The Middle East part 2

[walker 0]

Hi Ram TN

It is not my dilemma it is the soldiers. I am not a soldier.

If you look carefuly at the question I say the target for the Israeli apache pilot is a "Hamas leader involved in planning attacks" there for making it clear he is a legitimate target.

BUT!

No where do I say the Palestinian suicide bomber is a member of Hamas.

You made an assumption.

So the example is valid.

I am a climber as such I am very wary of assumptions I have been to too many funerals of friends who made them. I dare say good soldiers are also wary of asumptions.

Read the question.

If you look through the case given I was very carefull to try to put both combatants in the same situation.

Your note 2 about the professionalism of the Apache helicopter pilots is nothing more than I would expect from a profesional army. Most modern armies have a whole list of procedures and hoops that a mission planner must go through to reach the goal of executing it.

Once again though we are straying from the question.

Can the combatants in the case I sited earlier refuse orders?

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

Can the combatants in the case I sited earlier refuse orders?

Legally and in principle no. You can't have every soldier growing an individual conscience and to have an individual system of values. If it's a legal order, then you have to carry it out.

Fortunately there are conventions that restrict the types of orders that are legal. I'm talking about the Geneva conventions. So if you get an order to go and slaughter civilians, it will in most countries be an illegal one and you have a duty not to carry it out. If the situation is a bit more complex where you have to weight in unavoidable civilian casualties, then it's not up to you. It's up to your commanding officers and his commanding officers since you don't have a complete picture.

[walker 0]

Hi Denoir

At last the beginnings of a sensible reply.

I thought everyone had their stupid head on.

Does the Geneva convention cover police actions?

Does the soldier, in the limited case I sited, have a defence under it for disobeying the order?

Please note the question of whether there are other methods where by the hamas leader could be removed are outside the scope of this question.

If there are better methods by which the hamas leader could be removed then the people who made the order and passed it on are criminal that is just a plain fact. It is criminal neglegence in policing to ignore a safer method of achieving an aim.

Please consider also, in the limited case I sited, the Palestinian suicide bomber's moral/ethical equivalence in the light of the above but dont forget as a representative of cause that has lost its land in battle and has surrendered it has zero legal standing.

Unless someone feels capable of answering the second question?

Kind Regards walker

[Bernadotte 0]

Does the Geneva convention cover police actions?

How do you define Police Action?

[walker 0]

Does the Geneva convention cover police actions?

How do you define Police Action?

Hi Bernadotte

It is defined as actions that take place after a battle or war.

It is the actions and legal obligations of an occupying force.

According to the International Commitee of the Red Cross

ICRC on legal aspects of occupation

And

Military Occupation A good US military source.

And this for better but rough details

General outline of Laws of War, Geneva Convention, Law of Armed Conflict and laws of the Hague

And this for the actual convention text.

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

Kind Regards Walker

[Bernadotte 0]

Does the Geneva convention cover police actions?

How do you define Police Action?

It is defined as actions that take place after a battle or war.

It is the actions and legal obligations of an occupying force.

1.  The Israeli government does not consider the territories to be occupied.  They do not use the word occupation.

2.  Israel draws its borders completely around the territories and calls the entire land Israel.

3.  Israel has built hundreds of settlements with schools factories and shopping malls across the territories and nearly half a million Israelis live there now.

4.  Israel has criss-crossed the territories with new roads and highways.

My point is that if you manage to apply the Geneva Convention to a Police Action then you are still faced with convincing Israel that they merely occupy and not own Judea and Samaria (Israel's name for West Bank).  Good luck!

[walker 0]

Let me make it clear for you all. You need to look at two sections of the convention.

Quote[/b] ](1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

© outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

And

Quote[/b] ]Art. 144. The High Contracting Parties undertake, in time of peace as in time of war, to disseminate the text of the present Convention as widely as possible in their respective countries, and, in particular, to include the study thereof in their programmes of military and, if possible, civil instruction, so that the principles thereof may become known to the entire population.

Any civilian, military, police or other authorities, who in time of war assume responsibilities in respect of protected persons, must possess the text of the Convention and be specially instructed as to its provisions.

What does it all mean

It is simple.

Not only does the soldier in the case cited have a defence under the Geneva Convention but he would be breaking the Law (In the case of Israel actual Israeli Law as a signatory to the convention) if they were to fire the missile knowing it could kill innocent men women and children who are protected persons.

Kind Regards Walker

[walker 0]

Hi Bernadotte

Just had a look at what the official Israeli maps have to say about that and at least in the Gaza Strip what you say does not apear to be the case.

As to other areas Ramhala Jennin etc. It may be open to interpretation.

Never the less other than Israel NO nation including the US reconises those borders or the annexation of the West Bank or Gaza. US Governments Understaniding of Israel's borders and the UN, ICRC etc. all say they are occupied territories.

Kind Regards walker

[Bernadotte 0]

Never the less other than Israel NO nation including the US reconises those borders or the annexation of the West Bank or Gaza. US Governments Understaniding of Israel's borders and the UN, ICRC etc. all say they are occupied territories.

Exactly!  So where does that leave the poor Israeli soldier?  Refusing an order because it violates police action conduct regulations is not a valid argument in a nation that does not see itself as an occupyer.

Similarly, if nearly the entire international community plus the UN consider America's invasion of Iraq to be illegal then can a US soldier refuse to serve, even though his own nation would refuse to see his situation in that context?

Regarding borders, please have a look at the discussion I had with theavonlady about this a few months ago.  The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs www-page is the only place I would bother looking to see where Israel considers its borders to be.  The site's down right now, but I seem to recall Gaza being included.

[Ram TN 0]

3.  Israel has built hundreds of settlements with schools factories and shopping malls across the territories and nearly half a million Israelis live there now.

4.  Israel has criss-crossed the territories with new roads and highways.

My point is that if you manage to apply the Geneva Convention to a Police Action then you are still faced with convincing Israel that they merely occupy and not own Judea and Samaria (Israel's name for West Bank).  Good luck!

Please be exact with your facts. There are 250,000 Israelis in the Occupied Territories, most of them living a few kilometers away from the Israeli border prior to 1967. Most of those settlers have indicated that they will leave their homes if and when there will be a government demand on that issue.

Those borders are not recognized by other nations, because they were occupied during a war. Which rises the question: why can some countries occupy a land and some don't?

Also, if you look at it carefully, you'll see that the fence that is not being built around the West Bank is actually a border - which will make a Palestinian country a more formidable idea.

(And by the way, those roads you're talking about - what's wrong with them? Is building roads a way of oppression?)

[Bernadotte 0]

Please be exact with your facts. There are 250,000 Israelis in the Occupied Territories...

Where do you get your facts from?  The settler population quoted in the 2001 Mitchel Report was 370,000, not including the Gaza strip.  The number has only grown since then.

...most of them living a few kilometers away from the Israeli border prior to 1967.

Not according to this 7 year-old UN map.  And even if they did, a few kms is already halfway to Jordan.

Most of those settlers have indicated that they will leave their homes if and when there will be a government demand on that issue.

...Which means nothing as long as ~25% of the ruling government is made up of the National Union and National Religious Party.  (Now, don't make me go find ughly anti-Arab quotes from their websites.)

Those borders are not recognized by other nations, because they were occupied during a war. Which rises the question: why can some countries occupy a land and some don't?

LOL... What nation has ever done what Israel is doing?  What other country has ever conquered a land, claiming it for themselves while denying citizenship to its 3.5 million native inhabitants and putting many of them into camps?  Let's face it, even Blacks were allowed to be citizens of South Africa during the worst days of apartheid.

(And by the way, those roads you're talking about - what's wrong with them? Is building roads a way of oppression?)

(Trust me, I can think of much stronger words than oppression for building highways across the Palestinian territories that only Israelis are allowed to use.)

[walker 0]

Hi all

And the backwater thread returns to its usual rubish.

Yawn.

Any way I believe the question of the soldiers Dilemma has been demonstrated and some of its important issues aired.

It is just sad that the backwater types draged it in here.

I will now leave the backwater types to their rubish; intelectual discussion is clearly beyond them.

Kind Regards Walker

[Bernadotte 0]

...I will now leave the backwater types to their rubish; intelectual discussion is clearly beyond them.

Kind Regards Walker

I'd hate to see your Unkind Regards.

[walker 0]

...I will now leave the backwater types to their rubish; intelectual discussion is clearly beyond them.

Kind Regards Walker

I'd hate to see your Unkind Regards.

Correct

[Scorpio 0]

You guys should run for presidency or at least politicians.

[walker 0]

Open letter in reply to a kind and considerate PM from Bernadotte.

Hi Bernadotte

Dont take anything I say personaly.

If I am being personal you would know because I would use a PM.

My post at the end was meant to say a plague on both your houses. But I think I got a little big headed for which I apologise.

The Israel Palestine issue will never be solved until both sides accept the others view as valid add to that a mix religious clap trap and zelotry and couple of hundred thousand family blood feuds and it is going no where.

It could simply have been solved if the arab nations banded together in the 1960s and wiped out Israel or if Israel had killed most of the arabs in the areas they wanted but nobody wants that.

Short of both sides discovering a common enemy we are left with complex solutions or a massive war with both sides loosing a few million till they are sick of it then a peace similar to WW1. (Since the zealots on both sides believe you get an express ticket to heaven if you die in such a battle you have to kill all of them plus a lot more to make everyone happy.

The complex solutions demand certain things

First of all forgivness.

Second accepting people you dont like in power.

Third Good Fences similar to the ones being built.

Fourth powerful external guarantors of peace on both sides (imposable with only one super power)

Fifth a period of political stability on both sides  

Sixth people being civil to one another

Seventh....

Eighth....

Ninth...

....

Ninty Ninth....

One hundredth something I forgot

101 something everyone missed

102 an unexpected event.

etc.

etc.

It is not solved by people saying the other side are bad/nasty/evil/wrong/etc. or that they are doing something bad/nasty/evil/wrong/etc. That just adds another six months to the time it takes for things to heal. It is like picking a scab it never heals.

I keep out of it cause I dont like picking the scab.

Kind Regards walker

[Ram TN 0]

Quote[/b] ]Where do you get your facts from?  The settler population quoted in the 2001 Mitchel Report was 370,000, not including the Gaza strip.  The number has only grown since then.

A total of 220.2 Jewish citizens were living in Judea, Sumeria and the Gaza Strip at the end of 2002, according to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics: Israeli Population By Districts Table.

Quote[/b] ]Not according to this 7 year-old UN map.  And even if they did, a few kms is already halfway to Jordan.

This map only shows you settlements. Most of the settlements shown in this map are very small ones, usually consisting of several caravans and 5-10 people living on them. The majority of the population in Judea and Sumeria lives right near the border, in urban areas.

Quote[/b] ]...Which means nothing as long as ~25% of the ruling government is made up of the National Union and National Religious Party.  (Now, don't make me go find ughly anti-Arab quotes from their websites.)

Agreed, but PM Sharon has promised he will take those settlers out if the Palestinians will take control of the terror. And, like the song says, 'if not tommorow - then the day after'.

Quote[/b] ]LOL... What nation has ever done what Israel is doing?  What other country has ever conquered a land, claiming it for themselves while denying citizenship to its 3.5 million native inhabitants and putting many of them into camps?  Let's face it, even Blacks were allowed to be citizens of South Africa during the worst days of apartheid.

You want me going ugly on European colonialism?

Quote[/b] ](Trust me, I can think of much stronger words than oppression for building highways across the Palestinian territories that only Israelis are allowed to use.)

They're building their roads, we're building ours. And besides, when the Territories will become the Palestinian state, these will be THEIR roads.

[bn880 5]

The Israel Palestine issue will never be solved until both sides accept the others view as valid add to that a mix religious clap trap and zelotry and couple of hundred thousand family blood feuds and it is going no where.

It will never be solved in the current manner until what you say happens, I can agree to that.

Quote[/b] ]Short of both sides discovering a common enemy we are left with complex solutions or a massive war with both sides loosing a few million till they are sick of it then a peace similar to WW1. (Since the zealots on both sides believe you get an express ticket to heaven if you die in such a battle you have to kill all of them plus a lot more to make everyone happy.

The complex solutions demand certain things

First of all forgivness.

Second accepting people you dont like in power.

Third Good Fences similar to the ones being built.

Fourth powerful external guarantors of peace on both sides (imposable with only one super power)

Fifth a period of political stability on both sides

Sixth people being civil to one another

Seventh....

Eighth....

Ninth...

....

Ninty Ninth....

One hundredth something I forgot

101 something everyone missed

102 an unexpected event.

etc.

etc.

It is not solved by people saying the other side are bad/nasty/evil/wrong/etc. or that they are doing something bad/nasty/evil/wrong/etc. That just adds another six months to the time it takes for things to heal. It is like picking a scab it never heals.

I disagree with this, i see it as another way to state the problem can not be resolved, when in fact it can be resolved in a logical and sequential manner. What can be done even today to bring peace to the ME is to get a very strong UN/Nato force down there to seperate who needs to be seperated. I am talking MBT's, attack aircraft, and troops with social skills/training. Along with that a strong engineering division to build a proper wall to SEPERATE the Palestinians from the Israelis (thats probably in reverse order but anyways...). Then you have clear goals, arrest or kill anyone breaching the peace.

It would be like a gigantic rock getting lifted from the chest of civilians on both sides, and it would certainly bring new and proper leadership to both sides as well.

This is actually a responsibility to the UK, US, and other nations, since the problem we have now is not really the fault of the Arabs or the Jews themselves, but the rest of the world who created the conditions for hatred.

To wait for a thousand things to happen to bring peace there is accepting war. Starting with the biggest step immediately is the opposite.

That's my view...

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

bn880, your plan can not work for a number of reasons:

1) The UN will NEVER start a war. Technically, the situation in Israel is a domestic problem that the UN can not interfere in. It is neither a civil war, nor a war between different nations.

2) Nobody will want to attack a nation equipped with nuclear weapons and ICBM capability

3) The US will likely never leave Israel's side (thus making it TWO countries equipped with ICBMs and nukes)

4) Even if your proposed plan of invasion and seperation succeeds, how is that going to stop the problems? It will delay the current problems and produce a whole load of new problems. For your plan to work, for instance, that wall has to seperate Palestinians and Israelis completely. If you want to stop terrorist attacks by Hamas, say, then you have to make sure that no potential Hamas supporter is on Israeli ground. In other words, you are talking about the biggest forced population transfer since the Greek-Turkish war of 1922. Apart from the fact that the UN will NEVER engage in population transfer (or in fact do it themselves), you are also forgetting that Palestinians work almost exclusively in Israel. Keep them out of Israel, and you have yet another 3rd world country that can not support itself.

5) Forcing peace on two people does not work. You can impose all kinds of sanctions, you can even threaten military invasion, but all this will never stop people hating people. If you want peace to work, then peace has to be wanted by both sides. Both sides have to respect each other, acknowledge each others right for existence and thus build a base of non-hate amongst the population. Sooner or later the politicians will follow.

[bn880 5]

I agree with the ICBM issue and the US by side issue otherwise I disagree.

If you stop the Israeli occupation of Palestinians they will slowly stop feeling the need to do suicide attacks. Hamas would be useless as there would not be much to fight for when you got what you wanted.

There is a war there FYI, I don't give a rats ass if people don't want to accept that fact... okay you can call it an occupation and resistance... still a war

And that's for #5: there is an occupation, that has to stop for hatred to go away with time. This kind of argument you are making also accepts peace can not be brought there. Logic is hte key word to all the major OT discussions, that means not omitting facts like occupation and assasinations, which fuels hatred and suicide attacks.

EDIT: Now that I think of it, there is no real need to place troops in Israeli land since they are an illegal nuclear nation. Just place defense on Palestinian land and build the wall from there. Any Israeli weapon crossing the border can be destroyed without it being an act of war, rather a defensive action.

EDIT(n): The first step to peace and understanding has to be a stop to the occupation, removal of settlements, then seperation until normal relations and understanding is achieved. The reasons for Hamas' action is the occupation, settlements, destruction of infrastructure, and assasinations. Remove those, and then you can work on Hamas' hate when some remains.

Quote[/b] ] Even if your proposed plan of invasion and seperation succeeds,

Hehhe, the Palestinians would probably welcome an international force with open arms, no invasio necessary.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Quote[/b] ]If you stop the Israeli occupation of Palestinians they will slowly stop feeling the need to do suicide attacks. Hamas would be useless as there would not be much to fight for when you got what you wanted.

Hamas does not want independence/end of occupation AFAIK, AFAIK they want the destruction of the Israeli state, irregardless of what happens to Palestine. Even though an end of occupation would certainly make recruitment harder for them. It would not wipe them out though.

Quote[/b] ]There is a war there FYI, I don't give a rats ass if people don't want to accept that fact... okay you can call it an occupation and resistance... still a war

From your point of view perhaps. But it is not up to you, nor up to me, not even up to the people involved to decide what it is. That decision and responsibility lies with the UN. What do they classify this conflict as?

Quote[/b] ]And that's for #5: there is an occupation, that has to stop for hatred to go away with time. This kind of argument you are making also accepts peace can not be brought there. Logic is hte key word to all the major OT discussions, that means not omitting facts like occupation and assasinations, which fuels hatred and suicide attacks.

I'm not ommitting anything. I am merely showing you what difficulties there are. Apart from this point, you agree with me - it takes time for people to accept peace, and that acceptance will take time and an end of occupation. You want to break up the occupation, but I believe that a mutual consent at the negotiation table will be much more powerful and influental.

Quote[/b] ] Now that I think of it, there is no real need to place troops in Israeli land since they are an illegal nuclear nation. Just place defense on Palestinian land and build the wall from there. Any Israeli weapon crossing the border can be destroyed without it being an act of war, rather a defensive action.

Afghanistan all over again - because of Arafat's questionable links with Hamas and other groups, you could argue that the nation of Palestine is one of those "rogue nations that support terrorism". Arming terrorists - or a potentially instable country- is never an answer, this is what caused 9/11 in the first place. There has to be a different way.

Not that Palestine is a nation of terrorists, but that country does have a rather large number of terrorist groups operating within their borders, some of which have questionable links with government and even the PM.

[bn880 5]

Well about the Afghanistan reference, not really. Ask hteir elected leader wether they would accept UN troops on their land, to protect their infrastructure, road passages etc. He will most likely say yes, as long as it is a well formed/lead force. (i.e. no US leadership etc.)... he would also have to accept that Hamas would be under watch and mostly dismemebered if needed.

I know there are major difficulties with defending Palestine etc. but I'm just stating what I see as possible to actually start to bring peace.

Hamas would not be annihilated, but it would then be dealt with, especially once the Palestinians get a proper Police force back. Comparable to what's happening in Belfast etc. I guess, which is better than ME situation.

[Bernadotte 0]

A total of 220.2 Jewish citizens were living in Judea, Sumeria and the Gaza Strip at the end of 2002, according to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics: Israeli Population By Districts Table.

You forgot about the 170,000 Israeli settlers in E. Jerusalem.

Agreed, but PM Sharon has promised he will take those settlers out if the Palestinians will take control of the terror. And, like the song says, 'if not tommorow - then the day after'.

LOL... I'm afraid I won't believe that unless you can provide a link or reference or something?

Even Barak campaigned with the slogan:  "We will remain in Ofra and Beit El forever."

You want me going ugly on European colonialism?

Go right ahead.  You can start with the Anglo-French Sykes-Picot agreement and then continue with the British Balfour Declaration.  Both  are great examples of very ugly European colonial thinking that Israel couldn't have existed without.

They're building their roads, we're building ours.

Really?  What roads are the Palestinians building that Israelis aren't allowed to drive on?

[Ram TN 0]

Bernadotte

Quote[/b] ]You forgot about the 170,000 Israeli settlers in E. Jerusalem.

Even with this so-called 'settlers', you're not even getting close to half a-million.

Quote[/b] ]LOL... I'm afraid I won't believe that unless you can provide a link or reference or something?

Even Barak campaigned with the slogan:  "We will remain in Ofra and Beit El forever."

Could you show me a quote of this sentence?

Quote[/b] ]Go right ahead.  You can start with the Anglo-French Sykes-Picot agreement and then continue with the British Balfour Declaration.  Both  are great examples of very ugly European colonial thinking that Israel couldn't have existed without.

...and that the Arab countries couldn't have existed without too.

Quote[/b] ]Really?  What roads are the Palestinians building that Israelis aren't allowed to drive on?

They had their roads, but we've conquered the territories in the Homat Magen operation, so now we use them.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]Go right ahead.  You can start with the Anglo-French Sykes-Picot agreement and then continue with the British Balfour Declaration.  Both  are great examples of very ugly European colonial thinking that Israel couldn't have existed without.

...and that the Arab countries couldn't have existed without too.

LOL