Political Crossfire Forums

[Venom]

Quote: Considering that these women were running towards the battle ground, the IDF should have closed off the area completely earlier or should have intercepted them sooner to isolate the combat area. But as I said earlier, all these depends on your priorities
The military priorities are killing the enemy, preventing being out manuvered, and of course not allowing additional militants to make it there. These women were part of the militants fire and manuver, making them combatants.
Maybe if the IDF had realized this earlier they could have captured and jailed every women in this movement as a militant, however they didn't and these women would fall under the role of an enemy combatant.

Also this is another case of the IDF being screwed no matter what they do.
If they killed the women, they are monsters.
If they arrested them prior to them entering the gun battle, they are just oppressing them for no reason.
If they arrest them after entering the gun battle they would put themselves into even greater danger.

[slitedeviance]

Prepare for a big suprise...

I completely agree with Venom. If it were any other force apart from the IDF in operation in these circumstances its hard to see how the situation would be any different.

These women were aware they were moving into a live fire enviroment, they were aware the IDF were after their Sons etc, so it's actually down to them to choose whether they entered the dangerous enviroment or not.

Whether or not the IDF was operating properly in terms of the operation as a whole I can't say as I haven't looked too much into this, but the decision of the women to surround the mosque clearly would put their lives in danger.

However, I would say that perhaps this is a new form of protest from the Palestinians, a lesson learned from Hezbollah maybe...

[prometeus]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Couldn't they be kept away? Couldn't they be prevented from entering the combat area? Couldn't they be rounded up when they entered the combat area?

Yes, yes, they should have been kept out, etc. etc. etc.
But wait, who's responsibility is to keep peace and order in the "occupied territories?"
Oh they failed? like always, but it is good to blame the IDF, makes for good PR at least for some.

[slitedeviance]

prometeus wrote: But wait, who's responsibility is to keep peace and order in the "occupied territories?

The IDF.

[Plato & Socrates]

slitedeviance wrote: prometeus wrote: But wait, who's responsibility is to keep peace and order in the "occupied territories?

The IDF.

But it favours one side over another. Prometeus, what is a occupation? Before you forget Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank.

[slitedeviance]

Plato & Socrates wrote: slitedeviance wrote: prometeus wrote: But wait, who's responsibility is to keep peace and order in the "occupied territories?

The IDF.

But it favours one side over another.

Probably the case, but that simply shows the IDF is not currently capable of carrying out their duties and responsibilities properly.

[prometeus]

Plato & Socrates wrote: Before you forget Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank.

Is it now? Just so that I may be on the right page: How and why did this "occupation" come about?

I thought that it was up to the Palestinian Authority to run the place, was I wrong?

[slitedeviance]

prometeus wrote: I thought that it was up to the Palestinian Authority to run the place, was I wrong?

The occupying forces have a responsibility under international humanitarian law to care for the occupied population. This includes their security and safety. Now, whilst the PA does have the same mandate in part, until they have the capacity to facilitate this independantly (which would mean the establishment of a Palestinian state) it is still the responsibility of the occupying force.

[Venom]

Quote: However, I would say that perhaps this is a new form of protest from the Palestinians, a lesson learned from Hezbollah maybe...
I wouldn't call it a protest, it's a military manuver really to shield themselves with "unarmed" women. Apparently it was atleast somewhat thoughtout, thus making them all combatants.
Just like if I was robbing a bank and called a bunch of women to make a smoke screen for my mistake. They are all criminals.

Quote: Prometeus, what is a occupation? Before you forget Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank.
Come on Plato, you forget the illegal attacks on the Isreali people from Palestine.
If I am not mistaken, it's generally understood in international affairs that if you are attacked you have the right to defend yourself.
Plato, what is terrorism and when is a country allowed to do what it needs to protect itself from constant attacks?

[Di]

slitedeviance wrote: prometeus wrote: But wait, who's responsibility is to keep peace and order in the "occupied territories?

The IDF.

Not in Gaza it isn't. According to the "agreement" made, Israel agreed to remove, forcibly if necessary, all of its citizens in Gaza and dismantle all Gaza settlements. In return, the Palestinian governing body agreed to take responsibility for policing Gaza, controlling militants, and preventing attacks on Israel from Gaza. Israel adhered to its part of the agreement. The Palestinian governing body did not.

[slitedeviance]

Venom wrote: I wouldn't call it a protest, it's a military manuver really to shield themselves with "unarmed" women. Apparently it was atleast somewhat thoughtout, thus making them all combatants.


errrrrrrmmmm.................

No. It doesn't. They are not armed = they are not combatants. If they were armed (as in a large group of angry Palestinian women with AK74's) and participating then certainly they would be a combatant, but they are not (Geneva Conventions is a good reference point for this).

Quote: Just like if I was robbing a bank and called a bunch of women to make a smoke screen for my mistake. They are all criminals.

True, but the charges would be aiding and abetting rather than robbery.

[Venom]

Quote: No. It doesn't. They are not armed = they are not combatants
Guess what the most effective weapon in Iraq has been? A cell phone... not an AK
Cell phones and other electronics are used to set off the IEDs used to kill and injure coaltion troops.....

But I guess the people that are using these cell phones aren't armed?

Quote: If they were armed (as in a large group of angry Palestinian women with AK74's) and participating then certainly they would be a combatant, but they are not (Geneva Conventions is a good reference point for this).
Show me the Geneva Conventions that says that a person who is participating in a military action is not a combatant?
I guess the X-ray pictures goes to prove that these women did not carry explosives, any weapons, anything?
Also we have to go onto constitute was it a weapon... apparently you do not feel that something such as a Cell phone, or binoculars are a weapon (although used effectively in Iraq proves otherwise).
These women were acting as shields, on their on free will, to help these militants move. Add in many of them are wearing clothing covering their entire body, so you cannot even tell if some are men or female, carrying a grenade, a suicide vest, a shortened AK... etc... they are combatants.


Quote: True, but the charges would be aiding and abetting rather than robbery.
Aiding and abetting, yes.. helping commit this crime.

[Di]

slitedeviance wrote: ...True, but the charges would be aiding and abetting rather than robbery.

Not in America. The driver of the getaway car and the lookout are tried on the same charges as the robber inside the bank. If the robber inside the bank was armed, all three are charged with armed robbery. If the robber inside the bank shot and killed someone, all three are charged with murder.

Aiding and abetting is relegated to those who offered assistance to the criminals after the crime had been committed, not those whose assistance aided the crime in being committed in the first place.

[prometeus]

slitedeviance wrote: prometeus wrote: I thought that it was up to the Palestinian Authority to run the place, was I wrong?

The occupying forces have a responsibility...

Not in this case.
How about answering the second part too?

[SpartanPhalanx]

Quote: Venom wrote:-

Show me the Geneva Conventions that says that a person who is participating in a military action is not a combatant?
I guess the X-ray pictures goes to prove that these women did not carry explosives, any weapons, anything?
Also we have to go onto constitute was it a weapon... apparently you do not feel that something such as a Cell phone, or binoculars are a weapon (although used effectively in Iraq proves otherwise).
These women were acting as shields, on their on free will, to help these militants move. Add in many of them are wearing clothing covering their entire body, so you cannot even tell if some are men or female, carrying a grenade, a suicide vest, a shortened AK... etc... they are combatants.


Venom, you are either intentionally or not omiting one very basic important fact. Israel invaded Gaza. Since Israel is the antagonist in this instance, and it is choosing to fight in heavily civilian areas, it cannot change the rules of the game by saying that women going to the aid of combatants are combatants themselves. A civilian going to the aid of a combatant is still a civilian as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

I will now disect your argument on two fronts.

Israel, simply by its use of collective punishment of the Palestinian population in Gaza before it's latest invasion(Sonic booms by the Israeli Air Force, sealing of borders, destruction of civilian life and infrastructure, detention without trial, economic paralysis ) is violating artilce 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention to which it is a signatory.

Article 33 states:-

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Pillage is prohibited.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.



The incursions, in addition to the above violations only underscore Israeli aggression and oppression to an even greater extent.


But, to indulge you on your point, article 4 of the Fourth Convention states:

Art. 4. "Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals."

I.E, the women, are protected simply by the definition of the article. Since Israel invaded, the women were in the hands of the occupying party.

1. The women were not armed thus cannot be considered combatants.
2. The women were of no physical threat to the invading force.


Thus, the women, being "protected" under UN provisions were unlawfully killed. The occupying power(Israel) has violated the terms of the Provisions under the article.


http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

[Venom]

Quote: Venom, you are either intentionally or not omiting one very basic important fact. Israel invaded Gaza.
Why was this action committed? Perhaps because parts of Gaza are just weapons storage and staging sites for attacks on Israel?

Quote: Since Israel is the antagonist in this instance, and it is choosing to fight in heavily civilian areas, it cannot change the rules of the game by saying that women going to the aid of combatants are combatants themselves
That's not changing the rules of the game. Antagonist or not people that are actively helping the militant group during a pitched gun battle are combatants.
How is that changing the rules?
Would they be combatants if they were rushing into Israel to form a wall around gunmen shooting at the IDF inside of Israel?
The rules have not changed, they are combatants.


Quote: No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Pillage is prohibited.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited
They are personally committing an offense by willing becoming human shields and acting as part of the gunmen's efforts.
So that one is debunked...

Quote: The incursions, in addition to the above violations only underscore Israeli aggression and oppression to an even greater extent.

Incursions are not a violation as they are not just arresting people for zero reason, nor are they just executing people in the streets.


Quote: Thus, the women, being "protected" under UN provisions were unlawfully killed. The occupying power(Israel) has violated the terms of the Provisions under the article.

Again, they were part of a an armed conflict, they personnaly took part of it, thus they are not unlawfully killed.

Quote: 1. The women were not armed thus cannot be considered combatants.
2. The women were of no physical threat to the invading force. 1.
That is not known as they "weapons" are extremely easy to hide in the clothing they wore.
2. The women were a physical threat as they offered a human shield to allow the enemy to move and thus gain position.

[SpartanPhalanx]

Quote: That's not changing the rules of the game. Antagonist or not people that are actively helping the militant group during a pitched gun battle are combatants.
How is that changing the rules?
Would they be combatants if they were rushing into Israel to form a wall around gunmen shooting at the IDF inside of Israel?
The rules have not changed, they are combatants.


Well Venom, I proved to you that according to the Fourth Geneva convention, under the provisions of the declaration, the women are not combatants. I also proved to you, that Israel, being a signatory of the Conventions has violated the provisions even before their invasion.Try challenging the article instead of simply offering your opinion.

I provided you with a link to the Fourth Geneva Conventions.

Opinions fall flat on their face in a court of law....;-)

[Venom]

Quote: Well Venom, I proved to you that according to the Fourth Geneva convention, under the provisions of the declaration, the women are not combatants
I find you'll find many that disagree with your take on the "law".
These women are combatants, they didn't come to bring medical attention to these militants, they came to help perform a military maneuver. These women are part of a hostile act and as under the Geneva conventions are a hostile force.

[quote]I also proved to you, that Israel, being a signatory of the Conventions has violated the provisions even before their invasion.Try challenging the article instead of simply offering your opinion.

Quote: I also proved to you, that Israel, being a signatory of the Conventions has violated the provisions even before their invasion.Try challenging the article instead of simply offering your opinion.

Opinions fall flat on their face in a court of law....
And yet laws of countries all over the world are determined by "opinions".
Also what have you proved? That, in your opinion, Israel broke the Geneva Conventions.
You state that Israel's move was an aggresive movement, turning a blind eye to attacks on Israeli towns from Gaza.
So your interpretation the law (also known as an opinion ....) leads you to believe that the IDF breached the Geneva Conventions.

Let me guess, the shot at a Mosque and that's a breach too right?

Quote: Opinions fall flat on their face in a court of law....
And yet your opinion of the acts committed is the law according to you...
You do realize that the court of law has different interpretations of the laws all of the time right? :lol:
That's why laws are always under attack. If they clearly stated the circumstances there wouldn't be so much of a problem.

What defines being unarmed today Spartan?

[superskippy]

Quote: Well Venom, I proved to you that according to the Fourth Geneva convention, under the provisions of the declaration, the women are not combatants. I also proved to you, that Israel, being a signatory of the Conventions has violated the provisions even before their invasion.Try challenging the article instead of simply offering your opinion.

The instant they become involved in a military capacity in a combat situation they ceased to be civilians. Their actions are in no way covered by the Geneva Convention. They became combatants with a military objective in mind, breaking the cordon, and relieving the siege and getting the militants within out.

[Venom]

Quote: The instant they become involved in a military capacity in a combat situation they ceased to be civilians. Their actions are in no way covered by the Geneva Convention. They became combatants with a military objective in mind, breaking the cordon, and relieving the siege and getting the militants within out.
The west would call this "reinforcements".... the east refers to this as a peaceful protest... :lol: