It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A high-ranking officer has acknowledged for the first time that the Israeli army went beyond its previous rules of engagement on the protection of civilian lives in order to minimise military casualties during last year's Gaza war, The Independent can reveal.
The officer, who served as a commander during Operation Cast Lead, made it clear that he did not regard the longstanding principle of military conduct known as "means and intentions" – whereby a targeted suspect must have a weapon and show signs of intending to use it before being fired upon – as being applicable before calling in fire from drones and helicopters in Gaza last winter. A more junior officer who served at a brigade headquarters during the operation described the new policy – devised in part to avoid the heavy military casualties of the 2006 Lebanon war – as one of "literally zero risk to the soldiers".
Israel in Gaza: The soldier's tale
This experienced soldier, who cannot be named, served in the war room of a brigade during Operation Cast Lead. Here, he recalls an incident he witnessed during last winter's three-week offensive:
"Two [Palestinian] guys are walking down the street. They pass a mosque and you see a gathering of women and children.
"You saw them exiting the house and [they] are not walking together but one behind the other. So you begin to fantasise they are actually ducking close to the wall.
"One [man] began to run at some point, must have heard the chopper. The GSS [secret service] argued that the mere fact that he heard it implicated him, because a normal civilian would not have realised that he was now being hunted.
"Finally he was shot. He was not shot next to the mosque. It's obvious that shots are not taken at a gathering."
In addition, international instruments exist that relate to the protection of civilians in time of war. These instruments should be considered as they may assist the Refugee Division in determining what constitutes permissible conduct by combatants toward non-combatants, and they may therefore assist the Refugee Division in determining whether the conduct constitutes persecution. These instruments include, but are not limited to:
1. Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949 (the "1949 Convention")
2. Protocol II to the 1949 Convention ("Protocol II")
Article 3 of the 1949 Convention prohibits in relation to non-combatants certain acts including:
* violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
* taking of hostages;
* outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.
Article 4 of Protocol II prohibits in relation to non-combatants certain acts including:
* violence to the life, health and physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular murder as well as cruel treatment such as torture, mutilation or any form of corporal punishment;
* collective punishments;
* taking of hostages;
* acts of terrorism;
* outrages on the personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, rape, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault.
Article 13 of Protocol II provides that the "civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations." To give effect to this protection, certain rules, including the following are to be observed:
* the civilian population, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack;
* acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civil population are prohibited.
Originally posted by star in a jar
Not only do I think that the Geneva Convention is outdated, it was never followed by any sides in any war, it's not just outdated- it's useless.
War is just a useless, wasteful mess, and both sides know that they will always be immune to any kind of consequence for not following the Geneva Convention, because they are the ones with the guns and the bombs and nobody can tell them what they can or can't do.