Keith,

Art.85(3) relevantly provides:

‘In addition to the grave breaches defined in Article 11, the following acts shall be regarded as grave breaches of this Protocol, when committed wilfully, in violation of the relevant provisions of this Protocol, and causing death or serious injury to body or health:’

The term ‘wilfully’ [Art.85(3)] provides that a person/state is only criminally liable for an act or omission which they intended, and imports the criminal onus and standard of proof [Art.75(4)(a)-(j)]. I suggest that a much more compelling argument would be required to even invoke it [Art.85(5)]. Israel would be in compliance with; and cognizant of; its legal obligations [Art.82].

The sentence quoted [Art.51(2)]; insofar as it proscribes criminal liability for any attack complying with it; is validly quoted, albeit in a slightly abrogated format (word restrictions). True it is that the Article does not authorise attacks on civilians [Art.57(5)], but neither does it preclude attacks [Art.51(7)] against legitimate targets, which offer a concrete military advantage [Art.52(2)] and which are neither indiscriminate /disproportionate to the anticipated benefit [Art.51(5)(b)].

Important note, the Geneva Conventions regulate warfare, they were never intended to prevent it per se. Israel is not attacking civilians directly, they are simply in the immediate vicinity of legitimate targets, which have been located in civilian areas [contra Art.51(7)], which does not diminish the legitimacy of their target status [Art.52(2)]. In fact, Israel is under pressure from its army to provide that any civilian choosing to stay after being warned [Art.57(2)(c)] loses their civilian status [Art.51(3)] by providing protection to Hizbollah [37(1)(c)].

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/743027.html

Alternatively, their failure/refusal to leave after being warned, amounts to a ‘voluntary’ assumption of risk, rendering Hizbollah liable for any injury or death accruing from the placement/positioning of material, arms and combatants [Art.52(2)], and for their failure to remove the civilians [Art.58(a)-(c)]. Israel can validly deem an area evacuated of non-combatant’s once sufficient warning is provided [Art(s).51(3), 51(7), 52(2) & 57(2)(c)].

Keith, you are fundamentally misconstruing the situation, it is not for me to justify criminality [Art.75(4)(d)], it is for others to attempt to prove it [75(4)(a)-(j)].

Inshallah

2bob

Philo, I must agree with your thoughts on Marilyn, “She has no concept of protecting Western freedom and democracy from despots.”

Marilyn like you, sees only one side of the equation neglecting the others. The biggest despots we face, are those backed by god, christian USA, zionist Israel and muslim arabs. These 3 are equal in their desire to destroy democracy, replacing it with theological dictatorship of the world.

2 bob says he doesn't believe the jewish invasion and destruction is a criminal act and even though the wording does support it as being criminal, typical of monotheists, he can only see his own self righteous blindness in deference to reality and innocent suffering.

Its very understandable why this is happening, you have 3 factions of an infantile moronic despotic psychopathic belief, filled with superstitious and fear, determined to be right at any cost. The only outcome as we have seen throughout history, is destruction

OLO is pumping out as much supporting articles of israel as it can, which only goes to show how lacking in veracity this zionist devilry is. Six hours of bombing a UN post, is no accident nor is destroying Lebanon. It just shows how ridiculous the believers in god are and to what lengths they are prepared to go, to be right.

Lets hope this is the final death throes of monotheisms power on the planet, although I expect it will escalate beyond most peoples understanding first. Finally resorting to WMD including nuclear to be right and wiping each other out.
Inshallah

"According to the Lebanese police force, the two Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanese territory, in the area of Aitaa al-Chaab, near to the border with Israel, where an Israeli unit had penetrated in middle of morning," said the AFP. And the French news site www.VoltaireNet.org reiterated the same account on June 18, "In a deliberated way, [Israel] sent a commando in the Lebanese back-country to Aitaa al-Chaab. It was attacked by Hezbollah, taking two prisoners."

The Associated Press departed from the official version as well. "The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them," reported Joseph Panossian for AP on July 12. "The forces were trying to keep the soldiers' captors from moving them deeper into Lebanon, Israeli government officials said on condition of anonymity."

And the Hindustan Times on July 12 conveyed a similar account:

"The Lebanese Shi'ite Hezbollah movement announced on Wednesday that its guerrillas have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon. 'Implementing our promise to free Arab prisoners in Israeli jails, our strugglers have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon,' a statement by Hezbollah said. 'The two soldiers have already been moved to a safe place,' it added. The Lebanese police said that the two soldiers were captured as they 'infiltrated' into the town of Aitaa al-Chaab inside the Lebanese border."

Whether factual or not, these alternative accounts should at the very least raise serious questions as to Israel's motives and rationale for bombarding Lebanon.

Counterpunch July 26

Inshallah 2bob

Again you selectively quote. You quote only those parts of Article 85 that suit Israel and portray her as an angel.

Since you claim
‘Israel has complied with its obligations under International Law, especially ‘Geneva Convention 1949’,

try justifying Israel’s actions in the West Bank and Gaza.
Try these apples, sections of Article 85 that you ignore.

4(a) ‘the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory, in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth ‘

and

4(e) depriving a person protected by the Conventions or referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article of the rights of fair and regular trial.

But back to Lebanon, mate you are delving into the detail and forgetting the big picture. Artillery and tank barrages on townships and cities indiscriminately kill civilians and destroy civilian property and infrastructure. Watch the tv pictures of the barrages originating from inside Israel. Nothing can justify that.

Oh 2bob

‘Read some of the articles on this site, and please tell me, and the rest of the forum, why Hizbollah should be saved by a ceasefire?’

Why after 15 days of relentless attack, destruction and invasion Israel has succeeded in advancing only one kilometre into Lebanon, why Israeli reservists have today mobilised, why the Israeli Cabinet is meeting to increase the force being used, why the US are suggesting the Shaba Farms be returned to Lebanon and, most importantly, how today the mauled and beaten Hezbollah managed to fire 150 rockets into Northern Israel. NOTE that is more than have ever been fired before.

Explain how escalating the violence has led to an escalation of violence and will lead to a further escalation of violence?

The only possible losers apart from Israeli and Lebanese civilians are the Israeli Defence Force. They will be seen to not be able to beat a bunch of terrorists.

Why do you continue to try to justify their criminal folly?

"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."

- Philo

Western freedom and democracy are under far more threat from governments keen to capitalise on the climate of fear to extend their power.
The right to a fair trial was once seen as an unassailable right. Now we don't grant it to those that the powers that be define as terrorists, even though we've yet to pin down precisely what constitutes a terrorist, leaving the way open for extensive abuse.

In America, we've seen the 'Patriot Act'. If there's ever been a prime example of what constitutes the Bush administration, this is it - nasty deeds dressed in the veils of patriotism and conservative rhetoric.

Here in Australia we have much of the same with new sedition laws and worse.

Philo, the Middle East conflict is not black and white, and you can't just paint the enemy as 'evil'. Both sides here are guilty. Throughout history wars have been fought on the battlefield, but those wars can only be won once the powers that be have convinced the masses that the enemy they fight is less than human.

There have been horrific deeds committed by hezbollah, I won't doubt it. But the Israelis aren't the innocent heroes either, and the Americans certainly aren't the crusaders you would like to believe.

Those you are so quick to condemn were all once children too. I urge you to meet those children, and say to their face that it's okay to bomb them, they're just terrorists.
While you're at it, why don't you take a tally of the number of westerners that have died in oil wars compared to the number of arabs and show it to them. It's much harder to look them in the face than to press a button and have a bomb land on them.

War was better when you had to see the price of your actions.

Actually Alchemist I do only see one side of things, you are quite right. I see the side of the people being slaughtered without cause.

So that makes me inferior does it? When we in the west claim some high moral ground called protecting our freedoms by inflicting maximum misery on others we have no high moral ground.

In this case the west has blown up 4 muslim nations in the past 5 years. Why on earth would they be grateful?

And Alchemist, I am just as disgusted with Hezbollah as with the IDF - no-one can claim to be a human being or respecter of human rights and be so barbaric as to kill any other human being.

They are all savages - it's just that if you want shades and degrees we in the so-called civilised west win the barbarism stakes hands down.

Reading Timothy Garton Ash this morning was a treat - he says we must take the blame and he is quite right. Israel only exists in the centre of the arab world because the moral west didn't want the Jews.