Right. Given the high quality of discussion on OTC about other issues, it would be nice to have some Troper input on this thorniest of Middle Eastern issues. Tropers wanting a brief overview of Israel should check out its Useful Notes page, or Israel
and Palestine's country profiles on the BBC.
At the outset, however, I want to make something very clear: This thread will be about sharing and discussing news. Discussions about whether the existence of Israel is justified would be off-topic, as would any extended argument or analysis about the countries' history.
So, let's start off:
At the moment, the two countries, prodded by the United States, are currently attempting to negotiate peace. A previous round of talks collapsed in 2010 after Israel refused to order a halt to settlement building on Palestinian land. US mediators will be present.
The aim of the talks is to end the conflict based on the "two state solution" - where independent Palestinian and Israeli states exist alongside each other. Both sides have expressed cynicism, although the US government has said it is "cautiously optimistic".
Key issues of the talks:
- Jerusalem: The city is holy to both Islam and Judaism. Both Palestine and Israel claim it as their capital. Israel has de facto control over most of it, a situation its Prime Minister has said will persist for "eternity". Some campaigners hope it can become an international city under UN or joint Israeli/Palestinian administration.
- Borders and settlements: The Palestinian Authority claims that the land conquered by Israel in the Six Day War of 1967 (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) is illegally occupied, and must be vacated by Israel in the event of a future Palestinian state. However, there are over 500,000 Israeli citizens living in settlements across the "Green line". Israel claims that a future Palestinian government would oppress or ethnically cleanse them, whilst many settlers claim that the land is rightfully theirs, as they have an ethno-religious link to it as part of the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people.
- Palestinian refugees: In 1948, around 700,000 Palestinian Arabs left the territory of the new Israeli state. The reasons why are still debated - preferably elsewhere. The Palestinian negotiators wish for them and their descendants to have a right of return to Israel. The Israeli government considers only those who were actually forced away all those years ago to have a legitimate claim (if that). The US government considers them all refugees, to Republican fury.
So you can see why its never been fixed. The religious dimension in particular has a lot of people vexed - asking Muslims or Jews to abandon Jerusalem has been likened to asking Catholics to skip communion.
Still, there's hope. Somewhere. The latest developments in the region:
- Israel has released 26 imprisoned Palestinian prisoners convicted of attacks on Israeli civilians and agreed to release another 78 in the future.
- Israel has OK'ed development of 900 new homes east of the "Green Line" in a controversial move ahead of the talks.
- Hamas is to execute publicly two prisoners in Gaza
- The new Palestinian government will not reunite the feuding Gazan and Transjordanian (West Bank) elements of Hamas and Fatah.
edited 15th Aug '13 2:10:49 PM by Achaemenid
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
No it doesn't depend on my definition, yours, or anyone else's opinion of what a civilian is. Saying it depends is equivocating. International law dictates pretty clearly who are and are not civilians and also when a civilian loses their protected status, a set of circumstances that are again pretty specifically defined.
The only people who are not civilians are State Armed Forces of any variety or organized armed groups of any variety. Everyone else are civilians.
Who watches the watchmen?
The law in the night
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
By that definition the fire bombing of Dresden was done purely against enemy combatants.
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
Geneva actually covered that - if they're in their own country, they're civilians with all the relevant protections. It's only when they're physically participating in an invasion that things get squirrely, because the simple ability to dump living bodies into an occupied territory is very important for an invader.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Lac: The same law still expressly forbids the deliberate targeting and killing of civilians regardless of location. It at no point states anywhere in it that their status as civilians changes. While civilians can be held accountable to international war and humanitarian law they are still ultimately civilians. Civilians have to take a direct role in armed conflict to lose their protection.
Who watches the watchmen?
United Earth
"The only people who are not civilians are State Armed Forces of any variety or organized armed groups of any variety. Everyone else are civilians."
So PMC are not civilians.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
They aren't but as non state actors they don't benefit fully from aspects of Geneva if I remember right.
Oh really when?
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Handle: Sort of.Generally they are considered military or working in one capacity or another as part of a military especially if they are directly employed by a state and taking direct part in combat. PMC is loophole abuse for US Law and an attempt at loophole abuse for the UN prohibition against Mercenaries. Though the US made the obvious dick move and never signed it. Lets just say it is best to not be captured as a mercenary in a signatory country.
The one condition under which any civilian can be killed without repercussion is if they are taking direct part in combat or military action. Even then there are quite a few exceptions that ultimately protect them if they leave the conflict, surrender, or are rendered unable or unwilling to fight. Even civilians that lose their protection cannot be killed outright unless they have taken up arms and/or actively participating in military operations or combat.
If you are unarmed or are rendered hors de combat regardless of your status in any of the categories you are protected in one form or another. The 1949 Geneva convention extended those protections to even unlawful combatants with the caveat that unlike lawful combatants they are subject to trial and punishment.
I take it back there is one other exception. If someone is found to be a de facto mercenary they are pretty fucked. Not only do they not fall into any of the protected categories but they are not qualified for any of the protections. It is however limited for now to the signers of the Mercenary Convention.
So literally just about everyone is protected including unlawful combatants to one degree or another depending on the circumstances unless you are a mercenary.
edited 22nd Jul '17 3:56:20 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
(Avatar by Coffee)
So if I'm getting this right: a guy gets up one morning, decides to do a terrorist attack, stabs some soldiers and gets shot, he counts as a combatant?
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Provided they survive their encounter they receive some protections. Notice some. Unlike a lawful combatant they can be tried and punished by local law and it coincides with any signed treaties. If they surrender or are disabled by any means then they are extended some of the protections.
If you find that surprising or hard to parse with war in general you aren't the only one. There is still some contention at the Hague with some input from the Red Cross as to how far all of that can go or how broadly it applies.
One of the more fuzzy areas is the increase of contractors of the Non-PMC type contractors doing what were traditionally military jobs. Such as driving supply trucks between depots and the frontlines or civilians providing immediate support and in some cases direct use of military equipment inside a combat zone. The slowly growing consensus is they are fair game but still qualify for various protections.
Who watches the watchmen?
(Avatar by Coffee)
I'll clarify my question: There are two scenarios here.
Hamasnik Ibn Jihadist wakes up in the morning, packs some knives, screwdrivers and whatnot in his pack and goes to stab as many Jews as he can. He encounters a soldier, who shoots him.
- Hamasnik Ibn Jihadist survives.
- Hamasnik Ibn Jihadist dies.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Pretty much. Illegal combatants can be freely engaged by military forces, police, or other similar groups.
This is assuming we are not discussing any other contentious issues just the scenario as written.
As long as the soldier isn't doing anything else illegal in the course of events that results in them shooting that person they have not actually broken any laws.
Who watches the watchmen?
(Avatar by Coffee)
Well, I'm not talking about the guy who shot a downed terrorist (why didn't he get more years in jail); I'm talking more about things like the soldier who shot yesterday's terrorist.
The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
That one is a bit messy because of where it happened. In general there is no aspect of the law that says you can summarily kill unarmed civilians for being someplace illegally even if they have lost their original protected status.
Hypothetically speaking if the soldier was sent to the Hague he might be guilty of the occupation side of the issue but his shooting and disabling of the man stabbing other civilians would unlikely be considered a crime provided he adhered to the treaty to his treatment after the fact.
edited 22nd Jul '17 5:15:51 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
Thus speaks yoneld:
Knife attack in Petah Tikva. Is this one also a justified attack on settlers?
edited 24th Jul '17 5:17:41 AM by yoneld
Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself.
(Avatar by Coffee)
In the Palestinians' mind Tel Aviv or Petakh Tikva are just as much a settlement as Khalamish is.
The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
Definitely much less so. And damn, injuring nobody except an Israeli Arab must be embarrassing.
Just a harmless giant from a foreign land.
Nevermind
edited 24th Jul '17 5:33:33 AM by 3of4
"You can reply to this Message!"
Oh, bother.
Now I'm wondering if Hamas will praise this one too, or just quietly ignore it due to .
edited 24th Jul '17 5:33:50 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised
Thus speaks yoneld:
@Iaculus: Why? What's the difference? Why is an ethnically/religiously motivated stabbing wrong in one situation but not in another?
edited 24th Jul '17 5:51:21 AM by yoneld
Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself.
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
For the reasons I mentioned - one is in occupied territory where civilians should not be, and where they are actively endangering Palestinians by cutting off their access to life-preserving resources that said Palestinians legally own, and the other is in sovereign Israeli territory where civilians are supposed to be, and aren't harming anyone. It's the difference between someone passing suitcases full of bills out of a bank during a robbery and someone sitting at home doing their weekly shopping on the Sainsbury's website.
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
Of course, in the minds of many Palestinians and other Arabs (as evidenced by the existence of Hamas and its staunch supporters as well as sympathizing non-supporters), Israel as a whole is just as illegitimate of an existence as the West Bank settlements.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
Thus speaks yoneld:
A) As Desdendelle and Marq have said, to them there's no difference, and it's not about the resources but them merely being there, it's just a lot easier for them to get into settlements than to cross the Green Line. If there hadn't been any settlements, that scumbag from Friday night would have murdered someone in the first town past the Green Line.
B) If it is about the resources, they should resist against the military, not go out and murder civilians. Murder is murder is murder.
C) The settlements are actually a source of income for many Palestinians who work in them, and many Palestinians actually prefer to work for Israelis.
edited 24th Jul '17 8:19:07 AM by yoneld
Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself.
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
That's sort of the problem. It can be legally argued that because the settlers are in foreign territory that they're not actually civilians. Non combatants yes, but possibly not civilians.
Oh really when?
(Avatar by Coffee)
Still doesn't make murdering them legal or moral, and the fact that you continue to rationalise that makes me think you have less to do with being pro-Palestinian and more with being anti-Israeli and/or anti-Semitic.
Yes by the way this same argument would apply to anyone attacking English settlers in occupied Ireland.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran