Okay. I don’t really see the significance here. The US hasn’t placed any restrictions on Israel here, and I wouldn’t expect it to have done when it sold it.
Israel has a fair bit of US hardware in its inventory, so you’d expect to see that, and a JDAM is a pretty common weapon.
The US doesn’t object to Israel fighting Hezbollah.
Like, there’s no “gotcha” here.
It’d be odd if Israel had specifically avoided using JDAMs.
EDIT: And I’m sure that Israel’s used plenty of US-made weapons aside from that. That bomb was probably dropped from an American-made aircraft. They were firing artillery in the conflict, and I’m sure that at least some of those rounds were American-made. It looks like Israel has a domestically-made Tavor issue rifle, but also a bunch of American-made rifles. Probably a long list of other items.
Until the Six-Day War of 1967, the Israel Defense Forces’ principal supplier was France; since then, it has been the United States government and defense companies in the United States.
No, it is not. It’s illegal to perform certain actions that kill civilians under the Geneva Conventions, but there is no blanket prohibition on killing civilians in war, which is why Hamas locating facilities under civilian buildings doesn’t provide them with a legal shield.
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi said on Oct 6 that air strikes in Lebanon had violated international humanitarian law by hitting civilian infrastructure and killing civilians, in reference to Israel’s bombardment of the country.
“Unfortunately, many instances of violations of international humanitarian law in the way the air strikes are conducted that have destroyed or damaged civilian infrastructure, have killed civilians, have impacted humanitarian operations,” he told media in Beirut.
The United Nations Human Rights Office released a report Wednesday concluding that the Israeli military’s repeated use of heavy weaponry—including 2,000-pound bombs supplied by the United States—in the Gaza Strip has likely violated international laws of war barring the targeting of civilians and disproportionate attacks.
And in what way do you deem this attack proportional or the civilians killed as collateral? They targeted a Hezbollah politician, NOT a combatant mind you. Missed. And killed 22 and injured 122 civilians. This was in no way shape or form proportional or necessary even had they killed him.
Also, note the next paragraph:
States have an obligation to investigate all allegations of wilful killings or murders of civilians committed by their armed forces or nationals, or committed on their territory. Where there is sufficient evidence of the commission of the offence, States have a duty to
prosecute those responsible. A State responsible for such violations must make full reparation for the loss suffered.
Of the 42,000+ murdered civilians in Gaza and the several thousand murdered civilians in Lebanon. How many investigations has the IDF done to follow UN humanitarian law? Or the US for that matter?
They targeted a Hezbollah politician, NOT a combatant mind you.
Wafiq Safa, the intended target, was the head of Hezbollah’s Security Council.
I can’t dig up much English-language material about the scope of the Council’s responsibilities, and I doubt that there would have much been made public in this conflict, but it’s probably not a stretch that it’s involved in the conduct of the war.
Mr Safa has headed Hezbollah’s security apparatus since 1987 and stepped into the limelight in the mid-1990s when he negotiated the release of Hezbollah prisoners with Israel, who Hezbollah then went on to fight a bloody month-long war against in 2006.
Mr Safa also played a lead role in Hezbollah’s occupation of West Beirut and the Druze-dominated area of Aley in May 2008. “He has wielded illegitimate military force to advance Hezbollah’s interests in Lebanon,” said Firas Maksad, director of the Arabia Foundation, a Washington DC-based think tank.
“He decides what the (Lebanese) army and security forces can do, and of course, today, he is the one who directs, through Hezbollah’s security apparatus, the airport,” said Mr Joumblatt in a televised press conference re-broadcast in Al Jadeed’s profile of Mr Safa. Contacted by The National, Mr Joumblatt declined to comment on the US treasury’s decision.
Missed
It sounds like he was severely-injured, albeit not killed. I don’t think that that’d have much bearing on the matter, though.
How many investigations has the IDF done to follow UN humanitarian law? Or the US for that matter?
I’d guess that there are probably going to be investigations, stuff like murder or rape. I don’t expect that you’re going to have the people here found to have acted inappropriately, though.
A 1:22 target-to-civilian ratio is not proportional. No matter how you rationalize who the target is. This argument is not a valid justification.
I’d guess that there are probably going to be investigations, stuff like murder or rape. I don’t expect that you’re going to have the people here found to have acted inappropriately, though.
How many investigations have you heard of personally? Is the absence of a guilty verdict from a terrorist-state on its own soldiers what’s allowing you to say there are no war crimes going on and America should continue selling weapons?
A 1:22 civilian-to-target ratio is not proportional. No matter how rationalize who the target is.
As best I can tell, there’s no hard-and-fast established doctrine for determining weight of acceptable collateral damage.
But I’d point out that this guy is probably going to be considered a high-value target, someone that Israel would consider the loss of to have a disproportionate impact on the war relative to an individual infantryman. That is, losing him disrupts command-and-control.
Even if there were some firm number for warfare in an urban environment, like “1:5” or something, his value is probably going to be higher than that. Most countries aren’t going to do F-16 strikes on an individual infantryman, questions of collateral damage aside.
It might be possible to look at the wargaming scoring rules that countries have used in wargaming exercises to try to get a feel for what militaries consider the “military value” of high-level figures relative to an individual soldier, and that might give some idea of what they might consider the ratio to be in a general sense. But my point is just that whatever the ratio is, it’s going to be more than 1.
How many investigations have you heard of personally?
I mean, it’s not really a topic that I’d personally follow. If it’s typical of most countries, there are some, but soldiers tend to get the benefit of doubt, as they’re in dangerous situations, and tend to be granted more leeway than someone in civilian situations are. That is, they aren’t super-common, but do happen.
An Israeli military court has convicted a soldier of manslaughter for shooting and killing a Palestinian assailant who was already incapacitated.
The shooting happened in the occupied West Bank in March of 2016, and was captured on camera.
The judges found that 20-year-old Sgt. Elor Azaria acted in cold blood when he shot and killed Abdel Fattah al-Sharif, NPR’s Joanna Kakissis reports from Jerusalem:
"Al-Sharif had been shot and wounded after stabbing an Israeli soldier. Eleven minutes later, Azaria shot the motionless Al-Sharif in the head.
But that just goes to the argument that they do happen. As to this particular situation, as I said in my prior comment, I do not expect that Israel will find the people who bombed the guy to have acted inappropriately.
Okay. I don’t really see the significance here. The US hasn’t placed any restrictions on Israel here, and I wouldn’t expect it to have done when it sold it.
Israel has a fair bit of US hardware in its inventory, so you’d expect to see that, and a JDAM is a pretty common weapon.
The US doesn’t object to Israel fighting Hezbollah.
Like, there’s no “gotcha” here.
It’d be odd if Israel had specifically avoided using JDAMs.
EDIT: And I’m sure that Israel’s used plenty of US-made weapons aside from that. That bomb was probably dropped from an American-made aircraft. They were firing artillery in the conflict, and I’m sure that at least some of those rounds were American-made. It looks like Israel has a domestically-made Tavor issue rifle, but also a bunch of American-made rifles. Probably a long list of other items.
checks Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Israel_Defense_Forces
The “gotcha” is that these weapons are being used to kill civilians. Which is illegal under US and international law.
No, it is not. It’s illegal to perform certain actions that kill civilians under the Geneva Conventions, but there is no blanket prohibition on killing civilians in war, which is why Hamas locating facilities under civilian buildings doesn’t provide them with a legal shield.
That is incorrect. It is very much illegal.
Under International humanitarian law a party to the conflict is prohibited from wilfully killing or murdering a civilian.
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Export Control Act lay out clear requirements for the use of American weaponry – Israel has egregiously violated those rules.
Read your link. Collatoral damage is explicitly permitted:
https://elearning.un.org/CONT/GEN/CS/UNHR_V3/Module_01/story_content/external_files/Examples of definitions of humanitarian law violations.pdf
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/middle-east/un-refugee-chief-says-airstrikes-in-lebanon-have-violated-humanitarian-law
https://www.commondreams.org/news/israel-united-nations
And in what way do you deem this attack proportional or the civilians killed as collateral? They targeted a Hezbollah politician, NOT a combatant mind you. Missed. And killed 22 and injured 122 civilians. This was in no way shape or form proportional or necessary even had they killed him.
Also, note the next paragraph:
Of the 42,000+ murdered civilians in Gaza and the several thousand murdered civilians in Lebanon. How many investigations has the IDF done to follow UN humanitarian law? Or the US for that matter?
Wafiq Safa, the intended target, was the head of Hezbollah’s Security Council.
I can’t dig up much English-language material about the scope of the Council’s responsibilities, and I doubt that there would have much been made public in this conflict, but it’s probably not a stretch that it’s involved in the conduct of the war.
https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/mena/washington-s-hezbollah-targets-a-spymaster-a-beirut-mp-and-the-head-of-a-parliamentary-bloc-1.884850
It sounds like he was severely-injured, albeit not killed. I don’t think that that’d have much bearing on the matter, though.
I’d guess that there are probably going to be investigations, stuff like murder or rape. I don’t expect that you’re going to have the people here found to have acted inappropriately, though.
A 1:22 target-to-civilian ratio is not proportional. No matter how you rationalize who the target is. This argument is not a valid justification.
How many investigations have you heard of personally? Is the absence of a guilty verdict from a terrorist-state on its own soldiers what’s allowing you to say there are no war crimes going on and America should continue selling weapons?
As best I can tell, there’s no hard-and-fast established doctrine for determining weight of acceptable collateral damage.
But I’d point out that this guy is probably going to be considered a high-value target, someone that Israel would consider the loss of to have a disproportionate impact on the war relative to an individual infantryman. That is, losing him disrupts command-and-control.
Even if there were some firm number for warfare in an urban environment, like “1:5” or something, his value is probably going to be higher than that. Most countries aren’t going to do F-16 strikes on an individual infantryman, questions of collateral damage aside.
It might be possible to look at the wargaming scoring rules that countries have used in wargaming exercises to try to get a feel for what militaries consider the “military value” of high-level figures relative to an individual soldier, and that might give some idea of what they might consider the ratio to be in a general sense. But my point is just that whatever the ratio is, it’s going to be more than 1.
I mean, it’s not really a topic that I’d personally follow. If it’s typical of most countries, there are some, but soldiers tend to get the benefit of doubt, as they’re in dangerous situations, and tend to be granted more leeway than someone in civilian situations are. That is, they aren’t super-common, but do happen.
kagis
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/04/508162405/israeli-soldier-convicted-of-manslaughter-for-killing-wounded-palestinian
But that just goes to the argument that they do happen. As to this particular situation, as I said in my prior comment, I do not expect that Israel will find the people who bombed the guy to have acted inappropriately.