Israel makes a huge mistake.

[Panag]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"IMO you're wrong, esp. since the realities of wars and powers have changed..."

So we are evolvong back to the 19th century? Maybe... but what is the definition then?

"I don't think the PA is a signatory to the geneva convention."

Irrelevant.

hi ,

"irrelevant" you say , .....


have you ever seen a body from one of the victims those terrorist scumbags have killed , ......

after they have disarmed he or she bien sure , ......

have a nice day

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Then the term "war" is totally meaningless.

War only means 1000 battle deaths. What particular meaning were you ascribing to it?

[Ned]

Interesting discussion on the "legal" definition of "war." Here's a portion of the definition from a legal dictionary:

"Public war is either civil or national. Civil war is that which is waged between two parties, citizens or members of the same state or nation. National war is a contest between two or more independent nations) carried on by authority of their respective governments."

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/w038.htm

It appears that a contest between a state and a private organization that is not part of the same state or nation is not a legal "war." So when we talk about the war the entire world is fighting against against terrorism, what are we talking about if we are not talking about a "legal" war?

[Eli]

War = One bunch of people trying to kill another bunch of people.

[Japher]

I use to like Sharon, but this is absurd. I hope that the first time the idiots they are letting go, or anyone for that matter, attacks that Sharon blows all them Palestinians back to kingdom come!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Japher
I use to like Sharon, but this is absurd. I hope that the first time the idiots they are letting go, or anyone for that matter, attacks that Sharon blows all them Palestinians back to kingdom come!

Ever since Begin, I personally trust the leader of the Likud, regardless of who he is, to do the right thing regarding Israel's security.

In the present case, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt Ariel Sharon. I suspect most Israelis also have the same confidence in Sharon.

[Sirotnikov]

I trust Barak as well.

He's a cunning bastard, and if it wasn't for him, we'd still be deluded by Oslo agreements.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned
Interesting discussion on the "legal" definition of "war." Here's a portion of the definition from a legal dictionary:

"Public war is either civil or national. Civil war is that which is waged between two parties, citizens or members of the same state or nation. National war is a contest between two or more independent nations) carried on by authority of their respective governments."

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/w038.htm

It appears that a contest between a state and a private organization that is not part of the same state or nation is not a legal "war." So when we talk about the war the entire world is fighting against against terrorism, what are we talking about if we are not talking about a "legal" war?

You're saying this like it's a surprise to you.

[Ned]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


You're saying this like it's a surprise to you.

Yes and no. There seems to be a legal definition of war and a common understanding that is quite different. Consider, for example, the US vs. the Vietcong and the Vietcong vs. the Govt. of South Vietnam. The latter clearly was a civil war. But the US vs. the Vietcong does not fit within the definition. Does this somehow make the US war in Vietnam against the Vietcong a non war?

Also consider my point about the war against terrorism. It is in truth a war - but does not meet the definition. This can create legal problems as we all know because those caputured in the war on terror have no legal standing even though they are in truth POWs - something the world has been saying with respect to our prisoners in Cuba for some time.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned


Yes and no. There seems to be a legal definition of war and a common understanding that is quite different. Consider, for example, the US vs. the Vietcong and the Vietcong vs. the Govt. of South Vietnam. The latter clearly was a civil war. But the US vs. the Vietcong does not fit within the definition. Does this somehow make the US war in Vietnam against the Vietcong a non war?

The US was not at war with the Viet Cong. It was at war with the North Vietnamese, though the scope of the war was artificially (and inconsistently) limited by the US to the territory of South Vietnam. If the Viet Cong had been autonomous actors (without support or direction from NV) then the US would not have been at war. It would have been aiding the SV government in its civil war. That's my take on it, at least.

Also consider my point about the war against terrorism. It is in truth a war - but does not meet the definition.

No it isn't. It doesn't meet the definition for that reason.

This can create legal problems as we all know because those caputured in the war on terror have no legal standing even though they are in truth POWs - something the world has been saying with respect to our prisoners in Cuba for some time.

You are confusing the political term "war on terror" with the very real war against Afghanistan so recently prosecuted by the US, Canada, UK, Australia and Europe in which we were cobelligerents with the Northern Alliance against the ruling Taliban. Though the Taliban was not recognized by most other governments as being the legitimate government of Afghanistan, it was de facto the government, controlling something like 90-95% of its territory. This was not the reason that some of the prisoners are not being accorded POW status. Those that are being denied it are being denied it because (in the opinion of the US government) they fail to meet the criteria of having a distinctive uniform with which to identify them as soldiers, and also do not fall under the category of inhabitants who spontaneously rise to fight an invading army.

To clarify: there was a war against Afghanistan. There was a war against Iraq. There is no "war against terror" in any sense but the political. Similarly, unless Israel is claiming the territory that Hamas et al operate out of as theirs (so that the conflict would be a civil war) or is claiming to be at war with the PA as a whole, the assassinations they perform in the Occupied Territories are rightly termed "extrajudicial killings". Similarly, when the US recently assassinated several men in a vehicle in the Sudan (?) using a missile from a Predator drone (?) it was an extrajudicial killing, because the US is not at war with the Sudan.

[Ramo]

Good to see Israel making this step.

[Ned]

KrazyHorse, a very intelligent post. I will think about what you said.

[HershOstropoler]

KH:

Agree fully, just one minor point:

"If the Viet Cong had been autonomous actors (without support or direction from NV) then the US would not have been at war. It would have been aiding the SV government in its civil war. That's my take on it, at least."

Internal conflicts are considered wars when they reach the stage where the "rebel" party controls part of the land so it can act as a de facto state. If another state intervenes on one side, it is a party to that war. Humanitarian law and rules on POWs etc apply to those conflicts. What we have eg in Congo is a war, where all sides, including the intervening states like Ruanda or Simbabwe, are heavily involved in war crimes.

[KrazyHorse]

AustroMan: I agree, but the VC, although they controlled land in the sense that they taxed the inhabitants etc. were not able to fully operate the apparatus of a state in the traditional sense, as their control over any particular piece of real estate was transitory (as transitory as the US wanted to make it)

[Az]

I disagree.