Switzerland thaws out, immediately criticises Israel.

Additionally, the supplements to the Geneva conventions neogiated in 1977, Protocols I and II, widened the definition from declared war to "armed conflicts" and recognized both "international" and "non-international" (such as civil wars) conflicts.

0 Replies

And attempts to limit the behavior of comabatant have been around waaay longer than that:

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LAWS OF WAR

Attempts to put limits on wartime behavior have been around since the beginning of recorded history and there have been numerous attempts to codify the rules of appropriate military conduct.

In the sixth century BCE, Chinese warrior Sun Tzu suggested putting limits on the way that wars were conducted.

Around 200 BCE, the notion of war crimes as such appeared in the Hindu code of Manu.

In 1305, the Scottish national hero Sir William Wallace was tried for the wartime murder of civilians.

Hugo Grotius wrote "On the Law of War and Peace" in 1625, focusing on the humanitarian treatment of civilians.

In 1865, Confederate officer Henry Wirz was executed for murdering Federal prisoners of war at the Andersonville prisoner of war camp. He was only one of several people who were tried for similar offenses.

In fact, it's been the past century and a half that has really seen a qualitative jump in the degree to which constraints have been placed on warring parties, and only this century that an international body has been formed to police the nations of the world.

The first Geneva Convention was signed in 1864 to protect the sick and wounded in war time. This first Geneva Convention was inspired by Henri Dunant, founder of the Red Cross. Ever since then, the Red Cross has played an integral part in the drafting and enforcement of the Geneva Conventions.

These included the 1899 treaties, concerning asphyxiating gases and expanding bullets. In 1907, 13 separate treaties were signed, followed in 1925 by the Geneva Gas Protocol, which prohibited the use of poison gas and the practice of bacteriological warfare.

In 1929, two more Geneva Conventions dealt with the treatment of the wounded and prisoners of war. In 1949, four Geneva Conventions extended protections to those shipwrecked at sea and to civilians.

The Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property was signed in 1954, the United Nations Convention on Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Techniques followed in 1977, together with two Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, extending their protections to civil wars.

There is no one "Geneva Convention." Like any other body of law, the laws of war have been assembled piecemeal, and are, in fact, still under construction.

It is impossible to produce a complete and up-to-date list of war crimes. Even today, weapon systems such as land mines are being debated at the highest levels of international policy.

What follows is a basic reference to the most common protections and prohibitions, as provided for in the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and the two 1977 protocols.

International Rules About Soldiers

The Geneva Conventions and supplementary protocols make a distinction between combatants and civilians.

The two groups must be treated differently by the warring sides and, therefore, combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians.

Although this obligation benefits civilians by making it easier for the warring sides to avoid targeting non-combatants, soldiers also benefit because they become immune from prosecution for acts of war.

For example, a civilian who shoots a sholdier may be liable for murder while a soldier who shoots an enemy soldier and is captured may not be punished.

In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them.

The exceptions are medical and religious personnel, who are considered non-combatants even though they may wear uniforms. Medical personnel may also carry small arms to use in self-defense if illegally attacked.

The other exception are mercenaries, who are specifically excluded from protections. Mercenaries are defined as soldiers who are not nationals of any of the parties to the conflict and are paid more than the local soldiers.

Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.

Combatants who do fall within the guidelines of the Geneva Conventions enjoy the following protections:
.......

continued at

http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/history.html

(If anybody else got interested, like I did....now returning you to your normal program...))

0 Replies

Quote:

From dlowan's post...

This has been the arguement all along hasn't it?

0 Replies

So Israel bombs Beriut to get the attention of the Lebonese government which has zero effective control over Hezbollah, Syria, which did have significant influence, has been run out of the neighborhood and we are left with Syria and Iran pulling the strings of the hezbolla with Israel punishing the mix of christians/muslims the make up the population of Lebanon. Peace is just around the corner.

0 Replies

All the lebanese government has to do is findout where the 2 soldiers are and return them to Israel. SHouldn't be too hard to do.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Quote:
Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.

From dlowan's post...

This has been the arguement all along hasn't it?

I suspect you will find the key word is "combatants".

I believe you will find the civilian populations are still, oddly enough, protected, insofar as anyone is protected, wars having become more and more likely since the early twentieth century (as I understand it) to kill civilians as a matter of routine.

So, I THINK you are assuming that the combatants who do not maintain a clear separation thereby render their CIVILIAN populations devoid of "rights".

I think that is a misreading of the words. Ie, I don't think that is a mandate for slaughtering civilians willy nilly.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

All the lebanese government has to do is findout where the 2 soldiers are and return them to Israel. SHouldn't be too hard to do.

Right

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

All the lebanese government has to do is findout where the 2 soldiers are and return them to Israel. SHouldn't be too hard to do.

You have a rather naive view of the effectiveness of the Lebanese government.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Quote:

From dlowan's post...

This has been the arguement all along hasn't it?

I suspect you will find the key word is "combatants".

I believe you will find the civilian populations are still, oddly enough, protected, insofar as anyone is protected, wars having become more and more likely since the early twentieth century (as I understand it) to kill civilians as a matter of routine.

So, I THINK you are assuming that the combatants who do not maintain a clear separation thereby render their CIVILIAN populations devoid of "rights".

I think that is a misreading of the words. Ie, I don't think that is a mandate for slaughtering civilians willy nilly.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

All the lebanese government has to do is findout where the 2 soldiers are and return them to Israel. SHouldn't be too hard to do.

Not sure the Lebanese government, although I understand it to include elements of Hezbollah, has absolute control over Hezbollah, to state the case mildly.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
All the lebanese government has to do is findout where the 2 soldiers are and return them to Israel. SHouldn't be too hard to do.

Not sure the Lebanese government, although I understand it to include elements of Hezbollah, has absolute control over Hezbollah, to state the case mildly.

*shrug*

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

dlowan wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
All the lebanese government has to do is findout where the 2 soldiers are and return them to Israel. SHouldn't be too hard to do.

Not sure the Lebanese government, although I understand it to include elements of Hezbollah, has absolute control over Hezbollah, to state the case mildly.

*shrug*

The government of Lebanon has never had a minimum degree of control over hezbollah which is why there were never dis-armed.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

dlowan wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Quote:
Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.

From dlowan's post...

This has been the arguement all along hasn't it?

I suspect you will find the key word is "combatants".

I believe you will find the civilian populations are still, oddly enough, protected, insofar as anyone is protected, wars having become more and more likely since the early twentieth century (as I understand it) to kill civilians as a matter of routine.

So, I THINK you are assuming that the combatants who do not maintain a clear separation thereby render their CIVILIAN populations devoid of "rights".

I think that is a misreading of the words. Ie, I don't think that is a mandate for slaughtering civilians willy nilly.

That's odd, I was thinking of why we hold terrorists in places like Gitmo. Terrorists that deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — they are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention and therefore I wonder why there is so much uproar about how they are held. Yet there is.

You obviously took a different track than I.

Well, and I won't comment further on this track, since this has been a worthwhile and reasonably argued thread, which does not, IMHO, need to be marred by a diversion into the usual arguments re Gitmo etc, your supreme court appears to differ.

Yes, I did misunderstand you, I thought you were referring to the subject of the thread, ie the current situation between Israel and the Palestinians, and were arguing that Palestinian civilians were fair game for anything that Israel wants to do to them.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Quote:

From dlowan's post...

This has been the arguement all along hasn't it?

No, more like a distraction all along that persists in ignoring the rights of the uninvolved civilian populace.

The Swiss statement has nothing to do with the rights (or lack thereof) of the handful of involved militants.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I too, want to avoid the Gitmo subject here, but will note that the distinction doesn't consit of a party merely deciding that individuals are no longer protected.

As per statutes I don't recall with exactitude at the moment, the distinction should be made by a "competent tribunal" and no such distinction has been made.

0 Replies

This thread is great for discussing Israel vs the Palestinians. But the wider conflict underway in the ME needs its own thread I thing.

We have the makings of what could be a good discussion of the Israel - Lebanon etc. thing started HERE

Ya'll come on over.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

I suspect you will find the key word is "combatants".

Always is.

Quote:

I believe you will find the civilian populations are still, oddly enough, protected, insofar as anyone is protected, wars having become more and more likely since the early twentieth century (as I understand it) to kill civilians as a matter of routine.

A bit of misapprehension there. With the advent of precision munitions quite the opposite is the case in the instance of modern Western-style militaries, Israel most emphatically included. On the other hand, Hezbollah and ilk, in direct contravention of the rules of war, disperse themselves within the civilian populace, and conduct their operations not only behind the cover of that civilian populace but with total disregard for it - apart from taking propaganda advantage when, pursuant to their illegal belligerent activities, the civillian populace and/or infrastructure comes to harm.

Quote:

So, I THINK you are assuming that the combatants who do not maintain a clear separation thereby render their CIVILIAN populations devoid of "rights".

Regardless what anyone assumes or thinks, combatants who conduct belligerent activities from within the civilian populace consciously and maliciously deprive that civilian populace of its rights under the rules of war.

Quote:

I think that is a misreading of the words. Ie, I don't think that is a mandate for slaughtering civilians willy nilly.

That is a premise contrary to fact. Those in armed opposition to Israel employ almost exclusively weaponry capable only of indiscriminate attack, targetable only to within a precision of the vicinity of a town or city, whereas the IDF's primary response methodology consists of precision-guided air-delivered ordnance applied to clearly defined targets of direct or probable military importance to their foes, and extremely accurate, GPS-aimed, computer-directed artillery fire chiefly delivered by a domestically modified ultra-long-barrelled variant of the US M109 155mm Self Propelled Howitzer and an Israeli-built variant of the US 120mm Mortar (artillery systems superior in many respects to their US-fielded equivalents) , artillery fire radar-directed largely onto the source points of hostile unguided rocket fire. That innocent civilians come to harm is not Israel's fault, it is the fault of the cowards callously conducting belligerent operations from behind the cover of the civilian populace. If it was Israel's intent to set about "slaughtering civillians willy nilly", in your phraseology, the means to essentially eliminate the civilian populaces of Gaza and Lebanon alike, with Syria's thrown into the bargain, and to do so over the course of a few hours, are readily to Israel's hand ... and that's not even taking into account Israel's probable nuclear capability.

Given the provocation Hezbollah has presented, particularly in the context of Israel's earlier total withdrawal from Gaza pursuant to UNSCR 1559 while the Palestinians never met the conditions required of them under that mandate, I think Israel has so far displayed astounding restraint and discretion. No military force in the region could prevent Israel, should she want to, from re-occupying not just Gaza but Lebanon as well, and establishing draconian martial law over what would amount to the shattered, shell-shocked remnants lucky enough to survive the initial overwhelming fury of a concerted Israeli onslaught.

Things could be - and yet may get to be - very, very much worse than they are. Whatever comes of this latest fracas, its denoument is yet days, if not weeks, away. This time, Israel will not quit untill Hezbollah is rendered militarily impotent, and if Syria and Iran are dumb enough to themselves become openly engaged, they will thereby seal their own respective dooms, albeit at incalculably greater cost not just regionally but globally. Whatever comes of this, Syria and Iran are driving the events.

0 Replies

Huh? So..let me get this straight.

You are saying you think Israel has open slather to do whatever it feels like to the palestinian and lebanese populace? (Which is what I thought MCG was arguing., but he wasn't, he was still cavilling with the judgement of your own supreme court about the illegal treatment of prisoners by ther USA.)

yes or no.

Or are you just arguing that Israel hasn't, yet, done that?

If so, doh. Who the hell argued that it has? I do think, but haven't as it happens, argued here, (but agree with Craven, eg) that it has done things that are morally wrong re civilians, and counter productive, but neither I, nor anyone else as far as I am aware, has argued that it has shown no restraint.

Since such a comment normally evinces from someone an outraged squawk that the terrorists they are fighting do worse re indiscriminate slaughter and I am supporting terrorists and suchlike dramas... I shall again wearily say that I KNOW that. It is actually possible to criticize the actions of one party without approving of the actions of another.

Oh, and you are saying that conflicts like WW II and Vietnam and Iraq etc killed less civilians than the wars of previous centuries?

With extensive aerial bombing of cities and civilian areas? 20 million Russians dead? (Excluding the ones Stalin illed pre and post war??? **** knows how many civilians dead world wide in WW II? In Vietnam? Pardon me?

My understanding is that civilian casualties have become greater not less.

Did you think I was talking just about Americans in Iraq I and II or something? (Though I think civilian casualties are far greater there than America wishes to face up to) I know you guys have some precision weapons. As the fella who bombed Chemical Ali, and rejoiced when he saw the legs kicking in their death throes in the film from his mission found, they are not of the precision that your propaganda machine made fantasy claims about when it orchestrated the press in Iraq I....(he later discovering that, for starters, he had killed almost an entire family, from little kids up, of an old fella who lived nearby....he shows the film to keen young pilots in training so they know the weight of what they do, and don't think war is a Manichean video game.) Nobody is arguing that you guys don't usually show restraint, too, just in case you assumed that someone did, without their having said so.

All comments on this board are not about America alone, you know.

0 Replies

This struggle is terribly complicated. It reminds me on some levels of the IRA problems in Ireland. It also reminds me, sadly enough, that that particularly bloody conflict raged on for decades, and that diplomatic pressure from the rest of the world had little result.

The moment a militant group has a sufficiently fanatical supporters base, and is located in a place where a lot of sympathy for their cause can be found, thus, in essence, providing latent help, and has decided the goal justifies any means, even by using terrorist attacks against civilians, or, worse, children. The moment the opposition feels obliged to react with violent countermeasures to protect said civilians or their own troops/ government employees, should they be targeted as well. That is the moment an explosive situation escalates beyond any reasonable form of control.

I don't take sides in this conflict, since I feel both parties are justified to a certain extent. I just rarely, if ever, approve of the way they act and react, since I believe that violence, especially non-discriminate attacks against innocents and not so innocents (but who can tell the difference, really?), only begets violence, and no solution.
Well, not entirely true. Such a conflict could be solved by the complete eradication of the entire populace of the region that encompasses the known basis of one of the warring parties. Suffice it to say, I hope no one ever opts for this solution.
Other then that, I believe only war weariness will end a conflict. Complete surrender by one of the parties will probably not work if the conflict is ideologically motivated, such as the IRA conflict and the ME war(s) are. Another (perhaps even more extremist) party will only take the losers place.
After all, how does one effectively battle an idea?

0 Replies

Switzerland thaws out, immediately criticises Israel.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know