Pretty clearly the U.S. and the South Vietnamese military. Just because you can't tell who is a combatant and who isn't doesn't give you permission to slaughter entire villages.
If the group killing your soldiers isn't adhering to these rules of war then all the civilians in the area will find themselves at risk.
There is no world where combatants can expect to be allowed to enjoy the protections civilians are afforded while still killing you.
The US base in Okinawa has a rather dubious reputation that continues.
That is true, but this does not take away the protection afforded to civilians. As a concrete example, if you take fire from people in civilian clothing holed up in a hospital, then you can return fire in that specific occasion, but you may not start to indiscriminately fire upon people in civilian clothing or hospitals.
(Also, you are not required to wear a uniform. You are required to distinguish yourself from the civpop by at least openly wearing arms and/or wearing a distinctive sign. Keep in mind not everyone in a uniform is a combatant, and not all combatants are armed.)
If group of villagers resists you, maybe you have no right to be there.
Yes, because Hamas uses human shields and hospitals as bases.
Still civilians, obviously. Cheering something does not make you lose civilian status. Only actively engaging in combat in some capacity does.
Does compulsory military service and being a reserve make you a valid military target?
People can justify killing in all sorts of ways.
No.
> People can justify killing in all sorts of ways.
Which is why we have international laws, in which smart people sat down and codified how this all works.
And yet it is ignored in every war. It’s almost as though encouraging killing people leads to problems.
I think the answer to all these questions entirely depends on which side of the conflict you support, those who see Palestinians as hapless victims who have been abused by the evil Jews will say of course none of this is combat and attacking those innocent people is the highest war crime; on the other hand those who see Jews just trying to live in peace in their homeland being attacked by bedeviled Palestinians will argue that assisting soldiers in war makes you an active combatant, and thus a legitimate (though possibly regrettable) military target.
There are international laws that define these things. Sure, some of it is a judgement call, like all laws, but those laws do exist.
I'm not a lawyer or very knowledgable about international law, but I'll try to answer to my best understanding:
> There were many people who streamed over the fence with Hamas, is invasion engaging in active combat?
Yes, if they are actively attacking civilians. If they "streamed over the fence" to rob and loot (which many did), I'm not quite sure.
> There were many people who spit on, hit, or otherwise assaulted the kidnapped civilians, is that actively engaging in combat?
Spit on? I don't think so, not if they weren't the ones who captured the kidnapped civilians and they were just "passing through" as in the infamous videos. Other forms of assault? Depends on that context.
> does jailing civilians against their will count as actively engaging in combat?
Yes, I'm fairly sure that keeping a hostage makes you an active combatant (and committing a war crime).
> IDF soldiers report many children and women acting as spotters for Hamas, is that active combat?
Yes, spotters are quite clearly combatants.
> I think the answer to all these questions entirely depends on which side of the conflict you support,
It shouldn't, really. That's what international law is for (and in general, our principles shouldn't depend on which side we support).
My main disagreement with most people, I find, is a disagreement on the base facts. Most people are ignorant of most of the base facts of what is going on in this conflict. Though yes, sometimes people do agree on the facts and interpret them differently.