3 Israeli soldiers shot dead in Ramallah.

[Falcon29]

You do not like Your crimes to be exposed, I guess.
It is hard to be ”the good guys” when Your side is violating every rule in the book.

Good vs. bad guy thing is a matter of perspective/bias. Other than that, it's unclear what you're arguing for. Bottomline, it's within their(the Palestinians under occupation) to militarily resist the occupation. Whether you think they commit war crimes or not during the process does not negate that right. There is no wrong in targeting enemy forces who are attacking and invading your city.

You said in previous posts that Israeli forces do commit war crimes. But didn't see any good guy bad guy rhetoric then. No one is preventing you from choosing a side. You're arguing over nothing right now, though.

 

[Ceylal]

WAITING FOR FALCON 29 AND HIS ARAB STATES TO RESCUE HER.....

 

[Hack-Hook]

So if you approach a soldier in a civilian car, wearing civilian clothes and then you suddenly pick up a gun and shoot the soldier, then you resort to perfidy.
Perfidy is prohibited, so you have committed a war crime.
You are not entitled to become a prisoner of war if caught, you can be shot if captured.

no you just loose your protection as a prisoner of war , you are not considered a war criminal or terrorist

Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a religious or political aim.[1] It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence against peacetime targets or in war against non-combatants.[2]

State terrorism has been used to refer to terrorist acts committed by governmental agents or forces. This involves the use of state resources employed by a state's foreign policies, such as using its military to directly perform acts of terrorism. Professor of Political Science Michael Stohl cites the examples that include the German bombing of London, the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, the British and American firebombing of Dresden, and the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. He argues that "the use of terror tactics is common in international relations and the state has been and remains a more likely employer of terrorism within the international system than insurgents." He also cites the first strike option as an example of the "terror of coercive diplomacy" as a form of this, which holds the world hostage with the implied threat of using nuclear weapons in "crisis management" and he argues that the institutionalized form of terrorism has occurred as a result of changes that took place following World War II. In this analysis, state terrorism exhibited as a form of foreign policy was shaped by the presence and use of weapons of mass destruction, and the legitimizing of such violent behavior led to an increasingly accepted form of this behavior by the state .[141][142][143]

Consider the following situation.
A sniper shoots several enemy soldiers from a civilian building, and secretly leaves.
Only civilians remain in the building, so this is no longer a military target.

The surviving soldiers call in an air strike which destroys the building and kills the civilians present 5 minutes after the sniper left.

The soldiers do not know that the sniper left.
The soldiers do not know that there are civilians in the building.

Thus, there is no war crime.

a war crime as before using force against the target they must make sure it's a valid target.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

no you just loose your protection as a prisoner of war , you are not considered a war criminal or terrorist

a war crime as before using force against the target they must make sure it's a valid target.

What part of ”prohibited” do You not understand?
It is prohibited to attack an enemy while appearing as a civilian.

Show a source that claims that you gave to make sure it is a valid target.
A competent officer will make a judgement whether it is reasonable to consider if it is a military target or not. If the information available to him indicates that the target has a military value, it is not a war crime, if it turns out that the information us misleading.
If a sniper fires from a building, you do not have to inspect every room of that building to find out all the facts before attacking it.

Good vs. bad guy thing is a matter of perspective/bias. Other than that, it's unclear what you're arguing for. Bottomline, it's within their(the Palestinians under occupation) to militarily resist the occupation. Whether you think they commit war crimes or not during the process does not negate that right. There is no wrong in targeting enemy forces who are attacking and invading your city.

You said in previous posts that Israeli forces do commit war crimes. But didn't see any good guy bad guy rhetoric then. No one is preventing you from choosing a side. You're arguing over nothing right now, though.

Bottom line is that the Palestinians have the right to resist the Israelis, but they do not have the right to violate the Geneva Convention while doing this.
In this case, it was a clear violation and the perpetrators are war criminals.

 

[Hack-Hook]

It is prohibited to attack an enemy while appearing as a civilian.

as you like the law , by reading this you'll see that how many cases of war crime can be charged against Israel if it was not protected by another country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war
about this case this book explain it clearly
https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf

However, if the act of sabotage did
not constitute a lawful act of war, they may be punished in accordance
with Arts. 99 ff. of the Third Geneva Convention. If the members of the
resistance group do not fulfil all the conditions of combatant status, they
can be punished for the sabotage activities which they committed in
accordance with the criminal and procedural laws which apply to the
civilian population in the occupied territory. Remember that in case of
doubt, captives should be treated as POWs until their exact status can
be ascertained by a higher authority.

The civilian who is not a member of a group authorized to participate in
combat activities and who fired at and wounded a soldier can be tried
and sentenced for that act, either by a civilian court or, if there is none,
by a military court.

.in short they are neither war criminal nor terrorist but as they didn't completely followed rule of war they can be tried in military or civil courts for their action

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

as you like the law , by reading this you'll see that how many cases of war crime can be charged against Israel if it was not protected by another country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war
about this case this book explain it clearly
https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf



.in short they are neither war criminal nor terrorist but as they didn't completely followed rule of war they can be tried in military or civil courts for their action

They can be executed on the spot, since they are not entitled to become prisoners of war.
Only legal combatants have the right to become prisoners of war and tried in a court.

 

[Hack-Hook]

They can be executed on the spot, since they are not entitled to become prisoners of war.
Only legal combatants have the right to become prisoners of war and tried in a court.

not executed on the ground if surrendered,in that case they must be tried first as it is covered in other human right treaties, but they certainly won't benefit from the status of prisoner of war and the civil or martial court can sentence them to death on other hand as I understand you can't try a prisoner of war in a court if he did not commit a war crime as a prisoner of war didn't commit any crime if even he/she killed 10000 of your soldiers.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

not executed on the ground if surrendered,in that case they must be tried first as it is covered in other human right treaties, but they certainly won't benefit from the status of prisoner of war and the civil or martial court can sentence them to death on other hand as I understand you can't try a prisoner of war in a court if he did not commit a war crime as a prisoner of war didn't commit any crime if even he/she killed 10000 of your soldiers.

The only treaty I am aware of is the Geneva Convention, which states that they have no right to become a prisoner of war.
Please provide a source to a treaty which states something else!
Some people will claim a lot of things without backing of a treaty, so just comments and interpretations are not really sources here.

It is very different if the captured is a ”legal combatant”, regardless of any war crimes
they have committed, they have the right to become a prisoner of war.
If it can be proved that they have committed a war crime, they can still be punished for that,
and in some countries this means death penalty.

 

[Hack-Hook]

The only treaty I am aware of is the Geneva Convention, which states that they have no right to become a prisoner of war.
Please provide a source to a treaty which states something else!
Some people will claim a lot of things without backing of a treaty, so just comments and interpretations are not really sources here.

It is very different if the captured is a ”legal combatant”, regardless of any war crimes
they have committed, they have the right to become a prisoner of war.
If it can be proved that they have committed a war crime, they can still be punished for that,
and in some countries this means death penalty.

I just have five world and several link to Wikipedia
Right to a fair trial
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
European Convention on Human Rights
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
United Nations Convention against Torture


so I seriously suggest you refrain against executing a surrendered or injured terrorist or Freedom Fighter or Partisan or whatever you call them on site unless you are sure there are no Press or CCTV or Cellphone Camera in the vicinity or you for certain will have trouble .

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

I just have five world and several link to Wikipedia
Right to a fair trial
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
European Convention on Human Rights
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
United Nations Convention against Torture


so I seriously suggest you refrain against executing a surrendered or injured terrorist or Freedom Fighter or Partisan or whatever you call them on site unless you are sure there are no Press or CCTV or Cellphone Camera in the vicinity or you for certain will have trouble .

For a spy or a mercenary it is reasonable to have a trial, even if they do not have the right to become a POW. For a person which has committed perfidy, You cannot trust that he wants to surrender. He still very much a military threat, and might have other means to kill.
Note that if You accept a surrender, then the new POW should face a trial. He cannot be killed after surrender.

 

[925boy]

what a stupid act now F-16s will wipe out some 300 homes with 500 killings . why Islamists start wars which they can not defend ?

Pakistani proxies or soldiers do the same to Indian solders in Kashmir, i dont see how this is really that different.

 

[Imran Khan]

Pakistani proxies or soldiers do the same to Indian solders in Kashmir, i dont see how this is really that different.

and Pakistan is arms to teeth Pakistan can counter any attack be it from air land or sea . while Palestinians have only guns in hands .if they were nuclear armed with massive force like Pakistan no one will even occupy them .

 

[925boy]

Israeli soldiers in the West Bank are indeed valid military targets.

Attacking them from a civilian car, while dressed in civilian clothes, without any ensign
making it obvious that the attackers are combatants, is a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions.

I hate to say this, but i would agree with you IF Palestinians had their own formal army, which i dont believe they do.

while Palestinians have only guns in hands .if they were nuclear armed with massive force like Pakistan no one will even occupy them .

LMAO. Pakistan is the only muslim country with a domestic nuclear arms industry. No other muslim country has that, so to imagine Palestinians having that is totally unrealistic.
Pakistanis dont have high level of sympathy for Palestinians though. Its sad, but thats the truth.

and Pakistan is arms to teeth Pakistan can counter any attack be it from air land or sea . while Palestinians have only guns in hands .if they were nuclear armed with massive force like Pakistan no one will even occupy them .

ALso, if you use you nukes first, your nation is finished. So in reality you're just holding a hostile volatile hostage taker hostage.

 

[Imran Khan]

LMAO. Pakistan is the only muslim country with a domestic nuclear arms industry. No other muslim country has that, so to imagine Palestinians having that is totally unrealistic.
Pakistanis dont have high level of sympathy for Palestinians though. Its sad, but thats the truth.


ALso, if you use you nukes first, your nation is finished. So in reality you're just holding a hostile volatile hostage taker hostage.

we have 1000s types of weapons before nuke . nuke is last option

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Pakistani proxies or soldiers do the same to Indian solders in Kashmir, i dont see how this is really that different.

Pakistani soldiers are in uniform, and thus are ”legal combatants”.
If a Pakistani soldier infiltrates Kashmir dressed in civilian cloths, they are spies.
If they attack Indian soldiers while wearing civilian clothes, they are also war criminals.