Read on Twitter
This report from @btselem quite clearly shows the very narrow/selective and even erroneous usage of #IHL by IDF and why these are #warcrimes
π§΅..
btselem.org/gaza_strip/202β¦
π§΅..
btselem.org/gaza_strip/202β¦
The incident:
1/3 of the casualties were NOT participating AT all in the fighting. Obviously considering the timing of the attack and the fact that they also are civilians.
1/3 of the casualties were NOT participating AT all in the fighting. Obviously considering the timing of the attack and the fact that they also are civilians.
Prior knowledge of IDF:
They were aware of possibility of human casualties, including children.
They were aware of possibility of human casualties, including children.
The Israeli justification for the intentional killing of civilians:
Collateral damage due to the principle of proportionality.
To claim PoP here is an astoundingly disingenuous argument, let me elaborate:
Collateral damage due to the principle of proportionality.
To claim PoP here is an astoundingly disingenuous argument, let me elaborate:
1. The anticipated military advantage: "The attacking state must have a legitimate military objective and must reasonably expect that the attack will offer a definite military advantage in achieving that objective."
Per default, IDF always have the military advantage and..
Per default, IDF always have the military advantage and..
..in this campaign, there was no situation where the Palestinian side had the advantage in the fighting, which would have given IDF the "right" to claim PoP and thus "allow" for the collateral damage to be valid in order to change the advantage to the IDF side.
2. The expected harm to civilians or civilian objects: "The attacking state must assess the expected harm to civilians or civilian objects, including the direct and indirect effects of the attack..
...This includes considering the number of civilian casualties, the extent of injuries, and the damage to civilian infrastructure"
3. Precautions and feasible alternatives:
"The attacking state must take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects. It should choose means and methods of attack that would avoid or minimize ..
"The attacking state must take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects. It should choose means and methods of attack that would avoid or minimize ..
civilian casualties and damage to civilian objects whenever possible."
Obviously this didnt happen. They saw an opportunity, decided to attack and then tried to justify this with PoP and "shit happens"
Obviously this didnt happen. They saw an opportunity, decided to attack and then tried to justify this with PoP and "shit happens"
Another "justification" from IDF:
@btselem clearly points out the issue here. Yes, Hamas and other groups acts from and within populated territories, also clear violations of #IHL as it exposes the civilian population for harm. However, considering the situation in Gaza, there is no other way these group-
-would conduct their operations considering the densely populated areas. However, IDF seems to think that because these groups acts from within this areas, that it gives them a carte blanche of doing whatever they want..
Israel is clearly breaching and violating #IHL, misusing it to justify civilian casualties as collateral and claiming Principle of proportionality erroneously as there is no military advantage to gain by conducting these actions.
And yes, these are #warcrimes
And yes, these are #warcrimes
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
γ
