conflict
High death toll does not mean Israel’s violating international law
From the MacDonald Laurier Institute
By Sarah Teich and Brian L. Cox
Many critics of Israel seem to be operating under a misunderstanding of the law of armed conflict.
The seven-day truce between Israel and Hamas ended on Dec. 1. Since the fighting resumed, calls to keep Israel accountable to international law have been intensifying, including, most recently, from Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly, who said that Canada will “support any form of accountability systems … at the international level that will look into” Israel’s conduct. On Tuesday, Canada voted for a ceasefire in Gaza at the United Nations, which will likely further embolden critics of Israel’s military operations.
Critics stand ready to lambaste Israeli military forces for the destruction of civilian infrastructure and civilian deaths, even accusing Israel of war crimes and genocide. Yet these criticisms often involve a distortion of the facts and a distortion of the law.
Oct. 7 was the single most brutal massacre against Jewish people since the Holocaust. The images and videos of the massacre are horrific. Women were paraded half-naked through the streets of Gaza; babies were ripped from the arms of their mothers and burned alive; elderly Holocaust survivors were terrorized and abducted. Approximately 1,200 people were killed and over 200 taken hostage in attacks orchestrated and carried out by Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization that receives funding and training from the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In the weeks that followed, and as Hamas continued to launch rockets indiscriminately at Israeli cities, Israeli forces initiated extensive ground, air and sea operations in Gaza, with the aim of dismantling Hamas and retrieving the hostages. These goals are, presumably, incredibly difficult for Israeli forces to achieve without risking harm to civilians, given that Hamas is known to use Palestinian civilians as human shields. Deaths in Gaza, according to local authorities, have surpassed 18,000.
There is a general prohibition on the use of force in international law. Unprovoked wars of aggression are illegal. States are, however, generally permitted to use force when acting in self-defence and with necessary, proportionate objectives. It is apparent that, following Hamas’s attack on Oct. 7 and continued indiscriminate rocket fire at Israel, Israel’s goal of dismantling Hamas and retrieving hostages would be considered necessary and proportionate objectives justifying the use of force. These strategic objectives comply with jus ad bellum, the body of law that governs when force may be initiated.
International humanitarian law, or jus in bello, governs the conduct of armed hostilities, even in the context of a lawful war. This is the law of war, or the law of armed conflict, and it applies to all parties to a conflict. Under the law of armed conflict (LOAC), the proportionality rule prohibits engaging in an attack “when the expected incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage that is anticipated from the attack.”
Credibly determining that a violation of the LOAC proportionality rule has been committed requires evidence of the incidental harm anticipated and the military advantage expected at the time by those responsible for planning or conducting the attack. This assessment is difficult — if not impossible — to accomplish reliably based only on information available in the public domain.
Many critics of Israel seem to be operating under a misunderstanding of the law of armed conflict. As summarized by Charles Kels, senior attorney for the United States Department of Homeland Security and a judge advocate in the U.S. Air Force Reserve, there is a disturbing trend wherein academics and others conflate jus ad bellum and jus in bello.
What those who make this mistake are saying, writes Kels, “is that even if a state is acting in self-defence with a lawful objective, and even if their forces abide by (the laws of war) in military operations, they still have a legal obligation to stop fighting if civilian casualties are too high.” This is not the law, nor should it be.
The death toll in Gaza cannot be taken lightly. However, the magnitude of civilian harm alone is not a reliable indicator of compliance with international law. The fact that Hamas embeds itself within civilian populations, and actively prevents civilians from leaving dangerous areas, likely needlessly heightens the death toll.
International law prohibits deliberately making civilians the object of attack. Israel has committed publicly to complying with international law throughout this operation, just as it has done in the past. In contrast, Hamas has targeted, and continues to target, Israeli civilians with indiscriminate attacks. Hamas refuses to release all the hostages it abducted, which constitutes an ongoing serious violation of international law.
Accountability for atrocity crimes is something that should be encouraged, across the board. However, efforts should focus on the most likely perpetrators and the most egregious crimes. Hamas can and should be held accountable for its ongoing crimes against Israelis and Palestinians, and Israel should be supported as it defends itself in accordance with the law.
Sarah Teich is an international human rights lawyer, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and a legal advisor to Secure Canada. Brian L. Cox is a visiting scholar at University of Ottawa School of Law, a lecturer at Cornell Law School and a retired U.S. Army military lawyer.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Jake Smith
A second wave of blasts swept through Lebanon on Wednesday as more communication devices used by Hezbollah suddenly exploded, according to several reports.
Hand-held radios used by Hezbollah terrorists abruptly exploded in southern Lebanon and the country’s capital of Beirut on Wednesday, according to Reuters. It marks yet another blow to Hezbollah, which the day prior had a large number of its terrorist fighters’ pager devices abruptly explode, causing thousands of injuries.
The devices that detonated on Wednesday appeared to be walkie-talkie devices rather than pagers, according to The Wall Street Journal. The exact size and scope of the attack are still unclear, but at least nine people have been killed and 300 have been injured, The Associated Press reported.
A #Hezbollah walkie talkie explodes at a funeral today in #Lebanon after yesterday’s exploding Hezbollah pagers. pic.twitter.com/b8TIfUUBKq
— Jason Brodsky (@JasonMBrodsky) September 18, 2024
Israel is believed to be behind the coordinated and remote attack on Tuesday, though that has not been confirmed by the Israeli or U.S. governments, according to multiple reports. Explosive devices were reportedly planted into the pagers before they made their way out of a supply and manufacturing chain — which initially was suspected to be in Taiwan — and were shipped to Hezbollah in recent months, according to American and other officials who spoke to The New York Times.
The Taiwanese company in question has denied that it produced the pagers, saying that they were manufactured under license by a company based in Hungary, according to Reuters.
The walkie-talkies that detonated on Wednesday were reportedly also shipped to Hezbollah in recent months, a security source told Reuters.
Significant damage appears to have been made to a motorcycle after a Hezbollah radio exploded. pic.twitter.com/57JfoWDmaQ
— Joe Truzman (@JoeTruzman) September 18, 2024
The official Lebanese news agency also reported that a number of home solar energy systems exploded in Beirut on Wednesday, though it’s unclear whether it was connected to the string of walkie-talkie detonations, according to multiple reports.
Hezbollah has frequently attacked Israel since Oct. 7, the date Hamas invaded Israel and killed roughly 1,200 people. The Hezbollah attacks have created a turbulent situation along the Israeli-Lebanese border and prompted Israeli forces to launch cross-border counterattacks.
Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant reportedly told a U.S. envoy on Monday that the time for a diplomatic solution had “passed because Hezbollah continues to tie itself to Hamas and refuses to end the conflict,” according to Axios.
conflict
With Only Months Left In Term, Biden Is Starting To Run Out Of Options In Russia-Ukraine War
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Jake Smith
As the clock ticks down to January — the end of President Joe Biden’s sole term — the Biden-Harris administration is trying to figure out how to aid Ukraine against Russia with limited and dwindling options.
The Russia-Ukraine war has dragged on for more than two years, and though the Biden administration has devoted over $175 billion in economic and military aid to help Ukraine, it has done little to shift the tides in Kyiv’s favor. The Biden administration, unlikely to receive any more funding for aid from Congress, is looking at alternative choices including loosening weapons restrictions and allowing Ukraine to strike further inside of Russia, The Wall Street Journal reported.
The new policy would only apply to European and other Western weapons, not U.S. systems, according to multiple reports. Secretary of State Antony Blinken hinted on Wednesday that such a move was on the table and strongly being considered.
Lifting the restrictions would represent a major shift in approach from the Biden administration, which has been wary of allowing Ukraine to use Western-provided weapons for deep strikes inside Russia up to this point.
But Ukraine is likely to want more from the Biden administration than being allowed to use European weapons for long-range strikes. Specifically, Ukraine wants to use American-made Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) to strike Russia, given the high quality and range of the system, though the administration may be more unlikely to grant that request.
Besides loosening weapons restrictions, the administration has few other options. Though Biden was able to sign off on a congressionally approved $60 billion aid package for Ukraine in April, Congress isn’t expected to grant any more funding for the war between now and January, limiting the amount of assistance the administration can provide.
The Russia-Ukraine war has largely stalled out, with neither side conceding substantial territory to the other, although Ukrainian forces have recently made a surprising incursion into southern Russia and captured hundreds of miles of territory.
“They see this as part of their strategy to defend themselves, to develop leverage,” the senior administration told the WSJ.
Behind closed doors, however, administration officials are worried that Ukraine is dedicating too many forces to the incursion and stretching thin its forces trying to hold the front line against Russia, according to the WSJ. Russian forces have also begun a counteroffensive against Ukrainians spearheading an incursion, risking further escalation in the war.
Biden’s top aides realize the odds that Ukraine can secure a military victory against Russia by January are near zero, according to the WSJ. The Biden administration is not pressuring Kyiv to negotiate a peace deal with Russia, even though some lawmakers and national security experts believe that is the only way to end the war.
Instead, the administration is choosing to let Kyiv dictate war plans and “improve Ukraine’s strategic position to the greatest extent possible between now and the end of the term,” one senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity given the sensitive nature of the matter, told the WSJ.
The Biden administration has been under scrutiny for its handling of the Russia-Ukraine war, with critics fearing that there is no strategy to end the war or push Ukraine toward a military victory, which itself seems unlikely. The U.S. has slowly become more involved in the war but it has done little to move the needle while Ukraine’s manpower continues to be exhausted.
The administration’s strategy “sounds an awful lot like a recipe for another endless war [because it is] unable to send enough weapons to make a decisive difference on the battlefield, and they don’t have a clear sense of what the endgame should be,” Rachel Rizzo, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told the WSJ.
Border Patrol Agent Lashes Out At Biden-Harris Admin, Calling Job ‘Migrant Concierge Service’ Amid Border Crisis
Farm for food not fear
Companies Are Getting Back To Business And Backing Away From DEI
Jordan Peterson agrees to social media ‘training’ mandate to defend free speech for all Canadians
-
Alberta24 hours ago$8.6 billion committed: Province to fund up to 30 new schools and 8 modernizations in each of next 3 years
-
National2 days agoCanada’s 2nd ‘Million Person March for Children’ against gender ideology to take place Friday
-
Addictions1 day agoWATCH: “Government Heroin” documentary exposes safer supply scandal in London, Ontario
-
Daily Caller18 hours agoBiden-Harris Admin’s Multi-Billion Dollar Electric School Bus Program Is A Huge Gift To China, House Report Finds
-
Daily Caller2 days agoBiden Admin Touts Reduction In Border Crossings While Flying In Hundreds Of Thousands Of Migrants
-
Crime1 day agoBiden-Harris Admin Adds China To Illicit Drug Watchlist After Touting Cooperation In Fighting Fentanyl Crisis
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day agoAustralian woman fired, dragged before tribunal for saying only women can breastfeed
-
Daily Caller16 hours agoUnion Bigwigs Decline To Endorse Anyone For President Despite Rank-And-File Members Overwhelmingly Backing Trump