Fighting Un-Conventional Wars

[betsy]

Today on tv, they showed a footage of a large group of Palestinian women in their traditional burqua apparently shielding and hiding gunmen from Israeli soldiers. The Israeli soldiers open fired....two women were killed.

Civilians do not have to be excluded from the fight....if they are participants in the war. That includes children as well. I think it's fair.

I cannot find the topic on Geneva Conventions....so let me say it here that I think, the Geneva Conventions Rules ought to be revised.

[myata]

I gather you'll agree then that the attacks on Israeli civilian settlers would be also fully justified by the same token? They really nothing more than willing human shields whom their country encouraged and sponsored to settle on the occupied land to establish and extend their claim to it.

[M.Dancer]

I gather you'll agree then that the attacks on Israeli civilian settlers would be also fully justified by the same token? They really nothing more than willing human shields whom their country encouraged and sponsored to settle on the occupied land to establish and extend their claim to it.

I agree....you have to be careful what you wish for, someone will definately twist your wishes......in the case of the hamas women shields.....they took an active role in a fire fight, albeit a passive one. I don't condone the IDF response but neither do I condemn it. I wasn't the one who was being shot at by Hamas fighters hiding behind some skirts....

On the otherhand, terrorists such as Hezbollah and Hmas already consider israeli infants, passive in the cribs as fair targets. Some will even travel as far as Argentina to kill, because, as they reason, all jews are potential Israelis and all Israelis are IDF, even suckling babes.

[myata]

On the otherhand, terrorists such as Hezbollah and Hmas already consider israeli infants, passive in the cribs as fair targets. Some will even travel as far as Argentina to kill, because, as they reason, all jews are potential Israelis and all Israelis are IDF, even suckling babes.

And their parents taking government grants to settle on the occupied land, and wearing guns on patrols in their settlements also are only passive targets?

I have to qulify that this applies to settlers on the occupied land, not residents of Israel proper. They are every single bit the same willing human shields as those Palestinian women.

[betsy]

On the otherhand, terrorists such as Hezbollah and Hmas already consider israeli infants, passive in the cribs as fair targets. Some will even travel as far as Argentina to kill, because, as they reason, all jews are potential Israelis and all Israelis are IDF, even suckling babes.

And their parents taking government grants to settle on the occupied land, and wearing guns on patrols in their settlements also are only passive targets?

I have to qulify that this applies to settlers on the occupied land, not residents of Israel proper. They are every single bit the same willing human shields as those Palestinian women.

Every side had a perceived valid reason for doing what they do.

The point is: if you are a participant, in this case the women trying to shield the gunmen from pursuing soldiers....well, expect to be treated like any other enemy!

We see this tactics among terrorists like Hezbollah (that deliberately hid among the civilians knowing that there will be worldwide condemnation if Israel atacked their position and kill civilians as well).

This type of warfare is becoming the norm.

This morning on CBC radio...they gave honor to a Canadian soldier(?) who fought during the American-Canadian war....and they mentioned that he also killed some civilians. BUT CBC was quick to add and justify that, that was the "war of the time."

Eh? What's different from then and now?

War, is war! Everybody wants to play to win!

[myata]

This one time, I agree.

[M.Dancer]

On the otherhand, terrorists such as Hezbollah and Hmas already consider israeli infants, passive in the cribs as fair targets. Some will even travel as far as Argentina to kill, because, as they reason, all jews are potential Israelis and all Israelis are IDF, even suckling babes.

And their parents taking government grants to settle on the occupied land, and wearing guns on patrols in their settlements also are only passive targets?

I have to qulify that this applies to settlers on the occupied land, not residents of Israel proper. They are every single bit the same willing human shields as those Palestinian women.

Only if you bend the definition of human shield so as to render it meaningless. Carrying a gun to defend yourself is quite different that to put your life in harms way so that your fighters can attack your enemies.

[myata]

Or, to bend it a bit further, carry a gun on the land ... you just grabbed from its owners. Right?

BTW you call it twist, I'd just say, apply same standard. I guess it's a matter of terminology.

[M.Dancer]

Or, to bend it a bit further, carry a gun on the land ... you just grabbed from its owners. Right?

BTW you call it twist, I'd just say, apply same standard. I guess it's a matter of terminology.

If we use you standard....any jew is fair game

..where else in the world, where a person can buy land and then be told they grabbed it? And if you have to carry a gun, their told they're human shields.....gotta wonder..does this criteria apply to everyone or just jews?

[bradco]

"I cannot find the topic on Geneva Conventions....so let me say it here that I think, the Geneva Conventions Rules ought to be revised."

Nope.

I think the actions taken here are already within the law of jus in bello, or the laws governing how wars are allowed to be fought. The women in this case were clearly participating in the armed conflict and not innocent bystanders and therefore in this instance not considered to be "civlians" as defined by the Geneva Conventions. At anytime a civilian is involved in the armed conflict they are considered fair game. During the time they are actively participating they can be the object of attack but at the time they stop being actively involved they may no longer be considered the object of attack. This means the army couldnt go shoot the women a few days later when theyre picking some bread up at the marketplace.

article 51(7) to Additional Protocol I of the Genevan Conventions:

"the presence or movements of the civlian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attack or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civlian population or individual civlians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military objectives"

The only crime being committed here is by the Palestinians. Either they are not respecting the above rule or these women are committing the crime of perfidy by using civilian clothes to mask themselves. Take your pick, both are "War Crimes"

[bradco]

"This morning on CBC radio...they gave honor to a Canadian soldier(?) who fought during the American-Canadian war....and they mentioned that he also killed some civilians. BUT CBC was quick to add and justify that, that was the "war of the time."

There were no legal documents that restricted how wars ought to be fought. The absence of such documents at that time makes it different. How could he break laws if the laws didnt exist yet?

"Eh? What's different from then and now?"

Two world wars, a holocaust both having massive effects on civilian populations. The world had to reevaluate the concept of what is acceptable in war in light of the atrocities of the world wars. Things like the holocaust and carpet bombings of civilian areas were both considered things that OUGHT not to happen. Its a moral decision.

"War, is war! Everybody wants to play to win!"

Nobody is saying you cant play to win in war. Just that maybe we can bring a little bit of "civilized" behaviour to war. Why do we check our morals at the door? In my opinion this is incredibly relevant today. If we are truly in a battle of "ways of lifes" by surrendering our morals we are only waving the white flag. The terrorists win when we dont fight with some level of morality.

[myata]

..where else in the world, where a person can buy land and then be told they grabbed it? And if you have to carry a gun, their told they're human shields.....gotta wonder..does this criteria apply to everyone or just jews?

Your attemps to bring up this card over and again are really pathetic. At issue is not the ethnicity of certain individuals but the fact that they decided, of their own will, to live on the territory forcefully appropriated from other people and which is an arena of a military conflict. Therefore they fit any reasonable definition of a human shield. The same would apply to any country or ethnical group that would promote this policy.

[M.Dancer]

forcefully appropriated

Forcefully? Is that what they buying land...or only land bought by jews?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4872938.stm

http://www.jewishpublicaffairs.org/israel/...law-7-5-01.html

[myata]

One example is not plural for ... , you know it. Most of West bank settlements (all?) are built on illegally expropriated land.

And then, what's the meaning of "buy"? If the land is illegally occupied, international law does not allow "buying" and settling it, so it's really all bs.

[M.Dancer]

One example is not plural for ... and you know it. Most of West bank settlements (all?) are built on illegally expropriated land.

If it was expropriated, how couold it be illegal.....esecially considering numerous sites in the west bank ...and Hebron have been owned by Jews for generations......

[myata]

OK, illegally expropriated and settled for generations if that's OK with you? Not really the same as your regular patch of soil north of Toronto?

Like those Palestinians, settlers willingly decided be be a tool for their government's actions in this conflict and I just don't see the difference between the two. Not that I sympathise or condone either act.

[Higgly]

...and Hebron have been owned by Jews for generations......

The Jewish population in Hebron has always been small. This is a flashpoint that guys like Sharon and Netanyahu have been magnifying and provoking. Hebron has had an Arab majority for centuries.

[M.Dancer]

OK, illegally expropriated and settled for generations if that's OK with you? Not really the same as your regular patch of soil north of Toronto?

Like those Palestinians, settlers willingly decided be be a tool for their government's actions in this conflict and I just don't see the difference between the two. Not that I sympathise or condone either act.

No...how about legally bought and paid for, yet unrecognised by the AArabs....at one time you could be executed for selling land to a jew....now they just lynch you

[myata]

No...how about legally bought and paid for, yet unrecognised by the AArabs....at one time you could be executed for selling land to a jew....now they just lynch you

What do you mean by legally ... not recognised...? Legally in which legal system? International law does not allow settlement of occupied land. It that's the land of the Arab state, they're within their right, as much as we may not like it. And Israel has no jurisfiction over these lands. So, however settlers have gotten there, it's 1) illegail; 2) interferes with the ongoing conflict; and 3) makes them accomplices in their states policies with all the consequences.

[M.Dancer]

No...how about legally bought and paid for, yet unrecognised by the AArabs....at one time you could be executed for selling land to a jew....now they just lynch you

What do you mean by legally ... not recognised...? Legally in which legal system? International law does not allow settlement of occupied land. It that's the land of the Arab state, they're within their right, as much as we may not like it. And Israel has no jurisfiction over these lands. So, however settlers have gotten there, it's 1) illegail; 2) interferes with the ongoing conflict; and 3) makes them accomplices in their states policies with all the consequences.

In many many cases, before 1948 they legally bought the land from the Turkish owners....once Jordan took over the west bank, they made sale of land to jews a capital offense and did not recognise the sales.

[myata]

Do you really not understand the difference between private purchise of land and its nationality, or deliberately trying to confuse by constantly pulling in the Jewish card?

When anyone buys land that is a part of an Arab state it still remains a part of that state. Israeli troops have nothing to do there and Israeli politicians can't claim it as the "facts on the ground".

This position is very funny and is not very credible to the people from outside the conflict like myself. One one hand, you want to use selected pre-1948 facts to justify Israeli presence on the lands which were allocated to arabs as part of separation. With the other hand though you want to ignore the fact that Jewish population was in significant minority in the territories not long before it. You can have one of the two but not both: either revisit the entire history, and situation pre-1948, which would, among others, raise questions about legitimacy of creation of Israel; or accept 1948 as the starting point in all discussions. You seem to want to have it both ways: Isreal in current borders plus whatever pre-1948 justifications you can find for grabbing extra land. To me, that does not appear as just or credible or reasonable position in this conflict.

[betsy]

Nobody is saying you cant play to win in war. Just that maybe we can bring a little bit of "civilized" behaviour to war. Why do we check our morals at the door? In my opinion this is incredibly relevant today. If we are truly in a battle of "ways of lifes" by surrendering our morals we are only waving the white flag. The terrorists win when we dont fight with some level of morality.

The terrorists of today do not follow the Geneva Conventions!

So if your enemy's main location is in the middle of a village (for strategic purpose obviously)....do you mean to say, we shouldn't engage then? That bombing it is not acceptable?

[betsy]

At anytime a civilian is involved in the armed conflict they are considered fair game. During the time they are actively participating they can be the object of attack but at the time they stop being actively involved they may no longer be considered the object of attack. This means the army couldnt go shoot the women a few days later when theyre picking some bread up at the marketplace.

In other words....this is like a "time-out?"

If a woman threw a bomb yesterday....and now, just because she doesn't carry any weapons at all, she's suddenly an "innocent."

Does this apply only to women?

If so....why? Why aren't women being treated as an equal to men?

If this is true, then definitely....this "time-out" rule ought to be revised.

Makes me wonder why some nations did not sign up....what's on Protocol 1?

[betsy]

Just that maybe we can bring a little bit of "civilized" behaviour to war.

Did you see the footage? A big cluster of women like that....and only two killed.

To think that only two women were killed when the Israeli soldiers open fired showed the soldiers practiced some restraints. They could've just easily mowed them all down with bullets just to get to the gunmen!

That's civilized enough I'd say.

[bradco]

"The terrorists of today do not follow the Geneva Conventions!"

Thats kind of my point. The terrorists want us to submit to their world where it is acceptable to target and kill civilians. By submiting to their philosophy we are forfeiting the war to them. At least if this is truly a war of "ways of life". We need to follow our civilized rules because its those very rules that we are fighting for!!!!

Also interesting is the allowance of "beligerent reprisals" in international law. If the other side breaks the law some acts that also break the law can be taken in response. Such reprisals must be proportional and not directed purposefully at civilians (collateral damage is allowed in accordance with the law). Additionally, those individuals who break international laws forfeit some of the benefits extended to "prisoners of war".

"So if your enemy's main location is in the middle of a village (for strategic purpose obviously)....do you mean to say, we shouldn't engage then? That bombing it is not acceptable?"

There is no law that says we cant. All the laws specifically say that as long as their is a military objective being targeted it is fine. Collateral damage is acceptable as long as the collateral damage does not exceed the miltary necessity of the operation. Ill give an example. The US had used an unmanned spy plane to track Mullah Omar into an apartment building. The strike was called off by Central Command because the civilian death toll would be way to excessive compared with the objective of killing one guy. According to the New Yorker Rumsefeld was left "kicking a lot of glass and breaking doors". Anyone with any amount of "civilized" morals would agree with the decision from Central Command. Would you find it acceptable that a building in New York or Toronto is brought down to kill one man? Now if it was more than one man (or the "enemy's main location" and hence a larger military necessity) and the civlian death toll was expected to be reasonable I would not have a problem with the attack, and neither would international law. Do you care to argue that it is moral to completely disregard the impact on innocent civilians? What if the innocent civlians were in the west and not the middle east?

"If a woman threw a bomb yesterday....and now, just because she doesn't carry any weapons at all, she's suddenly an "innocent.""

There might be a difference, although fine, between throwing a bomb and acting as a shield. The rule is a good rule though because otherwise everyone is fair game. They need to be in uniform or actively participating in the conflict at the time. Its easy for us who dont have to ever worry about living through a war in our own neighbourhood to disregard the rule. Either way she would still be guilty of the war crime she had committed the few days earlier and be open to being arrested, charged and tried at an international court. Hey maybe some countries (cough the US) ought to stop blocking an attempt to create an effective permanent court.

"Does this apply only to women?"

No, it does not. It applies to all civilians. Also to be mentioned, I believe if the military personnel is not in uniform and not actively engaged in conflict (ie carrying a weapon or participating in military operations) at that instant he is not open to being killed. If not that is what the rule ought to be. Would it be acceptable for a Taliban fighter to snipe some Canadian soldier off-duty picking his son up from soccer practise? When thinking of what the law ought to be or whether it is acceptable try reversing the roles and how you would like yourself and our military personnel to be treated.

"To think that only two women were killed when the Israeli soldiers open fired showed the soldiers practiced some restraints. They could've just easily mowed them all down with bullets just to get to the gunmen!

That's civilized enough I'd say."

So would I. If you go back and read my post I specifically said that what they did did not violate international law. That would imply that I thought their actions to be civilized enough. In this case I dont consider the deaths to be collateral damage because the women were actively engaged in the conflict. If they had not been Israeli actions would have resulted in collateral damage that was fully acceptable to the military necessity, in my opinion.