I just did a fairly deep dive on this because it would be a horrible thing to argue about without a full understanding. You’re incorrect - a child soldier is a combatant under every relevant international law I could find, from the Geneva convention onwards. Further, there have been numerous horrific cases of soldiers having to shoot armed children, none of which has been labeled a war crime.
A particularly concise quote from the European journal of international law:
The starting points are articles 4(A) of the 1949 Third Geneva Convention and article 43 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, which provides for the definitional elements of what a combatant is under international humanitarian law, albeit overtly in the context of an international armed conflict. If a child is enrolled in the armed forces of a party to an international armed conflict, there seems to be no apparent basis in current international humanitarian law to characterize that child as anything other than as a combatant.
I just did a fairly deep dive on this because it would be a horrible thing to argue about without a full understanding. You’re incorrect - a child soldier is a combatant under every relevant international law I could find, from the Geneva convention onwards.
I don’t think ‘child soldiers are regular combatants’ is actually the open and shut case you present it to be. I think the following is a more accurate portrayal of things (2016) - https://rsc-src.ca/en/voices/targeting-child-soldiers:
Despite the numerous volume on child soldiers in legal literature over the last few decades, very little has been said on targeting child soldiers. It seems to be something international lawyers would rather not talk about. The fact that legal literature doesn’t say much about targeting child soldiers doesn’t mean that no such practice exists, or that soldiers haven’t discussed the matter.
Agreed, I went through that doc. It indicates that Canada is one of the few countries to affirm a “shoot first” policy. Most other countries don’t explicitly have a policy given the subject. The assertion being made above was that child soldiers are never a legitimate target or combatant under international law. That person was incorrect.
Okay this is actually something concrete to talk about. This is from the UN Human Rights Committee
The Committee takes note of the efforts made by the State party to prevent children from being used or recruited by illegal armed groups and to separate those who have been recruited from those groups and offer them assistance and protection. It is concerned, however, at reports of the continued use and recruitment of children by illegal armed groups, including, in particular, the use and recruitment of indigenous and Afro-Colombian children, and by illegal armed groups that formed in the wake of the demobilization of paramilitary organizations. The Committee takes note of the State party’s statement that, in accordance with the laws in force, security forces do not engage in intelligence activities or military civic acts that involve children. It is concerned, however, by reports of cases in which members of the security forces allegedly involved children in such activities during the reporting period (art. 24).
Has Israel made any efforts, at all, to prevent children from being used or recruited in this conflict? I don’t think they have, aside from blowing them away once they have been recruited (if they are even differentiating between combatants and civilians - I doubt it).
The State party should continue and step up its efforts to prevent the use and recruitment of children by illegal armed groups; to ensure that, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, all children who have been used or recruited by such groups are treated as victims, regardless of which armed group they have been separated from; to ensure that all children separated from such groups receive protection and proper care with a view to their physical and psychological recovery and to the restoration of their rights; and to ensure that the responsible parties stand trial and are punished. The State party should also adopt effective measures to ensure that, in actual practice, children are not involved in intelligence work or in military civic activities.
Israel has certainly never made any efforts to separate children from Hamas and protect them from recruitment. Israel neither has ever made any efforts to rehabilitate or re-socialize child soldiers that it has captured, and it rarely bothers with capturing them alive.
It is unclear if children are to be considered victims before separation, so point to you. Under a strictly textualist interpretation, international law doesn’t protect active child soldiers. That is not the only way to interpret law; I’d argue we should look at the purpose of the law i.e. to protect children from war, so every effort should be made to avoid killing children except when absolutely necessary.
But that’s for the ICJ and ICC to decide, not lemmings. So! Point to you, child soldiers that die on the battle field could be counted as combatants. I disagree and don’t think that’s the end of it, but I can see that as a valid interpretation of humanitarian law.
But! Once they’re dying in the hospital it’s pretty clear to me that they have been separated from Hamas, at which point they must be considered victims. Victims that Israel is blockading from food, fuel, medicine, sanitation, habitation, and humanitarian assistance.
I’m also highly skeptical that Israel really is targeting militants and I’m done giving them the benefit of the doubt. You understand, right?
Hey that was an excellent response and I appreciate it - good faith arguments are few and far between here. To your points I disagree with one and agree with one.
I don’t think Israel has any responsibility in preventing Hamas from recruiting child soldiers. If it was an internal terrorist group under Israel’s jurisdiction, my opinion would flip. As an example, the US is responsible for preventing the Proud Boys from recruiting children, but are not responsible for Mexican cartels doing so.
To your second point, Israel absolutely is required to treat child soldiers as victims from the moment they are captured, surrender, or are meaningfully “separated” from Hamas. I haven’t seen any evidence of this and personally doubt they are doing so. If we discover minors being interrogated in POW camps, that’s going to be a huge problem.
. If it was an internal terrorist group under Israel’s jurisdiction, my opinion would flip.
Palestinians are not sovereign so I think that means they are under Israel’s jurisdiction. Gaza is a ghetto under Israel’s control and Israel doesn’t even recognize Hamas as a government, so that goes doubly for them.
. If we discover minors being interrogated in POW camps, that’s going to be a huge problem.
Just speaking to your first point, prior to the invasion Israel was not in control of or administering Gaza. They had withdrawn 20 years prior and Gaza was operating independently albeit subject to blockades and trade interference. That’s why we call it an invasion - they’re literally at war to gain control. I don’t think it’s fair to hold Israel responsible for policing Hamas’s internal recruitment policies during that period.
Israel had a records of all births, deaths, where people live, what jobs they have, and intimate knowledge of their personal relationships and politics. They controlled all imports and exports, to such a degree that they restricted the amount of food flowing into Gaza by counting the amount of calories needed to sustain the population. They control fuel, water, electricity, waste, travel, communications, everything.
Gaza has always been a ghetto, and just because the ghetto is self-administrated doesn’t mean it is sovereign.
I think it is entirely fair to hold Israel accountable for a ghetto that exists almost entirely within its borders.
I actually dispute a lot of that, but I think we can distill this down to a simple question: In your opinion, could Israel stop Hamas from recruiting children without a full-scale war? If not, I think that settles both the sovereignty and responsibility questions.
Child soldiers are legitimate military targets the second they pose a military threat. That’s awful, but how war works. Have a nice day.
That’s literally not how it works under international law but okay, whatever
I just did a fairly deep dive on this because it would be a horrible thing to argue about without a full understanding. You’re incorrect - a child soldier is a combatant under every relevant international law I could find, from the Geneva convention onwards. Further, there have been numerous horrific cases of soldiers having to shoot armed children, none of which has been labeled a war crime.
A particularly concise quote from the European journal of international law:
I don’t think ‘child soldiers are regular combatants’ is actually the open and shut case you present it to be. I think the following is a more accurate portrayal of things (2016) - https://rsc-src.ca/en/voices/targeting-child-soldiers:
Agreed, I went through that doc. It indicates that Canada is one of the few countries to affirm a “shoot first” policy. Most other countries don’t explicitly have a policy given the subject. The assertion being made above was that child soldiers are never a legitimate target or combatant under international law. That person was incorrect.
Okay this is actually something concrete to talk about. This is from the UN Human Rights Committee
Has Israel made any efforts, at all, to prevent children from being used or recruited in this conflict? I don’t think they have, aside from blowing them away once they have been recruited (if they are even differentiating between combatants and civilians - I doubt it).
Israel has certainly never made any efforts to separate children from Hamas and protect them from recruitment. Israel neither has ever made any efforts to rehabilitate or re-socialize child soldiers that it has captured, and it rarely bothers with capturing them alive.
It is unclear if children are to be considered victims before separation, so point to you. Under a strictly textualist interpretation, international law doesn’t protect active child soldiers. That is not the only way to interpret law; I’d argue we should look at the purpose of the law i.e. to protect children from war, so every effort should be made to avoid killing children except when absolutely necessary.
But that’s for the ICJ and ICC to decide, not lemmings. So! Point to you, child soldiers that die on the battle field could be counted as combatants. I disagree and don’t think that’s the end of it, but I can see that as a valid interpretation of humanitarian law.
But! Once they’re dying in the hospital it’s pretty clear to me that they have been separated from Hamas, at which point they must be considered victims. Victims that Israel is blockading from food, fuel, medicine, sanitation, habitation, and humanitarian assistance.
I’m also highly skeptical that Israel really is targeting militants and I’m done giving them the benefit of the doubt. You understand, right?
Hey that was an excellent response and I appreciate it - good faith arguments are few and far between here. To your points I disagree with one and agree with one.
I don’t think Israel has any responsibility in preventing Hamas from recruiting child soldiers. If it was an internal terrorist group under Israel’s jurisdiction, my opinion would flip. As an example, the US is responsible for preventing the Proud Boys from recruiting children, but are not responsible for Mexican cartels doing so.
To your second point, Israel absolutely is required to treat child soldiers as victims from the moment they are captured, surrender, or are meaningfully “separated” from Hamas. I haven’t seen any evidence of this and personally doubt they are doing so. If we discover minors being interrogated in POW camps, that’s going to be a huge problem.
Palestinians are not sovereign so I think that means they are under Israel’s jurisdiction. Gaza is a ghetto under Israel’s control and Israel doesn’t even recognize Hamas as a government, so that goes doubly for them.
It’s something that was going on before this latest flare-up in the conflict and wrt recent months they have dramatically increased arbitrary arrests.
I won’t be surprised if more evidence is uncovered by the ICJ or ICC in the coming months.
Just speaking to your first point, prior to the invasion Israel was not in control of or administering Gaza. They had withdrawn 20 years prior and Gaza was operating independently albeit subject to blockades and trade interference. That’s why we call it an invasion - they’re literally at war to gain control. I don’t think it’s fair to hold Israel responsible for policing Hamas’s internal recruitment policies during that period.
Israel had a records of all births, deaths, where people live, what jobs they have, and intimate knowledge of their personal relationships and politics. They controlled all imports and exports, to such a degree that they restricted the amount of food flowing into Gaza by counting the amount of calories needed to sustain the population. They control fuel, water, electricity, waste, travel, communications, everything.
Gaza has always been a ghetto, and just because the ghetto is self-administrated doesn’t mean it is sovereign.
I think it is entirely fair to hold Israel accountable for a ghetto that exists almost entirely within its borders.
I actually dispute a lot of that, but I think we can distill this down to a simple question: In your opinion, could Israel stop Hamas from recruiting children without a full-scale war? If not, I think that settles both the sovereignty and responsibility questions.