China's GDF-600 Hypersonic Glide Platform - A Groundbreaking Development in Modern Warfare

China has recently unveiled its latest foray into the world of high tech weaponry.  At the Zhuhai Air Show 2024, China revealed its GDF-600 hypersonic boost glide concept vehicle that will have a wide range of capabilities as you will see in this posting.

 

The GDF-600 will be designed to have an operational range of between 500 and 1000 kilometres which could theoretically be extended to 6000 kilometres at speeds of between Mach 7 and Mach 10 (5369 mph to 7673 mph) at a maximum altitude of 40 kilometres.  Its design allows it to penetrate modern air defences and can be used for both anti-ship and land-attack purposes.  It has a launch mass of 5000 kilograms and a payload capacity of 1200 kilograms.  One of the key aspects of the GDF-600 is its sub-munition separation system which will give it the capability to release different payload types while in-flight.  These sub-payloads include:

 

1.) supersonic missiles with ranges of between 100 to 500 kilometres at speeds of between 2400 and 6000 kmph

 

2.) subsonic missiles with ranges of between 50 to 100 kilometres at speeds of between 730 and 1030 kmph

 

3.) cruise missiles with a ranges of between 10 and 80 kilometres at speeds of between 300 and 600 kmph

 

4.) aerial bombs with a range of 70 kilometres

 

5.) drones with an operating range of between 2 and 15 kilometres

 

These wide-ranging munitions will allow the GDF-600 to be used for multiple purposes including direct kinetic strikes against specific targets, reconnaissance missions and electronic warfare.  The fact that these munitions can be released at various points along the GDF-600s trajectory allow it to make simultaneous strikes on several targets at the same time which will complicate the defense response of its adversaries.

  

Here is a photo of the mockup GDF-600 showing its multiple payload capabilities:

 

 

Here is a video providing additional information about the GDF-600:

 

 

This very significant advancement in China's hypersonic weapons capabilities stands in sharp contrast to the United States troubled experience with hypersonic weaponry.  For example, the Air Force's AGM-183A ARRW which, as you can see here, is not operational at this point in time:

 

 

Additionally, the United States Army's Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon aka Dark Eagle is also not ready for deployment as shown here:

 

 

The addition of the GDF-600 to China's growing arsenal of high tech weapons will make any intervention against the nation in its ongoing tiff with Taiwan and its territorial claims in the South China Sea more complicated particularly given that the weapon will have a wide range of anti-ship capabilities.  As well, its ability to conduct electronic warfare could disrupt communications and radar which would significantly compromise the ability of the United States and its proxies to defend against the GDF-600.

Escalating the War with Russia - How the Outgoing Biden Administration Could Hobble Donald Trump

An op-ed piece by Ivan Dunaevsky in the Russian newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta, a newspaper published by the Government of Russia, provides us with some interesting viewpoints from the Russian government on the soon-to-be extinct Biden Administration's decision to allow its ATACMS longer range missiles to be used by the Ukrainians to send a "message" further into the Russian fatherland , in particular, how this might impact the incoming Trump Administration.

  

Here is a key quote from this article with my bolds:

"Hobble the successor:

 

In fact, it is expected that Biden will look for ways to escalate the Ukrainian crisis at the end of his term. The purpose of the rumor about strikes on Russia and the most possible solution to this issue is succinctly reflected in the headline of the CNN article: "Biden has raised the stakes in the conflict that Trump will inherit. It is a provocative move with special symbolism."

 

Although US President-elect Donald Trump will not take office until January 20, 2025, his election victory has already had a noticeable impact on the tone of the media noise on the Ukrainian crisis. And this is not only a flurry of comments from journalists and experts about what his return to the White House means for Ukraine, but also numerous statements from politicians from different countries, most of which are about the prospects for a peaceful settlement. Trump himself promised to resolve the crisis even before his inauguration, and a number of his appointees to key positions have previously criticized aid to Ukraine. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz recently even allowed himself to break the taboo that has been tacitly in effect in the West and call the Russian president .

  

Biden, apparently, cannot come to terms with this, thereby increasingly openly demonstrating that the Ukrainian crisis is very much his personal creation. He set himself the goal of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia and invested in it, as the Pentagon recently calculated, not only about 180 billion dollars, but also all his political weight, forcing NATO allies to follow him....

 

Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that in the remaining weeks he will try to complicate the possible implementation of Trump's plans. After Trump's victory, the White House stated that by the end of his term they would hastily spend the last 6 billion dollars that Congress had previously allocated for these purposes on weapons for the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Other solutions to escalate the situation are also possible, including those discussed in the American media."

 

If, indeed, the Biden Administration does allow or encourage the use of its medium-range missiles to attack the Russian heartland and Russian President Vladimir Putin does act on his "NATO crossing the red line" mantra, the world could well be headed for a major conflict between two superpowers all because the outgoing Administration wants to hobble the incoming one.  We can only hope that Putin will hold off on any response should Ukraine decide to use America's supersonic ballistic missiles with the hope that saner heads will prevail in the next Administration and put a quick end to this losing proposition.

The Declining Public Trust in the American Government

The 2024 American election coverage proved one thing; Americans have little trust in their own government no matter who is at the helm.  Public trust in government is near all-time lows as shown on this graphic from the Pew Research Center:

The level of trust in government tends to be higher among those who declare their political persuasion depending on who is in control of the presidency (i.e. trust in government among Republicans tends to be higher when a Republican president is in control of the White House and vice versa) as shown here:

A national survey conducted by the Partnership for Public Service which also looks at how the American public views the public service echoes the findings of Pew except that their results show a major decrease in trust in the federal government between 2022 and 2024:

 

 

In addition, Partnership found that only 15 percent of Americans believe that the federal government is transparent, down from 21 percent in 2022 and 66 percent of Americans believe that the federal government, up 10 percentage points over the two year period.  Not surprisingly, only 29 percent of Americans believe that democracy is working in the United States today compared to 68 percent who state that democracy is not working.

  

Here is the results of Partnership's survey showing trust in the federal government for various demographic groups, comparing 2022 to 2024:

 

 

What I found astonishing was the decline in the percentage of Democrats who trusted in government given that their party was in control of Washington with only 39 percent of Democrats trusting the federal government in 2024 compared to 59 percent in 2022.

  

If we look at how Americans view the impact of their federal government, we find this:

 

 

In 2024, only 31 percent of Americans believe that the federal government has a positive impact on the United States as a whole and on them as individuals, down 11 percentage points and 9 percentage points from 2023 respectively.

 

Here is a graphic showing how Americans view the federal government as measured with several key metrics:

 

 

A substantial and growing percentage of Americans believe that the U.S. federal government is wasteful, corrupt and incompetent.

  

Here are the areas where Americans believe that the federal government could improve to become more effective and trustworthy:

 

As a whole, Americans believe that an effective federal government and strong civil service are important for a vibrant and strong democracy with American voters believing that governments should play their needs above any political interest.  That said, most Americans believe that they are not getting the government that they want or deserve and that political leaning plays too much of a role in the working of government today.

The Global Jews and their Influence on Global Geopolitics

There is very little doubt that Israel has an inordinate amount of control over Washington's agenda in the Middle East with the nation being the beneficiary of hundreds of billions of dollars in various forms of aid as shown on this graphic from the Council on Foreign Relations: 

Most of this aid support's Israel's military with approximately $3.3 billion in annual funding provided as grants under the Foreign Military Financing program.  These are funds that Israel must use to purchase United States military equipment and services to maintain the Israeli qualitative military edge which allows the nation to "defeat any credible conventional military threat from any individual state or possible coalition of states or from non-state actors, while sustaining minimal damage and casualties.".  This is enshrined in Public Law 110-429 dated October 15, 2008 as shown here:

 

 

With this is mind and given their high level of influence on global and, in particular, American geopolitics, let's look at how many Jews there are in the world so that we can get a sense of how many people are controlling much of America's agenda in the Middle East.  For the purposes of this posting, I am using data available on the Jewish Virtual Library website which you can find here.

  

Here is a table showing the global Jewish population between 1880 and 2023:

 

 

If we use a global population of 8.187 billion people (most recent United Nations estimate) and rounding up the number of Jews to 17 million, people of Jewish heritage comprise a very small 0.21 percent of the world's population. 

  

Here is a table showing the nations with the highest Jewish population:

 

 

I thought that it was rather interesting to see that the United States has more Jews than even Israel, accounting for 44.5 percent of the world's total Jewish population.  If we use a United States population of 346 million and again rounding up the number of American Jews to 7.5 million, people of Jewish heritage comprise 2.2 percent of the American population.

  

Looking at Europe, there are 791,200 Jews in a total population of 445,500,000 people, making up 0.18 percent of Europe's population.  The largest number of Jews are found in France with the 440,000 French Jews making up 0.67 percent of the population.  The second largest number of Jews are found in the United Kingdom with the 312,000 Jews making up 0.46 percent of the population.

 

It is quite clear that the 17 million Jews in the world "punch well above their weight" when it comes to their influence on global geopolitical theatre, particularly when it comes to the United States political system.  In the grand scheme of demographics, the tiny fraction of the global population who identify as Jews is far outweighed by the 2.83 billion Christians, 2.04 billion Muslims, 1.2 billion Hindus and 520 million Buddhists.

Backtracking on the Cashless Society and Strengthening the Right to Pay with Cash

With the vast majority of central banks around the world researching, experimenting with or implementing a new monetary reality as shown here: 

 

....recent developments in Norway are quite fascinating.

 

According to Norges Bank, Norway's central bank, in 2022, only 3 percent of Norwegians used cash when making a purchase at a point of sale (i.e. a physical store) as shown here:

 

In contrast, Norway has the second highest annual use of payment cards among selected nations with an average Norwegian using a credit card or equivalent 531 times in 2022 as shown here (graph data current to 2021):

 

Rather surprisingly, this was announced by Norges Bank on its website slated to take effect on October 1, 2024:

According to the Financial Contracts Act, consumers have the option to pay with legal tender (i.e. physical bank notes and coins) as long as the amount owing is not greater than 20,000 kroner ($1850 US).

 

This is being enacted for two reasons according to Justice Minister Emilie Enger Mehl:

 

1.) as a means of providing security for those consumers who are reluctant to used digital payment solutions.

 

2.) as a means for preparing Norwegian society for emergencies such as prolonged power outages, system failures or digital attacks against payment systems.

 

Here is a quote from Ms. Mehl's press release dated August 3, 2024 when the issue was being discussed (with my bolds):

 

"The government's task is to ensure society's preparedness. Relying exclusively on digital payment solutions increases the vulnerability of society, and in certain situations this can contribute to putting important social functions out of play. Preparedness is an investment to counteract vulnerability and safeguard important functions in society and the needs of the population.

If no one pays with cash and no one accepts cash, cash will no longer be a real emergency solution once the crisis is upon us. 

As a society, we need an alternative if it becomes necessary, and today cash is the only alternative that is easily available if digital payment systems fail. In addition, companies also make themselves vulnerable if they do not accept cash in the event of a crisis, says Mehl."

 

I find it interesting that Norway has taken the approach that cash is a necessary "evil" to ensure the inclusiveness of all of its citizens which is rather ironic given that CBCDs are being sold to us as a panacea for those who are not in the banking system.  As well, given the vulnerability of the digital payment grid as has been revealed time and time again as shown here:

 

....at least one nation is taking the approach that going completely cash-free is one of the stupidest things that a government and central bank can do.

COVID-19 Vaccines - The Undeclared Contents

With much of the Western world being coerced by their governments into accepting the "safe and effective" COVID 19 vaccines, recent research that appeared in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research is rather, to put it mildly, eye-opening particularly given that many of the vaccines use technologies contained in the mRNA and recombinant DNA products which had never been used in humans prior to the pandemic.

 

Here is the article: 

The researchers analyzed the contents of vials from COVID-19 vaccines from different lots of AstraZeneca/Oxford, CanSino Biologics, Pfizer/BioNTech, Sinopharm, Moderna and Sputnik V using Scanning Electron Microscopy coupled with Energy-Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy located at the National University of Cordoba in Cordoba, Argentina.

 

The authors open with this:

 

"What can possibly be causing the long list of symptoms and clinical morbidities of extreme diversity that have followed the worldwide distribution of the COVID-19 injectable products? The list includes fulminant cancers, autoimmune disorders, bilateral pneumonias, arrhythmias, hepatitis flare ups, kidney failures, aggressive forms of arthritis, thrombosis, thrombocytopenia, heart disease, strokes, paralysis of various sorts, spontaneous abortions, perinatal deaths, infertility reported on a wide scale, neurodegenerative diseases, and many other debilitating and life-threatening conditions...

 

Strikingly, the symptoms often involve comorbidities that had never been seen until after the administration of COVID-19 vaccines."

 

They also note that there was a near total lack of quality control over the production the vaccines during the manufacturing processing that the most basic safety protocols were dangerously circumvented.

 

The researchers go on to list a history of contents that were discovered in some of the COVID-19 vaccines including graphene oxide, metallic contaminants, flocs of whitish material and various chemical elements including but not limited to carbon, oxygen, fluorine, sodium, magnesium, potassium, calcium, 

antimony, lead, titanium, vanadium, iron, copper, and silicon.

 

The authors of the study analyzed thirteen vials of COVID-19 vaccines from different lots in duplicate as shown on this listing:

 

This table shows the components that were declared publicly by each manufacturer:

 

For brevity's sake, let's look at what was found in three of the most commonly administered vaccines with the declared components marked with a † symbol for each lot of the vaccines noting that the different lots of the same vaccine contained different components which may be due to the time lapse between the drawing of the samples due to the changing structure of the self-assembling entities in the vaccines:

 

1.) AstraZeneca/Oxford: one lot contained 21 chemical elements with 20 being undeclared

 

2.) Pfizer/BioNTech: one lot contained 26 chemical elements with 23 being undeclared

 

3.) Moderna: one lot contained 21 chemical elements with 29 being undeclared

Here is a quote from the paper outlining the elemental composition of the components:

 

"Many heavy metals was detected in the analyzed samples and all of those metals are associated toxic effects on human health. The European Union recognizes eleven toxic elements as heavy metals; arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, mercury, manganese, nickel, lead, tin, and thallium. All these elements were found in the different lots with different frequencies of occurrence in the sampling: chromium (100%), arsenic (82%) and nickel (59%), followed by 40% cobalt and copper; with 35% tin, with 18% cadmium, lead and manganese; and finally 6% of the samples contain mercury.

 

The samples contain 11 of the 15 lanthanides of the periodic table of chemical elements. The percentage of the frequency with which they were found is shown in Table 9: lanthanum (35%), cerium (76%), neodymium (18% ), samarium (18%), europium (18%), gadolinium (35%), terbium (29%), dysprosium (24%), holmium (18%), erbium (29%), and ytterbium (18%). These elements have luminescent and magnetic properties (Echeverry & Parra, 2019); until now, their safety for use in the human body has not been demonstrated. In fact, the ICH Q3D guide (ICH, 2022) does not mention lanthanides among elemental impurities. It should be noted that this guide does not cover biological products, such as vaccines. Lanthanides are frequently used in the electronics industry and in no case as part of biosensors due to their cytotoxic effects."

Here is a screen capture of Table 9 which shows the frequency with which the various aforementioned chemical elements appeared in the vaccines sampled:

 

Here is a table which breaks down the chemical elements by vaccine manufacturer:

 

 

Finally, here are the authors' conclusions with my bold:

 

"Based on the identification and ranges of the quantities of the chemical elements discovered, and on the physical and chemical characteristics of the content of the vaccines studied, it is of utmost importance to highlight the great similarity that exists between the products of the different brands.  The observed differences in chemical elements found in the different brands, we believe, are due to the time lapse between drawing of samples on account of the changing structure of the self-assembling entities in the fluids contained in the vials. We do not believe the observed differences are because of manufacturing processes specific to any given brand or to differences between lots because of stochastic variations in the production processes. Despite the small size and few samples analyzed in this exploratory study, we believe that analysis of a larger number of samples and lots will confirm the trends we have pointed out. We believe that the various and diverse pathologies in the inoculated population are not due to fortuitous problems in manufacturing or distribution, but rather to the technology that seems to be common to all these products which appear to be universally harmful to humans."

 

COVID-19 vaccines would appear to be like Cracker Jacks with their toy surprise in every box except in this case there's a chemical element surprise in every vial!

  vials from different lots of the brands AstraZeneca/Oxford,

CanSino Biologics, Pfizer/BioNTech, Sinopharm, Moderna and Sputnik V were analyzed.

Washington's Cynical Approach to Global Human Rights

Have you ever noticed that obvious human rights abuses in some nations are ignored by Washington whereas those in other nations are emphasized?  For example, it's perfectly fine for Saudi Arabia to use the death penalty as the primary means of punishment for a wide range of crimes well beyond intentional killings (i.e for activists who criticize the nation), punish freedom of expression and failing to protect women and children from gender-based violence whereas, Iran, who has similar issues is vilified as an example of the worst human rights abusers on earth.

 

Fortunately, a leaked document from back in 2017 when newly minted Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was learning the ropes of international diplomacy tells the world all that they need to know about how Washington views human rights.  The memo was written by Brian Hook, the Director of Policy Planning in the State Deparmentfrom 2017 to 2018 under Secretary of State Rex Tillerson the U.S. Special Representative for Iran and Senior Policy Advisor to the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo from 2018 to 2020.

 

Let's look at some key excerpts from the memo which covers the subject "Balancing Interests and Values" as they refer to human rights and democracy promotion in American foreign policy.  First, we find this with my bold:

 

"The liberal/idealist/Wilsonian view is that other countries, including US allies, should be pressed to adopt democratic reforms and human rights practices in accordance with American preferences.

 

The "realist” view is that America's allies should be supported rather than badgered, for both practical and principled reasons, and that while the United States should certainly stand as moral example, our diplomacy with other countries should focus primarily on their foreign policy behavior rather than on their domestic practices as such."

 

So, in other words, one should ignore the "bad human rights practices" of America's allies because these are domestic issues within these nations and that these nations should be supported no matter how they mistreat their citizens.  Rather, Washington should be focussing on the foreign policies of these "friends" and ignore their bad behaviours.

 

The memo goes on to outline the history of America's involvement (i.e. meddling) in the world when it came to its relationship with various nations and their human rights records.  The author of the memo approves of how President Ronald Reagan handled its role in the world as follows:

 

"As he (Reagan) stated at the 1980 Republican convention, "The basis of a free and principled foreign policy is one that takes the world as it is, and seeks to change it by leadership and example; not by harangue, harassment or wishful thinking." Or again, from Reagan's 1981 inaugural address, with reference to US allies: "We will not use our friendship to impose on their sovereignty, for our own sovereignty is not for sale."

 

During Reagan's second term, his administration began to move in the direction of more pointed pressure for liberalization with regard to allies such as Chile, South Korea, and the Philippines.  But these efforts bore fruit in part because viable democratic and pro-American forces existed in each country -- and the US continued to provide vital reassurance. Reagan's first instinct was always to back allies against adversaries, even in controversial cases, including through his second term. South Africa would be an excellent example. The approach used there was called "constructive engagement," and in the long run it worked."

In contrast, Hook notes that President Jimmy Carter's approach was a complete failure, observing that Carter's badgering of American allies, particularly Iran, "unintentionally strengthened anti-American radicals" and ended up "facilitating the job of the insurgents" despite the fact that the anti-American movement was alive and well in Iran before Carter took office.

  

Hook then goes on to outline the partial failures of the post-Cold War presidents who used American power to nudge nations toward positive social changes which ended up failing as was the case in Iraq, Afghanistan and the nations that were subjected to the Arab Spring movement.  

 

Here's the most important part of the memo which clearly outlines the cynicism in Washington's approach to human rights with my bolds:

 

"In the case of US allies such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Philippines, the Administration is fully justified in emphasizing good relations for a variety of important reasons, including counter-terrorism, and in honestly facing up to the difficult tradeoffs with regard to human rights.

 

It is not as though human rights practices will be improved if anti-American radicals take power in those countries. Moreover, this would be a severe blow to our vital interests. We saw what a disaster Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood turned out to be in power. After eight years of Obama, the US is right to bolster US allies rather than badger or abandon them.

 

One useful guideline for a realistic and successful foreign policy is that allies should be treated differently -- and better -- than adversaries. Otherwise, we end up with more adversaries, and fewer allies. The classic dilemma of balancing ideals and interests is with regard to America's allies. In relation to our competitors, there is far less of a dilemma. We do not look to bolster America's adversaries overseas; we look to pressure, compete with, and outmaneuver them. For this reason, we should consider human rights as an important issue in regard to US relations with China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. And this is not only because of moral concern for practices inside those countries. It is also because pressing those regimes on human rights is one way to impose costs, apply counter-pressure, and regain the initiative from them strategically."

 

And there you have it.  The American political establishment's approach to human rights is to be guided by each nation's value to Washington's global agenda; if the nation (i.e. China, Russia etcetera) is seen to be working against American hegemony, it's human rights record is to be used as a cudgel to beat it into submission to American "democratic" values.  In contrast, the human rights abuses of those nations that are viewed as friendly to America are to be treated as though their obvious abuses simply don't exist and never happened at all.

Israel's Dahiya Doctrine, Proportionality and the Collective Punishment of Civilians

Israel's ongoing attacks on civilian targets in Lebanon should come as no surprise to anyone given an Israeli military doctrine that was adopted back in the first decade of the 21st century.   Given Israel's substantial military superiority over its neighbours particularly Lebanon and Gaza/the West Bank, it's not terribly surprising that this strategy has been used repeatedly over the past two decades to punish threats against the nation of Israel.

 

The Dahiya Doctrine is an asymmetrical Israeli military tactic that calls for the use of deliberate, massive and disproportionate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure with the goal of pressuring and punishing the citizens of hostile regimes.  It is named for the strategy that Israel used during the Second Lebanon War of 2006 which targeted the Dahiya quarter of Beirut, the stronghold of the Hezbollah.  Its alleged goal is to achieve deterrence and to prevent Israel entering into costly protracted wars of attrition.  The originators of the Dahiya Doctrine, Major General Gadi Eizenkot and Colonel Gabriel Siboni announced the Doctrine in 2008 and stated that Israel's specific goals for the use of the tactic were to set a "painful and memorable precedent, quick military operations serve to shorten and intensify the period of fighting and lengthen periods of calm between rounds of fighting."  By enacting the Doctrine, Israel would create an environment that would include increasing the cost of postwar recovery for the states and civilian populations that support and finance attacks on Israel. Israel's archenemies consider postwar recovery imper­ative and integral to any victory. They mobilize their financial and noncombat resources for large-scale reconstruction efforts aimed at the rapid alleviation of civilian suffering. 

  

Here is a quote from General Eisenkot:

 

"What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on… We will apply disproportionate force on it (village) and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases… This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved."

  

Since its official inception, the Doctrine has guided IDF war making in Gaza in 2008, 2012, 2014 and, in the most obvious example, the current military operations in Gaza in 2023 and 2024 which has cost the lives of over 41,000 Gazans with over half being women and children and pretty much destroyed the civilian infrastructure in the Gaza Strip.

 

One might ask whether this doctrine is legal.  According to the Institute for Middle East Understanding, international laws prohibit the deliberate and disproportionate use of military force against civilians and their infrastructure.  

 

Here's what the International Committee of the Red Cross has to say about the principle of proportionality with my bolds:

 

"Applying the principle of proportionality is critically important for protecting civilians and critical infrastructure in situations of armed conflict, especially because civilian and military networks are highly interconnected in the information and communications technology (ICT) environment and incidental civilian harm is to be expected in most cases.

 

The principle of proportionality is a corollary of the principle of distinction and it recognizes that, in the conduct of hostilities, causing incidental harm to civilians and civilian objects is often unavoidable.  However, it places a limit on the extent of incidental civilian harm that is permissible whenever military objectives are attacked, by spelling out how the principles of humanity and necessity must be balanced in such situations.

 

The principle of proportionality is further reinforced by certain rules flowing from the principle of precautions in attack, in particular the obligation to do everything feasible to assess whether an attack may be expected to be disproportionate and to cancel or suspend an attack if it becomes apparent that it may be expected to have disproportionate effects.  Overall, an attack against a military objective can be lawful only if the principles of proportionality and precautions are respected, meaning that the incidental civilian harm must not be excessive, and the attacker must have taken all feasible precautions to avoid this harm or at least reduce it."

 

As well, Article 51 of the Geneva Convention states the following:

 

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

 

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

 

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

 

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

 

(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;

 

and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

 

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

 

(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

 

6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

 

7. 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.

  

As I noted at the beginning of this posting, Israel's actions that have impacted the civilian population of Lebanon are a direct result of its implementation of its Dahiya Doctrine which has been inflicted repeatedly on the Palestinians and Lebanese for decades.  Collective and disproportionate punishment of its neighbours seems to be the norm when it comes the decisions made by Israel's military and political leadership despite the internationally acceptable limits of military actions against civilians.

 

Additional References:

 

1.) Dahiya Doctrine - Fouad Gehad Marei (2020)

 

2.) The Dahiya Doctrine, Proportionality and War Crimes - Rashid I. Khalid (2014)