Israeli-Arab war - tactics, intent and morality

[rylah]

Only the aggressor can deescalate. Aggression continues with or without defense.

And if the response to aggression is capable to overwhelm the aggressor to cease confrontation, and in the case of suicide bomber, what aggression is being retaliated from the target, to fit your description?

What is the aggression in sitting in a coffee shop?

Whose land does the coffee shop sit on?

Both sides clam is theirs, that's why it meaningless, because this way you just justify any attack, but in practice only based on political narrative rather than any consistent definition that makes sense.

Always think about the parallel implications of your definitions,
if they're solely driven by politics, they'll always be flawed and reveal your inconsistency.

 

[harmonica]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: "The Militants"

Basic moral question -

in case there's a building with militants about whom there's information of readiness to attack your side,and before/after the attack, they put babies at the windows. Who's responsible for their death if they get killed?

(REASON)

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the taking of hostages → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 24: Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.

ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 97: Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

(COMMENT)

Civilian Casualties evaluations are all about the expected military advantage compared to the risk of civilian casualties. This can be an important decision factor on how set the Rules of Engagement (ROE) relative to the risk of civilian deaths → versus → the necessity of reaching the objective.

Most Respectfully,
R

Multiple human rights and other organization have found no evidense that the Palestinians use human shields.

But what do you think about this tactic?
Does it serve escalation or ceasing confrontation?

That is what we need to discuss but we have to put things in context first.

What does context or narrative matter,
if you haven't yet to establish a consistent definition?

Good question. One person carries a bomb into a market, another drops a bomb from an airplane.

Which one is the terrorist?

easy:
...the one who directly targets civilians ..if they do not directly target civilians, then, generally, not terrorism

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: "The Militants"

Basic moral question -

in case there's a building with militants about whom there's information of readiness to attack your side,and before/after the attack, they put babies at the windows. Who's responsible for their death if they get killed?

(REASON)

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the taking of hostages → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 24: Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.

ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 97: Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

(COMMENT)

Civilian Casualties evaluations are all about the expected military advantage compared to the risk of civilian casualties. This can be an important decision factor on how set the Rules of Engagement (ROE) relative to the risk of civilian deaths → versus → the necessity of reaching the objective.

Most Respectfully,
R

Multiple human rights and other organization have found no evidense that the Palestinians use human shields.

But what do you think about this tactic?
Does it serve escalation or ceasing confrontation?

That is what we need to discuss but we have to put things in context first.

What does context or narrative matter,
if you haven't yet to establish a consistent definition?

Good question. One person carries a bomb into a market, another drops a bomb from an airplane.

Which one is the terrorist?

easy:
...the one who directly targets civilians ..if they do not directly target civilians, then, generally, not terrorism

OK.

Remember These Children 2014 Memorial

 

[harmonica]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: "The Militants"

Basic moral question -

in case there's a building with militants about whom there's information of readiness to attack your side,and before/after the attack, they put babies at the windows. Who's responsible for their death if they get killed?

(REASON)

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the taking of hostages → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 24: Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.

ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 97: Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

(COMMENT)

Civilian Casualties evaluations are all about the expected military advantage compared to the risk of civilian casualties. This can be an important decision factor on how set the Rules of Engagement (ROE) relative to the risk of civilian deaths → versus → the necessity of reaching the objective.

Most Respectfully,
R

Multiple human rights and other organization have found no evidense that the Palestinians use human shields.

But what do you think about this tactic?
Does it serve escalation or ceasing confrontation?

That is what we need to discuss but we have to put things in context first.

What does context or narrative matter,
if you haven't yet to establish a consistent definition?

Good question. One person carries a bomb into a market, another drops a bomb from an airplane.

Which one is the terrorist?

easy:
...the one who directly targets civilians ..if they do not directly target civilians, then, generally, not terrorism

OK.

Remember These Children 2014 Memorial

..that's nowhere close to credible evidence/link/etc

----here--this one was sabotaging a barrier---and --what's the FULL story?
..this is EXACTLY like the WHITE cop MURDERS stories--they are full of myths
from your link:
Youssef Shawamra, 15, of Deir Al-Asal al Fauqa, near Hebron, shot and killed by IDF soldiers for allegedly sabotaging Israel’s separation barrier. The boy’s family says the child was collecting thistle along the barrier.

.....so, according to his family he wasn't doing anything wrong= right there, that is unsubstantiated
..his family says so!!!

here's another:
Mohammed Jihad Dudeen, 15, of Dura, near Hebron, shot during an Israeli military raid. Israeli troops arrested 25 people throughout the West Bank as they searched for three missing Israeli youths.

so what? civilians die in wars --a lot are not directly targeted....you have to prove he was:
1. innocent
2. directly targeted

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: "The Militants"

Basic moral question -

in case there's a building with militants about whom there's information of readiness to attack your side,and before/after the attack, they put babies at the windows. Who's responsible for their death if they get killed?

(REASON)

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the taking of hostages → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 24: Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.

ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 97: Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

(COMMENT)

Civilian Casualties evaluations are all about the expected military advantage compared to the risk of civilian casualties. This can be an important decision factor on how set the Rules of Engagement (ROE) relative to the risk of civilian deaths → versus → the necessity of reaching the objective.

Most Respectfully,
R

Multiple human rights and other organization have found no evidense that the Palestinians use human shields.

But what do you think about this tactic?
Does it serve escalation or ceasing confrontation?

That is what we need to discuss but we have to put things in context first.

What does context or narrative matter,
if you haven't yet to establish a consistent definition?

Good question. One person carries a bomb into a market, another drops a bomb from an airplane.

Which one is the terrorist?

easy:
...the one who directly targets civilians ..if they do not directly target civilians, then, generally, not terrorism

OK.

Remember These Children 2014 Memorial

..that's nowhere close to credible evidence/link/etc

----here--this one was sabotaging a barrier---and --what's the FULL story?
..this is EXACTLY like the WHITE cop MURDERS stories--they are full of myths
from your link:
Youssef Shawamra, 15, of Deir Al-Asal al Fauqa, near Hebron, shot and killed by IDF soldiers for allegedly sabotaging Israel’s separation barrier. The boy’s family says the child was collecting thistle along the barrier.

.....so, according to his family he wasn't doing anything wrong= right there, that is unsubstantiated
..his family says so!!!

here's another:
Mohammed Jihad Dudeen, 15, of Dura, near Hebron, shot during an Israeli military raid. Israeli troops arrested 25 people throughout the West Bank as they searched for three missing Israeli youths.

so what? civilians die in wars --a lot are not directly targeted....you have to prove he was:
1. innocent
2. directly targeted

Many of those children were killed when Israel bombed their family home.

 

[harmonica]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: "The Militants"

Basic moral question -

in case there's a building with militants about whom there's information of readiness to attack your side,and before/after the attack, they put babies at the windows. Who's responsible for their death if they get killed?

(REASON)

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the taking of hostages → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 24: Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.

ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 97: Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

(COMMENT)

Civilian Casualties evaluations are all about the expected military advantage compared to the risk of civilian casualties. This can be an important decision factor on how set the Rules of Engagement (ROE) relative to the risk of civilian deaths → versus → the necessity of reaching the objective.

Most Respectfully,
R

Multiple human rights and other organization have found no evidense that the Palestinians use human shields.

But what do you think about this tactic?
Does it serve escalation or ceasing confrontation?

That is what we need to discuss but we have to put things in context first.

What does context or narrative matter,
if you haven't yet to establish a consistent definition?

Good question. One person carries a bomb into a market, another drops a bomb from an airplane.

Which one is the terrorist?

easy:
...the one who directly targets civilians ..if they do not directly target civilians, then, generally, not terrorism

OK.

Remember These Children 2014 Memorial

..that's nowhere close to credible evidence/link/etc

----here--this one was sabotaging a barrier---and --what's the FULL story?
..this is EXACTLY like the WHITE cop MURDERS stories--they are full of myths
from your link:
Youssef Shawamra, 15, of Deir Al-Asal al Fauqa, near Hebron, shot and killed by IDF soldiers for allegedly sabotaging Israel’s separation barrier. The boy’s family says the child was collecting thistle along the barrier.

.....so, according to his family he wasn't doing anything wrong= right there, that is unsubstantiated
..his family says so!!!

here's another:
Mohammed Jihad Dudeen, 15, of Dura, near Hebron, shot during an Israeli military raid. Israeli troops arrested 25 people throughout the West Bank as they searched for three missing Israeli youths.

so what? civilians die in wars --a lot are not directly targeted....you have to prove he was:
1. innocent
2. directly targeted

Many of those children were killed when Israel bombed their family home.

...you must not know much about wars/military history...
...civilians die in wars---and it's not because of illegal means
...and, I've stated for it to be unlawful, they have to be directly targeted--it is not Israeli policy to directly target innocent civilians--because of the Holocaust----of ALL people, they know how wrong that is

 

[harmonica]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: "The Militants"

Basic moral question -

in case there's a building with militants about whom there's information of readiness to attack your side,and before/after the attack, they put babies at the windows. Who's responsible for their death if they get killed?

(REASON)

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the taking of hostages → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 24: Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.

ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 97: Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

(COMMENT)

Civilian Casualties evaluations are all about the expected military advantage compared to the risk of civilian casualties. This can be an important decision factor on how set the Rules of Engagement (ROE) relative to the risk of civilian deaths → versus → the necessity of reaching the objective.

Most Respectfully,
R

Multiple human rights and other organization have found no evidense that the Palestinians use human shields.

But what do you think about this tactic?
Does it serve escalation or ceasing confrontation?

That is what we need to discuss but we have to put things in context first.

What does context or narrative matter,
if you haven't yet to establish a consistent definition?

Good question. One person carries a bomb into a market, another drops a bomb from an airplane.

Which one is the terrorist?

easy:
...the one who directly targets civilians ..if they do not directly target civilians, then, generally, not terrorism

OK.

Remember These Children 2014 Memorial

..that's nowhere close to credible evidence/link/etc

----here--this one was sabotaging a barrier---and --what's the FULL story?
..this is EXACTLY like the WHITE cop MURDERS stories--they are full of myths
from your link:
Youssef Shawamra, 15, of Deir Al-Asal al Fauqa, near Hebron, shot and killed by IDF soldiers for allegedly sabotaging Israel’s separation barrier. The boy’s family says the child was collecting thistle along the barrier.

.....so, according to his family he wasn't doing anything wrong= right there, that is unsubstantiated
..his family says so!!!

here's another:
Mohammed Jihad Dudeen, 15, of Dura, near Hebron, shot during an Israeli military raid. Israeli troops arrested 25 people throughout the West Bank as they searched for three missing Israeli youths.

so what? civilians die in wars --a lot are not directly targeted....you have to prove he was:
1. innocent
2. directly targeted

Many of those children were killed when Israel bombed their family home.

..you have to prove they were directly targeting them
HEY---listen to this:
the US military sometimes kill--------------------THEIR OWN!!!!
...the US military bombed a hospital--but it was an error
...humans make mistakes--and combat is not like making a cheese sandwich

Kunduz hospital airstrike - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

--it's called a mistake/error/combat/etc

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: "The Militants"

Basic moral question -

in case there's a building with militants about whom there's information of readiness to attack your side,and before/after the attack, they put babies at the windows. Who's responsible for their death if they get killed?

(REASON)

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the taking of hostages → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 24: Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.

ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 97: Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

(COMMENT)

Civilian Casualties evaluations are all about the expected military advantage compared to the risk of civilian casualties. This can be an important decision factor on how set the Rules of Engagement (ROE) relative to the risk of civilian deaths → versus → the necessity of reaching the objective.

Most Respectfully,
R

Multiple human rights and other organization have found no evidense that the Palestinians use human shields.

But what do you think about this tactic?
Does it serve escalation or ceasing confrontation?

That is what we need to discuss but we have to put things in context first.

What does context or narrative matter,
if you haven't yet to establish a consistent definition?

Good question. One person carries a bomb into a market, another drops a bomb from an airplane.

Which one is the terrorist?

easy:
...the one who directly targets civilians ..if they do not directly target civilians, then, generally, not terrorism

OK.

Remember These Children 2014 Memorial

..that's nowhere close to credible evidence/link/etc

----here--this one was sabotaging a barrier---and --what's the FULL story?
..this is EXACTLY like the WHITE cop MURDERS stories--they are full of myths
from your link:
Youssef Shawamra, 15, of Deir Al-Asal al Fauqa, near Hebron, shot and killed by IDF soldiers for allegedly sabotaging Israel’s separation barrier. The boy’s family says the child was collecting thistle along the barrier.

.....so, according to his family he wasn't doing anything wrong= right there, that is unsubstantiated
..his family says so!!!

here's another:
Mohammed Jihad Dudeen, 15, of Dura, near Hebron, shot during an Israeli military raid. Israeli troops arrested 25 people throughout the West Bank as they searched for three missing Israeli youths.

so what? civilians die in wars --a lot are not directly targeted....you have to prove he was:
1. innocent
2. directly targeted

Many of those children were killed when Israel bombed their family home.

...you must not know much about wars/military history...
...civilians die in wars---and it's not because of illegal means
...and, I've stated for it to be unlawful, they have to be directly targeted--it is not Israeli policy to directly target innocent civilians--because of the Holocaust----of ALL people, they know how wrong that is

A family home is a civilian structure full of civilians.

 

[harmonica]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: "The Militants"

Basic moral question -

in case there's a building with militants about whom there's information of readiness to attack your side,and before/after the attack, they put babies at the windows. Who's responsible for their death if they get killed?

(REASON)

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the taking of hostages → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 24: Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.

ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 97: Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

(COMMENT)

Civilian Casualties evaluations are all about the expected military advantage compared to the risk of civilian casualties. This can be an important decision factor on how set the Rules of Engagement (ROE) relative to the risk of civilian deaths → versus → the necessity of reaching the objective.

Most Respectfully,
R

Multiple human rights and other organization have found no evidense that the Palestinians use human shields.

But what do you think about this tactic?
Does it serve escalation or ceasing confrontation?

That is what we need to discuss but we have to put things in context first.

What does context or narrative matter,
if you haven't yet to establish a consistent definition?

Good question. One person carries a bomb into a market, another drops a bomb from an airplane.

Which one is the terrorist?

easy:
...the one who directly targets civilians ..if they do not directly target civilians, then, generally, not terrorism

OK.

Remember These Children 2014 Memorial

..that's nowhere close to credible evidence/link/etc

----here--this one was sabotaging a barrier---and --what's the FULL story?
..this is EXACTLY like the WHITE cop MURDERS stories--they are full of myths
from your link:
Youssef Shawamra, 15, of Deir Al-Asal al Fauqa, near Hebron, shot and killed by IDF soldiers for allegedly sabotaging Israel’s separation barrier. The boy’s family says the child was collecting thistle along the barrier.

.....so, according to his family he wasn't doing anything wrong= right there, that is unsubstantiated
..his family says so!!!

here's another:
Mohammed Jihad Dudeen, 15, of Dura, near Hebron, shot during an Israeli military raid. Israeli troops arrested 25 people throughout the West Bank as they searched for three missing Israeli youths.

so what? civilians die in wars --a lot are not directly targeted....you have to prove he was:
1. innocent
2. directly targeted

Many of those children were killed when Israel bombed their family home.

...you must not know much about wars/military history...
...civilians die in wars---and it's not because of illegal means
...and, I've stated for it to be unlawful, they have to be directly targeted--it is not Israeli policy to directly target innocent civilians--because of the Holocaust----of ALL people, they know how wrong that is

A family home is a civilian structure full of civilians.

ok............??
1. a lot of the attacks and murders of Israelis have been by civilians
2. bombing is not 100% accurate
3. if the terrorists live among the families--that's the terrorists fault
4. I forget who it was, but they put their missile/missiles in a civilian area...I think it was in Beirut......when the Israelis bombed it, they blamed Israel for hurting civilians= hahahahhahahahahahah

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

OK.

Remember These Children 2014 Memorial

This is merely an appeal to emotion. The Arab Palestinians have absolutely no room to talk since they deify the Terrorist who killed men, women, and children.

And don't forget.

Palestinian Activist Yaser Mazhar Calls on Palestinians to Carry out Suicide Bombings in Israel: We Long for Bus Bombings •• Mar 05, 2020

v/r
R

 

[rylah]

Only the aggressor can deescalate. Aggression continues with or without defense.

And if the response to aggression is capable to overwhelm the aggressor to cease confrontation, and in the case of suicide bomber, what aggression is being retaliated from the target, to fit your description?

What is the aggression in sitting in a coffee shop?

Whose land does the coffee shop sit on?

Let's say all according to YOUR political narrative,
can you explain how this changes the effectiveness of suicide bombing as a 'self-defense' tactic?

Or maybe the effectiveness of any other Arab tactics.
Explain me, just in your view.

 

[rylah]

What is the most apparent effectiveness oכ the tactics on the Arab side?
In my view the simplicity and affordability.

They always brag with the argument about a cheap rocket vs $100,000 Iron Dome missile system.

But that too of course works both ways.
The attention they get with balloons and cheap rockets,
to mooch cash from the Qataris eventually translates into new precision weaponry and contracts.

As PM Netanyahu once concluded - "they get headlines, but we get the investments".
And so they still pretend the US Military aid is way more than 1% of Israel's GDP,
and everyone plays along pretending it's a real threat, and a good headline...

So again, nice to brag about,
but how is any of that really effective?

 

[rylah]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: "The Militants"

Basic moral question -

in case there's a building with militants about whom there's information of readiness to attack your side,and before/after the attack, they put babies at the windows. Who's responsible for their death if they get killed?

(REASON)

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the taking of hostages → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 24: Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.

ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 97: Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

(COMMENT)

Civilian Casualties evaluations are all about the expected military advantage compared to the risk of civilian casualties. This can be an important decision factor on how set the Rules of Engagement (ROE) relative to the risk of civilian deaths → versus → the necessity of reaching the objective.

Most Respectfully,
R

Multiple human rights and other organization have found no evidense that the Palestinians use human shields.

But what do you think about this tactic?
Does it serve escalation or ceasing confrontation?

That is what we need to discuss but we have to put things in context first.

What does context or narrative matter,
if you haven't yet to establish a consistent definition?

Good question. One person carries a bomb into a market, another drops a bomb from an airplane.

Which one is the terrorist?

easy:
...the one who directly targets civilians ..if they do not directly target civilians, then, generally, not terrorism

OK.

Remember These Children 2014 Memorial

..that's nowhere close to credible evidence/link/etc

----here--this one was sabotaging a barrier---and --what's the FULL story?
..this is EXACTLY like the WHITE cop MURDERS stories--they are full of myths
from your link:
Youssef Shawamra, 15, of Deir Al-Asal al Fauqa, near Hebron, shot and killed by IDF soldiers for allegedly sabotaging Israel’s separation barrier. The boy’s family says the child was collecting thistle along the barrier.

.....so, according to his family he wasn't doing anything wrong= right there, that is unsubstantiated
..his family says so!!!

here's another:
Mohammed Jihad Dudeen, 15, of Dura, near Hebron, shot during an Israeli military raid. Israeli troops arrested 25 people throughout the West Bank as they searched for three missing Israeli youths.

so what? civilians die in wars --a lot are not directly targeted....you have to prove he was:
1. innocent
2. directly targeted

Many of those children were killed when Israel bombed their family home.

...you must not know much about wars/military history...
...civilians die in wars---and it's not because of illegal means
...and, I've stated for it to be unlawful, they have to be directly targeted--it is not Israeli policy to directly target innocent civilians--because of the Holocaust----of ALL people, they know how wrong that is

A family home is a civilian structure full of civilians.

See 'Basic Moral Question' in the opening post.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: "The Militants"

Basic moral question -

in case there's a building with militants about whom there's information of readiness to attack your side,and before/after the attack, they put babies at the windows. Who's responsible for their death if they get killed?

(REASON)

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the taking of hostages → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 24: Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.

ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 97: Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

(COMMENT)

Civilian Casualties evaluations are all about the expected military advantage compared to the risk of civilian casualties. This can be an important decision factor on how set the Rules of Engagement (ROE) relative to the risk of civilian deaths → versus → the necessity of reaching the objective.

Most Respectfully,
R

Multiple human rights and other organization have found no evidense that the Palestinians use human shields.

But what do you think about this tactic?
Does it serve escalation or ceasing confrontation?

That is what we need to discuss but we have to put things in context first.

What does context or narrative matter,
if you haven't yet to establish a consistent definition?

Good question. One person carries a bomb into a market, another drops a bomb from an airplane.

Which one is the terrorist?

easy:
...the one who directly targets civilians ..if they do not directly target civilians, then, generally, not terrorism

OK.

Remember These Children 2014 Memorial

..that's nowhere close to credible evidence/link/etc

----here--this one was sabotaging a barrier---and --what's the FULL story?
..this is EXACTLY like the WHITE cop MURDERS stories--they are full of myths
from your link:
Youssef Shawamra, 15, of Deir Al-Asal al Fauqa, near Hebron, shot and killed by IDF soldiers for allegedly sabotaging Israel’s separation barrier. The boy’s family says the child was collecting thistle along the barrier.

.....so, according to his family he wasn't doing anything wrong= right there, that is unsubstantiated
..his family says so!!!

here's another:
Mohammed Jihad Dudeen, 15, of Dura, near Hebron, shot during an Israeli military raid. Israeli troops arrested 25 people throughout the West Bank as they searched for three missing Israeli youths.

so what? civilians die in wars --a lot are not directly targeted....you have to prove he was:
1. innocent
2. directly targeted

Many of those children were killed when Israel bombed their family home.

...you must not know much about wars/military history...
...civilians die in wars---and it's not because of illegal means
...and, I've stated for it to be unlawful, they have to be directly targeted--it is not Israeli policy to directly target innocent civilians--because of the Holocaust----of ALL people, they know how wrong that is

A family home is a civilian structure full of civilians.

See 'Basic Moral Question' in the opening post.

Can you morally justify bombing family homes wiping out entire families?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Only the aggressor can deescalate. Aggression continues with or without defense.

And if the response to aggression is capable to overwhelm the aggressor to cease confrontation, and in the case of suicide bomber, what aggression is being retaliated from the target, to fit your description?

What is the aggression in sitting in a coffee shop?

Whose land does the coffee shop sit on?

Let's say all according to YOUR political narrative,
can you explain how this changes the effectiveness of suicide bombing as a 'self-defense' tactic?

Or maybe the effectiveness of any other Arab tactics.
Explain me, just in your view.

In your view, what would be acceptable self defence methods?

 

[RoccoR]

See 'Basic Moral Question' in the opening post.
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: There is no such thing as a Universal Moral Standard. What is acceptable is determined differently in each area, demographic or another rendering. The official power to make legal decisions and judgments varies among jurisdictions and sovereignties.

Moral Codes generally drive Judgments, but laws must be enforceable. Even in the most radical Islamic Religious enforcement systems, the enforcement of criminal law and moral (religious) law are separated.

Can you morally justify bombing family homes wiping out entire families?

(COMMENT)

In the case of "terrorism" and the countermeasures applied against terrorism are set by defined standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is acceptable within that venue or jurisdiction.

In the case of a State that faces an adversary that has little regard for human life, and deliberately attacking civilians are committing acts of terror. As a general rule, the law of armed conflict prohibits the intentional targeting and attacks on civilians. This would be committing criminal acts intended to provoke fear and terror in the general the civilian population (considered protected) political purposes. This would include such act supporting National Liberation Movements (NLMs). Such acts are unjustifiable. It does not matter whatever what invoked the action.

United Nations solemnly reaffirm their unequivocal condemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism, as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomever committed, including those which jeopardize the friendly relations among States and peoples and threaten the territorial integrity and security of States;

SOURCE: A/RES/49/60
​

There is no equivocation here. If you cross that line, there is no coming back morally under the current climate. The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) cannot claim (with their track record and intentional violations of Customary and International Humanitarian Law) that Israel is immoral because they conduct operations against necessary targets that kill civilians incidental to the operation → yet the HoAP have conducted intentional targeting of protected civilians for more than half a century.

◈ The HoAP cannot throw a flag on the play and cry foul when they intentionally locate military objectives within or near densely populated areas.​

​

◈ The HoAP cannot throw a flag on the play and cry foul when they intentionally introduce civilians under its control in the vicinity of military objectives.​

The question becomes an issue of equality. Should the Israelis treat the Arab Palestinian population in the same fashion and with the same blatant disregard for human life as they treat Israeli civilians?

The answer (of course) is no! Israel cannot act with the same callous disregard for human life that the HoAP show.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

See 'Basic Moral Question' in the opening post.
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: There is no such thing as a Universal Moral Standard. What is acceptable is determined differently in each area, demographic or another rendering. The official power to make legal decisions and judgments varies among jurisdictions and sovereignties.

Moral Codes generally drive Judgments, but laws must be enforceable. Even in the most radical Islamic Religious enforcement systems, the enforcement of criminal law and moral (religious) law are separated.

Can you morally justify bombing family homes wiping out entire families?

(COMMENT)

In the case of "terrorism" and the countermeasures applied against terrorism are set by defined standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is acceptable within that venue or jurisdiction.

In the case of a State that faces an adversary that has little regard for human life, and deliberately attacking civilians are committing acts of terror. As a general rule, the law of armed conflict prohibits the intentional targeting and attacks on civilians. This would be committing criminal acts intended to provoke fear and terror in the general the civilian population (considered protected) political purposes. This would include such act supporting National Liberation Movements (NLMs). Such acts are unjustifiable. It does not matter whatever what invoked the action.

​

United Nations solemnly reaffirm their unequivocal condemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism, as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomever committed, including those which jeopardize the friendly relations among States and peoples and threaten the territorial integrity and security of States;​

​

​

SOURCE: A/RES/49/60​

​

There is no equivocation here. If you cross that line, there is no coming back morally under the current climate. The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) cannot claim (with their track record and intentional violations of Customary and International Humanitarian Law) that Israel is immoral because they conduct operations against necessary targets that kill civilians incidental to the operation → yet the HoAP have conducted intentional targeting of protected civilians for more than half a century.

◈ The HoAP cannot throw a flag on the play and cry foul when they intentionally locate military objectives within or near densely populated areas.​

​

◈ The HoAP cannot throw a flag on the play and cry foul when they intentionally introduce civilians under its control in the vicinity of military objectives.​

The question becomes an issue of equality. Should the Israelis treat the Arab Palestinian population in the same fashion and with the same blatant disregard for human life as they treat Israeli civilians?

The answer (of course) is no! Israel cannot act with the same callous disregard for human life that the HoAP show.


Most Respectfully,
R

So you are fine with blowing up the wife and kids.

I think we have different standards of morality.

 

[RoccoR]

See 'Basic Moral Question' in the opening post.
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

One of the Most Celebrated Heroes of the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) is Dalal al-Maghribi.

So you are fine with blowing up the wife and kids.

I think we have different standards of morality.

(COMMENT)

Yes, our standards of morality are different.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

See 'Basic Moral Question' in the opening post.
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

One of the Most Celebrated Heroes of the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) is Dalal al-Maghribi.

So you are fine with blowing up the wife and kids.

I think we have different standards of morality.

(COMMENT)

Yes, our standards of morality are different.
View attachment 381981

Most Respectfully,
R

There are so few attacks by Palestinians that Israel has to pimp them for decades.

 

[Hollie]

See 'Basic Moral Question' in the opening post.
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

One of the Most Celebrated Heroes of the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) is Dalal al-Maghribi.

So you are fine with blowing up the wife and kids.

I think we have different standards of morality.

(COMMENT)

Yes, our standards of morality are different.
View attachment 381981

Most Respectfully,
R

There are so few attacks by Palestinians that Israel has to pimp them for decades.

Actually, there are extensive lists of attacks by Islamic terrorist Pals.