Civilians vs Combatents

[Coyote]

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?

Israel has used human shields (I don't really want to further derail the thread with this, but it's been discussed in other threads) and the pro-Israeli side manages to deny it or even justify it.

In terms of civilians vs combatents - pro-Israeli's are always claiming Hamas hides behind civilians, a claim that ignores the reality of Gaza's urban density.

 

[Shusha]

In the case of ... 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?

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?

...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?...

All good questions. Significantly different from P F Tinmore 's insistence that all Jewish Israeli's are legitimate targets, including children, though.

Here's my initial stab at some possible answers. This is actually quite complicated (great conversation), so I am quite open to revising my answers based on any good arguments others come up with. Keep in mind I am not going to try to argue from a legal perspective (RoccoR can have that), but from one of morality.

1. I would argue that active IDF members (and active Hamas members) would be considered combatants at all times. However, when mixing with the civilian population and not in the midst of actual combat or exchange of fire the principle of distinction must apply -- you must be able to identify and specifically target only the IDF/Hamas members. It would not be permissible to target a mixed group of civilians with the assumption that a certain percentage of them would be likely to be military personnel.

2. Civilians should not be permitted into an active combat zone. Responsibility for removing them, or not placing them there in the first place, or not creating military objectives in their vicinity lies with their own government or military.

3. Attacking military objectives is permissible, even when they are in close proximity to civilian areas, as long as the technology used has a reasonable chance of success without harming the civilian structures. Not permissible to shoot in the general vicinity and hope for the best. But mistakes do happen. Also not permissible to deliberately place military objectives within civilian structures as a means of protecting them from attack.

Challenger , and others, would you agree or disagree?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

 

[Shusha]

Well, that was 99% off-topic.

First point brought up -- Hamas encourages the use of civilian shields by calling on civilians to gather at places where a known attack is to occur, having been warned by Israel.

Palestinist "human rights advocate" claims there is no evidence that this is true. You mean like this evidence?

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

Remember, the intent of an action comes before an action. To determine the intent of the action, you have to look at the evidence of policy before the action.

If, as the one Arab-Palestinians example in Posting #24, HAMAS encourages the use of Human Shields, THEN, the intent is established by evidence presented by the accused. Essentially, the same analysis applies to the targeting of civilians. In this very discussion group, there have been many examples presented (especially in the discussions over Arab-Palestinians using "any and all means") for the disregard for human life. The bus bombing in Jerusalem on 18 April 2016, demonstrates that the targeting of civilians is a recurring theme in Arab-Palestinian operations,

Senior Hamas Official: The Resistance Is Entitled To Attack Israel's Embassies,
Interests, And Officials Worldwide – And The Interests Of Its Allies,
Headed By The U.S. MEMRI

In an article published July 16, 2013 on Felesteen.ps, a website affiliated with Hamas, Hamas Refugee Affairs Department head Dr 'Issam 'Adwan argued that Hamas had the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests as well as senior Israeli officials anywhere in the world. He added that the resistance is also entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, headed by the U.S.

http://www.btselem.org/topic/israeli_civilians
Attacks on Israeli civilians by Palestinians
Featured update
9 Mar 2016
US citizen killed in stabbing attack in Jaffa, 11 people injured

Last night the media reported that Taylor Force, a 29-year-old U.S. citizen, was killed and eleven people injured in a stabbing attack by a Palestinian. The assailant was shot dead by security forces. B’Tselem expresses deep sorrow over Taylor Force’s death and conveys its sincerest condolences to his family. B’Tselem sends its best wishes for a speedy recovery to the wounded. The deliberate targeting of civilians undermines every moral, legal and human standard. B’Tselem strongly condemns any and all deliberate attacks against civilians and calls once again on politicians and leaders to act responsibly and avoid fanning the flames of violence.
​

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).

(COMMENT)

As far as I can tell, the International Legal Systems currently in place, are too susceptible to political pressures for the State of Israel to receive a true and fair hearing. On any issue. The ICC and the ICJ both have acted in such a manner that neither are clear and fair sounding boards, particularly in the realm of selective enforcement.

To hear the international community talk. The Arab Palestinians has never incited a conflict, Israel is always wrong, and the Jewish National Home should be dismantled. That nothing the international community did in the last 100 years, relative to the Middle East, was correct.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

The ICC and ICJ are fair and are presided over by the member state's best and most senior judges. You just can't male a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The conflict was incited by the arrival of European settlers intent on taking the land from the inhabitants and creating a state for themselves. There is just no way around that.

If ICC and ICJ were around when the Europeans settled the America's, dispossessing the native inhabitants, their decisions would have been similar.

 

[Challenger]

To hear the international community talk. The Arab Palestinians has never incited a conflict, Israel is always wrong, and the Jewish National Home should be dismantled. That nothing the international community did in the last 100 years, relative to the Middle East, was correct.

Yup, sounds about right. Even way back to the oft quoted Hebron riot Palestinian violence was provoked by zionist actions. The arbitrary creation of the Zionist state in Palestine was one huge mistake with which the "international community" has had to deal with and most are getting fed up with the fact.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

To hear the international community talk. The Arab Palestinians has never incited a conflict, Israel is always wrong, and the Jewish National Home should be dismantled. That nothing the international community did in the last 100 years, relative to the Middle East, was correct.

Yup, sounds about right. Even way back to the oft quoted Hebron riot Palestinian violence was provoked by zionist actions. The arbitrary creation of the Zionist state in Palestine was one huge mistake with which the "international community" has had to deal with and most are getting fed up with the fact.

Well, maybe that's your opinion. My mother and her family had nowhere else to go to after the Holocaust, and they were denied visas to America at that time. (How times have changed!) Russian Jews came there after the Soviet Union fell apart, and Ethiopian Jews went there to escape a famine. Twenty-five flags have crosses on them, and fifteen have crescents, but Israel is the only one with the Star of David. It's the only land where Hebrew is the official language (along with Arabic). Who could not be moved at the words and melody of "Hatikvah", the national anthem, which many believe is the most beautiful anthem in the world? Israel created the cherry tomato and the cell phone. No matter what anyone says, I'll never believe that creating Israel was a mistake.

 

[Challenger]

To hear the international community talk. The Arab Palestinians has never incited a conflict, Israel is always wrong, and the Jewish National Home should be dismantled. That nothing the international community did in the last 100 years, relative to the Middle East, was correct.

Yup, sounds about right. Even way back to the oft quoted Hebron riot Palestinian violence was provoked by zionist actions. The arbitrary creation of the Zionist state in Palestine was one huge mistake with which the "international community" has had to deal with and most are getting fed up with the fact.

Well, maybe that's your opinion. My mother and her family had nowhere else to go to after the Holocaust, and they were denied visas to America at that time. (How times have changed!) Russian Jews came there after the Soviet Union fell apart, and Ethiopian Jews went there to escape a famine. Twenty-five flags have crosses on them, and fifteen have crescents, but Israel is the only one with the Star of David. It's the only land where Hebrew is the official language (along with Arabic). Who could not be moved at the words and melody of "Hatikvah", the national anthem, which many believe is the most beautiful anthem in the world? Israel created the cherry tomato and the cell phone. No matter what anyone says, I'll never believe that creating Israel was a mistake.

Yes, you are right. America closed it's doors to Jewish immigration and the Zionists held them shut forcing survivors who would have preferred to go anywhere but Palestine into Palestine and the USSR forbade Jewish emmigration when it supported Arab regimes in the region. There are many flags with unique symbols, but no other nation, regardless of how pretty it's national anthem, flouts so many international customes and norms, maintains a brutal and oppressive foreign occupation over a native people and makes things up to justify it's existance...cherry tomatoes? Go tell that to the Peruvians and the Mexicans (Aztecs).

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

This is not right either.

What you meant to say was: If TODAY'S ICC and ICJ were around back when ...

Grumbling by selected UN members concerning impartiality are increasing in volume. Partiality did exist today and had been used to adopt a very arbitrary policy, in which like minded UN members turn a blind eye to crimes and atrocities committed in other countries (Palestine) — in favor of prosecuting crimes alleged to have been committed by the Israel over many decades. Some countries had ignored the fact that the leaders of the Hostile Arab Palestinian Forces have openly supported jihadism, radicalized Islamism, and the conduct of terrorist activity (lending quasi-immunity to state supported terrorism). Some of these same countries had prevented the adoption of a resolution against Palestinians Terrorist groups to hold it responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against the Israelis.

While there are many countries that publicly announce their support against terrorism (Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.); there is no question that they openly support the Palestinian policy to use terrorists such as that of the Munich Olympic Massacre, the piracy of the MS Achille Lauro, or the TWA Flight 840 hijacking. These very same countries, that point their fingers at Israel, totally dismiss the kidnapping and murder of teenagers, and attacks such as the recent state sponsored Palestinian Terrorist attack on a known civilians activity --- targeting a bus in Jerusalem, Israel, on 18 April 2016.

This clearly demonstrates the true nature of the State Sponsored pro-Terrorism Movement that masquerades as a resistance activity.

The ICC and ICJ are fair and are presided over by the member state's best and most senior judges. You just can't male a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The conflict was incited by the arrival of European settlers intent on taking the land from the inhabitants and creating a state for themselves. There is just no way around that.

If ICC and ICJ were around when the Europeans settled the America's, dispossessing the native inhabitants, their decisions would have been similar.

(COMMENT)

The intellectual and higher morality functions evolved to bring the ICC and ICJ into being were just not there. These qualities and characteristics of the modern day ICC were developed and only coalesced in the 21st Century; with the treaty adopted by the diplomatic conference in Rome (17 July 1998) and only entered into force on 1 July 2002.

You simply cannot apply or compare the 21st Century potential on a century old complaint that contains its own conclusion for the plaintiff.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[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?

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.

How is it Israel's warzone when it was the arab muslims that declared war on the Jews, and as a result lost their land to the occupation. Yes Israel has military control of the west bank and stops the majority of terrorist attacks. The settlers are legal if you look at International laws as they are on land that is theirs by right, stolen by the Palestinians in 1949. Then the Palestinians agreed to Israel having full control of the area. The Geneva conventions say no such thing and you have refused to link to the actual parts that say what you claim. What international law ( law and date of implementation ) says they have the right to live on Jewish owned land. The only international law that the Palestinians have signed made Arafat richer and killed ever more palestinins

 

[Challenger]

Grumbling by selected UN members concerning impartiality are increasing in volume.

Really? I wonder who those "selected" UN members are? Do they know, for example that all the current judges on the ICJ have been trained exclusively on the Western model of jurisprudence, either in the U.K. France or the U.S.A. and have practiced and or taught in those countries before being appointed?

I'm not sure how surprising it would be for a guilty party to make accusations of bias in order to defame the institution in order to "delegitimize" it. If the ICJ judges could be bought, I've no doubt the Zionist lobby would have bought them by now, like they have the U.S. Congress.

 

[P F Tinmore]

To hear the international community talk. The Arab Palestinians has never incited a conflict, Israel is always wrong, and the Jewish National Home should be dismantled. That nothing the international community did in the last 100 years, relative to the Middle East, was correct.

Yup, sounds about right. Even way back to the oft quoted Hebron riot Palestinian violence was provoked by zionist actions. The arbitrary creation of the Zionist state in Palestine was one huge mistake with which the "international community" has had to deal with and most are getting fed up with the fact.

Well, maybe that's your opinion. My mother and her family had nowhere else to go to after the Holocaust, and they were denied visas to America at that time. (How times have changed!) Russian Jews came there after the Soviet Union fell apart, and Ethiopian Jews went there to escape a famine. Twenty-five flags have crosses on them, and fifteen have crescents, but Israel is the only one with the Star of David. It's the only land where Hebrew is the official language (along with Arabic). Who could not be moved at the words and melody of "Hatikvah", the national anthem, which many believe is the most beautiful anthem in the world? Israel created the cherry tomato and the cell phone. No matter what anyone says, I'll never believe that creating Israel was a mistake.

Indeed, every time there is a problem someplace else they dump on the Palestinians who had nothing to do with the problems.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

I could muddy it very easily by asking at what age does a palestinian child reach their majority, and then say that is an adult and not a child under their laws.

 

[Phoenall]

To hear the international community talk. The Arab Palestinians has never incited a conflict, Israel is always wrong, and the Jewish National Home should be dismantled. That nothing the international community did in the last 100 years, relative to the Middle East, was correct.

Yup, sounds about right. Even way back to the oft quoted Hebron riot Palestinian violence was provoked by zionist actions. The arbitrary creation of the Zionist state in Palestine was one huge mistake with which the "international community" has had to deal with and most are getting fed up with the fact.

Well, maybe that's your opinion. My mother and her family had nowhere else to go to after the Holocaust, and they were denied visas to America at that time. (How times have changed!) Russian Jews came there after the Soviet Union fell apart, and Ethiopian Jews went there to escape a famine. Twenty-five flags have crosses on them, and fifteen have crescents, but Israel is the only one with the Star of David. It's the only land where Hebrew is the official language (along with Arabic). Who could not be moved at the words and melody of "Hatikvah", the national anthem, which many believe is the most beautiful anthem in the world? Israel created the cherry tomato and the cell phone. No matter what anyone says, I'll never believe that creating Israel was a mistake.

Yes, you are right. America closed it's doors to Jewish immigration and the Zionists held them shut forcing survivors who would have preferred to go anywhere but Palestine into Palestine and the USSR forbade Jewish emmigration when it supported Arab regimes in the region. There are many flags with unique symbols, but no other nation, regardless of how pretty it's national anthem, flouts so many international customes and norms, maintains a brutal and oppressive foreign occupation over a native people and makes things up to justify it's existance...cherry tomatoes? Go tell that to the Peruvians and the Mexicans (Aztecs).

How about a LINK then showing that the Zionists held the doors shut for the Jews. Or is this another of your lies that will never be substantiated. If you look you will see that every nation in the west closed their doors to Jewish refugees escaping the Nazi's. In the case of Britain it even illegally closed the doors of Palestine and mass murdered thousands of Jews in the process. Not a thing to do with Zionism but all down to hatred of the Jews that is still running wild today. How do you wipe out 2000 years of hatred when the teachers are allowed to teach such hatreds, and the law does not support the Jews. A Jew reports a racist attack and they get a crime number, a muslim reports the same crime and he gets a senior officer along with 3 cars looking for anyone matching the description.

 

[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.

I could muddy it very easily by asking at what age does a palestinian child reach their majority, and then say that is an adult and not a child under their laws.

Not even you could stretch it to encompass a 3 yr old.

 

[Coyote]

To hear the international community talk. The Arab Palestinians has never incited a conflict, Israel is always wrong, and the Jewish National Home should be dismantled. That nothing the international community did in the last 100 years, relative to the Middle East, was correct.

Yup, sounds about right. Even way back to the oft quoted Hebron riot Palestinian violence was provoked by zionist actions. The arbitrary creation of the Zionist state in Palestine was one huge mistake with which the "international community" has had to deal with and most are getting fed up with the fact.

Well, maybe that's your opinion. My mother and her family had nowhere else to go to after the Holocaust, and they were denied visas to America at that time. (How times have changed!) Russian Jews came there after the Soviet Union fell apart, and Ethiopian Jews went there to escape a famine. Twenty-five flags have crosses on them, and fifteen have crescents, but Israel is the only one with the Star of David. It's the only land where Hebrew is the official language (along with Arabic). Who could not be moved at the words and melody of "Hatikvah", the national anthem, which many believe is the most beautiful anthem in the world? Israel created the cherry tomato and the cell phone. No matter what anyone says, I'll never believe that creating Israel was a mistake.

It was the right thing to do....but there are wrongs that need to be righted imo.

 

[Coyote]

What's a civilian? What's a combatent? Is it EVER ok to target civilians? If you target a military installation, knowing there will be huge civilian casualties...is that justified?

 

[Shusha]

Not even you could stretch it to encompass a 3 yr old.​

​

Child soldiers are soldiers nonetheless. If a child picks up a weapon and uses it against you, they must be considered combatants and treated accordingly.

The responsibility for using child soldiers and for their deaths is the force which allows their use. This applies in the Gaza conflicts as many of the children who died were, in fact, combatants. Responsibility lies with Gaza. Not Israel.

 

[Shusha]

What's a civilian? What's a combatent? Is it EVER ok to target civilians? If you target a military installation, knowing there will be huge civilian casualties...is that justified?

It is never permissible to target only civilians.

But the days of two armies lining up across from one another in a field outside of town are long gone. In some situations, especially in urban environments, civilian casualties are unavoidable. So yes, it is permissible to target military installations and objectives, knowing there will be civilian casualties. They should be minimized. Its a weighing of the value of a military resource and the number of casualties, as awful as that sounds. What is the entrance to a tunnel worth, in terms of lives? 5? 10? 20? 50? What is a cache of weapons worth? 100? 1000? What is a year without rockets or suicide bombs worth? 2000 lives? 10,000? Its a judgement call. A difficult one. How does one even make those decisions?

And it has to be considered from both sides, as well. If your enemy is about to destroy the entrance to a tunnel, and that entrance is in your home -- do you keep your family there, on the roof, hoping that will deter the enemy from firing, risking them? Or do you keep your family safe and remove them? And whose responsibility is it, then, for the loss of your family, if it happens? Do you choose your family or do you choose the "righteousness" of your cause? And if you choose your cause -- why do you blame your enemy?