Thread by @Aizenberg55

THREAD: Was bombing in Jabalia in line with international law (IHL)? Or a war crime? Does the loss of civilians, even if high automatically mean war crimes? Let’s look at what IHL actually says not the media, UN or NGOs. This same analysis applies to future strikes as well. 1/

First is Geneva Protocol I Article 48 which is Basic Rule: “distinction” between civilians & military. IDF must “direct their operations only against military objectives.” Israel targeted a key Hamas base with commander many fighters weapons tunnels etc. So IDF complied here. 2/

But wait, civilians died? Israel probably even KNEW some would die. Isn’t that a war crime? No. Geneva allows civilian deaths even if known. It does not reward human shields & immunize Hamas per Article 28. Military targets are legal even knowing that civilians will die. 3/

Geneva Protocol I Article 51.7 emphasizes concept again. Civilians do not immunize military points “particularly in attempts to shield… from attacks.” Hamas’ base within/under Jabalia is itself a war crime under this article and the target was legal to strike under IHL. 4/

Protocol I Article 57.2.c requires Israel to give advance warning if "circumstances" "permit". Israel has warned civilians for weeks to move south away from battle zone ~90% have done so. IDF complied. Civilians staying still does not immunize military target from attack. 5/

Now the tougher subjective rule of war Article 51.5b the so-called “proportionality” doctrine even though the word itself does not appear in IHL. Was Jabalia strike excessive in relation in relation to military advantage? Here is the language and analysis next. 6/

Same concept found in Article 57.2b. Was Jabalia attack according to IDF knowledge “expected to cause” loss to civilians “excessive” to military advantage “anticipated”? Note that after the fact damage is less important to assessing war crime than what was “expected” upfront. 7/

This concept of "expected" harm means mistakes (like errant bombs) or not knowing in advance how many civilians were present does not mean war crime. When UK killed 86 children in error during WWII attack on Gestapo HQ it is not considered a war crime. 8/ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation…

Proportionality is subjective. There are no civilian/combatant ratios as guidelines. Every situation is totally different & must take in all factors. Hamas leader promises "million" October 7 massacres so military need to kill Hamas terrorists is high. 9/

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1719665588228751481

We also know that is Israel has robust legal experts embedded within IDF that reviews key strikes if not all. This is from The Economist. Those charging war crimes are not credible without detailed facts & analysis of each strike. 10/

So was civilian loss in Jabalia strike “excessive” relative to the “military advantage” Again without knowing precisely the loss of civilian life vs Hamas losses & importance of target, threat to IDF & Israel from this position it’s all speculation. 11/

One also needs to know what IDF “anticipated” would be civilian loss. Tunnel collapse brought down buildings they were not directly struck (see video). Was this anticipated? Did IDF know how many civilians were there? All this factors into assessment. 12/

https://twitter.com/jconricus/status/1719500930482356317

Given this was a senior Hamas commander with ~50 terrorists also killed, several rocket launch posts, weapons production & tunnel shafts NOT destroying it could result in large IDF & Israel deaths. This certainly appears to be a legal strike, NOT a war crime. However… 13/

I/we should admit that to be 100% certain requires ALL the exact facts like casualty figures of each kind that NO ONE knows & may only be possible when IDF shares details & what it knew at the time. So when media & NGOs cry war crimes they have ZERO basis for claiming this. END

UN condemns Israel's strike in Jabalia but when official is asked about IHL that allows such strikes, all he says is "I don’t have the courage or the intellectual capacity to engage in a legal debate with you." !!

https://twitter.com/UNWatch/status/1720154921784295839