• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed Israel/US Attacks Iran /Yet Another Country/Iran

arthwollipot said:
You are wrong, and now you are deliberately lying. You are using misrepresentation to make my entirely reasonable view that everybody in this situation is a moral monster sound like I am the moral monster. Why? Why do you lie about me? What do you have against me personally that you want to make me look like the worst person in the world? What did I ever do to you? When did I lie about you?

You think I'm taking it personally? Damn right I am. You have made it personal by deliberately and maliciously lying.
Click to expand...
Israel has a moral obligation to to fight through its enemy's human shields.
 
theprestige said:
Okay so connect it. Connect Oct 7 back to the question of whether Hamas should be entitled victory if they use human shields.
Click to expand...
Never claimed they were entitled to a victory. In fact Hamas cannot be victorious against Israel. All they can do, is respond and retaliate.
 
Hercules56 said:
Patients being treated at a hospital, are not "human shields".
Click to expand...
They certainly can be human shields, if a belligerent makes the hospital a military target. That's why using a hospital for military purposes is a war crime, but attacking a hospital with a military presence is not.

But tell it to Arth. He's the one saying Hamas is using human shields.

Besides, I'm talking about a general principle. You're free to argue about whether a specific case meets the standard.
 
Hercules56 said:
Never claimed they were entitled to a victory.
Click to expand...
Well that's what arth and I are debating. Honestly I'm not understanding your struggle. It's a pretty simple yes-or-no question. Yes, it's ethical to fight through an enemy's human shields, or no, it isn't. I say it is. What do you say?

Hercules56 said:
In fact Hamas cannot be victorious against Israel. All they can do, is respond and retaliate.
Click to expand...
They can if they're allowed to prevail because they use human shields and it's not acceptable to fight through those shields.
 
theprestige said:
They certainly can be human shields, if a belligerent makes the hospital a military target. That's why using a hospital for military purposes is a war crime, but attacking a hospital with a military presence is not.

But tell it to Arth. He's the one saying Hamas is using human shields.

Besides, I'm talking about a general principle. You're free to argue about whether a specific case meets the standard.
Click to expand...
A human shield can happen two ways:

#1. By force. Soldiers force civilians to protect them against enemy fire, against their will.

#2. By choice. Civilians can choose to be in the same location as militants so as to protect the militants.


People legitimately seeking medical attention at a hospital, cannot be human shields. Are they FORCED by Hamas to be there? No.

Are they honestly seeking medical attention? Yes. Do they know that Hamas is using the hospital as a base of operations? Prove it.

Do the civilians have an easily accessible alternative for medical attention? Prove it.

Ive seen no evidence of any of this. Seems more likely that Israel likes to destroy civilian infrastructure and civilians.
 
Hercules56 said:
All armies have a legal and moral obligation to do their utmost to avoid civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure.
Click to expand...
No. Not their utmost, and not to avoid all civilian casualties and damage.

In fact, all armies have a moral (and almost always legal) obligation to win the war, even if that means some civilian casualties and damage.

The moral and legal obligation you're misremembering is the moral and legal obligation to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties and damage, and to cause such collateral damage only in proportion to the military value of their objective.
 
Hercules56 said:
A human shield can happen two ways:

#1. By force. Soldiers force civilians to protect them against enemy fire, against their will.

#2. By choice. Civilians can choose to be in the same location as militants so as to protect the militants.


People legitimately seeking medical attention at a hospital, cannot be human shields. Are they FORCED by Hamas to be there? No.

Are they honestly seeking medical attention? Yes. Do they know that Hamas is using the hospital as a base of operations? Prove it.

Do the civilians have an easily accessible alternative for medical attention? Prove it.

Ive seen no evidence of any of this. Seems more likely that Israel likes to destroy civilian infrastructure and civilians.
Click to expand...
#3. By deception. This is your scenario.
 
theprestige said:
Yes, which is why Hamas bears the moral burden if they use a hospital as a military facility.

Note that no army is required to give up military advantage or lose a battle just because the other side puts civilians in harm's way.
Click to expand...

You act as though every single military target in Gaza is a hospital full of human shields.
 
Hercules56 said:
You act as though every single military target in Gaza is a hospital full of human shields.
Click to expand...
Not at all. I'm saying that when human shields are used, the side using them bears the moral responsibility if they come to harm. The side that has to choose between losing a battle or fighting through the shields does not bear that responsibility, if they choose to fight through the shields.

That's a basic principle of ethical warfare, that I believe in wholeheartedly. Whether it applies in all cases of collateral damage in Gaza is a different question.

And - AGAIN - tell it to Arth. He's the one saying Hamas is using human shields.
 
theprestige said:
Not at all. I'm saying that when human shields are used, the side using them bears the moral responsibility if they come to harm. The side that has to choose between losing a battle or fighting through the shields does not bear that responsibility, if they choose to fight through the shields.

That's a basic principle of ethical warfare, that I believe in wholeheartedly. Whether it applies in all cases of collateral damage in Gaza is a different question.

And - AGAIN - tell it to Arth. He's the one saying Hamas is using human shields.
Click to expand...
The International Committee for the Red Cross has done a thorough analysis on the issue of human shields, and what the obligations are of the opposing army:


page 899.

The possibility to attack a military objective protected by human shields,or the use of a classic proportionality test?One question that may arise at the outset is whether the fact that the adverse partyhas violated its obligations under international humanitarian law by using humanshields releases the other party from some of its own obligations. However, thiscannot be so in view of the unanimously accepted non-application of the tu quoqueprinciple (principle of reciprocity) when it comes to international humanitarianlaw.71 Article 51(8) of Protocol I states that ‘[a]ny violation of these prohibitionsshall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respectto the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.’ The obligation incumbent on abelligerent state to spare the civilian population and take the measures prescribedto that effect does not therefore depend on the adversary’s compliance with the banon using human shields. However, although the attacking party is under a constantobligation to spare civilians, including human shields, that does not mean that itmust in all cases abstain from attacking a military objective protected by humanshields. Just as the presence of military objectives in an area occupied by the civilianpopulation does not rob those people of their civilian status,72 an ‘objectif militairedemeure un objectif militaire meˆme si des civils se trouvent a` l’inte´rieur’73 or in itsimmediate vicinity. Military objectives protected by human shields do not cease tobe legitimate targets for attack simply because of the presence of those shields.It follows that when a commander asks himself whether or not he canattack such a military objective, he must reason as in the case of any other legitimate military objective an attack on which runs the risk of causing collateraldamage to civilians who, in this case, are the human shields protecting the target.An attack will be possible if and only if the potential damage to civilians is not‘excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated’.74This means that the expected civilian losses must be weighed against the size of theconcrete military advantage to be anticipated if the military objective is neutralized.75 The attacker is also obliged to take precautions as required by Article 57of Protocol I.76 The presence of human shields will not therefore systematicallyprevent an attack – even if conducting an attack despite their presence may have aconsiderable media and political impact. This is something that should be madewidely known, particularly to potential voluntary human shields.The case of involuntary human shieldsIf the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated proves sufficiently significant in relation to the potential damage to the human shields, the attack maytake place. The appraisal must be in concreto and must always take into account themilitary advantage, which can shift, for example over time (a bridge of fundamental importance one day may have little strategic significance the next daydepending on where the front line lies at the time), and the extent of collateraldamage that will be caused to civilians. The extent of that damage may depend,among other things, on the number of civilians likely to be affected. A particular military advantage may thus be regarded as sufficiently important to justify anattack on a military objective protected by five people being used as human shields.However, if the object is protected by five hundred human shields, the outcomeof the deliberation may change. In practice then, there is no doubt that in certaincases, the attacked party can effectively protect the military objective by placingsufficient human shields on or around it! Some authors understandably rejectthis conclusion, which they consider shocking, and recommend human shieldsnot be taken into account by a commander applying the proportionality principle while preparing for or deciding on an attack.

So yes, according to the ICRC, targets protected by human shields CAN and MAY be attached by the opposing army, if a thorough analysis of the harm vs benefit possibility is worth it. Say Hitler was protected by 500 human shields, obviously the harm of such a strike, if guaranteed to take out Hitler and end the war was deemed certain, would be a necessary and worthwhile sacrifice. However if a low-level Hamas private is protected by 25 children, no sane person would or could argue that such a strike and intended military advantage outweighs the likely loss of life of 20 innocent children.

Although the IDFascists might.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom