Civilians vs Combatents

[Coyote]

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.

I think - RoccoR correct me if I'm wrong - but there are special rules for the treatment and handling of child soldiers?

In terms of the Gaza conflicts - many of the children killed were not combatents. For example, during Operation Cast Lead: Fatalities during Operation Cast Lead

Palestinian minors killed by Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip - 22 took part in the hostilities, 318 did not take part in the hostilities, 4 it is not known if they were taking part in the hostilities​

 

[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?

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?

Interesting points - all (no easy answers to any of these questions)...

But at some point...is a line crossed where the civilian toll is beyond the pale? I'm thinking of Russian strikes in the Syrian conflict that have targeted supposed "terrorist" strongholds with what appears to be no regard for civilians, hospitals or schools? Does it then cross into criminality?

 

[Shusha]

In terms of the Gaza conflicts - many of the children killed were not combatents. For example, during Operation Cast Lead: Fatalities during Operation Cast Lead

Palestinian minors killed by Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip - 22 took part in the hostilities, 318 did not take part in the hostilities, 4 it is not known if they were taking part in the hostilities​

Its been a long time since I have looked at those B'tselem numbers, but if I recall correctly their criteria for "took part in the hostilities" was quite high. Either way, we agree that some of the children killled were combatants.

Child Soldiers International (an overview of IHL with respect to child soldiers)
Short version is the children under the age of 15 can be neither used nor recruited. Those over the age of 15, while technically still children, and reported as children, can be legal combatants.

 

[Shusha]

But at some point...is a line crossed where the civilian toll is beyond the pale? I'm thinking of Russian strikes in the Syrian conflict that have targeted supposed "terrorist" strongholds with what appears to be no regard for civilians, hospitals or schools? Does it then cross into criminality?

Of course it does. The difficulty is in judging where along the continuum that happens.

 

[Coyote]

In terms of the Gaza conflicts - many of the children killed were not combatents. For example, during Operation Cast Lead: Fatalities during Operation Cast Lead

Palestinian minors killed by Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip - 22 took part in the hostilities, 318 did not take part in the hostilities, 4 it is not known if they were taking part in the hostilities​

Its been a long time since I have looked at those B'tselem numbers, but if I recall correctly their criteria for "took part in the hostilities" was quite high. Either way, we agree that some of the children killled were combatants.

Child Soldiers International (an overview of IHL with respect to child soldiers)
Short version is the children under the age of 15 can be neither used nor recruited. Those over the age of 15, while technically still children, and reported as children, can be legal combatants.

I thought it was something like it, and the use of child soldiers is a war crime I think.

 

[Shusha]

I thought it was something like it, and the use of child soldiers is a war crime I think.

Rome Statute:

In its definition of war crimes the statute includes "conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities" (Article 8(2)(b)(xxvi)) in international armed conflict; and in the case of an internal armed conflict, "conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities" (Article 8(2)(e)(vii)).

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, Phoenall, et al,

I think you've missed the point. (Skip to "∑" below.)

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

What matters in my mind...is intent. I

The Principle of Distinction

One thing though....the pro-Israeli side is also complicit

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.

(COMMENT)

The nature of the complexity is much more complex then this. There are several dozen investigative interrogatives that need to be properly and on balance --- pursued. I 'll give you just one.

√ EXAMPLE - USING RULES #23 - #24:

23. Location of Military Objectives outside Densely Populated Areas
24. Removal of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives
​

The UN and the ICJ/ICC, thus far, have indicated (by commission - Malfeasance on the part of the courts - Misfeasance on the part of the UN) that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) is at "no fault" and "need not comply" with any of the rules Customary to International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

This means that in the application of Rules #23 and #24, the Customary IHL can only be applied in its polarized forms: It can only be applied to the Israelis and not the HoAP:

23. Location of Military Objectives outside Densely Populated Areas

• Israeli must locate Military Objectives outside Densely Populated Area.
• The HoAP may locate military supplies, command and control activities, and active launch sites anywhere.
​

24. Removal of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives

• Israel must removal Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives.
• The HoAP need not removal any Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives.
​

Any civilian deaths arising from launch sites and intrusion and infiltration tunnels are the fault. The HoAP may launch thousands of rockets towards Israel --- “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from Israeli military operations,” from Densely Populated Area and Protected Activities, without fear of being criticized.

This is just one of several dozen examples of what is called the "FALSE COLOR of LAW." This is when UN officials or the General Assembly, International judges, prosecutors, and investigators have been given influence over international agencies to—allow and encourage the HoAP the use deadly force against multinationals inside and outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Yet, deny the same level and use of force by the Israelis.

(∑ - THE REAL POINT)

At some point in time, the world at large must recognize that whatever the rules the HoAP is operating within, that have be tacitly approved by the world bodies, will (at some point) be reflected by the Israelis. If the HoAP may indiscriminately fire thousands of rockets into Israel - without criticism from the world bodies, then at some point the customary IHL must afford Israel the same tacit approval. If it is permissible for the HoAP to target civilians in Israel without criticism, then at some point the customary IHL must afford Israel the same tacit approval.

It is not law --- unless it applied equally to every nation. If it is OK for the HoAP to kidnap and murder, or simple tourists, then it is OK for the reverse to be true.

If it is OK for the UN to diplomatically and politically PRAISE acts, methods, and practices of terrorism that knowingly financing, planning and inciting further terrorist acts, then it must be OK for Israel to do the same.

Palestinian Authority Media Praises Terrorist Who Killed American Tourist MAY 25, 2016
​

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

Sorry to be so long in returning the your question. In my library, there are the four basic documents.

Well, there are a whole set of protocols: Child Rights: Key international treaties in the promotion, protection and fulfillment of children’s rights A Compendium for child rights advocates, scholars and policy makers April 2014.

I think - RoccoR correct me if I'm wrong - but there are special rules for the treatment and handling of child soldiers?

In terms of the Gaza conflicts - many of the children killed were not combatents. For example, during Operation Cast Lead: Fatalities during Operation Cast Lead

Palestinian minors killed by Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip - 22 took part in the hostilities, 318 did not take part in the hostilities, 4 it is not known if they were taking part in the hostilities
​

(COMMENT)

Inside the compendium, there are basic protocol requirements for:

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Optional Protocol on Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict.
​

Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement
of children in armed conflict

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution A/RES/54/263 of 25 May 2000
Entry into Force 12 February 2002


HOWEVER, the declarations and reservations are nearly as long as the Treaty itself.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

It is not applied equally to every nation. The VIZI (Vicious Israeli Zionist Invaders) usually get a pass while the West criticizes any form of resistance by the Palestinians. The Kurds in Turkey are rarely criticized as the Palestinians are, when they set off bombs killing civilians in Turkish cities. The British Parliament recently voted to demand the Turks release Abdullah Ocalan, the PKK leader. They would never do that for Bargouti, for example. Israel always gets a pass.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

OH, please! This is another victimization effort.

It is not applied equally to every nation. The VIZI (Vicious Israeli Zionist Invaders) usually get a pass while the West criticizes any form of resistance by the Palestinians. The Kurds in Turkey are rarely criticized as the Palestinians are, when they set off bombs killing civilians in Turkish cities. The British Parliament recently voted to demand the Turks release Abdullah Ocalan, the PKK leader. They would never do that for Bargouti, for example. Israel always gets a pass.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure, but I think I got this information from you!

vr,
R

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

OH, please! This is another victimization effort.

It is not applied equally to every nation. The VIZI (Vicious Israeli Zionist Invaders) usually get a pass while the West criticizes any form of resistance by the Palestinians. The Kurds in Turkey are rarely criticized as the Palestinians are, when they set off bombs killing civilians in Turkish cities. The British Parliament recently voted to demand the Turks release Abdullah Ocalan, the PKK leader. They would never do that for Bargouti, for example. Israel always gets a pass.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure, but I think I got this information from you!

View attachment 77397​

vr,
R

I said the West. Those resolutions are passed by 90% of the world states, but not the West that Israel has in its pocket.

 

[Hollie]

montelatici, et al,

OH, please! This is another victimization effort.

It is not applied equally to every nation. The VIZI (Vicious Israeli Zionist Invaders) usually get a pass while the West criticizes any form of resistance by the Palestinians. The Kurds in Turkey are rarely criticized as the Palestinians are, when they set off bombs killing civilians in Turkish cities. The British Parliament recently voted to demand the Turks release Abdullah Ocalan, the PKK leader. They would never do that for Bargouti, for example. Israel always gets a pass.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure, but I think I got this information from you!

View attachment 77397​

vr,
R

I said the West. Those resolutions are passed by 90% of the world states, but not the West that Israel has in its pocket.

When wiki fails you, there are always conspiracy theories as a last gasp.

 

[Daniyel]

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?

"Intent" by itself is only one of the features.
Every suspect (by law) has at least two of the following three -
1.Intent
2.Capability
3.Weapon
Upon having all three (which can happen in a second) the suspect must be neutralized.
If not all three exist then there is a special procedure for suspects.
(*Side note - none of the people in the pictures actually have a loaded weapon)
That is the law in Israel, wanna know what is the law in Gaza? Please tell me because I don't have a clue.

 

[Challenger]

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

So whe the IDF disregards the above, does that mean the allegations by the pro-Zionist Hasbara Movement that provides direct support to the Zionist regime are really diversionary complaints to mitigate that disregard?

 

[Challenger]

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.

Drivel.

Zionist Israeli settlers have alway been considered illegal settlers, if they carry arms (as just about all of them seem to do) and use them against civillians; either to kill or to intimidate, that turns them from "civilians" to "combatants" and thus fair game.

 

[Challenger]

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?

What about a civilian factory that produces components for weapons (or manufactures uniforms, food, etc for the military)? The factory is a legitimate military target and the civilian employees are by the very nature of their work contributing to the war effort. That makes them legitimate targets.

 

[Challenger]

montelatici, et al,

OH, please! This is another victimization effort.

It is not applied equally to every nation. The VIZI (Vicious Israeli Zionist Invaders) usually get a pass while the West criticizes any form of resistance by the Palestinians. The Kurds in Turkey are rarely criticized as the Palestinians are, when they set off bombs killing civilians in Turkish cities. The British Parliament recently voted to demand the Turks release Abdullah Ocalan, the PKK leader. They would never do that for Bargouti, for example. Israel always gets a pass.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure, but I think I got this information from you!

View attachment 77397​

vr,
R

That's because Zionist Israel has committed 77(+) acts in breach of International law the UN considered worthy of condemnation. While the US keeps playing the get out of jail free card for Zionist Israel, there will never be a peaceful settlement.

 

[Challenger]

(*Side note - none of the people in the pictures actually have a loaded weapon)

Look again, there are two with magazines attached and short magazines are available for the Tavor (pictures aren't that clear) also there's nothing to say the rest aren't carrying magazines in backpacks, pockets, etc.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

OH, please! This is another victimization effort.

It is not applied equally to every nation. The VIZI (Vicious Israeli Zionist Invaders) usually get a pass while the West criticizes any form of resistance by the Palestinians. The Kurds in Turkey are rarely criticized as the Palestinians are, when they set off bombs killing civilians in Turkish cities. The British Parliament recently voted to demand the Turks release Abdullah Ocalan, the PKK leader. They would never do that for Bargouti, for example. Israel always gets a pass.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure, but I think I got this information from you!

View attachment 77397​

vr,
R

Did you ever think that those allegations are true?

Nah, an Israeli shill would never think of such a thing.

 

[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?

"Intent" by itself is only one of the features.
Every suspect (by law) has at least two of the following three -
1.Intent
2.Capability
3.Weapon
Upon having all three (which can happen in a second) the suspect must be neutralized.
If not all three exist then there is a special procedure for suspects.
(*Side note - none of the people in the pictures actually have a loaded weapon)
That is the law in Israel, wanna know what is the law in Gaza? Please tell me because I don't have a clue.

Laws passed by the PLC in 1999:

It is legal for Palestine to manufacture and import weapons.

Palestinians have the right to bear arms.