Attacks on Civilians

[Coyote]

I'm going to post the link for the source later in this thread- I think it would be interesting to discuss the content of this on it's own, without a source to influence discussion.

The OP says some interesting things about civilians and targeting them - regardless of where they are living, and whether there are military members among them or some of the civilians are military members.

Lets discuss

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person:... (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

</title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=

Note: Don't ask me why the link is fucked. That is not what I posted.

It works though.

(2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

That's awesome. Israel isn't occupying any Palestinian land, so all Israeli civilians are protected. Glad you agree.

Wrong.

ALL civilians are protected.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

“Ulpana High school, Where settler girls go to become ‘real men’ ”

That was the headline I read. You think of settler girls and you think “Little House on the Prairie” or the Jewish equivalent of the Girls Madrassas I’ve been to in Pakistan: Learn your religion, learn how to be a good wife, then have 10 children. But the girls in this story were getting all that and a little extra. Instead of afterschool sports they did afterschool fight-the-state. When civil administrators showed up to enforce a settlement building freeze, the girls blocked the road, whipped mud at them, sat on their jeeps. When 100 riot police showed up, the girls lay down on the wet road, climbed into garbage bins, and hurled trash. Only after a 5-hour battle were the administrators able to deliver their pieces of official paper—building-freeze orders.

The article was from 2009, but I wanted to know more. I called Rav Gadi Ben Zimra, the founder of the school, and reached him. He passed me to his wife, Nurit, the co-founder. She passed me to a neighbor involved with the school who spoke better English—and who could vet me. Her name was Mina Browdy and she told me that she was thrilled that we wanted to come do a piece on their school, meet Gadi and Nurit, hang out with the girls. And of course we could stay there. Ten days? Wonderful. I booked a ticket, as did my friend, the photographer Gillian Laub.

Then two days before the flight, Mina emailed me:

Shalom Elizabeth,

We thank you for your interest to come and write an article about Ulpanat Levona but we reconsidered the idea and decided not to go along with it.

Thank you! Our beloved teacher Rut Fogel Hy”d was murdered with her husband and three children, a three month old baby that was slaughtered cruelly by the wild animals that some of you think are able to make peace.

All the best
Mina Browd


http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/77378/girls-at-war

 

[sealadaigh]

That justifies actions by both sides then.

I don't agree with what you say about international law. We started out with tribal laws and governance and moved on to city-states and then nation-states -- a progression/evolution. I think, post WW1 - we saw the beginnings of a transition from nation-states to a degree of internationalism. That is already apparent in business and economy. So I think international law does mean something, especially in view of preventing horrible genocides.

You have probably heard it mentioned so often that you assumed it had the power to interfere with the sovereignty of a nation. It doesn't and it won't in the case of Israel.

As you can see the UN did nothing to address the Fogel Family Massacre - settlers slaughtered in their pajamas by trespassing palestinians... I have no interest in what the UN approves or disapproves of.. As to justified actions by both sides? No. Israel is a sovereign nation while Palestinian people live in limbo because of their own representatives. The land the Jewish settlers are on belongs to them. There is no justification for what happened to the Fogel Family.

They were illegal settlers and she taught girls to be terrorists in an extremist settler school founded by Kach followers. And that is all discussed in The Tablet article Girls At War. Terrorism101 : Terrorist Organizations : Kach and Kahane Chai

no matter what the parents do, there is never any reason to deliberately or negligently kill children.

also, i do not think the death of the fogels was a political act.

i would not regard the parents as non-combatants.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person:... (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

</title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=

Note: Don't ask me why the link is fucked. That is not what I posted.

It works though.

(2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

That's awesome. Israel isn't occupying any Palestinian land, so all Israeli civilians are protected. Glad you agree.

Wrong.

ALL civilians are protected.

Link? My question is about illegal settlers inside the OPT. I used to think all civilians were protected, until I realized the rules regarding protected persons in Occupations were not the same

 

[Coyote]

(2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

That's awesome. Israel isn't occupying any Palestinian land, so all Israeli civilians are protected. Glad you agree.

Wrong.

ALL civilians are protected.

Link? My question is about illegal settlers inside the OPT. I used to think all civilians were protected, until I realized the rules regarding protected persons in Occupations were not the same

I was referring to this claim: They were illegal settlers and she taught girls to be terrorists in an extremist settler school founded by Kach followers. And that is all discussed in The Tablet article Girls At War.

 

[sealadaigh]

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person:... (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

</title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=

Note: Don't ask me why the link is fucked. That is not what I posted.

It works though.

(2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

That's awesome. Israel isn't occupying any Palestinian land, so all Israeli civilians are protected. Glad you agree.

Wrong.

ALL civilians are protected.

i think you will run into a lot of trouble if you continue to use words like "civilian" and "murder" and may want to switch to "non-combatant" and "kill".

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

You have probably heard it mentioned so often that you assumed it had the power to interfere with the sovereignty of a nation. It doesn't and it won't in the case of Israel.

As you can see the UN did nothing to address the Fogel Family Massacre - settlers slaughtered in their pajamas by trespassing palestinians... I have no interest in what the UN approves or disapproves of.. As to justified actions by both sides? No. Israel is a sovereign nation while Palestinian people live in limbo because of their own representatives. The land the Jewish settlers are on belongs to them. There is no justification for what happened to the Fogel Family.

They were illegal settlers and she taught girls to be terrorists in an extremist settler school founded by Kach followers. And that is all discussed in The Tablet article Girls At War. Terrorism101 : Terrorist Organizations : Kach and Kahane Chai

no matter what the parents do, there is never any reason to deliberately or negligently kill children.

also, i do not think the death of the fogels was a political act.

i would not regard the parents as non-combatants.

I do not want to justify it, I am not saying there was anything good or right about it, I am just trying to properly call it what it was under international law. I do not think the boys accused of killing them were the killers, either. I think they were tortured into making false confessions. It was initially reported as suspected to have been carried out by a disgruntled migrant worker.

 

[Coyote]

You have probably heard it mentioned so often that you assumed it had the power to interfere with the sovereignty of a nation. It doesn't and it won't in the case of Israel.

As you can see the UN did nothing to address the Fogel Family Massacre - settlers slaughtered in their pajamas by trespassing palestinians... I have no interest in what the UN approves or disapproves of.. As to justified actions by both sides? No. Israel is a sovereign nation while Palestinian people live in limbo because of their own representatives. The land the Jewish settlers are on belongs to them. There is no justification for what happened to the Fogel Family.

They were illegal settlers and she taught girls to be terrorists in an extremist settler school founded by Kach followers. And that is all discussed in The Tablet article Girls At War. Terrorism101 : Terrorist Organizations : Kach and Kahane Chai

no matter what the parents do, there is never any reason to deliberately or negligently kill children.

also, i do not think the death of the fogels was a political act.

i would not regard the parents as non-combatants.

I agree - I think it was a tragic and brutal murder, not a political statement and should be treated like any other cold blooded murder.

But I disagree on the parents - they are, however much you disagree with their politics still non-combatent civilians.

I do not think civilians should ever be targeted whether it's destroying their homes or destroying their lives. The fact that this article states that even if military members live amongst them - civilians should not be targeted. That means attacking Palestinians because Hamas "hides amongst them" and attacking settlers because IDF "hides amongst them" if wrong.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Wrong.

ALL civilians are protected.

Link? My question is about illegal settlers inside the OPT. I used to think all civilians were protected, until I realized the rules regarding protected persons in Occupations were not the same

I was referring to this claim: They were illegal settlers and she taught girls to be terrorists in an extremist settler school founded by Kach followers. And that is all discussed in The Tablet article Girls At War.

Post 22. that is how the article begins, and I provided the link there, there are multiple pages of the article, it is quiet a lengthy article, I mention that because it is tricky pulling up the whole article, I have had others read it thinking page 1 was the full article. The link again. http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/77378/girls-at-war There is a lot of information in this article about how Jewish children are treated when they are arrested, too. And they are so proud of their arrests. And their heroes, like the terrorist Kach.

 

[Coyote]

They were illegal settlers and she taught girls to be terrorists in an extremist settler school founded by Kach followers. And that is all discussed in The Tablet article Girls At War. Terrorism101 : Terrorist Organizations : Kach and Kahane Chai

no matter what the parents do, there is never any reason to deliberately or negligently kill children.

also, i do not think the death of the fogels was a political act.

i would not regard the parents as non-combatants.

I do not want to justify it, I am not saying there was anything good or right about it, I am just trying to properly call it what it was under international law. I do not think the boys accused of killing them were the killers, either. I think they were tortured into making false confessions. It was initially reported as suspected to have been carried out by a disgruntled migrant worker.

My apologies for requesting a link - I didn't see you had one there but I don't see the connection with the Fogels.

One of the things I disagreed with on the Fogel murder was that hundreds of Palestinians were rounded up and "questioned" without probable cause. When a Palestinian is murdered, you don't see hundreds of settlers rounded up. That aside though - they WERE brutally murdered. If not those who were caught-then who?

 

[sealadaigh]

They were illegal settlers and she taught girls to be terrorists in an extremist settler school founded by Kach followers. And that is all discussed in The Tablet article Girls At War. Terrorism101 : Terrorist Organizations : Kach and Kahane Chai

no matter what the parents do, there is never any reason to deliberately or negligently kill children.

also, i do not think the death of the fogels was a political act.

i would not regard the parents as non-combatants.

I agree - I think it was a tragic and brutal murder, not a political statement and should be treated like any other cold blooded murder.

But I disagree on the parents - they are, however much you disagree with their politics still non-combatent civilians.

I do not think civilians should ever be targeted whether it's destroying their homes or destroying their lives. The fact that this article states that even if military members live amongst them - civilians should not be targeted. That means attacking Palestinians because Hamas "hides amongst them" and attacking settlers because IDF "hides amongst them" if wrong.

the reason i am having a hard time is because civilian is a difficult word. for instance, the viet cong were civilians. the IRA are civilians. the ku klux klan are civilians, technically, osama bin laden was a civilian...but president obama is not.

i think, generally, that civilians should be protected but if a civilian initiates agression and comes at me with a weapon, or if a civilian belongs to a group whose members regularly come at me with weapons and jeopardise my livelihood. also, a lot of settlers are members of kach kahane or other similar groups. how exactly would you propose they be stopped?

OK..i just saw your post. thanks. i am going to leave this one just maybe if others are confused.

 

[pbel]

Pbel, it is a moot point because there is no such thing as international law.

They first have to have an international military, global gov, court, judicial branch to enforce international law and we are not quite there yet. The UN is pushing hard but not quite yet.

The point may be moot for the occupying Israelis, but is not to most of the known world...Yes, Israel has the Military Power in the ME equation, but I suspect resistance will continue until they exhaust the occupier...It has worked for them thus far, unless a real peace is at least tried...maybe a peace dividend for the area would produce recognition and acceptance.

 

[sealadaigh]

here...lol...maybe this will avoid confusion a bit.

i totally agree that civilians/non-combatants should never ne targeted and, indeed, everything should be done to insure their protection.

i also think civilians/non-combatants have not only a right, but an obligation to defend their persons, families, livelihood, and property from other individuals or groups who threaten these things, particularly if the proper authorities won't.

 

[toastman]

Pbel, it is a moot point because there is no such thing as international law.

They first have to have an international military, global gov, court, judicial branch to enforce international law and we are not quite there yet. The UN is pushing hard but not quite yet.

The point may be moot for the occupying Israelis, but is not to most of the known world...Yes, Israel has the Military Power in the ME equation, but I suspect resistance will continue until they exhaust the occupier...It has worked for them thus far, unless a real peace is at least tried...maybe a peace dividend for the area would produce recognition and acceptance.

What exactly has worked for them ??

 

[MJB12741]

Who underwrites this "international law" you refer to? And let us not forget that Israel's land existed since antiquity & there were no Muslims at all, let alone Muslim Palestinians until after the 7th century AD. Do these Palestinians have titles or deeds to what they claim is "their land"? Or are indeed just squatters on Israel's land, many who were driven out of their indigenous Arab countries by their own Arab brothers?

Attacks by Palestinians on Israeli civilians have taken various forms over the years, chiefly: throwing stones at vehicles and people; firearm attacks; detonating bombs in populated areas and on buses; firing rockets at settlements in the Gaza Strip; and – since the evacuation of the settlements in the Gaza Strip as part of the Israeli withdrawal – firing rockets at Israeli communities near Gaza. These violent attacks have killed hundreds of Israeli civilians and injured thousands in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Attacks aimed at civilians undermine all rules of morality and law. Specifically, the intentional killing of civilians is considered a "grave breach" of international humanitarian law and a war crime. Whatever the circumstances, such acts are unjustifiable.

Palestinian organizations raise several arguments to justify attacks on Israeli civilians. The main argument is that "all means are legitimate in fighting for independence against a foreign occupation. "This argument is completely baseless , and contradicts the fundamental principle of international humanitarian law . According to this principle, civilians are to be protected from the consequences of warfare , and any attack must discriminate between civilians and military targets . This principle is part of international customary law; as such, it applies to every state, organization, and person, even those who are not party to any relevant convention.

Palestinian spokespersons distinguish between attacks inside Israel and attacks directed at settlers in the Occupied Territories. They argue that, because the settlements are illegal and many settlers belong to Israel's security forces, settlers are not entitled to the protections granted to civilians by international law.

This argument is readily refuted. The illegality of the settlements has no effect at all on the status of their civilian residents. The settlers constitute a distinctly civilian population, which is entitled to all the protections granted civilians by international law. The Israeli security forces' use of land in the settlements or the membership of some settlers in the Israeli security forces does not affect the status of the other residents living among them, and certainly does not make them proper targets of attack.

I'm going to post the link for the source later in this thread- I think it would be interesting to discuss the content of this on it's own, without a source to influence discussion.

The OP says some interesting things about civilians and targeting them - regardless of where they are living, and whether there are military members among them or some of the civilians are military members.

Lets discuss

A first glance, this conflict is unlike the usual conflict between sovereign states. Israel was created by the Western Powers out of thin air…It took land previously occupied by Arabs and gave it to Diaspora Jews because they need a safe-haven. The natives were essentially disposed of their Liberty, their property, and their lives, by Political Fiat buried in the quasi-legalistic language of the UN controlled by the Western Colonial successors…

The Israelis were not occupiers in the usual sense of a war and leave at some point when a peace is signed, No. This occupation was meant to be permanent…

International Law has never been written for this type of War-Fare..

 

[sealadaigh]

Pbel, it is a moot point because there is no such thing as international law.

They first have to have an international military, global gov, court, judicial branch to enforce international law and we are not quite there yet. The UN is pushing hard but not quite yet.

The point may be moot for the occupying Israelis, but is not to most of the known world...Yes, Israel has the Military Power in the ME equation, but I suspect resistance will continue until they exhaust the occupier...It has worked for them thus far, unless a real peace is at least tried...maybe a peace dividend for the area would produce recognition and acceptance.

the unfortunate aspect about this whole things is that the palestinians are fighting a very righteous war but are using very stupid tactics. if they had targeted only the military, economic, and political aspects of israeli society they would have either won long ago or at least be well on their way.

what we have is the palestinians with a mideastern mindset waging battle with israelis with a western/european mindset, the palestinians need too reaalise that this will be won on the streets and colege campuses in america and killing non-combatants isn't going to help them at all. zionists use that against them very effectively.

fortunately, they are beginning to figure that out.

 

[pbel]

Pbel, it is a moot point because there is no such thing as international law.

They first have to have an international military, global gov, court, judicial branch to enforce international law and we are not quite there yet. The UN is pushing hard but not quite yet.

The point may be moot for the occupying Israelis, but is not to most of the known world...Yes, Israel has the Military Power in the ME equation, but I suspect resistance will continue until they exhaust the occupier...It has worked for them thus far, unless a real peace is at least tried...maybe a peace dividend for the area would produce recognition and acceptance.

What exactly has worked for them ??

Resistance by the Arabs to the Crusaders, The Turks, the Brits over hundreds of years...Israel is the present occupier. Resistance, by vast superior numbers, and keeping your enemy into spending vast amounts of money to maintain an occupation works. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and hundreds of other occupations fail.

Ask Russia and the USA. All military occupiers eventually leave.

 

[pbel]

Who underwrites this "international law" you refer to? And let us not forget that Israel's land existed since antiquity & there were no Muslims at all, let alone Muslim Palestinians until after the 7th century AD. Do these Palestinians have titles or deeds to what they claim is "their land"? Or are indeed just squatters on Israel's land, many who were driven out of their indigenous Arab countries by their own Arab brothers?

I'm going to post the link for the source later in this thread- I think it would be interesting to discuss the content of this on it's own, without a source to influence discussion.

The OP says some interesting things about civilians and targeting them - regardless of where they are living, and whether there are military members among them or some of the civilians are military members.

Lets discuss

A first glance, this conflict is unlike the usual conflict between sovereign states. Israel was created by the Western Powers out of thin air&#8230;It took land previously occupied by Arabs and gave it to Diaspora Jews because they need a safe-haven. The natives were essentially dispossed of their Liberty, their property, and their lives, by Political Fiat buried in the quasi-legalistic language of the UN controlled by the Western Colonial successors&#8230;

The Israelis were not occupiers in the usual sense of a war and leave at some point when a peace is signed, No. This occupation was meant to be permanent&#8230;

International Law has never been written for this type of War-Fare..

Keep answering like a whacko Religious fanatic...Israel existed and demised for thousands of years...besides my Roman Uncle Guido deeded it to me.

And I want my rent!!!

 

[toastman]

The point may be moot for the occupying Israelis, but is not to most of the known world...Yes, Israel has the Military Power in the ME equation, but I suspect resistance will continue until they exhaust the occupier...It has worked for them thus far, unless a real peace is at least tried...maybe a peace dividend for the area would produce recognition and acceptance.

What exactly has worked for them ??

Resistance by the Arabs to the Crusaders, The Turks, the Brits over hundreds of years...Israel is the present occupier. Resistance, by vast superior numbers, and keeping your enemy into spending vast amounts of money to maintain an occupation works. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and hundreds of other occupations fail.

Ask Russia and the USA. All military occupiers eventually succeed.

What exactly has worked for the Palestinians since they waged war against the Jewish State 65 years ago ? What did they gain ????
The pro-Palestinians on this board always try to paint this picture that the Palestinians are 'winning' , and that is a load of CRAP !
Through their constant violence and pleasure for dead Israelis , the Palestinians have gotten themselves nowhere and WILL get themselves nowhere

Like MJB says, when you're already in a hole, keep digging. It's called Palestinian Mentality

 

[P F Tinmore]

My comment would be there is no such thing as international law. Israel is a sovereign nation. You must abide by the laws of their land or leave. If you attack a sovereign nation - it is an act of terrorism - it should be treated as such. That would include their waters. If you allow your fishing boats to be used to smuggle weapons, to be used by Hamas posing as fishermen, etc. Then you'll pay the consequences for that.

That justifies actions by both sides then.

I don't agree with what you say about international law. We started out with tribal laws and governance and moved on to city-states and then nation-states -- a progression/evolution. I think, post WW1 - we saw the beginnings of a transition from nation-states to a degree of internationalism. That is already apparent in business and economy. So I think international law does mean something, especially in view of preventing horrible genocides.

Indeed, civilized people are trying to move away from the "wild west" form of international relations.

There is already a comprehensive body of international law. Unfortunately, the enforcement of those laws is based wholly on political considerations not on actual violations.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP-qW9gwMTk]Amjad Atallah Interviews Mustafa Barghouti - YouTube[/ame]