ACLJ responds to the following assertion by Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights:
“We have received deeply disturbing reports that many of the civilian casualties, including of children, occurred as a result of strikes on homes. Such reports raise serious doubt about whether the Israeli strikes have been in accordance with international humanitarian law and international human rights law.”
The UN-accepted definition of a legitimate military target is to be found in Section 52(2) of the First Additional Protocol of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions:
Military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military of advantage.
This is qualified in Section 52(3) as follows:
In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.
What emerges clearly from the above is that civilian buildings may be legitimate military targets if they are being used to make an effective contribution to military action. These include houses and other dwellings if so used.
Since the modus operandi of Hamas is to use civilian buildings for most, if not all of its military activity, the civilian buildings so used, including homes, become legitimate targets for attack.
At this stage the UN High Commissioner has no way of knowing whether any particular building targeted by the Israeli military was or was not being used by Hamas or other militant groups for military purposes. If the High Commissioner’s sources of information are the residents of those buildings, she should recognize that they have a vested interest in denying any knowledge of such military use. Thus the High Commissioner is in no position to express “serious doubts” about the legality of any particular Israeli attack. Use of the term “serious doubts” to denote what is simply a lack of information is no more than an expression of bias against Israel.
On the other hand, let us consider what we do know about Israeli strikes on residential buildings so far:
Based on the above, we respectfully suggest to the High Commissioner that the benefit of any “doubts” she may have, be given to Israel.
 Israel is not a party to this Protocol (neither, for that matter is the USA). This means that Israel is not bound by this definition other than to the extent that it reflects Customary International Law. However, for the sake of this discussion, we will assume that the said definition is applicable.
 This practice by Hamas is a violation of international law. See Art 58 of the First Additional Protocol:
The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible:
(a) Without prejudice to Article 49 of the Fourth Convention, endeavor to remove the civilian population,
individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives;
(b) Avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas;
(c) Take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian
objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations.
Also, under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 8: “Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” is a war crime.
 These include the Israel Supreme Court, the Attorney General, and the IDF Military Advocate General.
One of the more ridiculous aspects of the decades-long Middle East “peace process” is the belief that the so-called 1967 borders between Israel and Arab-held territory represent the foundation for a lasting piece. It’s never been true, it’s not true now, and there’s no realistic indication it will...
Late last week, a number of media outlets reported that the Obama Administration may be considering “sanctioning” Israel, an unthinkably destructive act against our closest Middle East ally? But is the report true? American media outlets source their suspicion back to this report , from Haaretz ,
Yesterday, the University of California’s student-worker union (UAW Local 2865) voted on whether to join the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. While we don’t yet know the results of the vote, we do know that its supporters have been making deceptive legal arguments...
Next week the University of California student-workers union, UAW 2865 (yes, it’s affiliated with United Auto Workers), will vote on its Joint Council’s motion to boycott, divest, and sanction Israeli institutions. This motion is absurd on its face, but if it has any teeth at all it’s also illegal.