Israeli soldier convicted of Manslaughter

[Coyote]

I don't sense double standards and here is why: the man who was shot was already wounded and down for 11 minutes. The objective was achieved, the threat is neutralized, correct? At that point, he should have been taken under arrest and dealt with. To then shot him in the head is an act of murder.

I don't disagree. Keep that in mind.

But the standard you are making here is that combatants are only legitimate targets when they are actively engaged in hostilities -- actively engaged in immediate and hostile action. That is the standard. Once the active and immediate hostile action ceases there is no cause for action.

That means all Arab Palestinian actions which do not meet that standard are objectionable and morally and legally wrong. So, all rocket and mortar attacks on Israelis wrong. All knife attacks are wrong, whether against civilians or combatants. All running people over with cars are wrong, whether against civilians or combatants. There is no justification in any of those attacks.

(There is a larger implication here, but frankly, it is too subtle for most everyone on this board to understand. You excepted)

Now do you see the double standard in the other thread where attacks on soldiers are justified because they are combatants and therefore subject to legitimate attack?

I haven't read the other thread - I should probably look at it.

But I'm not sure I agree here. All attacks against civilians are wrong (other than self defense of course). It seems to me attacks on military in occupied (or disputed if you prefer) territory would be justifiable, if foolish. They feel they are under a military occupation by an enemy force right? Attacks against military members inside of Israel would not be justified. That's an attack on Israel itself.

Now the other side of that, which could be problematic is that IF all Palestinians were considered combatants, then then it could be argued that Israeli's would be justified in attacking them under similar conditions. But you don't know who is and who is not a combatant.

If you argue that attacks by Palestinian military are never never justified, then how can they fight an occupation?

Your last question is complex and thought provoking.

Whoo hoo! I take that as a compliment. Grin.

It's difficult to identify Palestinian combatents UNLESS they act...

This is true. Why is that, do you think? I mean, its easy enough to put on a uniform and identify yourself as a combatant. Why don't they?

Because in asymetric warfare, it would be disadvantageous I imagine. I also suspect if they did, they would immediately be rounded up. Their only advantage is in anonymity.

most are civilians

That is debatable in spades

and civilians are never fair targets

We agree. But we also agree the key to this is differentiating what it means to be a "civilian". In ancient warfare there was a very clear line. In modern -- not so much.

In a sense, any Israeli military person engaged in activities in the occupied territories could be considered to be actively participating in hostilities. On the Palestinian side - it's less clear.

Only because the Palestinians deliberately obscure it. You should also define what you mean by "engaged in activities in the 'occupied territories'".

Alright - activities would be anything - it seems to me the presence of military in and of itself is enough to make it a target in a disputed area.

 

[Coyote]

It is always open season on foreign troops.

Civilian militias are only considered combatants while actively taking part in hostilities.

Coyote

You see how quickly this gets complex? So Tinny has a different standard than you do. His standard is the "foreign troops" are always open season -- legitimate targets. Behavior or active participation in the hostilities notwithstanding.

So, depending on what he means by the term "foreign troops". He might mean all sorts of things. Any one who doesn't "belong" there. All "foreigners". All "Zionists". Or all formally trained militia.

Let's say he means the least vulgar of these and only formally trained militia. In his mind, its always morally and legally correct, in times of conflict, to target and kill all formally trained militia. But, of course, the Palestinians never have formally trained militia. They don't have uniforms. They aren't part of a formally trained group.

See how he draws an artificial line between civilian militia and government militia? If one is not "formally" trained in a government body -- one is exempt from that rule. Neat, isn't it?

I can see the problems here...

P F Tinmore how do you reconcile it? Clearly the Palestinians have combatents even though not a formal militia.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is always open season on foreign troops.

Civilian militias are only considered combatants while actively taking part in hostilities.

Coyote

You see how quickly this gets complex? So Tinny has a different standard than you do. His standard is the "foreign troops" are always open season -- legitimate targets. Behavior or active participation in the hostilities notwithstanding.

So, depending on what he means by the term "foreign troops". He might mean all sorts of things. Any one who doesn't "belong" there. All "foreigners". All "Zionists". Or all formally trained militia.

Let's say he means the least vulgar of these and only formally trained militia. In his mind, its always morally and legally correct, in times of conflict, to target and kill all formally trained militia. But, of course, the Palestinians never have formally trained militia. They don't have uniforms. They aren't part of a formally trained group.

See how he draws an artificial line between civilian militia and government militia? If one is not "formally" trained in a government body -- one is exempt from that rule. Neat, isn't it?

I can see the problems here...

P F Tinmore how do you reconcile it? Clearly the Palestinians have combatents even though not a formal militia.

Israel's military attacks Palestinian civilians. Israel's civilians attack Palestinian civilians.

But, if a Palestinian attacks either troops or civilians the floodgates of terrorist accusations open up to a big round of name calling.

Why the double standard?

 

[Coyote]

It is always open season on foreign troops.

Civilian militias are only considered combatants while actively taking part in hostilities.

Coyote

You see how quickly this gets complex? So Tinny has a different standard than you do. His standard is the "foreign troops" are always open season -- legitimate targets. Behavior or active participation in the hostilities notwithstanding.

So, depending on what he means by the term "foreign troops". He might mean all sorts of things. Any one who doesn't "belong" there. All "foreigners". All "Zionists". Or all formally trained militia.

Let's say he means the least vulgar of these and only formally trained militia. In his mind, its always morally and legally correct, in times of conflict, to target and kill all formally trained militia. But, of course, the Palestinians never have formally trained militia. They don't have uniforms. They aren't part of a formally trained group.

See how he draws an artificial line between civilian militia and government militia? If one is not "formally" trained in a government body -- one is exempt from that rule. Neat, isn't it?

I can see the problems here...

P F Tinmore how do you reconcile it? Clearly the Palestinians have combatents even though not a formal militia.

Israel's military attacks Palestinian civilians. Israel's civilians attack Palestinian civilians.

But, if a Palestinian attacks either troops or civilians the floodgates of terrorist accusations open up to a big round of name calling.

Why the double standard?

Civilians attacking civilians is a different matter (and I totally agree, that Israel does a poor job in preventing violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinians) but it isn't really what this is about. Nor is the other thing you said, it's a bit of a diversion.

If Israeli military are fair targets....when are Palestinians fair targets?

 

[Shusha]

All attacks against civilians are wrong (other than self defense of course).

We agree. Not part of the discussion here. We are discussing attacks against combatants and the response to same.

It seems to me attacks on military ... would be justifiable...

Yes. But do you see how you have changed the standard here? The standard in the previous post was that attacks on military are allowable/permissible/legal/morally correct ONLY when actively engaged in immediate and overt hostile acts. Now you are saying the standard is that any attack on military personnel is valid regardless of the actions of said personnel. I have no preference as to which standard you choose. But you have to choose, else you become a hypocrite. You have to develop a standard and stick with it.

If you argue that attacks by Palestinian military are never never justified, then how can they fight an occupation?

Not arguing that. Arguing that the consequences of those attacks are legit. Totally legit for Palestinians to fight the Israeli military. Totally legit for Israelis to fight back.

Because in asymetric warfare, it would be disadvantageous I imagine. I also suspect if they did, they would immediately be rounded up. Their only advantage is in anonymity.

Bingo! Got it in one. It is advantageous to the Palestinians to present themselves as "innocent civilians". Its advantageous for them to not wear uniforms and hide the actual fact of the symmetry of their warfare.

 

[Shusha]

Israel's military attacks Palestinian civilians. Israel's civilians attack Palestinian civilians.

But, if a Palestinian attacks either troops or civilians the floodgates of terrorist accusations open up to a big round of name calling.

Why the double standard?

We all agree (don't we?) that attacks on civilians are wrong no matter who commits the attacking. Not part of this conversation.

Collateral damage is not the same as attacking civilians. (It is ugly and nasty and horrible and painful, but it is not the same).

The trick of the question we are actually addressing is the designation of who is a civilian and who is not when it comes to Palestinians who deliberating confuse the issue.

 

[Coyote]

All attacks against civilians are wrong (other than self defense of course).

We agree. Not part of the discussion here. We are discussing attacks against combatants and the response to same.

It seems to me attacks on military ... would be justifiable...

Yes. But do you see how you have changed the standard here? The standard in the previous post was that attacks on military are allowable/permissible/legal/morally correct ONLY when actively engaged in immediate and overt hostile acts. Now you are saying the standard is that any attack on military personnel is valid regardless of the actions of said personnel. I have no preference as to which standard you choose. But you have to choose, else you become a hypocrite. You have to develop a standard and stick with it.

Not quite - I was using one standard, the standard I stated was what I meant. But - also with conditions- within occupied territories. The presence of military in and of itself would be considered a hostile action. Do you see what I mean?

If you argue that attacks by Palestinian military are never never justified, then how can they fight an occupation?

Not arguing that. Arguing that the consequences of those attacks are legit. Totally legit for Palestinians to fight the Israeli military. Totally legit for Israelis to fight back.

Ok, then we are in agreement there.

Because in asymetric warfare, it would be disadvantageous I imagine. I also suspect if they did, they would immediately be rounded up. Their only advantage is in anonymity.

Bingo! Got it in one. It is advantageous to the Palestinians to present themselves as "innocent civilians". Its advantageous for them to not wear uniforms and hide the actual fact of the symmetry of their warfare.

Agreed. Many are, however, just civilians.

 

[Shusha]

The presence of military in and of itself would be considered a hostile action. Do you see what I mean?

Sure. And I have no problem with combatants attacking a military force. Where you get in trouble with me is when you dislike the consequences of that action.

Agreed. Many are, however, just civilians.

And many are not. The problem is in putting the responsibility (the sole responsibility) on the opponent to determine who is and who is not a civilian. The responsibility rests with BOTH parties. Put a fucking uniform on your combatants. Remove civilians and innocents from the areas where there are fighting. Its not rocket science. Make the differentiation between civilians and combatants. The problem is that the Arab Palestinians have a TON of advantages in NOT making that differentiation.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Sure. And I have no problem with combatants attacking a military force. Where you get in trouble with me is when you dislike the consequences of that action.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

 

[Shusha]

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

Oh come on! This does not mean that one has the right to attack without reprisal.

 

[P F Tinmore]

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

Oh come on! This does not mean that one has the right to attack without reprisal.

Israel has always been the aggressor. It is the Palestinians who respond.

 

[Shusha]

Israel has always been the aggressor. It is the Palestinians who respond.

Only because you measure the mere presence of Jewish people as aggression. Because you measure the request for equality as aggression. Because you measure the right to our own self-determination as aggression.

Do you want to prove me wrong on this? Then start loudly and frequently supporting the presence of the Jewish people in Palestine. Loudly and frequently support equal rights of the Jewish people in Palestine. Loudly and frequently support the rights of Jewish self-determination in the land of our ancestors.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Only because you measure the mere presence of Jewish people as aggression.

No really. It is the settler colonial project that is the aggression. There was no problem with the Palestinian Jews.

 

[Shusha]

Only because you measure the mere presence of Jewish people as aggression.

No really. It is the settler colonial project that is the aggression. There was no problem with the Palestinian Jews.

So its the number of Jews which is the problem? Or the equal social status of Jews which is the problem? Or is it the desire for self-determination which is the problem?

What, exactly, is the aggression? The number of Jews? The social status of Jews? The self-determination of Jews?

Seriously, when you say it is the "settler colonial project" that is the problem, you can only mean there are too many Jews, the Jews have too much social status or that the Jews should have no rights to self-determination. Which is the problem?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Only because you measure the mere presence of Jewish people as aggression.

No really. It is the settler colonial project that is the aggression. There was no problem with the Palestinian Jews.

So its the number of Jews which is the problem? Or the equal social status of Jews which is the problem? Or is it the desire for self-determination which is the problem?

What, exactly, is the aggression? The number of Jews? The social status of Jews? The self-determination of Jews?

Seriously, when you say it is the "settler colonial project" that is the problem, you can only mean there are too many Jews, the Jews have too much social status or that the Jews should have no rights to self-determination. Which is the problem?

 

[Phoenall]

He cold bloodedly murdered someone who was already wounded and defenseless - that is not the right side regardless of what that person had done before.

BUT... another point to consider is that the dead man was a combatant in war who was actively taking part in the hostilities and as a combatant he is a fair target.

I'm not saying I disagree with your post or your point of view, as I do think the killing of this particular combatant was uncalled for and morally and legally wrong. But the discussion falls under the conditions of war and should be considered under those conditions. (Hence war crimes rather than murder). Its complicated.

In another thread we are discussing the justification of killing Israeli soldiers in a terrorist attack. The justification for that attack is that soldiers are fair game for killing -- even if they are not currently and immediately participating in hostilities.

Do you sense a double standard here? Are combatants legitimately fair targets? Are combatants fair targets only during their active participation in hostilities?

You will find team palestine always has double standards when it comes to Israel and the Jews, they will not allow them to be covered by international law or the UN charter

 

[Phoenall]

RoccoR

Begging the indulgence of your expertise with respect to military law...

It would be illegal to execute a wounded combatant, yes?

It is not illegal to attack combatants (soldiers) even if they are not currently engaging in hostilities, yes?

And welcoming any other general thoughts along those lines....

Was the wounded combatant acting as though he was going to detonate a bomb under his uniform?

Watch the video and tell the story, any suspicious movements are cause for alarm and are grounds enough to bring about retaliation

 

[Phoenall]

He cold bloodedly murdered someone who was already wounded and defenseless - that is not the right side regardless of what that person had done before.

BUT... another point to consider is that the dead man was a combatant in war who was actively taking part in the hostilities and as a combatant he is a fair target.

I'm not saying I disagree with your post or your point of view, as I do think the killing of this particular combatant was uncalled for and morally and legally wrong. But the discussion falls under the conditions of war and should be considered under those conditions. (Hence war crimes rather than murder). Its complicated.

In another thread we are discussing the justification of killing Israeli soldiers in a terrorist attack. The justification for that attack is that soldiers are fair game for killing -- even if they are not currently and immediately participating in hostilities.

Do you sense a double standard here? Are combatants legitimately fair targets? Are combatants fair targets only during their active participation in hostilities?

I don't sense double standards and here is why: the man who was shot was already wounded and down for 11 minutes. The objective was achieved, the threat is neutralized, correct? At that point, he should have been taken under arrest and dealt with. To then shot him in the head is an act of murder.

Your last question is complex and thought provoking. It's difficult to identify Palestinian combatents UNLESS they act...most are civilians and civilians are never fair targets. In a sense, any Israeli military person engaged in activities in the occupied territories could be considered to be actively participating in hostilities. On the Palestinian side - it's less clear.

No he was still a potential threat, more so than the Israeli children the arab muslims seem to target, so was still possibly armed and a threat.
It is only an act of murder if the act was pre meditated, as in the IDF soldier became engrossed in killing an arab muslim and thought about nothing else for days or weeks beforehand. A spur of the moment act is manslaughter
It is not that difficult at all, just look at how they are dressed for an example. If they are wearing the checked headscarf then they are most likely hamas or fatah terrorists. If they are armed with anything that could be harmfull then they are militia.
So an IDF member patrolling the streets to keep them safe from terrorist, burglars, rapists and murderers is actively participating in hostilities, and not carrying out the demands of the Geneva conventions ?

 

[Phoenall]

He cold bloodedly murdered someone who was already wounded and defenseless - that is not the right side regardless of what that person had done before.

BUT... another point to consider is that the dead man was a combatant in war who was actively taking part in the hostilities and as a combatant he is a fair target.

I'm not saying I disagree with your post or your point of view, as I do think the killing of this particular combatant was uncalled for and morally and legally wrong. But the discussion falls under the conditions of war and should be considered under those conditions. (Hence war crimes rather than murder). Its complicated.

In another thread we are discussing the justification of killing Israeli soldiers in a terrorist attack. The justification for that attack is that soldiers are fair game for killing -- even if they are not currently and immediately participating in hostilities.

Do you sense a double standard here? Are combatants legitimately fair targets? Are combatants fair targets only during their active participation in hostilities?

I don't sense double standards and here is why: the man who was shot was already wounded and down for 11 minutes. The objective was achieved, the threat is neutralized, correct? At that point, he should have been taken under arrest and dealt with. To then shot him in the head is an act of murder.

Your last question is complex and thought provoking. It's difficult to identify Palestinian combatents UNLESS they act...most are civilians and civilians are never fair targets. In a sense, any Israeli military person engaged in activities in the occupied territories could be considered to be actively participating in hostilities. On the Palestinian side - it's less clear.

It is always open season on foreign troops.

Civilian militias are only considered combatants while actively taking part in hostilities.

In either case, once one is captured it is illegal to kill them.

According to you it is legal to kill any Jew at ant time because the Geneva conventions dont apply to them. Still waiting for your link that supports this claim ?

 

[Phoenall]

It is always open season on foreign troops.

Civilian militias are only considered combatants while actively taking part in hostilities.

Coyote

You see how quickly this gets complex? So Tinny has a different standard than you do. His standard is the "foreign troops" are always open season -- legitimate targets. Behavior or active participation in the hostilities notwithstanding.

So, depending on what he means by the term "foreign troops". He might mean all sorts of things. Any one who doesn't "belong" there. All "foreigners". All "Zionists". Or all formally trained militia.

Let's say he means the least vulgar of these and only formally trained militia. In his mind, its always morally and legally correct, in times of conflict, to target and kill all formally trained militia. But, of course, the Palestinians never have formally trained militia. They don't have uniforms. They aren't part of a formally trained group.

See how he draws an artificial line between civilian militia and government militia? If one is not "formally" trained in a government body -- one is exempt from that rule. Neat, isn't it?

The part that is most confusing is that Palestine has never had a military.

So whom is doing all the acts of war that we see coming from gaza, is it Egypt or a false flag by Mossad ?

That is only true in your fantasy world, looking at the evidence we see many pictures of the palestinians military engaging in training.