Return to Question

Article 51 of Protocol I to the Geneva Convention, (protocol to which Israel is not a signatory) puts the following constraints on attacks in civilian areas:

Article 51 — Protection of the civilian population

5 b) an attack which 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.

7. 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.

Question: Israel, to neutralize Hamas and defend itself, is having to carry out military operations in Gaza, which is a very densely populated mixed-urban area, against a not necessarily well-identifiable enemy which will likely do its best to blend and embed itself within the larger civilian population (thus contravening the second part of the quote) If, like seems likely, ground combat takes place, Israel will do its best to minimize losses in its soldiers.

For a number of reasons, not least recent extreme Hamas atrocities being likely to loosen Israeli restraint, this is pretty much a worst case scenario for risks to civilians.

What measures, if any, has, and can, the international community take to best ensure and encourage that Israel remains as sparing with Gaza civilians as it can be, yet keep its ability to exercise its right to self-defense?

Has, for example, the UN deployed any staff, in a watchdog role, if not on location? Is it planning to? Will anyone be carrying out the same types of assessments as Ukraine and Russia are being subjected to in their war (for what that is worth)?

What ways are there around the US's UN veto, if it comes to that? (that is very much part of this question, considering how UN vetos work).

This question is concerned with combat operations, airstrikes and ground combat in Gaza. The siege declared by Israel, which contravenes Geneva Conventions, is out of scope - it has its own question - except as it can be noted to already have received a condemnation from UN officials. Which is one way the international community can influence events, by noting transgressions (by both parties of course, but terrorist groups are less amenable to international pressure than democratic nation states).

p.s. This is a controversial subject, and I am open to rewording suggestions, within reason.

p.p.s. re. debates aboup pop density. London: 5,598/km2. Gaza: 6,507/km2. from wikipedia.

Article 51 of Protocol I to the Geneva Convention, (protocol to which Israel is not a signatory) puts the following constraints on attacks in civilian areas:

Article 51 — Protection of the civilian population

5 b) an attack which 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.

7. 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.

Israel, to neutralize Hamas and defend itself, is carrying out military operations in Gaza, which is a very densely populated mixed-urban area, against a not necessarily well-identifiable enemy which will likely do its best to blend and embed itself within the larger civilian population (thus contravening the second part of the quote) If, like seems likely, ground combat takes place, Israel will do its best to minimize losses in its soldiers.

For a number of reasons, not least recent extreme Hamas atrocities being likely to loosen Israeli restraint, this is pretty much a worst case scenario for risks to civilians.

What measures, if any, has, and can, the international community take to best ensure and encourage that Israel remains as sparing with Gaza civilians as it can be, yet keep its ability to exercise its right to self-defense?

Has, for example, the UN deployed any staff, in a watchdog role, if not on location? Is it planning to? Will anyone be carrying out the same types of assessments as Ukraine and Russia are being subjected to in their war (for what that is worth)?

What ways are there around the US's UN veto, if it comes to that? (that is very much part of this question, considering how UN vetos work).

This question is concerned with combat operations, airstrikes and ground combat in Gaza. The siege declared by Israel is out of scope.

(The population density of London is 5,598/km2; Gaza is 6,507/km2, according to Wikipedia.)

Article 51 of Protocol I to the Geneva Convention, (protocol to which Israel is not a signatory) puts the following constraints on attacks in civilian areas:

Article 51 — Protection of the civilian population

5 b) an attack which 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.

7. 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.

Question: Israel, to neutralize Hamas and defend itself, is having to carry out military operations in Gaza, which is a very densely populated mixed-urban area, against a not necessarily well-identifiable enemy which will likely do its best to blend and embed itself within the larger civilian population (thus contravening the second part of the quote) If, like seems likely, ground combat takes place, Israel will do its best to minimize losses in its soldiers.

For a number of reasons, not least recent extreme Hamas atrocities being likely to loosen Israeli restraint, this is pretty much a worst case scenario for risks to civilians.

What measures, if any, has, and can, the international community take to best ensure and encourage that Israel remains as sparing with Gaza civilians as it can be, yet keep its ability to exercise its right to self-defense?

Has, for example, the UN deployed any staff, in a watchdog role, if not on location? Is it planning to? Will anyone be carrying out the same types of assessments as Ukraine and Russia are being subjected to in their war (for what that is worth)?

This question is concerned with combat operations, airstrikes and ground combat in Gaza. The siege declared by Israel, which contravenes Geneva Conventions, is out of scope - it has its own question - except as it can be noted to already have received a condemnation from UN officials. Which is one way the international community can influence events, by noting transgressions (by both parties of course, but terrorist groups are less amenable to international pressure than democratic nation states).

p.s. This is a controversial subject, and I am open to rewording suggestions, within reason.

p.p.s. re. debates aboup pop density. London: 5,598/km2. Gaza: 6,507/km2. from wikipedia.

Article 51 of Protocol I to the Geneva Convention, (protocol to which Israel is not a signatory) puts the following constraints on attacks in civilian areas:

Article 51 — Protection of the civilian population

5 b) an attack which 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.

7. 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.

Question: Israel, to neutralize Hamas and defend itself, is having to carry out military operations in Gaza, which is a very densely populated mixed-urban area, against a not necessarily well-identifiable enemy which will likely do its best to blend and embed itself within the larger civilian population (thus contravening the second part of the quote) If, like seems likely, ground combat takes place, Israel will do its best to minimize losses in its soldiers.

For a number of reasons, not least recent extreme Hamas atrocities being likely to loosen Israeli restraint, this is pretty much a worst case scenario for risks to civilians.

What measures, if any, has, and can, the international community take to best ensure and encourage that Israel remains as sparing with Gaza civilians as it can be, yet keep its ability to exercise its right to self-defense?

Has, for example, the UN deployed any staff, in a watchdog role, if not on location? Is it planning to? Will anyone be carrying out the same types of assessments as Ukraine and Russia are being subjected to in their war (for what that is worth)?

What ways are there around the US's UN veto, if it comes to that? (that is very much part of this question, considering how UN vetos work).

This question is concerned with combat operations, airstrikes and ground combat in Gaza. The siege declared by Israel, which contravenes Geneva Conventions, is out of scope - it has its own question - except as it can be noted to already have received a condemnation from UN officials. Which is one way the international community can influence events, by noting transgressions (by both parties of course, but terrorist groups are less amenable to international pressure than democratic nation states).

p.s. This is a controversial subject, and I am open to rewording suggestions, within reason.

p.p.s. re. debates aboup pop density. London: 5,598/km2. Gaza: 6,507/km2. from wikipedia.