Civilians vs Combatents

[Coyote]

MOD EDIT:
This thread is an offshoot of another thread that generated some good discussion.
I'm moving some relevant posts to this thread.

There's considerable argument in IP conflict particularly, as to what constitutes a civilian vs a combatent.

Is targeting civilians acceptable?

Of course not but ...The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

This seems to me to be a dangerously immoral path to go down -- along the lines of "Well, of course you can't target civilians -- but Israelis/Jews aren't civilians."

What makes a civilian a civilian? It can't simply be that they are the "wrong" ethnicity living on the "wrong" side of an Armistice line.

​

Civilians or combatants?

Someone, of course, is now going to post the predictable pictures of Palestinian children...as if somehow trying to justify designating children as legitimate targets.

That is seriously sick.

Blaming the parents for the actions of terrorists (not freedom fighters) who deliberately choose to target children is not much better. There is no excuse for targeting children.

 

[Challenger]

Is targeting civilians acceptable?

Of course not but ...The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

This seems to me to be a dangerously immoral path to go down -- along the lines of "Well, of course you can't target civilians -- but Israelis/Jews aren't civilians."

What makes a civilian a civilian? It can't simply be that they are the "wrong" ethnicity living on the "wrong" side of an Armistice line.

​

Civilians or combatants?

Someone, of course, is now going to post the predictable pictures of Palestinian children...as if somehow trying to justify designating children as legitimate targets.

That is seriously sick.

Blaming the parents for the actions of terrorists (not freedom fighters) who deliberately choose to target children is not much better. There is no excuse for targeting children.

I never said there was.

I responded to Shusha's question, "What makes a civilian a civilian?" In the case of Zionist Israel, a very large proportion of the population are military reservists or active IDF members. The photographs pose the question, are they legitimate targets and if so, are they using their unarmed fellow citizens as human shields, a charge often made against Palestinians? RoccoR will doubtless give us all the "legal definition" according to whatever convention applies, so I won't waste my time on that.

I deliberately avoided posting pictures of children carrying and/or playing with weapons as I agree that such pictures are no justification at all to target children.

The two pictures at the end, however pose another quandary; who would be responsible for the death and injury to the children depicted should a Palestinian mortar or rocket hit the artillery position (Gaza) or the tank (Golan Heights)? The shooter or the parents/soldiers who allowed the children to be there in a conflict zone the first place?

 

[Coyote]

Is targeting civilians acceptable?

Of course not but ...The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

This seems to me to be a dangerously immoral path to go down -- along the lines of "Well, of course you can't target civilians -- but Israelis/Jews aren't civilians."

What makes a civilian a civilian? It can't simply be that they are the "wrong" ethnicity living on the "wrong" side of an Armistice line.

​

Civilians or combatants?

Someone, of course, is now going to post the predictable pictures of Palestinian children...as if somehow trying to justify designating children as legitimate targets.

That is seriously sick.

Blaming the parents for the actions of terrorists (not freedom fighters) who deliberately choose to target children is not much better. There is no excuse for targeting children.

I never said there was.

I responded to Shusha's question, "What makes a civilian a civilian?" In the case of Zionist Israel, a very large proportion of the population are military reservists or active IDF members. The photographs pose the question, are they legitimate targets and if so, are they using their unarmed fellow citizens as human shields, a charge often made against Palestinians? RoccoR will doubtless give us all the "legal definition" according to whatever convention applies, so I won't waste my time on that.

I deliberately avoided posting pictures of children carrying and/or playing with weapons as I agree that such pictures are no justification at all to target children.

The two pictures at the end, however pose another quandary; who would be responsible for the death and injury to the children depicted should a Palestinian mortar or rocket hit the artillery position (Gaza) or the tank (Golan Heights)? The shooter or the parents/soldiers who allowed the children to be there in a conflict zone the first place?

What matters in my mind...is intent. If the intent is to target and kill children, or if the intent is an indiscrimminate strike targeting civilian areas, regardless of where they are - are they suddenly not civilians?

As to who is responsible for civilians living in contested areas - that's tricky. IMO, until it's resolved and borders drawn, responsibility lies with the government controlling the territory and allowing civilians to live there. Likewise - who is responsible for civilian deaths when Gaza is struck? Is it the Israeli's? Or is it the government that allows rockets to be fired into Israeli civilian areas?

 

[Phoenall]

Is targeting civilians acceptable?

Of course not but ...The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

This seems to me to be a dangerously immoral path to go down -- along the lines of "Well, of course you can't target civilians -- but Israelis/Jews aren't civilians."

What makes a civilian a civilian? It can't simply be that they are the "wrong" ethnicity living on the "wrong" side of an Armistice line.

​

Civilians or combatants?

Someone, of course, is now going to post the predictable pictures of Palestinian children...as if somehow trying to justify designating children as legitimate targets.

That is seriously sick.

Blaming the parents for the actions of terrorists (not freedom fighters) who deliberately choose to target children is not much better. There is no excuse for targeting children.

I never said there was.

I responded to Shusha's question, "What makes a civilian a civilian?" In the case of Zionist Israel, a very large proportion of the population are military reservists or active IDF members. The photographs pose the question, are they legitimate targets and if so, are they using their unarmed fellow citizens as human shields, a charge often made against Palestinians? RoccoR will doubtless give us all the "legal definition" according to whatever convention applies, so I won't waste my time on that.

I deliberately avoided posting pictures of children carrying and/or playing with weapons as I agree that such pictures are no justification at all to target children.

The two pictures at the end, however pose another quandary; who would be responsible for the death and injury to the children depicted should a Palestinian mortar or rocket hit the artillery position (Gaza) or the tank (Golan Heights)? The shooter or the parents/soldiers who allowed the children to be there in a conflict zone the first place?

So what about Zionist Britain or Zionist America then, or don't they count ?

See how your use of the term alters its context and turns it into hate speech, well known in the UK now and is seen as RACIST HATERED AND HATE SPEECH.


Not that long ago many of the population of Zionist Britain and Zionist America were reservists does this mean that we are not civilians.

The Geneva conventions spells it out as those people not in uniform, not carrying arms and not engaged in military actions as being civilians. So how are the IDF using their fellow Israeli's as human shields, do they erect illegal weapons launchers in civilian areas with lots of children. Of course you wont waste your time as it will show that you hate the Jews so much that you want any excuse to wipe them out.


Only your word that they are in gaza and the Golan heights, the troops are too relaxed for it to be a war zone.



Now get back on topic as the thread is dealing with Barghouti and his attempt at taking control

 

[Challenger]

Of course not but ...The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

This seems to me to be a dangerously immoral path to go down -- along the lines of "Well, of course you can't target civilians -- but Israelis/Jews aren't civilians."

What makes a civilian a civilian? It can't simply be that they are the "wrong" ethnicity living on the "wrong" side of an Armistice line.

​

Civilians or combatants?

Someone, of course, is now going to post the predictable pictures of Palestinian children...as if somehow trying to justify designating children as legitimate targets.

That is seriously sick.

Blaming the parents for the actions of terrorists (not freedom fighters) who deliberately choose to target children is not much better. There is no excuse for targeting children.

I never said there was.

I responded to Shusha's question, "What makes a civilian a civilian?" In the case of Zionist Israel, a very large proportion of the population are military reservists or active IDF members. The photographs pose the question, are they legitimate targets and if so, are they using their unarmed fellow citizens as human shields, a charge often made against Palestinians? RoccoR will doubtless give us all the "legal definition" according to whatever convention applies, so I won't waste my time on that.

I deliberately avoided posting pictures of children carrying and/or playing with weapons as I agree that such pictures are no justification at all to target children.

The two pictures at the end, however pose another quandary; who would be responsible for the death and injury to the children depicted should a Palestinian mortar or rocket hit the artillery position (Gaza) or the tank (Golan Heights)? The shooter or the parents/soldiers who allowed the children to be there in a conflict zone the first place?

What matters in my mind...is intent. If the intent is to target and kill children, or if the intent is an indiscrimminate strike targeting civilian areas, regardless of where they are - are they suddenly not civilians?

As to who is responsible for civilians living in contested areas - that's tricky. IMO, until it's resolved and borders drawn, responsibility lies with the government controlling the territory and allowing civilians to live there. Likewise - who is responsible for civilian deaths when Gaza is struck? Is it the Israeli's? Or is it the government that allows rockets to be fired into Israeli civilian areas?

Who determines "intent"? The accusations of the victims or the declarations of the shooter him/herself?

Consider, the above photo is of IDF HQ (the prominent square building with the funny round tower sticking out of it. This is in central Tel Aviv and has two hospitals and a medical centre in close proximity.
The IDF HQ is beyond doubt a legitimate military target, but should Hamas avoid firing rockets at it, just in case they miss and hit the hospitals closeby?

 

[Phoenall]

Of course not but ...The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

This seems to me to be a dangerously immoral path to go down -- along the lines of "Well, of course you can't target civilians -- but Israelis/Jews aren't civilians."

What makes a civilian a civilian? It can't simply be that they are the "wrong" ethnicity living on the "wrong" side of an Armistice line.

​

Civilians or combatants?

Someone, of course, is now going to post the predictable pictures of Palestinian children...as if somehow trying to justify designating children as legitimate targets.

That is seriously sick.

Blaming the parents for the actions of terrorists (not freedom fighters) who deliberately choose to target children is not much better. There is no excuse for targeting children.

I never said there was.

I responded to Shusha's question, "What makes a civilian a civilian?" In the case of Zionist Israel, a very large proportion of the population are military reservists or active IDF members. The photographs pose the question, are they legitimate targets and if so, are they using their unarmed fellow citizens as human shields, a charge often made against Palestinians? RoccoR will doubtless give us all the "legal definition" according to whatever convention applies, so I won't waste my time on that.

I deliberately avoided posting pictures of children carrying and/or playing with weapons as I agree that such pictures are no justification at all to target children.

The two pictures at the end, however pose another quandary; who would be responsible for the death and injury to the children depicted should a Palestinian mortar or rocket hit the artillery position (Gaza) or the tank (Golan Heights)? The shooter or the parents/soldiers who allowed the children to be there in a conflict zone the first place?

What matters in my mind...is intent. If the intent is to target and kill children, or if the intent is an indiscrimminate strike targeting civilian areas, regardless of where they are - are they suddenly not civilians?

As to who is responsible for civilians living in contested areas - that's tricky. IMO, until it's resolved and borders drawn, responsibility lies with the government controlling the territory and allowing civilians to live there. Likewise - who is responsible for civilian deaths when Gaza is struck? Is it the Israeli's? Or is it the government that allows rockets to be fired into Israeli civilian areas?

Have a look on google maps at gaza and see just how much is open land with no civilians, then ask why they prefer to use schools, hospitals, mosques and civilian housing areas to engage in acts of war. If this ever came to court the Palestinians would be facing charges of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide on their own people. I wonder if Barghouti would withdraw the complaint if it looked like his own people would face charges of war crimes ?



Hamas of course as they tell the terrorists were to fire from, and then force the civilians to stay put. It is a matter of public domain

 

[Phoenall]

This seems to me to be a dangerously immoral path to go down -- along the lines of "Well, of course you can't target civilians -- but Israelis/Jews aren't civilians."

What makes a civilian a civilian? It can't simply be that they are the "wrong" ethnicity living on the "wrong" side of an Armistice line.

​

Civilians or combatants?

Someone, of course, is now going to post the predictable pictures of Palestinian children...as if somehow trying to justify designating children as legitimate targets.

That is seriously sick.

Blaming the parents for the actions of terrorists (not freedom fighters) who deliberately choose to target children is not much better. There is no excuse for targeting children.

I never said there was.

I responded to Shusha's question, "What makes a civilian a civilian?" In the case of Zionist Israel, a very large proportion of the population are military reservists or active IDF members. The photographs pose the question, are they legitimate targets and if so, are they using their unarmed fellow citizens as human shields, a charge often made against Palestinians? RoccoR will doubtless give us all the "legal definition" according to whatever convention applies, so I won't waste my time on that.

I deliberately avoided posting pictures of children carrying and/or playing with weapons as I agree that such pictures are no justification at all to target children.

The two pictures at the end, however pose another quandary; who would be responsible for the death and injury to the children depicted should a Palestinian mortar or rocket hit the artillery position (Gaza) or the tank (Golan Heights)? The shooter or the parents/soldiers who allowed the children to be there in a conflict zone the first place?

What matters in my mind...is intent. If the intent is to target and kill children, or if the intent is an indiscrimminate strike targeting civilian areas, regardless of where they are - are they suddenly not civilians?

As to who is responsible for civilians living in contested areas - that's tricky. IMO, until it's resolved and borders drawn, responsibility lies with the government controlling the territory and allowing civilians to live there. Likewise - who is responsible for civilian deaths when Gaza is struck? Is it the Israeli's? Or is it the government that allows rockets to be fired into Israeli civilian areas?

Who determines "intent"? The accusations of the victims or the declarations of the shooter him/herself?

Consider, the above photo is of IDF HQ (the prominent square building with the funny round tower sticking out of it. This is in central Tel Aviv and has two hospitals and a medical centre in close proximity.
The IDF HQ is beyond doubt a legitimate military target, but should Hamas avoid firing rockets at it, just in case they miss and hit the hospitals closeby?

They already have and missed. but you miss the point that this is not in the muddle of a war zone and is not being used to fire illegal weapons. How many people in that building are civilian workers and so are not valid military targets, unless you want to twist the rules

 

[ogibillm]

Civilians or combatants?

Someone, of course, is now going to post the predictable pictures of Palestinian children...as if somehow trying to justify designating children as legitimate targets.

That is seriously sick.

Blaming the parents for the actions of terrorists (not freedom fighters) who deliberately choose to target children is not much better. There is no excuse for targeting children.

I never said there was.

I responded to Shusha's question, "What makes a civilian a civilian?" In the case of Zionist Israel, a very large proportion of the population are military reservists or active IDF members. The photographs pose the question, are they legitimate targets and if so, are they using their unarmed fellow citizens as human shields, a charge often made against Palestinians? RoccoR will doubtless give us all the "legal definition" according to whatever convention applies, so I won't waste my time on that.

I deliberately avoided posting pictures of children carrying and/or playing with weapons as I agree that such pictures are no justification at all to target children.

The two pictures at the end, however pose another quandary; who would be responsible for the death and injury to the children depicted should a Palestinian mortar or rocket hit the artillery position (Gaza) or the tank (Golan Heights)? The shooter or the parents/soldiers who allowed the children to be there in a conflict zone the first place?

What matters in my mind...is intent. If the intent is to target and kill children, or if the intent is an indiscrimminate strike targeting civilian areas, regardless of where they are - are they suddenly not civilians?

As to who is responsible for civilians living in contested areas - that's tricky. IMO, until it's resolved and borders drawn, responsibility lies with the government controlling the territory and allowing civilians to live there. Likewise - who is responsible for civilian deaths when Gaza is struck? Is it the Israeli's? Or is it the government that allows rockets to be fired into Israeli civilian areas?

Who determines "intent"? The accusations of the victims or the declarations of the shooter him/herself?

Consider, the above photo is of IDF HQ (the prominent square building with the funny round tower sticking out of it. This is in central Tel Aviv and has two hospitals and a medical centre in close proximity.
The IDF HQ is beyond doubt a legitimate military target, but should Hamas avoid firing rockets at it, just in case they miss and hit the hospitals closeby?

They already have and missed. but you miss the point that this is not in the muddle of a war zone and is not being used to fire illegal weapons. How many people in that building are civilian workers and so are not valid military targets, unless you want to twist the rules

haven't you claimed the former homes of palestinian terrorists are military targets?

 

[Phoenall]

The responsibility is that of the aggressor not the victim.

Unbelievable. So, in your opinion, in any country which has been colonized - the "victim" (the indigenous peoples) have the right to target and murder three year old children.

You are scary.

The parent's have the responsibility for their children's safety.

Which means that all Palestinians are potential murderers of children and have no legal standing. Or to put it in American it is open season on Palestinians to make Israeli children safe ! ! ! !

 

[Phoenall]

Freeman, et al,

Whether or not the Israeli Palestinians are "peaceful" or not is not really germain to the issue.

The zionazis settlers are the most "peaceful" creatures!

(QUESTION)

The question is, whether or not the Oslo Accords; --- granted Israel the Israel civil and security control over Area "C?"

Most Respectfully,
R

The West Bank is considered occupied by UN and all countries, settlements are illegal in this region.

Not according to international law that takes precedence over a UN recommendation any day

 

[Phoenall]

Mandella was not a peaceful man. He invented the "burning necklace". Mandella was a terrorist. If you truly want to look for peaceful then look at Sadat.

Of course he was killed by islamic terrorists for his work.

The zionazis settlers are the most "peaceful" creatures!

Once again the islamomoron posts his OXYMORON and does not realise he is doing it


How can you defend Jews rights to a homeland and the right to defend it while mass murdering Jews ?

Any chance of an answer ?

Wacky, there is no law against fighting settlers.

Then it is time the Palestinians packed their bags and went isn't it, that way they would not get killed all the time

 

[P F Tinmore]

Of course not but ...The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

This seems to me to be a dangerously immoral path to go down -- along the lines of "Well, of course you can't target civilians -- but Israelis/Jews aren't civilians."

What makes a civilian a civilian? It can't simply be that they are the "wrong" ethnicity living on the "wrong" side of an Armistice line.

​

Civilians or combatants?

Someone, of course, is now going to post the predictable pictures of Palestinian children...as if somehow trying to justify designating children as legitimate targets.

That is seriously sick.

Blaming the parents for the actions of terrorists (not freedom fighters) who deliberately choose to target children is not much better. There is no excuse for targeting children.

I never said there was.

I responded to Shusha's question, "What makes a civilian a civilian?" In the case of Zionist Israel, a very large proportion of the population are military reservists or active IDF members. The photographs pose the question, are they legitimate targets and if so, are they using their unarmed fellow citizens as human shields, a charge often made against Palestinians? RoccoR will doubtless give us all the "legal definition" according to whatever convention applies, so I won't waste my time on that.

I deliberately avoided posting pictures of children carrying and/or playing with weapons as I agree that such pictures are no justification at all to target children.

The two pictures at the end, however pose another quandary; who would be responsible for the death and injury to the children depicted should a Palestinian mortar or rocket hit the artillery position (Gaza) or the tank (Golan Heights)? The shooter or the parents/soldiers who allowed the children to be there in a conflict zone the first place?

What matters in my mind...is intent. If the intent is to target and kill children, or if the intent is an indiscrimminate strike targeting civilian areas, regardless of where they are - are they suddenly not civilians?

As to who is responsible for civilians living in contested areas - that's tricky. IMO, until it's resolved and borders drawn, responsibility lies with the government controlling the territory and allowing civilians to live there. Likewise - who is responsible for civilian deaths when Gaza is struck? Is it the Israeli's? Or is it the government that allows rockets to be fired into Israeli civilian areas?

IMO, until it's resolved and borders drawn, responsibility lies with the government controlling the territory and allowing civilians to live there.​

Excellent point.

It is Israel's war zone and Israel has military control of the territory. It is Israel who allows/encourages illegal settlers to have their families live in their war zone. And don't forget that illegal settlers are not "protected persons" (usually called civilians) as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Palestinians are protected persons because they have the right to live in Palestine.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

This seems to me to be a dangerously immoral path to go down -- along the lines of "Well, of course you can't target civilians -- but Israelis/Jews aren't civilians."

What makes a civilian a civilian? It can't simply be that they are the "wrong" ethnicity living on the "wrong" side of an Armistice line.

​

Civilians or combatants?

Someone, of course, is now going to post the predictable pictures of Palestinian children...as if somehow trying to justify designating children as legitimate targets.

That is seriously sick.

Blaming the parents for the actions of terrorists (not freedom fighters) who deliberately choose to target children is not much better. There is no excuse for targeting children.

I never said there was.

I responded to Shusha's question, "What makes a civilian a civilian?" In the case of Zionist Israel, a very large proportion of the population are military reservists or active IDF members. The photographs pose the question, are they legitimate targets and if so, are they using their unarmed fellow citizens as human shields, a charge often made against Palestinians? RoccoR will doubtless give us all the "legal definition" according to whatever convention applies, so I won't waste my time on that.

I deliberately avoided posting pictures of children carrying and/or playing with weapons as I agree that such pictures are no justification at all to target children.

The two pictures at the end, however pose another quandary; who would be responsible for the death and injury to the children depicted should a Palestinian mortar or rocket hit the artillery position (Gaza) or the tank (Golan Heights)? The shooter or the parents/soldiers who allowed the children to be there in a conflict zone the first place?

What matters in my mind...is intent. If the intent is to target and kill children, or if the intent is an indiscrimminate strike targeting civilian areas, regardless of where they are - are they suddenly not civilians?

As to who is responsible for civilians living in contested areas - that's tricky. IMO, until it's resolved and borders drawn, responsibility lies with the government controlling the territory and allowing civilians to live there. Likewise - who is responsible for civilian deaths when Gaza is struck? Is it the Israeli's? Or is it the government that allows rockets to be fired into Israeli civilian areas?

IMO, until it's resolved and borders drawn, responsibility lies with the government controlling the territory and allowing civilians to live there.​

Excellent point.

It is Israel's war zone and Israel has military control of the territory. It is Israel who allows/encourages illegal settlers to have their families live in their war zone. And don't forget that illegal settlers are not "protected persons" (usually called civilians) as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Palestinians are protected persons because they have the right to live in Palestine.

What a vile ideology! This coming from someone who personally invaded Vietnam!

 

[P F Tinmore]

Civilians or combatants?

Someone, of course, is now going to post the predictable pictures of Palestinian children...as if somehow trying to justify designating children as legitimate targets.

That is seriously sick.

Blaming the parents for the actions of terrorists (not freedom fighters) who deliberately choose to target children is not much better. There is no excuse for targeting children.

I never said there was.

I responded to Shusha's question, "What makes a civilian a civilian?" In the case of Zionist Israel, a very large proportion of the population are military reservists or active IDF members. The photographs pose the question, are they legitimate targets and if so, are they using their unarmed fellow citizens as human shields, a charge often made against Palestinians? RoccoR will doubtless give us all the "legal definition" according to whatever convention applies, so I won't waste my time on that.

I deliberately avoided posting pictures of children carrying and/or playing with weapons as I agree that such pictures are no justification at all to target children.

The two pictures at the end, however pose another quandary; who would be responsible for the death and injury to the children depicted should a Palestinian mortar or rocket hit the artillery position (Gaza) or the tank (Golan Heights)? The shooter or the parents/soldiers who allowed the children to be there in a conflict zone the first place?

What matters in my mind...is intent. If the intent is to target and kill children, or if the intent is an indiscrimminate strike targeting civilian areas, regardless of where they are - are they suddenly not civilians?

As to who is responsible for civilians living in contested areas - that's tricky. IMO, until it's resolved and borders drawn, responsibility lies with the government controlling the territory and allowing civilians to live there. Likewise - who is responsible for civilian deaths when Gaza is struck? Is it the Israeli's? Or is it the government that allows rockets to be fired into Israeli civilian areas?

IMO, until it's resolved and borders drawn, responsibility lies with the government controlling the territory and allowing civilians to live there.​

Excellent point.

It is Israel's war zone and Israel has military control of the territory. It is Israel who allows/encourages illegal settlers to have their families live in their war zone. And don't forget that illegal settlers are not "protected persons" (usually called civilians) as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Palestinians are protected persons because they have the right to live in Palestine.

What a vile ideology! This coming from someone who personally invaded Vietnam!

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

I agree with you... ... ....

Yeah, "intent" is a BIG aspect in most major crimes and issues of this nature. You have to examine questions of venue (the location of the event) and the jurisdiction (official authority over discretionary decisions and judgments --- and ) on a case-by-case or individual level.

Similarly, proper identification of parties (friend or foe) (civilians or combatants) are not as simple as these picture make them out to be. From these picture, you can "GUESS" that they are Israeli Defense Force (IDF) personnel (on rapid recall or rapid response); but that is by no means the only possible answer. And you can tell by the other civilians that the picture is not of an event of something unusual. The civilian population in the immediate surrounding area does not appear to pose any threat. While it might be assumed that this picture these pictures were taken on an Israeli beach; not unlike the beach where Gail Rubin, niece of U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff, was among 38 people shot to death by PLO terrorists on an Israeli beach. It is not unusual for these Palestinian terrorist target areas to receive augmented armed protection.

What matters in my mind...is intent. If the intent is to target and kill children, or if the intent is an indiscriminate strike targeting civilian areas, regardless of where they are - are they suddenly not civilians?

As to who is responsible for civilians living in contested areas - that's tricky. IMO, until it's resolved and borders drawn, responsibility lies with the government controlling the territory and allowing civilians to live there. Likewise - who is responsible for civilian deaths when Gaza is struck? Is it the Israeli's? Or is it the government that allows rockets to be fired into Israeli civilian areas?

(REFERENCES)

Protocol i --- Article 50 [ Link ] -- Definition of civilians and civilian population

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.
​

Rule #3 Customary IHL: Article 43(2) of Additional Protocol I

All members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict are combatants, except medical and religious personnel.
​

(COMMENT)

There are many things that are not as cut'n'dry as they first seem.

I do not find it so unusual that the pro-Palestinian Movement and the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) would attempt to muddy the waters on the issue of --- civilian 'vs' combatant --- given that the HoAP have such an extensive history of criminal behaviors relative to the extreme indifference to prohibitions on the direct targeting, on a routine basis of civilians and the total disregard for the for civilians in the routine rocket and mortar attacks.

THUS, allegations by the pro-Palestinian Movement that provides direct support to the HoAP are really diversionary complaints to mitigate their disregard for:

I. The Principle of Distinction --- Customary IHL

1.The Principle of Distinction between Civilians and Combatants
3.Definition of Combatants
4.Definition of Armed Forces
5.Definition of Civilians
11.Indiscriminate Attacks
12.Definition of Indiscriminate Attacks
15.Precautions in Attack
17.Choice of Means and Methods of Warfare
20.Advance Warning
21.Target Selection
23.Location of Military Objectives outside Densely Populated Areas
24.Removal of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives
96.Hostage-Taking
97.Human Shields
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Is targeting civilians acceptable?

Of course not but ...The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

This seems to me to be a dangerously immoral path to go down -- along the lines of "Well, of course you can't target civilians -- but Israelis/Jews aren't civilians."

What makes a civilian a civilian? It can't simply be that they are the "wrong" ethnicity living on the "wrong" side of an Armistice line.

​

Civilians or combatants?

Someone, of course, is now going to post the predictable pictures of Palestinian children...as if somehow trying to justify designating children as legitimate targets.

That is seriously sick.

Blaming the parents for the actions of terrorists (not freedom fighters) who deliberately choose to target children is not much better. There is no excuse for targeting children.

I never said there was.

I responded to Shusha's question, "What makes a civilian a civilian?" In the case of Zionist Israel, a very large proportion of the population are military reservists or active IDF members. The photographs pose the question, are they legitimate targets and if so, are they using their unarmed fellow citizens as human shields, a charge often made against Palestinians? RoccoR will doubtless give us all the "legal definition" according to whatever convention applies, so I won't waste my time on that.

I deliberately avoided posting pictures of children carrying and/or playing with weapons as I agree that such pictures are no justification at all to target children.

The two pictures at the end, however pose another quandary; who would be responsible for the death and injury to the children depicted should a Palestinian mortar or rocket hit the artillery position (Gaza) or the tank (Golan Heights)? The shooter or the parents/soldiers who allowed the children to be there in a conflict zone the first place?

Wow. Your post with just the pictures came off totally different than this.

 

[Coyote]

This seems to me to be a dangerously immoral path to go down -- along the lines of "Well, of course you can't target civilians -- but Israelis/Jews aren't civilians."

What makes a civilian a civilian? It can't simply be that they are the "wrong" ethnicity living on the "wrong" side of an Armistice line.

​

Civilians or combatants?

Someone, of course, is now going to post the predictable pictures of Palestinian children...as if somehow trying to justify designating children as legitimate targets.

That is seriously sick.

Blaming the parents for the actions of terrorists (not freedom fighters) who deliberately choose to target children is not much better. There is no excuse for targeting children.

I never said there was.

I responded to Shusha's question, "What makes a civilian a civilian?" In the case of Zionist Israel, a very large proportion of the population are military reservists or active IDF members. The photographs pose the question, are they legitimate targets and if so, are they using their unarmed fellow citizens as human shields, a charge often made against Palestinians? RoccoR will doubtless give us all the "legal definition" according to whatever convention applies, so I won't waste my time on that.

I deliberately avoided posting pictures of children carrying and/or playing with weapons as I agree that such pictures are no justification at all to target children.

The two pictures at the end, however pose another quandary; who would be responsible for the death and injury to the children depicted should a Palestinian mortar or rocket hit the artillery position (Gaza) or the tank (Golan Heights)? The shooter or the parents/soldiers who allowed the children to be there in a conflict zone the first place?

What matters in my mind...is intent. If the intent is to target and kill children, or if the intent is an indiscrimminate strike targeting civilian areas, regardless of where they are - are they suddenly not civilians?

As to who is responsible for civilians living in contested areas - that's tricky. IMO, until it's resolved and borders drawn, responsibility lies with the government controlling the territory and allowing civilians to live there. Likewise - who is responsible for civilian deaths when Gaza is struck? Is it the Israeli's? Or is it the government that allows rockets to be fired into Israeli civilian areas?

Who determines "intent"? The accusations of the victims or the declarations of the shooter him/herself?

Consider, the above photo is of IDF HQ (the prominent square building with the funny round tower sticking out of it. This is in central Tel Aviv and has two hospitals and a medical centre in close proximity.
The IDF HQ is beyond doubt a legitimate military target, but should Hamas avoid firing rockets at it, just in case they miss and hit the hospitals closeby?

As to who determines "intent" - I think and independent inquiry could do that.

Your last question is a difficult one to answer. Yes, the IDF HQ could be a legitimate target, not unlike the King David Hotel. It's also located in a densely built up urban area that is part of Israel's original declared state - it's not in any contested areas. Attacking it would be an act of war against a sovereign state. While I strongly disagree with Israel's settlement policies and usurption of contested territory - they have not been purposefully targeting civilians in it's military responses to Hamas rocket fire.

Does Hamas show care WHERE it aims it's attacks? Is there any indication they seek to avoid civilian casualties? I haven't seen any, in fact they praise civilian casualties.

There is evidence that individual Israeli soldiers and units have acted in reprehensible ways - BUT - there is also evidence that the IDF, as a whole has made a sustained effort to avoid mass civilian casualties, conduct reviews of criminal conduct and at times punished the offenders (is it sufficient, is it fair, is it unbiased? That is arguable - but, as far as I can see Hamas doesn't even do that, they reward those who kill civilians including children who in no way can be classified as militants).

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

I agree with you... ... ....

Yeah, "intent" is a BIG aspect in most major crimes and issues of this nature. You have to examine questions of venue (the location of the event) and the jurisdiction (official authority over discretionary decisions and judgments --- and ) on a case-by-case or individual level.

Similarly, proper identification of parties (friend or foe) (civilians or combatants) are not as simple as these picture make them out to be. From these picture, you can "GUESS" that they are Israeli Defense Force (IDF) personnel (on rapid recall or rapid response); but that is by no means the only possible answer. And you can tell by the other civilians that the picture is not of an event of something unusual. The civilian population in the immediate surrounding area does not appear to pose any threat. While it might be assumed that this picture these pictures were taken on an Israeli beach; not unlike the beach where Gail Rubin, niece of U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff, was among 38 people shot to death by PLO terrorists on an Israeli beach. It is not unusual for these Palestinian terrorist target areas to receive augmented armed protection.

What matters in my mind...is intent. If the intent is to target and kill children, or if the intent is an indiscriminate strike targeting civilian areas, regardless of where they are - are they suddenly not civilians?

As to who is responsible for civilians living in contested areas - that's tricky. IMO, until it's resolved and borders drawn, responsibility lies with the government controlling the territory and allowing civilians to live there. Likewise - who is responsible for civilian deaths when Gaza is struck? Is it the Israeli's? Or is it the government that allows rockets to be fired into Israeli civilian areas?

(REFERENCES)

Protocol i --- Article 50 [ Link ] -- Definition of civilians and civilian population

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.
​

Rule #3 Customary IHL: Article 43(2) of Additional Protocol I

All members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict are combatants, except medical and religious personnel.
​

(COMMENT)

There are many things that are not as cut'n'dry as they first seem.

I do not find it so unusual that the pro-Palestinian Movement and the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) would attempt to muddy the waters on the issue of --- civilian 'vs' combatant --- given that the HoAP have such an extensive history of criminal behaviors relative to the extreme indifference to prohibitions on the direct targeting, on a routine basis of civilians and the total disregard for the for civilians in the routine rocket and mortar attacks.

THUS, allegations by the pro-Palestinian Movement that provides direct support to the HoAP are really diversionary complaints to mitigate their disregard for:

I. The Principle of Distinction --- Customary IHL

1.The Principle of Distinction between Civilians and Combatants
3.Definition of Combatants
4.Definition of Armed Forces
5.Definition of Civilians
11.Indiscriminate Attacks
12.Definition of Indiscriminate Attacks
15.Precautions in Attack
17.Choice of Means and Methods of Warfare
20.Advance Warning
21.Target Selection
23.Location of Military Objectives outside Densely Populated Areas
24.Removal of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives
96.Hostage-Taking
97.Human Shields
​

Most Respectfully,
R

One thing though....the pro-Israeli side is also complicit in muddying the waters regarding civilian vs combatent, and in the use of human shields. Otherwise I agree - Hamas shows little regard for civilian lives, and there is simply no way you can muddy it enough to imply a child is a combatent.

 

[Shusha]

I do not find it so unusual that the pro-Palestinian Movement and the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) would attempt to muddy the waters on the issue of --- civilian 'vs' combatant --- ...

Its another example of shifting the meanings of words in order to demonize Israel, and Israelis and, often, Jews. Thus people of Jewish ethnic origin who live in Area C move from being residents to "illegal settlers" and now to "non-civilians" or "combatants". This enables the anti-Israel side to view them as appropriate targets -- even the children. Its justification for a vile ideology.

 

[Shusha]

One thing though....the pro-Israeli side is also complicit in muddying the waters regarding civilian vs combatent, and in the use of human shields.

How so?