The Rules of War

Recent reports have come out from Israeli sources suggesting a need for changes in the rules of war in light of the growth of terrorism, especially with regard to the increased use of guerilla tactics from civilian population centers which essentially blend civilian and military.

Well, naturally, the Israelis say that they essentially have their hands tied and have no way to protect their civilian population if they can't effectively fight against these ridiculous tactics. Critics are of course saying that Israelis requesting changes to the rules of war all but prove that Israel committed war crimes during Operation Cast Lead.

To both of these groups, I say shut up and stop spouting nonsense.

Has anyone actually ever read the "Rules of War." Try searching for "rules of war" on wikipedia or google. The list of conventions and treaties is really freaking long, so let's do a bit of detective work to see what the rules say, and how they should be interpreted. Of the entire list of wikipedia, the 4th Geneva Convention appears to be what is actually applicable. Here's a link to the text of the convention.

As is the custom of every official document, manuscript, treaty, law, bill, etc, it's written to be as difficult as possible to read with as many possible interpretations to satisfy everyone's whim. Okay. Maybe I am exaggerating a bit, but I'm not that far off.

Article 18 gives the standard spiel that you cannot shoot at hospitals. Sounds good. Article 19 says:

The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded.

The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet been handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy.

Let's say Hamas or Hezbollah or whoever decides to built a military bunker underneath a hospital (note: this isn't actually hypothetical; according to IDF sources which I'm too lazy to find a citation for, it's fact). At what point in time can you say these acts are 'harmful' to the enemy? Is it okay to plan an attack from a hospital? I assume we all agree it's not okay to pick up a gun and start shooting from your 2nd story hospital window. Based on the wording of the 2nd paragraph, one does assume that storing rockets in the hospital is not okay.

But here's the real trick. The wording doesn't say that these violations allow a Power to attack the target, it just says that the "protection ... shall not cease unless..." There is no statement about how to proceed once these violations occur. There is also no mention of the criminality of even using the hospital for non-protected behavior.

Continuing onto Article 20, we see that Medical personnel are entitled to wear and display the emblem (presumably the standard red cross) which places them under the umbrella of protection. These personnel must also carry identification with them to prove their status. It seems pretty straight forward, right?

WRONG!

What happens when a terrorist organization starts driving around the city in an Ambulance with rockets in the back? We all clearly understand that this is a blatant abuse of the rules specified, but how are we supposed to respond. All of the sudden, a Power can no longer assume that ambulances and medical personnel are who they say they are. It's still illegal to prevent medical personnel from getting to wounded, but at the same time, now it is no longer obvious that an ambulance is in fact an ambulance.

There is nothing at all written or suggested (that I can find) that helps explain the 'appropriate' course of action. Israel would obviously maintain that they are now allowed to control ambulance movement, or at the very least stop and search these types of vehicles, and it would be hard to argue otherwise. Now consider that some of the alleged Israeli war crimes are ambulances and medical personnel not being allowed into certain areas in a timely manner. Whose right? Whose wrong?

It's actually not at all obvious. I would say that the Israeli army should set up checkpoints, check medical personnel, and if they are legit, let them pass. Now of course we can keep getting further and further into the nitty gritty.

What if people have forged documents? What about the times where you don't have the military personnel to do searches of every ambulance? Do you let them all in? None of them? I don't have a good answer.

The only thing I am sure of is that is that these ambulances should never have been used for rockets and bombs in the first place. Do yall agree? Let me know what you think.

Can the 4th Geneva Convention be clarified better? Probably. Who should be responsible for civilian casualties in these situations. It doesn't really say. Israel would maintain that clearly those abusing the emblem of medical personnel are in the wrong. I can't disagree with that statement at all. It's clearly true that abusing those emblems is not acceptable. Israel maintains that because of these 'violations' (in quotes because the 4th convention doesn't appear to specify the legality and/or repercussions, but it's possible other conventions do, or I simply didn't see it), it has the right to more tightly control ambulance movement. I think that I agree with that assertion, but the rules of war don't really seem to cover this scenario.

May the rules don't need to be changed; they need to be clarified.

Let's continue to article 28:

The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

That's a rather vacuous statement. Don't use civilian populations to try to protect your military operations. That's what the article says. It doesn't say what to do when a group does this. It implies that it is legal to conduct military operations in these areas where civilians are essentially being used as human shields. At some point in time, or in some document, I assume there is a statement that says the Power shall make all attempts to mitigate loss of civilian life in these situations, mainly because I here news agencies repeat this line until they are blue in the face. However I never hear a real quotation, and I certainly don't know who decides what is a reasonable attempt to mitigate loss of life.

It's not clear. That's stupid.

Clearly, it is wrong to use a civilian as a human shield. Clearly it is wrong to hide behind this human shield so that you can kill other civilians. At what point in time, and under what circumstances is it okay to kill both the terrorist and the shield? I'm glad I don't have to make that call. It seems like a difficult one to make.

With all of this in mind. Is it so unreasonable to request that the rules of war be changed? Perhaps it is more reasonable to ask that appropriate conduct with relation to the rules of war be reviewed in these types of situations to assess what is and is not okay.

Hey, did you know that Israeli lawyers actually argue about this stuff before certain attacks that they perform? Unfortunately, it's not something that can be argued about during the heat of battle in all cases. Asking to change the rules of war is perhaps an attempt to make more clarifications regarding specific actions in light of the difficulties in fighting a military group ingrained in a civilian infrastructure.

It doesn't seem like it's an admission of guilt to me. It also seems stupid to be so vague about what you want.

Let's hear your thoughts...