Israeli Settlers: Are They ‘Civilians’ or Legitimate Military Targets?

[louie888]

I am interested in any serious thoughts on this topic. Hopefully, we can ignore the off topic trolling and have a serious discussion. Here is an interesting article that we can use as a starting point.

Are Israeli settlers in the West Bank technically speaking civilians? Or should they be regarded as military targets? My understanding of international law is that people have a right to resist occupation. This would not include killing innocent civilians, but do Israeli settlers, morally or legally, fit into that category?


The Israeli government has offered financial incentives in the form of housing subsidies to entice its Jewish citizens to move to the occupied West Bank, and the grants, at least in the past, have been quite substantial. Apparently this has been part of the effort to create “facts on the ground.”

How should we view people who took advantage of such offers, knowingly moving into illegal settlements built in an area internationally recognized as occupied territory? Do we view them as “innocent”?

More here: Israeli Settlers: Are They ‘Civilians’ or Legitimate Military Targets? | Veterans Today

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You want a serious discussion revolving around your support for the murder of Jews?

 

[esthermoon]

If they're not enlisted in the military or if they're retired from the military I think they should be considered as civilians

 

[louie888]

You want a serious discussion revolving around your support for the murder of Jews?

Religion is not relevant to this discussion.

If they're not enlisted in the military or if they're retired from the military I think they should be considered as civilians

In general, I would agree 100%, but we are not talking about civilians in Israel. We are talking about the settlers in Palestine who arrive behind tanks, Apache helicopters and automatic weapons. They bring bulldozers which they use to destroy people's homes and flatten entire villages. They then build their own towns on this stolen land which they use basically as a military base to kill more of the indigenous people.

Beyond that, Israel has no problem targeting civilians which is really what these home demolitions on stolen land truly is.

 

[Shusha]

You want a serious discussion about whether or not it is legally or morally permissible to kill families and children?

You want a serious discussion about whether or not it is legally or morally permissible to kill someone because that someone is present in a place where it offends you?

You want a serious discussion about whether or not it is legally or morally permissible to use murder as a method of keeping a territory clean of Jews (or people of a certain ethnicity)?

You have reached a new low.

Sadly, you are not the first one to suggest this. Several of our members have suggested this in the past.

 

[louie888]

You want a serious discussion about whether or not it is legally or morally permissible to kill families and children?

You want a serious discussion about whether or not it is legally or morally permissible to kill someone because that someone is present in a place where it offends you?

You want a serious discussion about whether or not it is legally or morally permissible to use murder as a method of keeping a territory clean of Jews (or people of a certain ethnicity)?

You have reached a new low.

Sadly, you are not the first one to suggest this. Several of our members have suggested this in the past.

I have not suggested any of that. Typical lies from you.

How would you handle it? How would the IDF terrorists handle it if the shoe were on the other foot? You would just let foreigners bulldoze your home? You would just do nothing? You would not defend yourself with whatever means you had available? You would prefer your children to be homeless or dead?

Effin moron.

 

[esthermoon]

You want a serious discussion revolving around your support for the murder of Jews?

Religion is not relevant to this discussion.

If they're not enlisted in the military or if they're retired from the military I think they should be considered as civilians

In general, I would agree 100%, but we are not talking about civilians in Israel. We are talking about the settlers in Palestine who arrive behind tanks, Apache helicopters and automatic weapons. They bring bulldozers which they use to destroy people's homes and flatten entire villages. They then build their own towns on this stolen land which they use basically as a military base to kill more of the indigenous people.

Beyond that, Israel has no problem targeting civilians which is really what these home demolitions on stolen land truly is.

Louie I guess they're civilians anyways from a legal point of view (because I read international law says you're a military only if you are a member of an official army or navy)
Maybe I'm not right who knows; I'm just giving an opinion

 

[Shusha]

You would not defend yourself with whatever means you had available? You would prefer your children to be homeless or dead?

So your point is that people are legally and morally permitted to defend themselves by whatever means they have available and are not constricted by humanitarian law such as the protection of non-combatants (the elderly, the wounded, the sick, the children)?

 

[P F Tinmore]

You want a serious discussion about whether or not it is legally or morally permissible to kill families and children?

You want a serious discussion about whether or not it is legally or morally permissible to kill someone because that someone is present in a place where it offends you?

You want a serious discussion about whether or not it is legally or morally permissible to use murder as a method of keeping a territory clean of Jews (or people of a certain ethnicity)?

You have reached a new low.

Sadly, you are not the first one to suggest this. Several of our members have suggested this in the past.

Nice deflection. That is not what he said.

 

[Shusha]

Nice deflection. That is not what he said.

Here's what he said: My understanding of international law is that people have a right to resist occupation. This would not include killing innocent civilians, but do Israeli settlers, morally or legally, fit into that category?

Second sentence: International law does not permit the killing of "innocent civilians". BUT "settlers" may not be in that category.

The implication being that it is legally and morally permissible to kill "settlers".

 

[P F Tinmore]

You want a serious discussion revolving around your support for the murder of Jews?

Religion is not relevant to this discussion.

If they're not enlisted in the military or if they're retired from the military I think they should be considered as civilians

In general, I would agree 100%, but we are not talking about civilians in Israel. We are talking about the settlers in Palestine who arrive behind tanks, Apache helicopters and automatic weapons. They bring bulldozers which they use to destroy people's homes and flatten entire villages. They then build their own towns on this stolen land which they use basically as a military base to kill more of the indigenous people.

Beyond that, Israel has no problem targeting civilians which is really what these home demolitions on stolen land truly is.

Louie I guess they're civilians anyways from a legal point of view (because I read international law says you're a military only if you are a member of an official army or navy)
Maybe I'm not right who knows; I'm just giving an opinion

That is somewhat true. "Civilians" is not a term generally used in international law. The term used is "protected persons." Some military are protected like prisoners. Then there are some civilians that are not protected.

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power). The other distinctions and exceptions extend or restrict these limits, but not to any appreciable extent.

Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949 - 4 - - Commentary of 1958​

Israeli settlers are necessary, integral, and active members of the occupation. So the above makes sense.

 

[P F Tinmore]

This would not include killing innocent civilians,

Are illegal settlers innocent civilians?

 

[louie888]

Nice deflection. That is not what he said.

Here's what he said: My understanding of international law is that people have a right to resist occupation. This would not include killing innocent civilians, but do Israeli settlers, morally or legally, fit into that category?

Second sentence: International law does not permit the killing of "innocent civilians". BUT "settlers" may not be in that category.

The implication being that it is legally and morally permissible to kill "settlers".

That was from the article.

I wrote:

How would you handle it? How would the IDF terrorists handle it if the shoe were on the other foot? You would just let foreigners bulldoze your home? You would just do nothing? You would not defend yourself with whatever means you had available? You would prefer your children to be homeless or dead?

 

[fanger]

When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it.

 

[Hollie]

You want a serious discussion revolving around your support for the murder of Jews?

Religion is not relevant to this discussion.

If they're not enlisted in the military or if they're retired from the military I think they should be considered as civilians

In general, I would agree 100%, but we are not talking about civilians in Israel. We are talking about the settlers in Palestine who arrive behind tanks, Apache helicopters and automatic weapons. They bring bulldozers which they use to destroy people's homes and flatten entire villages. They then build their own towns on this stolen land which they use basically as a military base to kill more of the indigenous people.

Beyond that, Israel has no problem targeting civilians which is really what these home demolitions on stolen land truly is.

Louie I guess they're civilians anyways from a legal point of view (because I read international law says you're a military only if you are a member of an official army or navy)
Maybe I'm not right who knows; I'm just giving an opinion

That is somewhat true. "Civilians" is not a term generally used in international law. The term used is "protected persons." Some military are protected like prisoners. Then there are some civilians that are not protected.

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power). The other distinctions and exceptions extend or restrict these limits, but not to any appreciable extent.

Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949 - 4 - - Commentary of 1958​

Israeli settlers are necessary, integral, and active members of the occupation. So the above makes sense.

This has all been addressed before. Nothing grants your islamic terrorist heroes an entitlement to murder and mayhem without consequence. Israelis have a right to self defense.

As opposed to flailing your Pom Poms in support of other arabs-moslems to commit islam'icide, pick up a weapon and do your own gee-had, you goofy little man.

 

[louie888]

When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it.

That sounds like the Chabad Lubavitch mentality. Is that from the Talmud or the protocols, lol, it's hard to tell sometimes.

 

[louie888]

This has all been addressed before....

So... How would you handle it? How would the IDF terrorists handle it if the shoe were on the other foot? You would just let foreigners bulldoze your home? You would just do nothing? You would not defend yourself with whatever means you had available? You would prefer your children to be homeless or dead?

 

[P F Tinmore]

You want a serious discussion revolving around your support for the murder of Jews?

Religion is not relevant to this discussion.

If they're not enlisted in the military or if they're retired from the military I think they should be considered as civilians

In general, I would agree 100%, but we are not talking about civilians in Israel. We are talking about the settlers in Palestine who arrive behind tanks, Apache helicopters and automatic weapons. They bring bulldozers which they use to destroy people's homes and flatten entire villages. They then build their own towns on this stolen land which they use basically as a military base to kill more of the indigenous people.

Beyond that, Israel has no problem targeting civilians which is really what these home demolitions on stolen land truly is.

Louie I guess they're civilians anyways from a legal point of view (because I read international law says you're a military only if you are a member of an official army or navy)
Maybe I'm not right who knows; I'm just giving an opinion

That is somewhat true. "Civilians" is not a term generally used in international law. The term used is "protected persons." Some military are protected like prisoners. Then there are some civilians that are not protected.

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power). The other distinctions and exceptions extend or restrict these limits, but not to any appreciable extent.

Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949 - 4 - - Commentary of 1958​

Israeli settlers are necessary, integral, and active members of the occupation. So the above makes sense.

This has all been addressed before. Nothing grants your islamic terrorist heroes an entitlement to murder and mayhem without consequence. Israelis have a right to self defense.

As opposed to flailing your Pom Poms in support of other arabs-moslems to commit islam'icide, pick up a weapon and do your own gee-had, you goofy little man.

All that blabber and nothing to back up what you say.

 

[louie888]

If they're not enlisted in the military or if they're retired from the military I think they should be considered as civilians View attachment 123567

Which is fine, but how would you handle it? How would the IDF terrorists handle it if the shoe were on the other foot? You would just let foreigners bulldoze your home? You would just do nothing? You would not defend yourself with whatever means you had available? You would prefer your children to be homeless or dead?

It's tricky because the situation is so unique. Again, these are not even settlers in Israel, they are in Palestine.

 

[Hollie]

You want a serious discussion revolving around your support for the murder of Jews?

Religion is not relevant to this discussion.

If they're not enlisted in the military or if they're retired from the military I think they should be considered as civilians

In general, I would agree 100%, but we are not talking about civilians in Israel. We are talking about the settlers in Palestine who arrive behind tanks, Apache helicopters and automatic weapons. They bring bulldozers which they use to destroy people's homes and flatten entire villages. They then build their own towns on this stolen land which they use basically as a military base to kill more of the indigenous people.

Beyond that, Israel has no problem targeting civilians which is really what these home demolitions on stolen land truly is.

Louie I guess they're civilians anyways from a legal point of view (because I read international law says you're a military only if you are a member of an official army or navy)
Maybe I'm not right who knows; I'm just giving an opinion

That is somewhat true. "Civilians" is not a term generally used in international law. The term used is "protected persons." Some military are protected like prisoners. Then there are some civilians that are not protected.

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power). The other distinctions and exceptions extend or restrict these limits, but not to any appreciable extent.

Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949 - 4 - - Commentary of 1958​

Israeli settlers are necessary, integral, and active members of the occupation. So the above makes sense.

This has all been addressed before. Nothing grants your islamic terrorist heroes an entitlement to murder and mayhem without consequence. Israelis have a right to self defense.

As opposed to flailing your Pom Poms in support of other arabs-moslems to commit islam'icide, pick up a weapon and do your own gee-had, you goofy little man.

All that blabber and nothing to back up what you say.

All that bluster as you urge others to do what you are too much of a coward to do.

Pick up a weapon. Attack an Israeli while announcing your right to do so without consequence.

Or, do what you usually do.... nothing.

But do remember to celebrate the deaths of Islamic terrorists when they are cut down for doing what Islamic terrorists do.