in this case, yes it is ...its very simple.... here's the formula..... israel is dealing with an enemy that have no consideration for human life...... abolishing israel from existence is their creed...... with such people there is one way out and one way only.... usage of extreme lethal force to eleminate that threat at the expense of anything and everything is the only way out.
Israel is paying a hefty price now withgaza because they "and im sorry to say it" coward out in 2006 against hezbola.... everyone in lebanon in 2006 were counting on israel to wipe out hizbola with the usage of extreme force..... israel didnt.... why? because they were more worried about what the world would say about them then their own safety.
and i say it now.... israel biggest threat isnt gaza ,iran,syria,jordan,egypt.... its hezbolla........ israel should make it clear and simple..... nuking south of lebanon and beirut suburbs asap or hezbola hands out all their armament .. period
no.
The Effect of Shielding for the Other Side
Article 51(8) of Additional Protocol I provides, “Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.” Although the provision mentions only Article 57’s obligation to take precautions in attack to achieve a comparable effect with less risk to civilians, such as striking other targets or using other weapons systems, it logically encompasses other IHL protections. The most important of these are the prohibition on directly targeting civilians (
art. 51(2)) and the rule of proportionality (arts.
51(5) &
57(2)). Since Russia is Party to the Protocol, it cannot argue that military necessity somehow relieved its forces of their targeting law obligations.
The DoD
Law of War Manual agrees (§ 5.16.4) but cautions that the use of shields “may impair the attacking force’s ability to discriminate and increase the risk of harm to protected persons and objects” (§ 5.16.4, see also 5.4.4). This has long been the U.S. position, as noted in the Department of Defense’s
Final Report on the 1991 Gulf War.
As correctly stated in Article 51(8) of Protocol I, a nation confronted with callous actions by its opponent (such as the use of “human shields”) is not released from its obligation to exercise reasonable precaution to minimize collateral injury to the civilian population or damage to civilian objects. This obligation was recognized by Coalition forces in the conduct of their operations.
But then, the Report notes that “this concept tends to facilitate the disinformation campaign of a callous opponent by focusing international public opinion upon the obligation of the attacking force to minimize collateral civilian casualties and damage to civilian objects—a result fully consistent with Iraq’s strategy in this regard.” Indeed, in this conflict, Russia has been engaged in an aggressive disinformation (lawfare)
campaign designed to shift blame for civilian casualties to Ukraine, a campaign to which human shielding might nefariously contribute.
Such concern has led the United States to adopt a cautious stance with regard to the effect of a party’s use of human shielding on its opponent’s military operations. Thus, the DoD
Law of War Manual asserts, “[w]hen the attacking force causes harms that are the responsibility of the defending force due to its use of voluntary human shields or due to the employment of civilian personnel in or on military objectives, the responsibility of the defending force is a factor that may be considered in determining whether such harm is excessive” (§ 5.12.1.4).
www.camera.org
blogs.timesofisrael.com
www.timesofisrael.com
apnews.com
www.jpost.com
