The Royal Australian Navy maintains a naval base directly next to Sydney/Australia's most densely populated suburb - Potts Point. A submarine base on the opposite side of the harbour in Neutral Bay(?). While it's not a deliberate use of 'human shields', it's equally irresponsible since the outcome of a military strike on these potential targets would have a similar outcome. Let's call up the UN about it..

While we're here, today's readings come from the Book of Deuteronomy:

4:39-40
Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other. Keep his decrees and commands, which I am giving you today, so that it may go well with you and your children after you and that you may live long in the land the LORD your God gives you for all time.

7:1-6
When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations - the Hittites, Girgasites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you - and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

For those who say that all this started when two Israeli soldiers were captured - Are you sure?

Correction - the first paragraph in my above post should read:

The Royal Australian Navy maintains a naval base directly next to Sydney/Australia's most densely populated suburb - Potts Point, and a submarine base on the opposite side of the harbour in Neutral Bay. While it's not a deliberate use of 'human shields', it's equally irresponsible since the outcome of a military strike on these potential targets would be similar. Let's call up the UN about it..

Keith,

Thanks for the reasoned response, now, let’s see;

Israel has provided medical treatment to numerous casualties from the other side (as far as I am aware Hizbollah has not) [Art.10]. Warnings were provided long ago to both Hizbollah & HAMAS regarding medical units [Art(s).12(4); 13(1); 37(1)(d); & 38(1)] and the transport of munitions, reinforcements and explosives [Art.12(4); 37(1)(d); & 38(1)].

Targeting, which I construe as your argument invoking Part IV, relates to civilian areas, which are defined as being areas containing mainly civilians [Art.]. Art.51(2) relevantly provides:

‘Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.’

The primary purpose of the strikes is to destroy identified buildings, from which rockets have been launched, despite the occupants feigning civilian, ‘non-combatant’ status [contra Art.31(1)(c)], in addition to striking command and control sites, infrastructure et al, all of which are legitimate targets [Art.52(2)], which being targeted and using ‘smart’ weapons are neither indiscriminate nor unlimited [Art.51(4)(a)-(c)]. These can be attacked with impunity if, and only if, the foreseeable damage to civilians is not disproportionate to the anticipated military advantage, or legitimate objective, to be gained by the strike [Art.51(5)(b)], as the mere presence of civilian shields does not preclude attack [Art.51(7)].

Places of worship are protected [Art.53(a)] but such protection is lost if they are used to support a combatant [Art.53(b)]. It is clear that the IDF has endeavoured to comply with its obligations to warn and minimize civilian casualties [Art.57(1), (2)(a)(i)-(ii), (2)(c)]. But Hizbollah has made no attempt to comply with its obligations to build defensive & offensive sites in non-civilian locations [Art.58(a)-(c)], which failure/refusal does not preclude them being attacked [Art.51(7)] provided the foreseeable harm is not disproportionate to the anticipated military advantage to be gained from the strike [Art.51(5)(b); contra 57(5)] on a legitimate target [Art.52(2)]. The provision quoted [Art.57(5)] does not preclude attacks [statutes are to be read as a whole] simply providing the minimum precautions to be observed [Art.57-58] by both sides in complying with the protection of civilians [Ch.II, Art(s).50-51].

Nicely done anyway

Inshallah

2bob

Here we go around the mulberry bush again. Wear a burka because they do in Afghanistan - yet when Afghan women escaped to Australia we locked them up, turned them back into the sea, sent them to Nauru or sent them back to Afghanistan, some are still on Lombok after nearly 5 years.

There is no point telling me what all the so-called islamofacists might do or fantasize about doing - they are not doing it and cannot do it for a very simple reason.

The US would nuke them all if they tried. Or Israel would. Give me a break here please. Name one Islamic country that has actively invaded, blown to bits and slaughtered tens of thousands of western cities and civilians in the last few years.

We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and now Israel has invaded the Palestinian occupied territories again and Lebanon again.

The makes us 4, them 0.

Article 51 Section 5 b re excessive. You were being deceptive quoting this subsection to legitimise Israeli war crimes.

Article 51 deals with protection of the civilian population and sub section b deals specifically with indescriminate attacks on civilians.

You've plucked part of the convention, used it out of context and used it to try to justify Israel's illegal invasion and it's use of excessive force.

You should read and apply all sections of article 57. Your claims would clearly be seen as deceptions.

Similarily with Article 57 . By ignoring all the other prohibitions in this Article you are again deceptive. That you even attempt to justify these attacks on civillians shows your contempt for Section 5

Article 57 deals with precautions in attack and section 2 subsection ii deals with the means of attack.

While Israel used some 'smart' bombs much of its attack has been by way of artillery and tank barrage. The latter type is indescriminate.
Now pay particular attention to Section 5.

'No provision of this Article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.'

Which is exactly what you've done.

And 2bob pay particular attention to Article 51 Section 8.

'Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57'

Which is what you also do when you point to Hezbollah breeching the Articles. Israel cannot abandon it's responsibilities just because Hezbollah has.
You see, once Israel abandoned those articles, which you show it has with your argument, Israel become exactly the same as hezbollah ... war criminals. Only difference is the degree... and that so far is heavily weighted and now includes UN Peacekeepers.

Oh and you ignored Article 85 totally...Doesn't it exist?

Yes my arguments are very much stronger than yours...I'm not attempting to justify criminality.

We well recognise Marilyn Shepherd's sympathies to the enemies of democracy. Evidenced by her abbhorance in continual bias of posts degrading America, Britian, Australia and Israel - These in her mind are the enemy of her political position. It is clear why she wants to flood all these democratic nations with Muslim boat people [transmigrants]; she is a activist agent of extremist totalitarian Muslims; so in her mind to capture the world for ALLAH places her in high esteem with Mullahs. She has no concept of protecting Western freedom and democracy from despots.