War Crimes, List Of Charges Filed Against Hamas

[Challenger]

Some people really make me wonder if the conspiracy mindset is learned or genetic?

The title of the organisation is a bit of a giveaway, dont you think? Lawfare- "the use of law to effectuate subordination, conquest or control of subaltern or, generally, less powerful groups."

 

[Challenger]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I understand this quite well.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've made a mistake.

The Lawfare Project Is an Israeli propaganda site.

No it isn't. Any site that doesn't kiss Palestinian ass is an 'Israeli propaganda' site according to you.

BTW, can you refute any of the allegations in the OP?

Sure.

The U.S. State Department has condemned Hamas rocket fire on Israeli civilians.

Civilian is not the definitive term in international law. The term is protected person as not all civilians are protected.

(COMMENT)

The term "protected persons" is a ICRC Geneva Convention term.

For the purposes of ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the term "civilian" is defined in Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

Exception
An exception to this rule is the levée en masse, whereby the inhabitants of a country which has not yet been occupied, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to form themselves into an armed force. Such persons are considered combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war (see commentary to Rule 106). This is a long-standing rule of customary international humanitarian law already recognized in the Lieber Code and the Brussels Declaration. It is codified in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention. Although of limited current application, the levée en masse is still repeated in many military manuals, including very recent ones.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you've made a mistake.

As nationals of an occupying power, Israeli citizens are exempt from the protected persons classification.

(COMMENT)

I understand that the civilians of the Occupation Power are not "protected persons;" but they are still "civilians." And it is still unethical and unlawful for them to be targeted by the belligerent elements of those under Occupation.

The reasoning for the exemption is that the citizens of the Occupation Power are already covered by the protections they enjoy as citizens of the Occupation Power. Whereas, the citizens of the Occupied Territory are covered by the Geneva Convention protections.

There is some attempt by the Palestinians to suggest that Israelis, not "protected persons" are fair game for attack by some misguided notion on the part of the Resistance. To attack the civilians (noncombatants) is always wrong; by the Geneva Convention (Article 68) and Customary IHL.

Most Respectfully,
R

@RoccoR I'll be kind and assume it's a typo; Article 68, states:

ARTICLE 68
Any claim by a prisoner of war for compensation in respect of any injury or other disability arising out of work shall be referred to the Power on which he depends, through the Protecting Power. In accordance with Article 54, the Detaining Power will, in all cases, provide the prisoner of war concerned with a statement showing the nature of the injury or disability, the circumstances in which it arose and particulars of medical or hospital treatment given for it. This statement will be signed by a responsible officer of the Detaining Power and the medical particulars certified by a medical officer.

Any claim by a prisoner of war for compensation in respect of personal effects monies or valuables impounded by the Detaining Power under Article 18 and not forthcoming on his repatriation, or in respect of loss alleged to be due to the fault of the Detaining Power or any of its servants, shall likewise be referred to the Power on which he depends. Nevertheless, any such personal effects required for use by the prisoners of war whilst in captivity shall be replaced at the expense of the Detaining Power. The Detaining Power will, in all cases, provide the prisoner of war with a statement, signed by a responsible officer, showing all available information regarding the reasons why such effects, monies or valuables have not been restored to him. A copy of this statement will be forwarded to the Power on which he depends through the Central Prisoners of War Agency provided for in Article 123.

nothing to do with civilians.

 

[Challenger]

For the purposes of ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the term "civilian" is defined in Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

Interesting how that could apply to the Zionist state since large numbers of the population are IDF reservists and therefore still members of the armed forces. Doesn't that make them legitimate targets? The fact that they might be out of uniform mixing with bona fide "civillians" so using them as "human shields" doesn't seem to worry the IDF where Palestinians are concerned, so the same rules should apply to Zionist Israel, should they not?

 

[docmauser1]

For the purposes of ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the term "civilian" is defined in Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

Interesting how that could apply to the Zionist state since large numbers of the population are IDF reservists and therefore still members of the armed forces. Doesn't that make them legitimate targets? The fact that they might be out of uniform mixing with bona fide "civillians" so using them as "human shields" doesn't seem to worry the IDF where Palestinians are concerned, so the same rules should apply to Zionist Israel, should they not?

As we know, a reservist’s status shifts from civilian to combatant when he is called to duty, and persists as long as he is on active duty. The period of active duty may last for weeks, months, years. It's a defined status change. The reserve serviceman serves in a location other than that where he lives as a civilian, wears a uniform and engages in what the military typically does, of course. What's funny is the crackpot bloviatorial contortionists trying to "establish a legal basis" for murdering a jew.

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

Thanks,

I ment the other 68

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Penal legislation. V. Penalties. Death penalty

• 
  ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]
  
  
  Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ] of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
  The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
  The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
  In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

vr
R

P F Tinmore, et al,

I understand this quite well.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've made a mistake.

No it isn't. Any site that doesn't kiss Palestinian ass is an 'Israeli propaganda' site according to you.

BTW, can you refute any of the allegations in the OP?

Sure.

The U.S. State Department has condemned Hamas rocket fire on Israeli civilians.

Civilian is not the definitive term in international law. The term is protected person as not all civilians are protected.

(COMMENT)

The term "protected persons" is a ICRC Geneva Convention term.

For the purposes of ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the term "civilian" is defined in Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

Exception
An exception to this rule is the levée en masse, whereby the inhabitants of a country which has not yet been occupied, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to form themselves into an armed force. Such persons are considered combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war (see commentary to Rule 106). This is a long-standing rule of customary international humanitarian law already recognized in the Lieber Code and the Brussels Declaration. It is codified in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention. Although of limited current application, the levée en masse is still repeated in many military manuals, including very recent ones.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you've made a mistake.

As nationals of an occupying power, Israeli citizens are exempt from the protected persons classification.

(COMMENT)

I understand that the civilians of the Occupation Power are not "protected persons;" but they are still "civilians." And it is still unethical and unlawful for them to be targeted by the belligerent elements of those under Occupation.

The reasoning for the exemption is that the citizens of the Occupation Power are already covered by the protections they enjoy as citizens of the Occupation Power. Whereas, the citizens of the Occupied Territory are covered by the Geneva Convention protections.

There is some attempt by the Palestinians to suggest that Israelis, not "protected persons" are fair game for attack by some misguided notion on the part of the Resistance. To attack the civilians (noncombatants) is always wrong; by the Geneva Convention (Article 68) and Customary IHL.

Most Respectfully,
R

@RoccoR I'll be kind and assume it's a typo; Article 68, states:

ARTICLE 68
Any claim by a prisoner of war for compensation in respect of any injury or other disability arising out of work shall be referred to the Power on which he depends, through the Protecting Power. In accordance with Article 54, the Detaining Power will, in all cases, provide the prisoner of war concerned with a statement showing the nature of the injury or disability, the circumstances in which it arose and particulars of medical or hospital treatment given for it. This statement will be signed by a responsible officer of the Detaining Power and the medical particulars certified by a medical officer.

Any claim by a prisoner of war for compensation in respect of personal effects monies or valuables impounded by the Detaining Power under Article 18 and not forthcoming on his repatriation, or in respect of loss alleged to be due to the fault of the Detaining Power or any of its servants, shall likewise be referred to the Power on which he depends. Nevertheless, any such personal effects required for use by the prisoners of war whilst in captivity shall be replaced at the expense of the Detaining Power. The Detaining Power will, in all cases, provide the prisoner of war with a statement, signed by a responsible officer, showing all available information regarding the reasons why such effects, monies or valuables have not been restored to him. A copy of this statement will be forwarded to the Power on which he depends through the Central Prisoners of War Agency provided for in Article 123.

nothing to do with civilians.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I understand this quite well.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've made a mistake.

(COMMENT)

The term "protected persons" is a ICRC Geneva Convention term.

For the purposes of ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the term "civilian" is defined in Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

Exception
An exception to this rule is the levée en masse, whereby the inhabitants of a country which has not yet been occupied, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to form themselves into an armed force. Such persons are considered combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war (see commentary to Rule 106). This is a long-standing rule of customary international humanitarian law already recognized in the Lieber Code and the Brussels Declaration. It is codified in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention. Although of limited current application, the levée en masse is still repeated in many military manuals, including very recent ones.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you've made a mistake.

As nationals of an occupying power, Israeli citizens are exempt from the protected persons classification.

(COMMENT)

I understand that the civilians of the Occupation Power are not "protected persons;" but they are still "civilians." And it is still unethical and unlawful for them to be targeted by the belligerent elements of those under Occupation.

The reasoning for the exemption is that the citizens of the Occupation Power are already covered by the protections they enjoy as citizens of the Occupation Power. Whereas, the citizens of the Occupied Territory are covered by the Geneva Convention protections.

There is some attempt by the Palestinians to suggest that Israelis, not "protected persons" are fair game for attack by some misguided notion on the part of the Resistance. To attack the civilians (noncombatants) is always wrong; by the Geneva Convention (Article 68) and Customary IHL.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are grasping at straws. Israeli citizens are a necessary and integral part of the occupation.

No, YOU are grasping at straws. Israeli citizens in Israel proper have nothing to do with the 'occupation'. Israel is sovereign territory not occupied territory.

Oh wake up and smell the coffee Toasty!

Did I say something that was incorrect?

 

[Challenger]

As we know, a reservist’s status shifts from civilian to combatant when he is called to duty, and persists as long as he is on active duty. The period of active duty may last for weeks, months, years. It's a defined status change. The reserve serviceman serves in a location other than that where he lives as a civilian, wears a uniform and engages in what the military typically does, of course. What's funny is the crackpot bloviatorial contortionists trying to "establish a legal basis" for murdering a jew.

Do we? Not according to rule 5. A reservist is a member of that nations armed forces and just taking off his uniform does not automatically make him a civillian.

 

[Phoenall]

The Lawfare Project Is an Israeli propaganda site.

Irrelevent as war crimes are war crimes no matter who reports them And it is based in New York and is not a propaganda site.

Lets see if the ICJ and ICC take action shall we ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've made a mistake.

The Lawfare Project Is an Israeli propaganda site.

No it isn't. Any site that doesn't kiss Palestinian ass is an 'Israeli propaganda' site according to you.

BTW, can you refute any of the allegations in the OP?

Sure.

The U.S. State Department has condemned Hamas rocket fire on Israeli civilians.

Civilian is not the definitive term in international law. The term is protected person as not all civilians are protected.

(COMMENT)

The term "protected persons" is a ICRC Geneva Convention term.

For the purposes of ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the term "civilian" is defined in Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

Exception
An exception to this rule is the levée en masse, whereby the inhabitants of a country which has not yet been occupied, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to form themselves into an armed force. Such persons are considered combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war (see commentary to Rule 106). This is a long-standing rule of customary international humanitarian law already recognized in the Lieber Code and the Brussels Declaration. It is codified in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention. Although of limited current application, the levée en masse is still repeated in many military manuals, including very recent ones.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you've made a mistake.

As nationals of an occupying power, Israeli citizens are exempt from the protected persons classification.

Only if they encroach on the occupied land, and seeing as Palestine has no actual land yet the Israelis are still protected persons.

You lose again

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I understand this quite well.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've made a mistake.

No it isn't. Any site that doesn't kiss Palestinian ass is an 'Israeli propaganda' site according to you.

BTW, can you refute any of the allegations in the OP?

Sure.

The U.S. State Department has condemned Hamas rocket fire on Israeli civilians.

Civilian is not the definitive term in international law. The term is protected person as not all civilians are protected.

(COMMENT)

The term "protected persons" is a ICRC Geneva Convention term.

For the purposes of ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the term "civilian" is defined in Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

Exception
An exception to this rule is the levée en masse, whereby the inhabitants of a country which has not yet been occupied, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to form themselves into an armed force. Such persons are considered combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war (see commentary to Rule 106). This is a long-standing rule of customary international humanitarian law already recognized in the Lieber Code and the Brussels Declaration. It is codified in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention. Although of limited current application, the levée en masse is still repeated in many military manuals, including very recent ones.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you've made a mistake.

As nationals of an occupying power, Israeli citizens are exempt from the protected persons classification.

(COMMENT)

I understand that the civilians of the Occupation Power are not "protected persons;" but they are still "civilians." And it is still unethical and unlawful for them to be targeted by the belligerent elements of those under Occupation.

The reasoning for the exemption is that the citizens of the Occupation Power are already covered by the protections they enjoy as citizens of the Occupation Power. Whereas, the citizens of the Occupied Territory are covered by the Geneva Convention protections.

There is some attempt by the Palestinians to suggest that Israelis, not "protected persons" are fair game for attack by some misguided notion on the part of the Resistance. To attack the civilians (noncombatants) is always wrong; by the Geneva Convention (Article 68) and Customary IHL.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are grasping at straws. Israeli citizens are a necessary and integral part of the occupation.

Just as you are as Israelis inside the borders of Israel are protected persons, and using terrorist methods against them is a war crime. As in un armed civilians not acting as militia are not to be seen as valid targets as firing on civlians is a war crime.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've made a mistake.

The Lawfare Project Is an Israeli propaganda site.

No it isn't. Any site that doesn't kiss Palestinian ass is an 'Israeli propaganda' site according to you.

BTW, can you refute any of the allegations in the OP?

Sure.

The U.S. State Department has condemned Hamas rocket fire on Israeli civilians.

Civilian is not the definitive term in international law. The term is protected person as not all civilians are protected.

(COMMENT)

The term "protected persons" is a ICRC Geneva Convention term.

For the purposes of ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the term "civilian" is defined in Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

Exception
An exception to this rule is the levée en masse, whereby the inhabitants of a country which has not yet been occupied, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to form themselves into an armed force. Such persons are considered combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war (see commentary to Rule 106). This is a long-standing rule of customary international humanitarian law already recognized in the Lieber Code and the Brussels Declaration. It is codified in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention. Although of limited current application, the levée en masse is still repeated in many military manuals, including very recent ones.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you've made a mistake.

As nationals of an occupying power, Israeli citizens are exempt from the protected persons classification.

Only if they encroach on the occupied land, and seeing as Palestine has no actual land yet the Israelis are still protected persons.

You lose again

I have heard that a gazillion times.

I have never seen anyone prove it to be true though.

 

[Phoenall]

As we know, a reservist’s status shifts from civilian to combatant when he is called to duty, and persists as long as he is on active duty. The period of active duty may last for weeks, months, years. It's a defined status change. The reserve serviceman serves in a location other than that where he lives as a civilian, wears a uniform and engages in what the military typically does, of course. What's funny is the crackpot bloviatorial contortionists trying to "establish a legal basis" for murdering a jew.

Do we? Not according to rule 5. A reservist is a member of that nations armed forces and just taking off his uniform does not automatically make him a civillian.

His designation gives it away he is a reservist, as in he is held in reserve until needed. Until that time he is a civilian, but once he dons a uniform and takes up arms he is military.
I have a dormant commission that can be placed in operation by my government in times of need, I have never done any service training or been issued with a uniform and weapon yet I am still held in reserve because of my qualifications in a certain field. Very similar to the civilians that were called up during WW2 to invent new weapons, radar and communications, were they civilians or military

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've made a mistake.

No it isn't. Any site that doesn't kiss Palestinian ass is an 'Israeli propaganda' site according to you.

BTW, can you refute any of the allegations in the OP?

Sure.

The U.S. State Department has condemned Hamas rocket fire on Israeli civilians.

Civilian is not the definitive term in international law. The term is protected person as not all civilians are protected.

(COMMENT)

The term "protected persons" is a ICRC Geneva Convention term.

For the purposes of ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the term "civilian" is defined in Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

Exception
An exception to this rule is the levée en masse, whereby the inhabitants of a country which has not yet been occupied, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to form themselves into an armed force. Such persons are considered combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war (see commentary to Rule 106). This is a long-standing rule of customary international humanitarian law already recognized in the Lieber Code and the Brussels Declaration. It is codified in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention. Although of limited current application, the levée en masse is still repeated in many military manuals, including very recent ones.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you've made a mistake.

As nationals of an occupying power, Israeli citizens are exempt from the protected persons classification.

Only if they encroach on the occupied land, and seeing as Palestine has no actual land yet the Israelis are still protected persons.

You lose again

I have heard that a gazillion times.

I have never seen anyone prove it to be true though.

Would the words of the U.N. do for proof as I have posted them many times to show that Palestine has no land until they negotiate a peace and mutual borders.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've made a mistake.

Sure.
Civilian is not the definitive term in international law. The term is protected person as not all civilians are protected.

(COMMENT)

The term "protected persons" is a ICRC Geneva Convention term.

For the purposes of ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the term "civilian" is defined in Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

Exception
An exception to this rule is the levée en masse, whereby the inhabitants of a country which has not yet been occupied, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to form themselves into an armed force. Such persons are considered combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war (see commentary to Rule 106). This is a long-standing rule of customary international humanitarian law already recognized in the Lieber Code and the Brussels Declaration. It is codified in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention. Although of limited current application, the levée en masse is still repeated in many military manuals, including very recent ones.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you've made a mistake.

As nationals of an occupying power, Israeli citizens are exempt from the protected persons classification.

Only if they encroach on the occupied land, and seeing as Palestine has no actual land yet the Israelis are still protected persons.

You lose again

I have heard that a gazillion times.

I have never seen anyone prove it to be true though.

Would the words of the U.N. do for proof as I have posted them many times to show that Palestine has no land until they negotiate a peace and mutual borders.

Where does it say that Palestine has no land?

Quote the passage.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've made a mistake.

(COMMENT)

The term "protected persons" is a ICRC Geneva Convention term.

For the purposes of ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the term "civilian" is defined in Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

Exception
An exception to this rule is the levée en masse, whereby the inhabitants of a country which has not yet been occupied, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to form themselves into an armed force. Such persons are considered combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war (see commentary to Rule 106). This is a long-standing rule of customary international humanitarian law already recognized in the Lieber Code and the Brussels Declaration. It is codified in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention. Although of limited current application, the levée en masse is still repeated in many military manuals, including very recent ones.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you've made a mistake.

As nationals of an occupying power, Israeli citizens are exempt from the protected persons classification.

Only if they encroach on the occupied land, and seeing as Palestine has no actual land yet the Israelis are still protected persons.

You lose again

I have heard that a gazillion times.

I have never seen anyone prove it to be true though.

Would the words of the U.N. do for proof as I have posted them many times to show that Palestine has no land until they negotiate a peace and mutual borders.

Where does it say that Palestine has no land?

Quote the passage.

Where does it say that Israel has no land? Quote the passage

 

[P F Tinmore]

You were the one making a claim. Prove it.
Only if they encroach on the occupied land, and seeing as Palestine has no actual land yet the Israelis are still protected persons.

You lose again

I have heard that a gazillion times.

I have never seen anyone prove it to be true though.

Would the words of the U.N. do for proof as I have posted them many times to show that Palestine has no land until they negotiate a peace and mutual borders.

Where does it say that Palestine has no land?

Quote the passage.

Where does it say that Israel has no land? Quote the passage

You are the one making a claim. Prove it.

Would the words of the U.N. do for proof as I have posted them many times to show that Palestine has no land...

 

[Kondor3]

Some people really make me wonder if the conspiracy mindset is learned or genetic?

 

[Kondor3]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've made a mistake.

The Lawfare Project Is an Israeli propaganda site.

No it isn't. Any site that doesn't kiss Palestinian ass is an 'Israeli propaganda' site according to you.

BTW, can you refute any of the allegations in the OP?

Sure.

The U.S. State Department has condemned Hamas rocket fire on Israeli civilians.

Civilian is not the definitive term in international law. The term is protected person as not all civilians are protected.

(COMMENT)

The term "protected persons" is a ICRC Geneva Convention term.

For the purposes of ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the term "civilian" is defined in Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

Exception
An exception to this rule is the levée en masse, whereby the inhabitants of a country which has not yet been occupied, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to form themselves into an armed force. Such persons are considered combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war (see commentary to Rule 106). This is a long-standing rule of customary international humanitarian law already recognized in the Lieber Code and the Brussels Declaration. It is codified in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention. Although of limited current application, the levée en masse is still repeated in many military manuals, including very recent ones.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you've made a mistake.

As nationals of an occupying power, Israeli citizens are exempt from the protected persons classification.

If that's the law, then **** the law.

And your Palestinian buddies, too.

If Israeli civilians are not protected, then it's time to start dropping Daisy Cutter bombs on Gaza City and burn-out the infestation.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Don't like that?

Then don't treat Israeli citizens in that fashion.

 

[Daniyel]

The Lawfare Project Is an Israeli propaganda site.

1. It is not an ''Israeli propaganda site.''
2. The List is entirely true, every passing day we see more information about the horrors of your precious terrorists reveals.
3.Israeli sources are probably the most credible side on the conflict, cut your brown tongue.

 

[Daniyel]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I understand this quite well.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've made a mistake.

No it isn't. Any site that doesn't kiss Palestinian ass is an 'Israeli propaganda' site according to you.

BTW, can you refute any of the allegations in the OP?

Sure.

The U.S. State Department has condemned Hamas rocket fire on Israeli civilians.

Civilian is not the definitive term in international law. The term is protected person as not all civilians are protected.

(COMMENT)

The term "protected persons" is a ICRC Geneva Convention term.

For the purposes of ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the term "civilian" is defined in Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

Exception
An exception to this rule is the levée en masse, whereby the inhabitants of a country which has not yet been occupied, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to form themselves into an armed force. Such persons are considered combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war (see commentary to Rule 106). This is a long-standing rule of customary international humanitarian law already recognized in the Lieber Code and the Brussels Declaration. It is codified in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention. Although of limited current application, the levée en masse is still repeated in many military manuals, including very recent ones.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you've made a mistake.

As nationals of an occupying power, Israeli citizens are exempt from the protected persons classification.

(COMMENT)

I understand that the civilians of the Occupation Power are not "protected persons;" but they are still "civilians." And it is still unethical and unlawful for them to be targeted by the belligerent elements of those under Occupation.

The reasoning for the exemption is that the citizens of the Occupation Power are already covered by the protections they enjoy as citizens of the Occupation Power. Whereas, the citizens of the Occupied Territory are covered by the Geneva Convention protections.

There is some attempt by the Palestinians to suggest that Israelis, not "protected persons" are fair game for attack by some misguided notion on the part of the Resistance. To attack the civilians (noncombatants) is always wrong; by the Geneva Convention (Article 68) and Customary IHL.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are grasping at straws. Israeli citizens are a necessary and integral part of the occupation.

So what's your final solution? collective punishment to Israel?