticizes Palestinian resistance groups that fired rockets at Israeli population centers:

Under international humanitarian law, or the laws of war, civilians and civilian structures may not be subject to deliberate attacks or attacks that do not discriminate between civilians and military targets. Anyone who commits serious laws-of-war violations intentionally or recklessly is responsible for war crimes. . .

So when Israel killed children in a Gaza beach with no military target in sight, did Israel become an international war criminal?

Anonymous wrote:Actually, international law, Hamas has to have a reasonable expectation to hitting a target:

A December 24 report by Human Rights Watch, “Gaza: Palestinian Rockets Unlawfully Targeted Israeli Civilians” sharply criticizes Palestinian resistance groups that fired rockets at Israeli population centers:

Under international humanitarian law, or the laws of war, civilians and civilian structures may not be subject to deliberate attacks or attacks that do not discriminate between civilians and military targets. Anyone who commits serious laws-of-war violations intentionally or recklessly is responsible for war crimes. . .

International Court of Justice rejects Israeli self-defense

Rejecting the Israeli government arguments, the Court first found that the Article 51 right to self-defense “has no relevance” when the attacks on Israel, the occupying power, are from people living under Israeli rule rather than coming from a foreign state. The Court found:

Article 51 of the Charter thus recognizes the existence of an inherent right of self-defense in the case of armed attack by one State against another State. However, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State. The Court also notes that Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the threat which it regards as justifying the construction of the wall originates within, and not outside, that territory. . . Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case.

The Court thus concluded that self-defense under Article 51 does not apply to an occupying power with respect to those living under occupation. Although Israel withdrew its illegal settlers from Gaza in 2005, Israel still controls all aspects of life in Gaza, including air, land and sea borders, and therefore Israel continues to be regarded as an occupying power over Gaza.

The decision that an occupying power cannot invoke Article 51 self-defense is complementary to provisions of the UN Charter, UN General Assembly Resolution 2625, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under which self-determination is a principle of international law.

More specifically, the decision is complementary to UN General Assembly Resolution 2649, adopted November 30, 1970, that “affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal.” Resolution 2649 also “considers that the acquisition and retention of territory in contravention of the right of the people of that territory to self-determination is inadmissible and a gross violation of the Charter;” and “condemns those Governments that deny the right to self-determination of peoples recognized as being entitled to it, especially of the peoples of southern Africa and Palestine.”

The rejection of Israel’s Article 51 argument leaves Israeli forces and their US sponsors at risk of prosecution for the crime of aggression, the subject of another article.

Court Rejects Israeli argument that self-defense trumps international law

The Court also concluded that construction of the wall on occupied Palestinian land was not in conformance with applicable international law because the route of the wall across Palestinian territory was illegal. “The Court considers that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defense or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall.” Thus, the Court established that defending its citizens does not relieve Israeli government officials of their responsibility to observe international law.

International law for an occupying power includes the responsibility to protect civilians living under occupation and their property and to provide for the humanitarian needs of the population living under the occupation. International humanitarian law requires all combatants to protect civilians and civilian property during any armed conflict.

Anonymous wrote:Palestine does have a right to defend itself. Unlike Israel, they chose to allocate funds to pay for tunnels and ineffective missiles. Israel chose to allocate funds for .... defense. Without an effective defense strategy, they should not have started this conflict by shooting missiles at Israel.