[Pants-of-dog]

The article states that 17 out of 26 warnings reviewed had significant errors that could easily cause enough confusion to put civilians in harm’s way.

Then examples of such errors were provided. Including the family that was sent into an area that was bombed more than their refuge that they moved from because of the warnings.

It is not speculation to assume that the family did so because they thought that they would be safer following their understanding of the warning. Nor is it speculation that they were confused since they told the reporters exactly that.

[wat0n]

So the 26 warnings the BBC reviewed do not constitute a random sample of all warnings given.

If they are so misleading, how did most civilians successfully evacuate anyway? Particularly when Israel moved onto Rafah.

[Pants-of-dog]

There is no evidence that the 26 warnings reviewed were not random.

Nor is there evidence that any civilians evacuated successfully due to these orders.

[wat0n]

Oh really? So what sampling frame did the BBC use to select those warnings?

The evidence is that civilians were successfully evacuated to and then from Rafah. Nobody disputes this, by the way.

[Pants-of-dog]

The evidence asked for, and which has not been provided, is evidence showing that the IDF has provided useful warnings for 50%+1 of all attacks.

[wat0n]

It also did that.

After all, the IDF warned the civilians to evacuate the localities that were attacked in advance. Such warnings are sufficient under international law.

[Pants-of-dog]

There is no evidence that has been presented in this thread showing that the IDF have given out warnings to civilians in 50%+1 of all attacks.

In fact, the evidence has shown that the majority of warnings given had significant errors that, in some cases, sent civilians into harm’s way.

[wat0n]

You have yet to prove the BBC drew a random sample of the leaflets the IDF dropped in Gaza.

I will also note that even those leaflets fulfill the legal requirements of effective warnings.

And I will also note that Israel has in fact warned Palestinians to evacuate before launching operations in Gaza's localities.

Interpretation

As the rule indicates, State practice considers that a warning is not required when circumstances do not permit, such as in cases where the element of surprise is essential to the success of an operation or to the security of the attacking forces or that of friendly forces.[16] Necessary speed of response is another consideration cited in practice as relevant to determining the feasibility of warnings.[17]

Furthermore, the rule provides that warnings must only be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population. Hence, the UK Military Manual considers that no warning is required if no civilians are left in the area to be attacked.[18] The US Air Force Pamphlet states that no warning is required if civilians are unlikely to be affected by the attack.[19]

Some practice was found to interpret the requirement that a warning be “effective”. The United States, in particular, has stated that a warning need not be specific and may be general in order not to endanger the attacking forces or the success of their mission. It has also stated that such a general warning can consist of a blanket alert delivered by broadcast advising the civilian population to stay away from certain military objectives.[20]

State practice indicates that all obligations with respect to the principle of distinction and the conduct of hostilities remain applicable even if civilians remain in the zone of operations after a warning has been issued. Threats that all remaining civilians would be considered liable to attack have been condemned and withdrawn.[21]

The rest seems to just be obfuscation, given the actual state practice on the matter.

[Pants-of-dog]

If someone wants to prove the BBC did not draw a random sample of the leaflets the IDF dropped in Gaza, they can do so.


I will also note that the quoted text clearly mentions an expert on this field who pointed out that those leaflets do not fulfill the legal requirements of effective warnings since they are not actually effective.

And I will also note that there is no evidence that the IDF and Israeli government have warned Palestinians to evacuate before launching operations in Gaza's localities in many attacks. Including the most devastating attack on civilians: the attack on the residential towers in Al Yarmouk in Gaza City on October 25th.

[wat0n]

If someone wants to prove the BBC did not draw a random sample of the leaflets the IDF dropped in Gaza, they can do so.

It's the other way around.

It's the BBC that needs to prove it drew a random sample of leaflets. To do so, the first step is for them to say what their sampling frame was.

I will also note that the quoted text clearly mentions an expert on this field who pointed out that those leaflets do not fulfill the legal requirements of effective warnings since they are not actually effective.

And I will note that their "expert" goes against the ICRC's registered state practice on the matter, which is a far more authoritative source. And I can also find experts who believe Israel's warnings have likely been effective.

And I will also note that there is no evidence that the IDF and Israeli government have warned Palestinians to evacuate before launching operations in Gaza's localities in many attacks. Including the most devastating attack on civilians: the attack on the residential towers in Al Yarmouk in Gaza City on October 25th.

Another thing that the ICRC's text says is that there are cases in which there is no obligation to warn civilians. What was targeted in that attack?

Although Israel did warn civilians, as early as October 7 itself, that it would hit targets in Gaza.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please show were the expert was wrong when they said that evacuation orders that were so confusing as to be ineffective do not fulfill the demand for warnings.

[wat0n]

It seems @Pants-of-dog doesn't even read the sources, even when the text is quoted and bolded. Warnings do not even need to be specific at all.

[Pants-of-dog]

So the expert was not wrong. The consistent inaccuracies in IDF warnings may render them so ineffective as to be in violation of the international law.

Looking again at the attack on the residential towers, the IDF killed at least 129 civilians. There was no warning given, as fas as I can determine.

Is there any evidence that any of the extenuating circumstances were present at the time?

Was there, for example, some sort of necessary level of surprise to bomb a civilian residential building?

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog could actually explain 1) who's this expert, 2) why is this expert right, 3) why shouldn't one consider what the ICRC has to say on this matter.

He could also 1) show at least 129 people died in the attack, 2) show they were all civilians

And if course he could also provide evidence that the BBC drew a random sample of those leaflets. Like, for example, sharing with us what sample frame it used.

[Pants-of-dog]

The expert is named in the article.

Telling me to repeat the evidence is asking me to spam the thread, which is against forum rules. I am not going to do so.

The articel was quoted here:
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=184118&start=2180#p15325719

The name and title of the expert, as well as her summary, was bolded in the article.

The 129 confirmed civilian deaths can be found here:
https://www.spiegel.de/international/wo ... 17cef81f8c

And now that we have that out of the way, we can consider what the ICRC has to say on this matter.

And to do so, we have to see if there is any evidence that any of the extenuating circumstances mentioned in the ICRC summary were present at the time.

There seems to be none,

[wat0n]

The expert is named in the article.

Telling me to repeat the evidence is asking me to spam the thread, which is against forum rules. I am not going to do so.

The articel was quoted here:
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=184118&start=2180#p15325719

The name and title of the expert, as well as her summary, was bolded in the article.

She isn't even a lawyer

The 129 confirmed civilian deaths can be found here:
https://www.spiegel.de/international/wo ... 17cef81f8c

How does it prove each and every one of the dead were civilians and that there were at least 129 of them? I will note that the article, if anything, cites a higher figure than the UN, Hamas' own government and pretty much everyone else based, partly, on social media posts.

And now that we have that out of the way, we can consider what the ICRC has to say on this matter.

And to do so, we have to see if there is any evidence that any of the extenuating circumstances mentioned in the ICRC summary were present at the time.

There seems to be none,

Even your own source above says Israel gave a general warning to the civilian population to evacuate the Rimal neighborhood, and Gaza City as a whole. Did you even read it?