Israel makes a huge mistake.

[Panag]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"IMO you're wrong, esp. since the realities of wars and powers have changed..."

So we are evolvong back to the 19th century? Maybe... but what is the definition then?

"I don't think the PA is a signatory to the geneva convention."

Irrelevant.

hi ,

"irrelevant" you say , .....


have you ever seen a body from one of the victims those terrorist scumbags have killed , ......

after they have disarmed he or she bien sure , ......

have a nice day

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Then the term "war" is totally meaningless.

War only means 1000 battle deaths. What particular meaning were you ascribing to it?

[Ned]

Interesting discussion on the "legal" definition of "war." Here's a portion of the definition from a legal dictionary:

"Public war is either civil or national. Civil war is that which is waged between two parties, citizens or members of the same state or nation. National war is a contest between two or more independent nations) carried on by authority of their respective governments."
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/w038.htm
It appears that a contest between a state and a private organization that is not part of the same state or nation is not a legal "war." So when we talk about the war the entire world is fighting against against terrorism, what are we talking about if we are not talking about a "legal" war?

[Eli]

War = One bunch of people trying to kill another bunch of people.

[Japher]

I use to like Sharon, but this is absurd. I hope that the first time the idiots they are letting go, or anyone for that matter, attacks that Sharon blows all them Palestinians back to kingdom come!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Japher
I use to like Sharon, but this is absurd. I hope that the first time the idiots they are letting go, or anyone for that matter, attacks that Sharon blows all them Palestinians back to kingdom come!

Ever since Begin, I personally trust the leader of the Likud, regardless of who he is, to do the right thing regarding Israel's security.

In the present case, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt Ariel Sharon. I suspect most Israelis also have the same confidence in Sharon.

[Sirotnikov]

I trust Barak as well.

He's a cunning bastard, and if it wasn't for him, we'd still be deluded by Oslo agreements.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned
Interesting discussion on the "legal" definition of "war." Here's a portion of the definition from a legal dictionary:

"Public war is either civil or national. Civil war is that which is waged between two parties, citizens or members of the same state or nation. National war is a contest between two or more independent nations) carried on by authority of their respective governments."
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/w038.htm
It appears that a contest between a state and a private organization that is not part of the same state or nation is not a legal "war." So when we talk about the war the entire world is fighting against against terrorism, what are we talking about if we are not talking about a "legal" war?

You're saying this like it's a surprise to you.

[Ned]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


You're saying this like it's a surprise to you.

Yes and no. There seems to be a legal definition of war and a common understanding that is quite different. Consider, for example, the US vs. the Vietcong and the Vietcong vs. the Govt. of South Vietnam. The latter clearly was a civil war. But the US vs. the Vietcong does not fit within the definition. Does this somehow make the US war in Vietnam against the Vietcong a non war?

Also consider my point about the war against terrorism. It is in truth a war - but does not meet the definition. This can create legal problems as we all know because those caputured in the war on terror have no legal standing even though they are in truth POWs - something the world has been saying with respect to our prisoners in Cuba for some time.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned


Yes and no. There seems to be a legal definition of war and a common understanding that is quite different. Consider, for example, the US vs. the Vietcong and the Vietcong vs. the Govt. of South Vietnam. The latter clearly was a civil war. But the US vs. the Vietcong does not fit within the definition. Does this somehow make the US war in Vietnam against the Vietcong a non war?

The US was not at war with the Viet Cong. It was at war with the North Vietnamese, though the scope of the war was artificially (and inconsistently) limited by the US to the territory of South Vietnam. If the Viet Cong had been autonomous actors (without support or direction from NV) then the US would not have been at war. It would have been aiding the SV government in its civil war. That's my take on it, at least.

Also consider my point about the war against terrorism. It is in truth a war - but does not meet the definition.

No it isn't. It doesn't meet the definition for that reason.

This can create legal problems as we all know because those caputured in the war on terror have no legal standing even though they are in truth POWs - something the world has been saying with respect to our prisoners in Cuba for some time.

You are confusing the political term "war on terror" with the very real war against Afghanistan so recently prosecuted by the US, Canada, UK, Australia and Europe in which we were cobelligerents with the Northern Alliance against the ruling Taliban. Though the Taliban was not recognized by most other governments as being the legitimate government of Afghanistan, it was de facto the government, controlling something like 90-95% of its territory. This was not the reason that some of the prisoners are not being accorded POW status. Those that are being denied it are being denied it because (in the opinion of the US government) they fail to meet the criteria of having a distinctive uniform with which to identify them as soldiers, and also do not fall under the category of inhabitants who spontaneously rise to fight an invading army.

To clarify: there was a war against Afghanistan. There was a war against Iraq. There is no "war against terror" in any sense but the political. Similarly, unless Israel is claiming the territory that Hamas et al operate out of as theirs (so that the conflict would be a civil war) or is claiming to be at war with the PA as a whole, the assassinations they perform in the Occupied Territories are rightly termed "extrajudicial killings". Similarly, when the US recently assassinated several men in a vehicle in the Sudan (?) using a missile from a Predator drone (?) it was an extrajudicial killing, because the US is not at war with the Sudan.

[Ramo]

Good to see Israel making this step.

[Ned]

KrazyHorse, a very intelligent post. I will think about what you said.

[HershOstropoler]

KH:

Agree fully, just one minor point:

"If the Viet Cong had been autonomous actors (without support or direction from NV) then the US would not have been at war. It would have been aiding the SV government in its civil war. That's my take on it, at least."

Internal conflicts are considered wars when they reach the stage where the "rebel" party controls part of the land so it can act as a de facto state. If another state intervenes on one side, it is a party to that war. Humanitarian law and rules on POWs etc apply to those conflicts. What we have eg in Congo is a war, where all sides, including the intervening states like Ruanda or Simbabwe, are heavily involved in war crimes.

[KrazyHorse]

AustroMan: I agree, but the VC, although they controlled land in the sense that they taxed the inhabitants etc. were not able to fully operate the apparatus of a state in the traditional sense, as their control over any particular piece of real estate was transitory (as transitory as the US wanted to make it)

[Az]

I disagree.

[KrazyHorse]

That's because it's inconvenient for Israel to abide by traditional rules and limitations on warfare.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Roland and KH are correct. For example US v. Al Queda is not a 'war', because Al Queda isn't a political entity. They have no land to conquer. Therefore, Israel v. Hamas cannot be a war as well. Extrajudicial killing is a good term to use.

[Arrian]

Similarly, when the US recently assassinated several men in a vehicle in the Sudan (?) using a missile from a Predator drone

That was Yemen, I believe. I was surprised it didn't draw more of a reaction (yes, I checked the international press, not American sources).

-Arrian

[Ned]

So, a guerilla war is not a legal war under international law. The guerilla's or for that matter terrorists who kill are premeditated murderers and those that bear arms with the intent to kill are conspirators. In either case, they have no rights under international law as POWs, and can be tried and put to death or imprisoned for life, not just the duration of the conflict.

Is that really the position of internation jurists on this issue?

[Az]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That's because it's inconvenient for Israel to abide by traditional rules and limitations on warfare.

If one fails to understand that things have changed in the last decades, one deludes himself.

[Ned]

Also, I suppose, that under this same law that if a government deliberately killing an enemy guerilla commander that the government is guilty of some kind of crime?

Take the current wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The conflicts against the territory-holding-governments has ended, but the fighting continues. How in the world can one say that the deliberate killing of enemy commander is justified on day one and not on day two when the only difference between day one and day two is that the enemy no longer controls territory.

Now, if it is OK for NATO to take out a Taliban commander under international law, it should be OK for Israel to do the same with a Hamas commander - that is unless there are some other legal distinctions that apply and not just some kind of double standard - one for the good guy NATO commanders and another for the Israeli commanders.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I trust Barak as well.

He's a cunning bastard, and if it wasn't for him, we'd still be deluded by Oslo agreements.

hi ,

tue , but the man has become a politician , ..... and top brass who become politicians tend to do funny things , ......


have a nice night

[Eli]

Yeah. Agreeing to give up the Temple Mount is real funny.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Ned
Also, I suppose, that under this same law that if a government deliberately killing an enemy guerilla commander that the government is guilty of some kind of crime?

Take the current wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The conflicts against the territory-holding-governments has ended, but the fighting continues. How in the world can one say that the deliberate killing of enemy commander is justified on day one and not on day two when the only difference between day one and day two is that the enemy no longer controls territory.

Now, if it is OK for NATO to take out a Taliban commander under international law, it should be OK for Israel to do the same with a Hamas commander - that is unless there are some other legal distinctions that apply and not just some kind of double standard - one for the good guy NATO commanders and another for the Israeli commanders.

hi ,

the difference is that the nato officer does not have to count for his actions , the idf officers has to do so , ......

but no-one complains when an other country fights against terror , ......


have a nice day

[Ned]

Originally posted by panag



hi ,

the difference is that the nato officer does not have to count for his actions , the idf officers has to do so , ......

but no-one complains when an other country fights against terror , ......


have a nice day

It is interesting that we have not heard from any of our European or Canadian colleagues on why it is OK for NATO to take out a Taliban or al Qaida commander, but it is not OK for Israel to do the same thing to a Hamas commander.

Or why we should not treat terrorist or guerilla war soldiers as murderers.

[HershOstropoler]

"It is interesting that we have not heard from any of our European or Canadian colleagues"

Tomorrow.

[Ned]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"It is interesting that we have not heard from any of our European or Canadian colleagues"

Tomorrow.

We wait with quiet patience.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I do find it amusing that the term 'extrajudicial killing' seems to arose so much protest from our Isreali-backing colleages... LOL.

I would also say (perhaps Roland and KH may not agree with me here) but simply because some is extraleagal does not necessarily make it illegal. There is a difference between what is prohibited (illegal), and what isn't exactly legal or illegal (extraleagal). It is not illegal to kill guerrila leaders, but not explicitly legal either. It's a grey area.

And furthermore, we've already said what the difference between the Taliban and terrorist groups are. You should listen (or read, as the case may be) instead of ignoring posts simply so you can try to look good making some 'point'. Mainly the point being that the Taliban controlled a state, de facto, if not de jure.

If you want to make a 'point', drop the Taliban and stress the Al Queda, which btw is also a extrajudicial (or extralegal) killing.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Azazel


If one fails to understand that things have changed in the last decades, one deludes himself.

Bullshit. This sort of conflict has been around since time immemorial.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned


It is interesting that we have not heard from any of our European or Canadian colleagues on why it is OK for NATO to take out a Taliban or al Qaida commander, but it is not OK for Israel to do the same thing to a Hamas commander.

Or why we should not treat terrorist or guerilla war soldiers as murderers.

a) Reread my post. I specifically mentioned the action in the Yemen (thank you, Arrian) as an example of extrajudicial killing.

b) When did I say you shouldn't treat terrorists as murderers? Catch them, prosecute them, lock them up.