Israeli Settlers: Are They ‘Civilians’ or Legitimate Military Targets?

[Shusha]

It is you who is dancing around the facts. The Palestinians have been attacked by a settler colonial project for a hundred years. And they do have the right to defend themselves. Settlers are a necessary, integral, and active part of that project. if it was not for the settlers, Israel would be no more than an office in Tel Aviv, if that. That is probably why they are exempt from protected status by the Geneva Convention.

That is not at all confusing to me.

No civilians are exempt from protected status. ALL civilians (non-combatants) are protected. To argue otherwise is abhorrent.



And I could easily turn tables and say that the Jewish people have been attacked by an invading, conquering project for three thousand years. And they do have the right to protect themselves. Arab Muslim and Christian settlers are a necessary, integral and active part of that invasion. That is why Arabs are exempt from protected status.

I could say that, but I won't. It is a fundamental difference between the Jewish people and the Arab people that the murder of civilians is morally wrong.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is you who is dancing around the facts. The Palestinians have been attacked by a settler colonial project for a hundred years. And they do have the right to defend themselves. Settlers are a necessary, integral, and active part of that project. if it was not for the settlers, Israel would be no more than an office in Tel Aviv, if that. That is probably why they are exempt from protected status by the Geneva Convention.

That is not at all confusing to me.

No civilians are exempt from protected status. ALL civilians (non-combatants) are protected. To argue otherwise is abhorrent.



And I could easily turn tables and say that the Jewish people have been attacked by an invading, conquering project for three thousand years. And they do have the right to protect themselves. Arab Muslim and Christian settlers are a necessary, integral and active part of that invasion. That is why Arabs are exempt from protected status.

I could say that, but I won't. It is a fundamental difference between the Jewish people and the Arab people that the murder of civilians is morally wrong.

You clearly do not understand the colonial system. That is why you make all these incoherent posts.

 

[Hollie]

It is you who is dancing around the facts. The Palestinians have been attacked by a settler colonial project for a hundred years. And they do have the right to defend themselves. Settlers are a necessary, integral, and active part of that project. if it was not for the settlers, Israel would be no more than an office in Tel Aviv, if that. That is probably why they are exempt from protected status by the Geneva Convention.

That is not at all confusing to me.

No civilians are exempt from protected status. ALL civilians (non-combatants) are protected. To argue otherwise is abhorrent.



And I could easily turn tables and say that the Jewish people have been attacked by an invading, conquering project for three thousand years. And they do have the right to protect themselves. Arab Muslim and Christian settlers are a necessary, integral and active part of that invasion. That is why Arabs are exempt from protected status.

I could say that, but I won't. It is a fundamental difference between the Jewish people and the Arab people that the murder of civilians is morally wrong.

You clearly do not understand the colonial system. That is why you make all these incoherent posts.

As an Islamist, you actually do understand the colonial system. The history of Islamism is defined by war, rapine and colonialism.

Consider Islamist history and the inevitable affects of Islamist conquest after the death of the religions inventor:

a) pogroms to rid Jews and the hated kuffar from those locations where Muhammedans are in the majority or gain strength of numbers,

b) forced religious belief whereby, including but not limited to, establishing Islam as the State religion and the ruthless suppression of competing religions,

c) capital punishment - including the imposition of death for apostates - for such a personal and private matter as one's choice of religious belief,

d) denigration of the arts, sciences, music, literature as "innovative".

I'll note that within a historical context and continuing to the present day, when Muhammedans gain strength of numbers, the ideology requires the imposition of sharia law. What follows is the inevitable stripping away of human rights, gender apartheid, social and political apartheid and Islamist intolerance. The historical fact of this is undeniable.



Good enough for the 7th century, good enough for today... I guess.

 

[teddyearp]

Look, if you want to make an argument that it is legally and morally permissible to kill civilians -- have at it. I will read with interest your objective conditions for that. But I will continue to say that it is disgusting. Because it is.

Just answer the question. Was it "legal" for the Native Americans to attack European settlers?

Not relevant, nor actually related.

 

[teddyearp]

I am interested in any serious thoughts on this topic.

louie888 it becomes difficult to imagine that you actually want serious thoughts on this topic, given all your previous posts/threads; and especially when you have repeated this somewhat inflammatory paragraph numerous times in this thread in posts #6, 13, 17, 19, 31, 37, and 41:

How would you handle it? How would the IDF terrorists handle it if the shoe were on the other foot? You would just let foreigners bulldoze your home? You would just do nothing? You would not defend yourself with whatever means you had available? You would prefer your children to be homeless or dead?

Painting all of the IDF as terrorists in not conducive. Painting every Palestinian as a terrorist is also not conducive. Any clear thinking individual would agree. Any clear thinking individual would also agree that there are extremist on BOTH sides. Any one that "uses it" as your avatar implies.

The issue of the Israeli 'settlements' in the West Bank is a touchy one to be sure. Do I agree with all of them? I am not sure. The last legal agreement(s), in my opinion, was (were) the Oslo accords. In my opinion, the Palestinians (and perhaps the Israelis) did not get it together enough to finish them off in time. The finishing might/could have happened with Clinton's attempt with Barak and Arafat in 2000, but Arafat decided to back out of that one as well.

Anyways, do I agree that it is 'cool' for some extremist Israeli 'settlers' to throw trash on and otherwise degrade Palestinian neighbors? NO! Absolutely not. Do I agree that all Israeli 'settlers' be considered 'combatants' and therefore fair game? NO!

We all should try to consider actual on the ground NOW solutions. There were many proposed in the 'two states solutions' thread, and Shusha repeated a good synopsis up thread. I hope you find this a serious and thoughtful reply in your thread without 'trolling' as that is how I have tried to do so in my heart.

Are you actually serious? Do you actually want a peaceful solution that works right now?

 

[louie888]

I am interested in any serious thoughts on this topic.

louie888 it becomes difficult to imagine that you actually want serious thoughts on this topic, given all your previous posts/threads; and especially when you have repeated this somewhat inflammatory paragraph numerous times in this thread in posts #6, 13, 17, 19, 31, 37, and 41:

How would you handle it? How would the IDF terrorists handle it if the shoe were on the other foot? You would just let foreigners bulldoze your home? You would just do nothing? You would not defend yourself with whatever means you had available? You would prefer your children to be homeless or dead?

Painting all of the IDF as terrorists in not conducive. Painting every Palestinian as a terrorist is also not conducive. Any clear thinking individual would agree. Any clear thinking individual would also agree that there are extremist on BOTH sides. Any one that "uses it" as your avatar implies.

The issue of the Israeli 'settlements' in the West Bank is a touchy one to be sure. Do I agree with all of them? I am not sure. The last legal agreement(s), in my opinion, was (were) the Oslo accords. In my opinion, the Palestinians (and perhaps the Israelis) did not get it together enough to finish them off in time. The finishing might/could have happened with Clinton's attempt with Barak and Arafat in 2000, but Arafat decided to back out of that one as well.

Anyways, do I agree that it is 'cool' for some extremist Israeli 'settlers' to throw trash on and otherwise degrade Palestinian neighbors? NO! Absolutely not. Do I agree that all Israeli 'settlers' be considered 'combatants' and therefore fair game? NO!

We all should try to consider actual on the ground NOW solutions. There were many proposed in the 'two states solutions' thread, and Shusha repeated a good synopsis up thread. I hope you find this a serious and thoughtful reply in your thread without 'trolling' as that is how I have tried to do so in my heart.

Are you actually serious? Do you actually want a peaceful solution that works right now?

I acyually find it dumb as shit.

Nobody can steal land, let alone peoples' homes, let alone flattening entire villages with bulldozers and bombs and still be considered civilians.

That is just stupid.

The paragraph nobody responds to that had to be posted those times explains this point clearly.

 

[teddyearp]

I acyually find it dumb as shit.

"Don't do it, no don't do it", LOL. **** it, is "acyually" a word?

Nobody can steal land, let alone peoples' homes,<snip>

And here, yes I will admit this. Maybe it wasn't the best thing for the region to have the Jews establish their own state there. Maybe, no yes, there were some people that felt displaced, were displaced, 'run out' (Plan Dalit), etc. because of the Jews/Israelis. But louie888 you have even posted that the Jews/Israelis have pissed off people in every other country they have ever been in for the last two thousand years! But for some reason, they now have a State of their own in a tiny sliver of land that is about the size of New Jersey, which is a mere 8,729 square miles. They have now been there in that state for almost 70 years (G-d willing, I'll be there in Jerusalem next year).

Can not the world PLEASE let them now have that little piece to call their own? There are still solutions to be had for BOTH sides before it is too late, seriously.

The paragraph nobody responds to that had to be posted those times explains this point clearly.

p.s. There were some that did reply to that paragraph in this thread.

 

[louie888]

I acyually find it dumb as shit.

"Don't do it, no don't do it", LOL. **** it, is "acyually" a word?

Don't do what? And who cares about typos? You did it yourself. "Plan Dalit" is actually the zionist genocide plan and it is DALET.

Nobody can steal land, let alone peoples' homes,<snip>

The rest was off topic BS that has no place in this discussion.

If someone stole your home in any civilized place on earth, they go to jail. Israel actually funds this behavior. They move in behind an army. How are these theives and murderers "civilians?"

 

[teddyearp]

Yep, I knew I shouldn't have looked at the speck in my brother's eye without seeing the plank sticking out of mine. You are right, Plan Dalet.

Nobody can steal land, let alone peoples' homes,<snip>

The rest was off topic BS that has no place in this discussion.<snip>

You were the one I quoted, how is that off topic BS since you brought it up?

But come on, I manned up and admitted to most of the faults or wrongs that the Israelis may have committed in the last century. And even to some that are perceived to be committed now. But to take it all back now would be like making all of those of European descent to move back out of the United States and leave it for the Native Americans, wouldn't it?

Here in the United States, we of European descent and those of Native descent have made some peace. We gave them gaming. In Israel/Palestine, there is still much more to be gained by both sides (especially the Palestinians) than some gambling halls. In fact, gambling doesn't seem to be a great draw in that area. No, it is more history than anything else. Jericho. Nablus. Hebron. Get it yet?

Can't you look beyond and man up like I have and see that there could be some sort of solution besides what you seem to want; which is as unworkable as the last sentence of my paragraph above?

YES OR NO.

 

[Roudy]

I am interested in any serious thoughts on this topic.

louie888 it becomes difficult to imagine that you actually want serious thoughts on this topic, given all your previous posts/threads; and especially when you have repeated this somewhat inflammatory paragraph numerous times in this thread in posts #6, 13, 17, 19, 31, 37, and 41:

How would you handle it? How would the IDF terrorists handle it if the shoe were on the other foot? You would just let foreigners bulldoze your home? You would just do nothing? You would not defend yourself with whatever means you had available? You would prefer your children to be homeless or dead?

Painting all of the IDF as terrorists in not conducive. Painting every Palestinian as a terrorist is also not conducive. Any clear thinking individual would agree. Any clear thinking individual would also agree that there are extremist on BOTH sides. Any one that "uses it" as your avatar implies.

The issue of the Israeli 'settlements' in the West Bank is a touchy one to be sure. Do I agree with all of them? I am not sure. The last legal agreement(s), in my opinion, was (were) the Oslo accords. In my opinion, the Palestinians (and perhaps the Israelis) did not get it together enough to finish them off in time. The finishing might/could have happened with Clinton's attempt with Barak and Arafat in 2000, but Arafat decided to back out of that one as well.

Anyways, do I agree that it is 'cool' for some extremist Israeli 'settlers' to throw trash on and otherwise degrade Palestinian neighbors? NO! Absolutely not. Do I agree that all Israeli 'settlers' be considered 'combatants' and therefore fair game? NO!

We all should try to consider actual on the ground NOW solutions. There were many proposed in the 'two states solutions' thread, and Shusha repeated a good synopsis up thread. I hope you find this a serious and thoughtful reply in your thread without 'trolling' as that is how I have tried to do so in my heart.

Are you actually serious? Do you actually want a peaceful solution that works right now?

I acyually find it dumb as shit.

Nobody can steal land, let alone peoples' homes, let alone flattening entire villages with bulldozers and bombs and still be considered civilians.

That is just stupid.

The paragraph nobody responds to that had to be posted those times explains this point clearly.

Nobody can steal land, flatten villages, and bomb civilians, except of course, when Arab Muslims like the Palestinians do.

 

[louie888]

Yep, I knew I shouldn't have looked at the speck in my brother's eye without seeing the plank sticking out of mine. You are right, Plan Dalet.

Nobody can steal land, let alone peoples' homes,<snip>

The rest was off topic BS that has no place in this discussion.<snip>

You were the one I quoted, how is that off topic BS since you brought it up?

But come on, I manned up and admitted to most of the faults or wrongs that the Israelis may have committed in the last century. And even to some that are perceived to be committed now. But to take it all back now would be like making all of those of European descent to move back out of the United States and leave it for the Native Americans, wouldn't it?

Here in the United States, we of European descent and those of Native descent have made some peace. We gave them gaming. In Israel/Palestine, there is still much more to be gained by both sides (especially the Palestinians) than some gambling halls. In fact, gambling doesn't seem to be a great draw in that area. No, it is more history than anything else. Jericho. Nablus. Hebron. Get it yet?

Can't you look beyond and man up like I have and see that there could be some sort of solution besides what you seem to want; which is as unworkable as the last sentence of my paragraph above?

YES OR NO.

Off topic again as this thread is about whether the "settlers" are even civilians.

The point you skip right past is clear and simple too.

Again now,

If someone stole your home in any civilized place on earth, they go to jail. Israel actually funds this behavior. They move "settlers" in behind an army. How are these thieves and murderers "civilians?"

 

[Roudy]

Yes, the settlers are civilians and Jews who have every right to settle in their religious, ancestral, and cultural homeland. The Palistinian animals who target them are savage beasts that should be put down. Next?

 

[fanger]

Armed civilians ?

 

[Hollie]

Yep, I knew I shouldn't have looked at the speck in my brother's eye without seeing the plank sticking out of mine. You are right, Plan Dalet.

Nobody can steal land, let alone peoples' homes,<snip>

The rest was off topic BS that has no place in this discussion.<snip>

You were the one I quoted, how is that off topic BS since you brought it up?

But come on, I manned up and admitted to most of the faults or wrongs that the Israelis may have committed in the last century. And even to some that are perceived to be committed now. But to take it all back now would be like making all of those of European descent to move back out of the United States and leave it for the Native Americans, wouldn't it?

Here in the United States, we of European descent and those of Native descent have made some peace. We gave them gaming. In Israel/Palestine, there is still much more to be gained by both sides (especially the Palestinians) than some gambling halls. In fact, gambling doesn't seem to be a great draw in that area. No, it is more history than anything else. Jericho. Nablus. Hebron. Get it yet?

Can't you look beyond and man up like I have and see that there could be some sort of solution besides what you seem to want; which is as unworkable as the last sentence of my paragraph above?

YES OR NO.

Off topic again as this thread is about whether the "settlers" are even civilians.

The point you skip right past is clear and simple too.

Again now,

If someone stole your home in any civilized place on earth, they go to jail. Israel actually funds this behavior. They move "settlers" in behind an army. How are these thieves and murderers "civilians?"

How are Islamic terrorists defined as "civilians"?

 

[esthermoon]

If they're not enlisted in the military or if they're retired from the military I think they should be considered as civilians View attachment 123567

Which is fine, but how would you handle it? How would the IDF terrorists handle it if the shoe were on the other foot? You would just let foreigners bulldoze your home? You would just do nothing? You would not defend yourself with whatever means you had available? You would prefer your children to be homeless or dead?

It's tricky because the situation is so unique. Again, these are not even settlers in Israel, they are in Palestine.

Unfortunately Israel-Palestinians relations are so chaotic you can't find a way to solve all the problems they have (israeli settlers in the West Bank are one of those "problems")

 

[Eloy]

Although the occupation of Palestinian land is illegal under international law and the measures used to suppress the Palestinian people are violations of humanitarian law, the UN Security Council does not enforce the law and the Palestine Liberation Organization has failed to defend the Palestinian people with the result that the Israelis are de facto answerable to no-one but themselves.

Israel is now an apartheid state and the West Bank is considered an integral part of this state, known to the Israelis as Sumeria and Judea. From the Israeli point of view, therefore, the civilian settlers have a right to be in the Occupied Territories without being subject to military courts as the Palestinians are. The settlers, nevertheless, remain civilians regardless of their use by the Israeli government to secure its occupation and cannot be regarded as a military target by resistance fighters.

 

[Hollie]

Although the occupation of Palestinian land is illegal under international law and the measures used to suppress the Palestinian people are violations of humanitarian law, the UN Security Council does not enforce the law and the Palestine Liberation Organization has failed to defend the Palestinian people with the result that the Israelis are de facto answerable to no-one but themselves.

Israel is now an apartheid state and the West Bank is considered an integral part of this state, known to the Israelis as Sumeria and Judea. From the Israeli point of view, therefore, the civilian settlers have a right to be in the Occupied Territories without being subject to military courts as the Palestinians are. The settlers, nevertheless, remain civilians regardless of their use by the Israeli government to secure its occupation and cannot be regarded as a military target by resistance fighters.

Was that cliché riddled putrid bile plagiarized from Friday prayers at your madrassah?

 

[Roudy]

Although the occupation of Palestinian land is illegal under international law and the measures used to suppress the Palestinian people are violations of humanitarian law, the UN Security Council does not enforce the law and the Palestine Liberation Organization has failed to defend the Palestinian people with the result that the Israelis are de facto answerable to no-one but themselves.

Israel is now an apartheid state and the West Bank is considered an integral part of this state, known to the Israelis as Sumeria and Judea. From the Israeli point of view, therefore, the civilian settlers have a right to be in the Occupied Territories without being subject to military courts as the Palestinians are. The settlers, nevertheless, remain civilians regardless of their use by the Israeli government to secure its occupation and cannot be regarded as a military target by resistance fighters.

The so called "occupied territories" are actually refugees created as a result of failed wars and acts of aggression the Arab nations started. The purpose of the wars was to "drive the Jews into the sea", they told the Arabs who now call themselves "Palestinians" to either join them in the total destruction of Israel, or get out of the way. The purpose of these wars was never ever to create this fictional "Palestine", it was to destroy Israel and divide the proceeds between themselves.

When the Arabs first failed in 1948, the Jordanians and Egyptians occupied the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years while keeping the Palestinians" in concentration like conditions, while plotting to use the lands for another deadly war or attack against Israel. Not ine peep from any "Palestinian" or Arab about this mythical "Palestine", in fact the Arabs themselves scoffed at that idea themselves. The Arabs tried many times to destroy Israel, but finally lost control of those lands in the 67 war. So technically it's conquered territory and it's tough shit for the Arabs.

Historically, it's the ancient religious, ancestral, and cultural homeland of the Jews. In other words Israel shouldn't give an inch of the land. It did when it gave Gaza back and it got Arab terririst animals shooting rockets at it.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I think it should be open season on the sub humans who try to rationalize the murder of people based on their ethnicity, myself.

 

[montelatici]

Although the occupation of Palestinian land is illegal under international law and the measures used to suppress the Palestinian people are violations of humanitarian law, the UN Security Council does not enforce the law and the Palestine Liberation Organization has failed to defend the Palestinian people with the result that the Israelis are de facto answerable to no-one but themselves.

Israel is now an apartheid state and the West Bank is considered an integral part of this state, known to the Israelis as Sumeria and Judea. From the Israeli point of view, therefore, the civilian settlers have a right to be in the Occupied Territories without being subject to military courts as the Palestinians are. The settlers, nevertheless, remain civilians regardless of their use by the Israeli government to secure its occupation and cannot be regarded as a military target by resistance fighters.

The so called "occupied territories" are actually refugees created as a result of failed wars and acts of aggression the Arab nations started. The purpose of the wars was to "drive the Jews into the sea", they told the Arabs who now call themselves "Palestinians" to either join them in the total destruction of Israel, or get out of the way. The purpose of these wars was never ever to create this fictional "Palestine", it was to destroy Israel and divide the proceeds between themselves.

When the Arabs first failed in 1948, the Jordanians and Egyptians occupied the West Bank and Gaza for 20 years while keeping the Palestinians" in concentration like conditions, while plotting to use the lands for another deadly war or attack against Israel. Not ine peep from any "Palestinian" or Arab about this mythical "Palestine", in fact the Arabs themselves scoffed at that idea themselves. The Arabs tried many times to destroy Israel, but finally lost control of those lands in the 67 war. So technically it's conquered territory and it's tough shit for the Arabs.

Historically, it's the ancient religious, ancestral, and cultural homeland of the Jews. In other words Israel shouldn't give an inch of the land. It did when it gave Gaza back and it got Arab terririst animals shooting rockets at it.

How can the native people that were living on the land be aggressors and invaders from Europe be the victims.