- Moderator
- #81
I don't sense double standards and here is why: the man who was shot was already wounded and down for 11 minutes. The objective was achieved, the threat is neutralized, correct? At that point, he should have been taken under arrest and dealt with. To then shot him in the head is an act of murder.
I don't disagree. Keep that in mind.
But the standard you are making here is that combatants are only legitimate targets when they are actively engaged in hostilities -- actively engaged in immediate and hostile action. That is the standard. Once the active and immediate hostile action ceases there is no cause for action.
That means all Arab Palestinian actions which do not meet that standard are objectionable and morally and legally wrong. So, all rocket and mortar attacks on Israelis wrong. All knife attacks are wrong, whether against civilians or combatants. All running people over with cars are wrong, whether against civilians or combatants. There is no justification in any of those attacks.
(There is a larger implication here, but frankly, it is too subtle for most everyone on this board to understand. You excepted)
Now do you see the double standard in the other thread where attacks on soldiers are justified because they are combatants and therefore subject to legitimate attack?
I haven't read the other thread - I should probably look at it.
But I'm not sure I agree here. All attacks against civilians are wrong (other than self defense of course). It seems to me attacks on military in occupied (or disputed if you prefer) territory would be justifiable, if foolish. They feel they are under a military occupation by an enemy force right? Attacks against military members inside of Israel would not be justified. That's an attack on Israel itself.
Now the other side of that, which could be problematic is that IF all Palestinians were considered combatants, then then it could be argued that Israeli's would be justified in attacking them under similar conditions. But you don't know who is and who is not a combatant.
If you argue that attacks by Palestinian military are never never justified, then how can they fight an occupation?
Your last question is complex and thought provoking.
Whoo hoo! I take that as a compliment. Grin.
It's difficult to identify Palestinian combatents UNLESS they act...
This is true. Why is that, do you think? I mean, its easy enough to put on a uniform and identify yourself as a combatant. Why don't they?
Because in asymetric warfare, it would be disadvantageous I imagine. I also suspect if they did, they would immediately be rounded up. Their only advantage is in anonymity.
That is debatable in spadesmost are civilians
We agree. But we also agree the key to this is differentiating what it means to be a "civilian". In ancient warfare there was a very clear line. In modern -- not so much.and civilians are never fair targets
In a sense, any Israeli military person engaged in activities in the occupied territories could be considered to be actively participating in hostilities. On the Palestinian side - it's less clear.
Only because the Palestinians deliberately obscure it. You should also define what you mean by "engaged in activities in the 'occupied territories'".
Alright - activities would be anything - it seems to me the presence of military in and of itself is enough to make it a target in a disputed area.