Ferguson to Palestine

[Boston1]

Protesting is one thing.

Murdering pregnant woman and stabbing mothers to death in front of their children is another.

There is no comparison with Ferguson.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Protesting is one thing.

Murdering pregnant woman and stabbing mothers to death in front of their children is another.

There is no comparison with Ferguson.

Bombing homes and killing entire families is not too cool either.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are THREE aspects that these ignoble Hostile Arab Palestinians constantly and consistently ignore:

• The UN Charter as The Agreed upon Covenant under International Law. (A Solemn Promise)
• The Fourth Geneva Convention which they think they are exempt from. (The Legal Aspect)
• Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (Honorable Conduct)
​

[OFF-TOPIC]

theliq, et al,

I am one of those that believed the protest movement did more harm than good. And for every Arab Palestinian that is killed or injured --- following bad legal advise, then the blood is on their head and on their hands.

Rocco,these so called "Pocket Philosophers in Black Che Guevara Berets" with the help of China of course,allowed Nixon to withdraw from Vietnam,althought beaten,with a little pride,plus the end of the Americans deaths in this unwinnable War...I think you should be more appreciative towards those people.....Talk about UNGRATEFUL.with Respect Rocco.....steve

(COMMENT)

In the US, everyone is allowed to protect anything for the toilet paper in the men's room --- to --- tax code. The non-violent anti-War demonstrations are as just as lawful as anything else. And as long as they remain non-violent and within the parameters of the law, American's are perfectly empowered to have such demonstrations. I didn't particularly care for them, but I can't obstruct them. As long as the demonstrators do not incite to violence; most off it is perfectly legal.

This is much different from the incitement to violence when Hostile Arab Palestinians to use any and all means to oppose the Israelis. Dr Masri was completely wrong when she suggested and encourage throwing rock as legal.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not illegal to shoot foreign troops. Why would it be illegal to throw rocks at them?

BTW, attacks on foreign troops is not terrorism as Israeli propaganda suggests.

(COMMENT)

These three things test the metal in which the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) exhibit:

• The inability to comply with a "Solemn Promise" due to the engagement with hostile forces is one thing. To absolutely deny that "Solemn Promise" exists --- is indisputable evidence of the HoAP are not to be trusted and lacking honesty.

∆ Article 2(3): Settle their international disputes by peaceful means."
​

• Almost any party to the conflict (except the HoAP) and any knowledgeable observer will concede that there is a belligerence in the Occupation of the Territories and that the Articles of the Hague and Geneva Convention have been imposed and apply.

∆ There is absolutely no question that Article 68 allows for the prosecution of HoAP that:

§ Have committed offenses which were solely intended to harm the Occupying Power.
§ Are guilty of espionage, or of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power.
§ Have committed intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons.
​

• Honorable Conduct is the umbrella which incapsulates good moral character and integrity, is abosultely essential to the maintenance of peace and the Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States:

∆ The HoAP has the duty to refrain in the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of Israel.
∆ The HoAP refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression that violate the existing international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines; established by or pursuant to an international agreement of Israel.
∆ The HoAP organizing or encouraging the organization of asymmetric or irregular forces or armed bands including Jihadist, Fedayeen, insurgents, and terrorists for incursion into the territory of Israel.
​

Anyone who publicly says that "attacks on foreign troops is not terrorism as Israeli propaganda suggests," meaning that many of these assaults or attacks on Israeli Police and Defense Force are not done to intimidate Israel, simply has no credibility. Anyone how is spreading the disinformation that "It is not illegal to shoot" Israeli Police or Defense Forces is completely dishonest. It is simply not true. Does it happen? (Rhetorical) yes it does. But at the same time, the perpetrator will be sought-out for prosecution.

Anyone that actively suggests and promotes violence against the Israeli Police or Defense Forces, through the dissemination of such disinformation is simply exhibiting dishonesty and a lack of integrity.

If one wants to argue against the application of the Geneva Convention or Hague Regulations, then they need to stipulate that up front. But as it stands, there is nothing in the "law" (mind you - we are not talking about vaguely worded non-binding resolutions) that exempts the Hostile Arab Palestinian from either Customary, Humanitarian or International law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are THREE aspects that these ignoble Hostile Arab Palestinians constantly and consistently ignore:

• The UN Charter as The Agreed upon Covenant under International Law. (A Solemn Promise)
• The Fourth Geneva Convention which they think they are exempt from. (The Legal Aspect)
• Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (Honorable Conduct)
​

[OFF-TOPIC]

theliq, et al,

I am one of those that believed the protest movement did more harm than good. And for every Arab Palestinian that is killed or injured --- following bad legal advise, then the blood is on their head and on their hands.

Rocco,these so called "Pocket Philosophers in Black Che Guevara Berets" with the help of China of course,allowed Nixon to withdraw from Vietnam,althought beaten,with a little pride,plus the end of the Americans deaths in this unwinnable War...I think you should be more appreciative towards those people.....Talk about UNGRATEFUL.with Respect Rocco.....steve

(COMMENT)

In the US, everyone is allowed to protect anything for the toilet paper in the men's room --- to --- tax code. The non-violent anti-War demonstrations are as just as lawful as anything else. And as long as they remain non-violent and within the parameters of the law, American's are perfectly empowered to have such demonstrations. I didn't particularly care for them, but I can't obstruct them. As long as the demonstrators do not incite to violence; most off it is perfectly legal.

This is much different from the incitement to violence when Hostile Arab Palestinians to use any and all means to oppose the Israelis. Dr Masri was completely wrong when she suggested and encourage throwing rock as legal.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not illegal to shoot foreign troops. Why would it be illegal to throw rocks at them?

BTW, attacks on foreign troops is not terrorism as Israeli propaganda suggests.

(COMMENT)

These three things test the metal in which the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) exhibit:

• The inability to comply with a "Solemn Promise" due to the engagement with hostile forces is one thing. To absolutely deny that "Solemn Promise" exists --- is indisputable evidence of the HoAP are not to be trusted and lacking honesty.

∆ Article 2(3): Settle their international disputes by peaceful means."
​

• Almost any party to the conflict (except the HoAP) and any knowledgeable observer will concede that there is a belligerence in the Occupation of the Territories and that the Articles of the Hague and Geneva Convention have been imposed and apply.

∆ There is absolutely no question that Article 68 allows for the prosecution of HoAP that:

§ Have committed offenses which were solely intended to harm the Occupying Power.
§ Are guilty of espionage, or of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power.
§ Have committed intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons.
​

• Honorable Conduct is the umbrella which incapsulates good moral character and integrity, is abosultely essential to the maintenance of peace and the Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States:

∆ The HoAP has the duty to refrain in the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of Israel.
∆ The HoAP refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression that violate the existing international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines; established by or pursuant to an international agreement of Israel.
∆ The HoAP organizing or encouraging the organization of asymmetric or irregular forces or armed bands including Jihadist, Fedayeen, insurgents, and terrorists for incursion into the territory of Israel.
​

Anyone who publicly says that "attacks on foreign troops is not terrorism as Israeli propaganda suggests," meaning that many of these assaults or attacks on Israeli Police and Defense Force are not done to intimidate Israel, simply has no credibility. Anyone how is spreading the disinformation that "It is not illegal to shoot" Israeli Police or Defense Forces is completely dishonest. It is simply not true. Does it happen? (Rhetorical) yes it does. But at the same time, the perpetrator will be sought-out for prosecution.

Anyone that actively suggests and promotes violence against the Israeli Police or Defense Forces, through the dissemination of such disinformation is simply exhibiting dishonesty and a lack of integrity.

If one wants to argue against the application of the Geneva Convention or Hague Regulations, then they need to stipulate that up front. But as it stands, there is nothing in the "law" (mind you - we are not talking about vaguely worded non-binding resolutions) that exempts the Hostile Arab Palestinian from either Customary, Humanitarian or International law.

Most Respectfully,
R

∆ Article 2(3): Settle their international disputes by peaceful means."​

Such as?

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are THREE aspects that these ignoble Hostile Arab Palestinians constantly and consistently ignore:

• The UN Charter as The Agreed upon Covenant under International Law. (A Solemn Promise)
• The Fourth Geneva Convention which they think they are exempt from. (The Legal Aspect)
• Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (Honorable Conduct)
​

[OFF-TOPIC]

theliq, et al,

I am one of those that believed the protest movement did more harm than good. And for every Arab Palestinian that is killed or injured --- following bad legal advise, then the blood is on their head and on their hands.

Rocco,these so called "Pocket Philosophers in Black Che Guevara Berets" with the help of China of course,allowed Nixon to withdraw from Vietnam,althought beaten,with a little pride,plus the end of the Americans deaths in this unwinnable War...I think you should be more appreciative towards those people.....Talk about UNGRATEFUL.with Respect Rocco.....steve

(COMMENT)

In the US, everyone is allowed to protect anything for the toilet paper in the men's room --- to --- tax code. The non-violent anti-War demonstrations are as just as lawful as anything else. And as long as they remain non-violent and within the parameters of the law, American's are perfectly empowered to have such demonstrations. I didn't particularly care for them, but I can't obstruct them. As long as the demonstrators do not incite to violence; most off it is perfectly legal.

This is much different from the incitement to violence when Hostile Arab Palestinians to use any and all means to oppose the Israelis. Dr Masri was completely wrong when she suggested and encourage throwing rock as legal.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not illegal to shoot foreign troops. Why would it be illegal to throw rocks at them?

BTW, attacks on foreign troops is not terrorism as Israeli propaganda suggests.

(COMMENT)

These three things test the metal in which the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) exhibit:

• The inability to comply with a "Solemn Promise" due to the engagement with hostile forces is one thing. To absolutely deny that "Solemn Promise" exists --- is indisputable evidence of the HoAP are not to be trusted and lacking honesty.

∆ Article 2(3): Settle their international disputes by peaceful means."
​

• Almost any party to the conflict (except the HoAP) and any knowledgeable observer will concede that there is a belligerence in the Occupation of the Territories and that the Articles of the Hague and Geneva Convention have been imposed and apply.

∆ There is absolutely no question that Article 68 allows for the prosecution of HoAP that:

§ Have committed offenses which were solely intended to harm the Occupying Power.
§ Are guilty of espionage, or of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power.
§ Have committed intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons.
​

• Honorable Conduct is the umbrella which incapsulates good moral character and integrity, is abosultely essential to the maintenance of peace and the Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States:

∆ The HoAP has the duty to refrain in the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of Israel.
∆ The HoAP refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression that violate the existing international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines; established by or pursuant to an international agreement of Israel.
∆ The HoAP organizing or encouraging the organization of asymmetric or irregular forces or armed bands including Jihadist, Fedayeen, insurgents, and terrorists for incursion into the territory of Israel.
​

Anyone who publicly says that "attacks on foreign troops is not terrorism as Israeli propaganda suggests," meaning that many of these assaults or attacks on Israeli Police and Defense Force are not done to intimidate Israel, simply has no credibility. Anyone how is spreading the disinformation that "It is not illegal to shoot" Israeli Police or Defense Forces is completely dishonest. It is simply not true. Does it happen? (Rhetorical) yes it does. But at the same time, the perpetrator will be sought-out for prosecution.

Anyone that actively suggests and promotes violence against the Israeli Police or Defense Forces, through the dissemination of such disinformation is simply exhibiting dishonesty and a lack of integrity.

If one wants to argue against the application of the Geneva Convention or Hague Regulations, then they need to stipulate that up front. But as it stands, there is nothing in the "law" (mind you - we are not talking about vaguely worded non-binding resolutions) that exempts the Hostile Arab Palestinian from either Customary, Humanitarian or International law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are THREE aspects that these ignoble Hostile Arab Palestinians constantly and consistently ignore:

• The UN Charter as The Agreed upon Covenant under International Law. (A Solemn Promise)
• The Fourth Geneva Convention which they think they are exempt from. (The Legal Aspect)
• Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (Honorable Conduct)
​

[OFF-TOPIC]

theliq, et al,

I am one of those that believed the protest movement did more harm than good. And for every Arab Palestinian that is killed or injured --- following bad legal advise, then the blood is on their head and on their hands.

Rocco,these so called "Pocket Philosophers in Black Che Guevara Berets" with the help of China of course,allowed Nixon to withdraw from Vietnam,althought beaten,with a little pride,plus the end of the Americans deaths in this unwinnable War...I think you should be more appreciative towards those people.....Talk about UNGRATEFUL.with Respect Rocco.....steve

(COMMENT)

In the US, everyone is allowed to protect anything for the toilet paper in the men's room --- to --- tax code. The non-violent anti-War demonstrations are as just as lawful as anything else. And as long as they remain non-violent and within the parameters of the law, American's are perfectly empowered to have such demonstrations. I didn't particularly care for them, but I can't obstruct them. As long as the demonstrators do not incite to violence; most off it is perfectly legal.

This is much different from the incitement to violence when Hostile Arab Palestinians to use any and all means to oppose the Israelis. Dr Masri was completely wrong when she suggested and encourage throwing rock as legal.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not illegal to shoot foreign troops. Why would it be illegal to throw rocks at them?

BTW, attacks on foreign troops is not terrorism as Israeli propaganda suggests.

(COMMENT)

These three things test the metal in which the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) exhibit:

• The inability to comply with a "Solemn Promise" due to the engagement with hostile forces is one thing. To absolutely deny that "Solemn Promise" exists --- is indisputable evidence of the HoAP are not to be trusted and lacking honesty.

∆ Article 2(3): Settle their international disputes by peaceful means."
​

• Almost any party to the conflict (except the HoAP) and any knowledgeable observer will concede that there is a belligerence in the Occupation of the Territories and that the Articles of the Hague and Geneva Convention have been imposed and apply.

∆ There is absolutely no question that Article 68 allows for the prosecution of HoAP that:

§ Have committed offenses which were solely intended to harm the Occupying Power.
§ Are guilty of espionage, or of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power.
§ Have committed intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons.
​

• Honorable Conduct is the umbrella which incapsulates good moral character and integrity, is abosultely essential to the maintenance of peace and the Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States:

∆ The HoAP has the duty to refrain in the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of Israel.
∆ The HoAP refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression that violate the existing international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines; established by or pursuant to an international agreement of Israel.
∆ The HoAP organizing or encouraging the organization of asymmetric or irregular forces or armed bands including Jihadist, Fedayeen, insurgents, and terrorists for incursion into the territory of Israel.
​

Anyone who publicly says that "attacks on foreign troops is not terrorism as Israeli propaganda suggests," meaning that many of these assaults or attacks on Israeli Police and Defense Force are not done to intimidate Israel, simply has no credibility. Anyone how is spreading the disinformation that "It is not illegal to shoot" Israeli Police or Defense Forces is completely dishonest. It is simply not true. Does it happen? (Rhetorical) yes it does. But at the same time, the perpetrator will be sought-out for prosecution.

Anyone that actively suggests and promotes violence against the Israeli Police or Defense Forces, through the dissemination of such disinformation is simply exhibiting dishonesty and a lack of integrity.

If one wants to argue against the application of the Geneva Convention or Hague Regulations, then they need to stipulate that up front. But as it stands, there is nothing in the "law" (mind you - we are not talking about vaguely worded non-binding resolutions) that exempts the Hostile Arab Palestinian from either Customary, Humanitarian or International law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Excuse me Monte,could you elaborate on this poster above and its meaning,thank you steve

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are THREE aspects that these ignoble Hostile Arab Palestinians constantly and consistently ignore:

• The UN Charter as The Agreed upon Covenant under International Law. (A Solemn Promise)
• The Fourth Geneva Convention which they think they are exempt from. (The Legal Aspect)
• Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (Honorable Conduct)
​

[OFF-TOPIC]

theliq, et al,

I am one of those that believed the protest movement did more harm than good. And for every Arab Palestinian that is killed or injured --- following bad legal advise, then the blood is on their head and on their hands.

Rocco,these so called "Pocket Philosophers in Black Che Guevara Berets" with the help of China of course,allowed Nixon to withdraw from Vietnam,althought beaten,with a little pride,plus the end of the Americans deaths in this unwinnable War...I think you should be more appreciative towards those people.....Talk about UNGRATEFUL.with Respect Rocco.....steve

(COMMENT)

In the US, everyone is allowed to protect anything for the toilet paper in the men's room --- to --- tax code. The non-violent anti-War demonstrations are as just as lawful as anything else. And as long as they remain non-violent and within the parameters of the law, American's are perfectly empowered to have such demonstrations. I didn't particularly care for them, but I can't obstruct them. As long as the demonstrators do not incite to violence; most off it is perfectly legal.

This is much different from the incitement to violence when Hostile Arab Palestinians to use any and all means to oppose the Israelis. Dr Masri was completely wrong when she suggested and encourage throwing rock as legal.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not illegal to shoot foreign troops. Why would it be illegal to throw rocks at them?

BTW, attacks on foreign troops is not terrorism as Israeli propaganda suggests.

(COMMENT)

These three things test the metal in which the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) exhibit:

• The inability to comply with a "Solemn Promise" due to the engagement with hostile forces is one thing. To absolutely deny that "Solemn Promise" exists --- is indisputable evidence of the HoAP are not to be trusted and lacking honesty.

∆ Article 2(3): Settle their international disputes by peaceful means."
​

• Almost any party to the conflict (except the HoAP) and any knowledgeable observer will concede that there is a belligerence in the Occupation of the Territories and that the Articles of the Hague and Geneva Convention have been imposed and apply.

∆ There is absolutely no question that Article 68 allows for the prosecution of HoAP that:

§ Have committed offenses which were solely intended to harm the Occupying Power.
§ Are guilty of espionage, or of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power.
§ Have committed intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons.
​

• Honorable Conduct is the umbrella which incapsulates good moral character and integrity, is abosultely essential to the maintenance of peace and the Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States:

∆ The HoAP has the duty to refrain in the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of Israel.
∆ The HoAP refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression that violate the existing international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines; established by or pursuant to an international agreement of Israel.
∆ The HoAP organizing or encouraging the organization of asymmetric or irregular forces or armed bands including Jihadist, Fedayeen, insurgents, and terrorists for incursion into the territory of Israel.
​

Anyone who publicly says that "attacks on foreign troops is not terrorism as Israeli propaganda suggests," meaning that many of these assaults or attacks on Israeli Police and Defense Force are not done to intimidate Israel, simply has no credibility. Anyone how is spreading the disinformation that "It is not illegal to shoot" Israeli Police or Defense Forces is completely dishonest. It is simply not true. Does it happen? (Rhetorical) yes it does. But at the same time, the perpetrator will be sought-out for prosecution.

Anyone that actively suggests and promotes violence against the Israeli Police or Defense Forces, through the dissemination of such disinformation is simply exhibiting dishonesty and a lack of integrity.

If one wants to argue against the application of the Geneva Convention or Hague Regulations, then they need to stipulate that up front. But as it stands, there is nothing in the "law" (mind you - we are not talking about vaguely worded non-binding resolutions) that exempts the Hostile Arab Palestinian from either Customary, Humanitarian or International law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Isn't it Sad that you use the term IGNOBLE for the wonderful Palestinians,yet you should use it for the Jews.....the DEATH RATES between these two peoples over the past 60 odd years.,I would have thought would give you an indication who the REAL IGNOBLES ARE......Rocco,I regard you as an intelligent man,my par,that is why I have to burn you from time to time because you know better than a lot of the trash you pen..................Stop being so bias and myopic.....and learn to open both your eyes during these discussions please........stop trying to degrade the Palestinians.....Jews and Israel have thumbed their noses at so many UN Resolutions,which shows clearly that Israel have no regard for the Law when it does not suit them..........Rocco,I like you man but sometimes I feel like shaking some sense in you......steve

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are THREE aspects that these ignoble Hostile Arab Palestinians constantly and consistently ignore:

• The UN Charter as The Agreed upon Covenant under International Law. (A Solemn Promise)
• The Fourth Geneva Convention which they think they are exempt from. (The Legal Aspect)
• Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (Honorable Conduct)
​

[OFF-TOPIC]

theliq, et al,

I am one of those that believed the protest movement did more harm than good. And for every Arab Palestinian that is killed or injured --- following bad legal advise, then the blood is on their head and on their hands.

Rocco,these so called "Pocket Philosophers in Black Che Guevara Berets" with the help of China of course,allowed Nixon to withdraw from Vietnam,althought beaten,with a little pride,plus the end of the Americans deaths in this unwinnable War...I think you should be more appreciative towards those people.....Talk about UNGRATEFUL.with Respect Rocco.....steve

(COMMENT)

In the US, everyone is allowed to protect anything for the toilet paper in the men's room --- to --- tax code. The non-violent anti-War demonstrations are as just as lawful as anything else. And as long as they remain non-violent and within the parameters of the law, American's are perfectly empowered to have such demonstrations. I didn't particularly care for them, but I can't obstruct them. As long as the demonstrators do not incite to violence; most off it is perfectly legal.

This is much different from the incitement to violence when Hostile Arab Palestinians to use any and all means to oppose the Israelis. Dr Masri was completely wrong when she suggested and encourage throwing rock as legal.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not illegal to shoot foreign troops. Why would it be illegal to throw rocks at them?

BTW, attacks on foreign troops is not terrorism as Israeli propaganda suggests.

(COMMENT)

These three things test the metal in which the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) exhibit:

• The inability to comply with a "Solemn Promise" due to the engagement with hostile forces is one thing. To absolutely deny that "Solemn Promise" exists --- is indisputable evidence of the HoAP are not to be trusted and lacking honesty.

∆ Article 2(3): Settle their international disputes by peaceful means."
​

• Almost any party to the conflict (except the HoAP) and any knowledgeable observer will concede that there is a belligerence in the Occupation of the Territories and that the Articles of the Hague and Geneva Convention have been imposed and apply.

∆ There is absolutely no question that Article 68 allows for the prosecution of HoAP that:

§ Have committed offenses which were solely intended to harm the Occupying Power.
§ Are guilty of espionage, or of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power.
§ Have committed intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons.
​

• Honorable Conduct is the umbrella which incapsulates good moral character and integrity, is abosultely essential to the maintenance of peace and the Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States:

∆ The HoAP has the duty to refrain in the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of Israel.
∆ The HoAP refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression that violate the existing international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines; established by or pursuant to an international agreement of Israel.
∆ The HoAP organizing or encouraging the organization of asymmetric or irregular forces or armed bands including Jihadist, Fedayeen, insurgents, and terrorists for incursion into the territory of Israel.
​

Anyone who publicly says that "attacks on foreign troops is not terrorism as Israeli propaganda suggests," meaning that many of these assaults or attacks on Israeli Police and Defense Force are not done to intimidate Israel, simply has no credibility. Anyone how is spreading the disinformation that "It is not illegal to shoot" Israeli Police or Defense Forces is completely dishonest. It is simply not true. Does it happen? (Rhetorical) yes it does. But at the same time, the perpetrator will be sought-out for prosecution.

Anyone that actively suggests and promotes violence against the Israeli Police or Defense Forces, through the dissemination of such disinformation is simply exhibiting dishonesty and a lack of integrity.

If one wants to argue against the application of the Geneva Convention or Hague Regulations, then they need to stipulate that up front. But as it stands, there is nothing in the "law" (mind you - we are not talking about vaguely worded non-binding resolutions) that exempts the Hostile Arab Palestinian from either Customary, Humanitarian or International law.

Most Respectfully,
R

∆ Article 2(3): Settle their international disputes by peaceful means."​

Such as?

(COMMENT)

There are any number of peaceful means.

"Declaration of Principles A/RES/25/2625: "States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute."​

Since the last round of Peace Negotiations, both sides have done exercised diplomacy in such ways that were "incredibly unhelpful." US officials says that the "negotiated path" is the preferred solution. But in the end, it is not what the world thinks are favorable conditions, it is not what the UN thinks are favorable conditions, it is not event what the Quartet thinks are favorable conditions. It is up to the Arab Palestinians to decide they want a lasting peace arrangement.

I don't think that point has come.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

[OFF-TOPIC]

theliq, et al,

I am one of those that believed the protest movement did more harm than good. And for every Arab Palestinian that is killed or injured --- following bad legal advise, then the blood is on their head and on their hands.

Rocco,these so called "Pocket Philosophers in Black Che Guevara Berets" with the help of China of course,allowed Nixon to withdraw from Vietnam,althought beaten,with a little pride,plus the end of the Americans deaths in this unwinnable War...I think you should be more appreciative towards those people.....Talk about UNGRATEFUL.with Respect Rocco.....steve

(COMMENT)

In the US, everyone is allowed to protect anything for the toilet paper in the men's room --- to --- tax code. The non-violent anti-War demonstrations are as just as lawful as anything else. And as long as they remain non-violent and within the parameters of the law, American's are perfectly empowered to have such demonstrations. I didn't particularly care for them, but I can't obstruct them. As long as the demonstrators do not incite to violence; most off it is perfectly legal.

This is much different from the incitement to violence when Hostile Arab Palestinians to use any and all means to oppose the Israelis. Dr Masri was completely wrong when she suggested and encourage throwing rock as legal.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not illegal to shoot foreign troops. Why would it be illegal to throw rocks at them?

BTW, attacks on foreign troops is not terrorism as Israeli propaganda suggests.

So it is not illegal to shoot Palestinians then, so why do you constantly say it is.

Rock throwing is illegal under Jordans laws, which are the laws laid down as being applicable to the occupied territories.

Try reading the description of terrorism again and see that any action designed to force through violence the Palestinians dogma, politics and religion on the troops is seen as terrorism. The fact the recipients are Israeli troops is not a factor on whether or not they are being attacked by terrorists.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are THREE aspects that these ignoble Hostile Arab Palestinians constantly and consistently ignore:

• The UN Charter as The Agreed upon Covenant under International Law. (A Solemn Promise)
• The Fourth Geneva Convention which they think they are exempt from. (The Legal Aspect)
• Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (Honorable Conduct)
​

[OFF-TOPIC]

theliq, et al,

I am one of those that believed the protest movement did more harm than good. And for every Arab Palestinian that is killed or injured --- following bad legal advise, then the blood is on their head and on their hands.

Rocco,these so called "Pocket Philosophers in Black Che Guevara Berets" with the help of China of course,allowed Nixon to withdraw from Vietnam,althought beaten,with a little pride,plus the end of the Americans deaths in this unwinnable War...I think you should be more appreciative towards those people.....Talk about UNGRATEFUL.with Respect Rocco.....steve

(COMMENT)

In the US, everyone is allowed to protect anything for the toilet paper in the men's room --- to --- tax code. The non-violent anti-War demonstrations are as just as lawful as anything else. And as long as they remain non-violent and within the parameters of the law, American's are perfectly empowered to have such demonstrations. I didn't particularly care for them, but I can't obstruct them. As long as the demonstrators do not incite to violence; most off it is perfectly legal.

This is much different from the incitement to violence when Hostile Arab Palestinians to use any and all means to oppose the Israelis. Dr Masri was completely wrong when she suggested and encourage throwing rock as legal.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not illegal to shoot foreign troops. Why would it be illegal to throw rocks at them?

BTW, attacks on foreign troops is not terrorism as Israeli propaganda suggests.

(COMMENT)

These three things test the metal in which the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) exhibit:

• The inability to comply with a "Solemn Promise" due to the engagement with hostile forces is one thing. To absolutely deny that "Solemn Promise" exists --- is indisputable evidence of the HoAP are not to be trusted and lacking honesty.

∆ Article 2(3): Settle their international disputes by peaceful means."
​

• Almost any party to the conflict (except the HoAP) and any knowledgeable observer will concede that there is a belligerence in the Occupation of the Territories and that the Articles of the Hague and Geneva Convention have been imposed and apply.

∆ There is absolutely no question that Article 68 allows for the prosecution of HoAP that:

§ Have committed offenses which were solely intended to harm the Occupying Power.
§ Are guilty of espionage, or of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power.
§ Have committed intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons.
​

• Honorable Conduct is the umbrella which incapsulates good moral character and integrity, is abosultely essential to the maintenance of peace and the Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States:

∆ The HoAP has the duty to refrain in the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of Israel.
∆ The HoAP refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression that violate the existing international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines; established by or pursuant to an international agreement of Israel.
∆ The HoAP organizing or encouraging the organization of asymmetric or irregular forces or armed bands including Jihadist, Fedayeen, insurgents, and terrorists for incursion into the territory of Israel.
​

Anyone who publicly says that "attacks on foreign troops is not terrorism as Israeli propaganda suggests," meaning that many of these assaults or attacks on Israeli Police and Defense Force are not done to intimidate Israel, simply has no credibility. Anyone how is spreading the disinformation that "It is not illegal to shoot" Israeli Police or Defense Forces is completely dishonest. It is simply not true. Does it happen? (Rhetorical) yes it does. But at the same time, the perpetrator will be sought-out for prosecution.

Anyone that actively suggests and promotes violence against the Israeli Police or Defense Forces, through the dissemination of such disinformation is simply exhibiting dishonesty and a lack of integrity.

If one wants to argue against the application of the Geneva Convention or Hague Regulations, then they need to stipulate that up front. But as it stands, there is nothing in the "law" (mind you - we are not talking about vaguely worded non-binding resolutions) that exempts the Hostile Arab Palestinian from either Customary, Humanitarian or International law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Isn't it Sad that you use the term IGNOBLE for the wonderful Palestinians,yet you should use it for the Jews.....the DEATH RATES between these two peoples over the past 60 odd years.,I would have thought would give you an indication who the REAL IGNOBLES ARE......Rocco,I regard you as an intelligent man,my par,that is why I have to burn you from time to time because you know better than a lot of the trash you pen..................Stop being so bias and myopic.....and learn to open both your eyes during these discussions please........stop trying to degrade the Palestinians.....Jews and Israel have thumbed their noses at so many UN Resolutions,which shows clearly that Israel have no regard for the Law when it does not suit them..........Rocco,I like you man but sometimes I feel like shaking some sense in you......steve

Death rates are not a measure of anything but death rates, intent and cultural standards are what decides the issue. So look at the Palestinians charters and you see just how ignoble they are.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are THREE aspects that these ignoble Hostile Arab Palestinians constantly and consistently ignore:

• The UN Charter as The Agreed upon Covenant under International Law. (A Solemn Promise)
• The Fourth Geneva Convention which they think they are exempt from. (The Legal Aspect)
• Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (Honorable Conduct)
​

[OFF-TOPIC]

theliq, et al,

I am one of those that believed the protest movement did more harm than good. And for every Arab Palestinian that is killed or injured --- following bad legal advise, then the blood is on their head and on their hands.

Rocco,these so called "Pocket Philosophers in Black Che Guevara Berets" with the help of China of course,allowed Nixon to withdraw from Vietnam,althought beaten,with a little pride,plus the end of the Americans deaths in this unwinnable War...I think you should be more appreciative towards those people.....Talk about UNGRATEFUL.with Respect Rocco.....steve

(COMMENT)

In the US, everyone is allowed to protect anything for the toilet paper in the men's room --- to --- tax code. The non-violent anti-War demonstrations are as just as lawful as anything else. And as long as they remain non-violent and within the parameters of the law, American's are perfectly empowered to have such demonstrations. I didn't particularly care for them, but I can't obstruct them. As long as the demonstrators do not incite to violence; most off it is perfectly legal.

This is much different from the incitement to violence when Hostile Arab Palestinians to use any and all means to oppose the Israelis. Dr Masri was completely wrong when she suggested and encourage throwing rock as legal.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not illegal to shoot foreign troops. Why would it be illegal to throw rocks at them?

BTW, attacks on foreign troops is not terrorism as Israeli propaganda suggests.

(COMMENT)

These three things test the metal in which the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) exhibit:

• The inability to comply with a "Solemn Promise" due to the engagement with hostile forces is one thing. To absolutely deny that "Solemn Promise" exists --- is indisputable evidence of the HoAP are not to be trusted and lacking honesty.

∆ Article 2(3): Settle their international disputes by peaceful means."
​

• Almost any party to the conflict (except the HoAP) and any knowledgeable observer will concede that there is a belligerence in the Occupation of the Territories and that the Articles of the Hague and Geneva Convention have been imposed and apply.

∆ There is absolutely no question that Article 68 allows for the prosecution of HoAP that:

§ Have committed offenses which were solely intended to harm the Occupying Power.
§ Are guilty of espionage, or of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power.
§ Have committed intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons.
​

• Honorable Conduct is the umbrella which incapsulates good moral character and integrity, is abosultely essential to the maintenance of peace and the Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States:

∆ The HoAP has the duty to refrain in the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of Israel.
∆ The HoAP refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression that violate the existing international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines; established by or pursuant to an international agreement of Israel.
∆ The HoAP organizing or encouraging the organization of asymmetric or irregular forces or armed bands including Jihadist, Fedayeen, insurgents, and terrorists for incursion into the territory of Israel.
​

Anyone who publicly says that "attacks on foreign troops is not terrorism as Israeli propaganda suggests," meaning that many of these assaults or attacks on Israeli Police and Defense Force are not done to intimidate Israel, simply has no credibility. Anyone how is spreading the disinformation that "It is not illegal to shoot" Israeli Police or Defense Forces is completely dishonest. It is simply not true. Does it happen? (Rhetorical) yes it does. But at the same time, the perpetrator will be sought-out for prosecution.

Anyone that actively suggests and promotes violence against the Israeli Police or Defense Forces, through the dissemination of such disinformation is simply exhibiting dishonesty and a lack of integrity.

If one wants to argue against the application of the Geneva Convention or Hague Regulations, then they need to stipulate that up front. But as it stands, there is nothing in the "law" (mind you - we are not talking about vaguely worded non-binding resolutions) that exempts the Hostile Arab Palestinian from either Customary, Humanitarian or International law.

Most Respectfully,
R

∆ Article 2(3): Settle their international disputes by peaceful means."​

Such as?

(COMMENT)

There are any number of peaceful means.

"Declaration of Principles A/RES/25/2625: "States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute."​

Since the last round of Peace Negotiations, both sides have done exercised diplomacy in such ways that were "incredibly unhelpful." US officials says that the "negotiated path" is the preferred solution. But in the end, it is not what the world thinks are favorable conditions, it is not what the UN thinks are favorable conditions, it is not event what the Quartet thinks are favorable conditions. It is up to the Arab Palestinians to decide they want a lasting peace arrangement.

I don't think that point has come.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, so which of those options are available and result in the Palestinians regaining their rights?

 

[P F Tinmore]

[OFF-TOPIC]

theliq, et al,

I am one of those that believed the protest movement did more harm than good. And for every Arab Palestinian that is killed or injured --- following bad legal advise, then the blood is on their head and on their hands.

Rocco,these so called "Pocket Philosophers in Black Che Guevara Berets" with the help of China of course,allowed Nixon to withdraw from Vietnam,althought beaten,with a little pride,plus the end of the Americans deaths in this unwinnable War...I think you should be more appreciative towards those people.....Talk about UNGRATEFUL.with Respect Rocco.....steve

(COMMENT)

In the US, everyone is allowed to protect anything for the toilet paper in the men's room --- to --- tax code. The non-violent anti-War demonstrations are as just as lawful as anything else. And as long as they remain non-violent and within the parameters of the law, American's are perfectly empowered to have such demonstrations. I didn't particularly care for them, but I can't obstruct them. As long as the demonstrators do not incite to violence; most off it is perfectly legal.

This is much different from the incitement to violence when Hostile Arab Palestinians to use any and all means to oppose the Israelis. Dr Masri was completely wrong when she suggested and encourage throwing rock as legal.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not illegal to shoot foreign troops. Why would it be illegal to throw rocks at them?

BTW, attacks on foreign troops is not terrorism as Israeli propaganda suggests.

So it is not illegal to shoot Palestinians then, so why do you constantly say it is.

Rock throwing is illegal under Jordans laws, which are the laws laid down as being applicable to the occupied territories.

Try reading the description of terrorism again and see that any action designed to force through violence the Palestinians dogma, politics and religion on the troops is seen as terrorism. The fact the recipients are Israeli troops is not a factor on whether or not they are being attacked by terrorists.

Show me the law that states it to be illegal to attack foreign troops.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, what are you playing at now. It has been given to you many - many - times. It was given to you in Posting #23.

Show me the law that states it to be illegal to attack foreign troops.

(COMMENT)

Here it is again:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY

• 
  ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]
  
  
  Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ] of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
  The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
  The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
  In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, what are you playing at now. It has been given to you many - many - times. It was given to you in Posting #23.

Show me the law that states it to be illegal to attack foreign troops.

(COMMENT)

Here it is again:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY

• 
  ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]
  
  
  Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ] of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
  The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
  The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
  In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is a law enforcement function, not military action, that is allowed in a proper occupation.

Israel is still in the attack faze against the Palestinians.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,

This article applies to "Protected Persons" and the "Occupation Force."

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, what are you playing at now. It has been given to you many - many - times. It was given to you in Posting #23.

Show me the law that states it to be illegal to attack foreign troops.

(COMMENT)

Here it is again:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY

• 
  ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]
  
  
  Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ] of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
  The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
  The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
  In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is a law enforcement function, not military action, that is allowed in a proper occupation.

Israel is still in the attack faze against the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

You are trying to imply that the requirement to maintain security -- and -- law and order -- makes some sort of difference.

The Palestinian has no exception to violate the Geneva Convention, and if they due, the Occupation Power actually has a responsibility to enforce the law.

The Palestinians have constantly violated customary and humanitarian law; and were the primary cause for the incremental increase in security countermeasure to protect Israeli interests.

There is absolutely NO LAW that you have cited, which gives the Palestinians the authority to conduct hostile operations with the intent to harm the Occupation Power.

Don't pretend there is.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,

This article applies to "Protected Persons" and the "Occupation Force."

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, what are you playing at now. It has been given to you many - many - times. It was given to you in Posting #23.

Show me the law that states it to be illegal to attack foreign troops.

(COMMENT)

Here it is again:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY

• 
  ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]
  
  
  Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ] of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
  The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
  The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
  In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is a law enforcement function, not military action, that is allowed in a proper occupation.

Israel is still in the attack faze against the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

You are trying to imply that the requirement to maintain security -- and -- law and order -- makes some sort of difference.

The Palestinian has no exception to violate the Geneva Convention, and if they due, the Occupation Power actually has a responsibility to enforce the law.

The Palestinians have constantly violated customary and humanitarian law; and were the primary cause for the incremental increase in security countermeasure to protect Israeli interests.

There is absolutely NO LAW that you have cited, which gives the Palestinians the authority to conduct hostile operations with the intent to harm the Occupation Power.

Don't pretend there is.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel is protecting its settler colonialism.

I don't see any international law that OKs that action.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

WOW! You are mixing apples and oranges.

P F Tinmore,

This article applies to "Protected Persons" and the "Occupation Force."

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, what are you playing at now. It has been given to you many - many - times. It was given to you in Posting #23.

Show me the law that states it to be illegal to attack foreign troops.

(COMMENT)

Here it is again:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY

• 
  ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]
  
  
  Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ] of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
  The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
  The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
  In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is a law enforcement function, not military action, that is allowed in a proper occupation.

Israel is still in the attack faze against the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

You are trying to imply that the requirement to maintain security -- and -- law and order -- makes some sort of difference.

The Palestinian has no exception to violate the Geneva Convention, and if they due, the Occupation Power actually has a responsibility to enforce the law.

The Palestinians have constantly violated customary and humanitarian law; and were the primary cause for the incremental increase in security countermeasure to protect Israeli interests.

There is absolutely NO LAW that you have cited, which gives the Palestinians the authority to conduct hostile operations with the intent to harm the Occupation Power.

Don't pretend there is.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel is protecting its settler colonialism.

I don't see any international law that OKs that action.

(COMMENT)

If the international community dictates that the Geneva Convention applies. Then it applies. I'm not sure what your argument is. If the Geneva Convention does not apply --- then Article 49 (shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population) does not apply and there is no issue pertaining to the Settlements.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that you want to file that the Israeli Settlements are in violation of Article 49, and then on the other hand, claim that is Article 68 doesn't apply. It is either the case that it all applies, of none of it applies. But you cannot selective pick and what parts you want to declare as valid.

Now there is a second point that needs to be made. UN Charter is based on the concept of "maintaining the peace." Nothing in the charter promotes conflict. It is all about "peace means" to settle disputes. This is diametrically opposed to the Arab Palestinian way with is always to find a loophole to fight, declare Jihad, and incite arm struggle.

The reason you keep coming up with invalid conclusions is that you think the Palestinians have "card blanc" to to do any damn thing they want. The Palestinians believe that they should not be penalized for armed insurrection and war, and that they should be able to play the down over. The Hostile Arabs were defeated in 1949, in 1956, in 1967 and in 1973.

Israel has sought peace and has successfully negotiated peace (in accordance with the Charter and the Declaration of Principles) with Egypt and Jordan. What have the Arab Palestinians accomplished? They are the ones lacking evidence of peaceful intentions and willingness to address a solution.

• Palestinian Policy: We do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, nor do we acknowledge “Israel” or the legality of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long it remains. (Clearly, the Palestinians have made it clear that they prefer Jihad and conflict.)

This document was originally a paper presented by Mr Khalid Mishaal, the Chief of the Political Bureau of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) at a conference convened by Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies & Consultations, Beirut, on 28-29 November 2012 under the title: “The Islamists in the Arab World and the Palestinian Issue, In Light of the Arab Uprisings,”.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

WOW! You are mixing apples and oranges.

P F Tinmore,

This article applies to "Protected Persons" and the "Occupation Force."

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, what are you playing at now. It has been given to you many - many - times. It was given to you in Posting #23.

Show me the law that states it to be illegal to attack foreign troops.

(COMMENT)

Here it is again:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY

• 
  ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]
  
  
  Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ] of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
  The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
  The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
  In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is a law enforcement function, not military action, that is allowed in a proper occupation.

Israel is still in the attack faze against the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

You are trying to imply that the requirement to maintain security -- and -- law and order -- makes some sort of difference.

The Palestinian has no exception to violate the Geneva Convention, and if they due, the Occupation Power actually has a responsibility to enforce the law.

The Palestinians have constantly violated customary and humanitarian law; and were the primary cause for the incremental increase in security countermeasure to protect Israeli interests.

There is absolutely NO LAW that you have cited, which gives the Palestinians the authority to conduct hostile operations with the intent to harm the Occupation Power.

Don't pretend there is.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel is protecting its settler colonialism.

I don't see any international law that OKs that action.

(COMMENT)

If the international community dictates that the Geneva Convention applies. Then it applies. I'm not sure what your argument is. If the Geneva Convention does not apply --- then Article 49 (shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population) does not apply and there is no issue pertaining to the Settlements.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that you want to file that the Israeli Settlements are in violation of Article 49, and then on the other hand, claim that is Article 68 doesn't apply. It is either the case that it all applies, of none of it applies. But you cannot selective pick and what parts you want to declare as valid.

Now there is a second point that needs to be made. UN Charter is based on the concept of "maintaining the peace." Nothing in the charter promotes conflict. It is all about "peace means" to settle disputes. This is diametrically opposed to the Arab Palestinian way with is always to find a loophole to fight, declare Jihad, and incite arm struggle.

The reason you keep coming up with invalid conclusions is that you think the Palestinians have "card blanc" to to do any damn thing they want. The Palestinians believe that they should not be penalized for armed insurrection and war, and that they should be able to play the down over. The Hostile Arabs were defeated in 1949, in 1956, in 1967 and in 1973.

Israel has sought peace and has successfully negotiated peace (in accordance with the Charter and the Declaration of Principles) with Egypt and Jordan. What have the Arab Palestinians accomplished? They are the ones lacking evidence of peaceful intentions and willingness to address a solution.

• Palestinian Policy: We do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, nor do we acknowledge “Israel” or the legality of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long it remains. (Clearly, the Palestinians have made it clear that they prefer Jihad and conflict.)

This document was originally a paper presented by Mr Khalid Mishaal, the Chief of the Political Bureau of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) at a conference convened by Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies & Consultations, Beirut, on 28-29 November 2012 under the title: “The Islamists in the Arab World and the Palestinian Issue, In Light of the Arab Uprisings,”.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

• Palestinian Policy: We do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, nor do we acknowledge “Israel” or the legality of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long it remains. (Clearly, the Palestinians have made it clear that they prefer Jihad and conflict.)​

What is your disagreement with his statement?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't disagree with the statement.

• Palestinian Policy: We do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, nor do we acknowledge “Israel” or the legality of its presence on any part of • • • Palestine no matter how long it remains. (Clearly, the Palestinians have made it clear that they prefer Jihad and conflict.)​

​

What is your disagreement with his statement?

(COMMENT)

In fact, it is evidence that the Hostile Arab-Palestinians have in the past, and continue to, operate outside the purpose of the Charter and the Declaration of Principles. Israel cn demonstrate it has successfully engaged Arab States in peaceful processes and produced Peace Treaties.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't disagree with the statement.

• Palestinian Policy: We do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, nor do we acknowledge “Israel” or the legality of its presence on any part of • • • Palestine no matter how long it remains. (Clearly, the Palestinians have made it clear that they prefer Jihad and conflict.)​

​

What is your disagreement with his statement?

(COMMENT)

In fact, it is evidence that the Hostile Arab-Palestinians have in the past, and continue to, operate outside the purpose of the Charter and the Declaration of Principles. Israel cn demonstrate it has successfully engaged Arab States in peaceful processes and produced Peace Treaties.

Most Respectfully,
R

How does wanting Israel out of Palestine go against UN principles?

Why do you think that is hostile?