Mothra said:
The reason I asked you to quote the specific language of the GC you are referencing is because I wanted to see exactly what the language says. You've still haven't done so, so I looked it up for myself.
The language you are referencing is stricter, as well as more nuanced, than what you are suggesting. You appear to treat the destruction of civilian property that isn't "absolutely necessary" as automatically unlawful. That's an oversimplification.
Article 147 defines "grave breaches" (the most serious violations), not all violations. Indeed, the relevant legal standard you've referenced (without quoting) is whether destruction is "rendered absolutely necessary by military operations", otherwise justified under "military necessity and proportionality." As I've repeatedly argued, punitive demolition can be viewed as a form of lawful security measure, not "unlawful violence." In short, your position assumes that the demolition is purely punitive. But Israel's stated justification is deterrence preventing future attacks. As any lawyer well knows (and I know you are not), that matters legally.
Indeed, the GC is quite clear that nation states are permitted to take preventive security measures against ongoing threats. I would submit that If a policy is aimed at deterring imminent or recurring attacks, it can be framed as part of military necessity, not arbitrary or unlawful punishment. You don't have to agree with the policy to see the legal distinction: collective punishment (clearly illegal) vs. deterrent security measure tied to an ongoing conflict (indeed, Hamas' has remained at war with Israel, with its stated goal of annihilation of the Israeli nation state. You make your argument under the first prong, when there is clearly an alternative to the interpretation you see as patently obvious (newsflash: it's not).
As for your position that the GC or international law provide that a state can only destroy property if there is no other conceivable option, that simply isn't in any way accurate. Military necessity generally allows actions that provide a definite military advantage (as here), and are not otherwise prohibited. A state could certainly argue that suicide bombings or attacks are hard to deter through conventional policing, that harsh deterrents reduce future attacks and, therefore, demolition contributes to military/security objectives. Now, you may dispute whether that works, but legally, effectiveness and intent matter.
As for your quibbling with my referring to terrorism, if you recall, you are the poster that started out this discussion by calling Israeli demolition of homes of mass murderers terrorism. Your position that the act constitutes terrorism, as you originally argued (but now seem to be abandoning, after being called out) is by far the weakest. You define terrorism as unlawful violence plus political purpose. Even if we assumed for sake of argument that the act was unlawful, your "political purpose" prong is being stretched to the absurd. By your logic, any state action aimed at influencing behavior (deterrence, sanctions, policing) becomes "terrorism." A state attempting to prevent violence is simply not the same as a group using violence to cause loss of life and spread fear as a primary tactic. Intent matters, but you seem to conflate the two.
In short, your legal reasoning is incomplete and overconfident rather than "cut and dry," as you've attempted to paint it.
At the end of the day, you're damn right I do make a moral judgment on which side's objectives and goals are moral and just, as opposed to taking your more wishy-washy "nuanced," and quite frankly, cowardly approach. I make no apologies for that. I would rather take a stand for what I believe is right rather than lay in the weeds like like you and Sam, taking potshots at a country fighting for the right to exist against an enemy that uses terrorism and targets civilians, while refraining from criticizing the terrorist organization seeking the nation state's destruction. That fact doesn't mean I support everything Israel does, as I've already stated. But on this specific discussion, you're just not able to make a persuasive argument to fit your narrative.
Even if you don't see it that way, you seem to admit that you are not being objective about this, or, to whatever extent you had objectivity, it seems to go out the door once you have decided which side is more moral and just. The Palestinians believe they are fighting for their right to exist on land taken away from them... And I just don't want to be involved with either side. So this is more of an academic exercise than anything else at this point. That said...
*I have told you from the jump that your proposed course of "blow up the dead terrorist's house to send a message" is less interesting to me, and it only serves as a micro example of the much larger issue
when such a strategy is pursued at scale. Under Article 147, the intentional destruction of hospitals when part of a pattern of systematic attacks against hospitals has been charged as a war crime constituting a "grave breach".
*You said:
Quote:
You define terrorism as unlawful violence plus political purpose. Even if we assumed for sake of argument that the act was unlawful, your "political purpose" prong is being stretched to the absurd. By your logic, any state action aimed at influencing behavior (deterrence, sanctions, policing) becomes "terrorism."
Any state action aimed at influencing behavior WHEN COMBINED WITH UNLAWFUL VIOLENCE is terrorism. It isn't just the goal of influencing behavior; it is the goal of influencing behavior PLUS unlawful action = terrorism. It is not just the the intent in of itself. E.g., I do not believe the death penalty after full due process is terrorism (lawful state action + intent of influencing behavior is *NOT* terrorism). I do not think killing Hamas members is terrorism. On the other hand, summary execution by the state in the absence of immediate threat and due process for the purpose of deterring future crime is terrorism.
You are the one who is stretching definitions here. Virtually any act can be framed as a deterring action during war. There is no discernable limiting principle here. So please offer your limiting principle.
I quoted the IDF general above who explicitly said the approved plan is that disproportionate force of total destruction will be used against any village from which an attack on Israel is launched. You haven't objected to that.
So, if it is okay to destroy the dead terrorist's home in the name of deterrence, it is okay to destroy the apartment complex his home was located in (around 80% of all housing stock in Gaza is multifamily and I am unaware of any bombs that only damage the apartment in question but leave the rest of the apartment complex undamaged)?
If it is okay to destroy the apartment complex is it okay to destroy the city block?
If it is okay to destroy the city block is it okay to destroy the neighborhood?
If it is okay to destroy the neighborhood is it okay to destroy the district?
If it is okay to destroy the district is it okay to destroy the city?
If it is okay to destroy the city is it okay to destroy province?
If it is okay to destroy the province is it okay to destroy the entire territory?
If it is okay to destroy the entire territory is it okay to destroy the entire political entity?
If it is okay to destroy the political entity is it okay just kill all its people?
You just tell us where the line is for you. This is strictly a judgment call, so I won't fight you on it. I just want to know where the line is for you.
You said
Quote:
As I've repeatedly argued, punitive demolition can be viewed as a form of lawful security measure, not "unlawful violence."
It simply cannot be viewed as a lawful security measure under the GC. Take a look at Article 33.
Quote:
Article 33:
No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.
