[jiggawatts]

On the flip side, in this war many of the Gaza combatants are either irregular forces or militants deliberately wearing civilian clothing.

So if some guy in a track suit and flip-flops uses an anti tank grenade launcher, discards the empty tube, walks away, and gets lit up, then the next day the Internet is awash with videos of the “IDF murdering a civilian!”

For reference, I think both sides are in the wrong in this conflict, and Israel more than Gaza.

However, the Internet is full of armchair international law experts that are being played like a fiddle by Hamas’ propaganda arm.

Speaking of international laws of combat: no protections apply to non-uniformed combatants pretending to be civilians. None. They can be tortured, executed on the spot, whatever.

If you want protections to apply to you, then wear a uniform or never go anywhere near a gun.

[singleshot_]

While perfidy is a violation of the law of war, summary execution is not a generally-acceptable penalty under IHL.

[bandrami]

Huh? Summary execution has always been the punishment for perfidy under the laws of war.

[elygre]

Do you have a reference for that? Even as perfidy is a war crime, we do not generally allow for summary execution for war criminals.

[bandrami]

ICRC says perfidy places you outside of the bounds of protection of international law:

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule65

[elygre]

I looked at that page before writing my comment.

It says that perfidy is a war crime. However, I don’t see anything supporting summary execution.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_execution says the following:

“Francs-tireurs (a term originating in the Franco-Prussian War) are enemy civilians or militia who continue to fight in territory occupied by a warring party and do not wear military uniforms, and may otherwise be known as guerrillas, partisans, insurgents, etc. Though they could be legally jailed or executed by most armies a century ago, the experience of World War II influenced nations occupied by foreign forces to change the law to protect this group.”

[bandrami]

Sorry I hadn't read the whole thread: I agree the "false colors" sense of perfidy generally is granted due process. I was thinking of the "feigning surrender" sense of perfidy, which is pretty much universally met with summary execution.

[singleshot_]

How would one know perfidy occurred?

The search term that might help here is “previous judgment, pronounced by a regularly constituted court.”

Also: if one is outside of the protection of IHL/LOAC, might other laws protect him?

[bandrami]

This is my fault; I hadn't read the whole thread. There's two acts that constitute perfidy: one is wearing false uniforms or displaying false colors; I agree that isn't usually met with summary execution. The other one is taking back up arms after signalling a surrender. That is absolutely met with summary execution.

[doom2]

> However, the Internet is full of armchair international law experts that are being played like a fiddle by Hamas’ propaganda arm.

And Israeli hasbara? I see a lot of this take, that everyone is just blindly trusting, eg, casualty counts from the Gazan health ministry, but there seems to be very little questioning of and critical thinking about the propaganda the IDF is spreading in this conflict. Why should we take their word for it that killing a bunch of aid workers[1] was just a mistake, for example?

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/israel-idf-air...

[Quanttek]

> Speaking of international laws of combat: no protections apply to non-uniformed combatants pretending to be civilians. None. They can be tortured, executed on the spot, whatever.

Speaking of "armchair international law experts", this is completely wrong.

BLUF: Failing to distinguish does not deprive you of fundamental guarantees of humane treatment, including the prohibition of torture and summary execution - both of which are war crimes.

The individual obligation to distinguish is linked to Prisoner of War (POW) status - those who do not distinguish, do not get the protections of that status. That is the only consequence of the failure to distinguish. All those persons who are not POWs are automatically civilians, as made clear by the residual clause in Article 4(4) Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV). While civilians can be interned for "imperative reasons of security", they are entitled to their own detailed treatment obligations (Articles 79-135 GC IV). In any case, even if they are somehow not entitled to that treatment, the fundamental humane treatment guarantees of Art 27 GC IV [1] and Art 75 Additional Protocol I [2] (which, as customary law, applies to all parties to a conflict) nonetheless apply. If we argue that it is a non-international armed conflict (which knows neither POW status nor the obligation to distinguish), Common Article 3 [3] similarly obligates humane treatment. Humane treatment is also a norm under customary law [4].

Under these rules, you cannot torture people and you cannot summarily execute people [4]. Read the provisions yourself. In fact, summary execution and torture are actual war crimes [5]. If you want to punish a person, you need to give them a fair trial (IHL does not prohibit the death penalty).

You seem to be hinting at the Bush-era "illegal enemy combatant" theory but even the Bush Admin never argued that those persons are not entitled to humane treatment (it was mostly about fair trial rights), and the US (as its lone defender) has long since abandoned the position.

Whether Hamas is actually subject to such an obligation to distinguish is highly controversial. On one level is the issue of conflict classification, since POW status and the obligation to distinguish only exist in the law of international armed conflict (IAC). If we accept that there is an IAC (e.g. because of the military occupation), then the question still arises if Hamas somehow "belongs" to the State of Palestine or if they should just be seen as civilians directly participating in hostilities or as being in a parallel non-international armed conflict between Hamas and Israel. In turn, if we accept that there is an obligation to distinguish applicable to Hamas, then Israel also needs to treat Hamas fighters that distinguished as POWs (and, as set out above, if they failed to distinguish, as civilians).

[1]: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/art...

[2]: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/arti...

[3]: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/art...

[4]: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule87 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule89 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule90

[5]: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule156

[mitthrowaway2]

> On the flip side, in this war many of the Gaza combatants are either irregular forces or militants deliberately wearing civilian clothing.

I'd be more inclined to believe that this was all it was, if the IDF didn't just blow up a convoy of foreign aid workers who had already received clearance and pre-registered their route with the IDF.

Sure, accidents happen, but it speaks volumes to the general level of diligence that goes into approving each strike, and this makes me very skeptical that other incidents that get coverage are simply attacks on plainclothed militants.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-israel-air-str...

[ein0p]

Children and women do not shoot up tanks

[andsoitis]

> women do not shoot up tanks

There’s quite a bit of literature, history, statistics on women terrorists as well as soldiers.

[goatsi]

In the linked article the only check the IDF was still using on the target list provided by the AI was discarding any and all targets it selected who were women, as they don't believe Hamas would use them as fighters.