The tremendous power of the social paradigms created by WWII - Part I - The citizen

[Disir]

Except there is no dehumanization of the Palestinian people, but do go on. In fact, don't you find it rather odd that there is no mention on these boards of the factories that Palestinians and Israelis work at. Can you tell me why that is?

There is dehumanization of Palestinians on the Israeli side. It's even more pronounced now that there is a policy of near total seperation. Many Jews never encounter Palestinians and many Palestinians never encounter Jews - it makes it easy for each to think the worst of the other. In addition, increased violence has hardened attitudes and made it harder for each to see the other as human beings. Why Israel s racist violence problem is getting worse - Vox

Where? Where in Israel is that?

It's discussed in the the link I posted.

Nowhere in that link does it say that Israelis don't encounter Palestinians or there is any separation. It's nothing more than article on price tagging. By and large, price tagging is committed by punk ass kids like these:
Elder Palestinians protect settlers from lynching in West Bank village - National News - Jerusalem Post

That's from 2011
88 of Jewish Israelis oppose price tag attacks - National News - Jerusalem Post

Other
Jewish and Arab students show solidarity after price-tag fire at school - Arab-Israeli Conflict - Jerusalem Post

 

[Coyote]

Except there is no dehumanization of the Palestinian people, but do go on. In fact, don't you find it rather odd that there is no mention on these boards of the factories that Palestinians and Israelis work at. Can you tell me why that is?

There is dehumanization of Palestinians on the Israeli side. It's even more pronounced now that there is a policy of near total seperation. Many Jews never encounter Palestinians and many Palestinians never encounter Jews - it makes it easy for each to think the worst of the other. In addition, increased violence has hardened attitudes and made it harder for each to see the other as human beings. Why Israel s racist violence problem is getting worse - Vox

Where? Where in Israel is that?

It's discussed in the the link I posted.

Nowhere in that link does it say that Israelis don't encounter Palestinians or there is any separation. It's nothing more than article on price tagging. By and large, price tagging is committed by punk ass kids like these:
Elder Palestinians protect settlers from lynching in West Bank village - National News - Jerusalem Post

That's from 2011
88 of Jewish Israelis oppose price tag attacks - National News - Jerusalem Post

Other
Jewish and Arab students show solidarity after price-tag fire at school - Arab-Israeli Conflict - Jerusalem Post

This is from August of 2014, detailing concerns about increase in racism.

Israeli Teens Gripped by Virulent Racism Forward.com

On the other hand, Israel is taking this seriously - many feel this is not the society they want for themselves:
After War Israeli Schools to Teach Tolerance for Arabs - Israel Today Israel News
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/w...fter-palestinians-beating.html?pagewanted=all

On the effects of a decade long policy of strict separation: Is There Any Empathy Left In The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Parallels NPR

 

[P F Tinmore]

et al,

There is a difference between a "protected person" and a "civilian." Don't confuse the two.

They are mentioned in the Geneva conventions as protected persons, much as you would like them not to be.

And there is no such thing as Geneva accords.

(COMMENT)

Civilians are:

Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians. SOURCE: ICRC IHL Customary Law Rule 5

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Definition of civilians and civilian population: SOURCE: Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions
Article 50 --- Definition of civilians and civilian population

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.​

Protected Persons are:

Definition of protected persons​

• 
  ARTICLE 4
  
  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.

• 
  Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

• 
  The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.
  Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.

Some Palestinians think that Israeli Civilians have no protection against Palestinian attacks. They would be wrong.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, you left this part out.

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.

https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument​

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

That passage does not change a thing.

et al,

There is a difference between a "protected person" and a "civilian." Don't confuse the two.

They are mentioned in the Geneva conventions as protected persons, much as you would like them not to be.

And there is no such thing as Geneva accords.

(COMMENT)

Civilians are:

Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians. SOURCE: ICRC IHL Customary Law Rule 5

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Definition of civilians and civilian population: SOURCE: Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions
Article 50 --- Definition of civilians and civilian population

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.​

Protected Persons are:

Definition of protected persons​

• 
  ARTICLE 4
  
  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.

• 
  Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

• 
  The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.
  Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.

Some Palestinians think that Israeli Civilians have no protection against Palestinian attacks. They would be wrong.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, you left this part out.

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.

https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument​

(COMMENT)

That is in reference to a "protected person." In fact that passage is found in Article 4 --- Definition of a Protected Person. This passage does not nullify change the definition of "Civilians." Nor does it give the Arab Palestinian any special dispensation to attack Israeli Civilians.

Arab Palestinian who attack Israeli civilians, are in violation of Article 7 --- Part II of the Rome Statutes; wherein --- "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

That passage does not change a thing.

et al,

There is a difference between a "protected person" and a "civilian." Don't confuse the two.

They are mentioned in the Geneva conventions as protected persons, much as you would like them not to be.

And there is no such thing as Geneva accords.

(COMMENT)

Civilians are:

Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians. SOURCE: ICRC IHL Customary Law Rule 5

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Definition of civilians and civilian population: SOURCE: Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions
Article 50 --- Definition of civilians and civilian population

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.​

Protected Persons are:

Definition of protected persons​

• 
  ARTICLE 4
  
  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.

• 
  Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

• 
  The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.
  Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.

Some Palestinians think that Israeli Civilians have no protection against Palestinian attacks. They would be wrong.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, you left this part out.

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.

https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument​

(COMMENT)

That is in reference to a "protected person." In fact that passage is found in Article 4 --- Definition of a Protected Person. This passage does not nullify change the definition of "Civilians." Nor does it give the Arab Palestinian any special dispensation to attack Israeli Civilians.

Arab Palestinian who attack Israeli civilians, are in violation of Article 7 --- Part II of the Rome Statutes; wherein --- "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, I had to read up on that because there seemed to be a conflict. I wanted to find the reasoning behind such a conflict.

Since the occupying power is the effective government, attacks on the people are considered a domestic issue. This removes them from the purview of international law. You have posted, yourself, that the occupying power can arrest violators.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You should not be confused at all.

"The Hague Convention of 1907 specifies that ‘territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army’. The form of administration by which an Occupying Power exercises government authority over occupied territory is called ‘military government’." [SOURCE: International Preview of the Red Cross, Volume 94 Number 888 Winter 2012, Page 1504]

Israel has exercised ‘actual authority’ over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for almost half a century, making its presence in these areas one of the longest
sustained military occupations in modern history. [SOURCE: International Preview of the Red Cross, Volume 94 Number 888 Winter 2012, Page 1504]

OK, I had to read up on that because there seemed to be a conflict. I wanted to find the reasoning behind such a conflict.

Since the occupying power is the effective government, attacks on the people are considered a domestic issue. This removes them from the purview of international law. You have posted, yourself, that the occupying power can arrest violators.

(COMMENT)

The question is answered under UN Security Council Resolution 446; wherein it was "Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 1/ is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem."

This is essentially the very same sort of government that Egypt maintained over the Gaza Strip; and similar to the same government the Jordanians exercised in the West Bank until annexation.

Relative to your claim that the conflict is not subject to international law because of the "effective government" defense; it makes no difference. Non-combatants and civilians are always protected in one form or another; even in domestic wars and conflicts.

• Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977.

Protection of the civilian population​

• 
  Article 13 [ Link ] -- Protection of the civilian population
  
  1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules shall be observed in all circumstances.
  
  2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
  
  3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Part, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You should not be confused at all.

"The Hague Convention of 1907 specifies that ‘territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army’. The form of administration by which an Occupying Power exercises government authority over occupied territory is called ‘military government’." [SOURCE: International Preview of the Red Cross, Volume 94 Number 888 Winter 2012, Page 1504]

Israel has exercised ‘actual authority’ over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for almost half a century, making its presence in these areas one of the longest
sustained military occupations in modern history. [SOURCE: International Preview of the Red Cross, Volume 94 Number 888 Winter 2012, Page 1504]

OK, I had to read up on that because there seemed to be a conflict. I wanted to find the reasoning behind such a conflict.

Since the occupying power is the effective government, attacks on the people are considered a domestic issue. This removes them from the purview of international law. You have posted, yourself, that the occupying power can arrest violators.

(COMMENT)

The question is answered under UN Security Council Resolution 446; wherein it was "Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 1/ is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem."

This is essentially the very same sort of government that Egypt maintained over the Gaza Strip; and similar to the same government the Jordanians exercised in the West Bank until annexation.

Relative to your claim that the conflict is not subject to international law because of the "effective government" defense; it makes no difference. Non-combatants and civilians are always protected in one form or another; even in domestic wars and conflicts.

• Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977.

Protection of the civilian population​

• 
  Article 13 [ Link ] -- Protection of the civilian population
  
  1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules shall be observed in all circumstances.
  
  2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
  
  3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Part, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

Most Respectfully,
R

They are talking about protecting civilians from military occupation. Are you sure that they are not talking about the occupied people?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I am absolutely sure. This is Protocol II, and it is designed to protect Civilians against unnecessary harm.

They are talking about protecting civilians from military occupation. Are you sure that they are not talking about the occupied people?

(COMMENT)

What I find amazing is that some Palestinians are looking for legal ways to Murder Israelis civilians; while at the same time accusing Israel of such callousness. This is Psychopathic Behavior, often characteristic of Jihadist and Fedayeen.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I am absolutely sure. This is Protocol II, and it is designed to protect Civilians against unnecessary harm.

They are talking about protecting civilians from military occupation. Are you sure that they are not talking about the occupied people?

(COMMENT)

What I find amazing is that some Palestinians are looking for legal ways to Murder Israelis civilians; while at the same time accusing Israel of such callousness. This is Psychopathic Behavior, often characteristic of Jihadist and Fedayeen.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then I question why they specified this:

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.​

Or this:

The definition has been put in a negative form; as it is intended to cover anyone who is ' not ' a national of the Party to the conflict or Occupying Power in whose hands he is. The Convention thus remains faithful to a recognized principle of international law: it does not interfere in a State's relations with its own nationals.​

Perhaps you could explain this. Surely they must have had a reason to include this statement.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

As I said, there is a difference between a "protected person" and a "civilian."

Then I question why they specified this:

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.​

Or this:

The definition has been put in a negative form; as it is intended to cover anyone who is ' not ' a national of the Party to the conflict or Occupying Power in whose hands he is. The Convention thus remains faithful to a recognized principle of international law: it does not interfere in a State's relations with its own nationals.​

Perhaps you could explain this. Surely they must have had a reason to include this statement.

(COMMENT)

The level and types of protection and the issues of treatment are not identical for a "protected person" (under Article 4 GCIV) and "civilians" (under Rule #5 IHL CL and Article 50 of Protocol I). You do not treat them the same. That is why they are under different definitions.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

As I said, there is a difference between a "protected person" and a "civilian."

Then I question why they specified this:

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.​

Or this:

The definition has been put in a negative form; as it is intended to cover anyone who is ' not ' a national of the Party to the conflict or Occupying Power in whose hands he is. The Convention thus remains faithful to a recognized principle of international law: it does not interfere in a State's relations with its own nationals.​

Perhaps you could explain this. Surely they must have had a reason to include this statement.

(COMMENT)

The level and types of protection and the issues of treatment are not identical for a "protected person" (under Article 4 GCIV) and "civilians" (under Rule #5 IHL CL and Article 50 of Protocol I). You do not treat them the same. That is why they are under different definitions.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, but I see it as the Israeli nationals are not protected persons under international law.

What makes this more confusing is that there is no such thing as an Israeli nationality.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you are getting close.

Indeed, but I see it as the Israeli nationals are not protected persons under international law.

What makes this more confusing is that there is no such thing as an Israeli nationality.

(COMMENT)

The nationality makes no difference. You are throwing more into the definition than what is there.

That is right, the Israeli is not a protected person under international law. The Israeli is afforded the protections due any other civilian under international law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you are getting close.

Indeed, but I see it as the Israeli nationals are not protected persons under international law.

What makes this more confusing is that there is no such thing as an Israeli nationality.

(COMMENT)

The nationality makes no difference. You are throwing more into the definition than what is there.

That is right, the Israeli is not a protected person under international law. The Israeli is afforded the protections due any other civilian under international law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

All you have to understand is that the definitions are different. See Post #40.

(COMMENT)

Civilians are one thing.
Protected persons are another thing.

There are international laws that cover both.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

All you have to understand is that the definitions are different. See Post #40.

(COMMENT)

Civilians are one thing.
Protected persons are another thing.

There are international laws that cover both.

Most Respectfully,
R

You still have not explained this statement.

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.​

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, yes I have --- several times.

P F Tinmore, et al,

All you have to understand is that the definitions are different. See Post #40.

(COMMENT)

Civilians are one thing.
Protected persons are another thing.

There are international laws that cover both.

Most Respectfully,
R

You still have not explained this statement.

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.​

(COMMENT)

The protections afforded "Protected Persons" do not apply to "civilians" of the Occupying Power.

"The population of the occupied Palestinian territory are accorded "protected persons" status. Civilians of the State of Israel are not "protected persons." Civilians of the State of Israel are protected as "civilians" under Article 68, the rules of war, and Protocols I and II. This passage you've picked-out and focused on does not preclude the protection afforded all non-combatant "civilians."

(QUESTION)

What is the point you are trying to make?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Disir]

Except there is no dehumanization of the Palestinian people, but do go on. In fact, don't you find it rather odd that there is no mention on these boards of the factories that Palestinians and Israelis work at. Can you tell me why that is?

There is dehumanization of Palestinians on the Israeli side. It's even more pronounced now that there is a policy of near total seperation. Many Jews never encounter Palestinians and many Palestinians never encounter Jews - it makes it easy for each to think the worst of the other. In addition, increased violence has hardened attitudes and made it harder for each to see the other as human beings. Why Israel s racist violence problem is getting worse - Vox

Where? Where in Israel is that?

It's discussed in the the link I posted.

Nowhere in that link does it say that Israelis don't encounter Palestinians or there is any separation. It's nothing more than article on price tagging. By and large, price tagging is committed by punk ass kids like these:
Elder Palestinians protect settlers from lynching in West Bank village - National News - Jerusalem Post

That's from 2011
88 of Jewish Israelis oppose price tag attacks - National News - Jerusalem Post

Other
Jewish and Arab students show solidarity after price-tag fire at school - Arab-Israeli Conflict - Jerusalem Post

This is from August of 2014, detailing concerns about increase in racism.

Israeli Teens Gripped by Virulent Racism Forward.com

On the other hand, Israel is taking this seriously - many feel this is not the society they want for themselves:
After War Israeli Schools to Teach Tolerance for Arabs - Israel Today Israel News
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/w...fter-palestinians-beating.html?pagewanted=all

On the effects of a decade long policy of strict separation: Is There Any Empathy Left In The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Parallels NPR

The first link covers a book that I don't own and have not read. I cannot accept it as the truth and I cannot dismiss it. The best that I can give you is to acknowledge that the book exists and that it allegedly covers a three year observation in one high school.

The rest I will address tomorrow as I'm rushing.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, yes I have --- several times.

P F Tinmore, et al,

All you have to understand is that the definitions are different. See Post #40.

(COMMENT)

Civilians are one thing.
Protected persons are another thing.

There are international laws that cover both.

Most Respectfully,
R

You still have not explained this statement.

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.​

(COMMENT)

The protections afforded "Protected Persons" do not apply to "civilians" of the Occupying Power.

"The population of the occupied Palestinian territory are accorded "protected persons" status. Civilians of the State of Israel are not "protected persons." Civilians of the State of Israel are protected as "civilians" under Article 68, the rules of war, and Protocols I and II. This passage you've picked-out and focused on does not preclude the protection afforded all non-combatant "civilians."

(QUESTION)

What is the point you are trying to make?

Most Respectfully,
R

Why did they state that the nationals of the occupying power are not protected when they are?

Did they have some surplus ink that they wanted to use up?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

They understand that there are "protections" (active measures) extended to "protected Persons" that are not required to extend to civilians.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, yes I have --- several times.

P F Tinmore, et al,

All you have to understand is that the definitions are different. See Post #40.

(COMMENT)

Civilians are one thing.
Protected persons are another thing.

There are international laws that cover both.

Most Respectfully,
R

You still have not explained this statement.

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.​

(COMMENT)

The protections afforded "Protected Persons" do not apply to "civilians" of the Occupying Power.

"The population of the occupied Palestinian territory are accorded "protected persons" status. Civilians of the State of Israel are not "protected persons." Civilians of the State of Israel are protected as "civilians" under Article 68, the rules of war, and Protocols I and II. This passage you've picked-out and focused on does not preclude the protection afforded all non-combatant "civilians."

(QUESTION)

What is the point you are trying to make?

Most Respectfully,
R

Why did they state that the nationals of the occupying power are not protected when they are?

Did they have some surplus ink that they wanted to use up?

(COMMENT)

The concept is that the Convention extends protections to the "occupied population" by requiring certain actions of a humanitarian nature. This has to do with the post battlefield and into an occupation status. These protections do not extend to the population before they are occupied or after the occupation ends.

The limitations of a military force on what actions they can take during combat and after the cessation of hostilities cover all civilians everywhere, at all times.

Remember, that the Geneva Convention citation you are concerned about, cover what the "Occupying Power" is required to do and the limitations they have in dealing with the people under occupation (protected persons); just as it requires and limits how the people under occupation interact with the occupation force. In this case of the Israelis, the convention requires the Israeli act in a certain way in dealing with Arab Palestinians, and Israeli basic law deals with how the Occupying Power deals with Israeli Civilians.

International Humanitarian Law, like the Customary Rules of War and the Geneva Conventions, attempt to limit the impact of conflict relative to those entities not engaged. It is not a tool for the Jihadist and Fedayeen to use in their Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) to justify attacks against non-combatants and civilians.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

As I said, there is a difference between a "protected person" and a "civilian."

Then I question why they specified this:

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.​

Or this:

The definition has been put in a negative form; as it is intended to cover anyone who is ' not ' a national of the Party to the conflict or Occupying Power in whose hands he is. The Convention thus remains faithful to a recognized principle of international law: it does not interfere in a State's relations with its own nationals.​

Perhaps you could explain this. Surely they must have had a reason to include this statement.

(COMMENT)

The level and types of protection and the issues of treatment are not identical for a "protected person" (under Article 4 GCIV) and "civilians" (under Rule #5 IHL CL and Article 50 of Protocol I). You do not treat them the same. That is why they are under different definitions.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, but I see it as the Israeli nationals are not protected persons under international law.

What makes this more confusing is that there is no such thing as an Israeli nationality.

And just how do you arrive at that piece of information. If there is a recognised nation of Israel accepted by the vast majority of the worlds nations as being there, and this nation of Israel issues passports to its inhabitants then there must be an Israeli nationality. Unless of course you are going to attempt to twist words again to meet with your FALSE premise