Israel Should Just Employ the Geneva Conventions

[Boston1]

And speaking of repatriation

Quote

UN Resolution 194 of 1948. Article 12.4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also states that: ‘No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their right to enter his own country

End Quote

See

Legal provisions, principles, guidelines and agreements — Forced Migration Online

Thing to remember is that in 1948 the Jordanian citizenship law of 1928 applied to all Arabs living in the mandated area.

Jordanian nationality law ( which by the way smacks of racism and bigotry )

Quote

Article 3

The following shall be deemed to be Jordanian nationals:

(1)Any person who has acquired Jordanian nationality or a Jordanian passport under the Jordanian Nationality Law, 1928, as amended, Law No. 6 of 1954 or this Law;

(2)Any person who, not being Jewish, possessed Palestinian nationality before 15 May 1948 and was a regular resident in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan between 20 December 1949 and 16 February 1954;

(3)Any person whose father holds Jordanian nationality;

(4)Any person born in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan of a mother holding Jordanian nationality and of a father of unknown nationality or of a Stateless father or whose filiation is not established;

(5)Any person born in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan of unknown parents, as a foundling in the Kingdom shall be considered born in the Kingdom pending evidence to the contrary;

(6)All members of the Bedouin tribes of the North mentioned in paragraph (j) of article 25 of the Provisional Election Law, No. 24 of 1960, who were effectively living in the territories annexed to the Kingdom in 1930.

End Quote

See

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...JuDxArHtpybUI-ksAwkp-A&bvm=bv.117218890,d.amc

Also see

Citizenship and the State in the Middle East, p. 210.

Quote

In 1949, the Jordanian Council of Ministers added an article to their Citizenship Law of 1928 that read

All those who at the time when this Law goes into effect habitually reside in Transjordan or in the Western part [of the Jordan] which is being administered by [the Kingdom], and who were holders of Palestinian citizenship, shall be deemed as Jordanians enjoying all rights of Jordanians and bearing all the attendant obligations.

End Quote

Which if anyone is following along means that Jordan stripping the Arab Muslims of Israel of their citizenship was illegal

See

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...iNygvrIzoVVFzGA4pUHYdg&bvm=bv.117218890,d.amc

Quote


More than half of the 6.3 million population of Jordan is of Palestinian origin-that is, from areas west of the River Jordan, including the West Bank, today's Israel, and Gaza. With the exception of persons from Gaza, the vast majority of those persons of Palestinian origin have Jordanian citizenship. However, since 1988, and especially over the past few years, the Jordanian government has been arbitrarily and without notice withdrawing Jordanian nationality from its citizens of Palestinian origin, making them stateless. For many of them this means they are again stateless Palestinians as they were before 1950.

Some Jordanian officials have said they are doing so in order to forestall supposed Israeli designs to colonize the West Bank, by maintaining the birthright of Palestinians to live in the West Bank. Yet the real reason may be Jordan's desire to be able to rid itself of hundreds of thousands of Jordanian citizens of Palestinian origin whom Jordan could then forcibly return to the West Bank or Israel as part of a settlement of the Palestinian refugee problem caused by the 1948 and 1967 Arab-Israeli wars. At least that appeared to be the interpretation of a high-ranking Ministry of Interior official who in July 2009 said that certain Jordanians of Palestinian origin would remain Jordanian nationals only until such time that a refugee settlement had been reached.

So far, Jordan has withdrawn its nationality from thousands of its citizens of Palestinian origin-over 2,700 between 2004 and 2008 alone. It has done so, in the individual cases Human Rights Watch identified, in an arbitrary manner and in violation of Jordan's nationality law of 1954. Under that law Palestinian residents of the West Bank in 1949 or thereafter received full Jordanian nationality following Jordan's incorporation of the West Bank in April 1950.

End Quote

Ergo it was illegal for Jordan to arbitrarily remove citizenship from its own citizens.

Just exploring who's responsible for who within the conflict.

Looks like all Arab Muslim combatants legal or illegal could be considered Jordanian citizens and repatriated to Jordan.

Not that its Israel's responsibility to figure out where they end up but its a start.

 

[Boston1]

Legal precedent of forced repatriation

Opperation Keelhaul

The Yalta conference

Forced repatriation of Cossacks post WWII

All Israel needs to do is determine who qualifies for POW status as outlined in the Geneva Conventions and throw the bums out.

Quote

PRISONERS OF WAR

• ARTICLE 4 [ Link ]
• A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
• (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
• (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
• (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
• (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
• (c) that of carrying arms openly;
• (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
• (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
• (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
• (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
• (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
• B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
• (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
• (2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8 [ Link ] , 10 [ Link ] , 15 [ Link ] , 30, fifth paragraph [ Link ] , 58 [ Link ] -67, 92 [ Link ] , 126 [ Link ] and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
• C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 [ Link ] of the present Convention.

End Quote

 

[Boston1]

Well this was an interesting read

From
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiSrNiTotrLAhWFgYMKHUnsBkwQFggcMAA&url=https://www.icrc.org/casebook/doc/book-chapter/the-combatants-pow-book-chapter.htm&usg=AFQjCNFisn-uPC8_Bc0NeurCRvs9D5abMg&sig2=5ZegILlFaiQJnTeCelMu9Q&bvm=bv.117604692,d.amc


Quote

Combatants are members of armed forces. The main feature of their status in international armed conflicts is that they have the right to directly participate in hostilities. If they fall into enemy hands, they become prisoners of war who may not be punished for having directly participated in hostilities. It is often considered that customary law allows a detaining power to deny its own nationals prisoner-of-war status, even if they fall into its hands as members of enemy armed forces. In any event, such persons may be punished under domestic law for their mere participation in hostilities against their own country.

Combatants have an obligation to respect International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which includes distinguishing themselves from the civilian population. If they violate IHL they must be punished, but they do not lose their combatant status and, if captured by the enemy, remain entitled to prisoner-of-war status, except if they have violated their obligation to distinguish themselves.

Persons who have lost combatant status or never had it, but nevertheless directly participate in hostilities, may be referred to as "unprivileged combatants" – because they do not have the combatant's privilege to commit acts of hostility – or as "unlawful combatants" – because their acts of hostility are not permitted by IHL. The status of such persons has given rise to controversy.

Some argue that they must perforce be civilians. This argument is based on the letter of IHL treaties. In the conduct of hostilities, Art. 50(1) of Protocol I defines civilians as all those who are not "referred to in Article 4(A)(1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol". Once they have fallen into enemy hands, Art. 4 of Convention IV defines as protected civilians all those who fulfil the nationality requirements and are not protected by Convention III. This would mean that any enemy who is not protected by Convention III falls under Convention IV.

Those who oppose that view argue that a person who does not fulfil the requirements for combatant status is an "unlawful combatant" and belongs to a third category. Like "lawful combatants", it is claimed, such "unlawful combatants" may be attacked until they surrender or are otherwise hors de combat and may be detained without judicial decision. The logic of this argument is that those who do not comply with the conditions set for a status should not be privileged compared to those who do.

Those who insist on the complementarity and exclusivity of combatant and civilian status reply that lawful combatants can be easily identified, based on objective criteria, which they will normally not deny (i.e. membership in the armed forces of a party to an international armed conflict), while the membership and past behaviour of unprivileged combatants and the future threat they represent can only be determined individually. As "civilians", unprivileged combatants may be attacked while they unlawfully directly participate in hostilities. If they fall into the power of the enemy, Convention IV does not bar their punishment for unlawful participation in hostilities. In addition, it permits administrative detention for imperative security reasons. From a teleological perspective, it is feared that the concept of "unlawful combatants", denied the protection of Convention IV, could constitute an easy escape category for detaining powers, as the Geneva Conventions contain no rule about the treatment of someone who is neither a combatant nor a civilian

End Quote

Argo again Israel would be free to expel unprivaledged combatants. The requirement only being that detainees be delivered to the point of embarkation in good condition.

ICRC service

 

[P F Tinmore]

Well this was an interesting read

From
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiSrNiTotrLAhWFgYMKHUnsBkwQFggcMAA&url=https://www.icrc.org/casebook/doc/book-chapter/the-combatants-pow-book-chapter.htm&usg=AFQjCNFisn-uPC8_Bc0NeurCRvs9D5abMg&sig2=5ZegILlFaiQJnTeCelMu9Q&bvm=bv.117604692,d.amc


Quote

Combatants are members of armed forces. The main feature of their status in international armed conflicts is that they have the right to directly participate in hostilities. If they fall into enemy hands, they become prisoners of war who may not be punished for having directly participated in hostilities. It is often considered that customary law allows a detaining power to deny its own nationals prisoner-of-war status, even if they fall into its hands as members of enemy armed forces. In any event, such persons may be punished under domestic law for their mere participation in hostilities against their own country.

Combatants have an obligation to respect International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which includes distinguishing themselves from the civilian population. If they violate IHL they must be punished, but they do not lose their combatant status and, if captured by the enemy, remain entitled to prisoner-of-war status, except if they have violated their obligation to distinguish themselves.

Persons who have lost combatant status or never had it, but nevertheless directly participate in hostilities, may be referred to as "unprivileged combatants" – because they do not have the combatant's privilege to commit acts of hostility – or as "unlawful combatants" – because their acts of hostility are not permitted by IHL. The status of such persons has given rise to controversy.

Some argue that they must perforce be civilians. This argument is based on the letter of IHL treaties. In the conduct of hostilities, Art. 50(1) of Protocol I defines civilians as all those who are not "referred to in Article 4(A)(1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol". Once they have fallen into enemy hands, Art. 4 of Convention IV defines as protected civilians all those who fulfil the nationality requirements and are not protected by Convention III. This would mean that any enemy who is not protected by Convention III falls under Convention IV.

Those who oppose that view argue that a person who does not fulfil the requirements for combatant status is an "unlawful combatant" and belongs to a third category. Like "lawful combatants", it is claimed, such "unlawful combatants" may be attacked until they surrender or are otherwise hors de combat and may be detained without judicial decision. The logic of this argument is that those who do not comply with the conditions set for a status should not be privileged compared to those who do.

Those who insist on the complementarity and exclusivity of combatant and civilian status reply that lawful combatants can be easily identified, based on objective criteria, which they will normally not deny (i.e. membership in the armed forces of a party to an international armed conflict), while the membership and past behaviour of unprivileged combatants and the future threat they represent can only be determined individually. As "civilians", unprivileged combatants may be attacked while they unlawfully directly participate in hostilities. If they fall into the power of the enemy, Convention IV does not bar their punishment for unlawful participation in hostilities. In addition, it permits administrative detention for imperative security reasons. From a teleological perspective, it is feared that the concept of "unlawful combatants", denied the protection of Convention IV, could constitute an easy escape category for detaining powers, as the Geneva Conventions contain no rule about the treatment of someone who is neither a combatant nor a civilian

End Quote

Argo again Israel would be free to expel unprivaledged combatants. The requirement only being that detainees be delivered to the point of embarkation in good condition.

ICRC service

which includes distinguishing themselves from the civilian population.​

What if you are a civilian defending yourself from military attack?

What would be the proper form of dress?

 

[Boston1]

This is why I don't usually respond to your posts Timmore.

You just ignore whats being posted and ask question thats already been answered. Like two posts ago.

Quote

PRISONERS OF WAR

• ARTICLE 4 [ Link ]
• A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
• (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
• (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
• (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
• (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
• (c) that of carrying arms openly;
• (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
• (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
• (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
• (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
• (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
• B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
• (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
• (2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8 [ Link ] , 10 [ Link ] , 15 [ Link ] , 30, fifth paragraph [ Link ] , 58 [ Link ] -67, 92 [ Link ] , 126 [ Link ] and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
• C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 [ Link ] of the present Convention.

End Quote

 

[montelatici]

Well, since the territory is legally occupied by Israel, your nonsense as usual, makes no sense.

 

[Boston1]

Well, since the territory is legally occupied by Israel, your nonsense as usual, makes no sense.

well I'm glad you can admit its legally occupied.

If you read the articles you'll see that it actually doesn't matter if the territory is about to be occupied or is occupied. The only difference is if the combatant is legal or not, but they are still a combatant and as such considered a POW. Or could be. Its also possible they qualify as a unprotected combatant. Doesn't matter, Israel still has a right to expel them from its territory.

 

[Phoenall]

Well this was an interesting read

From
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiSrNiTotrLAhWFgYMKHUnsBkwQFggcMAA&url=https://www.icrc.org/casebook/doc/book-chapter/the-combatants-pow-book-chapter.htm&usg=AFQjCNFisn-uPC8_Bc0NeurCRvs9D5abMg&sig2=5ZegILlFaiQJnTeCelMu9Q&bvm=bv.117604692,d.amc


Quote

Combatants are members of armed forces. The main feature of their status in international armed conflicts is that they have the right to directly participate in hostilities. If they fall into enemy hands, they become prisoners of war who may not be punished for having directly participated in hostilities. It is often considered that customary law allows a detaining power to deny its own nationals prisoner-of-war status, even if they fall into its hands as members of enemy armed forces. In any event, such persons may be punished under domestic law for their mere participation in hostilities against their own country.

Combatants have an obligation to respect International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which includes distinguishing themselves from the civilian population. If they violate IHL they must be punished, but they do not lose their combatant status and, if captured by the enemy, remain entitled to prisoner-of-war status, except if they have violated their obligation to distinguish themselves.

Persons who have lost combatant status or never had it, but nevertheless directly participate in hostilities, may be referred to as "unprivileged combatants" – because they do not have the combatant's privilege to commit acts of hostility – or as "unlawful combatants" – because their acts of hostility are not permitted by IHL. The status of such persons has given rise to controversy.

Some argue that they must perforce be civilians. This argument is based on the letter of IHL treaties. In the conduct of hostilities, Art. 50(1) of Protocol I defines civilians as all those who are not "referred to in Article 4(A)(1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol". Once they have fallen into enemy hands, Art. 4 of Convention IV defines as protected civilians all those who fulfil the nationality requirements and are not protected by Convention III. This would mean that any enemy who is not protected by Convention III falls under Convention IV.

Those who oppose that view argue that a person who does not fulfil the requirements for combatant status is an "unlawful combatant" and belongs to a third category. Like "lawful combatants", it is claimed, such "unlawful combatants" may be attacked until they surrender or are otherwise hors de combat and may be detained without judicial decision. The logic of this argument is that those who do not comply with the conditions set for a status should not be privileged compared to those who do.

Those who insist on the complementarity and exclusivity of combatant and civilian status reply that lawful combatants can be easily identified, based on objective criteria, which they will normally not deny (i.e. membership in the armed forces of a party to an international armed conflict), while the membership and past behaviour of unprivileged combatants and the future threat they represent can only be determined individually. As "civilians", unprivileged combatants may be attacked while they unlawfully directly participate in hostilities. If they fall into the power of the enemy, Convention IV does not bar their punishment for unlawful participation in hostilities. In addition, it permits administrative detention for imperative security reasons. From a teleological perspective, it is feared that the concept of "unlawful combatants", denied the protection of Convention IV, could constitute an easy escape category for detaining powers, as the Geneva Conventions contain no rule about the treatment of someone who is neither a combatant nor a civilian

End Quote

Argo again Israel would be free to expel unprivaledged combatants. The requirement only being that detainees be delivered to the point of embarkation in good condition.

ICRC service

which includes distinguishing themselves from the civilian population.​

What if you are a civilian defending yourself from military attack?

What would be the proper form of dress?

They should still wear something that sets them apart as unarmed civilians. That is International law.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Well this was an interesting read

From
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiSrNiTotrLAhWFgYMKHUnsBkwQFggcMAA&url=https://www.icrc.org/casebook/doc/book-chapter/the-combatants-pow-book-chapter.htm&usg=AFQjCNFisn-uPC8_Bc0NeurCRvs9D5abMg&sig2=5ZegILlFaiQJnTeCelMu9Q&bvm=bv.117604692,d.amc


Quote

Combatants are members of armed forces. The main feature of their status in international armed conflicts is that they have the right to directly participate in hostilities. If they fall into enemy hands, they become prisoners of war who may not be punished for having directly participated in hostilities. It is often considered that customary law allows a detaining power to deny its own nationals prisoner-of-war status, even if they fall into its hands as members of enemy armed forces. In any event, such persons may be punished under domestic law for their mere participation in hostilities against their own country.

Combatants have an obligation to respect International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which includes distinguishing themselves from the civilian population. If they violate IHL they must be punished, but they do not lose their combatant status and, if captured by the enemy, remain entitled to prisoner-of-war status, except if they have violated their obligation to distinguish themselves.

Persons who have lost combatant status or never had it, but nevertheless directly participate in hostilities, may be referred to as "unprivileged combatants" – because they do not have the combatant's privilege to commit acts of hostility – or as "unlawful combatants" – because their acts of hostility are not permitted by IHL. The status of such persons has given rise to controversy.

Some argue that they must perforce be civilians. This argument is based on the letter of IHL treaties. In the conduct of hostilities, Art. 50(1) of Protocol I defines civilians as all those who are not "referred to in Article 4(A)(1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol". Once they have fallen into enemy hands, Art. 4 of Convention IV defines as protected civilians all those who fulfil the nationality requirements and are not protected by Convention III. This would mean that any enemy who is not protected by Convention III falls under Convention IV.

Those who oppose that view argue that a person who does not fulfil the requirements for combatant status is an "unlawful combatant" and belongs to a third category. Like "lawful combatants", it is claimed, such "unlawful combatants" may be attacked until they surrender or are otherwise hors de combat and may be detained without judicial decision. The logic of this argument is that those who do not comply with the conditions set for a status should not be privileged compared to those who do.

Those who insist on the complementarity and exclusivity of combatant and civilian status reply that lawful combatants can be easily identified, based on objective criteria, which they will normally not deny (i.e. membership in the armed forces of a party to an international armed conflict), while the membership and past behaviour of unprivileged combatants and the future threat they represent can only be determined individually. As "civilians", unprivileged combatants may be attacked while they unlawfully directly participate in hostilities. If they fall into the power of the enemy, Convention IV does not bar their punishment for unlawful participation in hostilities. In addition, it permits administrative detention for imperative security reasons. From a teleological perspective, it is feared that the concept of "unlawful combatants", denied the protection of Convention IV, could constitute an easy escape category for detaining powers, as the Geneva Conventions contain no rule about the treatment of someone who is neither a combatant nor a civilian

End Quote

Argo again Israel would be free to expel unprivaledged combatants. The requirement only being that detainees be delivered to the point of embarkation in good condition.

ICRC service

which includes distinguishing themselves from the civilian population.​

What if you are a civilian defending yourself from military attack?

What would be the proper form of dress?

They should still wear something that sets them apart as unarmed civilians. That is International law.

Those are the laws of war.

What kind of war is it when one side has an army attacking civilians on the other side?

Palestine has never had an army. Whose uniform should they wear? What would be wrong with a civilian "uniform" if that is what they are?

 

[montelatici]

Erdogan would probably give Boston a job. Under Boston's crazy interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, Erdogan would have the right to expel most of the Kurds from Turkey.

"Suruc massacre: 'Turkish student' was suicide bomber


The attacker, named by local media as Seyh Abdurrahman Alagoz, was an ethnic Kurd from Turkey's south-eastern province of Adiyaman...."

Suruc massacre: 'Turkish student' was suicide bomber - BBC News

 

[Hollie]

Well this was an interesting read

From
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiSrNiTotrLAhWFgYMKHUnsBkwQFggcMAA&url=https://www.icrc.org/casebook/doc/book-chapter/the-combatants-pow-book-chapter.htm&usg=AFQjCNFisn-uPC8_Bc0NeurCRvs9D5abMg&sig2=5ZegILlFaiQJnTeCelMu9Q&bvm=bv.117604692,d.amc


Quote

Combatants are members of armed forces. The main feature of their status in international armed conflicts is that they have the right to directly participate in hostilities. If they fall into enemy hands, they become prisoners of war who may not be punished for having directly participated in hostilities. It is often considered that customary law allows a detaining power to deny its own nationals prisoner-of-war status, even if they fall into its hands as members of enemy armed forces. In any event, such persons may be punished under domestic law for their mere participation in hostilities against their own country.

Combatants have an obligation to respect International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which includes distinguishing themselves from the civilian population. If they violate IHL they must be punished, but they do not lose their combatant status and, if captured by the enemy, remain entitled to prisoner-of-war status, except if they have violated their obligation to distinguish themselves.

Persons who have lost combatant status or never had it, but nevertheless directly participate in hostilities, may be referred to as "unprivileged combatants" – because they do not have the combatant's privilege to commit acts of hostility – or as "unlawful combatants" – because their acts of hostility are not permitted by IHL. The status of such persons has given rise to controversy.

Some argue that they must perforce be civilians. This argument is based on the letter of IHL treaties. In the conduct of hostilities, Art. 50(1) of Protocol I defines civilians as all those who are not "referred to in Article 4(A)(1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol". Once they have fallen into enemy hands, Art. 4 of Convention IV defines as protected civilians all those who fulfil the nationality requirements and are not protected by Convention III. This would mean that any enemy who is not protected by Convention III falls under Convention IV.

Those who oppose that view argue that a person who does not fulfil the requirements for combatant status is an "unlawful combatant" and belongs to a third category. Like "lawful combatants", it is claimed, such "unlawful combatants" may be attacked until they surrender or are otherwise hors de combat and may be detained without judicial decision. The logic of this argument is that those who do not comply with the conditions set for a status should not be privileged compared to those who do.

Those who insist on the complementarity and exclusivity of combatant and civilian status reply that lawful combatants can be easily identified, based on objective criteria, which they will normally not deny (i.e. membership in the armed forces of a party to an international armed conflict), while the membership and past behaviour of unprivileged combatants and the future threat they represent can only be determined individually. As "civilians", unprivileged combatants may be attacked while they unlawfully directly participate in hostilities. If they fall into the power of the enemy, Convention IV does not bar their punishment for unlawful participation in hostilities. In addition, it permits administrative detention for imperative security reasons. From a teleological perspective, it is feared that the concept of "unlawful combatants", denied the protection of Convention IV, could constitute an easy escape category for detaining powers, as the Geneva Conventions contain no rule about the treatment of someone who is neither a combatant nor a civilian

End Quote

Argo again Israel would be free to expel unprivaledged combatants. The requirement only being that detainees be delivered to the point of embarkation in good condition.

ICRC service

which includes distinguishing themselves from the civilian population.​

What if you are a civilian defending yourself from military attack?

What would be the proper form of dress?

They should still wear something that sets them apart as unarmed civilians. That is International law.

Those are the laws of war.

What kind of war is it when one side has an army attacking civilians on the other side?

Palestine has never had an army. Whose uniform should they wear? What would be wrong with a civilian "uniform" if that is what they are?

Well actually, the Islamic terrorists of Hamas have the "izzy brigades" as its armed wing. So yes, there is an Islamic terrorist army, one of cowards, or rather, Arabs-Moslems.

Even so, no one expects your Islamic terrorist heroes to wear uniforms when they attack Israel. It makes for a better propaganda campaign to hide behind women and children as Israel retaliates for acts of war perpetrated by Islamic terrorists and those terrorists use the bodies of civilians for cheap currency on the nightly broadcast from al-jizz.

 

[montelatici]

I've asked this question before of the supporters of Israel. What successful national liberation movement should the Palestinians emulate to facilitate their national liberation? The South African ANC? The Algerian FLN? The original IRA? Haganah? Irgun? Viet Cong?

Or, do you believe that the Palestinians should just accept Jewish rule without enfranchisement.

 

[RoccoR]

Hollie, et al,

This is a question with two-sides.

Well actually, the Islamic terrorists of Hamas have the "izzy brigades" as its armed wing. So yes, there is an Islamic terrorist army, one of cowards, or rather, Arabs-Moslems.

Even so, no one expects your Islamic terrorist heroes to wear uniforms when they attack Israel. It makes for a better propaganda campaign fir them to hide behind women and children as Israel retaliates and use the bodies of civilians for cheap currency on the nightly broadcast from al-jizz.

(COMMENT)

Who are the parties to the conflict. This makes a big difference.

• To be an "armed force," there must be a "chain of command." This becomes an issue with the chaos of the State of Palestine 1988 Government. Does the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) answer to the central government; or not?

∆ The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades
∆ Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine [AKA: Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)]
∆ Al-Quds Brigades or the Jerusalem Brigades, of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
​

• The importance of this is these non shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, ' inter alia ', shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict. This is critical in the ability to enforce Article 51 criteria which the international community considers indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations and the use of human shields as illegal under international law.
​

Whenever the Palestinians incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces (including militia and volunteer forces) it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.

Article 1 of the Hague Regulations provides that the laws, rights and duties of war apply; fulfilling four conditions:

1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
3. To carry arms openly; and
4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
​

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."
​

There is no central government authority in the Government of Palestine in which all the Jihadist, Insurgent, Terrorist, or Asymmetric Forces take orders from and are responsible for these forces. (See Item #1)

While in Palestinian Parade cases, these opposing forces meet Item #2 and 3 - Uniform Criteria, it is not clear at all that while conducting military operations in densely populated areas of Gaza, that is is true.

(CLEAR)

In the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, there are actually two separate and distinct Palestines. There is the governing body of Gaza, and there is the governing the West Bank. Nowhere is it more clear than in the command and control of Hostile Arab Palestinian Forces (the generic name for all the various jihadist, insurgents, terrorist and asymmetric activities). It is verifiable by asking one question:

• When rockets and mortars are being fired from Gaza into Israel, --- what central authority can order operators to cease-fire?
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Well, the Palestinian resistance are not different than the ANC and many other past and present national liberation organizations. Why you insist on demanding a different behavior of the Palestinians is puzzling.

 

[Hollie]

Well, the Palestinian resistance are not different than the ANC and many other past and present national liberation organizations. Why you insist on demanding a different behavior of the Palestinians is puzzling.

Well, actually, you're befuddled. The Hamas Charter is a look into the gaping maw of islamo-fascism. The Charter speaks specifically to the re-conquest of all lands under control of the Infidel and speaks specifically to the islamo-concept of waqf.

In Arabic, waqf can literally mean prevention, restraint, or retention. In Islam, a waqf is any property that has been given for the benefit of Moslems, in perpetuity, and to please muhammud (swish). It is essentially making land, or other material, muhammud's (swish) property, not to be controlled by anyone. It is an important part of sharia law, and has several purposes. In this context, we are concerned with its ramifications in connection with land—particularly Israeli land.

In Islam, the war of jihad is holy (although it is not seen as war by Moslems) because it is for the purpose of expanding muhammud's domain. It is commanded of the faithful, and it is an honor as well as a duty. According to the sharia, territories which are gained through jihad become waqf, and cannot thereafter be given up. They become, literally, an inseverable part of muhammud's dominion, for the sole welfare of the ummah (the Moslem community). If territories acquired by Islam are taken by infidels, they must be retaken in jihad—today, tomorrow, sooner or later. It is a religious obligation.

Your usual attempts to equate Islam's jihad with a "resistance" movement is both false and ignorant.

 

[Boston1]

Hollie, et al,

This is a question with two-sides.

Well actually, the Islamic terrorists of Hamas have the "izzy brigades" as its armed wing. So yes, there is an Islamic terrorist army, one of cowards, or rather, Arabs-Moslems.

Even so, no one expects your Islamic terrorist heroes to wear uniforms when they attack Israel. It makes for a better propaganda campaign fir them to hide behind women and children as Israel retaliates and use the bodies of civilians for cheap currency on the nightly broadcast from al-jizz.

(COMMENT)

Who are the parties to the conflict. This makes a big difference.

• To be an "armed force," there must be a "chain of command." This becomes an issue with the chaos of the State of Palestine 1988 Government. Does the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) answer to the central government; or not?

∆ The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades
∆ Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine [AKA: Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)]
∆ Al-Quds Brigades or the Jerusalem Brigades, of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
​

• The importance of this is these non shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, ' inter alia ', shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict. This is critical in the ability to enforce Article 51 criteria which the international community considers indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations and the use of human shields as illegal under international law.​

Whenever the Palestinians incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces (including militia and volunteer forces) it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.

Article 1 of the Hague Regulations provides that the laws, rights and duties of war apply; fulfilling four conditions:

1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
3. To carry arms openly; and
4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
​

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."​

There is no central government authority in the Government of Palestine in which all the Jihadist, Insurgent, Terrorist, or Asymmetric Forces take orders from and are responsible for these forces. (See Item #1)

While in Palestinian Parade cases, these opposing forces meet Item #2 and 3 - Uniform Criteria, it is not clear at all that while conducting military operations in densely populated areas of Gaza, that is is true.

(CLEAR)

In the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, there are actually two separate and distinct Palestines. There is the governing body of Gaza, and there is the governing the West Bank. Nowhere is it more clear than in the command and control of Hostile Arab Palestinian Forces (the generic name for all the various jihadist, insurgents, terrorist and asymmetric activities). It is verifiable by asking one question:

• When rockets and mortars are being fired from Gaza into Israel, --- what central authority can order operators to cease-fire?
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Which makes them an unlawful or unprivileged combatant.

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...VewX6oJxYbVPfgT9yzXkjw&bvm=bv.117868183,d.amc

While the argument seems to rest on which GC applies there seems no argument that illegal/unlawful and unprivileged combatants are covered.

Quote

The legal protection of unlawful combatants under GC IV

Given that unlawful combatants as defined in the previous section do not meet the conditions to qualify as prisoners of war and thus are not protected by GC III, this analysis will first examine whether unlawful combatants fall within the personal scope of application of GC IV. It will then consider to what partic- ular protections they are entitled once they are in enemy hands. Lastly, the implications of the law on the conduct of hostilities will be briefly discussed.

In accordance with the rules of interpretation of international treaties, the main focus will be on the “ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose”.10 Subsidiarily, the travaux préparatoires and legal writings will also be analysed.

Personal field of application of GC IV as defined in Article 4 thereof

The personal field of application of GC IV is defined in the following terms. Article 4 (1) specifies:

“Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.”

This definition seems all-embracing. According to this paragraph any person would be protected once he/she finds himself/herself in the hands of a Party to a conflict or occupying Power. Only nationals of that Party/Power are excluded.11 The very broad wording of the paragraph, read in isolation, would not only include civilians but even members of the armed forces.12


End Quote

 

[P F Tinmore]

And speaking of repatriation

Quote

UN Resolution 194 of 1948. Article 12.4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also states that: ‘No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their right to enter his own country

End Quote

See

Legal provisions, principles, guidelines and agreements — Forced Migration Online

Thing to remember is that in 1948 the Jordanian citizenship law of 1928 applied to all Arabs living in the mandated area.

Jordanian nationality law ( which by the way smacks of racism and bigotry )

Quote

Article 3

The following shall be deemed to be Jordanian nationals:

(1)Any person who has acquired Jordanian nationality or a Jordanian passport under the Jordanian Nationality Law, 1928, as amended, Law No. 6 of 1954 or this Law;

(2)Any person who, not being Jewish, possessed Palestinian nationality before 15 May 1948 and was a regular resident in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan between 20 December 1949 and 16 February 1954;

(3)Any person whose father holds Jordanian nationality;

(4)Any person born in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan of a mother holding Jordanian nationality and of a father of unknown nationality or of a Stateless father or whose filiation is not established;

(5)Any person born in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan of unknown parents, as a foundling in the Kingdom shall be considered born in the Kingdom pending evidence to the contrary;

(6)All members of the Bedouin tribes of the North mentioned in paragraph (j) of article 25 of the Provisional Election Law, No. 24 of 1960, who were effectively living in the territories annexed to the Kingdom in 1930.

End Quote

See

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjT4-jJ_tbLAhXDtoMKHW27DdgQFggcMAA&url=http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4ea13.html&usg=AFQjCNG5z7pdR-wGTbbS8JMJZMJFr6jYfg&sig2=JuDxArHtpybUI-ksAwkp-A&bvm=bv.117218890,d.amc

Also see

Citizenship and the State in the Middle East, p. 210.

Quote

In 1949, the Jordanian Council of Ministers added an article to their Citizenship Law of 1928 that read

All those who at the time when this Law goes into effect habitually reside in Transjordan or in the Western part [of the Jordan] which is being administered by [the Kingdom], and who were holders of Palestinian citizenship, shall be deemed as Jordanians enjoying all rights of Jordanians and bearing all the attendant obligations.

End Quote

Which if anyone is following along means that Jordan stripping the Arab Muslims of Israel of their citizenship was illegal

See

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0ahUKEwiBt-mPg9fLAhXKnIMKHXojB70QFggwMAM&url=https://www.hrw.org/report/2010/02/01/stateless-again/palestinian-origin-jordanians-deprived-their-nationality&usg=AFQjCNEqvp27eQShEU66-FPRwXRrrgHovQ&sig2=iNygvrIzoVVFzGA4pUHYdg&bvm=bv.117218890,d.amc

Quote


More than half of the 6.3 million population of Jordan is of Palestinian origin-that is, from areas west of the River Jordan, including the West Bank, today's Israel, and Gaza. With the exception of persons from Gaza, the vast majority of those persons of Palestinian origin have Jordanian citizenship. However, since 1988, and especially over the past few years, the Jordanian government has been arbitrarily and without notice withdrawing Jordanian nationality from its citizens of Palestinian origin, making them stateless. For many of them this means they are again stateless Palestinians as they were before 1950.

Some Jordanian officials have said they are doing so in order to forestall supposed Israeli designs to colonize the West Bank, by maintaining the birthright of Palestinians to live in the West Bank. Yet the real reason may be Jordan's desire to be able to rid itself of hundreds of thousands of Jordanian citizens of Palestinian origin whom Jordan could then forcibly return to the West Bank or Israel as part of a settlement of the Palestinian refugee problem caused by the 1948 and 1967 Arab-Israeli wars. At least that appeared to be the interpretation of a high-ranking Ministry of Interior official who in July 2009 said that certain Jordanians of Palestinian origin would remain Jordanian nationals only until such time that a refugee settlement had been reached.

So far, Jordan has withdrawn its nationality from thousands of its citizens of Palestinian origin-over 2,700 between 2004 and 2008 alone. It has done so, in the individual cases Human Rights Watch identified, in an arbitrary manner and in violation of Jordan's nationality law of 1954. Under that law Palestinian residents of the West Bank in 1949 or thereafter received full Jordanian nationality following Jordan's incorporation of the West Bank in April 1950.

End Quote

Ergo it was illegal for Jordan to arbitrarily remove citizenship from its own citizens.

Just exploring who's responsible for who within the conflict.

Looks like all Arab Muslim combatants legal or illegal could be considered Jordanian citizens and repatriated to Jordan.

Not that its Israel's responsibility to figure out where they end up but its a start.

Article 3

The following shall be deemed to be Jordanian nationals:

(1)Any person who has acquired Jordanian nationality or a Jordanian passport under the Jordanian Nationality Law, 1928, as amended, Law No. 6 of 1954 or this Law;​

----------------------

The Jordanian Nationality Law of 1954 had reaffirmed the status of Jordanian citizens on these residents of the West Bank, which was annexed to Jordan in 1950. Here, the conferment of Jordanian nationality had no effect under international law because Jordan had no right whatsoever to annex that part of Palestine.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf​

 

[montelatici]

Well, the Palestinian resistance are not different than the ANC and many other past and present national liberation organizations. Why you insist on demanding a different behavior of the Palestinians is puzzling.

Well, actually, you're befuddled. The Hamas Charter is a look into the gaping maw of islamo-fascism. The Charter speaks specifically to the re-conquest of all lands under control of the Infidel and speaks specifically to the islamo-concept of waqf.

In Arabic, waqf can literally mean prevention, restraint, or retention. In Islam, a waqf is any property that has been given for the benefit of Moslems, in perpetuity, and to please muhammud (swish). It is essentially making land, or other material, muhammud's (swish) property, not to be controlled by anyone. It is an important part of sharia law, and has several purposes. In this context, we are concerned with its ramifications in connection with land—particularly Israeli land.

In Islam, the war of jihad is holy (although it is not seen as war by Moslems) because it is for the purpose of expanding muhammud's domain. It is commanded of the faithful, and it is an honor as well as a duty. According to the sharia, territories which are gained through jihad become waqf, and cannot thereafter be given up. They become, literally, an inseverable part of muhammud's dominion, for the sole welfare of the ummah (the Moslem community). If territories acquired by Islam are taken by infidels, they must be retaken in jihad—today, tomorrow, sooner or later. It is a religious obligation.

Your usual attempts to equate Islam's jihad with a "resistance" movement is both false and ignorant.

So somehow, the Palestinian resistance movement is specifically different than other resistance movements such as the Algerian resistance for example. I have read the Hamas Covenant, and I can't find the part where it states anything about the reconquest of "all lands" under control of the infidel. It talks about raising its banner over Palestine and defeating the Zionist invader. If you can find the statement you refer to please point it out, here is a link to the document:

The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988

In short, it does not differ at all from the Likud Charter, Likud also being a political party like Hamas to wit:

"a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace."

Original Party Platform of the Likud Party | Jewish Virtual Library

So both extremist parties, the Palestinian one and the Jewish one want all the land. What a surprise.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, et al,

This is a question with two-sides.

Well actually, the Islamic terrorists of Hamas have the "izzy brigades" as its armed wing. So yes, there is an Islamic terrorist army, one of cowards, or rather, Arabs-Moslems.

Even so, no one expects your Islamic terrorist heroes to wear uniforms when they attack Israel. It makes for a better propaganda campaign fir them to hide behind women and children as Israel retaliates and use the bodies of civilians for cheap currency on the nightly broadcast from al-jizz.

(COMMENT)

Who are the parties to the conflict. This makes a big difference.

• To be an "armed force," there must be a "chain of command." This becomes an issue with the chaos of the State of Palestine 1988 Government. Does the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) answer to the central government; or not?

∆ The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades
∆ Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine [AKA: Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)]
∆ Al-Quds Brigades or the Jerusalem Brigades, of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
​

• The importance of this is these non shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, ' inter alia ', shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict. This is critical in the ability to enforce Article 51 criteria which the international community considers indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations and the use of human shields as illegal under international law.​

Whenever the Palestinians incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces (including militia and volunteer forces) it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.

Article 1 of the Hague Regulations provides that the laws, rights and duties of war apply; fulfilling four conditions:

1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
3. To carry arms openly; and
4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
​

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."​

There is no central government authority in the Government of Palestine in which all the Jihadist, Insurgent, Terrorist, or Asymmetric Forces take orders from and are responsible for these forces. (See Item #1)

While in Palestinian Parade cases, these opposing forces meet Item #2 and 3 - Uniform Criteria, it is not clear at all that while conducting military operations in densely populated areas of Gaza, that is is true.

(CLEAR)

In the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, there are actually two separate and distinct Palestines. There is the governing body of Gaza, and there is the governing the West Bank. Nowhere is it more clear than in the command and control of Hostile Arab Palestinian Forces (the generic name for all the various jihadist, insurgents, terrorist and asymmetric activities). It is verifiable by asking one question:

• When rockets and mortars are being fired from Gaza into Israel, --- what central authority can order operators to cease-fire?
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Thought-provoking, Rocco.

I suppose there's something of an issue with applying Hague convention proscriptions of "conventional" warfare to Islamic terrorism. I'll make the point that Islamic thought has for centuries divided the world into Dar al-Islam (the House of Submission) and Dar al-Harb (The House of War). Islam and its allegiants have always regarded themselves as at war with the rest of us. It's a fundamental aspect of Islamic doctrine well supported by the koran, the various ahadith, and the proclamations of imams and Islamic scholars.

Islamic terrorism is the spearhead force for Islam's worldwide jihad. The ever growing numbers of Moslems who've been allowed ingress to Western nations are the forces in echelon -- activists willing to riot and demonstrate -- and forces of occupation -- large numbers of Moslems concentrated into exclaves in which Islamist ideology rules de facto. Their logistical support is provided by the twenty-two or so nations currently under Islamic regimes, and by covert sympathizers in many other lands.

Finally.... finally, to get to your comments, I would suggest that Hamas meets the requirement of a central government (acknowledging your observation that there are two - competing governments in the disputed territories) as Hamas was an elected governing body.

The "chain of command" requirement is a bit more difficult to quantify. Whether the islamic terrorist groups you noted:

The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades
Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine [AKA: Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)]
Al-Quds Brigades or the Jerusalem Brigades, of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)

are subordinate to some Islamic Terrorist General Staff somewhere In the bowels of Hamas planning out attacks with completely conscious, completely intentional purposes is unlikely. If the Islamic terrorists and their dispatchers within Hamas have an articulated theory of warfare, it's more likely to be Inshallah (cf. the Latin Deus vult) than any version of the above.

Regarding the Hague regulations you posted:

Article 1 of the Hague Regulations provides that the laws, rights and duties of war apply; fulfilling four conditions:

1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
3. To carry arms openly; and
4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


1. As applied against the islamic terrorist groups noted above, not fulfilled

2. Not fulfilled. Noting however, the ability of various islamic terrorist groups Hamas, the "Hizzbullies", etc., to somehow manage the means to acquire uniforms for Islamic terrorist parades.

3. Requirement fulfilled.

4. Not fulfiled.

To address the following:

1. one question:

• When rockets and mortars are being fired from Gaza into Israel, --- what central authority can order operators to cease-fire?


It appears that there is no such central authority. And, I think more importantly, whatever we may wish to call a central authority as it relates to Hamas as a "governing body", we must also understand that Hamas materially supports and promotes rockets and mortars being fired from Gaza into Israel. As such, they are as complicit in acts of Islamic terrorism as the groups noted previously.

Warfare by way of islamic terrorism works by way of an infiltration-oriented army vs. any conventional land war between nation-states. The key to confronting islamic terrorism is to understand that Hague Conventions of war don't necessarily apply in an era of global islamic terrorism. There needs to be a certain removing of the intellectual and emotional barriers that cause us to insist that Islamic terrorism is ideologically distasteful to the great majority of Moslems and has nothing to do with Islam per se.

 

[montelatici]

Islamic terrorism carried out by hostile Muslims that have invaded Europe has no logical connection to a national resistance movement resisting a European invader in Palestine. The European Jews invaded Palestine just as the North African and Middle Eastern Muslims are invading Europe. Were I a European, I certainly would resist Muslims that intended to colonize and create an Islamic state in Europe, just as the Christians and Muslims have resisted the colonization by Europeans and the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.

I can't see why the fanatics can't understand a dynamic that is so clear to anyone that is a neutral.