No, we have the language you provided and they do not fit the definition of civilians. They are militia that act as ethnic cleansers. How do you think these illegal settlements expand when Palestinians own the surrounding land? Is it pixie dust that enables illegal settlements to expand?
Israeli court convicts 14 year old arab boy of attempted murder
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
You can make up all the ridiculous emotional falsehoods that you want but the GC and the ICC has clearly detailed the acts that remove protected status of civilians and security guards do not meet them.No, we have the language you provided and they do not fit the definition of civilians. They are militia that act as ethnic cleansers. How do you think these illegal settlements expand when Palestinians own the surrounding land? Is it pixie dust that enables illegal settlements to expand?
The UN has stated that those 'homes' as you call them are all illegal." However, loss of protection is only clear when a civilian uses weapons or other means to commit violence against human or material enemy forces, unless in self-defense."
Guarding their homes is clearly self defense.
There is no such thing as 'self defence' of land for which they have no legal ownership.
That, my dishonest friend, is defending land taken by force.
As UN 2334 states:
You can't claim 'self defence' if you don't own the land.The resolution states that all measures aimed at changing the demographic composition and status of Palestinian territories occupied by Israel, including construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians are in violation of international humanitarian law, Israel's obligation as the occupying Power according to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and previous resolutions.[2]
You can't call them 'security guards' if they are trying to maintain control over illegally held land.You can make up all the ridiculous emotional falsehoods that you want but the GC and the ICC has clearly detailed the acts that remove protected status of civilians and security guards do not meet them.
Not according to the Geneva Conventions, the ICC, or B'Tselem. Keep trying to look for excuses to justify the murder of Jews.You can't call them 'security guards' if they are trying to maintain control over illegally held land.
Unfortunately the language you provided does confirm they don't meet the definition of civilians. Therefore the protection afforded to civilians does not extend to them.Not according to the Geneva Conventions, the ICC, or B'Tselem. Keep trying to look for excuses to justify the murder of Jews.
Here's another nugget for you:
"Particular attention has to be paid to the situation of members of a Territorial Defence (TO) and as to whether they are to be considered as combatants at all times during the conflict or only when they directly take part in hostilities, that is, when they participate in acts of war which by nature or purpose are likely to cause actual harm to the personnel and equipment of the enemy’s armed forces … [T]he Appeals Chamber considers that members of the armed forces resting in their homes in the area of the conflict, as well as members of the TO residing in their homes, remain combatants whether or not they are in combat, or for the time being armed. "
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule6
Tell me where any of those state that armed guards, paid and armed by the army, who are trying to protect illegal settlements are 'civilians'.Not according to the Geneva Conventions, the ICC, or B'Tselem. Keep trying to look for excuses to justify the murder of Jews.
The UN has stated that those 'homes' as you call them are all illegal.
There is no such thing as 'self defence' of land for which they have no legal ownership.
That, my dishonest friend, is defending land taken by force.
As UN 2334 states:
You can't claim 'self defence' if you don't own the land.The resolution states that all measures aimed at changing the demographic composition and status of Palestinian territories occupied by Israel, including construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians are in violation of international humanitarian law, Israel's obligation as the occupying Power according to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and previous resolutions.[2]
Liar.No, that's called reflecting what's in the reporting by Al Jazeera.
Civilians are entitled to protection under the GC even if you think they shouldn't be where they are.The UN has stated that those 'homes' as you call them are all illegal.
There is no such thing as 'self defence' of land for which they have no legal ownership.
That, my dishonest friend, is defending land taken by force.
As UN 2334 states:
You can't claim 'self defence' if you don't own the land.
Your justification for violence against civilians is DISGUSTING. This is why BDS has been thoroughly repudiated by Canadians.
Sickening.
That's about Yugoslavia. All you do is lie.Unfortunately the language you provided does confirm they don't meet the definition of civilians. Therefore the protection afforded to civilians does not extend to them.
Here's another nugget for you:
"Particular attention has to be paid to the situation of members of a Territorial Defence (TO) and as to whether they are to be considered as combatants at all times during the conflict or only when they directly take part in hostilities, that is, when they participate in acts of war which by nature or purpose are likely to cause actual harm to the personnel and equipment of the enemy’s armed forces … [T]he Appeals Chamber considers that members of the armed forces resting in their homes in the area of the conflict, as well as members of the TO residing in their homes, remain combatants whether or not they are in combat, or for the time being armed. "
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule6
The parts where they explicitly state what actions make someone not a civilian.Tell me where any of those state that armed guards, paid and armed by the army, who are trying to protect illegal settlements are 'civilians'.
....
Of course you consider Palestinian attackers to be civilians but you consider Israelis driving or living in the West Bank to be legitimate military targets. You really are an immoral joke.
That's not what the GC, ICC, and B'Tselem say.You can't claim 'self defence' if you don't own the land.
Your ridiculous inventions are farcical.Unfortunately the language you provided does confirm they don't meet the definition of civilians. Therefore the protection afforded to civilians does not extend to them.
...
Geneva Conventions (1949)
Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions protects “[p]ersons 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” against “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds”.
Additional Protocol I
Article 51(3) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that civilians shall enjoy protection against the dangers arising from military operations “unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities”.
Additional Protocol II
Article 13(3) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides that civilians shall enjoy protection against the dangers arising from military operations “unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities”
The ICC
However, loss of protection is only clear when a civilian uses weapons or other means to commit violence against human or material enemy forces, unless in self-defense. Further, practice indicates that supplying food and shelter and sympathising with one belligerent party is an insufficient reason to deny civilians protection against attack. … Yet, civilians may lose protection only for such a time as they take direct part in hostilities or combat-related activities and not permanently. Further, the protection does not cease if such persons only use armed force in the exercise of their right to self-defence.
Unless a settler is attacking Palestinians they are civilians.
From ICRC.The parts where they explicitly state what actions make someone not a civilian.
.
The civilian population consists of all persons not belonging to one or other of the following categories:
(a) Members of the armed forces, or of their auxiliary or complementary organizations.
CSC's are paid for, trained and armed by the IDF.
According to the ICRC terms they are not civilians.
Defending land that is being held by military occupation, land that has been ruled illegally held by the UN and ICC, is taking part in hostilities.Your ridiculous inventions are farcical.
Geneva Conventions (1949)
Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions protects “[p]ersons 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” against “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds”.
Additional Protocol I
Article 51(3) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that civilians shall enjoy protection against the dangers arising from military operations “unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities”.
Additional Protocol II
Article 13(3) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides that civilians shall enjoy protection against the dangers arising from military operations “unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities”
The ICC
However, loss of protection is only clear when a civilian uses weapons or other means to commit violence against human or material enemy forces, unless in self-defense. Further, practice indicates that supplying food and shelter and sympathising with one belligerent party is an insufficient reason to deny civilians protection against attack. … Yet, civilians may lose protection only for such a time as they take direct part in hostilities or combat-related activities and not permanently. Further, the protection does not cease if such persons only use armed force in the exercise of their right to self-defence.
Unless a settler is attacking Palestinians they are civilians.
CSC's defend land that Israel holds illegally by force.
That's taking part in the hostilities.
ICRC clearly states that the settlements are illegal.
https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/faq/occupation-faq-051010.htmWhat does the law say about the establishment of settlements in occupied territory?
05-10-2010 FAQ
When a territory is placed under the authority of a hostile army, the rules of international humanitarian law dealing with occupation apply. Occupation confers certain rights and obligations on the occupying power.
International Review of the Red Cross, No 885, special issue on Occupation
Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49.
Prohibited actions include forcibly transferring protected persons from the occupied territories to the territory of the occupying power.
It is unlawful under the Fourth Geneva Convention for an occupying power to transfer parts of its own population into the territory it occupies. This means that international humanitarian law prohibits the establishment of settlements, as these are a form of population transfer into occupied territory. Any measure designed to expand or consolidate settlements is also illegal. Confiscation of land to build or expand settlements is similarly prohibited.
Neither the UN nor the ICC have "ruled"any such thing. The land is held legally. The occupation is legal.Defending land that is being held by military occupation, land that has been ruled illegally held by the UN and ICC, is taking part in hostilities.
Even if you think the settlements were built illegally the civilians living there in them, their police, and their guards are protected under the GC.
You are once again justifying atrocity.
Literally you are trying to find ways to justify killing Jews because you are a bloodthirsty anti-Semite.
I am sure you notice that nowhere in that statement does it say that settlers are legitimate military targets. As B'Tselem says, the legality of settlements in no way diminished the civilian status of settlers.Defending land that is being held by military occupation, land that has been ruled illegally held by the UN and ICC, is taking part in hostilities....
The fact that you continue justifying attacks on settlers despite the GC and ICC stating otherwise just shows your hypocritical immorality.
Settlers who are members of CSC's are not civilians according to the terms you posted from the ICRC.I am sure you notice that nowhere in that statement does it say that settlers are legitimate military targets. As B'Tselem says, the legality of settlements in no way diminished the civilian status of settlers.
The fact that you continue justifying attacks on settlers despite the GC and ICC stating otherwise just shows your hypocritical immorality.
That is what we are discussing, not whether 'all settlers are civilians'.
Clearly some are civilian and some are not, just as you stated earlier that some settlers are also terrorists.
If you want to be clearer you need to use the word 'most' in your statements.
As in 'most' settlers are not legitimate targets, with the exceptions of those who are members of CSC's and those who are 'terrorists'.
Fair?
Bullshit. The ICRC and the ICC clearly state that defending homes from terror attacks does not make anyone military.Settlers who are members of CSC's are not civilians according to the terms you posted from the ICRC....
But in your irrational hatred of Israel you continue to refer to Palestinian attackers as 'civilians' at the same time you try and excuse terrorism against Israelis.
The ICC and UN have both stated that those aren't 'homes' they are illegal squats.Bullshit. The ICRC and the ICC clearly state that defending homes from terror attacks does not make anyone military.
Defending illegal attempts at gaining land by force is not the act of a civilian.
Neither the ICC nor the UN have called them squats.The ICC and UN have both stated that those aren't 'homes' they are illegal squats.
Defending illegal attempts at gaining land by force is not the act of a civilian.
The ICRC has clearly stated that the settlers are civilians and have ALL the protections of the GC which includes the right to self defence.
