o sung wu,

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my impression that the Geneva Convention applies only to wars between uniformed troops, and not to terrorists, which these people currently atracking Israel are. I do know that in two world wars, anyone not in uniform, but engaging in hostile activities, when captured, stood to be summarily shot. Talking about the Geneva Convention these days, when there is no declared war, seems to be a load of crap to me.

Foxy where did that information you quote come from?

Did someone from Geneva go & check the facts?

Or was it from a Hamas press release. As the lady in question is in Hamas territory, I believe it would be from them.

Please tell me, when you started to believe anything a terrorist organisation uses for propaganda. Personally I think believing anything Hamas puts out in their propaganda is being about as naïve as anyone could ever become.

Hi there TTBN...

To be perfectly honest with you, when we were sent to Malaysia & then S.V. we were under an edict called 'Rules of Engagement', which I would imagine mirror that, of the Geneva Convention. Under the Geneva Convention, I'm not entirely sure who, or what it covers, and under what circumstance it's applied. I suspect being uniformed forces, sent from a sovereign Nation, we'd be under the rules of the Convention? Not some small specialised group of say SAS, sent specially as interdictor's to destroy a small terrorist cell.

Most know it's a strict set of rules on how we're to conduct military operations. The humanity aspect; taking of prisoners; outlawing all forms of physical torture; rules for interrogation of the enemy - Number, rank & name is all that's required to be given, upon being captured by either the enemy forces, or we capturing them?

And if one is captured inside enemy territory while wearing civilian attire, and being armed; you're considered to be in the act of spying. And a spy as such, after exhaustive interrogation, are generally shot, without receiving the benefit of any legal process.

Undercover operations & search and destroy missions, by various members of Special Forces; SAS, SBS, Green Beret's, etc, do tend to muddy the waters somewhat with respect to the G C etc. - wearing almost nothing but civilian attire in most cases. I don't know their 'Rules of Engagement' having never served with them, they're far too tough for me.

Dear Hasbeen,

The information came from newspaper sources -
the Israeli Jewish News,
Haartz, Reuters, LA Times, New York Times, Washington Post,
to quote just a few.

Dear O Sung Wu,

Here is a link that explains a few things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israel_settlements

I realised that it's very unpopular for some people to support
the Palestinians. It's much easier and safer to be pro-Israel
than to be pro-Arab. Arabs are continually associated with
terrorism and violence, being primitive and anti-Western. This
view is so ingrained. One has to coninuously explain and defend
why one is taking that particular position.

People seem to make no distinction between an occupied people
and those who occupy them. Israel talks about the right
of self-defence. How can an occupier claim self-defence but
deny the same right to those who are occupied and have the
right of self-defence with whatever means are available to them?

In any case - an important element in any peace process is
the international community and its mechanisms for restraining
conflict among its members. Trade, travel, and telecommunications
have made the nations of the world more interdependent than ever
before.

The human population is spread among a series of sovereign
independent states most of them with their own armed forces -
and so there is a built-in potential for warfare whenever
two nations have conflicting interests. Therefore some
reliable method is needed to limit conflict among
sovereign states.

There are two such elements for international peace-making
in place. The first is the UN which whether you agree with
their positions it does provide a forum for world opinion and a
mechanism for conflict resolution.

The second is a growing body of international law that
specifies the right and obligations that nations have
towards one another - particularly with respect to aggression.

A major difficulty with international peace-making is that
the UN and the rulings of its World Court are voluntary
(as explained earlier). The UN is most effective, in fact,
when the superpowers are able to agree on a course of action
and mobilize their blocs to support it.

cont'd ...

I made a typo with the link - here it is again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements

If they built a fence 20ks from my house in every direction to fence me and my neighbours in, it probably wouldn't restrict me too much because I don't usually venture too far from my local area.
But you can bet I would visit the 'border fence' and abuse the hell out of whoever saw fit to build it on the other side.
If they tried to steal more land, on my side of the fence including killing innocents and bulldozing homes, my friends and family;
You can BET that I most definitely would take up arms against my oppressors, including teaching the young ones to fight and oppose oppression, and to run Israeli's down in cars and slice their throats in the streets. I'd devote eternity to attacking and hindering these peoples plans to kill my people and steal my land, and any nation that supported them would become my enemy.

Thankfully, I'm fortunate to have not been unlucky enough to have been born in Gaza.