Doc's Talk

Sunday, September 10, 2006

Time To Change The Rules of War-Part II

GS Don Morris, Ph.D.

Sept. 10,2006

The international laws that we currently use are steeped in Western traditions, values and Judeo-Christian principles. The original designers of the Geneva Convention were individuals born, raised and acculturated within Western countries. The Geneva Conventions consist of treaties formulated in Geneva, Switzerland that set the standards of international law for humanitarian concerns. The conventions were the results of efforts by Henri Dunant (1862). Henry Dunant or Henri Dunant, was a Swiss businessman and social activist. The 1864 Geneva Convention was based on Dunant's ideas and in 1901 he received the first Nobel Peace Prize together with Frédéric Passy. His family was very devoutly Calvinist (Calvinism is a system of Christian theology) and had significant influence in Geneva society.[1]

The conventions, their agreements and three added protocols are as follows:

First Geneva Convention (1864): Treatment of battlefield casualties and creation of International Red Cross

Second Geneva Convention (1906): Extended the principles from the first convention to apply also to war at sea.

Third Geneva Convention (1929): Treatment of Prisoner of war.

Fourth Geneva Convention (1949): Treatment relating to the protection of civilians during times of war "in the hands" of an enemy and under any occupation by a foreign power.

In addition, there are three additional amendment protocols that have been added to the Geneva Convention:

Protocol I (1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts. As of August 2, 2006 166 countries had ratified it.
Protocol II (1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts. As of August 2, 2006 162 countries had ratified it.

· Protocol III (2005): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem. As of August 2, 2006 it had been ratified by two countries and signed but not yet ratified by an additional 74 countries[2]

As of June 27, 2006, when Nauru adopted the four conventions, the entire Geneva Conventions have been ratified by 194 countries. As per article 49, 50, 129 and 146 of the Geneva Conventions I, II, III and IV, respectively, all signatory states are required to enact sufficient national law to make grave violations of the Geneva Conventions a punishable criminal offence. However this has not uniformly occurred. Unless a country formally ratifies each of the preceding, said country is not legally required to honor the agreement.

It is useful to understand that each new set of guidelines has attempted to appease groups of violated people as well as trying to civilize an otherwise uncivil set of human behaviors.

The entire idea that one can first create war rules emanates from a value system that honors and values life. Additionally, the concept that once rules are stated, clarified and agreed to, all participating parties will honorably behave in accordance with them. This is a value found within the culture of western societies. Thus, the world community created war rules based upon western civilization human values and grounded in western rules of self-government. This is not true of other countries; their leaders have instead argued that a treaty signed simply grants them time to gain strength and when appropriate the laws will be broken. Therefore, these same “laws’ serve as a means to an end. It is duly noted that within a theocratic state, the “law of the land” is not based upon secular or governmental law; rather it is based upon Sharia Law. In these countries there is no separation of state and religion and Sharia Law is THE prevailing legal authority. This is critical to understand if we are to comprehend the necessity for changing current International War Rules.

When we “break our word” there are usually immediate and harsh ramifications brought upon the country in breach of the laws. Additionally, the West set up an International Court to adjudicate these infractions. The court itself has been modeled and grounded by Judeo-Christian values. This same model and same values cannot be found in all countries currently using and abusing this system of righteousness during wartime. It is also true that in reality there is no such operational system with authority over the individual actions taken by sovereign nations, militias, non-governmental groups or by defined terrorist groups. The so-called authority rests with the ability of nations to secure the uniformed cooperation of all parties who have signed the agreements. The last half of the 20^th century up to the present time has presented example after example of conflict and abuse of the interpretations of these war rules. Legal scholars, historians, the media and bloggers have made available to the public these considerations. I leave it to the reader to avail him/her self of the literature.

Rather, my point is again simplistic: can the world authentically expect groups of people and nations representing contrasting cultures, distinctly different cultures, possessing different behavior operational codes to adhere to the current concept of Western law? Let us be honest and speak the truth. Up until the world’s most recent history, the world authority figure has emanated from Western values specifically when it comes to war rules. Times have changed dramatically and I suggest this is no longer applicable theory into practice.

Fascist Islam does not adhere to the West’s rules and/or belief system with respect to human life. This world community “marches to a different drummer” and thus has no need to obey or follow “our rules”. However, they are willing to abuse our self-imposed laws upon us while not holding themselves accountable to them. Thus, there is nothing inappropriate or “wrong” when they target civilians with rockets, send homicide bombers to murder civilian targets, use children as human shields, imbed themselves within civilian populations, do not distinguish themselves from civilian populations, send waves of children (unarmed) ahead of its “soldiers” to clear the battlefield of mines and the list goes on and on. Life on this earth is in preparation for the true after life and no greater good can come from serving G_D by killing innocents as a homicidal bomber.

As I argued in a previous piece, it is time for us to change the rules of war. If we do not, we will loose. This will require courage to stand up for what we believe-they do for their beliefs. It will require us to have the courage of our convictions-they do for their convictions. It will require us to not waiver in the face of criticism, they do not listen to it; and it will require a long-term commitment, they are so committed!

Our enemy has already recognized that the rules of war need adjusting or “tweaking’. The end of the recent hostilities in Lebanon had no sooner begun than a group of Arab states approached the US Congress demanding an investigation into the use of cluster bombs by Israel. This request was honored without hesitation. Munitions shipments to Israel were halted, a probe was begun-Israel’s enemies acquired yet another war strategy. I am pleased to say that the US Senate rejected the bid to curb the use of cluster bombs. ⁴

This was an attempt to shift the war rules language so as to prevent Israel from using a legal weapon-one that 56 other countries possess and that 9 countries other than Israel have used. Again we see the enemy manipulating language inside a document that they fundamentally do not support. Of course with this comment I have upset many of you and you are shouting, “yes, but we also signed the Geneva Conventions” and …to this I suggest that those “shouters” should examine the actual behavior, on the ground, of Hizzbollah, Syria and Iran. Shall I count the real violations of the very signed agreement you say you signed? In my world, words are an expression of thoughts and actions authenticate your thoughts. The ethical disconnect between signed agreements and real implementation is the “tale of the tape”.

I therefore request that the existing war rules be either discarded and we start all over again or we amend the existing rules of war. I also ask that given the ugliness of war, why should we have any rules at all? This is a question that does not resonate positively with most people. Is it possible to make war equitable and fair when by design it is meant to cause death and destruction to the enemy? What do we mean, exactly, by war rules? When there is a conflict in human values whose rules should you follow? How exactly should Israel address the following situation?

“The article reveals that Hizbullah has recruited over 2,000 children aged 10-15 to serve in armed militias, and that the Hizbullah-affiliated Mahdi Scouts youth organization is training them to become martyrs. "The children are educated from an early age to become martyrs in their youth, like their fathers, and their training is carried out by the Mahdi Scouts youth organization... [This organization], which is affiliated with Hizbullah, teaches the children the basic principles of Shi'ite ideology and of Hizbullah's ideology... The first lesson that the children are taught by Hizbullah is 'The Disappearance of Israel,' and it is always an important part of the [training] program...The organization's goal is to train an exemplary generation of Muslims based on the [principle of] 'the rule of the jurisprudent' [a founding principle of the Islamic Revolution in Iran], and to prepare for the coming of the Imam Mahdi [the Shi'ite messiah]. Its members, including the children, undertake to obey their commanders, to bring honor to the [Muslim] nation, and to prepare themselves for helping the Mahdi [when he comes]."⁵

How should any western nation defend itself against armed terrorists whose military operational strategy is to fire lethal missiles into civilian populations and to use not only the children but to use civilians as shields? What are possible solutions?

I suggest that the Western countries collectively approach the existing IJC at the Hague and file war crime charges against Hizzbollah and Lebanon. Furthermore, we should indicate that we are temporarily suspending the Geneva conventions as the rules of war-we will do our best to honor humanitarian practices but we no longer feel morally or ethically compelled to do less than our enemies do on the filed of battle. We will also hold any sovereign nation responsible for all civilian injuries and deaths if militias operating in their countries or non-governmental sanctioned entities disrespect fundamental humanitarian behavior.

Concurrently, the Western countries should convene a war rules writing summit and invite non-Western countries to participate as full partners in re-defining war rules and consequences. Those countries choosing to not participate operate in war at their own risk and accept that rules of war may be suspended during any conflict.

If none of the preceding can occur in the immediate future, Western countries minimally must file a complaint over sections in the Geneva Convention that address civilian definition, participation and response to these populations during time of war.

It is clear that our enemy will use our own language and human values against us to denigrate our ability to defend ourselves. They use the “power” of world opinion to persuade governments to decrease countries ability to apply military actions upon an enemy. As long as we, in the West, continue to value what others think of us, the current war rule interpretations will demean our ability. The outcome of shifting policy forces sanctions upon countries. The sanctions can range from economic to military actions against us. Under the current “legal structure” it is possible to bar munitions, replacement parts, weapons and much more to be made accessible to the sanctioned country. Thus, our enemy can defeat us by using our laws against us. Does this make any sense to anyone? Do we not have the moral obligation to protect our own people and thus the legal imperative to do the same? Perhaps it is really just me who sees the world through a non-existent lense!

End Notes

Wikipedia
Morris, GS Don, “Understanding the Fourth Geneva Convention”, posted on www.primerct.org and http://docstalk.blogspot.com/ August 2006.
ibid
US Senate rejects bid to curb cluster bomb use, Jerusalem Post, September 8, 2006, www.jpost.co.
Mirfat Al-Hakim, "Hizbullah's Children's Militias." , August 18, 2006 edition, Roz Al-Yusuf an Egyptian weekly

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.