Israel/Palestine, Operation Protective Edge Case Brief
Order ID: 89JHGSJE83839 Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages: 5-10 Instructions:
Israel/Palestine, Operation Protective Edge Case Brief
I. Classification of the situation, of the territory and applicable law
1. (Doc A, paras 24-34,53-58; Doc B, Paras 2, 45, and 233) How would you classify the conflict in Gaza between June 13 and August 26? Who are the parties to it? Was there a conflict ongoing before this period? After? What are the reasons for your answer? (GC IV, Art 2; Hague Regulations Art. 42)
2.
a. (Doc A, Paras 26-30; Doc B, Para 45, Paras 116-263, Para 374; Doc C, Para. [19]) Is Gaza an occupied territory? According to Israel? What does the Inquiry Commission conclude? On what criterion is its conclusion based? What is the applicable law in this territory according to the Commission? According to Israel? (Hague Regulations, Art. 42)
b. Is the fact that hostilities were conducted from the Gaza Strip against Israel and Israel was unable to stop them evidence that it had no effective control over the Gaza Strip?
3. (Doc A, Paras 24-25, 32-35 and 39-45;, Para 234) Who was bound by which rules of IHL and International Human Rights Law during the operation Protective Edge?
II. Conduct of hostilities
4. Targeting of individuals
a. (Doc. A, Para. 209) What is the status under IHL of the so-called terror targets? Are they combatants? Civilians? May any member of Hamas be targeted at all times? Any member of the military wing of Hamas?
b. (Doc A, Paras 208-209, Para 220; Doc B, Paras 263-269) What counts as having a continuous combat function within a
group? Does the head of the financial and economic council of Hamas (as was Essam Al Daalis) qualify as targetable?
What is the IDF position in this regard? When, according to the IDF report, can a civilian be targeted? In your opinion,
does this align with IHL? ( P I, Arts. 50 and 51)
5. Targeting of objects:a. (Doc. A, Paras 209 and 220) May a house be targeted merely because it is inhabited by a person who may be targeted, or must the house be used by that person? Is the fact that the house provides shelter enough to be considered as use?
Does the fact that a military commander makes phone calls to his units from a house turn the latter into a command
and control center?
b. (Doc A, Para 425-432, 445-448; Doc B, Paras. 155, Paras 280-281; Doc C, Paras [14]-[15]) Can a protected object such
as the UNRWA School of Beit Hanoun lose its protection? How do you evaluate this attack with respect to the IHL rules
on conduct of hostilities? (P I, Arts. 48, 51 and 52)
c. (Doc A, 450-455; Doc B, Para 392) How does IHL protect objects such as power plants? Can such an object be
attacked? Under which circumstances? Does it change anything under IHL whether it was struck by Israeli forces or by
Palestinian armed groups? May power plants be incidentally affected by attacks against legitimate targets in their
vicinity? Could IHL have been violated even if the power plant was not targeted? (PI, Arts. 51, 52, 54, 56, and 57)
6. Proportionality
a) (Doc A, Para 88, Paras 470-479; Doc B, 253) What does the Commission have to say regarding urban warfare? Is the
obligation to avoid locating military objectives near densely populated area an absolute one? What is the position taken
in the IDF report in this regard? Did Israel violate its IHL obligations of passive precautions regarding the location of the
Hatzor airbase and the IDF Headquarters? Did Hamas respect its passive precaution obligations? How do you
differentiate between a violation of the prohibition to use human shields and the lack of passive precautions? (PI Arts.
51(7) and 58)
b) (Doc A, Paras. 408, 470-479; Doc B, Paras 326-329) May urban warfare justify the launch [of] an attack without being
able to acquire [ ] all information regarding the likely collateral damage? According to the IDF Report? According to the
Commission? According to you? (P I, Art. 57)
c) (Doc A, Paras 296 393, 394, and 447; Doc B, Para 318, Paras 330-332) What is relevant for the proportionality test according to the IDF Report? How does the Commission apprehend the force protection element in the proportionality
test? How does the IDF report assess its military advantage? Does the protection of attacking forces figure in the proportionality evaluation or in the evaluation of whether the precautionary measures they could take are feasible? (PI,
Art. 51 and 57)
d) (Doc A, Paras 352-370, Paras 393-394; Doc B, Paras 334-336) How is the abduction of an Israeli soldier dealt with by the IDF? How is the Hanibal Directive implemented? Is the Hanibal Directive in compliance with IHL rules on conduct of
hostilities? According to the Commission? To the IDF Report? Does the liberation of a soldier captured by the enemy
constitute a military advantage? May the advantage of not having to release hundreds of Palestinians in exchange for
the soldier count in the proportionality evaluation? (PI, Art. 51)
e) (Doc A, Paras 84-85, 97; Doc B 114-117) Could the Palestinian rockets be prohibited per se by IHL because they are
not very technologically advanced? What is the argument advanced in this regard by the IDF report? May Hamas rather
argue that IHL cannot prohibit a party from using the only weapon it has capable of reaching Israel? (P I, Art. 35 and
51(4))
7. Precaution:
a) (Doc A, Paras 233-239, Para 264; Doc B, Paras 182, 185, 293-304, Para 313: Doc C, Para [13]) When can a warning be considered effective? How does the Commission assess the effectiveness of roof-knock warnings exercised by Israel? What are the most effective types of warnings used by the IDF in your opinion? (P I, Art. 57 (2) c))
b) (Doc A, Para 95; Doc B, Para 308) What is the nature of the obligation regarding warnings? When can it be permitted not to give any? Do you think the targeting of Danian Mansour fits such circumstances? (P I, Art. 57 (2) c))
c) (Doc. B, Para. 307) If an effective warning has been given and the addressees do not heed it, do the addressees turn into legitimate targets? Do they no longer count in the proportionality evaluation? Do they still benefit from other precautionary obligations of the attacker?
8. Human shields:
(Doc A, Paras 346, Doc B, Paras 157-165, Paras 306-307) What are the relevant IHL provisions regarding human shields? How are the civilians used to shield a target taken into account in the proportionality test by Israel? What about those who refused or failed to leave the area? Can they be considered voluntary human shields? Would it entail their targetability? (PI, Art. 51 (7))III. Treatment of persons
9. (Doc A, Paras 492-502; Doc B, Para 114-117) What are the relevant IHL provisions regarding the execution and thegeneral treatment given to the suspected collaborators? Are those executions in compliance with IHL? With HRL? Are
those persons covered by IHL although they are Palestinians in the hands of Hamas? Are they protected by GC IV? Why
does the Commission of Inquiry refer to common Article 3? Does a non-international armed conflict exist between
Hamas and the collaborators? (Common Art.3; GC IV, Arts. 4, 68, 75; CIHL, Rules 89, 91, 100)
10. (Doc A, Paras 324-326, Para 342; Doc B, 361-371)a) What is the legal basis for the arrest and detention of dozens of Palestinian men and children mentioned at Para 324, Doc A? IHL? Domestic law? Can detainees captured in Gaza be transferred in Israel? How would you assess the
legality of Samir Najars detention under IHL (Doc. B., Paras 365-366)? Under Human Rights Law? Is it lawful under IHL
to arrest civilians for the mere purpose of interrogating them about the names of Palestinian fighters, and the location
of tunnels and weapons depots.( GC IV Arts 31, 49 64, 78)
b) What is the general protection afforded by IHL to detainees? Why could the provisions concerning notifications ofdetention possibly not be applicable to the Gaza Conflict according to the IDF Report? Why could the provisions
concerning the ICRC visits possibly not be applicable to the Gaza Conflict according to the IDF Report? With respect to
family visits, does IHL contain such a right? (GC IV Arts 2, 4, 76, 136-140, 143)
IV. Accountability
11. (Doc A, 658-661) Can the ICC prosecute the crimes committed in Gaza during the summer 2014? Why? Why not? Is
the fact that Israel is not a Party to the Rome Statute relevant for your answer?
12. (Doc C, Para [19] and Para [24], [25 c]) Is it within the mandate of the UN Report to also assess jus ad bellum
violations? According to the Hamas declaration? According to you? If Hamas right to resist occupation had been recognized by the Commission, would any of its findings have changed? Does IHL treat Israel and Hamas equally?
13. Are the Inquiry Commission and Israel diverging in the assessment of IHL violations in the conflict? Do those
divergences mainly concern the law or the facts?
Israel/Palestine, Operation Protective Edge Case Brief
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow Israel/Palestine, Operation Protective Edge Case Brief
Israel/Palestine, Operation Protective Edge Case Brief