International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?

[abi]

So, in you mind, there is no legitimate resistance to occupation? Please be clear. And make sure you feel the same way of how the Europeans resisted the Nazi occupation.

 

[Shusha]

We are on another thread. What is legitimate resistance to occupation? Simple question.

Asked and answered. I'll state again.

IF the GOAL is to dissolve the State of Israel there is no legitimate "resistance" to pursue that goal. It is all illegitimate.

IF the GOAL is to have an independent, self-determining Arab Palestinian State living in peace side-by-side with Israel there is no legitimate "resistance" to pursue that goal. It is all illegitimate.

 

[Shusha]

So, in you mind, there is no legitimate resistance to occupation? Please be clear. And make sure you feel the same way of how the Europeans resisted the Nazi occupation.

There is no occupation. There is a civil war of independence.

 

[abi]

Asked and answered. I'll state again.

IF the GOAL is to dissolve the State of Israel there is no legitimate "resistance" to pursue that goal. It is all illegitimate.

IF the GOAL is to have an independent, self-determining Arab Palestinian State living in peace side-by-side with Israel there is no legitimate "resistance" to pursue that goal. It is all illegitimate.

The goal is to end the occupation and liberate your people from your oppressors.

There is no occupation. There is a civil war of independence.

How can it be a civil war if one side came from a completely different continent?

 

[Shusha]

The goal is to end the occupation and liberate your people from your oppressors.

Cool. When that goal is achieved is there still an Israel or not?

 

[abi]

The goal is to end the occupation and liberate your people from your oppressors.

Cool. When that goal is achieved is there still an Israel or not?

So (we are on this thread), in you mind, there is no legitimate resistance to occupation? Please be clear. And make sure you feel the same way of how the Europeans resisted the Nazi occupation.

 

[Shusha]

The goal is to end the occupation and liberate your people from your oppressors.

Cool. When that goal is achieved is there still an Israel or not?

So (we are on this thread), in you mind, there is no legitimate resistance to occupation? Please be clear. And make sure you feel the same way of how the Europeans resisted the Nazi occupation.

Answer the question, abi. When the goal has been achieved -- is there an Israel or not?

 

[abi]

Answer the question, abi. When the goal has been achieved -- is there an Israel or not?

So (we are on this thread), in you mind, there is no legitimate resistance to occupation? Please be clear. And make sure you feel the same way of how the Europeans resisted the Nazi occupation.

And as you deny the existence of this brutal occupation that has spanned decades, don't forget, by a vote of 14-0, with the US abstaining, the world declared that these colonies were flagrant violations of international law. In other words, the whole world outside of zionism. You can go on and on with your word games and feigning ignorance, but people are losing their homes. This is sadly happening in the name of the Jewish people which stinks because the Jewish people are not demolishing homes and building racial colonies, the zionists are doing this.

 

[Hollie]

Asked and answered. I'll state again.

IF the GOAL is to dissolve the State of Israel there is no legitimate "resistance" to pursue that goal. It is all illegitimate.

IF the GOAL is to have an independent, self-determining Arab Palestinian State living in peace side-by-side with Israel there is no legitimate "resistance" to pursue that goal. It is all illegitimate.

The goal is to end the occupation and liberate your people from your oppressors.

There is no occupation. There is a civil war of independence.

How can it be a civil war if one side came from a completely different continent?

“The goal is to end the occupation and liberate your people from your oppressors.”

That’s fine as a goal but you have to understand that the greatest oppressors of Arabs-Moslems are the Islamist dictators and despots who rule over Arabs-Moslems. The Arabs-Moslems in Gaza’istan actually put those Islamist dictators and despots into political office.

It’s difficult to liberate Arabs-Moslems from 70 years of failure and ineptitude when they have a 1,400 year history of such attributes.

 

[teddyearp]

So, in you mind, there is no legitimate resistance to occupation? Please be clear. And make sure you feel the same way of how the Europeans resisted the Nazi occupation.

Again.

Show us how the European resistance to the Nazi occupation had them targeting only civilian targets.

That is the question my flip flopping fish.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I have been looking at this, especially after reading several posts that claim no matter what the Palestinians do, they are terrorists. I have even seen the nonviolent resistance such as BDS labeled as terrorists. When the Nazis occupied France, Germans were being attacked. Snipers were even shooting their occupiers at checkpoints and these men were heralded as war heroes. So, what, in today's world is acceptable when resisting your oppressors?

I am curious to know, especially from a zionist, if there is any legitimate forms of resistance and if so, what they would be.

So Cherokees can attack people?

 

[abi]

Again.

Show us how the European resistance to the Nazi occupation had them targeting only civilian targets.

That is the question my flip flopping fish.

Again, I answered it. The Germans did not demolish European cities and move 'civilians' into the new German only cities that they created. It didn't happen like that. You are still trying to compare apples with spaceships.

 

[Hollie]

Answer the question, abi. When the goal has been achieved -- is there an Israel or not?

So (we are on this thread), in you mind, there is no legitimate resistance to occupation? Please be clear. And make sure you feel the same way of how the Europeans resisted the Nazi occupation.

And as you deny the existence of this brutal occupation that has spanned decades, don't forget, by a vote of 14-0, with the US abstaining, the world declared that these colonies were flagrant violations of international law. In other words, the whole world outside of zionism. You can go on and on with your word games and feigning ignorance, but people are losing their homes. This is sadly happening in the name of the Jewish people which stinks because the Jewish people are not demolishing homes and building racial colonies, the zionists are doing this.

“building racial colonies”

My, my, Louie. You have been trolling Stormfront, right?

 

[admonit]

This is sadly happening in the name of the Jewish people which stinks because the Jewish people are not demolishing homes and building racial colonies, the zionists are doing this.

Almost half of Jewish people live in Israel. And if you so care about Jewish people, answer the question:

When the goal has been achieved -- is there an Israel or not?

 

[abi]

Almost half of Jewish people live in Israel. And if you so care about Jewish people, answer the question:

Okay, the zionists are the criminals and some Jews are certainly guilty, but it is not being done by "the Jewish people."

 

[Hollie]

Again.

Show us how the European resistance to the Nazi occupation had them targeting only civilian targets.

That is the question my flip flopping fish.

Again, I answered it. The Germans did not demolish European cities and move 'civilians' into the new German only cities that they created. It didn't happen like that. You are still trying to compare apples with spaceships.

Now, now, Louie. I’m sure history was not a subject stressed at your madrassah but the German campaign against Russia was to raze entire swaths of that nation. You’re trying to compare your ignorance vs. knowledge.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ et al,

The first mistake that I see here in the discussion, is that there is improper comparison to WWII type Francs-tireurs, and current day assymetric fighters of today. The International and Customary laws in place in WWII are considerably different. Most irregular forces on the side of the Allied Powers were not prosecuted because they were on the sidde of the Allied Powers. But in point of fact, the conflicts between 1899 and 1945 considered the capture of Francs-tireurs by the Axis Powers as falling under the Martens Clause. This clause held that:

Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity and the requirements of the public conscience.

The Martens Clause has been modified several times since it was first introduced into humanitarian law. BUT in general the Clause was introduced as a compromise wording for the dispute between:

• The Great Powers who considered francs-tireurs to be unlawful combatants subject to execution on capture. and
• Smaller states who maintained that they should be considered lawful combatants.​

So, in WWII it was customary for the Great Powers to execute Francs-tireurs, Partisans, and the unorganized or semi-organized assemetric forces upon capture; which is not so cutomary today. It is often thought more generally that such assemetric fighters, who operate outside the laws of war, [URL='https://everipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatants/']unlawful combatants subject to execution on capture.[/URL]
https://everipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare/
TODAY: RULE #1 is: Article 48 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “[T]he Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants.”

Partisans and modern day Resistance Movements are interchangeable terms. In order to be lawful, they must be readily distinguishable from the non-combatant civilians. And the must follow the ICRC Recognized Custmary International Human Rights Law.

The framework would be essentially along the same lines as a small scale armed force. Most of the undertaking by Hostile Arab Palestinians would fall outside Customary and IHL; therefore not subject to the same protections as a conventional POW.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[abi]

RE: International law or even a legal framework regarding what is legitimate resistance to occupation?
※→ et al,

The first mistake that I see here in the discussion, is that there is improper comparison to WWII type Francs-tireurs, and current day assymetric fighters of today. The International and Customary laws in place in WWII are considerably different. Most irregular forces on the side of the Allied Powers were not prosecuted because they were on the sidde of the Allied Powers. But in point of fact, the conflicts between 1899 and 1945 considered the capture of Francs-tireurs by the Axis Powers as falling under the Martens Clause. This clause held that:

Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity and the requirements of the public conscience.

​

The Martens Clause has been modified several times since it was first introduced into humanitarian law. BUT in general the Clause was introduced as a compromise wording for the dispute between:

• The Great Powers who considered francs-tireurs to be unlawful combatants subject to execution on capture. and
• Smaller states who maintained that they should be considered lawful combatants.​

So, in WWII it was customary for the Great Powers to execute Francs-tireurs, Partisans, and the unorganized or semi-organized assemetric forces upon capture; which is not so cutomary today. It is often thought more generally that such assemetric fighters, who operate outside the laws of war, unlawful combatants subject to execution on capture.
TODAY: RULE #1 is: Article 48 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “[T]he Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants.”

Partisans and modern day Resistance Movements are interchangeable terms. In order to be lawful, they must be readily distinguishable from the non-combatant civilians. And the must follow the ICRC Recognized Custmary International Human Rights Law.

The framework would be essentially along the same lines as a small scale armed force. Most of the undertaking by Hostile Arab Palestinians would fall outside Customary and IHL; therefore not subject to the same protections as a conventional POW.

Most Respectfully,
R

Interesting, thank-you, but the Germans did not demolish European cities and move 'civilians' into the new German only cities that they created on top of those demolished. It didn't happen like that.

It certainly is not the fault of the Palestinian people that the zionists have done exactly that. And this has now gone on for decades. Big difference there as well.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The fact that you don't realize how stupid your post is is shocking.

You have added nothing as usual. In your wise mind, what is legitimate resistance to occupation?

Let's say i would say that a legitimate form of resistance to occupation is throwing stones, OK? That's what the Palestinians did in the first intifada in 1987. OK, so Barak, Clinton and Arafart met in 2000 to respond to this legitimate form of occupation, OK? Most reports agree that Barak was willing to give Arafart somewhere between 95 to 97% of the West Bank and even to divide Jerusalem, the heart and soul of the Jewish People. Now what should be the response to that? "Great, let's get started." Not horrific suicide bombings in pizzerias, busses, and discos. So Netanyahu comes around and says, "Look, the Left reached out to the deranged Palestinians and this is what they do to us. Elect me and I'll give you security, and I'll play games so the Palestinians won't get a fully-fuctioning state because they can't be trusted."

So let me answer you. A legitimate form of resistance is throwing stones. That gets you to the next step which is ACCEPTING A STATE AND PEACE. And if you can't do that, then your first question is moot. OK?

Most reports agree that Barak was willing to give Arafart somewhere between 95 to 97% of the West Bank

You people never mention the clunkers.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Partisans and modern day Resistance Movements are interchangeable terms. In order to be lawful, they must be readily distinguishable from the non-combatant civilians.

So, if I see foreign troops coming down my street, I have to sit on my hands because I have no uniform?