Israel could face Palestinian war crimes charges

[ima]

The pals, The IDF and the US army should all be brought to the court for war crimes.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

A famous US Supreme Court Justice (Potter Stewart) once wrote that: "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it."

I say, its not so hard to define a terrorist. Their actions speak for themselves.

I think the confusing thing is that "civilian" is not the definitive term in international law. Palestine has no military. All Palestinians, including members of Hamas, are civilians. The legal term is "protected persons." Nationals of an occupying power, in this case Israeli citizens, are specifically excluded from the protected persons category.

The terrorist designation is merely political name calling. The Palestinians do not target protected persons and they do not operate outside their own borders.

They do not fit the definition of terrorists.

(COMMENT)

HAMAS (or any other number of Palestinian Terrorist Groups I could name) is not an organization that is covered by the "protected persons" definition.

You are attempting to use the GCVI definition of a protected person to shield terrorist. It is a good propaganda effort, but totally bogus.

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
SOURCES:

• Persons protected under the Forth Geneva Convention are
• International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention

The implanted idea of "inside or outside borders" is a red herring. That distinction is only relevant to specifications relative to "domestic" vs "international" vs "regional." It doesn't affect the basic idea of terrorism or the terrorist that perpetrates the action. Internationally, we say: "international, regional, subregional and national levels" But again, this has no bearing on who is a terrorist.

1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism in all its
forms and manifestations as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by
whomsoever committed;

4. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of
terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political
purposes are in any circumstances unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a
political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may
be invoked to justify them;

7. Reiterates its call upon States to refrain from financing, encouraging,
providing training for or otherwise supporting terrorist activities;

9. Urges States to ensure that their nationals or other persons and entities
within their territory that wilfully provide or collect funds for the benefit of persons
or entities who commit, or attempt to commit, facilitate or participate in the commission of terrorist acts are punished by penalties consistent with the grave
nature of such acts;

SOURCE: United Nations Official Document

Terrorist do not live in a vacuum. And this is especially true of HAMAS, PA, PLO, PIJ, Hezbollah, etc. They derive support from their constituents. To support and assist (or aid and abet) terrorist is condemned as strongly as performing the act itself.

Another Red Herring is the attempt to distinguish unarmed Israeli Citizens (inside or outside Israel), not party to the undeclared conflict under an cease-fire, as some sort of enemy combat (as opposed to a protected person) while assigning protected persons status to Palestinians that terrorize them. This is absurd. The one doing the bombing, the ambush, the drive-by, the rocket attack on the unarmed is the terrorist. The unarmed being attacked are civilians as identified in the International Code.

(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;​

SOURCE: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

It does not matter whether the Palestinians are a signatory or not. It does not matter whether they are uniformed and regular military, irregular forces, paramilitary, or militia. If they are acting in the name of HAMAS, they are committing a "war crime." The fact that the HAMAS are terrorists, duly elected by the general population, only makes the general population more culpable; not less. It defines the moral and ethical character. It tells of how weak their honesty, integrity and values are. The fact that they would even try to hide behind the protected persons skirts while committing acts of terrorism shows just how little honor and bravery they have. By definition, you cannot fire a gun, bomb a car, shoot-up a bus of old folks, or launch a halo of rockets, and still be a protected person.

I find it rather amazing there are people out there that would even attempt to shield terrorist war crimes using the protected persons defense. There is absolutely no justification for the action of HAMAS, or any other Palestinian Terrorist Organization. And the claim that they are not a terrorist organization is refuted by the long list of terrorist acts perpetrated in their name.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are attempting to use the GCVI definition of a protected person to shield terrorist. It is a good propaganda effort, but totally bogus.

Not at all. I am merely pointing out that when people say that Hamas attacks "civilians" it is a misleading statement.

The implanted idea of "inside or outside borders" is a red herring.

Again, not really. The fact that Hamas does not attack outside Palestine's borders is most significant.

 

[ima]

Someone please name me a war EVER in history that didn't produce so called war crimes.

 

[docmauser1]

The fact that Hamas does not attack outside Palestine's borders is most significant.

Indeed, there's something schizophrenic about it.

 

[irosie91]

The fact that Hamas does not attack outside Palestine's borders is most significant.

Indeed, there's something schizophrenic about it.

doc you need to understand tinnie's mindset -----what he is saying is that HAMAS
behaves as if ALL OF WHAT JEWS CALLED PALESTINE until 1948 is really "MUSLIM
LAND" so hamas is doing what Jihadists do in "MUSLIM LAND" ----they murder people
and scantify the land to AL NABI and ALLAHISA by slitting the throats of infants.
doc----I am sure you will understand >>>

SHADES OF THE AMALEKIM