Civilians vs Combatents

[MaryL]

In WWII, the allies eventually targeted civilians to stop the fascists that were doing the same thing PLUS committing genocide. But NOW when a religiously motivated hate group deliberately hides amongst innocent civilians as a hedge, that is cynical beyond words. These thugs coldly calculate that innocent non combatants will get hurt in retaliatory strikes and use that as a propaganda tool to "prove" how bad their enemy is. That is so callous as to prove how totally amoral Muslim terrorist really are, but, no, lets attack Israel or America's use of drones.

The difference is that the Zionists, people from Europe, invaded Palestine. The Germans had done the invading and had occupied most of Europe as the Zionists have occupied most of Palestine. The Christians and Muslims of Palestine invaded no one. On the contrary, the land they inhabited was invaded by people from another continent.

I agree to disagree. You seem rather concerned with change. Join the club, it's disheartening sometimes.
But cold bloodedly hunkering down deliberately amongst innocent people as either shields or propaganda tools, that's relatively new Muslim creation. Rather cynical and nihilist , and THAT has got to stop if we want to get to any semblance of peace and coexistence. Israelis aren't playing that cheap little trick. Muslims aught to do the same.

That is propaganda. There was no "hunkering down deliberately among innocent people. It is the usual Zionist attempt to demonize the non-Jews.


Jeremy Bowen, BBC Middle East editor: “I saw no evidence during my week in Gaza of Israel’s accusation that Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields.” The Guardian: “In the past week, the Guardian has seen large numbers of people fleeing different neighbourhoods.. and no evidence that Hamas had compelled them to stay.” The Independent: “Some Gazans have admitted that they were afraid of criticizing Hamas, but none have said they had been forced by the organisation to stay in places of danger and become unwilling human-shields.”Reuters, 2013: “A United Nations human rights body accused Israeli forces on Thursday of mistreating Palestinian children, including by torturing those in custody and using others as human shields.”

Love ya. Borders, nations come and go and change happens, it is the only constant of history. The diaspora of Jews that led to Israel, came out of self preservation and a belief in a homeland. Jews and Arabs used to live together in harmony years ago, why not now? Because of artificial borders and Muslim pride?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

WOW, you haven't got a clue.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, that is a direct quote from AP1:

To understand what "disproportional force" (AKA: excessive use of force), you have to understand what is meant by a "proportional response" (RUF: rules on the use of force)[Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I].

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.​

​

Indeed, it is Israel's Dahiya doctrine, a military plan for mass killing of civilians and mass destruction of civilian infrastructure.

(COMMENT)

If it is also "Israel's Dahiya doctrine," (Asymmetric Warfare in an urban) then --- great. It would be an intuitive leap.

Most Respectfully,
R

In this Wikileaks age, propagandists like Rocco are easily thwarted in their attempt to twist the facts. the Dahiya Doctrine has nothing to do with urban warfare. It is the tactic of considering civilian areas/villages and cities to be military if the civilian residents, including women and children are thought to support an enemy politically. Hence, subject to leveling.

U.S. intelligence reports/cables are quite revealing:


"1. (S) Summary and Comment: Within the span of several days, the Israeli Defense Force Regional Commanders made direct and frank comments in separate interviews to the press regarding the state-of-play in Israel's northern, central, and southern regions. On the northern border, Maj. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot described a GOI policy to respond with indiscriminate force against Lebanon should hostilities resume. ......

6. (S) Eisenkot labeled any Israeli response to resumed conflict the "Dahiya doctrine" in reference to the leveled Dahiya quarter in Beirut during the Second Lebanon War in 2006. He said Israel will use disproportionate force upon any village that fires upon Israel, "causing great damage and destruction...........
Eisenkot made very clear: this is not a recommendation, but an already approved plan -- from the Israeli perspective, these are "not civilian villages, they are military bases."

(COMMENT)

If you look at what I wrote, you will see I did not say "urban warfare." I said "Asymmetric Warfare in an urban."

asymmetric — In military operations the application of dissimilar strategies, tactics, capabilities, and methods to circumvent or negate an opponent’s strengths while exploiting his weaknesses.
Asymmetric warfare (or Asymmetric engagement) is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly. This is typically a war between a standing, professional army and an insurgency or resistance movement.
​

I'm not sure who wrote that report on the Dahiya Doctrine. I'm not sure what activity within the Embassy sent the report, but if it was signed by the Ambassador, it was not an Intelligence Report. In 2006, the paragraph markings for intelligence reports would have been much different than what you show here. So we are looking at something else.

You may think what you like. A low level, raw and unrefined feeder report is not evidence of anything. A two paragraph capture of one cable out of all the intelligence reports sent from the region, with no analysis, is worthless.

Get real.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

In WWII, the allies eventually targeted civilians to stop the fascists that were doing the same thing PLUS committing genocide. But NOW when a religiously motivated hate group deliberately hides amongst innocent civilians as a hedge, that is cynical beyond words. These thugs coldly calculate that innocent non combatants will get hurt in retaliatory strikes and use that as a propaganda tool to "prove" how bad their enemy is. That is so callous as to prove how totally amoral Muslim terrorist really are, but, no, lets attack Israel or America's use of drones.

The difference is that the Zionists, people from Europe, invaded Palestine. The Germans had done the invading and had occupied most of Europe as the Zionists have occupied most of Palestine. The Christians and Muslims of Palestine invaded no one. On the contrary, the land they inhabited was invaded by people from another continent.

I agree to disagree. You seem rather concerned with change. Join the club, it's disheartening sometimes.
But cold bloodedly hunkering down deliberately amongst innocent people as either shields or propaganda tools, that's relatively new Muslim creation. Rather cynical and nihilist , and THAT has got to stop if we want to get to any semblance of peace and coexistence. Israelis aren't playing that cheap little trick. Muslims aught to do the same.

That is propaganda. There was no "hunkering down deliberately among innocent people. It is the usual Zionist attempt to demonize the non-Jews.


Jeremy Bowen, BBC Middle East editor: “I saw no evidence during my week in Gaza of Israel’s accusation that Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields.” The Guardian: “In the past week, the Guardian has seen large numbers of people fleeing different neighbourhoods.. and no evidence that Hamas had compelled them to stay.” The Independent: “Some Gazans have admitted that they were afraid of criticizing Hamas, but none have said they had been forced by the organisation to stay in places of danger and become unwilling human-shields.”Reuters, 2013: “A United Nations human rights body accused Israeli forces on Thursday of mistreating Palestinian children, including by torturing those in custody and using others as human shields.”

Love ya. Borders, nations come and go and change happens, it is the only constant of history. The diaspora of Jews that led to Israel, came out of self preservation and a belief in a homeland. Jews and Arabs used to live together in harmony years ago, why not now? Because of artificial borders and Muslim pride?

Jews and Arabs used to live together in harmony years ago, why not now?​

Excellent question. When we hear people talk about Zionists today they are talking about political Zionists. There were two different groups of Zionists in Palestine. Before about 1880, Jews immigrating to Palestine were religious Zionists. They would immigrate to Palestine to live and die in the holy land. They lived there like everybody else. Palestine was a multi religious place and somebody's religion was not really an issue.

Then there were the political Zionists. After WWI, Britain landed in Palestine with a gun in one hand and the Balfour Declaration in the other. Under Britain's coattails were the political Zionists who imported settlers by the boatload with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and creating a Jewish state. This did not sit well with the locals. Even the local Jews opposed the creation of a Jewish state.

There has been war ever since.

 

[montelatici]

Rocco et al,

You want the raw cable heading? Wikileaks reformats the cables but the raw cable is also available. It's not TS/SCI but it was classified SECRET to be declassified in 2018.

S E C R E T TEL AVIV 002329 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/15/2018 TAGS: MARR, PGOV, MOPS, MCAP, IS SUBJECT: IDF REGIONAL COMMANDERS SPEAK OUT IN PRESS INTERVIEWS Classified By: DCM Luis G. Moreno, Reason 1.4 (b) (d) 1. (S)

You really haven't understood who you are dealing with, have you? By the way, the Deputy Chief of Mission signed it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

WOW, you haven't got a clue.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, that is a direct quote from AP1:

To understand what "disproportional force" (AKA: excessive use of force), you have to understand what is meant by a "proportional response" (RUF: rules on the use of force)[Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I].

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.​

​

Indeed, it is Israel's Dahiya doctrine, a military plan for mass killing of civilians and mass destruction of civilian infrastructure.

(COMMENT)

If it is also "Israel's Dahiya doctrine," (Asymmetric Warfare in an urban) then --- great. It would be an intuitive leap.

Most Respectfully,
R

In this Wikileaks age, propagandists like Rocco are easily thwarted in their attempt to twist the facts. the Dahiya Doctrine has nothing to do with urban warfare. It is the tactic of considering civilian areas/villages and cities to be military if the civilian residents, including women and children are thought to support an enemy politically. Hence, subject to leveling.

U.S. intelligence reports/cables are quite revealing:


"1. (S) Summary and Comment: Within the span of several days, the Israeli Defense Force Regional Commanders made direct and frank comments in separate interviews to the press regarding the state-of-play in Israel's northern, central, and southern regions. On the northern border, Maj. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot described a GOI policy to respond with indiscriminate force against Lebanon should hostilities resume. ......

6. (S) Eisenkot labeled any Israeli response to resumed conflict the "Dahiya doctrine" in reference to the leveled Dahiya quarter in Beirut during the Second Lebanon War in 2006. He said Israel will use disproportionate force upon any village that fires upon Israel, "causing great damage and destruction...........
Eisenkot made very clear: this is not a recommendation, but an already approved plan -- from the Israeli perspective, these are "not civilian villages, they are military bases."

(COMMENT)

If you look at what I wrote, you will see I did not say "urban warfare." I said "Asymmetric Warfare in an urban."

asymmetric — In military operations the application of dissimilar strategies, tactics, capabilities, and methods to circumvent or negate an opponent’s strengths while exploiting his weaknesses.
Asymmetric warfare (or Asymmetric engagement) is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly. This is typically a war between a standing, professional army and an insurgency or resistance movement.
​

I'm not sure who wrote that report on the Dahiya Doctrine. I'm not sure what activity within the Embassy sent the report, but if it was signed by the Ambassador, it was not an Intelligence Report. In 2006, the paragraph markings for intelligence reports would have been much different than what you show here. So we are looking at something else.

You may think what you like. A low level, raw and unrefined feeder report is not evidence of anything. A two paragraph capture of one cable out of all the intelligence reports sent from the region, with no analysis, is worthless.

Get real.

Most Respectfully,
R

Targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure is a war crime. This is what the Dahiya Doctrine specifically calls for. Facts on the ground are the proof of its use.

daheyya doctrin - Google Search

 

[Coyote]

Then, does that mean that Gazan civilians, firing weapons in response to an attack by Israel, are defending themselves?

Of course. Why would you think I would answer differently? EVERYONE has the right to defend themselves when being attacked. And every country (or wanna-be country) has a right to protect its sovereignty (or wanna-be sovereignty).

But Israel does not instigate attacks against Gaza. Israel responds against attacks from Gaza. And Israel is not attempting to remove the Palestinists sovereignty in Gaza, but only to prevent further attacks on Israel, thus protecting Israel's sovereignty and citizens.

Every action Israel has taken against Gaza since its withdrawal in 2005 has been an act of defense against harm to her citizens or her sovereignty. Every attack by Gaza has been an affront to Israel's citizens or sovereignty.

Every time Israel militarily enters Gaza, regardless of the reason - Gazan civilians do have the right to defend themselves - but if they do, they are labeled "combatents". I think these distinctions have the ability to get very murky.

That is a very good point, the thing is that when the IDF enters Gaza it is in order to disable their abilities to attack Israel (which makes it Israel's right for self defense - not theirs)
Self Defense does mean one may (should) protect himself/herself by any means necessary against unprovoked attacker.
Imagen yourself inside your home when your neighbors launching fireworks at your home from theirs, police and threats turned out ineffective, eventually you'll end up going inside their home in order to confiscate the fireworks.
The scenario is always the same..

I'm not so sure. For example, not all civilians support Hamas' actions nor are they combatents but they are and their families are being attacked...do they just run like rabbits or defend themselves?

Daniyel, doesn't this make those distinctions of combatent/civilian/self defense/offense really fuzzy?

 

[Shusha]

Then there were the political Zionists. After WWI, Britain landed in Palestine with a gun in one hand and the Balfour Declaration in the other. Under Britain's coattails were the political Zionists who imported settlers by the boatload with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and creating a Jewish state. This did not sit well with the locals. Even the local Jews opposed the creation of a Jewish state.

There has been war ever since.

Yep. Those pesky Jews got the idea that they, too, should have self-determination in their very own homeland and there has been war ever since. Don't those pesky Jews know that self-determination is for everyone but them?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

I don, t care who you are.

I know it is not TS/SCI because nearly everything was exposed by the came from SIPRNet; migrated from ClassNet.

Rocco et al,

You want the raw cable heading? Wikileaks reformats the cables but the raw cable is also available. It's not TS/SCI but it was classified SECRET to be declassified in 2018.

S E C R E T TEL AVIV 002329 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/15/2018 TAGS: MARR, PGOV, MOPS, MCAP, IS SUBJECT: IDF REGIONAL COMMANDERS SPEAK OUT IN PRESS INTERVIEWS Classified By: DCM Luis G. Moreno, Reason 1.4 (b) (d) 1. (S)

You really haven't understood who you are dealing with, have you? By the way, the Deputy Chief of Mission signed it.

(COMMENT)

ALL cables from an Embassy are signed either by the Ambassador (who is usually the Country Team Chief and Chief of Mission), or the Deputy when the Ambo is not on station. Just as cables from the Department of State are often signed by the Secretary.

This is not an Intelligence Report from the Embassy in Israel. This is more like a Liaison Report or a Contact Report. It was classified in accordance with the DOS Classification Guide.

PS:
I did several tours as the SSO for an Embassy RSO.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You have this partially correct.

montelatici, et al,

WOW, you haven't got a clue.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, that is a direct quote from AP1:

To understand what "disproportional force" (AKA: excessive use of force), you have to understand what is meant by a "proportional response" (RUF: rules on the use of force)[Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I].

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.​

​

Indeed, it is Israel's Dahiya doctrine, a military plan for mass killing of civilians and mass destruction of civilian infrastructure.

(COMMENT)

If it is also "Israel's Dahiya doctrine," (Asymmetric Warfare in an urban) then --- great. It would be an intuitive leap.

Most Respectfully,
R

In this Wikileaks age, propagandists like Rocco are easily thwarted in their attempt to twist the facts. the Dahiya Doctrine has nothing to do with urban warfare. It is the tactic of considering civilian areas/villages and cities to be military if the civilian residents, including women and children are thought to support an enemy politically. Hence, subject to leveling.

U.S. intelligence reports/cables are quite revealing:


"1. (S) Summary and Comment: Within the span of several days, the Israeli Defense Force Regional Commanders made direct and frank comments in separate interviews to the press regarding the state-of-play in Israel's northern, central, and southern regions. On the northern border, Maj. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot described a GOI policy to respond with indiscriminate force against Lebanon should hostilities resume. ......

6. (S) Eisenkot labeled any Israeli response to resumed conflict the "Dahiya doctrine" in reference to the leveled Dahiya quarter in Beirut during the Second Lebanon War in 2006. He said Israel will use disproportionate force upon any village that fires upon Israel, "causing great damage and destruction...........
Eisenkot made very clear: this is not a recommendation, but an already approved plan -- from the Israeli perspective, these are "not civilian villages, they are military bases."

(COMMENT)

If you look at what I wrote, you will see I did not say "urban warfare." I said "Asymmetric Warfare in an urban."

asymmetric — In military operations the application of dissimilar strategies, tactics, capabilities, and methods to circumvent or negate an opponent’s strengths while exploiting his weaknesses.
Asymmetric warfare (or Asymmetric engagement) is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly. This is typically a war between a standing, professional army and an insurgency or resistance movement.
​

I'm not sure who wrote that report on the Dahiya Doctrine. I'm not sure what activity within the Embassy sent the report, but if it was signed by the Ambassador, it was not an Intelligence Report. In 2006, the paragraph markings for intelligence reports would have been much different than what you show here. So we are looking at something else.

You may think what you like. A low level, raw and unrefined feeder report is not evidence of anything. A two paragraph capture of one cable out of all the intelligence reports sent from the region, with no analysis, is worthless.

Get real.

Most Respectfully,
R

Targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure is a war crime. This is what the Dahiya Doctrine specifically calls for. Facts on the ground are the proof of its use.

daheyya doctrin - Google Search

(COMMENT)

Your Allegations here are: That in 2006 Conflict with Lebanon and on the 2008/9 Conflict in the Gaza Strip, that Israel considered "the civilian infrastructure of adversaries such as Hamas or Hezbollah are treated as permissible military targets, to gain a concrete and direct military advantage.

• Yes, Rule #6 and Article 51(3) of Additional Protocol I, provide for the protection of civilians that are not direct participants. As of now, a precise definition of the term “direct participation in hostilities” does not exist. However, civilians working in military objectives, for example, munitions factories, do not participate directly in hostilities but must assume the risks involved in an attack on that military objective.

• Rule #7 and Articles 48 and 52(2) of Additional Protocol I (International Armed Conflicts Only), deals with the distinguish between civilian objects and military objectives. Non-International Armed Conflict are related to Article 13(1) of Additional Protocol II. The Plan of Action for the years 2000–2003, adopted by the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 1999, requires that all parties to an armed conflict respect “the total ban on directing attacks … against civilian objects”.
​

Basically there are three points that need to be made:

• Any person or facility that is directly contribution to the war effort is beyond the protections.

* It is generally accepted that, given the realities of a protracted conflict, that civilian persons and objects may be incidentally affected by an attack directed at a legitimate military objective (AKA: Collateral Casualties/Damage). In reality, and in the human equation, civilians may be victims of mistaken target identification or of unintended but inevitable side effects of an attack on a legitimate target in their vicinity. And in the shadow of history, these collateral casualties and damages are accepted (and expected) under treaty and customary law only if they are not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

• When Israel engages in a lawful attack, precautionary measures are required of both the attacking party and the party being attacked, in order to avoid (or at least to minimize) the collateral effects of hostilities on civilian persons, the civilian population and civilian objects.
​

The protection of civilians requires positive actions by both sides; not just the Israelis. It is extremely hard to deny that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) were deliberately locating their Paramilitary and Asymmetric Operations in Densely Populated Areas, and refusing to move Civilians the vicinity of their paramilitary and jihadist operations and rocket launch sites.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SAYIT]

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?

It is common knowledge that Palestinian "freedom fighters" choose civilian areas from which to launch attacks on Israel in the hope that an IDF response will provide the international community, the media and Israel/Jew haters with ammunition. Care to guess why the Indian TV crew chose to leave Gaza before broadcasting their hot story?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/w...ws-rare-video-of-rocket-launch-from-gaza.html

Shortly before a cease-fire went into effect in Gaza on Tuesday morning, a crew from India’s NDTV captured rare footage of Islamist militants quietly preparing to fire a rocket at Israel from a densely populated area of the Palestinian territory.

The video report, narrated by the correspondent Sreenivasan Jain and not broadcast until hours after he and his crew had left the Gaza Strip, appeared to show three men preparing a rocket launch site under a blue tent on Monday, covering the site with brush and leaving the area outside the journalists’ hotel. More footage, recorded 25 hours later, showed smoke from the rocket launched from that spot the next morning.

The video was notable because journalists have captured few images of the stealthy guerrilla fighters in recent weeks and because it appeared to show Islamist militants using a residential area to provide cover while they fire at Israel, putting civilians at risk as homemade rockets fly out and potential retaliatory strikes come back in.

As the British television journalist Rageh Omaar noted last weekend, the lack of visual evidence of a militant presence in Gaza appeared to be the result of an intentional effort by militants to keep a low profile, and might have intensified the focus of the foreign media on civilian casualties

 

[Challenger]

This only represents evidence of two things.

• The extraordinary number of nations that have been coerced into supporting the Palestinians against the Israelis of face a Muslim backlash domestically.
• The example of the misfeasance and malfeasance exercised by the UN, International Courts, and the extraordinary number of nations that have supported the dishonorable practice of selective enforcement in favor of the Palestinian acts of aggression and against the defense of the Jewish National Home of Israel.

So you have evidence that nations have been coerced into supporting the Palestinians against the Israelis and also misfeasance and malfeasance exercised by the UN and the various International Courts, courts staffed by eminent well respected jurists and trained in Western Jurisprudence?

Care to provide links or sources to corroborate your assertions?

 

[Challenger]

Oslo Accord I is not actually a Treaty in the sense of the internationally recognized form of international diplomacy...

The Oslo II or Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Stripl, is not a treaty...

In that case the Zionists have no right to create settlements in Area C like you've argued in the past, those settlements are illegal. Area C is occupied Palestinian land and Zionist israel has yet again flouted international law, no change there then.

 

[Daniyel]

Then, does that mean that Gazan civilians, firing weapons in response to an attack by Israel, are defending themselves?

Of course. Why would you think I would answer differently? EVERYONE has the right to defend themselves when being attacked. And every country (or wanna-be country) has a right to protect its sovereignty (or wanna-be sovereignty).

But Israel does not instigate attacks against Gaza. Israel responds against attacks from Gaza. And Israel is not attempting to remove the Palestinists sovereignty in Gaza, but only to prevent further attacks on Israel, thus protecting Israel's sovereignty and citizens.

Every action Israel has taken against Gaza since its withdrawal in 2005 has been an act of defense against harm to her citizens or her sovereignty. Every attack by Gaza has been an affront to Israel's citizens or sovereignty.

Every time Israel militarily enters Gaza, regardless of the reason - Gazan civilians do have the right to defend themselves - but if they do, they are labeled "combatents". I think these distinctions have the ability to get very murky.

That is a very good point, the thing is that when the IDF enters Gaza it is in order to disable their abilities to attack Israel (which makes it Israel's right for self defense - not theirs)
Self Defense does mean one may (should) protect himself/herself by any means necessary against unprovoked attacker.
Imagen yourself inside your home when your neighbors launching fireworks at your home from theirs, police and threats turned out ineffective, eventually you'll end up going inside their home in order to confiscate the fireworks.
The scenario is always the same..

I'm not so sure. For example, not all civilians support Hamas' actions nor are they combatents but they are and their families are being attacked...do they just run like rabbits or defend themselves?

Daniyel, doesn't this make those distinctions of combatent/civilian/self defense/offense really fuzzy?

It does, but unfortunately the majority elected Hamas, if you will research some polls and opinions you'll find that the majority also supports Hamas and violence against Israel, and that same majority is what we have to deal with.
Do you think everyone in Israel support everything as well? No, does that make them less Israelis or at least not a valid targets for Hamas or Palestinians attacks? No.
In reality an objective judge would determine guilt based on the evidence he sees, and so does everyone else, in war you don't have the time to stop and ask "will he shoot me?" just because he simply will.
Israel however tried beyond anyone else to separate civilians and combatants, you know the details we already discussed them for months, what did they do? Where is the line between Israel's duty to protect Israelis over Palestinians?

 

[Coyote]

Challenger, et al,

We will have to agree to disagree.

montelatici, et al,

Oh yeah...

Rocco,

The colonization of Palestine is declared in specific UN Resolutions:

Resolution 3092

4. Calls upon Israel to desist immediately from the annexation and colonization of the Arab territories occupied by it since 1967, the establishment of settlements and the transfer of population to, from or within those territories, and from all the other practices referred to in paragraph 3 above;


UN General Assembly Resolution 3092 (December 1973) | Jewish Virtual Library

Resolution 3025

8. Reaffirms further that Israel's policy of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in the occupied territories is a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and of the relevant United Nations resolutions, and urges all States to refrain from any action which Israel will exploit in carrying out its policy of colonizing the occupied territories;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3525 (December 1975) | Jewish Virtual Library

And Resolution 34/44 where Palestine is associated directly with Resolution 1514, that you claimed does not refer to Palestine.

Reaffirming its faith in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, containing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the importance of its implementation,............Indignant at the continued violations of the human rights of the peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, the continuation of the illegal occupation of Namibia and South Africa's attempts to dismember its territory, the perpetuation of the racist minority régimes in Zimbabwe and South Africa and the denial to the Palestinian people of its inalienable national rights,

UN General Assembly Resolution 34/44 (November 1979) | Jewish Virtual Library

(QUESTION)

Can you help me out here???

• Which one of these UN Resolutions are "binding?"
• What date did they go into force?
• Which ones are compatible with the actual Customary Law in which it is practiced?

Many Thanks,
R

Wrong question RoccoR. Zionist israel would be an international pariah state by now if not for the U.S.A.

"The United States voted against a United Nations Security Council draft resolution on Friday (2010) that would have condemned Israeli settlements as illegal. The veto by the U.S., a permanent council member, prevented the resolution from being adopted.

The other 14 Security Council members voted in favor of the draft resolution. But the U.S., as one of five permanent council members with the power to block any action by the Security Council, struck it down.

The resolution had nearly 120 co-sponsors. The Obama administration's veto is certain to anger Arab countries and Palestinian supporters around the world."
Israel 'deeply appreciates' U.S. veto on UN resolution condemning settlements

On in a string of vetos that make a mockery of International law and allow the Zionist regime to do what it likes:

Prior to the Nixon administration, the United States had never employed its veto power in the U.N. Security Council. It was first used March 17, 1970 over Southern Rhodesia. The second U.S. veto came two years later, when Washington sought to protect Israel from a resolution condemning Israel for one of its attacks on its neighbors. Since then, the United States has cast its veto a total of 39 times to shield Israel from Security Council draft resolutions that condemned, deplored, denounced, demanded, affirmed, endorsed, called on and urged Israel to obey the world body.

1. Sept. 10, 1972—Condemned Israel’s attacks against Southern Lebanon and Syria; vote: 13 to 1, with 1 abstention
2. July 26, 1973—Affirmed the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, statehood and equal protections; vote: 13 to 1, with China absent.
3. Dec. 8, 1975—Condemned Israel’s air strikes and attacks in Southern Lebanon and its murder of innocent civilians; vote: 13 to 1, with 1 abstention.
4. Jan. 26, 1976—Called for self-determination of Palestinian people; vote: 9 to 1, with 3 abstentions.
5. March 25, 1976—Deplored Israel’s altering of the status of Jerusalem, which is recognized as an international city, by most world nations and the United Nation’s; vote: 14 to 1.
6. June 29, 1976—Affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people; vote: 10 to 1, with 4 abstentions.
7. April 30, 1980—Endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people; vote: 10 to 1, with 4 abstentions.
8. Jan. 20, 1982—Demanded Israel’s withdrawal from the Golan Heights; vote: 9 to 1, with 4 abstentions.
9. April 2, 1982—Condemned Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip and its refusal to abide by the Geneva Convention protocols of civilized nations; vote: 14 to 1.
10. April 20, 1982—Condemned an Israeli soldier who shot 11 Muslim worshippers on the Temple Mount of the Haram al-Sharaf near the Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem; vote: 14 to 1.
11. June 8, 1982—Urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Lebanon; vote: 14 to 1.
12. June 26, 1982—Urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Beirut, Lebanon; vote: 14 to 1.
13. Aug. 6, 1982—Urged cut-off of economic aid to Israel if it refused to withdraw from its occupation of Lebanon; vote: 11 to 1, with 3 abstentions.
14. Aug. 2, 1983—Condemned continued Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine territories of West Bank and Gaza Strip, denouncing them as an obstacle to peace; vote: 13 to 1, with 1 abstention.
15. Sept. 6, 1984—Deplored Israel’s brutal massacre of Arabs in Lebanon and urged its withdrawal; vote: 14 to 1.
16. March 12, 1985—Condemned Israeli brutality in Southern Lebanon and denounced Israel’s “Iron Fist” policy of repression; vote: 11 to 1, with 3 abstentions.
17. Sept. 13, 1985—Denounced Israel’s violation of human rights in the occupied territories; vote: 10 to 1, with 4 abstentions.
18. Jan. 17, 1986—Deplored Israel’s violence in Southern Lebanon; vote: 11 to 1, with 3 abstentions.
19. Jan. 30, 1986—Deplored Israel’s activities in occupied Arab East Jerusalem which threaten the sanctity of Muslim holy sites; vote: 13 to 1, with 1 abstention.
20. Feb. 6, 1986—Condemned Israel’s hijacking of a Libyan passenger airplane on Feb. 4; vote: 10 to 1, with 1 abstention.
21. Jan. 18, 1988—Deplored Israeli attacks against Lebanon and its measures and practices against the civilian population of Lebanon; vote: 13 to 1, with Britain abstaining.
22. Feb. 1, 1988—Called on Israel to abandon its policies against the Palestinian uprising that violate the rights of occupied Palestinians, abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and formalize a leading role for the United Nations in future peace negotiations; vote: 14 to 1.
23. April 15, 1988—Urged Israel to accept back deported Palestinians, condemned Israel’s shooting of civilians, called on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention and called for a peace settlement under U.N. auspices; vote: 14 to 1.
24. May 10, 1988—Condemned Israel’s May 2 incursion into Lebanon; vote: 14 to 1.
25. Dec. 14, 1988—Deplored Israel’s Dec. 9 commando raids on Lebanon; vote: 14 to 1.
26. Feb. 17, 1989—Deplored Israel’s repression of the Palestinian uprising and called on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians; vote: 14 to 1.
27. June 9, 1989—Deplored Israel’s violation of the human rights of the Palestinians; vote: 14 to 1.
28. Nov. 7, 1989—Demanded Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and allow a fact-finding mission to observe Israel’s crackdown on the Palestinian uprising; vote: 14 to 1.
29. May 31, 1990—Called for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli-occupied lands; vote: 14 to 1.
30. May 17, 1995—Declared invalid Israel’s expropriation of land in East Jerusalem and in violation of Security Council resolutions and the Fourth Geneva convention; vote: 14 to 1.
31. March 7, 1997—Called on Israel to refrain from settlement activity and all other actions in the occupied territories; vote:14 to 1.
32. March 21, 1997—Demanded Israel cease construction of the settlement Har Homa (called Jabal Abu Ghneim by the Palestinians) in East Jerusalem and cease all other settlement activity in the occupied territories; vote: 13 to 1, with one abstention.
33. March 26, 2001—Called for the deployment of a U.N. observer force in the West Bank and Gaza; vote: 9 to 1, with 4 abstentions.
34. Dec. 14, 2001—Condemned all acts of terror, the use of excessive force and destruction of properties and encouraged establishment of a monitoring apparatus; vote: 12-1, with 2 abstentions.
35. Dec. 19, 2002—Expressed deep concern over Israel’s killing of U.N. employees and Israel’s destruction of the U.N. World Food Program warehouse in Beit Lahiya and demanded that Israel refrain from the excessive and disproportionate use of force in the occupied territories; vote: 12 to 1, with 2 abstentions.
36. Sept. 16, 2003—Reaffirmed the illegality of deportation of any Palestinian and expressed concern about the possible deportation of Yasser Arafat; vote: 11 to 1, with 3 abstentions.
37. Oct. 14, 2003—Raised concerns about Israel’s building of a securiy fence through the occupied West Bank; vote 10 to 1, with 4 abstentions.
38. March 25, 2004—Condemned Israel for killing Palestinian spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in a missile attack in Gaza; vote: 11 to 1, with 3 abstentions.
39. Oct. 5, 2004—Condemned Israel’s military incursion in Gaza, causing many civilian deaths and extensive damage to property; vote: 11 to 1, with 3 abstentions.

An Updated List of Vetoes Cast by the United States to Shield Israel from Criticism by the U.N. Security Council

(COMMENT)

This list only represents about half of the actual number of resolution passed that oppose Israel for one reason or the other. This only represents evidence of two things.

• The extraordinary number of nations that have been coerced into supporting the Palestinians against the Israelis of face a Muslim backlash domestically.
• The example of the misfeasance and malfeasance exercised by the UN, International Courts, and the extraordinary number of nations that have supported the dishonorable practice of selective enforcement in favor of the Palestinian acts of aggression and against the defense of the Jewish National Home of Israel.
​

Until such time as I see these international entities begin to:

• act against the terrorist legacy operations that indiscriminately launch rockets and mortars in to Israel,
• act against the terrorist legacy operations that intentionally kidnap and murder civilians,
• act against the terrorist legacy operations by Palestinian gunmen that attack crowds of civilians.
• act against the terrorist legacy operations that attack buses of women and children,
• not to mention the suicide bombings, attacks on tourist and the religious on retreat,
• not to mention the criminal history dating back before the Olympic Massacre, or the numours airline hijackings, etc, etc, etc,
​

Showing me how non-Jewish opponents pass resolution after resolution - condemning Israel, under the false color of law, does not change my mind one bit. In fact, logically, it is in favor of my stand.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think some of those resolutions against Israel are warrented. Israel has also been heavily protected from resolutions that other countries face for similar actions, for example, developing nuclear weapons.

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

Yes, that maybe so --- or it may not be so.

I think some of those resolutions against Israel are warranted. Israel has also been heavily protected from resolutions that other countries face for similar actions, for example, developing nuclear weapons.

(COMMENT)

Many allegations are very poorly supported by actual evidence.

As an example, your allegation that Israel has an absolute requirement to comply with a treaty [Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)] to which it is NOT a party (signatory). Many people have said, over and over again, that Israel has a Nuclear Weapons Program (NWP). Yet, no one has actually provided any technical evidence or have actually detected the Israelis conducting a nuclear weapons test.

POINT: Israel cannot be in violation of a Treaty to which it is not a part.

But so many people believe it is a democratic principle to force a contractual obligation onto Israel, even though it is in no way connected to the treaty.​

Most people do not understand that a vast majority of the rumor and hearsay information they have on the alleged Israeli NWP, is more than two decades old (or older). The Arab League want to force Israel NPT requirements on Israel to assess the defensive capability Israel might be able to project against another 1948 style combined armies attack.

On the issue of some of the Resolutions may be deserved. Well, that may be true. But it wasn't the point. There is not one single condemnation by the UN on any major international terrorist attempt by the Palestinians. Not the Palestinian Black September activity in Jordan, not the Munich Massacre, not the many airline hijacks, not the numerous suicide bombings, etc, etc, etc. Similarly, there has been no Resolution condemning the kidnap and murder of Israeli civilians, the tunnels infiltrating Israel, the seaborne infiltration attempts by armed Jihadist, etc etc etc. And, there has been very little said about the Arab Palestinian Rocket and Mortar attacks.

The point was about the selective enforcement. IF the UN is not going to complain about the Russians in the Crimea, or the Chinese in Tibet, (as our friend P F Tinmore points out), THEN why is it concentrating on Israel? IF no member of the Arab League is contemplating an attack (like the 1973 Yom Kipper Attack), THEN why should they be worried?

The throughout the entire region of the North Africa (Gibraltar to the Suez Canal), down the eastern coast of Africa and the Western coast of Arabia, and from the Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf, it has been the Radicalized Muslims, the Sunni - Shiite Conflict, the Islamic Jihadist, and the various other Muslim inspired activities that have created the vast majority of unrest for the last four decade. YET, all anyone can complain about is the country with the highest rating on the Human Development Index and the only Jewish National Home in the world.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

Yes, that maybe so --- or it may not be so.

I think some of those resolutions against Israel are warranted. Israel has also been heavily protected from resolutions that other countries face for similar actions, for example, developing nuclear weapons.

(COMMENT)

Many allegations are very poorly supported by actual evidence.

As an example, your allegation that Israel has an absolute requirement to comply with a treaty [Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)] to which it is NOT a party (signatory). Many people have said, over and over again, that Israel has a Nuclear Weapons Program (NWP). Yet, no one has actually provided any technical evidence or have actually detected the Israelis conducting a nuclear weapons test.

POINT: Israel cannot be in violation of a Treaty to which it is not a part.

But so many people believe it is a democratic principle to force a contractual obligation onto Israel, even though it is in no way connected to the treaty.​

Most people do not understand that a vast majority of the rumor and hearsay information they have on the alleged Israeli NWP, is more than two decades old (or older). The Arab League want to force Israel NPT requirements on Israel to assess the defensive capability Israel might be able to project against another 1948 style combined armies attack.

On the issue of some of the Resolutions may be deserved. Well, that may be true. But it wasn't the point. There is not one single condemnation by the UN on any major international terrorist attempt by the Palestinians. Not the Palestinian Black September activity in Jordan, not the Munich Massacre, not the many airline hijacks, not the numerous suicide bombings, etc, etc, etc. Similarly, there has been no Resolution condemning the kidnap and murder of Israeli civilians, the tunnels infiltrating Israel, the seaborne infiltration attempts by armed Jihadist, etc etc etc. And, there has been very little said about the Arab Palestinian Rocket and Mortar attacks.

The point was about the selective enforcement. IF the UN is not going to complain about the Russians in the Crimea, or the Chinese in Tibet, (as our friend P F Tinmore points out), THEN why is it concentrating on Israel? IF no member of the Arab League is contemplating an attack (like the 1973 Yom Kipper Attack), THEN why should they be worried?

The throughout the entire region of the North Africa (Gibraltar to the Suez Canal), down the eastern coast of Africa and the Western coast of Arabia, and from the Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf, it has been the Radicalized Muslims, the Sunni - Shiite Conflict, the Islamic Jihadist, and the various other Muslim inspired activities that have created the vast majority of unrest for the last four decade. YET, all anyone can complain about is the country with the highest rating on the Human Development Index and the only Jewish National Home in the world.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thing is - if we really wanted to look for evidence of Israel's nuclear capabilities, I think we'd find the evidence. I think there is a lack of desire to look for it due to Israel's strategic importance as an ally. Meanwhile, other nations who are also not signatories of a non-proliferation agreement get sanctioned.

I think when you frame the issue in a "David and Goliath" format - ie, the only "Jewish National Home" in the world -then you're obsuring it with an appeal to emotion that deliberately buries what are real issues - for example the justice system and how it treats Palestinians or non-Jewish Israeli's compared to Jewish Israeli's, as well as it's laws on land confiscation that favors Jewish residents and works against Palestinians (absentee land owner laws etc.)....all that gets brushed under the carpet because Israel is "the only Jewish national homeland".

One other thing....this is something I don't know much about. I thought UN resolutions were aimed at nations..not militant groups....or non-national entities....????

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

Actually, there are 4 UN members have never been a party to the treaty:

• India
• Pakistan
• South Sudan
• Israel

There is also the right to withdraw:

Article X NPT

1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.
​

Coyote, et al,

Yes, that maybe so --- or it may not be so.

I think some of those resolutions against Israel are warranted. Israel has also been heavily protected from resolutions that other countries face for similar actions, for example, developing nuclear weapons.

(COMMENT)

Many allegations are very poorly supported by actual evidence.

As an example, your allegation that Israel has an absolute requirement to comply with a treaty [Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)] to which it is NOT a party (signatory). Many people have said, over and over again, that Israel has a Nuclear Weapons Program (NWP). Yet, no one has actually provided any technical evidence or have actually detected the Israelis conducting a nuclear weapons test.

POINT: Israel cannot be in violation of a Treaty to which it is not a part.

But so many people believe it is a democratic principle to force a contractual obligation onto Israel, even though it is in no way connected to the treaty.​

Most people do not understand that a vast majority of the rumor and hearsay information they have on the alleged Israeli NWP, is more than two decades old (or older). The Arab League want to force Israel NPT requirements on Israel to assess the defensive capability Israel might be able to project against another 1948 style combined armies attack.

On the issue of some of the Resolutions may be deserved. Well, that may be true. But it wasn't the point. There is not one single condemnation by the UN on any major international terrorist attempt by the Palestinians. Not the Palestinian Black September activity in Jordan, not the Munich Massacre, not the many airline hijacks, not the numerous suicide bombings, etc, etc, etc. Similarly, there has been no Resolution condemning the kidnap and murder of Israeli civilians, the tunnels infiltrating Israel, the seaborne infiltration attempts by armed Jihadist, etc etc etc. And, there has been very little said about the Arab Palestinian Rocket and Mortar attacks.

The point was about the selective enforcement. IF the UN is not going to complain about the Russians in the Crimea, or the Chinese in Tibet, (as our friend P F Tinmore points out), THEN why is it concentrating on Israel? IF no member of the Arab League is contemplating an attack (like the 1973 Yom Kipper Attack), THEN why should they be worried?

The throughout the entire region of the North Africa (Gibraltar to the Suez Canal), down the eastern coast of Africa and the Western coast of Arabia, and from the Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf, it has been the Radicalized Muslims, the Sunni - Shiite Conflict, the Islamic Jihadist, and the various other Muslim inspired activities that have created the vast majority of unrest for the last four decade. YET, all anyone can complain about is the country with the highest rating on the Human Development Index and the only Jewish National Home in the world.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thing is - if we really wanted to look for evidence of Israel's nuclear capabilities, I think we'd find the evidence. I think there is a lack of desire to look for it due to Israel's strategic importance as an ally. Meanwhile, other nations who are also not signatories of a non-proliferation agreement get sanctioned.

I think when you frame the issue in a "David and Goliath" format - ie, the only "Jewish National Home" in the world -then you're obsuring it with an appeal to emotion that deliberately buries what are real issues - for example the justice system and how it treats Palestinians or non-Jewish Israeli's compared to Jewish Israeli's, as well as it's laws on land confiscation that favors Jewish residents and works against Palestinians (absentee land owner laws etc.)....all that gets brushed under the carpet because Israel is "the only Jewish national homeland".

One other thing....this is something I don't know much about. I thought UN resolutions were aimed at nations..not militant groups....or non-national entities....????

(COMMENT)

Relative to the Treaty itself, there are two categories:

Signatories:
• Non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty
• Nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty
States not Party to the Agreement
• States that have withdrawn
• States that declined the Agreement
​

IAEA: Anti-Israel Resolution Narrowly Defeated
Israel is widely assumed to have nuclear weapons but has never acknowledged it and is not a signatory to the landmark Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

The Jewish state is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency but is not subject to IAEA inspections except for at a small research facility.

The resolution debated at the meeting of all 159 IAEA member states expressed "concern about Israeli nuclear capabilities and calls upon Israel to accede to the NPT and place all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards".

In 2009 the same resolution was narrowly approved by members of the IAEA, and in 2010 it was defeated only after intensive lobbying efforts by Western countries.

In 2012 and in 2011 Arab states decided not to propose the resolution, saying that they did so in order to encourage the creation of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction.

These efforts, however, have so far come to nothing, with a hoped-for conference failing to take place in late 2012 as planned.

While most people are lead to believe that Israel is not inspected at all, that would be a misinformation. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Integrated Nuclear Safety Assessment of Research Reactors (INSARR) mission was held in Israel [Soreq Nuclear Research Center (SNRC)] from 7 to 11 July 2013. I would also like to bring your attention to the IAEA GOV/2010/49-GC(54)/14 Date: 3 September 2010: Israeli Nuclear Capabilities.

The IAEA, by its nature, is a nosey agency. Israel, because of the intense interest by the Arab League, is by its nature a secretive agency. If the State of Israel is attacked by the Arab League, Israel knows NOT to expect allied assistance. The Jewish People did not get allied forces assistance during the Holocaust, it did not get allied military engagement during the 1948 War for Independence --- and it did not get allied military assistance after the sneak attack by the Arabs in 1973. THUS, Israel's details of its national defense strategies are its own affair; not for foreign examination. The one aspect that has not changed, is the assessment best expressed by the US Joints Chiefs of Staff on the JSCM-373-67 in the Memorandum to the SECDEF:

From a strictly military point of view, Israel would require the retention of come captured territory in order to provide militarily defensible borders. Determination of territory to be retained should be based on accepted tactical principles such as control of commanding terrain, use of natural obstacles elimination of enemy held salients, and provisions of defense in depth for important facilities and installations.

There is no reasonable expectation that with time, the threat potential presented by the Hostile Arab Palestinians and selected elements of the Arab League will diminish. All the parties to the Arab League attack in 1948 have not yet reached a peaceful accommodation (Egypt and Jordan notable exceptions). There is no reason to assume that Arab threats from all quarters will rise over time, given the rise in Jihadism, Islamic Extremism, Palestinian and other Arab Terrorism, and the Western communities that are attempting to diminish Israeli national defense and security through the malfeasance under the color of law; a reoccurring pattern of Jewish Persecution duplicated over time in the past. Israel knows this, but does not play the virtual victim on the level the Arab Palestinians exemplify. Israel just quietly prepares for the next attempt at annihilation.

THUS, there is absolutely NO reason that Israel should allow any outside inspection effort that could observe any critical facilities and essential installations to Israel's national defense.

Most Respectfully,
R

PS: This is a little index of National Security Archive Electronic Archive material.

 

[Challenger]

Israel however tried beyond anyone else to separate civilians and combatants

If the IDF can do this:



There can be no justification for this:

 

[Challenger]

The point was about the selective enforcement. IF the UN is not going to complain about the Russians in the Crimea, or the Chinese in Tibet, (as our friend P F Tinmore points out), THEN why is it concentrating on Israel?...

What selective enforcement? Zionist Israel gets a "get out of jail free" card when it flouts international law, Russia gets UN condemnation UNGA 68/262 General Assembly Adopts Resolution Calling upon States Not to Recognize Changes in Status of Crimea Region | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases as for China and Tibet General Assembly Adopts Resolution Calling upon States Not to Recognize Changes in Status of Crimea Region | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

Perhaps Zionist Israel is the biggest violator of international law on the planet

 

[Challenger]

The throughout the entire region of the North Africa (Gibraltar to the Suez Canal), down the eastern coast of Africa and the Western coast of Arabia, and from the Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf, it has been the Radicalized Muslims, the Sunni - Shiite Conflict, the Islamic Jihadist, and the various other Muslim inspired activities that have created the vast majority of unrest for the last four decade. YET, all anyone can complain about is the country with the highest rating on the Human Development Index and the only Jewish National Home in the world.

None of that is relevant in the Israel-Palestine forum, look at the "Middle East- General" and "Africa" forums here and you'll find lots of complaints about "Muslim jihadists", etc. So stop trying to deflect from the topic, you make yourself look ridiculous.