Soldier injured in stabbing attack near Jenin

[Phx_Dem]

An IDF soldier was lightly to moderately injured Tuesday afternoon in a stabbing attack at a checkpoint near the West Bank city of Jenin, not far from the former Jewish settlement of Sa-Nur.

A 17-year-old terrorist armed with a knife arrived at the area and stabbed the soldier in the neck.

The stabbing took place during a routine operation of an artillery regiment in a roadblock stationed south of Jenin for the inspection of wanted and suspected Palestinians.

During the operation, a resident of one of the villages south of Jenin approached one of the soldiers, pulled out a knife and stabbed him in the neck. The other troops who were in the area captured the terrorist and arrested him. He told his interrogators that he was sent by the Islamic Jihad organization.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3505986,00.html

[Vegasaurus]

1. Maybe he just had that knife along because he was going to scalp some sheep

You don't really think he was planning to stab a soldier, do you?

:eyes:

[subsuelo]

2. "A 17-year-old terrorist"

:eyes:

[Vegasaurus]

3. Why not?

There are 17 year old terrorist suicide bombers (and 14 year old ones too).

[subsuelo]

4. Use of the term here is meant only to dehumanize

Show me one Ynet article where an Israeli is labelled "terrorist".

[Behind the Aegis]

8. ...

Jewish terrorist's mother: I distrust State


Dvora Natan Zada not consoled by arrest of seven Israeli Arabs suspected of lynching her son; ' I have lost my most precious thing, in most tragic and ugly way,' she says

Eli Senyor Published: 06.14.06, 00:30 / Israel News

The arrest of the Israeli Arabs suspected of lynching Jewish terrorist Eden Natan Zada did not comfort his family members. According to them, during the 10 months that have passed since the Shfaram shooting, no one has bothered to present them with proof that their son murdered four bus passengers.

YNet

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[subsuelo]

18. Thanks, but...

On the one hand you proved that Ynet has posted an article in the past, in which an Israeli is described as a terrorist.

On the other hand, we're talking about someone that opened fire on a bus full of civilians, killing 4 and wounding dozens. He would have reloaded and kept going had he not been subdued. That obviously doesn't compare to a soldier being stabbed.

[Vegasaurus]

16. You want to "humanize" terrorists?

Why? What is to be humanized about their actions, which are to kill, maim, or simply scare as many people as possible?

[Violet_Crumble]

12. It's not the age, it's the target...

Attacking a combatant or a military target isn't terrorism....

[oberliner]

14. Perhaps he is identified as a terrorist due to his affiliation with Islamic Jihad

Islamic Jihad is officially designated a terrorist organization by Israel (and the US and others).

[Violet_Crumble]

15. So because it's claimed he said so under interrogation, it must be true?

A question for you. Do you believe that attacks on Israeli military targets is terrorism?

[oberliner]

24. I was just trying to explain why Ynet might have used that term

I don't want to get too hung up on semantics but I think that "acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against civilians or military in non-military situations carried out for political purposes" is a pretty fair definition of terrorism.

Stabbing an Israeli soldier at a checkpoint at the alleged direction of Islamic Jihad, then, would fit that definition.

[breakaleg]

5. He was acting against an IDF soldier in an occupation army. What makes him a terrorist?

[Dick Dastardly]

9. Technically he needs to be in a uniform

or he needs to carry his weapons openly per international law to be a lawful combatant.


Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
(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.


http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079

[rockymountaindem]

10. The fixed distinctive sign is key

Otherwise one can be considered a spy.

[Dick Dastardly]

35. In past wars, those caught out of uniform but armed were shot as spies on the spot.

They were lined up against the nearest wall and shot. This was done as a rule by pretty much all armies, including ours. I have read plenty of commentary where German soldiers took off their uniforms trying to hide from our advancing soldiers and when they got caught they were shot. You can bet your ass the Brits, Russians and our other allies did the same, so did the Germans sometimes when they caught partisans. It was perfectly legal.

[Violet_Crumble]

11. That's weird. I couldn't find that anywhere on the page you linked to...

Nor could I find a single reference to that overused term *terrorism*. Not that I expected to, coz any bit of international law that stated if someone's not wearing a uniform that makes them a *terrorist* would be a complete joke....

When it comes to a soldier of an occupying force being attacked in occupied territory, if that gets twisted to be turned into *terrorism*, then I think a good working definition of terrorism should be 'anything done that user of the word *terrorism* disapproves of, while nothing done that's approved of carried out by approved party to a conflict is *terrorism*'. Maybe that's a bit too wordy, so an alternate could be: 'terrorism as a word doesn't mean anything but is a over-used verbal weapon to be pulled out in propaganda wars.'

[Dick Dastardly]

34. Here is the direct link.

Sorry I didnt post the direct one for the above

3rd Geveva convention article 4

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68


I said it is the difference between a Lawful combatant and an unlawful combatantant. It determines their legal status




Here is more

The relevance of IHL in the context of terrorism

4. Who is entitled to "prisoner of war" status? What is the consequence of failure to qualify for prisoner of war status?

a. In international armed conflict

As previously mentioned, in international armed conflict, members of the armed forces of the States involved (and associated militias) are lawful combatants. It should be borne in mind that in this type of conflict, there are lawful combatants on two (or more) sides: the armed forces of one State fighting the armed forces of another State.

The four Geneva Conventions apply to situations of international armed conflict. It is the Third Geneva Convention which regulates the protection of lawful combatants upon capture by the enemy. Its procedures for determination of entitlement to prisoner of war status by a "competent tribunal" in case of doubt are mandatory.

Unlawful combatants do not qualify for prisoner of war status. Their situation upon capture by the enemy is covered by the Fourth (Civilian) Geneva Convention if they fulfil the nationality criteria and by the relevant provisions of the Additional Protocol I, if ratified by the detaining power.

This protection is not the same as that afforded to lawful combatants. To the contrary, persons protected by the Fourth Convention and the relevant provisions of Protocol I may be prosecuted under domestic law for directly participating in hostilities. They may be interned for as long as they pose a serious security threat, and, while in detention, may under specific conditions be denied certain privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention. They may also be prosecuted for war crimes and other crimes and sentenced to terms exceeding the length of the conflict, including the range of penalties provided for under domestic law.

Persons not covered by either the Third or the Fourth Geneva Convention in international armed conflict are entitled to the fundamental guarantees provided for by customary international law (as reflected in Article 75 of Additional Protocol I), as well as by applicable domestic and human rights law. All these legal sources provide for rights of detainees in relation to treatment, conditions and due process of law.

Therefore, contrary to some assertions, the ICRC has never stated that all persons who have taken part in hostilities in an international armed conflict are entitled to prisoner of war status.

b. In non-international armed conflict

In non-international armed conflict combatant status does not exist. Prisoner of war or civilian protected status under the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, respectively, do not apply. Members of organized armed groups are entitled to no special status under the laws of non-international armed conflict and may be prosecuted under domestic criminal law if they have taken part in hostilities. However, the international humanitarian law of non-international armed conflict - as reflected in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions where applicable, and customary international humanitarian law – as well as applicable domestic and international human rights law all provide for rights of detainees in relation to treatment, conditions and due process of law.






Does Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions treat "terrorists" the same as it does soldiers?


One of main achievements of Additional Protocol I concerns limitations on the methods and means of warfare introduced in order to better protect civilians. For example, it unequivocally prohibits acts of terrorism, such as attacks against civilians or civilian objects. The treaty also explicitly prohibits acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population. Needless to say, persons suspected of such acts are liable for criminal prosecution.

Additional Protocol I does not grant prisoner of war status to persons who unlawfully participate in hostilities. It reserves this status to members of the armed forces of a party to an international armed conflict in the sense of the Protocol. Such armed forces must be organized, be under a command responsible to that party and be subject to an internal disciplinary system that enforces compliance with humanitarian law. Moreover, members of armed forces must distinguish themselves from the civilian population in order to be entitled to prisoner of war status upon capture. While traditionally the wearing of a uniform or of a distinctive sign and the carrying of arms openly was required, States parties to the Protocol agreed that in very exceptional circumstances, such as wars of national liberation, this requirement could be less stringent. The carrying of arms openly would be sufficient as a means of distinction.

The Protocol thus provides recognition and protection only to organizations and individuals who act on behalf of a State or an entity that is a subject of international law. It excludes "private wars", whether conducted by individuals or groups, in the same way that the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1907 Hague Regulations concerning the laws and customs of war on land had done. Therefore, "terrorist" groups acting on their own behalf and without the requisite link to a State or similar entity are excluded from prisoner of war protections.


http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/terrorism-ihl-210705

[Violet_Crumble]

43. Yr argument was that according to the Geneva Conventions he's a terrorist...

Yet you posted a link to an Article that is dealing with who is recognised as a POW. Great, so according to you anyone who's not recognised as a POW is a terrorist?

[Dick Dastardly]

47. My argument was that he is an unlawful combatant

The info outlines the difference between a Lawful combatant and an unlawful combatantant.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

6. Are attacks against military targets considered terrorism? nt

[bemildred]

7. Well, apparently, that depends on the military targets attacked.

Whatever one considers this young man to be, "terrorist" does not fit, unless the word means nothing. FWIW, I am comfortable with the idea that the word means nothing.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. The word means bugger all n/t

[Phx_Dem]

19. So what is the threshold?

Suppose instead of a knife he blew himself up and killed Israelis and Palestinians, would he then "qualify" as a terrorist?

[Vegasaurus]

20. People wouldn't call him a terrorist even he blew himself up

if he only killed members of the IDF.

[bemildred]

21. Generally, I associate it with the intent to spread terror.

If you are trying to spread terror in the population at large, that is terrorism. On the other hand if you are pursuing some more prosaic purpose, that is not terrorism. So 9/11 was terrorism, as was the bombing of S. Lebanon in the 2nd Lebanon War, or Dresden in WWII; but this incident was not unless the young man can be shown to be trying to scare Israelis, as opposed to just wanting to harm his victim.

Of course, you will always get in trouble trying to discern the intentions of others, but sometimes that is all you have to work with.

Edit: Oh, yes, and blowing yourself up in a pizza parlor is definitely terrorism.

[Phx_Dem]

22. Given that this latest attack is the third knife assault

at a checkpoint in a week, I think one could make a case that there is "intent to spread terror".

If these attacks at checkpoints continue, it will only make it harder for Palestinians to move around the OTs which is not a desirable outcome for the Palestinians.

[bemildred]

23. Checkpoints are not civilian enterprises.

To call a knife attack at a checkpoint terrorism is to remove all distinctive meaning from the word. But go ahead if you want.

It is the checkpoints that make movement difficult, not the attacks on them.

[sabbat hunter]

25. he is an illegal combatant

because he wasnt wearing a uniform or marking that he was of a military organization.

Attacking a soldier is not a terror activity, but it is still an illegal combatant who did the act.

[breakaleg]

26. You mean like this?

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/goodbad/Combatant.html

[sabbat hunter]

27. no

because the person who attacked the israeli soldier was not wearing ANY uniform or marking of a combatant. If he had, although I would have not liked the attack, it would have at least been a legitimate attack.

When your enemy doesn't wear a uniform, how can you tell who is dangerous and who is a civilian?


Unlike in the overly simplistic web site you linked to, where both people are wearing uniforms, thus are both legitimate combatants.

See the difference?

[breakaleg]

28. What I see is a Bush-ism being thrown around DU. nt

[sabbat hunter]

32. then sir

you are don't know the difference between a legal and illegal combatant.

As I said numerous times, if the knife welder was wearing a uniform then he would be a legitimate combatant.

This isn't *'s definition, but by the Geneva convention. You do think the Geneva convention is a good thing don't you?

Or do you think it is ok for people who are wearing civilian clothing to attack soldiers with knives/guns etc? If that is so, how do the soldiers know who is out to kill them and who is just a civilian in the area?

By wearing uniforms it protects the civilians, do you understand?

[breakaleg]

33. A soldier in enemy territory needs to have the people who's land they've invaded

properly identified so they know who it's ok to kill or who may be out to kill them? All so it's easy on the invaders? In this case, the issue isn't protecting civilians or the Geneva convention.

[Dick Dastardly]

37. The rules apply to all groups whether occupied or not, right or wrong.

But Why Does It Matter?

It matters because the purpose of the GC is to protect civilians from the ravages of, war, guerilla war and conflict in general fought by regular and irregular forces
The convention was designed to disadvantage combatants who don't obey the laws of war by fighting out of uniform,not openly carrying their weapons, lacking a discernable chain of command or targeting civilians. The distinction is meant to encourage all combatants to honor relatively civilized standards of conduct in combat and refrain from such dangerous tactics as hiding among civilians. The point of the Geneva Conventions was to provide a reward for combatants who obeyed the rules, good/prefered standards of treatment if captured. Treating all as lawful combatants endagers civilians as there is no incentive to play by the rules. Who is right or wrong has no bearing in it.

I have to ask since you dont care about the GC in this matter, Why is it that you want to endanger civilians?

[breakaleg]

45. What does that have to do with this case?

Here, we have a civilian who killed an IDF officer and you are trying to brand this as terrorism. The links you've posted talk about prisoners of war and the protections offered to them. The perpetrator doesn't appear to be in need of those protections in this case. No civilians were harmed. Offering him protection as a POW - how does that translate to him being a terrorist? Seems more like a garden variety murder against a legitimate target to me.

[sabbat hunter]

38. yes that is

what it is all about.


Would you rather have soldiers killing everyone, because they think everyone could be out to kill them?

[eyl]

48. Wrong

The purpose of the GC is not to make warfare some sort of sports competition, with rules to ensure fairness to both sides. Their purpose is to limit the damage warfare does.

Civilian immunity is one of the methods by which that is accomplished - civilians are protected (except under limited circumstances) from attack. But the flip side of that is that civilians may not attack either. To that end, the GC requires all combatants to wear distinguishing marks. The consequences otherwise are that soldiers will start shooting civilians indiscriminately, because they can't tell them apart from attackers.

[bemildred]

36. LOL. That's good.

Shows just how much all of this crap really means.

[breakaleg]

40. I thought so. nt

[Phx_Dem]

29. It's terrorism

Take a look at the definition that Oberliner posted:

"acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against civilians or military in non-military situations carried out for political purposes"

The IDF working checkpoints are "military in non-military situations", since they are filling a law enforcement role as opposed to typical soldiering.

[breakaleg]

30. Terrorism is generally attacks on civilians for politial gain. It seems to me that

any act against the IDF is classified as terrorism around here.

[subsuelo]

31. how about the Hamas member riding in his car through town

Suddenly blown up by IDF attack forces. Also "military in non-military situation."

[Violet_Crumble]

44. Yeah, that's the problem with these tailor-made 'definitions' of terrorism...

Many of these attempts to define it in a way that means just about everything aimed at whatever team the definer is cheering for (in the case of the poster yr replying to, Israel) result in the definer unwittingly defining some of the actions of Israel as terrorism....

I dunno. Why can't people just come right out and say that the way they define terrorism is that anything done by Palestinians to Israel, up to and including legitimate attacks on military targets is in their opinion terrorism, while very little to nothing done by Israel to Palestinians is terrorism, and the criteria for defining whether it is or isn't terrorism is a simple question: 'Was it Israel or the Palestinians who did it?'

[bemildred]

39. So are these guys illegal combatants:

Israeli troops kill militant in W.Bank: medics

NABLUS, West Bank (Reuters) - Israeli troops killed a militant from the armed wing of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement in the occupied West Bank on Friday, medical officials and the group said.

Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades confirmed one of its members was killed by undercover Israeli troops who were operating in the Balata refugee camp near the city of Nablus.

An Israeli army spokesman said the army was looking into details of the incident.

Israeli forces frequently raid West Bank towns in search of militants suspected of involvement in attacks against Israelis.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1821813020080118

Also, are they terrorists?

[sabbat hunter]

41. if they are not wearing uniforms

or identification that denotes them as soldiers then yes those Israeli troops were illegal IMHO. But not terrorists.

[bemildred]

42. Well then we can agree.

In the particular case, it says they were undercover, which indicates that, but you can question the source.

In general, I have seen stories in the Israeli media extolling such operations and the groups that carry them out. One can see that, in certain situations and lights, pride is taken in such things.

In general, serious military organizations have always and often employed such methods, and they still do, and they often likewise take pride in these things and think themselves clever when they get results.

But what does all this make of the laws of war and claims that so and so is an illegal combatant? Not much, in my opinion. A pompous trumpeting of rules you do not intend to follow yourself, and an excuse for mistreatment of certain hostile captives in your power.

And one must ask, if Israelis are allowed to wander around pretending to be Palestinians, why may Palestinians not also wander around pretending to be themselves?

And just as obviously, this fellow, unpleasant as what he did might be, is not a terrorist either.

But thank you for your candor, I respect that.

[Shaktimaan]

46. according to the geneva conventions

yes, they are. I believe they used the term "sabateurs" not IC, but the definition is the same. Basically, they are operating outside of the GC and thus, are not entitled to its protection. This goes for spies and any member of an armed militia that isn't wearing a uniform.