Depends on the context. "They broke the ceasefire" certainly allows you to "break" it.
Only in the logic of vengeance, not in the framework of law.
Ceasefires aren’t playground pacts—they’re legal tools designed to protect civilians. If one side violates it, the other isn’t suddenly given free license to abandon all restraint. International law doesn’t say, “If they break the rules, you can too.” It says, “Distinction, proportionality, and civilian protection apply at all times.” Always.
So no—“they broke it first” is not a moral green light. It’s an excuse to lower the bar—and once you do that, you’re not enforcing order. You’re just justifying chaos.
Where do we see that happening??
What we see is Hamas members in non-combat roles.
What we see is precisely the danger of blurred lines.
When Israeli strikes hit apartment buildings, schools, markets, and refugee camps—killing thousands of women and children—it’s not because every person in those places was a fighter. The justification often given is that someone affiliated with Hamas might have been nearby, or that infrastructure might have been used. That’s exactly how the logic stretches. The moment “non-combat roles” become fair game, or presence in Gaza becomes guilt by association, the distinction between combatant and civilian collapses.
That’s not enforcing the laws of war. That’s erasing them—quietly, and with bureaucratic precision.
But you're attacking a strawman.
That response was directed at Derec, not a strawman—and if your position is different from what you’ve repeatedly implied, then say so clearly.
Because up until now, you’ve justified the blockade, the bombing of civilian areas, and the widespread destruction of Gaza by pointing to Hamas’s presence—treating proximity, governance, and even economic dependence as if they erase the protections civilians are owed under international law.
If that’s not your position—if you truly believe civilians who are not actively fighting or directly aiding militants should be protected—then great, say that plainly. But if you continue to defend strikes that knowingly harm non-combatants because “Hamas is embedded there,” then you’re not applying law, you’re rationalizing collective punishment. And that’s not a misrepresentation. That’s a direct response to the logic you’ve laid out.
We are saying a headband makes someone a combatant because they don't let people who are not Hamas wear them. Besides, anyone who walks around a war zone wearing combat attire but being a civilian is incredibly stupid. Realistically, any war zone, see an enemy uniform, you pull the trigger. Exactly what comprises the uniform doesn't matter.
So let’s be clear: your reply confirms the exact danger I described. You’re admitting that a symbol—not a weapon, not hostile action, not direct participation, but an article of clothing—is being treated as sufficient to justify lethal force. That is not how international humanitarian law works.
Under the Geneva Conventions, the distinction between civilians and combatants is not based on how “stupid” someone is for wearing something provocative. It’s based on whether the individual takes direct part in hostilities. Civilians do not lose their protections because of perceived affiliation or symbolic expression unless they cross that legal threshold. That standard exists precisely to stop the slide into extrajudicial targeting based on appearance, suspicion, or political messaging.
And this isn’t just a theoretical concern. It’s how war crimes happen—by normalizing the idea that “if it looks like the enemy, it’s fair game.” That logic collapses the line between fighters and civilians entirely. And once that happens, the laws of war become meaningless, and every atrocity becomes “understandable.”
So if you’re defending the view that a headband is enough to shoot, then you are not upholding the rules of engagement. You are explicitly arguing for their erosion.
And we have examples of this?
Yes, we absolutely do have examples. And if you’re genuinely asking, not deflecting, I’ll give you one:
Al-Mawasi “safe zone,” January 2024 — Israel dropped leaflets telling civilians to evacuate to Al-Mawasi for safety. Thousands complied. Then, within that very zone, Israeli strikes killed dozens. Were they all Hamas? No evidence was provided—only the assertion that a militant presence was suspected. Civilians died in an area they were told to shelter in. That’s not careful distinction. That’s a pattern.
Or take the bombing of hospitals and schools. Israel has often claimed Hamas uses them, but again, no real-time verifiable evidence is offered before the strikes. And when entire families are pulled from the rubble, it’s chalked up to “unfortunate side effects.” That’s not accountability. That’s narrative control.
This is not about denying that Hamas violates the rules of war. They do. But when you start defending civilian deaths on the basis of assumed proximity or symbolism—rather than confirmed combatant activity—you are explicitly rejecting the foundational legal principle that protects civilians in war.
If you’re sincere about that principle, you should insist on evidence before the trigger is pulled—not retroactive justification. Because once the standard becomes “they looked like they could be,” you’ve abandoned law for profiling. And yes, we’ve seen it happen.
No. Identification as a member of a group engaged in hostilities is enough.
That’s simply false under international law.
The legal standard is not “membership” or “identification” with a group—it is direct participation in hostilities. Article 51(3) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions makes this explicit: “Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.”
Wearing a headband, supporting a political group, or being a member of a non-uniformed organization does not meet that threshold unless there is direct and immediate involvement in military operations. Otherwise, you’re erasing the entire civilian/combatant distinction that international humanitarian law exists to protect.
And your position—“identification is enough”—has been rejected by legal scholars, the ICRC, and international tribunals. That standard would permit mass targeting based on association, not action, and it’s precisely how atrocities have been justified throughout history.
So no—your claim isn’t just incorrect. It’s legally and morally indefensible.
We don't have a lot of data points. Of the data points we have it's frequent enough that insisting it's rare isn't justified.
But that’s not how ethics—or law—works.
You don’t get to lower the standard of civilian protection just because your dataset is incomplete. The burden of proof is on the party using lethal force in civilian areas, not on civilians to prove their innocence by default. International law is explicit: unless someone is directly participating in hostilities, they are to be treated as a civilian. That protection doesn’t vanish because of suspicions based on anecdotal trends.
If two out of a thousand cases show civilian complicity, that’s not justification for treating the rest as complicit. That’s exactly the logic behind every atrocity ever committed “just to be safe.” You’re not describing a strategy of precision. You’re describing preemptive suspicion at population scale—which is the definition of collective punishment. And it’s not “frequent enough” to override legal obligations. It never is.
What you are missing is the consistent pattern of misuse. And the fact that the government does nothing about it. Combine those and the symbol loses it's protective value.
No—what you’re proposing is the dismantling of the very principle that protects civilians in war.
The protective status of journalists, like that of medics or aid workers, isn’t dependent on whether some misuse the role or whether a government polices every abuse. It’s grounded in the legal obligation to treat people as civilians unless and until there is individual evidence of direct participation in hostilities.
Your argument flips that standard. You’re saying that because a few may have misused the role—and because you don’t trust the government—everyone wearing the symbol becomes a potential target. That’s not just legally wrong. That’s how hospitals get bombed, press vests become death sentences, and war crimes are retroactively justified.
If you’re serious about accountability, then you uphold standards despite bad actors. Because the second you decide protections are meaningless based on suspicion or pattern alone, you’ve not just removed a shield—you’ve created a license to kill.
NHC
www.theguardian.com
en.wikipedia.org
apnews.com
