"Siege warfare is always a war crime"--This is legally inaccurate. Again, call your lawyer when he graduates from law school. That you "don't give two shits" about defining genocide tells everyone you have no legal opinion worth reading. Polish Jewish Shoah survivor Raphel Lemkin invented the term and drafted the UN statute. If you don't like the definition, draft your own and submit it to the UN. Maybe the Somali, Ugandan, South African and Iranian on the ICJ and the UN Human Rights Commission might like it.
"Sieges are not prohibited as such under either IHL or other areas of public international law. Under IHL, the besieging party is entitled to attack forces and other military objectives in besieged areas, and to limit supplies that reach them. However, in doing so it must comply with all relevant rules of IHL: the few that specifically refer to sieges, as well as the generally applicable rules that regulate the conduct of hostilities and afford civilians protections and safeguards."
The use of human shields, which Hamas' leaders have openly confessed to as their strategy, is certainly a war crime. From the UN statute and the UCMJ that commands US military personnel to follow it:
The parties should if feasible warn civilians of an impending attack:
Effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit. API, Article 57(2)(c).
The prohibition of using civilians (and civilian objects) to render military objectives immune from attack is absolute:
The use of human shields is prohibited. CIL Study, Rule 97; CIL Study Practice Relating to Rule 97.
The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. GC IV, Article 28. This rule applies to civilians as well as combatants who are hors de combat, such as prisoners of war. No prisoner of war may at any time be sent to, or detained in areas where he may be exposed to the fire of the combat zone, nor may his presence be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. GC III, Article 23. Note: the Geneva Conventions in general protect only those individuals who are “in the hands of a Party … of which they are not nationals,” which may limit their application to individuals who are utilized as human shields by their co-nationals. GC IV, Article 4.
The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations. API, Article 51(7).
Under no circumstances shall medical units be used in an attempt to shield military objectives from attack. Whenever possible, the Parties to the conflict shall ensure that medical units are so sited that attacks against military objectives do not imperil their safety. API, Article 12(4).
The use of protected persons (including civilians or POWs) as human shields can constitute a war crime."
The use of protected persons (including civilians or POWs) as human shields can constitute a war crime
This is the case before the ICC and other international/hybrid tribunals: For the purpose of this Statute, ‘war crimes’ means: … Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations. ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii); see also UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15, Section 6.1(b)(xxiii).
Prosecuting this crime before the ICC requires proof that:
The perpetrator moved or otherwise took advantage of the location of one or more civilians or other persons protected under the international law of armed conflict.
The perpetrator intended to shield a military objective from attack or shield, favour or impede military operations. ICC Elements of Crimes, Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii).
3. Likewise, U.S. military commissions can prosecute:
Any person subject to this chapter who positions, or otherwise takes advantage of, a protected person with the intent to shield a military objective from attack, or to shield, favor, or impede military operations, shall be punished, if death results to one or more of the victims, by death or such other punishment as a military commission under this chapter may direct, and, if death does not result to any of the victims, by such punishment, other than death, as a military commission under this chapter may direct.
Elements:
(1) The accused positioned or took advantage of the location of a protected person;
(2) The accused did so with the intent to shield a military objective from attack or to shield, favor, or impede military operations; and
(3) The act took place in the context of and was associated with armed conflict. U.S. Manual for Military Commissions (Jan. 18, 2007).
The use of human shields is not included as a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions or Additional Protocol I. See GC IV, Article 147; API, Article 85 (listing other grave breaches giving rise to individual criminal responsibility). However, the ICRC lists this conduct as a crime regardless of conflict classification. Rule 156, CIL Study. https://www.justsecurity.org/35263/human-shields-ihl-legal-framework/
AIPAC: They haven't yet paid my invoice. Neither have Soros, Rothschild or the other Elders of Zion. Well, you know how Jews are with money.
