P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, that would make it very troublesome for the Arab Palestinians. You are not alone; there are a number of constituencies that do not like the term "Civil War" simply because of the customary law definition.
BUT, there are two types of conflicts that are recognized by international humanitarian law:
- International Armed Conflict, COMMON ARTICLE 2 (IAC)
- “All cases of declared war or of any armed conflict that may arise between two or more high contracting parties, even if the state of war is not recognized."
- The Commentary of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Art. 5, para. 2(g). "It is irrelevant to the validity of international humanitarian law whether the States and Governments involved in the conflict recognize each other as States": Joint Services Regulations (ZDv) 15/2, in: D. ICRC Opinion paper, March 2008 confirms that "any difference arising between two States and leading to the intervention of armed forces is an armed conflict within the meaning of Article 2, even if one of the Parties denies the existence of a state of war. It makes no difference how long the conflict lasts, or how much slaughter takes place."
- Non-international Armed Conflict. COMMON ARTICLE 3 (NIAC)
- An armed conflicts that are non-international in nature occurring in one of the High contracting parties.
- These include armed conflicts in which one or more non-governmental armed groups are involved. Depending on the situation, hostilities may occur between governmental armed forces and non-governmental armed groups or between such groups only. As the four Geneva Conventions have universally been ratified now, the requirement that the armed conflict must occur "in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties" has lost its importance in practice. Indeed, any armed conflict between governmental armed forces and armed groups or between such groups cannot but take place on the territory of one of the Parties to the Convention.
"
Legally speaking, no other type of armed conflict exists. It is nevertheless important to
underline that a situation can evolve from one type of armed conflict to another, depending on the facts prevailing at a certain moment." SOURCE:
ICRC Opinion paper, March 2008
The use of the term civil war is troubling. Who first coined that term and why? Who had the influence to perpetuate that term into common discourse?
I question this term because I do not see a civil war.
(REFERENCE)
A "Civil War"
(a war between citizens of the same country or domain) is not so different from what is legally termed under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as an NAIC.
It poses a dilemma for the Arab Palestinian.
COMMON ARTICLE 2 --- Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva said:
Application of the Convention
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
COMMON ARTICLE 3 --- Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva said:
Conflicts NOT of an International character
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
Yes, I can see that you might not concur that the conflict evolved from one type of armed conflict to another. What I see, relative to the Question of Palestine is that --- at some point during the period of the Mandate --- the civil strife between the Arab citizens under the Palestine Order in Council --- and the Jewish citizens under the escalated into a NAIC type conflict
(Arab citizens and Jewish citizen under the same government). And that the belligerents
(Arab citizens and Jewish citizens) were both forming what would later be termed as non-governmental armed groups (NgAGs)
(Example: Palestinian Black Hand 'v' Haganah --- neither of which were not included as part of a state's formal armed forces) in confrontation.
I see several break-points in which the ICRC describes as an evolutionary point" or "transition" from one type of conflict to another:
- 1929 - May '48: NIAC Arab Citizens 'vs' Jewish Citizens
- May '48 - Jul '49: IAC Israel Defense Forces 'vs' Arab Joint Forces (AJF)
- 1949 - 1967: IDF 'vs' Arab Jihadists
- 1967 - 1967: IDF 'vs' AJF
- 1967 - 1973: IDF 'vs' Arab Jihadist
- 1973 - 1973: IDF 'vs' AJF
- 1973 - 1979: IDF 'vs' Arab Jihadist
- 1979 - 1988: IDF 'vs' Arab Jihadist and Iranian Alliance (IRGC-QF)
- 1988 - Present: IDF 'vs' State Sponsored Arab Palestinian Jihadist and Iranian Alliance (IRGC-QF)
(DIALOG)
Clearly, prior to 1948, the conflict was internal. Since 1948, the Arab Palestinians have received direct and indirect support from most of the Arab League, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Iranian Quds Force --- so it can be said that the conflict has been both an IAC and an NAIAC.
Most Respectfully,
R
