Israel is Coming Apart at the Seams, It Seems

The Geneva Conventions (part of which you quote) define what combatants are and how they should be treated. They also define what civilians are and how they should be treated. Nowhere does it or any other relevant treaty introduce a third category of "illegal combatant" existing separately from these and outside of the law. To say nothing of affording any particular state the right to classify people as such in order to subject them to abuses.

This isn't just some arbitrary avoidance on my behalf. Rejection of how the term used is the position of all major human rights groups. There were very high profile debates about it during the time that the US government was running torture camps. But if you want to memory hole all of that stuff and pretend that assertions of the US government are all that matters (since you're clearly just repeating their position) that's your own business.

In terms of the above, sloppy as fuck. You introduce a dichotomy between "terrorists" and "legitimate combatants". If "terrorists" meant anything other than "people I don't like", you'd have to apply it to the IDF. But you don't. They're "legitimate combatants" despite everything they do. You're arguing from a conclusion.
Then you pull a quote from the Geneva Convention which doesn't contain the word "state" and insist that because "Palestine is not a state" that you've somehow proven something. Do better.

It defines belligerent combatants and protected civilians yes. That in no way means that there aren’t other categories. Those who don’t fit those definitions don’t get the protections afforded it. Heck, the original damn document deals with other folks when talks about spies and mercenaries.

Did you sign the Geneva Conventions or any other component of the LoAC?

No. Because you aren’t a state. You have to be a state to be a party to them.

Now Additional Protocols II does deal with non-international conflict although again it is only binding within states that are party to it. Neither Iran or Israel (or the US) are. And even it makes it clear only civilians who don’t take violent action are protected (Chapter 5).

Except that civilians are defined specifically as anyone who isn't a combatant.

"A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian."

So, no - there aren't other categories. Spies and mercenaries are merely combatants from whom specific protections are removed. We can say this because the treaties say it. There's nothing there about "illegal combatants" and this category is - at best - based on creatively reading the legal text and drawing desired implications.

Protocol II is an amendment to the main treaties which aims to clarify and extend protections to those involved in non-international conflict. It's existence does not negate the application of other parts of the Conventions to those conflicts. (See Article 3 in particular.)
As signatories to those, the US, Israel and Iran are all bound to apply them and it can be argued that they are even bound to apply parts of those to which they aren't signatories as they have entered customary international law.
There is nothing in any of them which exclude non-signatories from their protections. And Palestine (despite your slipperiness on this) is a signatory in any event and is recognised as a state by most of the world, including the United Nations.

None of which touches on the multiple other issues here, including those relating to the Vienna Convention.

And I'll just remark that this particular tangent arose when I made a post commenting on both the killing of Haniyeh and two Al Jazeera journalists. Everyone is very exercised by the Haniyeh killing, but nobody apparently gives a shit that the IDF are targeting anyone who might tell the world about what they're doing. They won't let foreign journalists in and yet we have idiots here shrieking about the need for proper sourcing when discussing their activities.

You are quoting from Additional Protocols I which neither Iran, Israel or the United States are party to.

The Geneva Conventions themselves are quite clear who is covered by them and terrorists are definitely not. From the third convention, dealing with those protected as legal combatants:


(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.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciii-1949/article-4?activeTab=undefined

And from the fourth, dealing with protected civilians:

(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.


https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-3?activeTab=undefined




I have no idea what you mean by the Vienna Conventions as those deal with consular relations IIRC.

You are quoting from the definition of who is entitled to prisoner of war status and pretending that it is the definition of "legal combatants", which is not the same thing and is not a term which is found anywhere in any of these documents. Nor is the term "terrorist", which you continue to apply selectively in order to reach the conclusions that you want.

The logical collorary to persons not being entitled to prisoner of war status isn't that they have no rights. It's that they're civilians and can be tried as such if they are involved in the use of force. This is why what I quoted from Protocol I (much of which is designed to clarify issues like this) is written as it is - and which merely reflects what was in the older texts. That includes the Fourth Geneva Convention which deals with civilians and says:

"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."

It goes on to exclude combatants. Ergo, everyone is either a civilian or a combatant.

They're relevant to one state killing a visiting politician on the territory of another state with which they are not at war. Why do you think Israel doesn't claim these attacks?

If the original text said that everyone was either a protected combatant or protected civilian (which again, it clearly acknowledges non-protected combatants) then the Additional Protocols (which again, neither Israel, Iran or the US are party to) wouldn’t have had to try and deal with them.

As to the Vienna Conventions, okay we were talking about the same thing and just Hamas isn’t a state and Iran launched hundreds of missiles at Israel just this year!

I've just shown you where it says that. But perhaps they felt the need to state it even more plainly, given the devious lawyering of those attempting to invent additional categories which certainly would have been explicitly referenced if they had been intended.

Like I said, this is contested and I'm not a lawyer but I'll go with what the impartial human rights groups say rather than with the motivated reasoning of those looking for an excuse to legitimise their abuses.

Only if you incorrectly assume that the Geneva Conventions are intended to encompass all aspects of the rules of war and not specific
aspects which are clearly defined both by content and their titles:

The First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field

The Second Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea”

The Third Geneva Convention "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War"

The Fourth Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War"

Why do you think I'm assuming that? You're the one who started off quoting the Geneva Conventions. If there's some other more relevant treaty, let's hear about it.

Is there a treaty that says the peaceful countries of the Middle East are victims of endless Israeli aggression and are completely blameless in everything involving Israel? @RickDeckard is looking for some citations.

I’mstill over Mr. Totally Not a Hamas Supporter so butthurt over one of the terrorist groups leaders being eliminated he’s grasping at consular relations to try and disparage the attack.



He so badly wants Palestine to be a state and Hamas its government it is pathetic.

I support an independent, free Palestine, coexisting with Israel. But I do not and will not support a state in which Islamic clerics have final say or in which Islamic law holds primacy. Israel doesn't separate church and state enough, but a "free" Palestine wouldn't separate it at all. Not if Hamas had any say in it, and they certainly would. Hamas is a terror group and deserves no seat at the table.

If you snapped your fingers Q-style and created an free and independent Palestinian state tonight, that state would immediately attack Israel and end up back under Israeli occupation by lunch tomorrow.

I don't believe individual violent criminals deserve to be free until they can convince me that they no longer pose a violent threat to their neighbors, and I judge "Palestine" by the same standard.

I do enjoy hearing talk about how this "murder" will affect chances of a ceasefire. HAMAS WILL NOT RESPECT A CEASEFIRE. Have they ever?

In other news...

Israel's apparent targeting of Al Jazeera journalists is pretty fucking evil. I don't think anyone at Al Jazeera is a fan of Israel, but killing the press is unacceptable. If Israel regains its sanity and boots this far right government they have, a lot of people need to be tried for war crimes.

Palestine is recognized as a state, albeit an occupied one, as I've pointed out. Hamas is not its government (nor do I want it to be). But whatever - it's interesting that you've changed tack to this having been unable to sustain your interpretation of the Geneva Conventions. I'm not going into chapter and verse to explain this one to you as well.

There is a vey large exodus of Israelis at the moment (to the point where a significant portion of the population have left the country) in anticipation of a response by Iran or Hezbollah, which might do significant damage. So once again I'm "butthurt" about the guy only to the extent that it affects ceasefire prospects and further escalates the conflict. As is President Biden, reportedly - making him a Hamas supporter by your rationale. I see that Federal Farmer is beating that drum elsewhere. So that's where you guys are on this.

Don’t feel too special. In my old age I see little point in going round and round once it becomes clear the useful part of the convo is over and for those watching the relevant info has been presented.

Once my point is made I regularly walk away from Jenee, UA and FF discussions as well.

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Calling Haniyeh's assassination a "murder" and dumb-repping every single post critical of Hamas since October 7th says something. Making sure to highlight every Israeli war crime (whether substantiated or otherwise) while ignoring Hamas' crimes says something too. Is @RickDeckard an anti-Semite? I don't think so. Does he cheer on the death of Israeli citizens? No. Does he hope Iran gives Israel a black eye and maybe sinks a US aircraft carrier or two? Yes. Is he a Hamas sympathizer? Absolutely.

I also called the killing of Osama Bin Laden a murder. And disapproved of the attempted murder of Donald Trump.

I'm such a MAGA-supporting jihadist!

Well, you're half right.

And again, Haniyeh's cause of death could be called a murder, as it was technically a non-accidental killing. But we all know that to use the term "murder" implies guilt on the part of the people doing the killing. Right? It's a deliberate word choice designed to denigrate and condemn the killing party and to cast the dead person as an innocent victim.

But Haniyeh wasn't an innocent victim, was he? If you think he didn't wholeheartedly support the October 7th attack (whenever he supposedly found out about it), you're insane. If you think he didn't support holding innocent hostages and continuing the hopeless war against Israel even as his own children were killed in the conflict, you're nuts. Most people who aren't rabidly anti-Israel would use the term 'assassination' or even 'extra-judicial killing' to describe his death. Hamas sympathizers and/or Israel haters would call it 'murder.'

It's pretty simple. Word choice matters. Who said Bin Laden was 'murdered?' People who sympathized with him, undoubtedly. He wasn't innocent either. He, like Haniyeh, was a terrorist. Just because they didn't directly kill anyone doesn't change that.

Correct. The IDF are scum. Fuck them. I'm not inclined to give them an inch where their non-adherence to IHL is concerned.

All true, except that the worst person in the world (he's not innocent, he was a war criminal) still has rights.

I don't and didn't sympathise with Bin Laden either. This is preposterous.

Hamas is scum, an authoritarian terrorist movement that answers to no one. The IDF has not distinguished itself in this conflict, no. But at least they're a legitimate military that answers to a civilian authority. Right now that civilian authority is terrible and in desperate need of replacement. But still, there exists with the IDF a potential for internal reform and punishment of war crimes. As for Hamas, well... that potential doesn't exist. At all. Why? Because they’re an authoritarian terrorist movement that answers to no one.

And your ridiculous attempts to cast the IDF as some kind of rogue terrorist group is absolutely inane. But we all understand. Your hatred of Israel blinds you to basic reality.

I'm sorry, but what rights does Hamas respect when it kills Palestinians for dissenting against their evil actions? Or for trying to take food off an aid truck? You keep harping on Haniyeh having been a political leader. As a political leader, he was complicit in all of these murders (and that's what they are). He was a criminal, a common one as well as a war criminal. You and I both know he would have no problem admitting his complicity. He would be proud of it. He would have been Goering on the stand at Nuremberg.

Speaking of which, would it have been better if Israel was able to collect all of these criminals and try them before a court? Sure. But that’s simply not practical. All of these terrorists would simply hide in friendly countries that would never turn them over to Israel. So what would Israel do in this case? Simply try them in absentia and twiddle their thumbs while the terrorists plan more brutal attacks? While they kill more of their own people? No. As long as these people remain active threats in a time of war, they are legitimate targets.

I’m not necessarily saying you did sympathize with bin Laden, but that’s certainly what people sympathetic to him would say. I would have preferred it if the United States had been able to capture and try bin Laden. But it didn’t work out that way. And I’m fine with that, because he admitted his complicity in multiple terrorist attacks and was actively hiding from justice. So he got killed. Too bad. If you start a war, don’t be too surprised when it catches up with you.

Bullshit. The war crimes are a feature, not a bug. They've been committing them for decades, it's all been carefully documented and virtually nobody has ever been punished. This is precisely why the ICC are involved. The whole structure is rotten, from the grunts posting videos on TikTok of themselves burning Palestinian houses, to the snipers using toddlers for target practice, to those formulating things like the Dahiya doctrine and implementing the "Where's Daddy" program, to those who decide that starvation and disease are legitimate weapons of war.
Added to that, they're pussies, who do a good job at dropping bombs on families in Gaza and breaking kids arms on the West Bank, but when confronted with a fair fight against anyone who can shoot back invariably get their asses handed to them and go running to Uncle Sam.

You and other liberals seem to consider it axiomatic that there's some immediate virtue conferred on a military organisation simply by being attached to a state and that "terrorist" is a word that can be used interchangeably with the term "non-state actor". You're wrong.

What Israel should do in any case is to bring an end to its apartheid system and its occupation of Palestine, as it is required to. Until it does that, there is no legitimate target whatever in any of the territory it occupies. In the meantime, I'm paraphrasing but I think it was Fanon who said that while some uses of force by Palestinians may be unjustified, there will never be an equivalence between that used by the people under the boot and that used by those wearing it.

The Israelis have been surrounded by people hellbent on killing them for those same decades. As you Hamas sympathizers say, it doesn't excuse the behavior, but it certainly explains it!

Hatred causes atrocities like this. This is not an IDF problem. It's a systemic problem, a generational passing down of hatred in Israeli society caused by decades of conflict that is not solely the fault of Israel... despite what you say. Both sides are to blame.

And the IDF, the legitimate military arm of a democracy, can reform. Hamas cannot, will not. That's the truth no matter how much you hate Israel for the crime of existing...and the IDF for the crime of defending that existence.

And it's hilarious to call the IDF cowardly after the October 7th attack. Those brave Hamas fighters, fighting the good fight against ravers!

Agreed. You totally ignored my point, but agreed. And hey, attacking a music festival and taking hostages is a fantastic way to encourage Israel to do that. Those glorious Hamas fighters, gliding into history. They are the true heroes. Palestine's champions!

Bull fucking shit. This is why everyone calls you a Hamas sympathizer. You go on about the rules of war and then this? What hypocrisy.

But quick, tell everyone how you condemn Hamas. It's totally believable.

I basically agree with these points, including the sarcasm, so credit for that. The rest, not so much.

Iran said on Saturday it expects Lebanon’s Tehran-backed Hezbollah terror group to strike deeper inside Israel and no longer be confined to military targets after Israel killed Hezbollah military commander Fuad Shukr.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-...s-deeper-in-israel-as-war-fears-heighten/amp/

Some time from now, when Lebanon is on fire again, maybe we should ask them why they don't try blaming the Iranian terrorists occupying their country instead of the people being attacked by those terrorists?

Obviously it would be an outrage if Hezbollah started attacking civilian targets. But they are not Iranians, they are Lebanese.

Okay, if Hamas isn't the "government", what are they exactly? They are the diplomats, such as it is for them. They give the death toll reports, veracity of which are suspect. They were voted into power, though they then ended all voting.
If they aren't the government, what are they?

They're the de facto government of Gaza. They aren't the government of Palestine.

Ok. To me, that's kind of splitting hairs.
Gaza and West Bank are both "Palestine", but really operate as two seperate entities.