it still needs to comply with international laws,
Israel does comply. And no pimply keffiyeh wearer ever comprehends that it is Hamas and it followers that is violating International Humanitarian Law.
For your education:
What is Israel doing to respect International Humanitarian Law in Gaza?
Under International Humanitarian Law, Israel is fully justified in responding to Hamas’ attacks. Here is a breakdown to show why.
Necessity
Israel is exercising its inherent right of self-defense, enshrined in the UN Charter, in response to Hamas’s attacks. That right doesn’t end with the elimination of the hundreds of terrorists that infiltrated Israel on October 7. Israel is entitled to continue exercising this right until it eliminates the ongoing threat posed by Hamas.
Distinction
The IDF adopts a strict approach to distinguishing military targets from civilian ones, which roughly parallels the U.S. military’s approach. Only people who directly participate or provide the financing/supplies for a specific attack are to be treated as military targets.
The IDF’s approach protects the vast majority of Gazan civilians. The IDF also traditionally requires multiple sources to verify a target. When striking, the IDF employs multiple tactics to ensure civilians are least likely to be in the area and minimize the collateral effects of the blast.
Prior to carrying out airstrikes, the IDF also takes significant precautions to give civilians notice to evacuate an area and avoid harm, including dropping Arabic language leaflets and sending mobile phone alerts to civilians in strike zones, alerting them to the impending attacks and urging them to leave the area.
If civilians do not evacuate, the IDF uses a tactic known as “knocking on the roof,” in which it fires a non-explosive or low-yield projectile as a warning at the strike zone to further incentivize evacuations. The IDF also uses munitions designed to precisely target specific military objectives and reduce collateral damage.
Proportionality
The IDF’s response to Hamas’ use of civilians as human shields in Gaza is one of the clearest examples of its adherence to the proportionality principle. The IDF characterizes involuntary human shields as civilians in its proportionality calculations, in keeping with the majority view of the international community. When an IDF soldier is unable to determine whether a person is functioning as a human shield voluntarily or involuntarily, he or she presumes the shielding is involuntary.
Israel frequently aborts military operations against verified military targets when it determines civilians remain in the area—even after it has warned such civilians and encouraged them to evacuate. IHL experts have described seeing the IDF implement this policy in practice, for instance watching IDF commanders call off strikes during the 2021 conflict because civilians had remained in place after receiving warnings.
The IDF requires that military lawyers review all decisions regarding targets and strikes to ensure Israel is complying with international law. The IDF also empowers military lawyers to make decisions on operational law issues and by placing military lawyers outside the chain of command so they are not subordinate to the commanders they are advising. Unlike in many countries, the Israeli Supreme Court can also review operational decisions.
What is Hamas doing to violate International Humanitarian Law in Gaza and Israel?
The savage attack on Israeli civilians by Hamas terrorists on October 7 was an egregious violation of International Humanitarian Law that amounts to war crimes. Moreover, the Iran-backed terror group continues to put the civilian residents of Gaza at risk of harm. Here is a breakdown to show why.
Distinction
Hamas violates the distinction principle by deliberately attacking Israeli civilian population areas. The deliberate murder - including of entire families and as many as 40 babies in a single location - the abduction of dozens of hostages from at least ten countries besides Israel, and kidnapping of innocent civilians were not collateral losses from legitimate military action - they were crimes undertaken with the sole objective to terrorize and kill Israeli civilians who should enjoy complete protection from being targeted under International Humanitarian Law. Hamas also violates the distinction principle by launching thousands of rockets at Israeli population centers that cannot distinguish between civilian and military objects.
Hamas has threatened to execute the hostages publicly, which would constitute another violation of IHL.
In Gaza, Hamas locates operational military bases in civilian areas; using its own civilians as human shields, encouraging civilians not to evacuate in response to warnings from the IDF; and weaponizing items and locations such as schools and mosques, which again should be protected under international law. Hamas also violates the principle of distinction by avoiding uniforms and thus failing to distinguish its fighters from civilians.
Proportionality
Because Hamas does not aim its strikes at military targets, its indiscriminate attacks do not qualify as strikes that are necessary to achieve a military objective and therefore violate the standard of necessity in International Humanitarian Law.
Is Israel violating International Humanitarian Law when its actions result in civilian casualties?
Misguided criticism of the IDF on proportionality grounds often stems from a misunderstanding of this term. Hamas employs asymmetric warfare tactics, often seeking to provoke attacks by the IDF which can be portrayed to the media and international community as having been disproportionate so that it can take advantage of this misunderstanding.
When Hamas violates the principle of distinction by carrying out its operations, firing missiles, and working from civilian sites, the particular sites it uses become legitimate military targets. The principle of proportionality in International Humanitarian Law requires that damage to civilians not be excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated from a strike against a military target. Proportionality does not require one party to a conflict to avoid incidental harm to civilians altogether; just as it does not require one party to avoid exceeding its adversary’s losses or limit its use of weapons to the type or quantity of those employed by its adversary. Unfortunately, not every instance in which civilians are harmed reflects a violation of international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law places obligations on all parties to war, and it is incumbent on all observers to consider which party is endeavoring to fulfill its legal obligations and which is deliberately flouting them as a tactic of asymmetrical warfare.
responsiblestatecraft.org
thehill.com
