Oh Buffalo.. Where shall I begin..
The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.
Yes.. Do you have proof that Hamas has explicitly directed the movement of the civilians to act as shields? Thus far, they are being accused of using civilian areas to launch rockets. Does that render those civilian areas, dwelling, hospitals, schools as military targets? No, it does not. That is why I pointed out to you that both Hamas and the IDF have been accused of using the civilian population as human shields. There have been reports, posted in this and other threads, of IDF forcing themselves into people's houses (civilian dwellings), locking the family downstairs while they base their operations upstairs in the dwelling. Does that mean that civilian dwelling is automatically a military target for Hamas?
Let me point out to you Article 52 (2):
2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military of advantage.
The dropping of a bomb on a house because a member of Hamas resides in it does not make it a military target, nor is it a military objective. Article 52 (3):
3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.
You do realise that you are highlighting sub-sections of Article 57 which Israel is accused of violating, aren't you?
Israel has to take particular care to ensure the safety of the civilian population. And while Hamas is within the civilian population, or more to the point, their movements in Gaza are amongst the civilian population, dropping huge bombs and using artillery that is designed for massive destruction is not ensuring the safety of the civilian population.. ergo, the IDF is not taking care to protect the civilian population when they completely destroy a civilian dwelling to kill one member of Hamas that is in that building or near it. Do you get it now? They have not, in the weapons they are using, minimised the civilian casualties when they have bombed the bejesus out of civilian dwellings, schools, hospitals, UN site, places of worship. On the contrary, the ordinance they have used are solely designed for massive casualties and destruction of whatever it is they are targeting.
All of the highlighted parts allow for the attack of military targets in civilian zones and presence, and the deaths of civilians are allowed under conditions out lined.
So while they have the right to defend themselves, the manner in which they have done so
is in direct violation of their obligations under the Geneva Convention in regards to the protection of the civilian population. For example, Article 57 (2)(b):
(b) An attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;
Do you get it now? You are not applying Article 57 as it is meant to be applied. While it grants Israel the right to defend itself, it does so with express intent that the civilian population is to be protected at all times and if, as section 2(b) states, it becomes obvious that the target they are planning to attack is not a military one, but a civilian one or if their attacks is expected to cause "incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof", the attack "shall be cancelled or suspended".
It is sections and subsections such as the above which points out Israel's flagrant disregard for the Convention itself, which is why I was astounded that you had resorted to it to attempt to justify Israel's actions.
Therefore, what you are stating grants Israel the right to defend itself, primarily sub-section 7 of Article 57, does so in accordance with the whole article. While Israel can defend itself, even in areas where the target is amongst the civilian population, it must do so in a manner in which the civilian population is protected at all times and attacks must be conducted in a manner to reduce the chance of casualties amongst the civilian population. Therefore, destroying a whole building, bombing a school or hospital, a house, mosque, is not conducive to the reduction of harm or danger to the civilian population. For example, if they drop a one tonne bomb on a civilian dwelling containing civilians and possibly one or two members of their enemy, it is not complying with Article 57, or with Article 52. Do you know why? Because their attack was not designed to reduce the number of civilian casualties. The same applies to their bombing the school, when they claimed that Hamas were launching rockets from the school grounds (which they later rescinded).. Shelling a school, used at the time to shield civilians from the war, is in direct violation of the Convention. Why? Because they took no care to ensure the protection of the civilian population in the manner in which they launched their attacks.
Article 52 is very clear. I would suggest you acquaint yourself with it. Article 57 is also clear. While sub-section 7 does give the right to Israel to defend itself, Article 7 is not to be taken apart from the convention itself, in that it does not render the rest of the Convention as being void.
