#Hamas must take precautions against effects of attack by, to maximum extent feasible, avoid locating mil objectives w/i densely populated areas & take other necessary precautions to protect the civ population against dangers resulting from mil ops (pic 1).* @IDF must direct their ops only against mil objectives (pic 2). When Hamas fails to comply w/#LOAC passive precautions rule by deliberately embedding fighters & mil objectives among civ population, extensive incidental harm is predictable result - even if IDF complies w/distinction & other relevant doctrinal LOAC rules. Hamas routinely & deliberately commits war crimes & has no mechanism to investigate/prosecute violations committed by its own fighters. IDF has MAG Corps & other gov't functions to support robust investigation/prosecution functions & persistently monitors conduct of mil & security forces. I'll save for another day contentious issue of @IntlCrimCourt PTC I unilaterally determining it could exercise its criminal jurisdiction in the Situation in the "State" of Palestine. Arguably ICC has no place investigating or attempting to prosecute any violations allegedly committed in 🇮🇱 or 🇵🇸. Aside from issue of ICC prosecutions, this is a significant problem with characterizing armed conflict rules as requirement to "protect civilians." Determining "compliance" w/this version of "rules" is inherently subjective & based on observed outcomes. Actual obligation is to comply w/rules as they exist in doctrine. Here, Hamas must take passive precautions (which they deliberately don't) while @Israel must direct operations against fighters & mil objectives (which will predictably result in extensive incidental harm even when they do, based on Hamas tactics). This is also the (or, a) significant problem w/constantly drawing false equivalencies btw terrorist group & armed forces of a(n) (actual) state. Terrorists don't attempt to hold themselves accountable by investigating/prosecuting LOAC violations since they...deliberately commit serious LOAC violations. Military of (actual) state has inherent incentive to comply w/LOAC & mechanisms to compel compliance. The real question @Alonso_GD is why you can’t articulate doctrinal LOAC rules & analyze observed conduct based on these doctrinal formulations? * These LOAC provisions are reflected in treaty, AP I, that doesn't apply to current conflict. Even so, many provisions constitute customary int'l law. I suggest it is uncontroversial to conclude the provisions captured in screenshots & mentioned above constitute customary law. https://bird.makeup/@alonso_gd/1873173443560260034
See Tweet