Interesting day for Palestine

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

To try and suggest they occupy Palestinian areas "with the cooperation of national and local authorities" as envisaged under the GC is disingenuous. Pointing out that they are actually fighting the "national and local authorities" is just realism.

Like I said, the ICC will be laughed off if it approves the actions of Hamas whilst condemning Israel. So it will be the Palestinians who have the most to fear from war crimes investigations. .

As so often before, I have to point that Hamas =/= "the Palestinians" by any stretch of the imagination.

PopePalpatine

Nodin wrote: »

As so often before, I have to point that Hamas =/= "the Palestinians" by any stretch of the imagination.

It makes it easier to justify blockades and discrimination against Palestinians.

Sand

Nodin wrote: »

As so often before, I have to point that Hamas =/= "the Palestinians" by any stretch of the imagination.

Now whose being disingenuous?

Timberrrrrrrr

Sand wrote: »

Now whose being disingenuous?

So you think that EVERY single Palestinian is a member of Hamas?

FTA69

Sand wrote: »

To try and suggest they occupy Palestinian areas "with the cooperation of national and local authorities" as envisaged under the GC is disingenuous. Pointing out that they are actually fighting the "national and local authorities" is just realism.

You realise that the Palestinian Authority aren't fighting the Israelis in the West Bank don't you? To be honest I don't know what sort of hoops you're attempting to construct here, all I know is that you've claimed that Israel isn't occupying the West Bank, a statement which is a load of cobblers to be honest.

hatrickpatrick

Sand wrote: »

To try and suggest they occupy Palestinian areas "with the cooperation of national and local authorities" as envisaged under the GC is disingenuous. Pointing out that they are actually fighting the "national and local authorities" is just realism.

Like I said, the ICC will be laughed off if it approves the actions of Hamas whilst condemning Israel. So it will be the Palestinians who have the most to fear from war crimes investigations.



The opinion was the content. I engaged with it. If someone is "baffled" and "sickened" by view different to their own, they are hardly of an open mind to discuss or listen to that view. That's my opinion.

Who said they wanted Hamas to get off while the Israelis get sent down for breaking international law? Personally I hope both the Israeli extremists AND the Palestinian extremists get trashed, so that the ordinary Israelis who aren't interested in stealing land from their neighbours and the ordinary Palestinians who aren't interested in killing innocent people can get on with their lives without being constantly undermined by muppets.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

Now whose being disingenuous?

It's the minority party. Fatah is the largest organisation. Screaming "Hamas" every time somebody raises Israel misdoing rather ignores the facts.

Sand

FTA69 wrote: »

You realise that the Palestinian Authority aren't fighting the Israelis in the West Bank don't you? To be honest I don't know what sort of hoops you're attempting to construct here, all I know is that you've claimed that Israel isn't occupying the West Bank, a statement which is a load of cobblers to be honest.

You realise Timber cited the bombing of a *Gaza* powerplant as a warcrime and quoted Art 56 to support that assertion.

"Art. 56. To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties."

I get its difficult to follow the thread of a discussion because most people seem desperate to drag in any topic except the topic, but lets try.

Now we *could* argue back and forth if the majority of the Palestinians in the West Bank who live under the PA rule - both security and civil administration - are occupied or not. We could also argue about the definition of the West Bank, if the Israeli held areas are actually part of Israel or not.

But it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the point made because the power plant attacked was in Gaza, not in either the occupied/unoccupied West Bank. And we wouldn't agree in any case.

The Saint

Sand wrote: »

Now we *could* argue back and forth if the majority of the Palestinians in the West Bank who live under the PA rule - both security and civil administration - are occupied or not. We could also argue about the definition of the West Bank, if the Israeli held areas are actually part of Israel or not.

There is no argument. The UN, International Court of Justice, ICRC and the entire international community all say that the West Bank is occupied.

The Israeli High Court states that the West Bank is occupied:

"Since 1967, Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria [hereinafter – the area] in belligerent occupation. " Para. 1

"The general point of departure of all parties – which is also our point of departure – is that Israel holds the area in belligerent occupation." Para. 23

http://elyon1.court.gov.il/Files_ENG/04/560/020/A28/04020560.A28.pdf

Even right wing Israeli politicians implicitly recognise that the West Bank (including the large settlement blocs) are not part of Israel since they have called for their annexation (i.e. meaning that they are not already part of Israel)

Economy Minister Naftali Bennett, who is head of the ultra-nationalist Jewish Home party, wrote to the prime minister...saying Israel should extend its sovereign territory to a number of major settlement blocs.

Please provide any substantive evidence that indicated that legally the West Bank is not occupied. If you cannot even honestly engage in the debate on issues of objective fact then it is clear that you are not willing to participate in the discussion in good faith and you are just looking to stir sh1t.

Sand

The Saint wrote: »

There is no argument. The UN, International Court of Justice, ICRC and the entire international community all say that the West Bank is occupied.

The Israeli High Court states that the West Bank is occupied:



Even right wing Israeli politicians implicitly recognise that the West Bank (including the large settlement blocs) are not part of Israel since they have called for their annexation (i.e. meaning that they are not already part of Israel)



Please provide any substantive evidence that indicated that legally the West Bank is not occupied. If you cannot even honestly engage in the debate on issues of objective fact then it is clear that you are not willing to participate in the discussion in good faith and you are just looking to stir sh1t.

I dealt with this already:

But it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the point made because the power plant attacked was in Gaza, not in either the occupied/unoccupied West Bank. And we wouldn't agree in any case.

The Saint

Sand wrote: »

I dealt with this already:

You seemed to suggest that there was an argument to be had regarding the occupation of the West Bank.

Now we *could* argue back and forth if the majority of the Palestinians in the West Bank who live under the PA rule - both security and civil administration - are occupied or not. We could also argue about the definition of the West Bank, if the Israeli held areas are actually part of Israel or not.

Also in a previous post you stated that:

Israel is not the occupying power in Gaza, or the West Bank for that matter.

I was clarifying that there is no argument and that your assertion that the West Bank is not occupied (irrespective of the argument of the status of Gaza) is patently false.

Do you still stand by this assertion?

Sand

The Saint wrote: »

Do you still stand by this assertion?

I do. The vast majority of the Palestinians in the West Bank live under the PA, not under Israeli occupation. We can argue it (but we wont) but in any case its truer to say its not occupied than to say it is.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

I do. The vast majority of the Palestinians in the West Bank live under the PA, not under Israeli occupation. We can argue it (but we wont) but in any case its truer to say its not occupied than to say it is.

An absolute nonsense.

Sand

Nodin wrote: »

An absolute nonsense.

Interesting - your post is word for word how I would summarise it.

karma_

Sand wrote: »

Interesting - your post is word for word how I would summarise it.

What else can one say? You were presented with absolute facts that backed up the claim, facts which you then continued to ignore. There is no point in further debate.

hatrickpatrick

Sand wrote: »

I do. The vast majority of the Palestinians in the West Bank live under the PA, not under Israeli occupation. We can argue it (but we wont) but in any case its truer to say its not occupied than to say it is.

So you're saying that Israeli settlements do not exist in the West Bank, and you're also saying that Israel does not claim sovereignty over East Jerusalem...?

Sand

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So you're saying that Israeli settlements do not exist in the West Bank, and you're also saying that Israel does not claim sovereignty over East Jerusalem...?

So you're saying that Israel militarily occupies the West Bank - even the areas they do not?

We're not going to agree on this topic. You might as well chip together, hire an architect, an engineer, a crew of workmen and a foreman, buy materials, build a bridge - and get over it.

@karma

What else can one say? You were presented with absolute facts that backed up the claim, facts which you then continued to ignore. There is no point in further debate.

No, I was presented with a strawman. Which did not actually pose any relevance to the point I made.

The point to which everyone has been ever so strangely silent on...

hatrickpatrick

Sand wrote: »

So you're saying that Israel militarily occupies the West Bank - even the areas they do not?

I never stated that they occupied every square centimetre of the West Bank. I stated that they [i[do[/i] occupy and claim sovereignty over significant portions of it which were not allocated to them by anything other than military might, and which the UN Security Council, even with the Americans as permanent members, has demanded they withdraw from.

We're not going to agree on this topic. You might as well chip together, hire an architect, an engineer, a crew of workmen and a foreman, buy materials, build a bridge - and get over it.

We might one day agree if you chose to answer direct questions instead of stonewalling. You're not a government minister by any chance, are you?

RED L4 0TH

Sand wrote: »

I do. The vast majority of the Palestinians in the West Bank live under the PA, not under Israeli occupation. We can argue it (but we wont) but in any case its truer to say its not occupied than to say it is.

The PA areas only occupy 39% of the WB area. What in your view is the status of the other 61%?

The Saint

Sand wrote: »

I do. The vast majority of the Palestinians in the West Bank live under the PA, not under Israeli occupation. We can argue it (but we wont) but in any case its truer to say its not occupied than to say it is.

Then you have saved me the bother of continuing discussion with you. If you choose to ignore the objective fact that the West Bank is occupied as stated by the UN (Security Council, General Assembly and every technical agency), ICRC (the custodians of the Geneva Conventions), the ICJ (the highest judicial body on the world), every country in the world, the Israeli High Court (on various occasions), and you hold a more extreme view than the most extreme of the Israeli political establishment, then it is disingenuous to state that you are interested in a genuine objective discussion of the topic.

FTA69

Sand wrote: »

Now we *could* argue back and forth if the majority of the Palestinians in the West Bank who live under the PA rule - both security and civil administration - are occupied or not.

You *could* but you'd be engaging in weaseling and nonsense of the worst kind. Two thirds of the West Bank is under Area C designation meaning the Israeli military retains exclusive and absolute control over most of the area itself. In this area, they preside over Israeli-only roads as well as facilitate the building of illegal settlements on illegally seized land. The remainder of the West Bank is cantonised into pockets of PA control, some of which are designated Area B where the Israelis still have an input. They also frequently launch raids into the PA-controlled areas with impunity and whenever suits them, often for reasons as spurious as kids throwing stones at armoured cars. In these raids, young children are often killed and hundreds are carted off to prisons and detention centres. Similarly, Israel frequently steals from PA controlled areas, whether that be pumping water to their settlements, cutting off water to Areas A and B or else with-holding tax revenues.

If that isn't considered an "occupation" I don't know what is.

We could also argue about the definition of the West Bank, if the Israeli held areas are actually part of Israel or not.

No you couldn't in a million years. Settlements are illegal, sin é. Absolutely no contention here and even a substantial number of Israelis themselves would disagree with you.

Sand

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I never stated that they occupied every square centimetre of the West Bank. I stated that they [i[do[/i] occupy and claim sovereignty over significant portions of it which were not allocated to them by anything other than military might, and which the UN Security Council, even with the Americans as permanent members, has demanded they withdraw from.



We might one day agree if you chose to answer direct questions instead of stonewalling. You're not a government minister by any chance, are you?

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

The PA areas only occupy 39% of the WB area. What in your view is the status of the other 61%?

The Saint wrote: »

Then you have saved me the bother of continuing discussion with you. If you choose to ignore the objective fact that the West Bank is occupied as stated by the UN (Security Council, General Assembly and every technical agency), ICRC (the custodians of the Geneva Conventions), the ICJ (the highest judicial body on the world), every country in the world, the Israeli High Court (on various occasions), and you hold a more extreme view than the most extreme of the Israeli political establishment, then it is disingenuous to state that you are interested in a genuine objective discussion of the topic.

FTA69 wrote: »

You *could* but you'd be engaging in weaseling and nonsense of the worst kind. Two thirds of the West Bank is under Area C designation meaning the Israeli military retains exclusive and absolute control over most of the area itself. In this area, they preside over Israeli-only roads as well as facilitate the building of illegal settlements on illegally seized land. The remainder of the West Bank is cantonised into pockets of PA control, some of which are designated Area B where the Israelis still have an input. They also frequently launch raids into the PA-controlled areas with impunity and whenever suits them, often for reasons as spurious as kids throwing stones at armoured cars. In these raids, young children are often killed and hundreds are carted off to prisons and detention centres. Similarly, Israel frequently steals from PA controlled areas, whether that be pumping water to their settlements, cutting off water to Areas A and B or else with-holding tax revenues.

If that isn't considered an "occupation" I don't know what is.



No you couldn't in a million years. Settlements are illegal, sin é. Absolutely no contention here and even a substantial number of Israelis themselves would disagree with you.

I've already dealt with this already.

But it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the point made because the power plant attacked was in Gaza, not in either the occupied/unoccupied West Bank. And we wouldn't agree in any case.

I do note people are still completely silent on the point made.

Though they have shifted the strawman to arguing how *much* of the West Bank is or is not occupied. I don't think I'd call that progress - change maybe?

RED L4 0TH

Sand wrote: »

I've already dealt with this already.

You've said the PA areas of the WB aren't occupied. What's the status of the remainder?

The Saint

Sand wrote: »

I've already dealt with this already.

No you haven't, not at all. You have not addressed this issue or provided any coherent argument (because you don't have one) to back up your points.

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

You've said the PA areas of the WB aren't occupied. What's the status of the remainder?

It doesn't matter what he thinks. All of the West Bank is under Israeli occupation, Area A, B, C and East Jerusalem. This is objective legal reality.

Just a little Samba

Sand wrote: »

I've already dealt with this already.



I do note people are still completely silent on the point made.

Though they have shifted the strawman to arguing how *much* of the West Bank is or is not occupied. I don't think I'd call that progress - change maybe?

All of the the west bank and all of Gaza are occupied.

This is the position of every international legislative body, judicial body, the UNGA and even the UNSC.

You just have a strange definition of occupied which you have concocted yourself and pretend is actually a thing.

Sand

Just a little Samba wrote: »

All of the the west bank and all of Gaza are occupied.

This is the position of every international legislative body, judicial body, the UNGA and even the UNSC.

You just have a strange definition of occupied which you have concocted yourself and pretend is actually a thing.

And yet - going all the way back to the original point - the bombing of that power plant in Gaza is not a war crime...

Strange.

Gringo180

Sand wrote: »

And yet - going all the way back to the original point - the bombing of that power plant in Gaza is not a war crime...

Strange.

No, but the use of white phosphorus on a civilian population is.

RED L4 0TH

Sand wrote: »

And yet - going all the way back to the original point - the bombing of that power plant in Gaza is not a war crime...

Strange.

Going by the ICC's Rome Statutes it is.

Article 8, Section 2/a/iv - Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

Also Section 2/b/iv - 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;

Timberrrrrrrr

Gringo180 wrote: »

No, but the use of white phosphorus on a civilian population is.

Let's not forget the IDF's use of Palestinian children as human shields.

Sand

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Going by the ICC's Rome Statutes it is.

Article 8, Section 2/a/iv - Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

Also Section 2/b/iv - 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;

You state this without actually completing your point by demonstrating how it applies to the bombing of a power plant in Gaza at a time of war. Does Hamas have a specific military and government power plant that should have been hit instead? Or does their military and government not use electricity?

hatrickpatrick

Sand wrote: »

I've already dealt with this already.

You haven't. The borders of the Israeli state as defined by the international community - including the US government - do not include the West Bank or Easy Jerusalem. The Israeli government is claiming sovereignty over some of those areas and is administering its own rule of law in those areas.

This is a fact. It is also a fact that the international community regards this behavior as illegal. It is also, and in my view this is the most important aspect, a fact that the civilian majority in those occupied areas comprises Palestinians who do not consent to being subsumed into the state of Israel.

Ergo, Israel's occupation is undemocratic. Ergo, Israel is not "the only democratic nation in the Middle East" as pro-Israel posters would like to claim. It is democratic insofar as you are on the "right" side of the fence.

The Saint

Sand wrote: »

You state this without actually completing your point by demonstrating how it applies to the bombing of a power plant in Gaza at a time of war. Does Hamas have a specific military and government power plant that should have been hit instead? Or does their military and government not use electricity?

You seem to be pretty caught up in this point so lets unpack it a little bit. The ICRC (who know a little bit about the laws of armed conflict) drafted a list of legitimate military targets. Included in this it lists "installations providing energy mainly for national defence, e.g. coal, other fuels, or atomic energy, and plants producing gas or electricity mainly for military consumption."

This definition was also used by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs when justifying the bombing of power and other infrastructure during the 2006 Lebanon war, thereby meaning that the Israeli establishment recognizes the definitions legitimacy.

This then begs the question as to whether the Gaza power plant was generating power primarily for military purposes. Since the power plant was being used to power all of Gaza, with regular power cuts, it seems unlikely that the primary consumer of electricity being generated by the plant was being used for military purposes. If it is therefore not being used primarily for military purposes then this would call into question the legitimacy of targeting the plant.

Sand

The Saint wrote: »

You seem to be pretty caught up in this point

Well, it is an example of the alleged war crimes the ICC will supposedly hold against Israel, so its like the topic of the thread...

The ICRC (who know a little bit about the laws of armed conflict) drafted a list of legitimate military targets.

Issued an opinion, with no force of law.

This definition was also used by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs when justifying the bombing of power and other infrastructure during the 2006 Lebanon war, thereby meaning that the Israeli establishment recognizes the definitions legitimacy.

Cited an opinion, with no force of law.

This then begs the question as to whether the Gaza power plant was generating power primarily for military purposes. Since the power plant was being used to power all of Gaza, with regular power cuts, it seems unlikely that the primary consumer of electricity being generated by the plant was being used for military purposes. If it is therefore not being used primarily for military purposes then this would call into question the legitimacy of targeting the plant.

If as you say Israel is recognises the list and gives it some weight, then surely you acknowledge it has already examined the questions you pose and confirmed to its own satisfaction that the power plant is a valid target?

What is clear is that at a time of war military needs will take priority over civilian needs. The ICRC itself says "mainly for military consumption" so if military needs take priority then its a valid target even by the ICRC definition.

As you state, the civilian population encountered power cuts. Yet Hamas retained control and kept firing rockets...didn't seem to be affected by power-cuts.

The Saint

Sand wrote: »

Well, it is an example of the alleged war crimes the ICC will supposedly hold against Israel, so its like the topic of the thread...

I would imagine of all the alleged violations committed, this would unlikely be one that the ICC would focus on should it examine the latest conflict in Gaza unless it was examined as part of a wider pattern of behavior.

Sand wrote: »

Issued an opinion, with no force of law.

Cited an opinion, with no force of law.

While indeed that these are only a framework, it is likely that the ICC would use such guidelines from the ICRC as part of its analysis into the legality of the bombing of the power station.

Similarly they would look at the Declaration of the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention from December 2014. "The Declaration...was supported by all the participating states, and thus constitutes a reference document representing a broad consensus of the international community". Given that the contents of the statement represent a broad consensus of the international community, it is likely that the ICC would also draw upon this when deliberating on any issue dealing with the Gaza conflict.

The Declaration states that:

With regard to the conduct of hostilities, the participating High Contracting Parties underscore that the following acts are, among others, prohibited by international humanitarian law for all parties to the conflict, and as such also for non-state actors: (1) indiscriminate attacks of any kind, including attacks which are not directed at specific military objectives, and the employment of a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective or whose effects do not meet the requirements of the principles mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Declaration; (2) disproportionate attacks of any kind, including excessive destruction of civilian infrastructure; (3) destruction of property, carried out inconsistently with the principles mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Declaration; (4) attacks against protected persons and objects, including medical buildings, material, transports, units and personnel, as well as humanitarian personnel and objects, unless and for such time as they have lost their protection against direct attack; (5) attacks against civilian objects, including schools, unless and for such time as they are military objectives; (6) the location of military objectives in the vicinity of civilians and civilian objects, when it would be avoidable and (7) the use of civilians as human shields.

Sand wrote: »

If as you say Israel is recognises the list and gives it some weight, then surely you acknowledge it has already examined the questions you pose and confirmed to its own satisfaction that the power plant is a valid target?

Israel's interpretation of its obligations under international law should not be the prism through which we should view those actual obligations. Indeed, Israel argues that GCIV does not apply to the oPt despite it being repeatedly affirmed by the UNSC, UNGA, ICJ and ICRC that they indeed do apply. It also believes that the settlements are not illegal, that the Barrier is not illegal and that demolition of Palestinian homes (including punitive demolitions, i.e. collective punishment) is not illegal (with these being either reaffirmed or willfully ignored by the Israeli High Court of Justice).

I would therefore not view the Israeli interpretation or whether it has done wrong as being terribly objective, especially when the IDF investigates itself in cases of alleged wrongdoing. That is why the justice is supposed to be blind.

Sand wrote: »

What is clear is that at a time of war military needs will take priority over civilian needs. The ICRC itself says "mainly for military consumption" so if military needs take priority then its a valid target even by the ICRC definition.

Under international law military needs do not take priority over civilian needs, it balances these needs. Indeed, according to the ICRC:

"The primary aim of IHL is to protect the victims of armed conflict and to regulate the conduct of hostilities based on a balance between military
necessity and humanity."

You also seem to have misread the ICRC definition. It states that "installations providing energy mainly for national defence, e.g. coal, other fuels, or atomic energy, and plants producing gas or electricity mainly for military consumption." Note the emphasis in bold

This means that that the power plant could only be deemed a legitimate military target is its primary output was being used for military purposes. I think that we can agree that this was unlikely the case. Furthermore, an attack would only be proportionate or legitimate if it resulted in an overall military advantage. However, you state:

Sand wrote: »

Yet Hamas retained control and kept firing rockets...didn't seem to be affected by power-cuts.

indicating that the military advantage gained was negligible since Hamas didn't seem to be affected by the power cuts while the civilian population suffered greatly.

While no one can assume what conclusion the ICC would come to if it did decide to look at this issue, I would imagine that they would take a more positivist interpretation of international law when deliberating on the case which would unlikely be in Israel's favour.

As I stated at the beginning of my post, I would think it unlikely that the ICC would look at this case on its own, particularly since (despite the possibility of it being a war crime) is not sufficiently egregious enough for the ICC to take on it caseload since "the ICC shall prioritize war crimes committed on a large scale or pursuant to a plan or policy". However, as I stated above, the incident could form part of an analysis in determining whether it was part of a broader plan or policy.

However, if you disagree with my assessment then I would be happy to read your evidence based analysis and interpretation of such a scenario.

DarkyHughes

Sand wrote: »

And yet - going all the way back to the original point - the bombing of that power plant in Gaza is not a war crime...

Strange.

Dose the Israeli military treat captured Hamas soldiers as POW's?

DarkyHughes

Sand wrote: »

And yet - going all the way back to the original point - the bombing of that power plant in Gaza is not a war crime...

Strange.

Dose the Israeli military treat captured Hamas soldiers as POW's?

Sand

The Saint wrote: »

While indeed that these are only a framework,

Glad we cleared that up.

Similarly they would look at the Declaration of the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention from December 2014....
The Declaration states that:

Again, you only make half a point - you cite a passage without actually establishing it is at all relevant to the case. Is a power plant which you acknowledge provided power for military purposes "civilian infrastructure"? Is attacking a power plant supplying electricity to an enemy army and government in a war "disproportionate"? Is it "property" in the sense meant? Is a power plant meant by "civilian objects" when the example offered in the text is a school? During a time of war, did the power plant become a military objective - which the text envisages could even apply to a school under the right circumstances?

You need to do a lot better on the construction of your argument. Copying and pasting isn't going to cut it.

Israel's interpretation of its obligations under international law should not be the prism through which we should view those actual obligations...I would therefore not view the Israeli interpretation or whether it has done wrong as being terribly objective, especially when the IDF investigates itself in cases of alleged wrongdoing. That is why the justice is supposed to be blind.

Then why did you cite Israel's interpretation of its obligations when you thought it suited you?

Under international law military needs do not take priority over civilian needs, it balances these needs.

Of course military needs take priority over civilian needs in a war - conscription, massive military spending, censorship, internment or expulsion of enemy citizens. These are the hallmarks of total war.

You really think Hamas "balances" civilian needs against military ones when it decides to pick and prolong a hopeless fight with the regional military superpower? When it was murdering/executing "collaborators" and "spies" during the recent conflict, was it balancing military needs against civilian ones?

You also seem to have misread the ICRC definition. It states that "installations providing energy mainly for national defence, e.g. coal, other fuels, or atomic energy, and plants producing gas or electricity mainly for military consumption." Note the emphasis in bold

No I read it - you read "mainly" as meaning the greater proportion of output, which is a very strange definition when one considers no mention is given to the time period the consumption should be measured over. A year? A month? Based on consumption figures prior to the conflict, or during it? How are "military" consumers to be defined? Is the political leadership of the state included as "military" consumers? Are both sides obliged to provide electrical consumption figures to each other to allow for this targeting or should they simply guess and get hung by Captain Hindsight?

You can also read "mainly" to imply the priority consumer are the military and political groups. During a war which is as desperate as the Israeli-Hamas conflicts, the military will take priority. Always has been the case.

This means that that the power plant could only be deemed a legitimate military target is its primary output was being used for military purposes. I think that we can agree that this was unlikely the case.

Now you're referring to primary in a way which aligns with my own view.

indicating that the military advantage gained was negligible since Hamas didn't seem to be affected by the power cuts while the civilian population suffered greatly.

Advantage is relative - to prove the advantage gained was negligible, you would have to either demonstrate that Hamas is a Stone Age organisation whose military and political organisation and resilience is not benefited by easy access to electricity, or somehow credibly project Hamas's capacity with free and easy access to electricity and demonstrate it was no different to what they actually managed to offer.

Both are implausible.

EDIT - actually, I was curious, so I checked. Hamas fired 2,879 rockets into Israel in July 2014. The power plant was hit at the end of July.

Hamas managed to fire 950 rocket into Israel in August, so their rate of fire dropped by almost two thirds. That would seem to be a clear military advantage.

However, if you disagree with my assessment then I would be happy to read your evidence based analysis and interpretation of such a scenario.

As I pointed out above, you really need to offer your own if you're trying to make the case.

The IDF for its own part denies ever targeting the power plant. It doesn't deny it was hit, but that doesn't mean it was the intended target of the shelling. So as well as arguing that targeting it was a war crime, you would also have to prove the Israelis deliberately targeted it and didn't simply miss when trying to hit something else.

Certainly, it appears the power plant was back in operation by mid September 2014 (despite media reports claiming it was completely destroyed), just over 6 weeks, so it doesn't seem like the damage was so extensive as to indicate an aim to destroy it. The Israelis can be evil or incompetent, but its implausible they are both.

RED L4 0TH

Sand wrote: »

EDIT - actually, I was curious, so I checked. Hamas fired 2,879 rockets into Israel in July 2014. The power plant was hit at the end of July.

Hamas managed to fire 950 rocket into Israel in August, so their rate of fire dropped by almost two thirds. That would seem to be a clear military advantage.

Why? What evidence is there that the power plant being put out of action directly led to the decline in the number of rockets being fired?

Sand

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Why? What evidence is there that the power plant being put out of action directly led to the decline in the number of rockets being fired?

I don't need to make that argument, though it appears self evident that a loss of military effectiveness is both expected and actually what happened when electricity supply was lost.

The Saint is claiming that the loss of the electricity led to no military advantage to Israel or any decline in the effectiveness of Hamas attacks. He needs to make the case for that somehow in the face of all evidence. I don't envy him, but it can be some comfort that evidence usually isn't required for many when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian cause.

RED L4 0TH

Sand wrote: »

I don't need to make that argument, though it appears self evident that a loss of military effectiveness is both expected and actually what happened when electricity supply was lost.

Yes you do. Was mains electricity needed to manufacture these devices? Remember they were very simple to make. Plus you didn't need electricity to aim and fire them. The Qassams didnt have an aiming system at all. Also the longer range stuff like the Grads and M302s were smuggled into Gaza, so the existence of a power plant, functioning or otherwise, was irrelevant to their deployment and firing.

The Saint

Sand wrote: »

Again, you only make half a point - you cite a passage without actually establishing it is at all relevant to the case. Is a power plant which you acknowledge provided power for military purposes "civilian infrastructure"? Is attacking a power plant supplying electricity to an enemy army and government in a war "disproportionate"? Is it "property" in the sense meant? Is a power plant meant by "civilian objects" when the example offered in the text is a school? During a time of war, did the power plant become a military objective - which the text envisages could even apply to a school under the right circumstances?

You need to do a lot better on the construction of your argument. Copying and pasting isn't going to cut it.

Then why did you cite Israel's interpretation of its obligations when you thought it suited you?



Of course military needs take priority over civilian needs in a war - conscription, massive military spending, censorship, internment or expulsion of enemy citizens. These are the hallmarks of total war.

You really think Hamas "balances" civilian needs against military ones when it decides to pick and prolong a hopeless fight with the regional military superpower? When it was murdering/executing "collaborators" and "spies" during the recent conflict, was it balancing military needs against civilian ones?



No I read it - you read "mainly" as meaning the greater proportion of output, which is a very strange definition when one considers no mention is given to the time period the consumption should be measured over. A year? A month? Based on consumption figures prior to the conflict, or during it? How are "military" consumers to be defined? Is the political leadership of the state included as "military" consumers? Are both sides obliged to provide electrical consumption figures to each other to allow for this targeting or should they simply guess and get hung by Captain Hindsight?

You can also read "mainly" to imply the priority consumer are the military and political groups. During a war which is as desperate as the Israeli-Hamas conflicts, the military will take priority. Always has been the case.



Now you're referring to primary in a way which aligns with my own view.



Advantage is relative - to prove the advantage gained was negligible, you would have to either demonstrate that Hamas is a Stone Age organisation whose military and political organisation and resilience is not benefited by easy access to electricity, or somehow credibly project Hamas's capacity with free and easy access to electricity and demonstrate it was no different to what they actually managed to offer.

Both are implausible.

EDIT - actually, I was curious, so I checked. Hamas fired 2,879 rockets into Israel in July 2014. The power plant was hit at the end of July.

Hamas managed to fire 950 rocket into Israel in August, so their rate of fire dropped by almost two thirds. That would seem to be a clear military advantage.



As I pointed out above, you really need to offer your own if you're trying to make the case.

The IDF for its own part denies ever targeting the power plant. It doesn't deny it was hit, but that doesn't mean it was the intended target of the shelling. So as well as arguing that targeting it was a war crime, you would also have to prove the Israelis deliberately targeted it and didn't simply miss when trying to hit something else.

Certainly, it appears the power plant was back in operation by mid September 2014 (despite media reports claiming it was completely destroyed), just over 6 weeks, so it doesn't seem like the damage was so extensive as to indicate an aim to destroy it. The Israelis can be evil or incompetent, but its implausible they are both.

I really don't have the inclination to respond to every paragraph in your unsubstantiated assertions in your post, particularly when nothing that you have said is backed up by any sources and is just your own speculation. I would go into the international legal principles of necessity, proportionality and distinction in relation to the bombing but it seems that international law is not something that you really consider in your argument (quite funny since if the case was looked at by the ICC then it would be these legal arguments that would inform it's decision).

However, I will just leave this here (again from the ICRC) regarding the bombing of the power plant in Gaza in July 2014 which states that:

This is the sixth time the plant has been hit and it is now out of service. This was supplying 30% of the electricity.”

Most of the electric lines come from Israel and out of 10 only one is working, she said.

“Sixty per cent of the region has no electricity. Only small pockets are receiving electricity and for only one or two hours. In Gaza City, which has a population of more than 1,000,000, there is no power.”

Ms Badiei says essential infrastructure has to be protected. As soon as they are repaired they are destroyed again.
“They are not part of the conflict. They are needed for civilians,” she said. “Hospitals need electricity but now they have to run on generators.

“Let me make this clear, if there is no electricity, there is no water. We need pumps to push the water.”

http://www.euronews.com/2014/07/31/international-committee-of-the-red-cross-criticises-attacks-on-gaza-power-/

To be frank, I'm going to take the ICRC's word on this over yours.

Finally, regarding the decline in the number of rockets fired by Hamas in august, I'm very interested to know how you are sure that the decline is a direct correlation of the bombing of the power station.

I think a more plausible explanation for the majority of this decline would be the fact that while the conflict ran continuously throughout July, there were two ceasefires in August and the conflict finished on the 26 of August, meaning that there was no fighting for 13 days of that month.

Sand

The Saint wrote: »

I really don't have the inclination to respond to every paragraph in your unsubstantiated assertions in your post

I've substantiated what I needed to substantiate. I don't need to prove what's commonly accepted and uncontroversial because you don't like it.

However, I will just leave this here (again from the ICRC) regarding the bombing of the power plant in Gaza in July 2014 which states that:

To be frank, I'm going to take the ICRC's word on this over yours.

And again, you don't make any effort to complete your argument other than pasting something that may or may not be relevant said by somebody working for a respected organisation.

"Appeal to authority" is how that sort of argument is described.

Finally, regarding the decline in the number of rockets fired by Hamas in august, I'm very interested to know how you are sure that the decline is a direct correlation of the bombing of the power station.

I think a more plausible explanation for the majority of this decline would be the fact that while the conflict ran continuously throughout July, there were two ceasefires in August and the conflict finished on the 26 of August, meaning that there was no fighting for 13 days of that month.

If that were the case, you'd see a close correlation between reduced days and reduced rockets. You don't - From July 7th the average is 112 fired per day in July. Even with your 13 days of "peace" in August, the daily average in August is 52 fired per day - the decline in rockets fired is far more pronounced.

So your theory is just an odd attempt to avoid engaging with the reality that any modern military activity is going to be more effective with uninterrupted access to electricity. I hope I don't have to prove that any further when you are arguing that civilian life is impossible without it, and the stats above align with that expectation pretty clearly.

RED L4 0TH

Sand wrote: »

If that were the case, you'd see a close correlation between reduced days and reduced rockets. You don't - From July 7th the average is 112 fired per day in July. Even with your 13 days of "peace" in August, the daily average in August is 52 fired per day - the decline in rockets fired is far more pronounced.

So your theory is just an odd attempt to avoid engaging with the reality that any modern military activity is going to be more effective with uninterrupted access to electricity. I hope I don't have to prove that any further when you are arguing that civilian life is impossible without it, and the stats above align with that expectation pretty clearly.

Actually you do. Here are the Israelis own figures for high trajectory (rockets & mortars) launchings in July & August. In August, ceasefire days are noticeable for few or no rockets/mortars being launched. Then you have a huge spike in objects fired immediately preceeding the last ceasefire. The highest number fired for the 2 months was on August 26, 192. There seems to be no evidence that the power plant being out of action contributed to a decline in rocket/mortar fire.

Sand

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

There seems to be no evidence that the power plant being out of action contributed to a decline in rocket/mortar fire.

You just presented the evidence - you're just focusing on 7 days, and saying "Hey - this is what happened on these days, hence it happened on all days!"

Your own links show that isn't the case. What they show is a dramatic collapse in rocket attacks all through early August after the power supply was cut with only a single day where they could fire anything like their average in July.

I must admit, I'm finding the concept of Hamas as a Stone Age army very amusing. If Hamas don't need electricity to wage a war, surely they don't need it to run a civilian economy either - right?

RED L4 0TH

Sand wrote: »

you're just focusing on 7 days

Nope. You're ignoring the ceasefire days, which correlate with little or no launchings.

What they show is a dramatic collapse in rocket attacks all through early August after the power supply was cut with only a single day where they could fire anything like their average in July.

Again no. The trend from 22nd July to 4th Aug shows no discernable change. The power plant was struck in the early hours of the 29th July, yet the figures for the 30th & 31st actually show an increase.

The Saint

Sand wrote: »

I've substantiated what I needed to substantiate. I don't need to prove what's commonly accepted and uncontroversial because you don't like it.

You patently have not. You have not provided any evidence, sources or legal interpretation for your claims. You have offered your own assertions that you state are commonly accepted and uncontroversial without any evidence, even when presented with information to the contrary.

Sand wrote: »

And again, you don't make any effort to complete your argument other than pasting something that may or may not be relevant said by somebody working for a respected organisation.

Now you are just being completely disingenuous. The ICRC played a central role in the development of modern international humanitarian law, they are the custodians of the Geneva Conventions and that International Court of Justice have incorporated opinions of the ICRC when deliberating on cases.

I have selected to use the ICRC for this very purpose rather than citing reports from NGOs such a Amnesty and Human Rights Watch. They are much more than just a 'respected organisation'.

However, given that you do not believe the West Bank is occupied despite the objective fact already presented to you that it is, I'd doubt you are really interested in really dealing with the international legal basis of the argument (which is strange given that it is international humanitarian and human rights law on which the ICC would primarily utilise in its deliberations on such a hypothetical case)

Sand wrote: »

If that were the case, you'd see a close correlation between reduced days and reduced rockets. You don't - From July 7th the average is 112 fired per day in July. Even with your 13 days of "peace" in August, the daily average in August is 52 fired per day - the decline in rockets fired is far more pronounced.

The issue of correlation has been dealt with by both myself and RED L4 0TH. If you want to fully attribute the reduction in rocket fire on the bombing of the power station then you might want to provide evidence for this rather than assertions. I have not read anything (even from Israeli sources) that links the bombing of the power station to this reduction. There could be multiple factors that lead to this in addition to those 13 days in which there was no fighting. For example, Hamas had been building and stockpiling these weapons for a long time before the war and these stockpiles would have likely been depleted due to heavy use. Israel would have also been targeting Hamas arms caches and manufacturing facilities thereby further reducing their stockpiles and production capabilities. Qassams do not require large scale manufacturing facilities necessitating a large power source. They can be built in a workshop using a generator for electricity. Therefore, the bombing of the power station would unlikely significantly impact production.

Sand wrote: »

So your theory is just an odd attempt to avoid engaging with the reality that any modern military activity is going to be more effective with uninterrupted access to electricity. I hope I don't have to prove that any further when you are arguing that civilian life is impossible without it, and the stats above align with that expectation pretty clearly.

See point above. Indeed, the Hamas would be using electricity for keeping the lights on so Hamas would indeed be a consumer of electricity generated by the plant. However, Hamas members also drink water but I'm not sure that you would advocate Israel destroying the water supply so as to gain a military advantage (since this would of course be a violation of IHL). The same principle applies.

Sand

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Nope. You're ignoring the ceasefire days, which correlate with little or no launchings.

No, I saw them and discounted them.

The Saint wrote: »

You patently have not. You have not provided any evidence, sources or legal interpretation for your claims. You have offered your own assertions that you state are commonly accepted and uncontroversial without any evidence, even when presented with information to the contrary.

Can you provide an example of such an assertion which you believe is actually controversial and not commonly accepted?

Now you are just being completely disingenuous.

You're missing the point.

You say X is true. Someone else says Y is true. You offer this as evidence that X is true.

You never actually demonstrate that X=Y.

The issue of correlation has been dealt with by both myself and RED L4 0TH.

Not very well. Mainly by ignoring the obvious and desperately casting about for anything else to explain the collapse in rocket attacks.

If you want to fully attribute the reduction in rocket fire on the bombing of the power station then you might want to provide evidence for this rather than assertions.

Oh, is this what you meant earlier?

So you think its very controversial to state that military actions are more difficult without access to electricity? You've offered no evidence that a loss of electricity makes lives more difficult for civilians, and I've not asked for you to prove that assertion...though maybe I should by your measure.

There could be multiple factors that lead to this in addition to those 13 days in which there was no fighting.

I discounted those 13 days...hence the phrase daily average. That's the daily average for the days when there actually was fighting in July compared to the average for the days when there actually was fighting in August.

You might quibble over the details - but the huge fall in rocket attacks is clear, and that's including the last hurrah Hamas managed after several days of truce allowed them to reorganise and re-equip and allowing for Israeli ground troops being active in Gaza in large numbers throughout most of July whilst withdrawing at the start of August.

RED L4 0TH

Sand wrote: »

Not very well. Mainly by ignoring the obvious and desperately casting about for anything else to explain the collapse in rocket attacks.

The obvious? Still waiting for a shred of evidence from you that the power plant being knocked out directly led to the decline in rocket attacks.

So you think its very controversial to state that military actions are more difficult without access to electricity?

But you haven't provided any evidence in attempting to relate such a statement to the ability of Hamas to fire rockets into Israel.

I discounted those 13 days...hence the phrase daily average. That's the daily average for the days when there actually was fighting in July compared to the average for the days when there actually was fighting in August.

In July, 2859 missiles were fired on 31 days giving an average of 92 per day. In August, 1576 missiles were fired on 18 days averaging 87 pd.

You might quibble over the details - but the huge fall in rocket attacks is clear

Clear due to the 8 days in August of zero launches which can be attributed to the ceasefires from 8am on the 5th to 8am on the 8th and from 0001am on the 11th to the afternoon of the 19th. An ongoing ceasefire started overnight of the 26th/27th.

allowed them to reorganise and re-equip

How did they do this then if the lack of electricity so disrupted their war effort as you've been claiming?

Sand

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

In July, 2859 missiles were fired on 31 days giving an average of 92 per day. In August, 1576 missiles were fired on 18 days averaging 87 pd.

Now whose being disingenuous?

RED L4 0TH

Sand wrote: »

Now whose being disingenuous?

Er, no. 2859 high trajectory launches spread over 31 days in July. Oh, and still waiting for that evidence...............