What Geneva Convention and what kind of rules of war? For US and Israel the rules of that convention are already outdated. You can see this in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq.

I see– when you’re treated the way you treat others, you call ”Foul!”

Learn about cause and effect.

Those who wish to be free of the restrictions of Geneva are no better than the terrorists they complain about.

1) There is no issue at all defining combatants, they are defined quite clearly in GC3. Uniform or not is just not a factor in determining whether the opponent is combatant or civilian.

2) If a ’combatant’ is a legitimate target ’between battles’ then so are off duty military personnel. This means that buses and nightclubs become legitimate targets if anybody connected with the military is in them - or do you only apply that definition one-way?

If you disagree with this, then you are appealing to GC...

3)If an opponent is in a church/school or anywhere else, and you can’t attack without killing civilians, then you don’t attack. Very simple.

4)If you don’t know whether the human shield is voluntary or not, then you don’t kill them. Very simple.

5) GC binds the people who sign it. What your opponents do or don’t do has nothing to do with it. If you don’t like GC, then leave it and lower yourself to the standards of the terrorists. Very simple.

“Those who wish to be free of the restrictions of Geneva are no better than the terrorists they complain about.

“1) There is no issue at all defining combatants, they are defined quite clearly in GC3. Uniform or not is just not a factor in determining whether the opponent is combatant or civilian.”

Unfortunately for your opinion, it is. According to Article 4(2) of GC3:

4 (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

This is one of the definitions of “prisoners of war” (former combatants). A non-combatant can not be a “prisoner of war”, but only a “detainee” (the legal implications of this are many). Note the wording of Article 4(2)(b).

For hundreds of years, the international convention was that soldiers in civilian clothing were considered spies and could be executed. This was a favorite excuse of the Nazis for executing Resistance and partisan members, outlawed after WW II. A uniform, or some uniform identifying sign (armband, headgear, scarf or whatever) is certainly a factor in identifying a legal combatant.

“2) If a ’combatant’ is a legitimate target ’between battles’ then so are off duty military personnel. This means that buses and nightclubs become legitimate targets if anybody connected with the military is in them - or do you only apply that definition one-way?

“If you disagree with this, then you are appealing to GC...”

We’re talking about two different sets of circumstances. My example was specifically for those abandoning their arms and impersonating non-combatants while in transit from one section of a battlefield to another then picking up new arms to continue their fighting, while yours is unlikely to happen on any battlefield—only in distant actions currently defined as “acts of terror”. Soldiers are never “off duty” when in battle. Your logic doesn’t apply. More about points of view later.

“3) If an opponent is in a church/school or anywhere else, and you can’t attack without killing civilians, then you don’t attack. Very simple.”

The Conventions disagree with you, under certain circumstances. If the “opponent” uses such a protected site for combat purposes, all protection is removed from that site and the onus is on the combatant that used such a site for combat purposes. Likewise the issue of civilian casualties incurred.

“4) If you don’t know whether the human shield is voluntary or not, then you don’t kill them. Very simple.”

None of the four Geneva Conventions or the two additional Protocols even mentions human shields, as such, so how you arrive at this conclusion is a mystery. The use of involuntary human shields is inferred in GC 4, Article 34: “The taking of hostages is prohibited.” There are a number of articles on the Internet that deal with this lack and suggest solutions. You might read some of them: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbJIL/2008/11.html or http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/7/4/0/5/p74057_index.html. The ICRC itself has had great difficulty with the differentiation (see http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/direct-participation-report_res/$File/2008-04-background-doc-icrc.pdf), so your certainty that the issue is “very simple” is ingenuous, at best.

“5) GC binds the people who sign it. What your opponents do or don’t do has nothing to do with it. If you don’t like GC, then leave it and lower yourself to the standards of the terrorists. Very simple.”

This is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone claim that terrorists have any standards at all. Your solutions can be in direct contradiction with the UN Charter Article 51, which guarantees every sovereign member state the inalienable right to defend itself.

The Geneva Conventions bind those who sign it, but what about those who did not sign it? Do they have a license to commit any act at will that would be considered a war crime by a party signed to the Conventions? Is not having signed the Geneva Conventions going become an inferred “license to kill” without restraint?

The questions I raised will become more common in the future, not less, and need to be addressed. To expect one side to be bound by conventions while the other has a free hand to do whatever it wants is as ridiculous as allowing a boxing match with standard rules for one opponent while the other is allowed to kick, bite, scratch, hit below the belt and disregard the referee at will.

Here is a fuller response to your point 2:

While my example and yours have completely different circumstances, there are some common factors which stress the differentiation between warfare and terrorism.

Blowing up a bus full of civilians because there is one soldier on leave in the bus is an excuse for such an attack, not a reason—this is terrorism. Attacking or not attacking a militarily significant building held behind human shields is a decision made according to the moral standards of the attacker. There is, or should be, no comparison between the two.

Different armies will make different decisions according to their own policies regarding civilian casualties and they will be judged differently by different parties. This judgment will often not be according to the letter of international law or the military justifications, but by emotional reactions, which is exactly what the party using human shields wants.

Terrorists will not care about the judgment of other parties, since their “morals” will justify even the killing of a child as a “future enemy soldier”, the killing of a mother as one who “provides the enemy with future soldiers”, or the killing of an elderly person because they “might have once been an enemy soldier”.

I don’t favor ignoring the Geneva Conventions or International Humanitarian Law, what I do favor is a review of them to reflect the new realities that did not exist when they were written.

”Unfortunately for your opinion, it is. According to Article 4(2) of GC3:

...

Note the wording of Article 4(2)(b).”

Note how the wording doesn’t say anything about being in uniform?

I am aware of the stock excuses used by those trying to justify killing civilians, but GC is quite clear on who is combatant and who is not, if you can get past the bit about prisoners of war.

...

”For hundreds of years, the international convention was that soldiers in civilian clothing were considered spies and could be executed.”

Maybe so, but this is not 1939. GC Additional Protocol 1, Article 44:

’Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant’

...

”My example was specifically for those abandoning their arms and impersonating non-combatants while in transit from one section of a battlefield to another then picking up new arms to continue their fighting, while yours is unlikely to happen on any battlefield—only in distant actions currently defined as “acts of terror”. Soldiers are never “off duty” when in battle. Your logic doesn’t apply. More about points of view later.”

There is no designated battlefield where killing the enemy is okay and designated non-battlefield where it isn’t. Combatant is not a function of geographical location, nor a function of time.

...

”Attacking or not attacking a militarily significant building held behind human shields is a decision made according to the moral standards of the attacker. There is, or should be, no comparison between the two.”

Indeed, and if you decide to attack even though that means killing a load of civilians you are no better than a terrorist - you are even making the same judgement.

...

”Different armies will make different decisions according to their own policies regarding civilian casualties and they will be judged differently by different parties.”

When an army decides that killing civilians is just fine, they will be judged as being no better than terrorists who make the same decision.

...

”The Conventions disagree with you, under certain circumstances. If the “opponent” uses such a protected site for combat purposes, all protection is removed from that site and the onus is on the combatant that used such a site for combat purposes. Likewise the issue of civilian casualties incurred.”

Another stock excuse wheeled out by those wishing to justify killing civilians, and completely wrong.

The ’onus’ to attack or not is on the party making the decision whether to attack or not. If *you* decide to attack, you can’t blame somebody else for that attack.

GC4, Article 147: ’Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, ... wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health,... extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity’

Protocol 1, Article 51: ’Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(..)

An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.’

and

’It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.’

Military objectives too are defined in Protocol 1, Article 52:

’military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military of advantage’

The presence of a gun or whatever nearby does not remove the civilian nature of target, because destroying that gun is not in itself a military advantage. This is stated clearly in Protocol 1, Article 50:

’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.’

Just in case you don’t follow that:

’In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.’

GC never, ever justifies your desire to attack civilians. It even says so in Protocol 1, Article 57:

’No provision of this Article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.’

You don’t kill civilians: how difficult can that be to understand?


”None of the four Geneva Conventions or the two additional Protocols even mentions human shields, as such, so how you arrive at this conclusion is a mystery. ”

Then Article 51 of Protocol 1 must be a mystery to you.

’7. The presence or movements of the civilian 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 attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.’

A human shield is civilian, and as such has civilian protection under GC.

...

”This is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone claim that terrorists have any standards at all.”

They don’t. Neither do state military who needlessly kill civilians.

...

” Your solutions can be in direct contradiction with the UN Charter Article 51, which guarantees every sovereign member state the inalienable right to defend itself.”

That does not extend to killing civilians, and this is stated clearly in Protocol 1.

’Article 35.-Basic rules
1. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.’

...

”The Geneva Conventions bind those who sign it, but what about those who did not sign it?”

Protocol 1, Article 51: ’ Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.’

If you sign GC, you are bound by GC regardless of the other parties actions. If you don’t sign it, you are not.

...

”Is not having signed the Geneva Conventions going become an inferred “license to kill” without restraint?”

Of course not. It just means they are not bound by the terms of GC.

RF: “Note how the wording doesn’t say anything about being in uniform?”

Note how Article 4(2)(b) specifically says: “that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance”. General practice throughout history has defined this as an identifying item of some kind… Símon Bolivar supplied his llañero cavalry with top hats, the French Resistance wore black armbands with a white Cross of Lorraine, Dutch Resistance members wore an orange armband, and so on. These are examples of the “fixed distinctive sign” mentioned. It does not have to be a uniform.
= = =
RF: “I am aware of the stock excuses used by those trying to justify killing civilians, but GC is quite clear on who is combatant and who is not, if you can get past the bit about prisoners of war.”

But why would you want to “get past the bit about prisoners of war”? By definition, a prisoner of war is a former combatant. Non-combatants are “detainees”, not “prisoners of war”—and are treated differently and interned separately from former combatants. The same rules that apply to former combatants apply to combatants.

To “get past the bit about prisoners of war” is an attempt to deliberately distort the intent of the Conventions. If you think these are “stock excuses”, I suggest you talk to a lawyer who understands international law.
= = =
RF: “Maybe so, but this is not 1939. GC Additional Protocol 1, Article 44:

“’Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant’”

Selective quotes are deceiving. The clause in full states: “3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he
carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and
(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).”

Now this reference becomes interesting… Article 37 says:

‘Art 37. Prohibition of Perfidy

‘1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
(a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
(b) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
(c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and
(d) the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.)”

So we have a case of perfidy, specifically Article 37(1)c, the ‘feigning of civilian, non-combatant status’ as a violation of the Conventions. This is exactly what my example discussed.
= = =
RF: “There is no designated battlefield where killing the enemy is okay and designated non-battlefield where it isn’t. Combatant is not a function of geographical location, nor a function of time.”

Combat and battlefields are geographically designated and time-specific. What you’re attempting to justify here is patently ridiculous. Would you consider the Ardennes forest in Belgium to be a battleground today because it was the site of the Battle of the Bulge in WW II? Would you have considered the British bombing Buenos Aires during the Falklands war a legitimate action? You can not have a combatant without combat.
= = =
RF: “Indeed, and if you decide to attack even though that means killing a load of civilians you are no better than a terrorist - you are even making the same judgement.”

See Article 51(5)(b): an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

This is a judgment call that can only be made on-site by the commander in the field. If an enemy position is killing and wounding dozens of his soldiers, he may well decide that 10 civilians being used as human shields is not “excessive”, and he may well be justified in so deciding. Note the words “incidental loss…”—the civilians are not the target—the people hiding behind and using the civilians as human shields are the target.
= = =
RF: “When an army decides that killing civilians is just fine, they will be judged as being no better than terrorists who make the same decision.”

I doubt that there is any army in the world since Nazi Germany’s that thinks “that killing civilians is just fine”. You make it sound like any army’s idea of sport is to kill civilians. I have yet to hear of an army where that’s true.
= = =
MD: ”The Conventions disagree with you, under certain circumstances. If the “opponent” uses such a protected site for combat purposes, all protection is removed from that site and the onus is on the combatant that used such a site for combat purposes. Likewise the issue of civilian casualties incurred.”

RF: “Another stock excuse wheeled out by those wishing to justify killing civilians, and completely wrong.

“The ’onus’ to attack or not is on the party making the decision whether to attack or not. If *you* decide to attack, you can’t blame somebody else for that attack.”

The decision is not always that simple. What is the status of that protected place and civilians located there if I return fire to such a position when fired upon? Do you know? Again, if you don’t, talk with a lawyer who understands international law.
= = =
RF: “GC4, Article 147: ’Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, ... wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health,... extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity’

“Protocol 1, Article 51: ’Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

“An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.’

“and

“’It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.’

“Military objectives too are defined in Protocol 1, Article 52:

“’military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military of advantage’

“The presence of a gun or whatever nearby does not remove the civilian nature of target, because destroying that gun is not in itself a military advantage. This is stated clearly in Protocol 1, Article 50:

“’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.’

“Just in case you don’t follow that:

“’In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.’”

What happens when there is no doubt? Take, for example, being fired upon by snipers located in a school or a hospital. Do you insist that I may not return their fire? Your soldiers are dying around you. What do you do? This is not an armchair exercise, real people are really dying and a decision has to be made NOW.

It’s a rare occurrence that a field commander says to himself, “gee, I’ll destroy this building because it I were my enemy, I’d use it against me”. Most armies engaged on the attacking side in urban warfare tend to reacts, rather than act. In other words, they generally do not initiate fire, but return fire when fired upon. Units in the field can only have a finite amount of munitions with them, and commanders tend to be stingy. Only an undisciplined rabble shoots off all their ammunition at ghosts, trained soldiers don’t fire indiscriminately at anything, except in desperate circumstances.
= = =
RF: “GC never, ever justifies your desire to attack civilians. It even says so in Protocol 1, Article 57:

“’No provision of this Article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.’

“You don’t kill civilians: how difficult can that be to understand?”

‘Desire to attack civilians’? You must be smoking something VERY powerful to read that into anything I wrote. I have NEVER met a soldier from any country who has a “desire to kill civilians”.

No, this says you don’t deliberately attack civilians with the object of harming civilians. My question referred to something entirely different, which you seem determined to misunderstand or misconstrue: when you are attacked by combatants (I don’t think we have to disagree that people shooting at you are combatants) deliberately firing from behind civilians, what do you do? Remember, your men are falling wounded and dying around you and you have to make a decision…
= = =
MD: None of the four Geneva Conventions or the two additional Protocols even mentions human shields, as such, so how you arrive at this conclusion is a mystery.

RF: “Then Article 51 of Protocol 1 must be a mystery to you.

“’7. The presence or movements of the civilian 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 attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

“8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.’

“A human shield is civilian, and as such has civilian protection under GC.”

No, but I see that it is a mystery to you.

You should read this more carefully. It does not use the term “human shields” in the way they have been used in recent conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the West Bank and Gaza.

IF we were talking about a conquered population being used involuntarily as human shields, I would agree with you, and with the Conventions. The fact that the Conventions don’t even consider the existence of voluntary human shields is a loophole exploited in the same conflicts mentioned above is the crux of the problem.
= = =
MD: ”This is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone claim that terrorists have any standards at all.”

RF: “They don’t. Neither do state military who needlessly kill civilians.”

Here you have the crunch. There are circumstances where civilian deaths are inevitable because of the nature of battle. No matter how much any army may try to avoid civilian casualties in an urban battlefield, there are bound to be some. There is no differentiation in the Conventions between the concepts of “needlessly” and “unavoidably” harming civilians. Of course, this will always be a basis for disagreement, depending on whether you have a situation to respond to, or sit in your living room passing judgment on those who act.
= = =
MD: ” Your solutions can be in direct contradiction with the UN Charter Article 51, which guarantees every sovereign member state the inalienable right to defend itself.”

RF: “That does not extend to killing civilians, and this is stated clearly in Protocol 1.

“’Article 35.-Basic rules
1. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.’”

This is true—just as you don’t burn down a barn to kill a rat, you don’t drop an atom bomb on a building to kill a single sniper. You use a counter-sniper or send infantry into the building to flush out the sniper. That’s the intent of this rule.
= = =
MD: “The Geneva Conventions bind those who sign it, but what about those who did not sign it?”

RF: “Protocol 1, Article 51: ’ Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.’

“If you sign GC, you are bound by GC regardless of the other parties actions. If you don’t sign it, you are not.”

Not quite. It means that if you violate the Conventions, you are held accountable for your actions. There are situations and circumstances in such blanket statements as you have cited that need redefinition. Inflexibility of interpretation such as your is exactly the reason the Conventions need to be reviewed.
= = =
MD: “Is not having signed the Geneva Conventions going become an inferred “license to kill” without restraint?”

RF: “Of course not. It just means they are not bound by the terms of GC.”

What exactly do you think your statement “It just means they are not bound by the terms of GC” means?

It means exactly what I said in the first place: a party not signed to the Conventions can wage war in any way it sees fit, including killing civilians, bombing hospitals, places of worship, schools and waging war from these locations without fear of accountability. Without signing, there is no restraint on that party’s behavior and no way to make them accountable—in short, a license to kill.

Not having signed the Conventions is an inferred license to kill indiscriminately without fear of accountability. What we get in reality is a non-national enemy who has not signed the Conventions, doing whatever he feels is “appropriate”, while his target is held accountable for his every move. This offends not only my sense of right and wrong, but my sense of justice, as well.

The Geneva Conventions were not intended to be an inviolate, invulnerable suit of armor for civilians in wartime, as you seem to think. Inflexible thinking gets people killed.

My contention is simply that under present conditions, the Conventions represent a bitter version of an old Bill Cosby stand-up comedy routine about the toss of the coin before an American football game, projected on the American Revolution, where the colonist’s team captain wins the coin toss and chooses the conditions: “The British have to wear red and march in a straight line, while the American colonists can wear any color they want and shoot at them from behind rocks and trees.”

All I can say is that I hope you never have to apply your armchair opinions to real situations where real people have to live and die by your decisions.

”It does not have to be a uniform.”

Exactly. So ’By their very nature, terrorist organizations fight out of uniform’ is a bit meaningless, especially as Protocol 1 recognises that there are circumstances where anybody could be fighting out of uniform.


”But why would you want to “get past the bit about prisoners of war”?

To get to the bit that defines combatant.


”So we have a case of perfidy, specifically Article 37(1)c, the ‘feigning of civilian, non-combatant status’ as a violation of the Conventions. This is exactly what my example discussed.”

Your example was of a combatant with no gun walking around on what you choose to call a battlefield. It is quite a stretch of imagination to say that is impersonating a civilian!


”Combat and battlefields are geographically designated and time-specific. What you’re attempting to justify here is patently ridiculous. Would you consider the Ardennes forest in Belgium to be a battleground today because it was the site of the Battle of the Bulge in WW II?”

You are missing the point totally. It became a battlefield because a battle happened there, not because somebody said ”Hey! Let’s have a battlefield here.” Nor would anyone say ”You can’t kill that solder because he is not on the battlefield because warfare is not limited to geographical areas called ’battlefields’, nor does anyone say ’you can’t kill that soldier because he has clocked off, because warfare is not time-specific. You can bomb your enemy any time and anywhere.

...

”This is a judgment call that can only be made on-site by the commander in the field. ”

It can also be made by terrorists. There is no difference. A choice to kill civilians is a choice to kill civilians, whoever makes it.

...

”If an enemy position is killing and wounding dozens of his soldiers, he may well decide that 10 civilians being used as human shields is not “excessive”, and he may well be justified in so deciding.”

”Take, for example, being fired upon by snipers located in a school or a hospital. Do you insist that I may not return their fire? Your soldiers are dying around you. What do you do?”

”when you are attacked by combatants (I don’t think we have to disagree that people shooting at you are combatants) deliberately firing from behind civilians, what do you do?”

The criteria is ” make an effective contribution to military action”, not ”he is shooting at my guys’ so I have a carte’blanche to destroy that building and kill every civilian in it”

In that situation, pull back out of range, by-pass the sniper, do whatever you can to *avoid killing the civilians* Slaughtering civilians just for the convenience of troops is not acceptable.

...

”I doubt that there is any army in the world since Nazi Germany’s that thinks “that killing civilians is just fine”. You make it sound like any army’s idea of sport is to kill civilians. I have yet to hear of an army where that’s true.”

There are numerous examples of armies needlessly killing civilian, by attacking homes, UN schools, Police stations, restaurants, etc. Those armies are why we need GC, and really should back it up with some war-crime trials.

....

”‘Desire to attack civilians’? You must be smoking something VERY powerful to read that into anything I wrote.”

Yet you argue against the laws protecting civilians...

...

”What is the status of that protected place and civilians located there if I return fire to such a position when fired upon? Do you know? ”

It is still protected, and so are the civilians within it. You can return fire as a last resort. Read that again: *as a last resort*. It is not a case of ”Oh - a guy shot at me so that civilian target no longer has any protection what so ever”.

...

”No, this says you don’t deliberately attack civilians with the object of harming civilians.”

If you attack them, then you intend to harm them.

...

”You should read this more carefully. It does not use the term “human shields”

I think ’The presence or movements of the civilian 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 attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations.’ is a very obvious reference to human shields. What do you think it means if not a human shield?

...


”Not quite.”

Yes quite. read the GC. It states more than once that violations by your enemy does not release you from from your obligations to the treaty you signed.

This is just plain simple common sense. If you sign an agreement you are bound by that agreement. If you don’t sign it you are not. What is so hard to understand about that?

...

”What exactly do you think your statement “It just means they are not bound by the terms of GC” means?”

It means that there is Hague, international law, humanitarian law, and even criminal law as well as GC.

...

”Not having signed the Conventions is an inferred license to kill indiscriminately without fear of accountability.”

GC is about protecting civilians, it is not the rules of war - that is covered by Hague.


” This offends not only my sense of right and wrong, but my sense of justice, as well.”

Okay... so you want to operate by the same standards as a terrorist. Fine - don’t sign GC.

...

”The Geneva Conventions were not intended to be an inviolate, invulnerable suit of armor for civilians in wartime, as you seem to think. Inflexible thinking gets people killed.”

They are totally intended to protect civilians. That is the whole point of them!

As long as the inflexible thinking doesn’t get *civilians* killed that is fine. Civilians don’t sign up to take part in war, and as such should not be involved in it. This is 2009, not 1939.

...

”All I can say is that I hope you never have to apply your armchair opinions to real situations where real people have to live and die by your decisions.”

I wonder what you would say if your family was wiped out by an airforce bomb just because somebody thought there was a gun nearby?

As you say, real people live or die by those decisions to attack civilians. Civilians are real, live people too you know...

RF: “To get to the bit that defines combatant.”

The definition of “combatant” is derived from the “International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War”, Brussels, 27 August 1874:

‘Art. 9. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:

‘1. That they be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
‘2. That they have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
‘3. That they carry arms openly; and
‘4. That they conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

‘In countries where militia constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination ’ army ’.’

Note that this is the same definition that the Conventions use, word for word, in the definition of eligibility to be considered prisoners of war. There is no reason to “get past the bit about prisoners of war”—in fact, it’s germane to the entire topic we’ve been discussing.

Read section 2 carefully. It specifically declares that even an “irregular militia” must have some kind of “distinctive emblem visible at a distance”. Bearing arms without such an emblem is perfidy, whether you like it or not. Discarding uniforms and deliberately fighting in civilian clothing without such a “distinctive emblem visible at a distance” is another example of perfidy. What part of that don’t you understand?
= = =
RF: “Your example was of a combatant with no gun walking around on what you choose to call a battlefield. It is quite a stretch of imagination to say that is impersonating a civilian!”

Yet such cases were documented several dozen times in Operation Cast Lead, where Hamas fighters in civilian clothes (there were also documented radio announcements by Hamas for their fighters to discard their uniforms and fight in civilian clothing), who discarded their weapons, moved up to several hundred meters under cover of being a civilian, collected a new weapon and continued fighting.

Your attempt to make this “quite a stretch of the imagination” is nothing less than a refusal to face reality.
= = =
RF: “You are missing the point totally. It became a battlefield because a battle happened there, not because somebody said ”Hey! Let’s have a battlefield here.” Nor would anyone say ”You can’t kill that solder because he is not on the battlefield because warfare is not limited to geographical areas called ’battlefields’, nor does anyone say ’you can’t kill that soldier because he has clocked off, because warfare is not time-specific. You can bomb your enemy any time and anywhere.”

No, you’re the one who’s missing the point. On and around a battlefield, a soldier doesn’t “clock out”. You’re right about that, but are all soldiers on or near the battlefield? What you’re saying is that a soldier not involved in a war (not all soldiers are combat soldiers) serving in some supply depot in Wichita, Kansas is a legitimate target for an Iraqi “insurgent” when home on leave, because he is wearing the insurgent’s enemy’s uniform—even though he is not bearing arms.

This is a terrorist philosophy—a claim that “there are no innocents”.

You’re also you’re saying that if Syria, for instance, attacked Israel, then if the IDF bombs Syrian headquarters in Damascus, it would be perfectly legitimate. Thank you, we’ll keep that in mind…
= = =
RF: “It can also be made by terrorists. There is no difference. A choice to kill civilians is a choice to kill civilians, whoever makes it.”

Even lawyers take extenuating circumstances into account, which you apparently refuse to do. No general ruling can possibly cover every set of circumstances.

A commander in the field has two basic objectives: 1) to preserve the lives of his men as far as possible, and; 2) to fulfill his mission. The conventions understand and accept the reality that civilians can and do get killed in cross-fires. That’s why the expression “steps to minimize civilian casualties” appears more than once in the text of the Conventions; it does not mean “zero tolerance” to anyone but you.
= = =
RF: “The criteria is ” make an effective contribution to military action”, not ”he is shooting at my guys’ so I have a carte’ blanche to destroy that building and kill every civilian in it”

“In that situation, pull back out of range, by-pass the sniper, do whatever you can to *avoid killing the civilians* Slaughtering civilians just for the convenience of troops is not acceptable.”

Breaking up an enemy’s attempt at interdicting an advance is “making an effective contribution to military action”, whether you think so or not.
= = =
RF: “There are numerous examples of armies needlessly killing civilian, by attacking homes, UN schools, Police stations, restaurants, etc. Those armies are why we need GC, and really should back it up with some war-crime trials.”

The way you put this, I have to think that at least part of the time, you would be putting the wrong people on trial. I don’t disagree with the Conventions per se, just with the one-sided manner in which they are applied.
= = =
“Yet you argue against the laws protecting civilians...”

No. I argue against rules that blindly allow one party to hide behind civilians with impunity while waging war against another party.
= = =
“It is still protected, and so are the civilians within it. You can return fire as a last resort. Read that again: *as a last resort*. It is not a case of ‘Oh - a guy shot at me so that civilian target no longer has any protection what so ever’.”

Actually it’s much more complex than that, but you refuse to accept the idea. Any unit taking fire has to return fire. This is a basic rule of combat. Have you ever been shot at?
= = =
MD: ”No, this says you don’t deliberately attack civilians with the object of harming civilians.”
RF: “If you attack them, then you intend to harm them.”

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Civilians are not the target, but any party using them as shields for their belligerent actions need to be held accountable for their actions. In civil law the person who hires a killer is considered as guilty as the one who pulls the trigger. Why should it be different in international law?
= = =
RF: “Yes quite. read the GC. It states more than once that violations by your enemy does not release you from your obligations to the treaty you signed.
This is just plain simple common sense. If you sign an agreement you are bound by that agreement. If you don’t sign it you are not. What is so hard to understand about that?”

So we’re right back to the “license to kill” exemption for non-signers—the point of one-sided application that I continuously make and you studiously avoid.
...
MD: ”What exactly do you think your statement “It just means they are not bound by the terms of GC” means?”

RF: “It means that there is Hague, international law, humanitarian law, and even criminal law as well as GC.”

None of the above have convicted, tried or even indicted non-national organizations or individuals representing such organizations. The hope that one day, one of them will actually do so is, at best, a forlorn one. In my opinion, the only solution is a mandatory adherence to the Geneva Conventions by ALL belligerents, whether they have signed the Conventions or not.
= = =
RF: “Okay... so you want to operate by the same standards as a terrorist. Fine - don’t sign GC.”

Why not do just the opposite: there are enough nations signed on the Conventions to pass a UN Resolution that can be ratified by the Security Council, making it binding—to require ALL belligerents, national and non-national, to adhere to the Conventions or pay the price. In simpler words, why not require terrorists to operate by the same standards armies are bound by and to be held responsible for their actions?
= = =
RF: “They are totally intended to protect civilians. That is the whole point of them!
As long as the inflexible thinking doesn’t get *civilians* killed that is fine. Civilians don’t sign up to take part in war, and as such should not be involved in it. This is 2009, not 1939.”

I’ve already answered this. You counter by placing a higher value on a civilian life than on a military one. How is one human life more valuable than another? Soldiers are human beings, too, you know.
= = =
RF: “I wonder what you would say if your family was wiped out by an airforce bomb just because somebody thought there was a gun nearby?
“As you say, real people live or die by those decisions to attack civilians. Civilians are real, live people too you know...”

Unlike you, I have buried relatives who were murdered by terrorists. They were ordinary people who were not in uniform, not part of any military and not belligerent to anyone. Don’t you think the perpetrators should be held accountable for their actions, too?
= = =
It’s quite obvious to me that you have never commanded troops in the field, if you ever even served in any military. The theory of the Geneva Conventions is fine, even praiseworthy, but in a changing world, with a changing face of warfare, they have not kept up to reality. Either they need to be changed to meet the reality or adherence to them is mandatory for all belligerents, regardless of their having signed the Conventions or not.
= = =
I will say one last thing, as a former crew, squad and platoon commander: in battle, the life of each of my soldiers is more important to me than the life of a civilian that my enemy is hiding behind while trying to kill my men, and my decisions will be made accordingly. Any decent field commander worthy of commanding troops in battle would do the same and take whatever consequences may follow.

”There is no reason to “get past the bit about prisoners of war”—in fact, it’s germane to the entire topic we’ve been discussing.”

There is every reason to get past it, because Protocol 1 article 44 modified the definition.

...

”What part of that don’t you understand?”

The part were it didn’t get modified by protocol 1....

You may wish to pretend that Protocol 1 doesn’t exist, but it does and it says that a combatant is still a combatant even if he breaks GC, and he is still a combatant if he is not in uniform, and he is still a combatant when he puts his weapon down. The principle is very simple: if they are fighting they are combatants. What part of that don’t you understand?

...

”Yet such cases were documented several dozen times in Operation Cast Lead, where Hamas fighters in civilian clothes (there were also documented radio announcements by Hamas for their fighters to discard their uniforms and fight in civilian clothing), who discarded their weapons, moved up to several hundred meters under cover of being a civilian, collected a new weapon and continued fighting.”

Says who? But so what - ’oh my... they moved several hundred meters without a gun. They must have been pretending to be civilians....’ Have you any idea how ludicrous that sounds? It makes about as much sense as saying that a regular soldier out of uniform is impersonating a civilian.

...

”Your attempt to make this “quite a stretch of the imagination” is nothing less than a refusal to face reality.”

Oh, I have no doubt at all that they sometimes put their guns down. Why wouldn’t they? What stretches the imagination is saying it is illegal for them to do that...

....

”No, you’re the one who’s missing the point. On and around a battlefield, a soldier doesn’t “clock out”. You’re right about that, but are all soldiers on or near the battlefield? What you’re saying is that a soldier not involved in a war (not all soldiers are combat soldiers) serving in some supply depot in Wichita, Kansas is a legitimate target for an Iraqi “insurgent” when home on leave, because he is wearing the insurgent’s enemy’s uniform—even though he is not bearing arms.”

If they are soldiers, they are a fair target *because* they are soldiers. It kind of goes with the job. By my arguments, the guy in the supply depot is a civilian and therefore not a target, but by your arguments I am really not so sure....

...

”This is a terrorist philosophy—a claim that “there are no innocents”.

Is this familiar to you? ”Our definition is that anyone who is involved with terrorism within Hamas is a valid target. This ranges from the strictly military institutions and includes the political institutions that provide the logistical funding and human resources for the terrorist arm.”

By that definition - the IDF definition - there are no innocents, and your guy in the supply depot is definitely fair game. Terrorists?

...

”You’re also you’re saying that if Syria, for instance, attacked Israel, then if the IDF bombs Syrian headquarters in Damascus, it would be perfectly legitimate. Thank you, we’ll keep that in mind…”

How on earth do you work that one out?

....

”Even lawyers take extenuating circumstances into account, which you apparently refuse to do. No general ruling can possibly cover every set of circumstances.”

Correct. I will never congratulate anybody for knowingly taking innocent lives. Why do you have a problem with that?

...

”A commander in the field has two basic objectives: 1) to preserve the lives of his men as far as possible, and; 2) to fulfill his mission. The conventions understand and accept the reality that civilians can and do get killed in cross-fires. That’s why the expression “steps to minimize civilian casualties” appears more than once in the text of the Conventions; it does not mean “zero tolerance” to anyone but you.”

Some civilians may be accidentally killed, yes, and that is regrettable though unavoidable but what you are talking about is DELIBERATELY killing civilians. That is not the same, not by a long way.

...

” I don’t disagree with the Conventions per se, just with the one-sided manner in which they are applied.”

They apply to the people who sign them. Why do you have such a problem understanding that?

...

”Any unit taking fire has to return fire. This is a basic rule of combat. ”

Why? Do they lack basic thinking skills or what? If that is the best they can do - ”he shoots so we must shoot” - then they are lacking training. Did the UN troops in Lebanon blindly, mindlessly shoot back when they came under fire from the IDF?

...

”Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Civilians are not the target, but any party using them as shields for their belligerent actions need to be held accountable for their actions.”

If you aim your weapons at a target containing civilians, then civilians are your target. and you should be held accountable for you actions. You are being very hypocritical here. When terrorists kill civilians, you assume that civilians must be the target but do not apply the same reasoning to the military killing civilians.

...

”In civil law the person who hires a killer is considered as guilty as the one who pulls the trigger. Why should it be different in international law?”

How, exactly, does that relate to military aiming their weapons at civilians?

...

”None of the above have convicted, tried or even indicted non-national organizations or individuals representing such organizations. ”

I could give you a whole list of terrorist who have been convicted and are in prison.

...

”Why not do just the opposite: there are enough nations signed on the Conventions to pass a UN Resolution that can be ratified by the Security Council, making it binding—to require ALL belligerents, national and non-national, to adhere to the Conventions or pay the price. In simpler words, why not require terrorists to operate by the same standards armies are bound by and to be held responsible for their actions?”

You just don’t get it, do you? Combatants and terrorists are two different things. The local population of a state taking up arms against invaders and occupying forces that does not make them terrorists. That is just an excuse paraded by some people who want an excuse to kill civilians.

...

”You counter by placing a higher value on a civilian life than on a military one. How is one human life more valuable than another? Soldiers are human beings, too, you know.”

Soldiers are human beings who have signed up to take part in war and, unless they are incredibly stupid, accept that being shot is part of the job and being killed is part of the risk they choose to take.

Civilians do not volunteer for that, so yes - in a war civilian lives are of higher value. What you are suggesting is effectively that civilians must die to protect soldiers; that soldiers can sacrifice civilians to protect their own lives.

...

”Unlike you, I have buried relatives who were murdered by terrorists.”

How sad, but how many people have buried relatives killed by military? It was probably very sad for them too. And who do you think kills the most civilians - terrorist or military? I can assure you that there are a lot more very sad people burying dead relatives thanks to the military, but you insist that it is okay. You have to get over the ’we kill=good; they kill=bad’ mindset. Killing *any *civilian is wrong, even when you favourite military does it.

...

”The theory of the Geneva Conventions is fine, even praiseworthy, but in a changing world, with a changing face of warfare, they have not kept up to reality.”

Yet you are unable to state specifically where they fail. There is nothing wrong with GC, it is just that some parties wish to legalise their desire to kill civilians and feel irritated that GC gets in the way. It is notable that those same parties are invariably those accused of breaking GC. Basically it is a ’we are not wrong for breaking GC - GC is wrong for being there’ argument, an attempt to claim moral high-ground while behaving like terrorists.

...

”I will say one last thing, as a former crew, squad and platoon commander: in battle, the life of each of my soldiers is more important to me than the life of a civilian that my enemy is hiding behind while trying to kill my men.”

Then you are part of the problem, and a good example of why we need GC and some war-crime trials to enforce it. Killing civilians to protect your troops is callously slaughtering innocents to achieve your aim - just as a terrorist does. I sure as hell would not be bragging about morals like that in a public forum....

RF: “There is every reason to get past it, because Protocol 1 article 44 modified the definition.”

Since my country is not signed on Protocol 1, any reference to that protocol is irrelevant to this discussion. The definition of combatant from the 3rd Convention remains applicable, with its implications.
= = =
RF: “The part where it didn’t get modified by protocol 1....

“You may wish to pretend that Protocol 1 doesn’t exist, but it does and it says that a combatant is still a combatant even if he breaks GC, and he is still a combatant if he is not in uniform, and he is still a combatant when he puts his weapon down. The principle is very simple: if they are fighting they are combatants.”

See above. For my arguments, Protocol 1 is irrelevant, since my country has not signed it.
= = =
RF: “Says who? But so what - ’oh my... they moved several hundred meters without a gun. They must have been pretending to be civilians....’ Have you any idea how ludicrous that sounds? It makes about as much sense as saying that a regular soldier out of uniform is impersonating a civilian.”

The fact remains that a combatant dressed in civilian clothing, lacking the “fixed and distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance” and moving from one area to another of a battlefield (deploying), using his apparent “civilian status” as camouflage with the intent of re-arming himself and fighting is considered perfidy.

A genuine civilian who finds himself on a battlefield will do everything in his power to “get the Hell out of Dodge” as fast as he possibly can. A live battlefield is not a place where people “decide to take a walking tour” if they have any sense at all.
= = =
RF: “Oh, I have no doubt at all that they sometimes put their guns down. Why wouldn’t they? What stretches the imagination is saying it is illegal for them to do that...”

Read the Conventions. It IS illegal for a combatant to deploy when he is impersonating a non-combatant (i.e. move about unarmed, without the “fixed and distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance”).
= = =
RF: “If they are soldiers, they are a fair target *because* they are soldiers. It kind of goes with the job.”

This is a terrorist’s answer—that any person in uniform is a “legitimate target”.
= = =
Is this familiar to you? ”Our definition is that anyone who is involved with terrorism within Hamas is a valid target. This ranges from the strictly military institutions and includes the political institutions that provide the logistical funding and human resources for the terrorist arm.”

By that definition - the IDF definition - there are no innocents, and your guy in the supply depot is definitely fair game. Terrorists?

This is an interesting (and erroneous) take on a description of the TO&E of a terrorist organization. In a military, logistics and HR are integral parts of the military and considered legitimate targets. According to you, they have no protection under the Conventions, so why should the other belligerent party? They do not qualify for the status of non-combatant civilians.

On the other hand, when Hamas claims that “there are no innocents”, this includes women, children, elderly people and even babies—look at the names and ages of Israeli casualties of terrorism—all these have died simply for being Israeli—and even in that Hamas has failed miserably, since they have killed dozens of Arab-Israelis, tourists and even a team of US diplomats.
= = =
MD: ”You’re also you’re saying that if Syria, for instance, attacked Israel, then if the IDF bombs Syrian headquarters in Damascus, it would be perfectly legitimate. Thank you, we’ll keep that in mind…”

RF: “How on earth do you work that one out?”

From your own comment in a previous post: “You can bomb your enemy any time and anywhere.” Do you deny that you made that statement?

Of course, that IS a terrorist’s response…
= = =
RF: “Correct. I will never congratulate anybody for knowingly taking innocent lives. Why do you have a problem with that?”

Because you have no way of determining whether lives taken were innocent or not, or taken deliberately or not, without a full and complete investigation—an investigation that you have no way of making.

Neither congratulations nor condemnations are in order before you know for sure what has happened. Opinions are not relevant, only facts.
= = =
RF: “Some civilians may be accidentally killed, yes, and that is regrettable though unavoidable but what you are talking about is DELIBERATELY killing civilians. That is not the same, not by a long way.”

I guess you do have reading comprehension problems—either that, or your definition of “deliberately” is different than mine. Look it up in the dictionary. Nowhere have I claimed that civilians were the target.
= = =
” I don’t disagree with the Conventions per se, just with the one-sided manner in which they are applied.”

They apply to the people who sign them. Why do you have such a problem understanding that?

Then what you’re saying (and I suppose the Soviets and Nazis would have agreed with you) is that if you’re not signed, you have an unwritten license to behave in any way you wish, no matter how savage. (Check it out—because the USSR had not signed the 1929 Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war, neither side adhered to that Convention—and the death tolls of PoWs from both sides was in the millions on the Ostfront.)
= = =
MD: ”Any unit taking fire has to return fire. This is a basic rule of combat. ”

RF: “Why? Do they lack basic thinking skills or what? If that is the best they can do - ”he shoots so we must shoot” - then they are lacking training. Did the UN troops in Lebanon blindly, mindlessly shoot back when they came under fire from the IDF?”

I’ll try to explain this in simple terms, so a person who has never been a soldier can understand: when fired upon, you return fire to force the party firing on you to take cover, then you take cover, assess the situation and act accordingly. Is that so hard to understand?

As far as the skill levels of the UNIFIL troops go, since they’ve been unsuccessful in fulfilling any part of their mandate to date, it wouldn’t surprise me to find their basic military skill level is somewhere between low and nonexistent.

In Israel, we call them “UNIFutILity”.
= = =
RF: “If you aim your weapons at a target containing civilians, then civilians are your target. and you should be held accountable for you actions.

How do you define “a target containing civilians”? This hints at a target that has a mixture of civilians AND combatants—what are your criteria? Is it one combatant to a hundred civilians? Is it one hundred combatants to one civilian? Is it something in between? What is acceptable and what is not? Furthermore, if you can’t prove that aim is deliberately being taken on civilians and not on the combatants mixed among them, you have no case here.
= = =
RF: “You are being very hypocritical here. When terrorists kill civilians, you assume that civilians must be the target but do not apply the same reasoning to the military killing civilians.”

It’s not all that hard… terrorists, by the simple fact that they ARE terrorists, attack civilians as their target of choice. On the other hand, any military has defined objectives that do not include the indiscriminate killing of civilians (historical exception: Nazi Germany).
= = =
MD: ”In civil law the person who hires a killer is considered as guilty as the one who pulls the trigger. Why should it be different in international law?”

RF: “How, exactly, does that relate to military aiming their weapons at civilians?”

As I mentioned above, no genuine civilian takes a walking tour of a live battlefield. Any civilian with the sense to get out of the rain will at least attempt to find some way to get the Hell out of there (so would most soldiers, if they had the chance).

If a belligerent deliberately surrounds a position with civilians or mixes civilians among their own fighters, the parallel should be obvious. The party that deliberately places civilians in harm’s way for their own purposes is at least as guilty as the party that actually harms them, since they wouldn’t have been in harm’s way if they had not been placed there by the belligerent in the first place.
= = =
RF: “I could give you a whole list of terrorist who have been convicted and are in prison.”

Name one terrorist LEADER serving jail time from an international court. All you have convicted were small fry who mean nothing except a “justification” for their colleagues to hijack civilians and hold them against the release of their colleague.
= = =
RF: “You just don’t get it, do you? Combatants and terrorists are two different things.”

Finally, we agree on something.
= = =
RF: “The local population of a state taking up arms against invaders and occupying forces that does not make them terrorists. That is just an excuse paraded by some people who want an excuse to kill civilians.”

The moment a civilian takes up arms, he ceases to be a civilian and become a combatant, forfeiting all protection inherent in the civilian status. There’s no question of “excuses” here—except for the attempt to continue calling them civilians after they have taken up arms.
= = =
RF: “Soldiers are human beings who have signed up to take part in war and, unless they are incredibly stupid, accept that being shot is part of the job and being killed is part of the risk they choose to take.

“Civilians do not volunteer for that, so yes - in a war civilian lives are of higher value. What you are suggesting is effectively that civilians must die to protect soldiers; that soldiers can sacrifice civilians to protect their own lives.”

The use of human shields is never “accidental”, but always deliberate. As mentioned before, civilians finding themselves on a battlefield will make their best efforts to get off the battlefield as quickly as possible. A belligerent who uses their own population as human shields, whether voluntary or involuntary, does this for two reasons: first, in the hopes that the presence of those shields will hinder their enemy or deter him from engaging in combat. The second reason is more strategic than tactical: propaganda. If even a single human shield is injured, the party using the human shields will announce it to the world, ignoring the pertinent facts that: a) that civilians SHOULD not be placed in harm’s way; b) they WOULD not have been placed in harm’s way had that same party not deployed them as human shields, and; c) that the same belligerent party will often include some or all of his own casualties in the list of civilians and/or “manufacture” civilian deaths to suit his purposes if his enemy doesn’t do so.

There will always be “willing idiots” ready to take up a cry against such manufactured war crimes—and such belligerents depend on the reaction of these “willing idiots” to demand that the conflict stop on humanitarian grounds—usually when they see defeat on the near horizon.
= = =
RF: “Killing *any *civilian is wrong, even when you favourite military does it.”

It is never a question of “favorites”, but of right and justice. Blanket generalizations can never be applicable to any and every situation imaginable. If “killing any civilian is wrong”, then it shouldn’t matter who did the killing or whether their party signed the Conventions or not—it is wrong. To kill their own civilians and blame it on the enemy’s non-compliance with the Conventions is even more “wrong”—it’s reprehensible.
= = =
RF: “Yet you are unable to state specifically where they fail. There is nothing wrong with GC, it is just that some parties wish to legalise their desire to kill civilians and feel irritated that GC gets in the way. It is notable that those same parties are invariably those accused of breaking GC. Basically it is a ’we are not wrong for breaking GC - GC is wrong for being there’ argument, an attempt to claim moral high-ground while behaving like terrorists.”

On the contrary, I have advanced an option that you ignore. Make the Geneva Conventions and Protocols binding to all belligerents in any conflict, or, alternatively, make the choice an “opt out” rather than an “opt in” choice. See which countries and/or organizations opt out.

IF your concern is for justice and right, then either of the above options should be appealing.
= = =
RF: “Then you are part of the problem, and a good example of why we need GC and some war-crime trials to enforce it. Killing civilians to protect your troops is callously slaughtering innocents to achieve your aim - just as a terrorist does. I sure as hell would not be bragging about morals like that in a public forum...”

The real problem is those who, like you, insist in making blanket pronouncements that are as divorced from the reality of the situations as a Catholic priest when he dispenses advice about marriage: he may know the theories, but his practical knowledge, experience and understanding of the topic are zero.

Hurling accusations without verification, investigation or concrete facts don’t make them true. Even the worst of Nazi war criminals surviving WW II were tried only after extensive investigations proved the allegations against them. Why does today’s military deserve less? Do you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, or do you prefer to exercise that option at your own discretion solely for your own “favorites”?

Some of your responses parallel or even parrot claims by terrorist organizations and their supporters about the “illegitimacy” of their enemies’ methods while giving the terrorists carte blanche to wage war on the most nefarious and cowardly of terms—with far more illegitimate methods.

In closing, the Geneva Conventions were never intended to be an invincible, inviolable suit of armor for civilians with the bad luck to find themselves on a battlefield “at any cost” to any military, nor were they intended to give a belligerent the advantage of one-sided restrictions. Anyone who thinks that they are is either a fool or completely detached from reality.

”Since my country is not signed on Protocol 1, any reference to that protocol is irrelevant to this discussion. The definition of combatant from the 3rd Convention remains applicable, with its implications.”
”See above. For my arguments, Protocol 1 is irrelevant, since my country has not signed it.”

No... the terrorists didn’t sign it either, so you both have something in common. I wonder why your country refuses to operate to the same standards as everybody else in the civilised world?

...
”The fact remains that a combatant dressed in civilian clothing, lacking the “fixed and distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance” and moving from one area to another of a battlefield (deploying), using his apparent “civilian status” as camouflage with the intent of re-arming himself and fighting is considered perfidy.

A genuine civilian who finds himself on a battlefield will do everything in his power to “get the Hell out of Dodge” as fast as he possibly can. A live battlefield is not a place where people “decide to take a walking tour” if they have any sense at all.”

”As I mentioned above, no genuine civilian takes a walking tour of a live battlefield. ”


Then how can the guy walking around the battlefield be impersonating a civilian? You are contradicting yourself!

...


”This is a terrorist’s answer—that any person in uniform is a “legitimate target”.


Do you want to think about that for a minute, and then try again?

...

”On the other hand, when Hamas claims that “there are no innocents”, this includes women, children, elderly people and even babies—look at the names and ages of Israeli casualties of terrorism—all these have died simply for being Israeli—and even in that Hamas has failed miserably, since they have killed dozens of Arab-Israelis, tourists and even a team of US diplomats.”

On the other hand, the IDF kill a lot more women, children, elderly people, end even babies than Hamas do. By your own definition, they are worse terrorists than Hamas.

The IDF justify a lot of those civilians by saying they are ’involved with’ terrorism - all those civilian policemen the IDf killed are a good example. The whole point of GC is to protect civilians from such rogue militaries.

...

”From your own comment in a previous post: “You can bomb your enemy any time and anywhere.” Do you deny that you made that statement?”
I am asking you how this vague ’Syrian Headquarters’ fits the definition of a military target...

If there where a bunch of Syrian tanks gathering just outside Damascus, would the IAF refuse to bomb them because they are, in your laughable opinion, ”not on the battlefield”, or would they go ahead and bomb them because you can bomb your enemy anytime and anywhere?


...
”Because you have no way of determining whether lives taken were innocent or not, or taken deliberately or not, without a full and complete investigation—an investigation that you have no way of making.”

If you don’t know, you don’t kill them. That is made very clear in GC - but then that is why you don’t like GC isn’t it?


”I guess you do have reading comprehension problems—either that, or your definition of “deliberately” is different than mine. Look it up in the dictionary. Nowhere have I claimed that civilians were the target.”

That is because your definition of deliberate is wrong. Deliberate simply means ’not accidental’. If you know a bunch of civilians are going to be killed if you drop your bomb, then it is a a deliberate act. Whether the civilians are ’the target’ or not is irrelevant, and just a pathetic excuse for killing innocents. Terrorist can use that excuse too - ”the bus was the target, not the civilians in it”...

...

”Then what you’re saying (and I suppose the Soviets and Nazis would have agreed with you) is that if you’re not signed, you have an unwritten license to behave in any way you wish, no matter how savage. (Check it out—because the USSR had not signed the 1929 Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war, neither side adhered to that Convention—and the death tolls of PoWs from both sides was in the millions on the Ostfront.)”

For the second time..... Hague.International law. Humanitarian law. Criminal law. They all exist you know. I know you are being deliberately dense in an attempt to support your position, but it is NOT a choice of GC or nothing.

Would you say refusing to sign Protocol 1 was an attempt to have a license to kill civilians?

...
”I’ll try to explain this in simple terms, so a person who has never been a soldier can understand: when fired upon, you return fire to force the party firing on you to take cover, then you take cover, assess the situation and act accordingly. Is that so hard to understand?”

That is not an explanation. That is just repeating the same thing in different words. Why can’t they take cover and assess the situation *before* returning fire? You know... think first shoot later rather than shoot first think later...

...

”As far as the skill levels of the UNIFIL troops go, since they’ve been unsuccessful in fulfilling any part of their mandate to date, it wouldn’t surprise me to find their basic military skill level is somewhere between low and nonexistent.”

In contrast to an army whose only enemy is civilians who can’t fight back? If the mandate is ’kill civilians’, then yes - the IDF is very successful. They even have to use human shields, and other war-crimes, to do that...

...
”How do you define “a target containing civilians”?”

Wow... that’s a tough one. Maybe - just guessing - you could define it as the target, the thing you want to attack, having civilians in it?

...

”This hints at a target that has a mixture of civilians AND combatants—what are your criteria? Is it one combatant to a hundred civilians? Is it one hundred combatants to one civilian? Is it something in between? What is acceptable and what is not? Furthermore, if you can’t prove that aim is deliberately being taken on civilians and not on the combatants mixed among them, you have no case here.”

Well... that is all laid out in Protocol 1, but you people don’t want those restraints against killing civilians so you will just have to use GC 4 article 3 , and Hague’s principle of proportionality. As I said, it is not GC or nothing.

If you aim at a target that contains civilians, you are aiming at civilians. Unless you want to give terrorists the same excuse?

...


”If a belligerent deliberately surrounds a position with civilians or mixes civilians among their own fighters, the parallel should be obvious. The party that deliberately places civilians in harm’s way for their own purposes is at least as guilty as the party that actually harms them, since they wouldn’t have been in harm’s way if they had not been placed there by the belligerent in the first place.”

That is a good argument if you accept that the guys with the weapons, making decisions on what to attack, have no brains.
...

Name one terrorist LEADER serving jail time from an international court.

Hambali.

Why does it have to be an international court - criminal law can be domestic. Why does it have to be a leader? They don’t usually blow stuff up in person.

...
”The moment a civilian takes up arms, he ceases to be a civilian and become a combatant”

No... not quite. When he starts resisting the invading attackers he becomes a combatant. The clue is in the word COMBATant. He can have a weapon and still be civilian.

...
”The use of human shields is never “accidental”, but always deliberate.”

I am not entirely convinced by that. It is possible that their is simply nowhere else to fight. Where, in a place like Hong Kong or Singapore, or even Gazza for that matter, can anyone go to fight that is *not* among civilians? Most accusations of human shields prove to be false. In the majority of cases it is just an excuse made by those who killed the civilians.

...
”A belligerent who uses their own population as human shields, whether voluntary or involuntary, does this for two reasons: first, in the hopes that the presence of those shields will hinder their enemy or deter him from engaging in combat.”

What about a belligerent such as the IDF who use their opponents population as a human shield?

...

”If “killing any civilian is wrong”, then it shouldn’t matter who did the killing or whether their party signed the Conventions or not—it is wrong. ”

Yep. Terrorist or IDF, it is still wrong. Now... who kills the most civilians?

...
”On the contrary, I have advanced an option that you ignore. Make the Geneva Conventions and Protocols binding to all belligerents in any conflict, or, alternatively, make the choice an “opt out” rather than an “opt in” choice. See which countries and/or organizations opt out.”

I didn’t ignore it. I pointed out that Hague - it does exist you know - is the rules of war and applies to all. GC is about protecting civilians, but you don’t seem to understand this

It would be interesting to see who opted out of Protocol 1, yes. Why would any country want to do that?

...

”Hurling accusations without verification, investigation or concrete facts don’t make them true. Even the worst of Nazi war criminals surviving WW II were tried only after extensive investigations proved the allegations against them. Why does today’s military deserve less? Do you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, or do you prefer to exercise that option at your own discretion solely for your own “favorites”?”

Who needs to investigate or verify anything when YOU have already confessed to putting the lives of your troops above the lives of civilians?

”the life of each of my soldiers is more important to me than the life of a civilian that my enemy is hiding behind while trying to kill my men”

Don’t think I’ve forgotten you—I’ve just been busy.
= = =
RF: “No... the terrorists didn’t sign it either, so you both have something in common. I wonder why your country refuses to operate to the same standards as everybody
else in the civilised world?”

Since 21 countries that signed the Conventions are not signed on Protocol 1, along with 37 other countries that have registered reservations/declarations about Protocol 1, your comment is both incorrect and inflammatory. 58 countries out of the 194 signed on the conventions have either refused to sign these changes or have reservations—over ¼ of the total. Do they ALL have “something in common” with terrorists? When that many parties have a problem with a contract, there’s something in the contract that needs reviewing. As a matter of interest, Singapore is also among the countries that have not signed Protocol 1.

To date, terrorists have not signed ANY such Conventions—and that is my objection to the entire principle of the Conventions—that they ignore a type of party that is a major contributor to conflicts in this century. The way to stop terrorism is NOT to try to “bomb them out of existence”, with all the inherent flaws in that method, but to force them to be accountable for their actions—hunted, tried and convicted by international courts for the crimes they commit. There is no better deterrent than being held accountable for your actions.
= = =
RF: “Then how can the guy walking around the battlefield be impersonating a civilian? You are contradicting yourself!”

Really? Since you’ve never been on a battlefield, let me give you some examples: a group of people made up of a man, woman and some children will generally be evaluated as a family trying to find a way off the battlefield. A man with children or a woman with children will also be evaluated as such. A single person or two men moving alone will be more closely investigated.
= = =
MD: ”This is a terrorist’s answer—that any person in uniform is a “legitimate target”.

RF: “Do you want to think about that for a minute, and then try again? “

Why do I have to think this over? It was YOUR statement. Perhaps YOU would like to think it over for a minute? In a lot of countries, the people who come to read the gas meter or deliver mail wear uniforms, too.
= = =
RF: “On the other hand, the IDF kill a lot more women, children, elderly people, end even babies than Hamas do. By your own definition, they are worse terrorists than Hamas.”

It might interest you to know that since the disengagement of 2005, more Palestinians have killed Palestinians than the IDF has, including the casualty list of Operation Cast Lead. Do your homework—go to the Palestinian human rights organizations’ web sites, you’ll see plenty of complaints about Palestinian human rights abuses against Palestinians, too.
= = =
RF: “The IDF justify a lot of those civilians by saying they are ’involved with’ terrorism - all those civilian policemen the IDf killed are a good example. The whole point of GC is to protect civilians from such rogue militaries.”

Hamas itself has admitted that its “civilian police” were assigned to fighting units, taking away this claim. Once again, do your homework.

A “civilian” who allows arms to be stockpiled and distributed on his property certainly is “involved with” terrorism. A civilian who responds to a terrorist call to act as a human shield to prevent the enemy from bombing a particular location is “involved with” terrorism (remember the rulings on voluntary human shields?).
= = =
MD: ”From your own comment in a previous post: ‘You can bomb your enemy any time and anywhere.’ Do you deny that you made that statement?”

RF: “I am asking you how this vague ’Syrian Headquarters’ fits the definition of a military target...”

You’re asking this now, but you didn’t ask it when I posed the question. Why the change?
= = =
RF: “If there where a bunch of Syrian tanks gathering just outside Damascus, would the IAF refuse to bomb them because they are, in your laughable opinion, ”not on the battlefield”, or would they go ahead and bomb them because you can bomb your enemy anytime and anywhere?”

If they were south of the city and headed towards a live battlefield, the answer would be yes—if they were north of the city and heading the Iraqi border in an attempt to find sanctuary, then probably not, especially if there were higher-priority targets. Position and apparent intent mean a lot in those situations.
= = =.
RF: “If you don’t know, you don’t kill them. That is made very clear in GC - but then that is why you don’t like GC isn’t it?”

My comment was directed at YOU, not anyone else. You condemn without knowing any of the facts on the ground, out of hand. Is this your concept of justice? Kangaroo court would be more accurate if that’s your solution.

A civilian is killed—you condemn, without knowing any of the facts of the matter, because they are your “favorite” civilians. Is that your criterion?
= = =
RF: “That is because your definition of deliberate is wrong. Deliberate simply means ’not accidental’. If you know a bunch of civilians are going to be killed if you drop your bomb, then it is a a deliberate act. Whether the civilians are ’the target’ or not is irrelevant, and just a pathetic excuse for killing innocents. Terrorist can use that excuse too - ”the bus was the target, not the civilians in it”...”

You seem to know the excuses terrorists use quite well—far better than you understand a lot of other things, apparently. “Deliberate” means “on purpose”, it does NOT mean “not accidental”. If I aim and shoot at a terrorist but miss, hitting a civilian by mistake, that is not deliberate. If you want to accuse me of deliberately shooting at that civilian, you had better have proof that can stand up in a court of law if you don’t want to find yourself in the dock for false accusation.
= = =
RF: “Would you say refusing to sign Protocol 1 was an attempt to have a license to kill civilians?”

Since over a quarter of the countries signed on the GC either did not sign Protocol 1 or registered reservations/declarations (as noted above), you’re accusing 58 countries of this. Think again. Doesn’t that number of countries indicate to you that there’s something fishy in the wording? It does to me. While you’re at it, explain to me why Singapore, where you live, has not signed Protocol 1? Does Singapore have “something in common with terrorists”, too?

In Israel’s specific case, Protocol 1 was specifically written regarding “International Conflicts”, so Protocol 1 is irrelevant in the context of its conflict with the Palestinians unless and until Palestine becomes a national entity. Can you tell me when Hamas became a national entity, qualifying for Protocol 1?
= = =
RF: “That is not an explanation. That is just repeating the same thing in different words. Why can’t they take cover and assess the situation *before* returning fire? You know... think first shoot later rather than shoot first think later...”

Again, that may be your opinion, and you have a right to it… but it’s an opinion born of ignorance. Events often unfold fast on a battlefield, faster than you can imagine. Making your enemy duck rather than continue firing at you while you find and take cover can be the margin between life and death more often than not.

Becoming a soldier may mean that you accept the risk of being killed, but it does NOT mean that you have agreed to become a target in a shooting gallery.
= = =
RF: “In contrast to an army whose only enemy is civilians who can’t fight back? If the mandate is ’kill civilians’, then yes - the IDF is very successful. They even have to use human shields, and other war-crimes, to do that...”

Hamas is a terrorist organization that has fired over 13,000 rockets and mortar bombs into Israel over the past 8 years. They have boasted of having a force of over 30,000 fighters fully armed and claimed that they “would make Gaza a killing field for the IDF”, so your claim of “whose only enemy is civilians who can’t fight back” is a blatant lie that even those you want to protect deny… go back to the drawing board, Orville, that one will never fly.

Once again, if you have evidence of your claims that can stand up in court, file charges. If you don’t, you’re making false accusations and slandering the IDF.
= = =
MD: ”How do you define “a target containing civilians”?”

RF: “Wow... that’s a tough one. Maybe - just guessing - you could define it as the target, the thing you want to attack, having civilians in it?”

That’s a cop-out and you know it. The truth is that you can’t answer, because you can’t accept or don’t understand the actual wording of the conventions: that “the military advantage must outweigh the possible civilian casualties”.
= = =
MD: ”This hints at a target that has a mixture of civilians AND combatants—what are your criteria? Is it one combatant to a hundred civilians? Is it one hundred combatants to one civilian? Is it something in between? What is acceptable and what is not? Furthermore, if you can’t prove that aim is deliberately being taken on civilians and not on the combatants mixed among them, you have no case here.”
RF: “Well... that is all laid out in Protocol 1, but you people don’t want those restraints against killing civilians so you will just have to use GC 4 article 3 , and Hague’s principle of proportionality. As I said, it is not GC or nothing.”

That’s right—but without expertise and without investigation, you have as much chance of deciding what is proportional and what is not as the man in the moon does.
= = =
RF: “If you aim at a target that contains civilians, you are aiming at civilians. Unless you want to give terrorists the same excuse?”

Terrorists need no excuse to aim at targets containing civilians, it’s their bread-and-butter. Take, for example, the 13,000 rockets and mortar bombs that Hamas et al fired at Israel over a period of 8 years. None were aimed at military targets. What “excuse” did they need to shell civilian towns and villages?
= = =
MD: ”If a belligerent deliberately surrounds a position with civilians or mixes civilians among their own fighters, the parallel should be obvious. The party that deliberately places civilians in harm’s way for their own purposes is at least as guilty as the party that actually harms them, since they wouldn’t have been in harm’s way if they had not been placed there by the belligerent in the first place.”

RF: “That is a good argument if you accept that the guys with the weapons, making decisions on what to attack, have no brains.”

Again, you ignore the wording of the various rulings—the military advantage must outweigh the possibility of civilian casualties. That’s a decision that no one sitting thousands of kilometers away from the fighting can determine without a thorough investigation. THAT should be a no-brainer—unless one’s purpose is to defend the commission of war crimes by their “favorite” side.
= = =
Name one terrorist LEADER serving jail time from an international court.
Hambali.
Why does it have to be an international court - criminal law can be domestic. Why does it have to be a leader? They don’t usually blow stuff up in person.

Your own references were to international courts, now you weasel out of it - and Hambali was never tried, just captured and thrown into Guantanamo.
= = =
MD: ”The moment a civilian takes up arms, he ceases to be a civilian and become a combatant”

RF: “No... not quite. When he starts resisting the invading attackers he becomes a combatant. The clue is in the word COMBATant. He can have a weapon and still be civilian.”

Oh, sure, he’s just out to bag some ducks for dinner or protect himself from alien abductions, right? Any person bearing arms in a combat zone is presumed to be a combatant. Nice try, but that one won’t fly, either.
= = =
MD: ”The use of human shields is never “accidental”, but always deliberate.”

RF: I am not entirely convinced by that. It is possible that their is simply nowhere else to fight. Where, in a place like Hong Kong or Singapore, or even Gazza for that matter, can anyone go to fight that is *not* among civilians? Most accusations of human shields prove to be false. In the majority of cases it is just an excuse made by those who killed the civilians.

IF the belligerent is insistent on fighting and gives a tinker’s damn for its own civilians, it can always send them to surrender to the enemy, placing the burden of feeding, housing, clothing them and providing medical care on that enemy—unless they WANT civilian casualties for use as a propaganda weapon.

Before you assume that “most accusations of human shields prove to be false”, see what Hamas MP Fathi Hammad broadcast on 29/02/2008: “[The enemies of Allah] do not know that the Palestinian people has developed its [methods] of death and death-seeking. For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: ‘We desire death like you desire life.’” (Courtesy of MEMRI-TV).

He is quite adamant that the Palestinians have created a culture of human shields and seems quite proud of it. Was he lying?
= = =
RF: What about a belligerent such as the IDF who use their opponents population as a human shield?

If you can support this claim with evidence that can stand up in court, file charges. If you can’t, you become liable for prosecution under charges of false accusations and slander. Talk is cheap, prove what you claim with evidence that can stand up in court.
= = =
RF: “Yep. Terrorist or IDF, it is still wrong. Now... who kills the most civilians?”

Since the disengagement of 2005, more Palestinians have died at the hands of other Palestinians, including the casualties of “Operation Cast Lead”. So say Palestinian human rights organizations.
= = =
RF: “I didn’t ignore it. I pointed out that Hague - it does exist you know - is the rules of war and applies to all. GC is about protecting civilians, but you don’t seem to understand this.”

Are you trying to tell me that the Hague Conventions on Land Warfare are binding for terrorists? Pull my other leg, it’s shorter. Once again, the Geneva Conventions are not about protecting civilians “at any cost”—only that “the military advantage must outweigh the possibility of civilian casualties”. I suppose you can’t digest that because you can’t understand what a “military advantage” is. No surprise there.
= = =
RF: “It would be interesting to see who opted out of Protocol 1, yes. Why would any country want to do that?”

Ask the government of Singapore. It’s one of the 21 countries not signed on Protocol 1. Just to make it easy for you, here’s a list: Afghanistan, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Bhutan, Eritrea, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Kiribati, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Nepal, Papua/New Guinea, Singapore, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Turkey and Tuvalu. The countries that registered reservations/declarations about Protocol 1 are: Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Croatia, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, Holy See (Vatican), Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea (South), Lichtenstein, Malta, Mauritania, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UAE and the UK. I think you should review what Protocol 1 says and why these countries have reservations.
= = =
RF: “Who needs to investigate or verify anything when YOU have already confessed to putting the lives of your troops above the lives of civilians?”

You really need some lessons on the rules of evidence, my friend. A statement of opinion is far from being a “confession” of anything. In practical terms, what I think doesn’t matter, what I DO is what matters. Unless you can bring concrete evidence that will stand up in court that I (or anyone else) deliberately targeted civilians, you haven’t got a leg to stand on—and will likely face charges for false accusation.

If this is the kind of “evidence” you use to condemn anyone, the next step is your own trial for slander and false accusations. Actions have consequences—not only for the parties involved in a conflict, but for third parties that support the alleged war crimes of one side while condemning the same or lesser alleged crimes of the other without proof. IF that’s your concept of “justice”, then you’re no better than the terrorists you seem so desperate to defend.
= = = = =
If, by some remote chance, you’re interested in viewing the claims of both sides of the conflict, you can read the official Israeli government report here:

http://my.ynet.co.il/pic/news/GazaOp.pdf

“Since 21 countries that signed the Conventions are not signed on Protocol 1, along with 37 other countries that have registered reservations/declarations about Protocol 1, your comment is both incorrect and inflammatory. 58 countries out of the 194 signed on the conventions have either refused to sign these changes or have reservations—over ¼ of the total. Do they ALL have “something in common” with terrorists? When that many parties have a problem with a contract, there’s something in the contract that needs reviewing.”
When 173 countries sign, and 21 don’t, the problem lies with the countries that refuse. “It is the convention that is wrong, not us” is a feeble argument when all the major countries have signed up to protocol 1. Are you really suggesting that they are all wrong?
You clearly do not understand what a ‘reservation’ is either. They do not signify disagreement as you imply. A reservation “purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State (provided that such reservations are not incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty).”
Note the “provided that such reservations are not incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty.” at the end. An example is the United Kingdom, whose ‘reservation’ on Protocol 1 is that it doesn’t prohibit the use of nuclear weapons.
*****
“ As a matter of interest, Singapore is also among the countries that have not signed Protocol 1.”
“ Ask the government of Singapore.”
“ While you’re at it, explain to me why Singapore, where you live, has not signed Protocol 1?”
I see nothing of interest in that, or any particular reason to ask the government of Singapore, as ‘where I live’ is both irrelevant and changes every few years.
*****
“ Just to make it easy for you, here’s a list: Afghanistan, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Bhutan, Eritrea, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Kiribati, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Nepal, Papua/New Guinea, Singapore, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Turkey and Tuvalu.”
Afghanistan... Iraq... Turkey... Myanmar... Sri Lanka. What a stellar list. If you think being in that league - that even Iran has risen above - is good enough standards for Israel then fair enough, but personally I would prefer to be ranked with the civilised nations. If my country where on that list, I sure as hell wouldn’t be bragging about it in a blog!
*****
“To date, terrorists have not signed ANY such Conventions—and that is my objection to the entire principle of the Conventions—that they ignore a type of party that is a major contributor to conflicts in this century.”
Has it ever crossed your mind that only governments can sign GC?
*****
“ A single person or two men moving alone will be more closely investigated.”
Then how can the guy walking around the battlefield be impersonating a civilian? You are contradicting yourself- again!
*****

“MD: ”This is a terrorist’s answer—that any person in uniform is a “legitimate target”.
RF: “Do you want to think about that for a minute, and then try again? “
Why do I have to think this over? It was YOUR statement. Perhaps YOU would like to think it over for a minute?”
It seems that I overestimated you. Let me explain: militaries wear uniforms. They fight other uniform-wearing militaries. This is legal, and is not usually regarded as terrorism.
Terrorism is killing civilians, who tend NOT to wear uniforms....
*****
“It might interest you to know that since the disengagement of 2005, more Palestinians have killed Palestinians than the IDF has, including the casualty list of Operation Cast Lead. Do your homework—go to the Palestinian human rights organizations’ web sites, you’ll see plenty of complaints about Palestinian human rights abuses against Palestinians, too.”
Israelis kill more Israelis than Palestinians do too. So what?
That is just evasion, a straw man, to avoid the uncomfortable truth that the IDF kills more civilians - far more - than Palestinians do.
It is interesting that you standards have sunk to “terrorist do it so it is okay for Israel to do it” . That kind of confirms my original comment.
*****
“Hamas itself has admitted that its “civilian police” were assigned to fighting units, taking away this claim. Once again, do your homework.”
Let me confirm this. What you are saying now is that - in your opinion - it is okay to bomb civilians targets and kill a bunch of civilians if there is a chance that the bomb *might* kill an *off-duty* combatant?
You said earlier: “Blowing up a bus full of civilians because there is one soldier on leave in the bus is an excuse for such an attack, not a reason—this is terrorism.” Looks like you are holding dual standards to me.
I have done my homework, and Hamas said nothing of the sort. The only people pushing police = combatant are the Israelis with their unilateral redefinition of combatant.
My homework tells me that the ICRC definition of a combatant is someone “directly engaged in hostilities”. Note the word ‘directly’ - that makes bombing police stations on the chance that there may be a combatant there and indiscriminate attack and a war-crime under international law. Are you proud of that?
My homework also turns up Hamas saying that as most Israelis serve in the military they are all valid targets - by Israel’s definition. Something else you have in common...
.....
“A “civilian” who allows arms to be stockpiled and distributed on his property certainly is “involved with” terrorism.”
Wow... America and Switzerland must be knee deep in terrorists...
*****
“RF: “I am asking you how this vague ’Syrian Headquarters’ fits the definition of a military target...”
You’re asking this now, but you didn’t ask it when I posed the question. Why the change?”
There is no change. I pointed out that your idea that military action is confined to some imaginary battlefield is nonsense, and you immediately jumped to bombing this vague, undefined ‘Syrian Headquarters’. *In response* I am asking you to explain how this mythical place becomes the enemy.
*****

“If they were south of the city and headed towards a live battlefield, the answer would be yes”
Then you are contradicting yourself yet again. Earlier you said attacking targets not on this battlefield of yours was terrorism;
“...yours is unlikely to happen on any battlefield—only in distant actions currently defined as “acts of terror”
*****

“RF: “If you don’t know, you don’t kill them. That is made very clear in GC - but then that is why you don’t like GC isn’t it?”
My comment was directed at YOU, not anyone else. You condemn without knowing any of the facts on the ground, out of hand. Is this your concept of justice? Kangaroo court would be more accurate if that’s your solution.”
Another overestimation. Let me explain this too: if it takes an investigation, after the killing, to determine whether the corpse is that of a civilian or not, then it was obviously not known at the time of the killing. If there is doubt whether the target is civilian or not, you don’t attack it. Get it?
Your argument is pathetic anyway. We have 60 years of history to refer to, and many agencies have indeed conducted investigations. They all arrive at the same conclusion that the IDF/IAF kill a hell of a lot of civilians. Way, way more than Palestinians kill.
If that were my countries military, I would be ashamed of them - deeply ashamed. Fortunately, that isn’t the case. We hold ourselves to higher standards than “terrorists and rogue nations do it so we can”. My country has a lot of experience fighting terrorist organisations in urban warfare situations, but they didn’t run up the disgusting civilian death-toll that you seem to be so happy with. They had more sense than to deploy high explosive weapons such as 2,000lb Type 84 JDAMS in urban areas. Seriously - what sort of idiots use weapons like that when there are civilians around?
*****
“Deliberate” means “on purpose”, it does NOT mean “not accidental”.
If it is not accidental, then it is on purpose. They are the same thing...
****
“If I aim and shoot at a terrorist but miss, hitting a civilian by mistake, that is not deliberate.”
No, but it is bloody stupid and clearly failing to take adequate steps to protect civilians.
Your example is close to being dishonest anyway. The IDF kills civilians by using artillery, missiles, or air-strikes and you know that, so you are clearly trying to evade that fact.
If you aim high explosive weapons at a target that you KNOW contains civilians who you KNOW will be killed by that attack, then you are DELIBERATELY killing those civilians.
*****
“In Israel’s specific case, Protocol 1 was specifically written regarding “International Conflicts”, so Protocol 1 is irrelevant in the context of its conflict with the Palestinians unless and until Palestine becomes a national entity. Can you tell me when Hamas became a national entity, qualifying for Protocol 1?”
Can you tell me when Gaza became part of Israel? If it isn’t part of Israel, the GC applies.
I know this is a popular argument put forward by those looking for excuses to kill civilians, but it is factually wrong.
GC 4 article 2 says it applies to “all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict”. What you are referring to - inaccurately - is article 3 that says “ In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions”
As neither Gaza nor the West Bank is ‘the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties’ i.e. Israel it doesn’t apply.
****
“Again, that may be your opinion, and you have a right to it… but it’s an opinion born of ignorance.”
So you are saying that, in your opinion, the intelligent, professional approach is to blast away at anything that moves with no concerns whether the target is a civilian or not?
*****
“Becoming a soldier may mean that you accept the risk of being killed, but it does NOT mean that you have agreed to become a target in a shooting gallery.”
Yes it does. If you don’t like to be shot at you don’t become a soldier. More relevantly, the *last* people to become a target in the shooting gallery are the civilians.
Soldier protect civilians - what part of that do you not understand? Your apparent idea that civilians should be sacrificed to protect soldiers makes you part of the problem GC was created to solve.
*****

“Hamas is a terrorist organization that has fired over 13,000 rockets and mortar bombs into Israel over the past 8 years. They have boasted of having a force of over 30,000 fighters fully armed and claimed that they “would make Gaza a killing field for the IDF”, so your claim of “whose only enemy is civilians who can’t fight back” is a blatant lie that even those you want to protect deny… go back to the drawing board, Orville, that one will never fly.”
You are verging on being a joke. Do Hamas have F-15s, F-16s, Apache helicopters, Mk83/84 J-DAMs, PB500A1s, GBU-39s? Do they have Merkevas or Abrams with UAVs to direct them? Do they have M107/109, Atmos, Rochev, or Gradlar to fight back with?
Compared to Israel’s arsenal, a few home-made rockets is definitely “can’t fight back”. It is not as if they can hit helicopters or aircraft, or take out a tank with them.
13,000 (according to you...) rockets and mortars over 8 years? That is less than a 1 weeks worth for an IDF offensive. Hell, by some accounts it is a days worth.
*****

“MD: ”How do you define “a target containing civilians”?”
RF: “Wow... that’s a tough one. Maybe - just guessing - you could define it as the target, the thing you want to attack, having civilians in it?”
“That’s a cop-out and you know it. The truth is that you can’t answer, because you can’t accept or don’t understand the actual wording of the conventions: that “the military advantage must outweigh the possible civilian casualties”.
It is not a cop out at all. You asked how to define a target containing civilians and I told you - it contains civilians. Now you are changing it to define military advantage. That is defined in Protocol 1, but you people prefer to be one of the minority that don’t want to know about protecting civilians - right?
*****

“That’s right—but without expertise and without investigation, you have as much chance of deciding what is proportional and what is not as the man in the moon does.”
This is another argument popular with those trying to justify killing civilians, and another argument that is simply wrong.
Proportional is not some vague, undefined term that should be dispensed with so countries such as yours can kill civilians willy-nilly. Proportional is based on two principles The principle of necessity and the principle of distinction.
Let me explain this too. All countries (including Palestine) have a right to self-defence under article 51 of the UN Charter, but this is limited by the principle of proportionality from Rome Statute and IHL.
‘Proportional’ is
Force necessary to prevent further attacks - necessity.
Not directed against targets unconnected with the attacks - distinction.
*****
“None were aimed at military targets. What “excuse” did they need to shell civilian towns and villages?”
You should do your homework. Hamas attacked Tel Nof and Hatzerim air bases.
Once again you are setting Isreali standards as those of terrorists - “terrorist do it so we can”. While this is bad enough, what makes it worse is the technology gap. What you are saying is “Terrorists use primitive, home-made, unguided rockets that they fire off in the general direction of some town. That makes it okay for the IDF to use high-precision guided weapons, so they can observe the civilians in the target and then hit them precisely and kill them”
That argument is laughable.
*****
“Again, you ignore the wording of the various rulings—the military advantage must outweigh the possibility of civilian casualties. That’s a decision that no one sitting thousands of kilometers away from the fighting can determine without a thorough investigation. THAT should be a no-brainer—unless one’s purpose is to defend the commission of war crimes by their “favorite” side.”
This is another one that is not the vaguely termed carte-blanche for killing civilians that you think it is - I suggest you find a dictionary and see what ‘advantage’ means, and if that is not good enough refer to Protocol 1 or ICRC.
A *concrete* military advantage is one that actively progresses the war towards its conclusion, referred to as ‘military necessity’. Let me explain: imagine that building X contains 25 civilians. If attacking that building is necessary for your army to cross a bridge into the capital, capturing the government and ending the war, then nobody is going to condemn you for killing those 25 civilians, assuming there is no feasible alternative to using that bridge
If attacking that building does nothing more than allow your army to walk down that street instead of the next street, it has no military necessity, does not progress the war, and as the next street is a feasible alternative you cannot attack the building.
The principle is very simple: shorter wars kill less civilians, so a military advantage justifies civilians deaths. Killing civilians just to protect your soldiers or make life more comfortable for them does not shorten the war and is not allowed.
It may get a bit fuzzy on the borderline cases, but it is nowhere near as undefinable as you say and rarely needs a thorough investigation to determine.
*****
“Your own references were to international courts, now you weasel out of it - and Hambali was never tried, just captured and thrown into Guantanamo.”
Your memory is either short or selective....
“RF: “I could give you a whole list of terrorist who have been convicted and are in prison.”
MD: Name one terrorist LEADER serving jail time from an international court. “

Notice how both ‘leader’ and ‘international court’ are YOUR additions? Hambali, by the way, was tried and sentenced to life imprisonment in Cambodia.

*****

“Oh, sure, he’s just out to bag some ducks for dinner or protect himself from alien abductions, right? Any person bearing arms in a combat zone is presumed to be a combatant. Nice try, but that one won’t fly, either.”
Yes, if he is bearing arms in a combat zone I would assume he was a combatant too, and definitely not impersonating a civilian. But that is not what you said, is it?
“MD: ”The moment a civilian takes up arms, he ceases to be a civilian and become a combatant”
NOW you change it from ‘take up arms’ to ‘bearing arms in a combat zone’. Quite a big change you make there....
*****
“He is quite adamant that the Palestinians have created a culture of human shields and seems quite proud of it. Was he lying?”
Pretty much so, yes. Especially as the *only* source is Memritv and I don’t believe a thing they say.
Memri was founded by Yigal Carmon, after he retired from Israeli Military Intelligence, and his partner is Dr. Meyrav Wurmser, co-author of A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm - the realm being Greater Israel - and an expert on the life and works of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of Revisionist Zionism. The main donor to Memri is the Bradley Foundation, who also funded Project for New American Century.
The obvious political agenda there, AKA propaganda, coupled with a past record of being caught cutting clips and mistranslating renders them something of a joke. It speaks volumes that you quote them to support your position...
*****
“If you can support this claim with evidence that can stand up in court, file charges. If you can’t, you become liable for prosecution under charges of false accusations and slander. Talk is cheap, prove what you claim with evidence that can stand up in court.”
I don’t need to, others have already done it and collected quite a pile of evidence including statements from IDF soldiers. US Congress, the EU, UN, AI, HRW, ICRC - they all investigated and found evidence of IDF war-crimes.
I am sure they would all like to present that evidence in court, but guess what? Your government refuses to allow it. That refusal is a good as an admission of guilt.
You said earlier “There is no better deterrent than being held accountable for your actions.” Does that include IDF accused of war crimes or are you going to contradict yourself by applying dual standards again?

*****

“Are you trying to tell me that the Hague Conventions on Land Warfare are binding for terrorists?”
You have clearly never heard of customary international law...
Let me explain: First their was Hague, 1899 and 1907. After WW2 with is huge loss of civilian life we got GC, which expanded on aspects of Hague to protect civilians.
Since enough states agreed to Hague and GC, plus a few other minor treaties, and they remained in force long enough, all this drifted into law - IHL - via article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice which, on the principle of jus cogens, can apply “international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law”. This is known as customary international law.
In practice, this means that states that sign up to Hague or GC are bound by every aspect of it because they signed it, while individuals or organisations that enter into armed conflict (Hamas or Taliban for example) are bound by the customary aspects of it.
If Israel wanted to drag Hamas into the ICJ for firing rockets they could, even though Hamas have not signed GC or Hague.
Understand now?
*****
“You really need some lessons on the rules of evidence, my friend. A statement of opinion is far from being a “confession” of anything. In practical terms, what I think doesn’t matter, what I DO is what matters.”
Let me remind you of exactly what you said:
“I will say one last thing, as a former crew, squad and platoon commander: in battle, the life of each of my soldiers is more important to me than the life of a civilian that my enemy is hiding behind while trying to kill my men, and my decisions will be made accordingly. Any decent field commander worthy of commanding troops in battle would do the same and take whatever consequences may follow.”
Note particularly the “ my decisions will be made accordingly. Any decent field commander worthy of commanding troops in battle would do the same and take whatever consequences may follow”
What does that mean if it is not a statement of what you would DO? Either you were bullshitting when you wrote that, or you are now squirming to distance yourself from an admission that would sacrifice civilians to protect your troops. I suspect the latter is the more likely.
*****
“If, by some remote chance, you’re interested in viewing the claims of both sides of the conflict, you can read the official Israeli government report here”
I don’t brainwash myself with propaganda, thank you. I will refer to less biased sources....

RF: “Has it ever crossed your mind that only governments can sign GC?”

Has it ever “crossed your mind” that this is exactly one of my contentions? The ‘new reality’ of the 21st century is that belligerents are often non-national entities (read: terrorist organizations), and that without their being bound by the Conventions, they get a ‘license to kill’ indiscriminately—and exercise it indiscriminately. Reading comprehension or willful blindness?
= = =
RF: “Then how can the guy walking around the battlefield be impersonating a civilian”

You seem to have no problem with the idea that a family in civilian clothes might want to move to get off a battlefield, but individuals in civilian clothes won’t move around on a battlefield. How stupid is that statement?

Obviously, some of the single persons may be genuine civilians trying to get off the battlefield and some may not. Since you’ve never seen a battlefield in an urban area, your ignorance might be excusable, but the accusations in your comments overshadow that and indicate that you have a specific agenda—not about the Geneva Conventions at all, just about how they’re applied to Israel and the Palestinians.
= = =
RF: “It seems that I overestimated you. Let me explain: militaries wear uniforms. They fight other uniform-wearing militaries. This is legal, and is not usually regarded as terrorism.

“Terrorism is killing civilians, who tend NOT to wear uniforms...”

Militaries also fight terrorists, who often don’t wear uniforms. In a perfect world, terrorists wouldn’t hide behind human shields or hostages either, but in this world, that’s what they do.

Terrorists “tend NOT to wear uniforms”—except when they’re posing for their propaganda photos. Terrorism is killing civilians not on a battlefield while NOT wearing a uniform. Terrorism is planting a bomb in a shopping mall in Tel Aviv, Haifa or Jerusalem or blowing oneself up in a crowded bus with no warning while dressed in civilian clothes. How many civilian buses, coffee shops or crowded stores have been blown up by Israeli suicide bombers? NONE.

When a military fights terrorists, often the only ones in uniform are the military—the terrorists generally fight in civilian clothes.
= = =
MD: “It might interest you to know that since the disengagement of 2005, more Palestinians have killed Palestinians than the IDF has, including the casualty list of Operation Cast Lead. Do your homework—go to the Palestinian human rights organizations’ web sites, you’ll see plenty of complaints about Palestinian human rights abuses against Palestinians, too.”

RF: “Israelis kill more Israelis than Palestinians do too. So what?”

Oh, so you only care if Palestinian civilians die when the IDF is doing the killing. Am I the only one who sees that as hypocritical?
= = =
RF: “You said earlier: “Blowing up a bus full of civilians because there is one soldier on leave in the bus is an excuse for such an attack, not a reason—this is terrorism.”

“Looks like you are holding dual standards to me.”

Why? Aren’t you the one who insists that “you don’t kill civilians, period”? So how is it “all right” for Hamas to bomb an Israeli bus in Tel Aviv with one soldier and 50 civilians on it, but it’s not “all right” for the IDF to kill one civilian under any circumstances? Again, it seems your agenda has nothing to do with the issues of the Geneva Conventions and everything to do with supporting terrorists. That’s not a “double standard”, that’s downright hypocrisy.
= = =
RF: “My homework also turns up Hamas saying that as most Israelis serve in the military they are all valid targets...”

This is an almost Kafakaesque argument… since when is a 3-month-old baby who might someday become a soldier a “legitimate target”? How about a pregnant woman… she may have served in the IDF at one time, but as a mother is automatically excused from military service. What about those who are reservists one or two months a year—are they “legitimate targets” all year round, or just for the time they’re soldiers?

You’re VERY quick to declare “open season” on all Israelis… that sounds like an agenda that supports terrorism.
= = =
“A “civilian” who allows arms to be stockpiled and distributed on his property certainly is “involved with” terrorism.”

RF: “Wow... America and Switzerland must be knee deep in terrorists...”

Perhaps they are—but in Switzerland, army reservists are required by law to keep their equipment with them at home, including their personal weapons. Having one set of equipment is just a wee bit different from storing dozens of cases of ammunition and hundreds of automatic weapons in the cellar—or can’t you tell the difference?
= = =
RF: “Another overestimation. Let me explain this too: if it takes an investigation, after the killing, to determine whether the corpse is that of a civilian or not, then it was obviously not known at the time of the killing. If there is doubt whether the target is civilian or not, you don’t attack it. Get it?”

If a group of people who are all dressed in civilian clothes are firing at you, how do you tell if X is a civilian or a combatant? At no time in battle are all your enemies firing at you at once, so your statement begins to look like a deliberate attempt to use the Conventions to do battle with impunity—which is what you are demanding. Do YOU get it? (Probably not.)
= = =
RF: “Your argument is pathetic anyway. We have 60 years of history to refer to, and many agencies have indeed conducted investigations. They all arrive at the same conclusion that the IDF/IAF kill a hell of a lot of civilians. Way, way more than Palestinians kill.”

First of all, we have more than 100 years of history—where Arabs have killed Jews in Israel for no reason at all, other than greed. The history of the conflict didn’t start in 1948, but many years before that, when Arabs would try to steal anything from Jewish-owned farms that wasn’t nailed down.

You ignore the 1,183 Israeli civilians killed by terrorists and 8,341 wounded by terrorists since the year 2000 and the 2,500 killed by terrorists between 1920 and 2000 as if they either never happened or are irrelevant. Has the country you’re so proud of that you won’t give its name suffered that proportion of civilian casualties?

More and more, your responses are showing that you care nothing for the Geneva Conventions, except for using them as an excuse to bash Israel.
= = =
RF: “Fortunately, that isn’t the case. We hold ourselves to higher standards than “terrorists and rogue nations do it so we can”. My country has a lot of experience fighting terrorist organisations in urban warfare situations, but they didn’t run up the disgusting civilian death-toll that you seem to be so happy with.”

Happy with a civilian death toll? Now I know you need help. You’re so proud of your country that you won’t give its name, so whatever claims you may make are so much hot air. No one (except Palestinians, who hand out candies and celebrate in the streets every time an Israeli is killed) celebrates death or is happy about it.
= = =
RF: “They had more sense than to deploy high explosive weapons such as 2,000lb Type 84 JDAMS in urban areas. Seriously - what sort of idiots use weapons like that when there are civilians around?”

What kind of idiots attack a country with that kind of arsenal when they know that there will be retaliation sooner or later? What kind of idiots fire their weapons at civilian towns from school courtyards and between civilian houses? Only the kind who want to die—or take pains to make sure their own people are killed for propaganda purposes that “useful idiots” will buy.
= = =
RF: “If it is not accidental, then it is on purpose. They are the same thing...”

Not at all. Both the Oxford and Webster’s dictionaries disagree with you. The law disagrees with you too—that’s why there’s a differentiation between homicide and manslaughter.
= = =
MD: “If I aim and shoot at a terrorist but miss, hitting a civilian by mistake, that is not deliberate.”

RF: “No, but it is bloody stupid and clearly failing to take adequate steps to protect civilians.”

I guess you expect every soldier to hit every target he aims at, no matter what. When rifle bullets have target-seeking qualities, maybe you’ll be right, but until then, it’s just another stupid comment born of ignorance—and apparently bias, as well, since you have no problem with a Palestinian dying from “friendly fire”.
= = =
RF: “Your example is close to being dishonest anyway. The IDF kills civilians by using artillery, missiles, or air-strikes and you know that, so you are clearly trying to evade that fact.

“If you aim high explosive weapons at a target that you KNOW contains civilians who you KNOW will be killed by that attack, then you are DELIBERATELY killing those civilians.”

I’m not “trying to evade” anything. YOU made the attack personal.
= = =
RF: “GC 4 article 2 says it applies to “all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict”. What you are referring to - inaccurately - is article 3 that says “ In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions”

“As neither Gaza nor the West Bank is ‘the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties’ i.e. Israel it doesn’t apply.”

Gaza and the West Bank are not parts of any other country, either. Gaza and the West Bank were parts of the Palestine Mandate and as such do not “belong” to any national entity. While Israel declared independence in 1948 and was recognized as a sovereign nation by the UN, no such Palestinian declaration was ever made or recognized. That’s why the legal definition of the West Bank and Gaza is “disputed territories”, not “occupied territories”. At present, it is not an “international conflict” in the sense that there is presently no such recognized country as “Palestine”.
= = =
RF: “So you are saying that, in your opinion, the intelligent, professional approach is to blast away at anything that moves with no concerns whether the target is a civilian or not?”

I am saying that when you take fire, you return fire towards the ones shooting at you. It’s called WAR. I’m SO sorry that’s beyond your ability to comprehend.
= = =
RF: “Yes it does. If you don’t like to be shot at you don’t become a soldier. More relevantly, the *last* people to become a target in the shooting gallery are the civilians.”

Now this is just a stupid comment. No normal human being LIKES to get shot at. You must think that soldiers aren’t human. Here’s a news flash for you: soldiers are just as human as anyone else—there are good and bad people among the soldiers of any nation, just as there are good and bad civilians among the population of any nation.
= = =
RF: “Soldier protect civilians - what part of that do you not understand? Your apparent idea that civilians should be sacrificed to protect soldiers makes you part of the problem GC was created to solve.”

Correction: soldiers protect the civilians of the country they serve, first and foremost. No one, not even the GC expects a soldier to sacrifice himself for a belligerent’s civilians.
= = =
RF: “Do Hamas have F-15s, F-16s, Apache helicopters, Mk83/84 J-DAMs, PB500A1s, GBU-39s? Do they have Merkevas or Abrams with UAVs to direct them? Do they have M107/109, Atmos, Rochev, or Gradlar to fight back with?”

If the case were purely as you state, then why does Hamas knowingly attack an enemy that has such overwhelmingly superior firepower? Do they have a death wish not only for themselves but for all Palestinians? Or do they depend on “willing idiots” to argue their case for them, along with the knowledge that as long as they dress up like women and fight from behind human shields the IDF will not release the full destructive power at its disposal?
= = =
RF: “Compared to Israel’s arsenal, a few home-made rockets is definitely “can’t fight back”. It is not as if they can hit helicopters or aircraft, or take out a tank with them.
13,000 (according to you...) rockets and mortars over 8 years? That is less than a 1 weeks worth for an IDF offensive. Hell, by some accounts it is a days worth.”

This is exactly the terrorist answer, word for word. I dare you to spend a week under fire from those “home-made rockets”. I’ll bet that by the second day you’ll be screaming for someone to stop it, no matter who gets hurt.

As for comparative arsenals, remember who initiated the violence. Israel’s arsenal was no secret to Hamas. While you might admire the courage of a grasshopper that attacks a lawnmower, you should also have serious doubts about his intelligence.

How’s this for a genuinely “proportional response”: let’s both petition the Israeli government to allow the residents of Sderot and all the other towns, cities and villages that have been shelled by Hamas to return fire with an equal number of equivalent “home-made rockets” into the Gaza Strip with the same indiscriminate “aiming” that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al practice. Will that satisfy you?
= = =
RF: “It is not a cop out at all. You asked how to define a target containing civilians and I told you - it contains civilians. Now you are changing it to define military advantage. That is defined in Protocol 1, but you people prefer to be one of the minority that don’t want to know about protecting civilians - right?”

It certainly IS a cop-out. Name a number—even one civilian among a hundred combatants if you like, but name a number that’s acceptable to you. Don’t hide behind fuzzy logic and generalizations.
= = =
RF: “You should do your homework. Hamas attacked Tel Nof and Hatzerim air bases.”

You should live so long. Hamas may have CLAIMED they were attacking Tel Nof and Hatzerim air bases, but most of their weapons haven’t got the range to come anywhere near either of them. You obviously don’t know where either of these bases are, but I do. FYI, they are 38 and 35 kilometers respectively from the closest points in the Gaza Strip, which is far beyond the range of even the 122 mm Katyusha rockets available to Hamas (22 Km maximum range). Claiming that you attacked a target 50% more distant than your maximum range is just an easily disproved blatant lie—except to those “willing idiots” who WANT to believe the lie.

Go here for some information on Katyushas and Grads: http://www.prominentthought.com/2008/12/grad-missile.html
(Iran has been very stingy with their long-range version, which has a maximum range of about 40 kilometers—but when you fire it, you never know where it will impact—it can just as easily fall 1 km from the firing point as it can at 40 km.) Hamas has killed more Palestinians than Israelis with their rockets—and that’s not counting “work accidents”.
= = =
MD: “He is quite adamant that the Palestinians have created a culture of human shields and seems quite proud of it. Was he lying?”

RF: “Pretty much so, yes. Especially as the *only* source is Memritv and I don’t believe a thing they say.”

Now you condemn the interpreter translating the message instead of condemning the message. You really are a piece of work. Have it translated for you.
= = =
“If you can support this claim with evidence that can stand up in court, file charges. If you can’t, you become liable for prosecution under charges of false accusations and slander. Talk is cheap, prove what you claim with evidence that can stand up in court.”

RF: “I don’t need to, others have already done it and collected quite a pile of evidence including statements from IDF soldiers. US Congress, the EU, UN, AI, HRW, ICRC - they all investigated and found evidence of IDF war-crimes.

“I am sure they would all like to present that evidence in court, but guess what? Your government refuses to allow it. That refusal is a good as an admission of guilt.”

How can anyone stop those organizations from presenting whatever they want wherever they want? Are you going to tell me now that “the Jews” control them? Give it a rest.

I suppose you haven’t seen the latest HRW report that calls the indiscriminate Hamas firing of rockets into Israel a “war crime”—a report that Hamas rejects.
= = =
RF: “What does that mean if it is not a statement of what you would DO? Either you were bullshitting when you wrote that, or you are now squirming to distance yourself from an admission that would sacrifice civilians to protect your troops. I suspect the latter is the more likely.”

Not squirming at all, thanks. A statement of opinion is not an action. Unless you can PROVE that I DID act in accordance with my words, you’re trying to make something out of nothing.

If a person says, “I would rob that bank if I needed money”, and ‘that bank’ is robbed the next day, can you indict the person who said it without proof that HE was the one who robbed the bank?
= = =
RF: “I don’t brainwash myself with propaganda, thank you. I will refer to less biased sources....”

You mean you don’t want to hear both sides of the issue. So much for any pretense you might have had for claiming to be objective.
= = =
In short, it’s become apparent that you don’t give a s**t for anything but seeing dead Israeli civilians and live Palestinian terrorists. There’s a name for that, and we all know what it is.

”Has it ever “crossed your mind” that this is exactly one of my contentions? The ‘new reality’ of the 21st century is that belligerents are often non-national entities (read: terrorist organizations), and that without their being bound by the Conventions, they get a ‘license to kill’ indiscriminately—and exercise it indiscriminately. Reading comprehension or willful blindness?”

So you blaming them for not doing something that it is impossible for them to do? Hey, why not accuse the cat of failing to fly....

I know you keep repeating the licence to kill nonsense, but learn something - no matter how many times you repeat it it is still nonsense. International law exists whether you like it or not.

*****

”You seem to have no problem with the idea that a family in civilian clothes might want to move to get off a battlefield, but individuals in civilian clothes won’t move around on a battlefield. How stupid is that statement?”

It is not stupid at all, because it is not me accusing them of impersonating a civilians. Nor is it me that doesn’t understand what a combatant is...

*****

”Militaries also fight terrorists, who often don’t wear uniforms. In a perfect world, terrorists wouldn’t hide behind human shields or hostages either, but in this world, that’s what they do.”

They do that on very rare occasions. So do militaries. So do the IDF, even though it is contrary to GC.

*****

”Terrorism is killing civilians not on a battlefield while NOT wearing a uniform.”

Terrorism is killing civilians, and it doesn’t matter where they are. You really should get past this mythical battlefield of yours; it doesn’t make killing civilians acceptable. Sorry to disappoint you.

****

”How many civilian buses, coffee shops or crowded stores have been blown up by Israeli suicide bombers? NONE.”

How many civilian targets have been bombed by the IDF? Seriously - what makes IDF weapons killing civilians good when anybody else’s is bad? Killing civilians is killing civilians, even when the weapons say ”made in the USA” on them, and killing civilians is always wrong, even when the IDF or any other military does it.

*****

”When a military fights terrorists, often the only ones in uniform are the military—the terrorists generally fight in civilian clothes.”

So what?

You seem to be suggesting that killing civilians is okay if you are wearing the right clothes when you do it...

****

”Oh, so you only care if Palestinian civilians die when the IDF is doing the killing. Am I the only one who sees that as hypocritical?”

If Palestinians kill other Palestinians it is murder, a domestic crime committed in Palestine and will be dealt with in Palestinian courts. It has nothing to do with GC, Hague, or IHL.

I can’t believe I actually had to explain that!

*****

”So how is it “all right” for Hamas to bomb an Israeli bus in Tel Aviv with one soldier and 50 civilians on it, but it’s not “all right” for the IDF to kill one civilian under any circumstances?”

Show me where I said it was right. You are just throwing up those straw men again...
My point is that killing civilians is wrong, even when your military buddies do it.

*****

”Since when is a 3-month-old baby who might someday become a soldier a “legitimate target”? How about a pregnant woman… she may have served in the IDF at one time, but as a mother is automatically excused from military service. What about those who are reservists one or two months a year—are they “legitimate targets” all year round, or just for the time they’re soldiers?”

You tell me - you are the one grumbling about GC protecting them from being killed by invading armies.

****

”Perhaps they are—but in Switzerland, army reservists are required by law to keep their equipment with them at home, including their personal weapons. Having one set of equipment is just a wee bit different from storing dozens of cases of ammunition and hundreds of automatic weapons in the cellar—or can’t you tell the difference?”

I personally know Swiss who own several guns, but you are squirming again - now it has changed to hundreds of automatic weapons a dozens of cases of ammo. Are you suggesting that every Palestinian killed by the IDF had hundreds of weapons in his cellar?

****

”If a group of people who are all dressed in civilian clothes are firing at you, how do you tell if X is a civilian or a combatant?”

If you don’t know you don’t kill them! What is so hard to understand about that? Other militaries can manage it. Why can’t you?

*****

”You ignore the 1,183 Israeli civilians killed by terrorists and 8,341 wounded by terrorists since the year 2000 and the 2,500 killed by terrorists between 1920 and 2000 as if they either never happened or are irrelevant. ”

There were no Israeli civilians in 1920.

You are ignoring the 23,000+ Palestinian civilians killed by the IDF. That is on OHCA figures, who also mention that around 1,500 of them are children, and that 59% - let me repeat that FIFTY NINE PERCENT - of Palestinian casualties are civilians taking no part in the conflict.

Not only do you defend that as being okay, you even want to amend GC to make it legal!

*****

”No one (except Palestinians, who hand out candies and celebrate in the streets every time an Israeli is killed) celebrates death or is happy about it.”

Then why do you grumble about GC? Why do you defend it? Why can’t you say ”yeah... militaries that kill civilians are just as bad as terrorists?

*****

”What kind of idiots attack a country with that kind of arsenal when they know that there will be retaliation sooner or later?”

”If the case were purely as you state, then why does Hamas knowingly attack an enemy that has such overwhelmingly superior firepower? Do they have a death wish not only for themselves but for all Palestinians?”

I see... now you are blaming the victims. ”If they didn’t fight back we wouldn’t be forced to kill civilians”.

I was wondering when that would start.

****

”Both the Oxford and Webster’s dictionaries disagree with you. The law disagrees with you too—that’s why there’s a differentiation between homicide and manslaughter.”

From Oxford online:

accident

  • noun: 1 an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally.

Now just in case ’unintentionally’ is too much for you:

unintentional

  • adjective: not done on purpose.

The difference between homicide and manslaughter is that homicide is on purpose (as in not an accident...) while manslaughter is an accident, as in not on purpose.

I can’t believe I also have to explain that to you....

*****

”I guess you expect every soldier to hit every target he aims at, no matter what. ”

I expect him to have the brains to understand that he can miss, and not take the shot if missing means killing civilians.

*****

”When rifle bullets have target-seeking qualities, maybe you’ll be right, but until then, it’s just another stupid comment born of ignorance.”

I take it you are aware that missiles and bombs are indeed able to seek targets, but they still hit civilians. How do explain that?

*****

”I’m not “trying to evade” anything. YOU made the attack personal.”

Yes you are, and you are still evading. How can guided weapons hit civilian targets if it is not intentional?

*****

”Gaza and the West Bank are not parts of any other country, either. Gaza and the West Bank were parts of the Palestine Mandate and as such do not “belong” to any national entity. While Israel declared independence in 1948 and was recognized as a sovereign nation by the UN, no such Palestinian declaration was ever made or recognized. That’s why the legal definition of the West Bank and Gaza is “disputed territories”, not “occupied territories”. At present, it is not an “international conflict” in the sense that there is presently no such recognized country as “Palestine”.”

I know it is popular in Israel to argue that the West Bank and Gaza are some sort of no-mans land and therefore up for grabs by anybody, but it is nonsense.

Everybody else in the world calls them Palestinian Territories, not disputed, except for the occupied bits that are called Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Check it out at the FCO- http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/middle-east-north-africa/palestine-national-authority?profile=geography&pg=5

About one hundred countries recognise the State of Palestine - that is over half the world - and the Palestine is represented in the UN.

*****

”I am saying that when you take fire, you return fire towards the ones shooting at you. ”

Oh... so you ARE saying that, in your opinion, the intelligent, professional approach is to blast away at anything that moves with no concerns whether the target is a civilian or not.

Okay, I understand.

****

”Now this is just a stupid comment. No normal human being LIKES to get shot at. You must think that soldiers aren’t human.”

Not half as stupid as people who don’t want to be shot at joining the army...

If you choose to join the army, you accept that you could be shot it. Arguing that soldiers don’t accept that a joke.

*****

”Correction: soldiers protect the civilians of the country they serve, first and foremost. No one, not even the GC expects a soldier to sacrifice himself for a belligerent’s civilians.”

You are wrong again. An occupying or invading army is responsible for the safety of civilians in the territory they take control of. GC says so,

*****

”How’s this for a genuinely “proportional response”: let’s both petition the Israeli government to allow the residents of Sderot and all the other towns, cities and villages that have been shelled by Hamas to return fire with an equal number of equivalent “home-made rockets” into the Gaza Strip with the same indiscriminate “aiming” that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al practice. Will that satisfy you?”

I see from that that you haven’t bothered to educate yourself and learn what a proportional response means. If you are going to blog about such things, at least do the research first.

*****

”It certainly IS a cop-out. Name a number—even one civilian among a hundred combatants if you like, but name a number that’s acceptable to you. Don’t hide behind fuzzy logic and generalizations.”

It has got nothing to do with being acceptable to me. If it were up to me, nobody would invading anybody in the first place.

What is interesting is that all this is spelled out in GC and Hague, yet you, the self -declared platoon commander, obviously cannot recognise a civilian target from a military one.

It looks to me as though GC needs enforcing on the people like you that it shields civilians from, not watering down as you suggest.

*****

”Hamas may have CLAIMED they were attacking Tel Nof and Hatzerim air bases, but most of their weapons haven’t got the range to come anywhere near either of them. You obviously don’t know where either of these bases are, but I do. FYI, they are 38 and 35 kilometers respectively from the closest points in the Gaza Strip, which is far beyond the range of even the 122 mm Katyusha rockets available to Hamas (22 Km maximum range). Claiming that you attacked a target 50% more distant than your maximum range is just an easily disproved blatant lie—except to those “willing idiots” who WANT to believe the lie.”

Okay. The IAF was lying, if you say so.

’TEL AVIV — Military sources said Hamas struck at least two air force bases within a 50-kilometer vicinity of the Gaza Strip.

The sources cited Hamas rocket attacks on Tel Nof and Hatzerim but did not disclose the time of the attacks.

”The rockets struck these bases but nobody was injured,” a military source said.’

Read it here- http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/me_hamas0030_01_12.asp

*****

”Now you condemn the interpreter translating the message instead of condemning the message. You really are a piece of work. Have it translated for you.”

Of course. I work in media and Memri are a stock joke, well known for having a political agenda and mis-translating for their own benefit. They have been routinely caught doing that for as long as I care to remember, along with other tricks such as cutting bits out of videos, showing old videos as current, splicing separate incidents together, etc.

There is no need to translate it. The ONLY source giving the translation you claim is Memri, so it is obvious that no other translation agrees with it.

As you seem to admire them, I can only conclude that your political agenda is aligned with theirs.

*****

”How can anyone stop those organizations from presenting whatever they want wherever they want? Are you going to tell me now that “the Jews” control them? Give it a rest.

I suppose you haven’t seen the latest HRW report that calls the indiscriminate Hamas firing of rockets into Israel a “war crime”—a report that Hamas rejects.”

I know what HRW says, and I would like to see Palestinians in court too. Isn’t it funny how yet again you are saying that Israel doinf what terrorists do makes it okay - even more proof that my original comment was accurate.

They could indeed hold the trial in absentia, but that is not the point. The point is that Israel refuses to co-operate with the investigation. So you tell me - what are they hiding? What are they scared of?

That refusal is as good as an admission that the IDF did commit war crimes. Why would the innocent be scared of the opportunity to prove their innocence?

*****

”Not squirming at all, thanks. A statement of opinion is not an action. Unless you can PROVE that I DID act in accordance with my words, you’re trying to make something out of nothing.”

Okay, if you insist I will accept that you were bullshitting; making a totally pointless statement.

So, lets stop bullshitting: would you sacrifice a civilian to protect your troops: yes or no?

*****


”You mean you don’t want to hear both sides of the issue. So much for any pretense you might have had for claiming to be objective.”

I mean exactly what I say. I use less biased sources. I am not going to waste my time on sources that I already know are inaccurate.
 You should try doing the same.

*****


”In short, it’s become apparent that you don’t give a s**t for anything but seeing dead Israeli civilians and live Palestinian terrorists. There’s a name for that, and we all know what it is.”

I knew it was only a matter of time before you conformed to stereotype. maybe one day you will understand that nations and religions are not the same thing.

I would also remind you who turned this into a discussion about Israel:
”Since my country is not signed on Protocol 1, any reference to that protocol is irrelevant to this discussion. The definition of combatant from the 3rd Convention remains applicable, with its implications.”

and

”See above. For my arguments, Protocol 1 is irrelevant, since my country has not signed it.”

You insist that we ignore Protocol 1 since Israel refuses to sign it, then accuse me of talking only about Israel! Kind of says it all, doesn’t it?

Michael
The Geneva Convention are not too outdated for Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Iran and Venezuela.

RF: “So you blaming them for not doing something that it is impossible for them to do? Hey, why not accuse the cat of failing to fly....

“I know you keep repeating the licence to kill nonsense, but learn something - no matter how many times you repeat it it is still nonsense. International law exists whether you like it or not.”

Then international law should be binding on all parties, whether they are national entities or national wannabes. Applying conventions of warfare only on selected parties is self-defeating.
= = =
MD: ”Militaries also fight terrorists, who often don’t wear uniforms. In a perfect world, terrorists wouldn’t hide behind human shields or hostages either, but in this world, that’s what they do.”

RF: “They do that on very rare occasions. So do militaries. So do the IDF, even though it is contrary to GC.”

“Rare occasions”? You must be smoking some very powerful stuff. Every recorded hijacking has used hostages as human shields. Hizballah and Hamas openly talk about their use of their civilian populations as human shields. These are hardly “rare occasions”, but common practice. You might as well claim that “the sun only rises on very rare occasions”.
= = =
”Terrorism is killing civilians not on a battlefield while NOT wearing a uniform.”
Terrorism is killing civilians, and it doesn’t matter where they are. You really should get past this mythical battlefield of yours; it doesn’t make killing civilians acceptable. Sorry to disappoint you.

Then as far as you’re concerned, the entire world is a battlefield, any time, any place. This is exactly what terrorists and their supporters claim.
= = =
”How many civilian buses, coffee shops or crowded stores have been blown up by Israeli suicide bombers? NONE.”

RF: “How many civilian targets have been bombed by the IDF? Seriously - what makes IDF weapons killing civilians good when anybody else’s is bad? Killing civilians is killing civilians, even when the weapons say ”made in the USA” on them, and killing civilians is always wrong, even when the IDF or any other military does it.”

Locating your weapons stockpiles, munitions factories and firing points among civilian populations is also specifically forbidden by the GC. What do you suggest? I know—let Hamas manufacture and fire as many rockets at Israel as they like, because a Palestinian civilian (who, according to Palestinian polls, supports Hamas) might be hurt. You must really love terrorists.
= = =
RF: ”When a military fights terrorists, often the only ones in uniform are the military—the terrorists generally fight in civilian clothes.”
“So what?
“You seem to be suggesting that killing civilians is okay if you are wearing the right clothes when you do it...”

Another case of willful misdirection. I’ll spell it out for you: anyone dressed in civilian clothes “looks like a civilian”. The only way to make a 100% positive identification is at the moment one of them is shooting at you.
****
MD: ”Oh, so you only care if Palestinian civilians die when the IDF is doing the killing. Am I the only one who sees that as hypocritical?”

RF: “If Palestinians kill other Palestinians it is murder, a domestic crime committed in Palestine and will be dealt with in Palestinian courts. It has nothing to do with GC, Hague, or IHL. “

If you’re going to wait for Palestinian courts to try a Hamas member for injuring or killing Palestinians, you’ll have a long wait. I hope you have a lot of patience.

However, the deaths of those used as human shields devolves directly on Hamas—and the GC does specify that.
= = =
RF: “Show me where I said it was right. You are just throwing up those straw men again...
“My point is that killing civilians is wrong, even when your military buddies do it.”

No, you said it was “justified”. Make up your mind—if one is wrong, the other is wrong. Double standards won’t do—that’s what terrorist supports do all the time.
= = =
RF: “You tell me - you are the one grumbling about GC protecting them from being killed by invading armies.”

No, I’m “the one grumbling” about the GC NOT protecting them while protecting others. Try to get it straight.
= = =
RF: “I personally know Swiss who own several guns, but you are squirming again - now it has changed to hundreds of automatic weapons a dozens of cases of ammo. Are you suggesting that every Palestinian killed by the IDF had hundreds of weapons in his cellar?”

The word “stockpile” certainly indicates more than a single weapon or a few weapons for personal use—this is just another willful attempt at distortion.
= = =
RF: “If you don’t know you don’t kill them! What is so hard to understand about that? Other militaries can manage it. Why can’t you?”

Perhaps for the same reason that you can’t understand that “other militaries” (and a lot of non-militaries) also kill civilians, but you double-standard them.
= = =
RF: “There were no Israeli civilians in 1920.”

You’re right—they were “Palestinians”—in fact, they were the only Palestinians on record in the Palestine Mandate—Arabs insisted on being listed as “Arab” or “Syrian” on their ID cards. They continued to deny that they were “Palestinians” until after the 6-Day War in 1967—then became “Palestinians” overnight.
= = =
RF: “You are ignoring the 23,000+ Palestinian civilians killed by the IDF. That is on OHCA figures, who also mention that around 1,500 of them are children, and that 59% - let me repeat that FIFTY NINE PERCENT - of Palestinian casualties are civilians taking no part in the conflict.”

Now there’s an objective source if I ever saw one—a UN agency dedicated to their own continued employment by perpetuating the Palestinian refugee issue forever. Data coming out of UNWRA and the Palestinian office of OHCA have always been suspect and often either misleading and/or inaccurate. In my opinion, they have always been, and always will be, a serious obstacle to actually reaching any kind of peace agreement.
= = =
RF: “Not only do you defend that as being okay, you even want to amend GC to make it legal!”

Not at all—you continue to avoid my basic concept: binding ALL belligerent parties to the Conventions, whether national entities or not. In other words, if it’s illegal for one belligerent, it’s illegal for ALL belligerents. Is that so hard to understand?
= = =
Then why do you grumble about GC? Why do you defend it? Why can’t you say ”yeah... militaries that kill civilians are just as bad as terrorists?

Because they’re not. You refuse to accept the difference between deliberately targeting civilians and deliberately placing civilians in targets where they are endangered, for propaganda purposes. Terrorist organizations thrive on the “useful idiots” who do this to further their own ends.
= = =
RF: “I see... now you are blaming the victims. ”If they didn’t fight back we wouldn’t be forced to kill civilians”.

Now you’re rewriting history, as well? These are the same old PLO propaganda handouts—“We are the victims”. Useful idiots supporting terror use this claim every day. If you’re so knowledgeable about the “60 years of history”, how is it that you can’t/won’t digest the fact that from before partition in 1947, Arabs have refused to accept the decision to partition the Palestine Mandate? I suppose you’ll also claim that it’s Israel that attacked the surrounding countries in 1948, too—and with the exception of Egypt and Jordan, have continued to refuse to accept the decision.

The recent Gaza operation is an example—it was a response to rockets and mortar bombs fired into Israel over a period of almost 8 years—yet you insist on making the same Palestinians who supported these firings the “victims”.
= = =
RF: “I expect him to have the brains to understand that he can miss, and not take the shot if missing means killing civilians.”

In other words, you expect soldiers to fight a war against terrorists without ever taking a shot. How logical. You must want to see a lot of dead soldiers and live terrorists.
= = =
I take it you are aware that missiles and bombs are indeed able to seek targets, but they still hit civilians. How do explain that?

Because civilians are deliberately put in harm’s way by terrorists.
= = =
Yes you are, and you are still evading. How can guided weapons hit civilian targets if it is not intentional?

When civilians are intentionally placed in harm’s way by terrorists.
= = =
RF: “I know it is popular in Israel to argue that the West Bank and Gaza are some sort of no-mans land and therefore up for grabs by anybody, but it is nonsense.
Everybody else in the world calls them Palestinian Territories, not disputed, except for the occupied bits that are called Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Check it out at the FCO- http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/country-profiles/middle-east-north-africa/palestine-national-authority?profile=geography&pg=5
“About one hundred countries recognise the State of Palestine - that is over half the world - and the Palestine is represented in the UN.”

For starters, this rather conflicts with your opening statement, doesn’t it? If Palestine is a recognized country, why hasn’t it signed the international conventions that most countries have signed?

IF Palestine were a country, it would be a voting member state of the UN. It is not. If Palestine were a country, it would be invited to sign the Geneva and Hague Conventions. It has not been so invited.

Take a look at this article to see what’s lacking: http://www.drake.edu/artsci/PolSci/ssjrnl/2006/giridhar.pdf

At present, “Palestine” has two separate “governments”, Hamas in Gaza and the PLO in the West Bank. Since neither is in control of “Palestine” as a whole, it fails to meet several of the criteria that define an independent state.
= = =
RF: “Oh... so you ARE saying that, in your opinion, the intelligent, professional approach is to blast away at anything that moves with no concerns whether the target is a civilian or not.”

You willfully “misunderstand” and deliberately misinterpret—a typical terrorist-supporting tactic. If you take fire from a position, you can assume that that position is an enemy position and you have the right to return fire. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
= = =
RF: “Not half as stupid as people who don’t want to be shot at joining the army...
If you choose to join the army, you accept that you could be shot it. Arguing that soldiers don’t accept that a joke.”

Even you should be able to tell the difference between your two statements. If you think that “you accept that you could be shot at” is equal to “likes being shot at” or “want to be shot at”, then you need some serious help.
= = =
”Correction: soldiers protect the civilians of the country they serve, first and foremost. No one, not even the GC expects a soldier to sacrifice himself for a belligerent’s civilians.”

RF: “You are wrong again. An occupying or invading army is responsible for the safety of civilians in the territory they take control of. GC says so,”

But not when territory is not under control or being fought over. The GC doesn’t say THAT, and can’t, because it’s impossible to enforce. (Just as a little note: Israel has not been “in control” of Gaza since the withdrawal—if it ever really was “in control” of Gaza in the first place.
= = =
RF: “I see from that that you haven’t bothered to educate yourself and learn what a proportional response means. If you are going to blog about such things, at least do the research first.”

The educate me. What is disproportionate about returning fire with one equivalent rocket into Gaza for each one coming out of Gaza? I’m sure you would prefer that Israel “show restraint” while allowing Hamas to throw whatever it wants out of Gaza—another typical terrorist-supporting response.
= = =
RF: “Okay. The IAF was lying, if you say so.

’TEL AVIV — Military sources said Hamas struck at least two air force bases within a 50-kilometer vicinity of the Gaza Strip.
The sources cited Hamas rocket attacks on Tel Nof and Hatzerim but did not disclose the time of the attacks.
”The rockets struck these bases but nobody was injured,” a military source said.’
Read it here- http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/me_hamas0030_01_12.asp

Great article, repeated nowhere else. Confirmation?

Here’s what Wikipedia has to say: “Hamas claimed to have hit the Tel Nof airbase, some 27 kilometers (17 mi) from Tel Aviv, which, if true, would make it the farthest strike to date.” (So did the Iranian press service. We know how reliable they both are.) Out of over 500 hits on Google, not one confirms the World Tribune quotes—ALL others give credit to a “Hamas claim”.
= = =
RF: “Of course. I work in media and Memri are a stock joke, well known for having a political agenda and mis-translating for their own benefit. They have been routinely caught doing that for as long as I care to remember, along with other tricks such as cutting bits out of videos, showing old videos as current, splicing separate incidents together, etc.”

“There is no need to translate it. The ONLY source giving the translation you claim is Memri, so it is obvious that no other translation agrees with it.
As you seem to admire them, I can only conclude that your political agenda is aligned with theirs.”

Considering the lack of honesty and ethics in the media today, that’s not much of a recommendation. Unlike the media, I’ve never made any pretense at being objective—certainly I have an agenda: to support my country when it’s attacked by “useful idiots” who support terrorism and accept lies as truth without thinking.

MEMRI may be a “stock joke” to you, but not to over 36,000 Google hits for this particular item. Is this organization “aligned” with MEMRI, also? http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/03/mp-fathi-hammad-we-used-women-and.html I’m sure they have enough Arabic speakers to confirm the content of the clip before they posted it. How about this one: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3223606/in-the-face-of-this-madness-some-facts.thtml

Slinging unsupported accusations is another terrorism-supporting tactic. You seem to excel at these. While you’re accusing others of having agendas, what about your own agenda? Please don’t even try to sell the idea that you’re “just telling the truth”. Whose “truth” are you telling?
= = =
RF: “I know what HRW says, and I would like to see Palestinians in court too. Isn’t it funny how yet again you are saying that Israel doinf what terrorists do makes it okay - even more proof that my original comment was accurate.”

So you say now… after defending them tooth and nail. Equating Israel’s attempt to stop the rockets from being fired out of Gaza to the actual firings from Gaza is just another bit of Orwellian terrorism-supporting doublespeak.
= = =
RF: “They could indeed hold the trial in absentia, but that is not the point. The point is that Israel refuses to co-operate with the investigation. So you tell me - what are they hiding? What are they scared of?”

“That refusal is as good as an admission that the IDF did commit war crimes. Why would the innocent be scared of the opportunity to prove their innocence?”

Israel refused to cooperate for a very simple reason that continues to escape you: none of the organizations “investigating” Operation Cast Lead even pretended to be objective or honest. Only after much insistence was Hamas’ actions included in any “investigation”. Amnesty International even made a statement that “there’s no need to investigate Hamas war crimes”.
= = =
RF: “So, lets stop bullshitting: would you sacrifice a civilian to protect your troops: yes or no?”

My religion doesn’t “do” human sacrifices—not since the legend of God telling Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice, anyway.
= = =
RF: I mean exactly what I say. I use less biased sources. I am not going to waste my time on sources that I already know are inaccurate. You should try doing the same.

Yes, we can see what your “less biased sources” are. You mean that your mind is made up and you have no intention of hearing anything that might prove you wrong. You’ve already judged without allowing a defense of any kind, just like any other kangaroo court.
= = =
MD: “In short, it’s become apparent that you don’t give a s**t for anything but seeing dead Israeli civilians and live Palestinian terrorists. There’s a name for that, and we all know what it is.”

RF: “I knew it was only a matter of time before you conformed to stereotype. maybe one day you will understand that nations and religions are not the same thing.”

What does being a terrorist supporter have to do with religion? If you read anything else into my comment, maybe you have a problem with your conscience…

”Then international law should be binding on all parties, whether they are national entities or national wannabes. ”
It *is* binding on all parties. I can’t believe that needs explaining too!

*****

“Rare occasions”? You must be smoking some very powerful stuff. Every recorded hijacking has used hostages as human shields. Hizballah and Hamas openly talk about their use of their civilian populations as human shields. These are hardly “rare occasions”, but common practice. You might as well claim that “the sun only rises on very rare occasions”.

I have more sense than to mindlessly believe the excuses of those who kill civilians. ”It is not our fault for firing weapons at them, it is their fault for using human shields” is the stock excuse, but *independent* investigation rarely confirms the excuse.

What you fail to understand is that:

1) A civilians being part of a human shield does not excuse you of your duty to protect them. You cannot say ”Oh goody! They are a human shield! Lets kill them!”

2) Being in a human shield doesn’t kill anybody. It is the IDF weapons that do that.

*****

”Then as far as you’re concerned, the entire world is a battlefield, any time, any place. This is exactly what terrorists and their supporters claim.”

Given the number of high-profile assassinations by Mossad, carried out all over the world, of individuals who dare to criticise Israel you really should think before you type. Hell, it started even before Mossad - Folke Bernadette was assassinated by Jewish terrorists.

You tell me where, in Afghanistan, these battlefields of yours are where they are allowed to fight, and where the non-battlefields are where nobody is allowed to fight. Explain to me why the Taliban can’t attack US/Nato troops anywhere they find them in Afghanistan.

Tell me where the ’battlefields’ of WW2 where. Plenty of British cities were bombed, but none were battlefields. RAF bases were bombed - but they are not on battlefields. Japan was bombed, nuked even, but never a battlefield. Naval ships where attacked wherever they were found, but I have never seen a warship slithering across any battlefield.

I take it, from your position, that you think just about every military in the world is a terrorist organisation because they don’t confine their activities to ’battlefields’.

*****

”Locating your weapons stockpiles, munitions factories and firing points among civilian populations is also specifically forbidden by the GC”

I know, but that does *not* give you an excuse to kill civilians. GC says so. Why do you repeatedly defend your morals by equating them to those of terrorists?

*****

”What do you suggest?”

You really should read GC, because it tells you what you do: you take the option that causes least harm to civilians. Clearly, dropping a bomb on the target because you don’t give a damn about killing civilians is not the least harm option. Understand yet?

*****

”The only way to make a 100% positive identification is at the moment one of them is shooting at you.”

Correct. Maybe you have finally got there. When they shoot at you, they are combatants and you can shoot back. GC says so.

*****

”(who, according to Palestinian polls, supports Hamas) ”

Just as Israelis support their government and the IDF. Once again, your arguments, applied in reverse, justify terrorist actions. As I keep saying - you are basically the same. We need GC to protect civilians from people like you who labelled entire populations as terrorist supporters, and use that to justify indiscriminate killing.

*****

”If you’re going to wait for Palestinian courts to try a Hamas member for injuring or killing Palestinians, you’ll have a long wait. I hope you have a lot of patience.”

Who cares? That is their issue, not GC or Hague or IHL. It is definitely not an excuse for killing civilians as you seem to be suggesting.

*****

”No, you said it was “justified”. Make up your mind—if one is wrong, the other is wrong. Double standards won’t do—that’s what terrorist supports do all the time.”

I asked you show me where I said killing civilians was okay, and you can’t do it can you?

*****

”No, I’m “the one grumbling” about the GC NOT protecting them while protecting others. Try to get it straight.”

What on earth are you talking about? Please - tell me straight. Which civilians are *not* covered by GC?

*****

”The word “stockpile” certainly indicates more than a single weapon or a few weapons for personal use—this is just another willful attempt at distortion.”

How many is a stockpile? You are still evading though. A building having weapons in it does not give you an excuse to lob a bomb at it and kill everyone in and around it, and you are still evading the question of whether every civilian killed by the IDF has a cellar full of weapons.

Basically, you are just inventing excuses to kill civilians - yet another thing you have in common with those you condemn.

*****

”Perhaps for the same reason that you can’t understand that “other militaries” (and a lot of non-militaries) also kill civilians, but you double-standard them.”

My country fought organised terrorism for decades without racking up the disgusting civilian death toll you are defending. Yet you say your country cannot do that. What conclusion is staring you in the face here?

*****

”Now there’s an objective source if I ever saw one—a UN agency dedicated to their own continued employment by perpetuating the Palestinian refugee issue forever. Data coming out of UNWRA and the Palestinian office of OHCA have always been suspect and often either misleading and/or inaccurate. In my opinion, they have always been, and always will be, a serious obstacle to actually reaching any kind of peace agreement.”

Obama is trying very hard to negotiate peace in the area, but Israel refuses to play. An analysis of the power relationship makes it obvious why Israel is not interested, but don’t give me all that ”we want peace” crap.

What you are saying here is that everybody in the whole damn world that disagrees with what Israel says is anti-Israel, so the only figures we can accept is Israeli figures. 

*****

”Not at all—you continue to avoid my basic concept: binding ALL belligerent parties to the Conventions, whether national entities or not. In other words, if it’s illegal for one belligerent, it’s illegal for ALL belligerents. Is that so hard to understand?”

You don’t have a clue what GC is about, do you?

Lets see if I can simple enough for you: GC is a code of standards for invading or occupying armies to follow when they are dealing with civilians. If you want to follow those standards you sign up to GC; if you want to follow higher standards you sign up to the additional protocols too.

Until such time as terrorists start invading and occupying entire countries, and putting themselves in the role of administrators of countries, GC has nothing to do with them. Their current activities are made illegal by Hague, IHL, or plain old criminal law.

GC applies only to invading or occupying armies for the same reason that traffic law applies only to motorists, and your grumbling about it not applying to people who are neither invading, nor occupying is, as I said in the first place, nothing more that looking for justification to behave like a terrorist - ”We are not doing anything wrong. It is the law that is wrong” : a favourite excuse of many a criminal.

*****

”You refuse to accept the difference between deliberately targeting civilians and deliberately placing civilians in targets where they are endangered, for propaganda purposes.”

I have asked you several times to explain how these high-precision, guided weapons that are hitting civilians - while under the guidance of IDF personnel - can be anything but deliberate.

Despite me asking several times you still evade it; still refuse to answer it. I think that refusal is answer enough: you know as well as I do that those high-precision, guided weapons are *deliberately* aimed at civilians.

*****

”Now you’re rewriting history, as well? These are the same old PLO propaganda handouts—“We are the victims”. Useful idiots supporting terror use this claim every day.”

When a bomb drops from an IAF plane and kills a bunch of civilians, it is bloody obvious that the corpses are the victims. You may wish to pretend that the poor little IAF pilot is the victim, but you are making yourself look silly.

****
”In other words, you expect soldiers to fight a war against terrorists without ever taking a shot. How logical. You must want to see a lot of dead soldiers and live terrorists.”

I am talking about killing civilians. C-I-V-I-L-I-A-N-S. Why do you keep inventing these straw men? If you have no answer, say nothing. Inventing stuff I never said just so you can rant against something is not very smart.

It is interesting how your comment only makes sense from the position that ALL Palestinians are terrorists...

****

” RF: I take it you are aware that missiles and bombs are indeed able to seek targets, but they still hit civilians. How do explain that?
MD: Because civilians are deliberately put in harm’s way by terrorists.’”

This is another argument that holds water only if we assume that IDF have no brains. IF we assume that IDF operates on reactions to stimulus only - like your average guinea pig - and IF we assume that they have no powers of reasoning to make a judgement on whether to attack or not, then you could blame the victims on the same grounds that you cannot blame a Rottweiler for attacking someone who throws stones at it.

Is that the level of intelligence you want to assign to the IDF, or should we treat them as rational subjects and hold them accountable for their actions? Your choice.

*****
”Palestine is a recognized country, why hasn’t it signed the international conventions that most countries have signed?
IF Palestine were a country, it would be a voting member state of the UN. It is not. If Palestine were a country, it would be invited to sign the Geneva and Hague Conventions. It has not been so invited.
Take a look at this article to see what’s lacking: http://www.drake.edu/artsci/PolSci/ssjrnl/2006/giridhar.pdf
At present, “Palestine” has two separate “governments”, Hamas in Gaza and the PLO in the West Bank. Since neither is in control of “Palestine” as a whole, it fails to meet several of the criteria that define an independent state.”

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know all the stock excuses. You are just repeating the same old line that has been heard a thousand times before.

It is a circular argument- ”Palestine is not a state because most of it is occupied by Israel, therefore Israel is not occupying another state”. The basic premise is flawed: Palestine’s problems are not caused by a lack of statehood as required by Montevideo, but by the presence of a hostile neighbour. In other words, Palestine could meet all the requirements for statehood if Israel wasn’t occupying Palestinian land.

You could apply all the stock excuses you are parroting to ’prove’ that all the European countries stopped being states when they were occupied by Germans in WW2. That clearly makes no sense, and nor does your appeal to Montevideo.

Sorry to disappoint you once again, but GC does apply to Israeli actions in Palestine. You have no excuse for killing civilians. Get used to it.

*****

”You willfully “misunderstand” and deliberately misinterpret—a typical terrorist-supporting tactic. If you take fire from a position, you can assume that that position is an enemy position and you have the right to return fire. Why is that so hard for you to understand?”

Not if it means killing a whole load of civilians in the process.

You are still evading. You know as well as I do that most of the civilians killed by the IDF are victims of artillery or air strikes, yet you keep turning to this ever more extreme imaginary scenario in which the IDF soldier is the victim of hordes of nasty Palestinians, each with a civilian standing in front of him, leaving the poor little IDF man with no choice but to kill a civilian.

Apart from the minor point of it being miles from the true situation of the IDF soldier being far away from any harm, lobbing shells and bombs at civilians who are in no way threatening him, you are also making the schoolboy error of thinking that one extreme example can then become a generalisation.

*****

”Even you should be able to tell the difference between your two statements. If you think that “you accept that you could be shot at” is equal to “likes being shot at” or “want to be shot at”, then you need some serious help.”

Soldiers accept being shot at, civilians don’t, therefore soldiers should be in the firing line protecting civilians. Civilians should not be in the firing line protecting soldiers.

If those soldiers really don’t want to be shot at, they are very stupid for being soldiers in the first place. The simple fact that they have accepted they will be shot at differentiates them from civilians who have not, and if you can’t see that difference you really have some issues.

Saying that soldiers and civilians are the same because neither of them gets pleasure out of being shot is really quite stupid.


*****

’But not when territory is not under control or being fought over. The GC doesn’t say THAT, and can’t, because it’s impossible to enforce.”

If you invade, your military is in control, and GC says you are responsible for the civilians of that country. That includes protecting them.

*****
”Then educate me.”

A proportional response is one that is sufficient to neutralise the enemy action, and I am quite shocked that an alleged ex-military doesn’t know that. It could explain a lot though.

As far as Israel/Gaza is concerned, a proportional response would be to attack the people firing the rockets. Attacking police stations, UN schools, demolishing civilian housing, and killing over 900 civilians who have nothing to do with firing rockets is very obviously NOT a proportional response, and is rightly condemned as such by the entire international community.

*****

”Great article, repeated nowhere else. Confirmation?
...
ALL others give credit to a “Hamas claim”.

So your position is ”If Israel doesn’t say it, it isn’t true”. Enough said...

IDF have some very good reasons for not confirming, I trust that I don’t need to explain what they are? As IDF don’t want to confirm anything, then reports have no choice but to hedge reports with ”Hamas claims”.

World Tribune.com is an American operation, one of a group of publications, and voluntarily covered by US press laws. It has an editorial board with some well-respected names on it, notably editor Robert Morton who was one of the founders of The Washington Times National Weekly. It is very unlikely indeed that they are lying. If they say they have a source that confirmed it, then they have a source that confirmed it.

*****

”Considering the lack of honesty and ethics in the media today, that’s not much of a recommendation. ”

Not all media is JPost, and a lot depends on how you define ’media’. Real news-media, i.e. not blogs or opinions, is well regulated in Europe. The facts and events they report will be accurate within tight boundaries.

The same cannot be said of Israeli press, who are well known for gagging foreign press, and are consistently slammed by organisations such as RWB for multiple violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees press freedom and which Israel has signed.

Independent reporters in Israel have been beaten up, arrested, imprisoned, shot at by IDF, and even deported - all in the interest of suppressing independent voices and ensuring that the only view reported is the Israeli view.

And you wonder why I have no interest in listening to them...

*****

”MEMRI may be a “stock joke” to you, but not to over 36,000 Google hits for this particular item. Is this organization “aligned” with MEMRI, also? http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/03/mp-fathi-hammad-we-used-women-and.html I’m sure they have enough Arabic speakers to confirm the content of the clip before they posted it. How about this one: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3223606/in-the-face-of-this-madness-some-facts.thtml ”

So... to support your admiration for Memri you wheel in Melanie Phillips, the rabid Zionist whose views are so extreme that Jonathan Freedland, Alan Dershowitz, and even Rabbi David Goldberg condemn her. The women who called Independent Jewish Voices ”Jews for Genocide”, and said of Palestinians that ”their cause amounts to Holocaust denial as a national project”; the women who accuses her fellows Jews of ant-semitism if they criticise IDF policies.

If this is an example where you get your views from, it explains a lot.

*****

”While you’re accusing others of having agendas, what about your own agenda? Please don’t even try to sell the idea that you’re “just telling the truth”. Whose “truth” are you telling?”

My agenda is stopping people killing innocent civilians. Why do you have such a problem with that?

*****

”So you say now… after defending them tooth and nail.”

i have said from the very first post that militaries who kill civilians are as bad as terrorists, and we need GC to protect civilians from them. If you read that as defending them, then you have a world view problem. We don’t all take a partisan, us-and-them view of everything.

*****

”Israel refused to cooperate for a very simple reason that continues to escape you: none of the organizations “investigating” Operation Cast Lead even pretended to be objective or honest. Only after much insistence was Hamas’ actions included in any “investigation”. Amnesty International even made a statement that “there’s no need to investigate Hamas war crimes”.

That is a really pathetic excuse. If it went to trial, it wouldn’t be AI or the UN or IRC judging them, so if Israel has credible evidence that the war-crimes didn’t happen they could prove it. It doesn’t take a genius to work out why Israel doesn’t want that.

*****
”My religion doesn’t “do” human sacrifices—not since the legend of God telling Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice, anyway.”

More evasion, so I was obviously correct in my assumption that your statement that you put your soldiers lives ahead of civilian lives does indeed mean that you would sacrifice civilians to protect your soldiers.

*****

”Yes, we can see what your “less biased sources” are. You mean that your mind is made up and you have no intention of hearing anything that might prove you wrong. You’ve already judged without allowing a defense of any kind, just like any other kangaroo court.”

Source evaluation 101: does the source have anything to gain from saying what they are saying? I don’t waste my time laughing at Israeli propaganda for the same reasons I don’t waste my time laughing at Palestinian propaganda. 


Michael
The Geneva conventions are fine ideals to hold, but do they actually make much difference in reality? As far as I can tell they're routinely ignored, even by 'civilized' nations like the US and UK.

Considering the fact that the Geneva Convention was put together 60 years ago, are they still fit for purpose? The nature and style of conflict has changed a lot since world war II.