Attacks on Civilians

[Coyote]

Attacks by Palestinians on Israeli civilians have taken various forms over the years, chiefly: throwing stones at vehicles and people; firearm attacks; detonating bombs in populated areas and on buses; firing rockets at settlements in the Gaza Strip; and – since the evacuation of the settlements in the Gaza Strip as part of the Israeli withdrawal – firing rockets at Israeli communities near Gaza. These violent attacks have killed hundreds of Israeli civilians and injured thousands in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Attacks aimed at civilians undermine all rules of morality and law. Specifically, the intentional killing of civilians is considered a "grave breach" of international humanitarian law and a war crime. Whatever the circumstances, such acts are unjustifiable.

Palestinian organizations raise several arguments to justify attacks on Israeli civilians. The main argument is that "all means are legitimate in fighting for independence against a foreign occupation. "This argument is completely baseless , and contradicts the fundamental principle of international humanitarian law . According to this principle, civilians are to be protected from the consequences of warfare , and any attack must discriminate between civilians and military targets . This principle is part of international customary law; as such, it applies to every state, organization, and person, even those who are not party to any relevant convention.

Palestinian spokespersons distinguish between attacks inside Israel and attacks directed at settlers in the Occupied Territories. They argue that, because the settlements are illegal and many settlers belong to Israel's security forces, settlers are not entitled to the protections granted to civilians by international law.

This argument is readily refuted. The illegality of the settlements has no effect at all on the status of their civilian residents. The settlers constitute a distinctly civilian population, which is entitled to all the protections granted civilians by international law. The Israeli security forces' use of land in the settlements or the membership of some settlers in the Israeli security forces does not affect the status of the other residents living among them, and certainly does not make them proper targets of attack.

I'm going to post the link for the source later in this thread- I think it would be interesting to discuss the content of this on it's own, without a source to influence discussion.

The OP says some interesting things about civilians and targeting them - regardless of where they are living, and whether there are military members among them or some of the civilians are military members.

Lets discuss

http://www.btselem.org/attacks-isra...ns-old/attacks-israeli-civilians-palestinians Link added by Intense.

 

[irosie91]

Attacks by Palestinians on Israeli civilians have taken various forms over the years, chiefly: throwing stones at vehicles and people; firearm attacks; detonating bombs in populated areas and on buses; firing rockets at settlements in the Gaza Strip; and – since the evacuation of the settlements in the Gaza Strip as part of the Israeli withdrawal – firing rockets at Israeli communities near Gaza. These violent attacks have killed hundreds of Israeli civilians and injured thousands in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Attacks aimed at civilians undermine all rules of morality and law. Specifically, the intentional killing of civilians is considered a "grave breach" of international humanitarian law and a war crime. Whatever the circumstances, such acts are unjustifiable.

Palestinian organizations raise several arguments to justify attacks on Israeli civilians. The main argument is that "all means are legitimate in fighting for independence against a foreign occupation. "This argument is completely baseless , and contradicts the fundamental principle of international humanitarian law . According to this principle,
civilians are to be protected from the consequences of warfare , and any attack must discriminate between civilians and military targets . This principle is part of international customary law; as such, it applies to every state, organization, and person, even those who are not party to any relevant convention.

Palestinian spokespersons distinguish between attacks inside Israel and attacks directed at settlers in the Occupied Territories. They argue that, because the settlements are illegal and many settlers belong to Israel's security forces, settlers are not entitled to the protections granted to civilians by international law.

This argument is readily refuted. The illegality of the settlements has no effect at all on
the status of their civilian residents. The settlers constitute a distinctly civilian population, which is entitled to all the protections granted civilians by international law. The Israeli security forces' use of land in the settlements or the membership of some settlers in the Israeli security forces does not affect the status of the other residents living among them
, and certainly does not make them proper targets of attack.

I'm going to post the link for the source later in this thread- I think it would be interesting to discuss the content of this on it's own, without a source to influence discussion.

The OP says some interesting things about civilians and targeting them - regardless of where they are living, and whether there are military members among them or some of the civilians are military members.

Lets discuss

My contribution is------sneak up slitting of an infant's throat----never constitutes --
under any circumstances-----something other than terrorism and the incitement
thereof----and the lauding thereof----is a crime against humanity

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

My comment would be there is no such thing as international law. Israel is a sovereign nation. You must abide by the laws of their land or leave. If you attack a sovereign nation - it is an act of terrorism - it should be treated as such. That would include their waters. If you allow your fishing boats to be used to smuggle weapons, to be used by Hamas posing as fishermen, etc. Then you'll pay the consequences for that.

 

[Coyote]

My comment would be there is no such thing as international law. Israel is a sovereign nation. You must abide by the laws of their land or leave. If you attack a sovereign nation - it is an act of terrorism - it should be treated as such. That would include their waters. If you allow your fishing boats to be used to smuggle weapons, to be used by Hamas posing as fishermen, etc. Then you'll pay the consequences for that.

That justifies actions by both sides then.

I don't agree with what you say about international law. We started out with tribal laws and governance and moved on to city-states and then nation-states -- a progression/evolution. I think, post WW1 - we saw the beginnings of a transition from nation-states to a degree of internationalism. That is already apparent in business and economy. So I think international law does mean something, especially in view of preventing horrible genocides.

 

[Coyote]

I thought this statement particularly compelling:

The settlers constitute a distinctly civilian population, which is entitled to all the protections granted civilians by international law. The Israeli security forces' use of land in the settlements or the membership of some settlers in the Israeli security forces does not affect the status of the other residents living among them, and certainly does not make them proper targets of attack.

Essentially - any civilian population is entitled to protections whether or not they are there "legally" or whether or not there are military members among them.

That applies to attacks on settler towns and settlers traveling on roads, and it applies to attacks on Palestinian civilian centers and the bulldozing of their homes.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Attacks by Palestinians on Israeli civilians have taken various forms over the years, chiefly: throwing stones at vehicles and people; firearm attacks; detonating bombs in populated areas and on buses; firing rockets at settlements in the Gaza Strip; and – since the evacuation of the settlements in the Gaza Strip as part of the Israeli withdrawal – firing rockets at Israeli communities near Gaza. These violent attacks have killed hundreds of Israeli civilians and injured thousands in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Attacks aimed at civilians undermine all rules of morality and law. Specifically, the intentional killing of civilians is considered a "grave breach" of international humanitarian law and a war crime. Whatever the circumstances, such acts are unjustifiable.

Palestinian organizations raise several arguments to justify attacks on Israeli civilians. The main argument is that "all means are legitimate in fighting for independence against a foreign occupation. "This argument is completely baseless , and contradicts the fundamental principle of international humanitarian law . According to this principle, civilians are to be protected from the consequences of warfare , and any attack must discriminate between civilians and military targets . This principle is part of international customary law; as such, it applies to every state, organization, and person, even those who are not party to any relevant convention.

Palestinian spokespersons distinguish between attacks inside Israel and attacks directed at settlers in the Occupied Territories. They argue that, because the settlements are illegal and many settlers belong to Israel's security forces, settlers are not entitled to the protections granted to civilians by international law.

This argument is readily refuted. The illegality of the settlements has no effect at all on the status of their civilian residents. The settlers constitute a distinctly civilian population, which is entitled to all the protections granted civilians by international law. The Israeli security forces' use of land in the settlements or the membership of some settlers in the Israeli security forces does not affect the status of the other residents living among them, and certainly does not make them proper targets of attack.

I'm going to post the link for the source later in this thread- I think it would be interesting to discuss the content of this on it's own, without a source to influence discussion.

The OP says some interesting things about civilians and targeting them - regardless of where they are living, and whether there are military members among them or some of the civilians are military members.

Lets discuss

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

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:... (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

</title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=

Note: Don't ask me why the link is fucked. That is not what I posted.

It works though.

 

[irosie91]

I thought this statement particularly compelling:

The settlers constitute a distinctly civilian population, which is entitled to all the protections granted civilians by international law. The Israeli security forces' use of land in the settlements or the membership of some settlers in the Israeli security forces does not affect the status of the other residents living among them, and certainly does not make them proper targets of attack.

Essentially - any civilian population is entitled to protections whether or not they are there "legally" or whether or not there are military members among them.

That applies to attacks on settler towns and settlers traveling on roads, and it applies to attacks on Palestinian civilian centers and the bulldozing of their homes.

There is a bit of a problem in defining "civilian centers" involving populations
engaged in guerilla warfare-----in fact those involved actually do---legally---
become "NON CIVILIAN" However even if such a center is known to
harbor those engaged in guerilla warfare or terrorists-----sneak up infant throat
slit is STILL TERRORISM
Land claim and even buildings is a really weird dilemma in Israel/palestine/
judea. There were all kinds of WEIRD laws left over from the OTTOMAN
ERA ---as I recall----sorta----were kinda in force scores of years ago
even post 1948 by TRADITION. I think there was a law that any house --
with a roof-------was a house ---like a FAIT ACCOMPLI sorta "legal"
as it turns out there are some jews and a lot more arabs who consider that
law -----DIVINE ----ie--if you can manage to raise a roof at 2am---you got a
'legal' "house" ----in sum---there is lots of problems regarding just what is
a legal house in samaria ----aka palestine---aka ---dar al islam aka dar al isa.
There is another problem regarding land which was legally purchased by jews---
from the OTTOMANS ---but "nationalized" by the UMMAH under the divine
laws of shariah and land owned by jews for thousands of years---never sold--
but claimed by THE UMMAH by divine law----eg --HEBRON

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Attacks by Palestinians on Israeli civilians have taken various forms over the years, chiefly: throwing stones at vehicles and people; firearm attacks; detonating bombs in populated areas and on buses; firing rockets at settlements in the Gaza Strip; and – since the evacuation of the settlements in the Gaza Strip as part of the Israeli withdrawal – firing rockets at Israeli communities near Gaza. These violent attacks have killed hundreds of Israeli civilians and injured thousands in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Attacks aimed at civilians undermine all rules of morality and law. Specifically, the intentional killing of civilians is considered a "grave breach" of international humanitarian law and a war crime. Whatever the circumstances, such acts are unjustifiable.

Palestinian organizations raise several arguments to justify attacks on Israeli civilians. The main argument is that "all means are legitimate in fighting for independence against a foreign occupation. "This argument is completely baseless , and contradicts the fundamental principle of international humanitarian law . According to this principle, civilians are to be protected from the consequences of warfare , and any attack must discriminate between civilians and military targets . This principle is part of international customary law; as such, it applies to every state, organization, and person, even those who are not party to any relevant convention.

Palestinian spokespersons distinguish between attacks inside Israel and attacks directed at settlers in the Occupied Territories. They argue that, because the settlements are illegal and many settlers belong to Israel's security forces, settlers are not entitled to the protections granted to civilians by international law.

This argument is readily refuted. The illegality of the settlements has no effect at all on the status of their civilian residents. The settlers constitute a distinctly civilian population, which is entitled to all the protections granted civilians by international law. The Israeli security forces' use of land in the settlements or the membership of some settlers in the Israeli security forces does not affect the status of the other residents living among them, and certainly does not make them proper targets of attack.

I'm going to post the link for the source later in this thread- I think it would be interesting to discuss the content of this on it's own, without a source to influence discussion.

The OP says some interesting things about civilians and targeting them - regardless of where they are living, and whether there are military members among them or some of the civilians are military members.

Lets discuss

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

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:... (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

</title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=

Note: Don't ask me why the link is fucked. That is not what I posted.

It works though.

(2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

That's awesome. Israel isn't occupying any Palestinian land, so all Israeli civilians are protected. Glad you agree.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Attacks by Palestinians on Israeli civilians have taken various forms over the years, chiefly: throwing stones at vehicles and people; firearm attacks; detonating bombs in populated areas and on buses; firing rockets at settlements in the Gaza Strip; and – since the evacuation of the settlements in the Gaza Strip as part of the Israeli withdrawal – firing rockets at Israeli communities near Gaza. These violent attacks have killed hundreds of Israeli civilians and injured thousands in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Attacks aimed at civilians undermine all rules of morality and law. Specifically, the intentional killing of civilians is considered a "grave breach" of international humanitarian law and a war crime. Whatever the circumstances, such acts are unjustifiable.

Palestinian organizations raise several arguments to justify attacks on Israeli civilians. The main argument is that "all means are legitimate in fighting for independence against a foreign occupation. "This argument is completely baseless , and contradicts the fundamental principle of international humanitarian law . According to this principle, civilians are to be protected from the consequences of warfare , and any attack must discriminate between civilians and military targets . This principle is part of international customary law; as such, it applies to every state, organization, and person, even those who are not party to any relevant convention.

Palestinian spokespersons distinguish between attacks inside Israel and attacks directed at settlers in the Occupied Territories. They argue that, because the settlements are illegal and many settlers belong to Israel's security forces, settlers are not entitled to the protections granted to civilians by international law.

This argument is readily refuted. The illegality of the settlements has no effect at all on the status of their civilian residents. The settlers constitute a distinctly civilian population, which is entitled to all the protections granted civilians by international law. The Israeli security forces' use of land in the settlements or the membership of some settlers in the Israeli security forces does not affect the status of the other residents living among them, and certainly does not make them proper targets of attack.

I'm going to post the link for the source later in this thread- I think it would be interesting to discuss the content of this on it's own, without a source to influence discussion.

The OP says some interesting things about civilians and targeting them - regardless of where they are living, and whether there are military members among them or some of the civilians are military members.

Lets discuss

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

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:... (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

</title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=

Note: Don't ask me why the link is fucked. That is not what I posted.

It works though.

So, illegal settlers in the OPT are not protected persons under international law.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

My comment would be there is no such thing as international law. Israel is a sovereign nation. You must abide by the laws of their land or leave. If you attack a sovereign nation - it is an act of terrorism - it should be treated as such. That would include their waters. If you allow your fishing boats to be used to smuggle weapons, to be used by Hamas posing as fishermen, etc. Then you'll pay the consequences for that.

That justifies actions by both sides then.

I don't agree with what you say about international law. We started out with tribal laws and governance and moved on to city-states and then nation-states -- a progression/evolution. I think, post WW1 - we saw the beginnings of a transition from nation-states to a degree of internationalism. That is already apparent in business and economy. So I think international law does mean something, especially in view of preventing horrible genocides.

You have probably heard it mentioned so often that you assumed it had the power to interfere with the sovereignty of a nation. It doesn't and it won't in the case of Israel.

As you can see the UN did nothing to address the Fogel Family Massacre - settlers slaughtered in their pajamas by trespassing palestinians... I have no interest in what the UN approves or disapproves of.. As to justified actions by both sides? No. Israel is a sovereign nation while Palestinian people live in limbo because of their own representatives. The land the Jewish settlers are on belongs to them. There is no justification for what happened to the Fogel Family.

 

[sealadaigh]

Attacks by Palestinians on Israeli civilians have taken various forms over the years, chiefly: throwing stones at vehicles and people; firearm attacks; detonating bombs in populated areas and on buses; firing rockets at settlements in the Gaza Strip; and – since the evacuation of the settlements in the Gaza Strip as part of the Israeli withdrawal – firing rockets at Israeli communities near Gaza. These violent attacks have killed hundreds of Israeli civilians and injured thousands in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Attacks aimed at civilians undermine all rules of morality and law. Specifically, the intentional killing of civilians is considered a "grave breach" of international humanitarian law and a war crime. Whatever the circumstances, such acts are unjustifiable.

Palestinian organizations raise several arguments to justify attacks on Israeli civilians. The main argument is that "all means are legitimate in fighting for independence against a foreign occupation. "This argument is completely baseless , and contradicts the fundamental principle of international humanitarian law . According to this principle, civilians are to be protected from the consequences of warfare , and any attack must discriminate between civilians and military targets . This principle is part of international customary law; as such, it applies to every state, organization, and person, even those who are not party to any relevant convention.

Palestinian spokespersons distinguish between attacks inside Israel and attacks directed at settlers in the Occupied Territories. They argue that, because the settlements are illegal and many settlers belong to Israel's security forces, settlers are not entitled to the protections granted to civilians by international law.

This argument is readily refuted. The illegality of the settlements has no effect at all on the status of their civilian residents. The settlers constitute a distinctly civilian population, which is entitled to all the protections granted civilians by international law. The Israeli security forces' use of land in the settlements or the membership of some settlers in the Israeli security forces does not affect the status of the other residents living among them, and certainly does not make them proper targets of attack.

I'm going to post the link for the source later in this thread- I think it would be interesting to discuss the content of this on it's own, without a source to influence discussion.

The OP says some interesting things about civilians and targeting them - regardless of where they are living, and whether there are military members among them or some of the civilians are military members.

Lets discuss

i think maybe, because their is no border really, you might want to ask what israelo would fo if palestinians decided to erect settlements in what the israeli gobeernment considers israel.

i would not consider these palestinians civilians, per se, anymore than i would consider the settlers civilian, but there is room for aa lot of wiggle.

who are these settlers anyway. if they are coming from europe or the USA and just taking the land, they really are no bettr than theives

civilians have responsibilities too, to not put themselves in dangerous situations where it is not necessary to put themselves...and is an armed settler really a civilian...and are those who support that armed settler in material ways really civilians.

 

[Roudy]

Attacks by Palestinians on Israeli civilians have taken various forms over the years, chiefly: throwing stones at vehicles and people; firearm attacks; detonating bombs in populated areas and on buses; firing rockets at settlements in the Gaza Strip; and &#8211; since the evacuation of the settlements in the Gaza Strip as part of the Israeli withdrawal &#8211; firing rockets at Israeli communities near Gaza. These violent attacks have killed hundreds of Israeli civilians and injured thousands in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Attacks aimed at civilians undermine all rules of morality and law. Specifically, the intentional killing of civilians is considered a "grave breach" of international humanitarian law and a war crime. Whatever the circumstances, such acts are unjustifiable.

Palestinian organizations raise several arguments to justify attacks on Israeli civilians. The main argument is that "all means are legitimate in fighting for independence against a foreign occupation. "This argument is completely baseless , and contradicts the fundamental principle of international humanitarian law . According to this principle, civilians are to be protected from the consequences of warfare , and any attack must discriminate between civilians and military targets . This principle is part of international customary law; as such, it applies to every state, organization, and person, even those who are not party to any relevant convention.

Palestinian spokespersons distinguish between attacks inside Israel and attacks directed at settlers in the Occupied Territories. They argue that, because the settlements are illegal and many settlers belong to Israel's security forces, settlers are not entitled to the protections granted to civilians by international law.

This argument is readily refuted. The illegality of the settlements has no effect at all on the status of their civilian residents. The settlers constitute a distinctly civilian population, which is entitled to all the protections granted civilians by international law. The Israeli security forces' use of land in the settlements or the membership of some settlers in the Israeli security forces does not affect the status of the other residents living among them, and certainly does not make them proper targets of attack.

I'm going to post the link for the source later in this thread- I think it would be interesting to discuss the content of this on it's own, without a source to influence discussion.

The OP says some interesting things about civilians and targeting them - regardless of where they are living, and whether there are military members among them or some of the civilians are military members.

Lets discuss

God forbid should any person or loved one be involved or get hurt in a terrorist attack of the type Palestinians do.. Then you would realize how silly it is to compare the two. It would be like comparing what the US is doing with drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Taliban, to the what the Boston bombers did. No comparison. There really is no grey area at all.

 

[sealadaigh]

I'm going to post the link for the source later in this thread- I think it would be interesting to discuss the content of this on it's own, without a source to influence discussion.

The OP says some interesting things about civilians and targeting them - regardless of where they are living, and whether there are military members among them or some of the civilians are military members.

Lets discuss

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

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:... (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

</title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=

Note: Don't ask me why the link is fucked. That is not what I posted.

It works though.

So, illegal settlers in the OPT are not protected persons under international law.

i don't think they are...what you have here though is an incredible imbalance of power. the settlers are israel's responsibility to remove.

if armed mexicans decided to move in and settle west texas, what would we do. what would texans do if the feds did nothing..

as for the source in the OP, i normally listen to what they say and agree with their intent in most instances, including their concern about civilian casualties, but in this case, i think the issue is not civilians but combatants and non-combatants. i think in the argument in the OP, "civilian" is a throw away word.

 

[pbel]

Attacks by Palestinians on Israeli civilians have taken various forms over the years, chiefly: throwing stones at vehicles and people; firearm attacks; detonating bombs in populated areas and on buses; firing rockets at settlements in the Gaza Strip; and – since the evacuation of the settlements in the Gaza Strip as part of the Israeli withdrawal – firing rockets at Israeli communities near Gaza. These violent attacks have killed hundreds of Israeli civilians and injured thousands in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Attacks aimed at civilians undermine all rules of morality and law. Specifically, the intentional killing of civilians is considered a "grave breach" of international humanitarian law and a war crime. Whatever the circumstances, such acts are unjustifiable.

Palestinian organizations raise several arguments to justify attacks on Israeli civilians. The main argument is that "all means are legitimate in fighting for independence against a foreign occupation. "This argument is completely baseless , and contradicts the fundamental principle of international humanitarian law . According to this principle, civilians are to be protected from the consequences of warfare , and any attack must discriminate between civilians and military targets . This principle is part of international customary law; as such, it applies to every state, organization, and person, even those who are not party to any relevant convention.

Palestinian spokespersons distinguish between attacks inside Israel and attacks directed at settlers in the Occupied Territories. They argue that, because the settlements are illegal and many settlers belong to Israel's security forces, settlers are not entitled to the protections granted to civilians by international law.

This argument is readily refuted. The illegality of the settlements has no effect at all on the status of their civilian residents. The settlers constitute a distinctly civilian population, which is entitled to all the protections granted civilians by international law. The Israeli security forces' use of land in the settlements or the membership of some settlers in the Israeli security forces does not affect the status of the other residents living among them, and certainly does not make them proper targets of attack.

I'm going to post the link for the source later in this thread- I think it would be interesting to discuss the content of this on it's own, without a source to influence discussion.

The OP says some interesting things about civilians and targeting them - regardless of where they are living, and whether there are military members among them or some of the civilians are military members.

Lets discuss

A first glance, this conflict is unlike the usual conflict between sovereign states. Israel was created by the Western Powers out of thin air…It took land previously occupied by Arabs and gave it to Diaspora Jews because they need a safe-haven. The natives were essentially disposed of their Liberty, their property, and their lives, by Political Fiat buried in the quasi-legalistic language of the UN controlled by the Western Colonial successors…

The Israelis were not occupiers in the usual sense of a war and leave at some point when a peace is signed, No. This occupation was meant to be permanent…

International Law has never been written for this type of War-Fare..

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Pbel, it is a moot point because there is no such thing as international law.

They first have to have an international military, global gov, court, judicial branch to enforce international law and we are not quite there yet. The UN is pushing hard but not quite yet.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

My comment would be there is no such thing as international law. Israel is a sovereign nation. You must abide by the laws of their land or leave. If you attack a sovereign nation - it is an act of terrorism - it should be treated as such. That would include their waters. If you allow your fishing boats to be used to smuggle weapons, to be used by Hamas posing as fishermen, etc. Then you'll pay the consequences for that.

That justifies actions by both sides then.

I don't agree with what you say about international law. We started out with tribal laws and governance and moved on to city-states and then nation-states -- a progression/evolution. I think, post WW1 - we saw the beginnings of a transition from nation-states to a degree of internationalism. That is already apparent in business and economy. So I think international law does mean something, especially in view of preventing horrible genocides.

You have probably heard it mentioned so often that you assumed it had the power to interfere with the sovereignty of a nation. It doesn't and it won't in the case of Israel.

As you can see the UN did nothing to address the Fogel Family Massacre - settlers slaughtered in their pajamas by trespassing palestinians... I have no interest in what the UN approves or disapproves of.. As to justified actions by both sides? No. Israel is a sovereign nation while Palestinian people live in limbo because of their own representatives. The land the Jewish settlers are on belongs to them. There is no justification for what happened to the Fogel Family.

They were illegal settlers and she taught girls to be terrorists in an extremist settler school founded by Kach followers. And that is all discussed in The Tablet article Girls At War. http://www.terrorism101.org/organizations/Kach_Kahane_Chai.html

 

[Coyote]

My comment would be there is no such thing as international law. Israel is a sovereign nation. You must abide by the laws of their land or leave. If you attack a sovereign nation - it is an act of terrorism - it should be treated as such. That would include their waters. If you allow your fishing boats to be used to smuggle weapons, to be used by Hamas posing as fishermen, etc. Then you'll pay the consequences for that.

That justifies actions by both sides then.

I don't agree with what you say about international law. We started out with tribal laws and governance and moved on to city-states and then nation-states -- a progression/evolution. I think, post WW1 - we saw the beginnings of a transition from nation-states to a degree of internationalism. That is already apparent in business and economy. So I think international law does mean something, especially in view of preventing horrible genocides.

You have probably heard it mentioned so often that you assumed it had the power to interfere with the sovereignty of a nation. It doesn't and it won't in the case of Israel.

As you can see the UN did nothing to address the Fogel Family Massacre - settlers slaughtered in their pajamas by trespassing palestinians... I have no interest in what the UN approves or disapproves of.. As to justified actions by both sides? No. Israel is a sovereign nation while Palestinian people live in limbo because of their own representatives. The land the Jewish settlers are on belongs to them. There is no justification for what happened to the Fogel Family.

The land the Jewish settlers are on is occupied territory stolen from the Palestinians during a war. Even Israel refers to it as "Occupied Territories".

And yes - there is NO justification for the brutal murder of civilians.

 

[sealadaigh]

Attacks by Palestinians on Israeli civilians have taken various forms over the years, chiefly: throwing stones at vehicles and people; firearm attacks; detonating bombs in populated areas and on buses; firing rockets at settlements in the Gaza Strip; and &#8211; since the evacuation of the settlements in the Gaza Strip as part of the Israeli withdrawal &#8211; firing rockets at Israeli communities near Gaza. These violent attacks have killed hundreds of Israeli civilians and injured thousands in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Attacks aimed at civilians undermine all rules of morality and law. Specifically, the intentional killing of civilians is considered a "grave breach" of international humanitarian law and a war crime. Whatever the circumstances, such acts are unjustifiable.

Palestinian organizations raise several arguments to justify attacks on Israeli civilians. The main argument is that "all means are legitimate in fighting for independence against a foreign occupation. "This argument is completely baseless , and contradicts the fundamental principle of international humanitarian law . According to this principle, civilians are to be protected from the consequences of warfare , and any attack must discriminate between civilians and military targets . This principle is part of international customary law; as such, it applies to every state, organization, and person, even those who are not party to any relevant convention.

Palestinian spokespersons distinguish between attacks inside Israel and attacks directed at settlers in the Occupied Territories. They argue that, because the settlements are illegal and many settlers belong to Israel's security forces, settlers are not entitled to the protections granted to civilians by international law.

This argument is readily refuted. The illegality of the settlements has no effect at all on the status of their civilian residents. The settlers constitute a distinctly civilian population, which is entitled to all the protections granted civilians by international law. The Israeli security forces' use of land in the settlements or the membership of some settlers in the Israeli security forces does not affect the status of the other residents living among them, and certainly does not make them proper targets of attack.

I'm going to post the link for the source later in this thread- I think it would be interesting to discuss the content of this on it's own, without a source to influence discussion.

The OP says some interesting things about civilians and targeting them - regardless of where they are living, and whether there are military members among them or some of the civilians are military members.

Lets discuss

God forbid should any person or loved one be involved or get hurt in a terrorist attack of the type Palestinians do.. Then you would realize how silly it is to compare the two. It would be like comparing what the US is doing with drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Taliban, to the what the Boston bombers did. No comparison. There really is no grey area at all.

move forward, roudy. we don't need another litany of who is worse...or i will have whatever god who or which (depending on the side of town you are in, papist or prod) happens to be free at the moment forbidding a samouni family or whining about the lobbing WP rounds into charleston and south boston to rid the world of catholic school girl sluts in plaid skirts, much to the chagrin i am sure ot those individuals who enjoy being persecuted by them.

 

[Coyote]

Pbel, it is a moot point because there is no such thing as international law.

They first have to have an international military, global gov, court, judicial branch to enforce international law and we are not quite there yet. The UN is pushing hard but not quite yet.

From Wikipedia:

International law is the set of rules generally regarded and accepted as binding in relations between states and nations.[1][2] It serves as a framework for the practice of stable and organized international relations.[3] International law differs from national legal systems in that it primarily concerns nations rather than private citizens. National law may become international law when treaties delegate national jurisdiction to supranational tribunals such as the European Court of Human Rights or the International Criminal Court. Treaties such as the Geneva Conventions may require national law to conform.

There is such a thing.

 

[Coyote]

That justifies actions by both sides then.

I don't agree with what you say about international law. We started out with tribal laws and governance and moved on to city-states and then nation-states -- a progression/evolution. I think, post WW1 - we saw the beginnings of a transition from nation-states to a degree of internationalism. That is already apparent in business and economy. So I think international law does mean something, especially in view of preventing horrible genocides.

You have probably heard it mentioned so often that you assumed it had the power to interfere with the sovereignty of a nation. It doesn't and it won't in the case of Israel.

As you can see the UN did nothing to address the Fogel Family Massacre - settlers slaughtered in their pajamas by trespassing palestinians... I have no interest in what the UN approves or disapproves of.. As to justified actions by both sides? No. Israel is a sovereign nation while Palestinian people live in limbo because of their own representatives. The land the Jewish settlers are on belongs to them. There is no justification for what happened to the Fogel Family.

They were illegal settlers and she taught girls to be terrorists in an extremist settler school founded by Kach followers. And that is all discussed in The Tablet article Girls At War.

Link?