Rabbis in Israel are getting fed up, calling for capital punishment for terrorists.

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

This is another one of those blood thirsty Arab Palestinians trying to justify the open attack on civilians.

montelatici, et al,

Wow ---- What in the hell does a Papal Degree have to do with anything.

Imagine if the Pope issued a Papal Edict that recommended the death penalty for any attack on Christians. The Israelis killed Christians in Gaza in the summer 2014 attack on Gaza. There would be no end to the criticism of the Church and the Pope. No one criticizes the Rabbis for this extraordinary recommendation.

(COMMENT)

The institution of the Death Penalty is the domestic right of the people of Israel. If the people so choose to implement the penalty in response "against the ongoing wave of terrorist attacks," that is their choice. It is not so radically different than Article 68 (Penalty) of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Terrorism is a crime of both purpose (coercion and intimidation) and the effect of the associated crime (indiscriminate murder). It is not so different from acts of murder and when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population; which the Arab Palestinians readily admit as their intent to use all means necessary; Article 7 of the International Criminal Code.

It is not the Rabbis making an extraordinary recommendation, but merely a nation discussion the adoption of the penalty range accepted by international and domestic laws of many nations; to include most members of the Arab League.

Most Respectfully,
R

Resisting an illegal occupation is Heroism not Terrorism.

(COMMENT)

There simply is NO allowance or legal authority for Arab Palestinians to conduct such activities that such acts, that appear to be intended:

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by kidnapping or murdering any person who is not a member of armed forces;

Rules within Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL):

Rule 11. Indiscriminate Attacks
Rule 23. Location of Military Objectives outside Densely Populated Areas
Rule 24. Removal of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives
Rule 97. Human Shields
​

In fact, the IHL works the other way. Article 7 (1a) makes such attacks, for the purpose of the Rome Statute, a "Crime Against Humanity" when such an act is directed against any civilian population. It is NOT an Act of Heroism. It is, to some degree, cowardly for the Arab-Palestinian in the practice of locating launch platforms and launching indiscriminate rockets and mortars from within densely populated areas that would render it immune from immediate counter-fire due to the proximity of civilians. The use of Ambulances to transport armed terrorists is similar in cowardly action. The open instigation of renewed conflict, only to cry and plead for a cease fire in order cut there losses is a cowardly move. Hiding rocket stockpiles inside a UN School to avoid destruction is a cowardly move. The Hostile Arab Palestinian has no heroic models in this regard.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

You clearly are ignoring International Law relating to military occupation, foreign domination which trumps Article 7 which is not relevant to people under occupation.

"ALL AVAILABLE MEANS" has a clear meaning. It doesn't provide any exceptions. Among other reasons for attacking the occupier to make the occupation as difficult as possible for the occupier, not attacking citizens of the occupying power that the occupying power has transferred to the land would be tantamount to acquiescing to the transfer.



A/RES/33/24 of 29 November 1978:

“2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;” (3)

This justification for legitimate armed resistance has been specifically applied to the Palestinian struggle repeatedly in legal forums.

Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX) of 29 November 1974:

3. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle; …

7. Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people; (4)

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

None of the UN Resolutions you can cite with that language supersedes Customary IHL.

montelatici, et al,

Wow ---- What in the hell does a Papal Degree have to do with anything.

Imagine if the Pope issued a Papal Edict that recommended the death penalty for any attack on Christians. The Israelis killed Christians in Gaza in the summer 2014 attack on Gaza. There would be no end to the criticism of the Church and the Pope. No one criticizes the Rabbis for this extraordinary recommendation.

(COMMENT)

The institution of the Death Penalty is the domestic right of the people of Israel. If the people so choose to implement the penalty in response "against the ongoing wave of terrorist attacks," that is their choice. It is not so radically different than Article 68 (Penalty) of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Terrorism is a crime of both purpose (coercion and intimidation) and the effect of the associated crime (indiscriminate murder). It is not so different from acts of murder and when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population; which the Arab Palestinians readily admit as their intent to use all means necessary; Article 7 of the International Criminal Code.

It is not the Rabbis making an extraordinary recommendation, but merely a nation discussion the adoption of the penalty range accepted by international and domestic laws of many nations; to include most members of the Arab League.

Most Respectfully,
R

If Israel were not an invading and occupying power, you might have a point. Much like the Native Americans that attacked European settler families or the ANC attacking white farmers during their struggle against Apartheid, attacking civilians of the invader is part and parcel of freedom fighting. Not doing so encourages increased transfer of the invaders population, Like the Native Americans and the non-white South Africans (and many other colonized peoples) the Palestinians are simply freedom fighters trying to stem the tide of increasing domination, transfer of occupier population to their lands and theft of that land by the Israeli Jews. (who invaded the land from Europe)

It is the right of the Palestinian people to use "all available means" to resist subjugation, foreign domination and colonization. This has been confirmed by UN Resolutions on more than one occasion.

A/RES/33/24 of 29 November 1978:

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;”


A/RES/3246 (XXIX) of 29 November 1974:

3. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation from colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle; …

7. Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;

(COMMENT)

Not only are you misinterpreting the intent of the passage, but you are implying that these older Resolutions have the effect of LAW, which they do not. And you will not find a UN Resolution that has passed into law, that uses this language.

Don't be ridiculous.

The Palestinian People do not have the right to use "any and all means." This has not been confirmed by LAW. In fact the Geneva Convention set, has rule this out in the 1949 version as well as the: (THESE REPRESENT THE LAW ON THE ISSUES.)

Geneva Convention (I) on Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field,1949 and its commentary
12.08.1949

Geneva Convention (II) on Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked of Armed Forces at Sea, 1949 and its commentary
12.08.1949

Geneva Convention (III) on Prisoners of War, 1949 and its commentary
12.08.1949

Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949 and its commentary
12.08.1949

Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 and its commentary
08.06.1977

Annex (I) AP (I), as amended in 1993 and its commentary
30.11.1993

Annex (I) AP (I), 1977 and its commentary
08.06.1977

Annex (II) AP (I), 1977 and its commentary
08.06.1977

Additional Protocol (II) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 and its commentary
08.06.1977

Additional Protocol (III) to the Geneva Conventions, 2005 and its commentary
08.12.2005
​

All this additional protocols come after these non-binding resolutions you have cited. You are just attempting to advocate for the use of tactics and techniques that are allowed by customary law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

"ALL AVAILABLE MEANS" is a term used specifically to people under occupation. The Resolutions were issued specifically to differentiate what means are available and legal to occupied people. The resolutions specifically clarify Geneva law concerning occupation with respect to the means available to occupied people.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

One more point I would like to make.

[

A/RES/3246 (XXIX) of 29 November 1974:

3. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation from colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle; …

7. Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;

(COMMENT)

Israel did not, at any time, "not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples" of Palestine. In fact, it took them over another decade to declare independence. At the time this NON-BINDING Resolution was written, the West Bank was sovereign Jordanian territory established by the Parliament with a 50% representation by Palestinians. If any country represented a roadblock to Arab Palestinian Independence, it was Jordan. You notice that the PLO did not declare independence until Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

A non-binding resolution can not change the Geneva Convention; nor can it change the Rome Statues (entered into force 2002). If anything, the Rome Statues clarify these old language non-binding resolution.

"ALL AVAILABLE MEANS" is a term used specifically to people under occupation. The Resolutions were issued specifically to differentiate what means are available and legal to occupied people. The resolutions specifically clarify Geneva law concerning occupation with respect to the means available to occupied people.

(COMMENT)

• 
  PARA 1923 --- Article 51 [ Link ] -- Protection of the civilian population
  • • 
      
    COMMENTARY Article 51 is one of the most important articles in the Protocol. It explicitly confirms the customary rule that innocent civilians must be kept outside hostilities as far as possible and enjoy general protection against danger arising from hostilities. This general rule is accompanied by rules of application.
  
  1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
  
  2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
  
  3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
  
  4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
  
  (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
  
  (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
  
  (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
  

I am not at all sure, were you get your confirmation from, but the Treaty and Additional Protocol I are explicit.

Most Respectfully,
R

• 
  

 

[Roudy]

montelatici, et al,

Wow ---- What in the hell does a Papal Degree have to do with anything.

Imagine if the Pope issued a Papal Edict that recommended the death penalty for any attack on Christians. The Israelis killed Christians in Gaza in the summer 2014 attack on Gaza. There would be no end to the criticism of the Church and the Pope. No one criticizes the Rabbis for this extraordinary recommendation.

(COMMENT)

The institution of the Death Penalty is the domestic right of the people of Israel. If the people so choose to implement the penalty in response "against the ongoing wave of terrorist attacks," that is their choice. It is not so radically different than Article 68 (Penalty) of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Terrorism is a crime of both purpose (coercion and intimidation) and the effect of the associated crime (indiscriminate murder). It is not so different from acts of murder and when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population; which the Arab Palestinians readily admit as their intent to use all means necessary; Article 7 of the International Criminal Code.

It is not the Rabbis making an extraordinary recommendation, but merely a nation discussion the adoption of the penalty range accepted by international and domestic laws of many nations; to include most members of the Arab League.

Most Respectfully,
R

Monte the IslamoNazi believes that his beloved PaliNazis have the right to slaughter Jews.

 

[Roudy]

montelatici, et al,

Wow ---- What in the hell does a Papal Degree have to do with anything.

Imagine if the Pope issued a Papal Edict that recommended the death penalty for any attack on Christians. The Israelis killed Christians in Gaza in the summer 2014 attack on Gaza. There would be no end to the criticism of the Church and the Pope. No one criticizes the Rabbis for this extraordinary recommendation.

(COMMENT)

The institution of the Death Penalty is the domestic right of the people of Israel. If the people so choose to implement the penalty in response "against the ongoing wave of terrorist attacks," that is their choice. It is not so radically different than Article 68 (Penalty) of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Terrorism is a crime of both purpose (coercion and intimidation) and the effect of the associated crime (indiscriminate murder). It is not so different from acts of murder and when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population; which the Arab Palestinians readily admit as their intent to use all means necessary; Article 7 of the International Criminal Code.

It is not the Rabbis making an extraordinary recommendation, but merely a nation discussion the adoption of the penalty range accepted by international and domestic laws of many nations; to include most members of the Arab League.

Most Respectfully,
R

If Israel were not an invading and occupying power, you might have a point. Much like the Native Americans that attacked European settler families or the ANC attacking white farmers during their struggle against Apartheid, attacking civilians of the invader is part and parcel of freedom fighting. Not doing so encourages increased transfer of the invaders population, Like the Native Americans and the non-white South Africans (and many other colonized peoples) the Palestinians are simply freedom fighters trying to stem the tide of increasing domination, transfer of occupier population to their lands and theft of that land by the Israeli Jews. (who invaded the land from Europe)

It is the right of the Palestinian people to use "all available means" to resist subjugation, foreign domination and colonization. This has been confirmed by UN Resolutions on more than one occasion.

A/RES/33/24 of 29 November 1978:

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;”


A/RES/3246 (XXIX) of 29 November 1974:

3. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation from colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle; …

7. Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;

And therefore it is the right of the Israelis to defend their people from IslamoNazi savages.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

A non-binding resolution can not change the Geneva Convention; nor can it change the Rome Statues (entered into force 2002). If anything, the Rome Statues clarify these old language non-binding resolution.

"ALL AVAILABLE MEANS" is a term used specifically to people under occupation. The Resolutions were issued specifically to differentiate what means are available and legal to occupied people. The resolutions specifically clarify Geneva law concerning occupation with respect to the means available to occupied people.

(COMMENT)

• 
  PARA 1923 --- Article 51 [ Link ] -- Protection of the civilian population
  • COMMENTARY Article 51 is one of the most important articles in the Protocol. It explicitly confirms the customary rule that innocent civilians must be kept outside hostilities as far as possible and enjoy general protection against danger arising from hostilities. This general rule is accompanied by rules of application.
  
  1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
  
  2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
  
  3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
  
  4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
  
  (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
  
  (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
  
  (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

I am not at all sure, were you get your confirmation from, but the Treaty and Additional Protocol I are explicit.

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN resolutions state that occupied people are able to utilize "all available means" against the occupier/colonizer. What don't you understand about that phrase?

Much like the native Chinese attacks against Japanese civilians in Manchuria, ( 2 million Japanese settlers were transferred to Manchuria) were considered appropriate and necessary, e.g. the Tongzhou incident, the Palestinians are required, as surmised by many legal scholars, to resist "with all available means" the settlers. Not doing so would compromise their claim to the land being settled by Jews transferred to the Occupied territories.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Wow ---- What in the hell does a Papal Degree have to do with anything.

Imagine if the Pope issued a Papal Edict that recommended the death penalty for any attack on Christians. The Israelis killed Christians in Gaza in the summer 2014 attack on Gaza. There would be no end to the criticism of the Church and the Pope. No one criticizes the Rabbis for this extraordinary recommendation.

(COMMENT)

The institution of the Death Penalty is the domestic right of the people of Israel. If the people so choose to implement the penalty in response "against the ongoing wave of terrorist attacks," that is their choice. It is not so radically different than Article 68 (Penalty) of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Terrorism is a crime of both purpose (coercion and intimidation) and the effect of the associated crime (indiscriminate murder). It is not so different from acts of murder and when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population; which the Arab Palestinians readily admit as their intent to use all means necessary; Article 7 of the International Criminal Code.

It is not the Rabbis making an extraordinary recommendation, but merely a nation discussion the adoption of the penalty range accepted by international and domestic laws of many nations; to include most members of the Arab League.

Most Respectfully,
R

Resisting an illegal occupation is Heroism not Terrorism.

Who says that it is illegal out of the 3 institutions that have that authority

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Wow ---- What in the hell does a Papal Degree have to do with anything.

Imagine if the Pope issued a Papal Edict that recommended the death penalty for any attack on Christians. The Israelis killed Christians in Gaza in the summer 2014 attack on Gaza. There would be no end to the criticism of the Church and the Pope. No one criticizes the Rabbis for this extraordinary recommendation.

(COMMENT)

The institution of the Death Penalty is the domestic right of the people of Israel. If the people so choose to implement the penalty in response "against the ongoing wave of terrorist attacks," that is their choice. It is not so radically different than Article 68 (Penalty) of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Terrorism is a crime of both purpose (coercion and intimidation) and the effect of the associated crime (indiscriminate murder). It is not so different from acts of murder and when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population; which the Arab Palestinians readily admit as their intent to use all means necessary; Article 7 of the International Criminal Code.

It is not the Rabbis making an extraordinary recommendation, but merely a nation discussion the adoption of the penalty range accepted by international and domestic laws of many nations; to include most members of the Arab League.

Most Respectfully,
R

If Israel were not an invading and occupying power, you might have a point. Much like the Native Americans that attacked European settler families or the ANC attacking white farmers during their struggle against Apartheid, attacking civilians of the invader is part and parcel of freedom fighting. Not doing so encourages increased transfer of the invaders population, Like the Native Americans and the non-white South Africans (and many other colonized peoples) the Palestinians are simply freedom fighters trying to stem the tide of increasing domination, transfer of occupier population to their lands and theft of that land by the Israeli Jews. (who invaded the land from Europe)

It is the right of the Palestinian people to use "all available means" to resist subjugation, foreign domination and colonization. This has been confirmed by UN Resolutions on more than one occasion.

A/RES/33/24 of 29 November 1978:

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;”


A/RES/3246 (XXIX) of 29 November 1974:

3. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation from colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle; …

7. Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;

Where does it say they can use illegal weapons to mass murder children, as this is how the Palestinian scum interpret these recommendations

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

A non-binding resolution can not change the Geneva Convention; nor can it change the Rome Statues (entered into force 2002). If anything, the Rome Statues clarify these old language non-binding resolution.

"ALL AVAILABLE MEANS" is a term used specifically to people under occupation. The Resolutions were issued specifically to differentiate what means are available and legal to occupied people. The resolutions specifically clarify Geneva law concerning occupation with respect to the means available to occupied people.

(COMMENT)

• 
  PARA 1923 --- Article 51 [ Link ] -- Protection of the civilian population
  • COMMENTARY Article 51 is one of the most important articles in the Protocol. It explicitly confirms the customary rule that innocent civilians must be kept outside hostilities as far as possible and enjoy general protection against danger arising from hostilities. This general rule is accompanied by rules of application.
  
  1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
  
  2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
  
  3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
  
  4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
  
  (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
  
  (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
  
  (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

I am not at all sure, were you get your confirmation from, but the Treaty and Additional Protocol I are explicit.

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN resolutions state that occupied people are able to utilize "all available means" against the occupier/colonizer. What don't you understand about that phrase?

Much like the native Chinese attacks against Japanese civilians in Manchuria, ( 2 million Japanese settlers were transferred to Manchuria) were considered appropriate and necessary, e.g. the Tongzhou incident, the Palestinians are required, as surmised by many legal scholars, to resist "with all available means" the settlers. Not doing so would compromise their claim to the land being settled by Jews transferred to the Occupied territories.

What don't you understand about it when it does not say they can target children in another country as a means of resisting occupation using illegal weapons. Any attempt to do so is seen as a war crime, and it is high time the UN and ICC/ICJ issued arrest warrants for the Palestinians so engaged.

 

[Phoenall]

You clearly are ignoring International Law relating to military occupation, foreign domination which trumps Article 7 which is not relevant to people under occupation.

"ALL AVAILABLE MEANS" has a clear meaning. It doesn't provide any exceptions. Among other reasons for attacking the occupier to make the occupation as difficult as possible for the occupier, not attacking citizens of the occupying power that the occupying power has transferred to the land would be tantamount to acquiescing to the transfer.



A/RES/33/24 of 29 November 1978:

“2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;” (3)

This justification for legitimate armed resistance has been specifically applied to the Palestinian struggle repeatedly in legal forums.

Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX) of 29 November 1974:

3. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle; …

7. Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people; (4)

And you clearly don't understand that this is not an international law just a recommendation. You have been given actual international law to show that the Palestinians face arrest if they carry on they way they are

 

[Roudy]

montelatici, et al,

A non-binding resolution can not change the Geneva Convention; nor can it change the Rome Statues (entered into force 2002). If anything, the Rome Statues clarify these old language non-binding resolution.

"ALL AVAILABLE MEANS" is a term used specifically to people under occupation. The Resolutions were issued specifically to differentiate what means are available and legal to occupied people. The resolutions specifically clarify Geneva law concerning occupation with respect to the means available to occupied people.

(COMMENT)

• 
  PARA 1923 --- Article 51 [ Link ] -- Protection of the civilian population
  • COMMENTARY Article 51 is one of the most important articles in the Protocol. It explicitly confirms the customary rule that innocent civilians must be kept outside hostilities as far as possible and enjoy general protection against danger arising from hostilities. This general rule is accompanied by rules of application.
  
  1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
  
  2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
  
  3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
  
  4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
  
  (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
  
  (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
  
  (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

I am not at all sure, were you get your confirmation from, but the Treaty and Additional Protocol I are explicit.

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN resolutions state that occupied people are able to utilize "all available means" against the occupier/colonizer. What don't you understand about that phrase?

Much like the native Chinese attacks against Japanese civilians in Manchuria, ( 2 million Japanese settlers were transferred to Manchuria) were considered appropriate and necessary, e.g. the Tongzhou incident, the Palestinians are required, as surmised by many legal scholars, to resist "with all available means" the settlers. Not doing so would compromise their claim to the land being settled by Jews transferred to the Occupied territories.

Achmed Monte Eichmann thinks by repeating the same shit over and over it somehow makes him right.

 

[USAF 2023]

Imagine if the Pope issued a Papal Edict that recommended the death penalty for any attack on Christians. The Israelis killed Christians in Gaza in the summer 2014 attack on Gaza. There would be no end to the criticism of the Church and the Pope. No one criticizes the Rabbis for this extraordinary recommendation.

Another lie. The Israelis never targeted Christians. Any action in Gaza by Israel has been the direct result of Palestinian terrorism. The Pope wouldn't be for the Death Penalty for those of ISIS and other terrorist Muslims who kill Christians? It's not his family

 

[browsing deer]

Imagine if the Pope issued a Papal Edict that recommended the death penalty for any attack on Christians. The Israelis killed Christians in Gaza in the summer 2014 attack on Gaza. There would be no end to the criticism of the Church and the Pope. No one criticizes the Rabbis for this extraordinary recommendation.

Another lie. The Israelis never targeted Christians. Any action in Gaza by Israel has been the direct result of Palestinian terrorism. The Pope wouldn't be for the Death Penalty for those of ISIS and other terrorist Muslims who kill Christians? It's not his family

When the popes had control of major portions of Italy they had busy busy executioners.

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

This is another one of those blood thirsty Arab Palestinians trying to justify the open attack on civilians.

montelatici, et al,

Wow ---- What in the hell does a Papal Degree have to do with anything.

Imagine if the Pope issued a Papal Edict that recommended the death penalty for any attack on Christians. The Israelis killed Christians in Gaza in the summer 2014 attack on Gaza. There would be no end to the criticism of the Church and the Pope. No one criticizes the Rabbis for this extraordinary recommendation.

(COMMENT)

The institution of the Death Penalty is the domestic right of the people of Israel. If the people so choose to implement the penalty in response "against the ongoing wave of terrorist attacks," that is their choice. It is not so radically different than Article 68 (Penalty) of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Terrorism is a crime of both purpose (coercion and intimidation) and the effect of the associated crime (indiscriminate murder). It is not so different from acts of murder and when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population; which the Arab Palestinians readily admit as their intent to use all means necessary; Article 7 of the International Criminal Code.

It is not the Rabbis making an extraordinary recommendation, but merely a nation discussion the adoption of the penalty range accepted by international and domestic laws of many nations; to include most members of the Arab League.

Most Respectfully,
R

Resisting an illegal occupation is Heroism not Terrorism.

(COMMENT)

There simply is NO allowance or legal authority for Arab Palestinians to conduct such activities that such acts, that appear to be intended:

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by kidnapping or murdering any person who is not a member of armed forces;

Rules within Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL):

Rule 11. Indiscriminate Attacks
Rule 23. Location of Military Objectives outside Densely Populated Areas
Rule 24. Removal of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives
Rule 97. Human Shields
​

In fact, the IHL works the other way. Article 7 (1a) makes such attacks, for the purpose of the Rome Statute, a "Crime Against Humanity" when such an act is directed against any civilian population. It is NOT an Act of Heroism. It is, to some degree, cowardly for the Arab-Palestinian in the practice of locating launch platforms and launching indiscriminate rockets and mortars from within densely populated areas that would render it immune from immediate counter-fire due to the proximity of civilians. The use of Ambulances to transport armed terrorists is similar in cowardly action. The open instigation of renewed conflict, only to cry and plead for a cease fire in order cut there losses is a cowardly move. Hiding rocket stockpiles inside a UN School to avoid destruction is a cowardly move. The Hostile Arab Palestinian has no heroic models in this regard.

Most Respectfully,
R

Keep dancing, settlers are killing and torching Palestinian civilians every day and you complain? They are not going to lick your boots!

 

[montelatici]

Imagine if the Pope issued a Papal Edict that recommended the death penalty for any attack on Christians. The Israelis killed Christians in Gaza in the summer 2014 attack on Gaza. There would be no end to the criticism of the Church and the Pope. No one criticizes the Rabbis for this extraordinary recommendation.

Another lie. The Israelis never targeted Christians. Any action in Gaza by Israel has been the direct result of Palestinian terrorism. The Pope wouldn't be for the Death Penalty for those of ISIS and other terrorist Muslims who kill Christians? It's not his family

 

[montelatici]

Israelis target Palestinians, Palestinians are Christians too.

 

[guno]

Oh dear Ruffles, you are so transparent, Christians are not buying your Jewish bullshit attempt at getting Christians and Muslims at each other's throats. We are not going to fight your wars. As hard as you savages tried to get us to attack Iran, a deal was made with Iran.

So no war against Iran is going to be fought by the U.S. You lost.

There were a total 200,000 people killed in the Lebanese civil war, the majority of which were Muslims. Christian militias were allied with Muslim militias and fought each other depending on political leanings. The Christian Tiger's Militia fought against the Christian Phalangist militia, for example. I was in Beirut at the time Ruffles.

Goyim killing goyim