Stats About Israeli And Palestinian In ME

[Freeman]

Those are latest stats about "israeli" and palestinian conflict that summarize the horrible war of the zionazis in the occupied territories.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Losing and dying, 2 things the Arabs are good at.

And whining.

 

[Hollie]

Arabs-Moslems occupying the disputed territories insist on committing acts of war aimed at Isreal. Islamic terrorism carries consequences.

On the other turban, islamics across the Middle East are continuing to find new and exciting ways to slaughter their co-religionists via beheading, burning, shooting, smooshing, bombing, stabbing, drowning, pushing off cliffs, etc.

Ain't life grand?

 

[jillian]

Those are latest stats about "israeli" and palestinian conflict that summarize the horrible war .....

all war is horrible. pal terrorists should stop lobbing missiles at Israel and then using their children as human shields in violation of the Geneva conventions.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Arabs-Moslems occupying the disputed territories insist on committing acts of war aimed at Isreal. Islamic terrorism carries consequences.

On the other turban, islamics across the Middle East are continuing to find new and exciting ways to slaughter their co-religionists via beheading, burning, shooting, smooshing, bombing, stabbing, drowning, pushing off cliffs, etc.

Ain't life grand?

Don't you know by now that Arabs killed by other Arabs don't count and evoke no sympathy?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Those are latest stats about "israeli" and palestinian conflict that summarize the horrible war of the zionazis in the occupied territories.

Those 1207 Israelis died in horrible ways. Remember that lunatic, demon Arab teen who knocked on a stranger's door and then proceeded to stab a mother in front of her children?

And how about that Palestinian father who pushed his toddler son in front of an Israeli soldier so that his child could be killed? Sick, sick society.

 

[RoccoR]

Freeman, et al,

These stats mean something, but NOT what you are implying.

Those are latest stats about "israeli" and palestinian conflict that summarize the horrible war of the zionazis in the occupied territories.

(COMMENT)

Whether you are the Police (of any country) in an armed confrontation with criminals and vigilantes, --- OR --- if you are a conventional military engaged in a lethal struggle with jihadist, terrorists, insurgent, rebel, self-proclaimed deadly resistance perpetrators or revolutionary, --- OR --- a paramilitary defense force opposite a hostile entity that intentionally selected unarmed and innocent civilian targets (Customary IHL Rule 21), there is no respectable leader of Protective Organization (such as described here) responsible for the safety and security of the population or sovereign territory that will endure casualties at an unacceptable level. A commander simply does not intentionally respond to a provocation that will result in unacceptable losses.

In this case, we are talking about the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) opposing the various Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) involved in jihadist, terrorists, insurgent, rebel, self-proclaimed deadly resistance perpetrators or irregular revolutionary and radicalized Islamic fighters. The intent is to gradually intensify the military response to HoAP provocations with ever increasing extreme destructive power, which would deter future hostile activity.

As the defenders deferent force is slowly ratcheted up to meet the HoAP action solely intended to harm the Israeli Civilians or the Occupying Power, or engage the capability of the HoAP intent on inflicting seriously casualties or property damage of the occupying forces or administration or the installations, the HIGHER the HoAP is expected to climb and the lower the defenders casualty rate (GCIV Article 68 Illegal Activity).

When the HoAP begin to reach a point where the HoAP Commander becomes overwhelmed by unacceptable losses, the intensity of the conflict will begin to recede. The HoAP will gradually reduce the number of confrontations it provokes, and the casualties and damage on both sides will begin to diminish. But in the case of the HoAP, given the such low value it puts on both combatants and its civilian population, which it seldom defends, unacceptable loss figure will be high on the part of the HoAP and the attrition warfare effect will continue.

The idea that a the ratio between HoAP losses and Israeli losses implies something evil, unfair or improper it ridiculous. Political Leaders and Military Commanders strive to achieve the highest ratio as possible. In terms of kill ratios, "parity is unacceptable." At the height of the F6F Hellcat combat serviceability and life, it achieved a 19 : 1 kill ratio. The AH-64 Apache (either IDF or American) has a phenomenal kill ratio. What makes the Armed Force dangerous is its ability to sweep in, make clean kills and engage a new target.

This is an Apache Longbow
AH-64D
צילום מסוק הינשוף ממסוק שרף
​

This comparison of Palestinian Losses to Israeli Losses is 100% ridiculous. All it demonstrates is that the HoAP are not very skilled in their ability to prosecute their war; and don't follow Customary ILH very well.

Most Respectfully,
R








.

 

[rylah]

Rocket hits in Israel since the Hamas takeover of Gaza, 2006
(Figures as of March 15, 2016))

 

[Phoenall]

Those are latest stats about "israeli" and palestinian conflict that summarize the horrible war of the zionazis in the occupied territories.

And what does this show other than the arab muslims are there illegally living in Jewish owned homes stolen in 1949.

That in war many people die and the losers always complain about the disparity in numbers.

That Israel is working well within the international laws that allow such things to take place

That the palestinians are habitual criminals as this is standard practice around the world for dealing with criminal's you want to arrest

Your last is an outright LIE as the US pays the most money into the UNWRA coffers, and if they stopped paying hamas would no longer have ambulances to ferry weapons around gaza

 

[Freeman]

Freeman, et al,

These stats mean something, but NOT what you are implying.

Those are latest stats about "israeli" and palestinian conflict that summarize the horrible war of the zionazis in the occupied territories.

(COMMENT)

Whether you are the Police (of any country) in an armed confrontation with criminals and vigilantes, --- OR --- if you are a conventional military engaged in a lethal struggle with jihadist, terrorists, insurgent, rebel, self-proclaimed deadly resistance perpetrators or revolutionary, --- OR --- a paramilitary defense force opposite a hostile entity that intentionally selected unarmed and innocent civilian targets (Customary IHL Rule 21), there is no respectable leader of Protective Organization (such as described here) responsible for the safety and security of the population or sovereign territory that will endure casualties at an unacceptable level. A commander simply does not intentionally respond to a provocation that will result in unacceptable losses.

In this case, we are talking about the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) opposing the various Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) involved in jihadist, terrorists, insurgent, rebel, self-proclaimed deadly resistance perpetrators or irregular revolutionary and radicalized Islamic fighters. The intent is to gradually intensify the military response to HoAP provocations with ever increasing extreme destructive power, which would deter future hostile activity.

As the defenders deferent force is slowly ratcheted up to meet the HoAP action solely intended to harm the Israeli Civilians or the Occupying Power, or engage the capability of the HoAP intent on inflicting seriously casualties or property damage of the occupying forces or administration or the installations, the HIGHER the HoAP is expected to climb and the lower the defenders casualty rate (GCIV Article 68 Illegal Activity).

When the HoAP begin to reach a point where the HoAP Commander becomes overwhelmed by unacceptable losses, the intensity of the conflict will begin to recede. The HoAP will gradually reduce the number of confrontations it provokes, and the casualties and damage on both sides will begin to diminish. But in the case of the HoAP, given the such low value it puts on both combatants and its civilian population, which it seldom defends, unacceptable loss figure will be high on the part of the HoAP and the attrition warfare effect will continue.

The idea that a the ratio between HoAP losses and Israeli losses implies something evil, unfair or improper it ridiculous. Political Leaders and Military Commanders strive to achieve the highest ratio as possible. In terms of kill ratios, "parity is unacceptable." At the height of the F6F Hellcat combat serviceability and life, it achieved a 19 : 1 kill ratio. The AH-64 Apache (either IDF or American) has a phenomenal kill ratio. What makes the Armed Force dangerous is its ability to sweep in, make clean kills and engage a new target.

View attachment 87929
This is an Apache Longbow
AH-64D
צילום מסוק הינשוף ממסוק שרף
​

This comparison of Palestinian Losses to Israeli Losses is 100% ridiculous. All it demonstrates is that the HoAP are not very skilled in their ability to prosecute their war; and don't follow Customary ILH very well.

Most Respectfully,
R








.

Those laws is for normal states not for occupied territories, there is no international law against fighting settlements in occupied territories.

 

[Hollie]

Freeman, et al,

These stats mean something, but NOT what you are implying.

Those are latest stats about "israeli" and palestinian conflict that summarize the horrible war of the zionazis in the occupied territories.

(COMMENT)

Whether you are the Police (of any country) in an armed confrontation with criminals and vigilantes, --- OR --- if you are a conventional military engaged in a lethal struggle with jihadist, terrorists, insurgent, rebel, self-proclaimed deadly resistance perpetrators or revolutionary, --- OR --- a paramilitary defense force opposite a hostile entity that intentionally selected unarmed and innocent civilian targets (Customary IHL Rule 21), there is no respectable leader of Protective Organization (such as described here) responsible for the safety and security of the population or sovereign territory that will endure casualties at an unacceptable level. A commander simply does not intentionally respond to a provocation that will result in unacceptable losses.

In this case, we are talking about the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) opposing the various Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) involved in jihadist, terrorists, insurgent, rebel, self-proclaimed deadly resistance perpetrators or irregular revolutionary and radicalized Islamic fighters. The intent is to gradually intensify the military response to HoAP provocations with ever increasing extreme destructive power, which would deter future hostile activity.

As the defenders deferent force is slowly ratcheted up to meet the HoAP action solely intended to harm the Israeli Civilians or the Occupying Power, or engage the capability of the HoAP intent on inflicting seriously casualties or property damage of the occupying forces or administration or the installations, the HIGHER the HoAP is expected to climb and the lower the defenders casualty rate (GCIV Article 68 Illegal Activity).

When the HoAP begin to reach a point where the HoAP Commander becomes overwhelmed by unacceptable losses, the intensity of the conflict will begin to recede. The HoAP will gradually reduce the number of confrontations it provokes, and the casualties and damage on both sides will begin to diminish. But in the case of the HoAP, given the such low value it puts on both combatants and its civilian population, which it seldom defends, unacceptable loss figure will be high on the part of the HoAP and the attrition warfare effect will continue.

The idea that a the ratio between HoAP losses and Israeli losses implies something evil, unfair or improper it ridiculous. Political Leaders and Military Commanders strive to achieve the highest ratio as possible. In terms of kill ratios, "parity is unacceptable." At the height of the F6F Hellcat combat serviceability and life, it achieved a 19 : 1 kill ratio. The AH-64 Apache (either IDF or American) has a phenomenal kill ratio. What makes the Armed Force dangerous is its ability to sweep in, make clean kills and engage a new target.

View attachment 87929
This is an Apache Longbow
AH-64D
צילום מסוק הינשוף ממסוק שרף
​

This comparison of Palestinian Losses to Israeli Losses is 100% ridiculous. All it demonstrates is that the HoAP are not very skilled in their ability to prosecute their war; and don't follow Customary ILH very well.

Most Respectfully,
R








.

Those laws is for normal states not for occupied territories, there is no international law against fighting settlements in occupied territories.

This has been addressed before. There is no international law that provides an allowance for acts of Islamic terrorism.

 

[Phoenall]

Freeman, et al,

These stats mean something, but NOT what you are implying.

Those are latest stats about "israeli" and palestinian conflict that summarize the horrible war of the zionazis in the occupied territories.

(COMMENT)

Whether you are the Police (of any country) in an armed confrontation with criminals and vigilantes, --- OR --- if you are a conventional military engaged in a lethal struggle with jihadist, terrorists, insurgent, rebel, self-proclaimed deadly resistance perpetrators or revolutionary, --- OR --- a paramilitary defense force opposite a hostile entity that intentionally selected unarmed and innocent civilian targets (Customary IHL Rule 21), there is no respectable leader of Protective Organization (such as described here) responsible for the safety and security of the population or sovereign territory that will endure casualties at an unacceptable level. A commander simply does not intentionally respond to a provocation that will result in unacceptable losses.

In this case, we are talking about the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) opposing the various Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) involved in jihadist, terrorists, insurgent, rebel, self-proclaimed deadly resistance perpetrators or irregular revolutionary and radicalized Islamic fighters. The intent is to gradually intensify the military response to HoAP provocations with ever increasing extreme destructive power, which would deter future hostile activity.

As the defenders deferent force is slowly ratcheted up to meet the HoAP action solely intended to harm the Israeli Civilians or the Occupying Power, or engage the capability of the HoAP intent on inflicting seriously casualties or property damage of the occupying forces or administration or the installations, the HIGHER the HoAP is expected to climb and the lower the defenders casualty rate (GCIV Article 68 Illegal Activity).

When the HoAP begin to reach a point where the HoAP Commander becomes overwhelmed by unacceptable losses, the intensity of the conflict will begin to recede. The HoAP will gradually reduce the number of confrontations it provokes, and the casualties and damage on both sides will begin to diminish. But in the case of the HoAP, given the such low value it puts on both combatants and its civilian population, which it seldom defends, unacceptable loss figure will be high on the part of the HoAP and the attrition warfare effect will continue.

The idea that a the ratio between HoAP losses and Israeli losses implies something evil, unfair or improper it ridiculous. Political Leaders and Military Commanders strive to achieve the highest ratio as possible. In terms of kill ratios, "parity is unacceptable." At the height of the F6F Hellcat combat serviceability and life, it achieved a 19 : 1 kill ratio. The AH-64 Apache (either IDF or American) has a phenomenal kill ratio. What makes the Armed Force dangerous is its ability to sweep in, make clean kills and engage a new target.

View attachment 87929
This is an Apache Longbow
AH-64D
צילום מסוק הינשוף ממסוק שרף
​

This comparison of Palestinian Losses to Israeli Losses is 100% ridiculous. All it demonstrates is that the HoAP are not very skilled in their ability to prosecute their war; and don't follow Customary ILH very well.

Most Respectfully,
R








.

Those laws is for normal states not for occupied territories, there is no international law against fighting settlements in occupied territories.

Then the arab muslims should stop occupying Jewisj lands and go back where they belong.

And International laws stand for everyone, whether occupied or not. They are there to protect not to force people into submission, and the sooner you illiterate muslim's start to understand this the sooner you will stop the violence and terrorism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Freeman, et al,

These stats mean something, but NOT what you are implying.

Those are latest stats about "israeli" and palestinian conflict that summarize the horrible war of the zionazis in the occupied territories.

(COMMENT)

Whether you are the Police (of any country) in an armed confrontation with criminals and vigilantes, --- OR --- if you are a conventional military engaged in a lethal struggle with jihadist, terrorists, insurgent, rebel, self-proclaimed deadly resistance perpetrators or revolutionary, --- OR --- a paramilitary defense force opposite a hostile entity that intentionally selected unarmed and innocent civilian targets (Customary IHL Rule 21), there is no respectable leader of Protective Organization (such as described here) responsible for the safety and security of the population or sovereign territory that will endure casualties at an unacceptable level. A commander simply does not intentionally respond to a provocation that will result in unacceptable losses.

In this case, we are talking about the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) opposing the various Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) involved in jihadist, terrorists, insurgent, rebel, self-proclaimed deadly resistance perpetrators or irregular revolutionary and radicalized Islamic fighters. The intent is to gradually intensify the military response to HoAP provocations with ever increasing extreme destructive power, which would deter future hostile activity.

As the defenders deferent force is slowly ratcheted up to meet the HoAP action solely intended to harm the Israeli Civilians or the Occupying Power, or engage the capability of the HoAP intent on inflicting seriously casualties or property damage of the occupying forces or administration or the installations, the HIGHER the HoAP is expected to climb and the lower the defenders casualty rate (GCIV Article 68 Illegal Activity).

When the HoAP begin to reach a point where the HoAP Commander becomes overwhelmed by unacceptable losses, the intensity of the conflict will begin to recede. The HoAP will gradually reduce the number of confrontations it provokes, and the casualties and damage on both sides will begin to diminish. But in the case of the HoAP, given the such low value it puts on both combatants and its civilian population, which it seldom defends, unacceptable loss figure will be high on the part of the HoAP and the attrition warfare effect will continue.

The idea that a the ratio between HoAP losses and Israeli losses implies something evil, unfair or improper it ridiculous. Political Leaders and Military Commanders strive to achieve the highest ratio as possible. In terms of kill ratios, "parity is unacceptable." At the height of the F6F Hellcat combat serviceability and life, it achieved a 19 : 1 kill ratio. The AH-64 Apache (either IDF or American) has a phenomenal kill ratio. What makes the Armed Force dangerous is its ability to sweep in, make clean kills and engage a new target.

View attachment 87929
This is an Apache Longbow
AH-64D
צילום מסוק הינשוף ממסוק שרף
​

This comparison of Palestinian Losses to Israeli Losses is 100% ridiculous. All it demonstrates is that the HoAP are not very skilled in their ability to prosecute their war; and don't follow Customary ILH very well.

Most Respectfully,
R








.

Those laws is for normal states not for occupied territories, there is no international law against fighting settlements in occupied territories.

There is no law against killing your terrorist buddies.
Even if they hide behind women and children.

 

[RoccoR]

Freeman, et al,

Again, you are wrong.

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.​

The UN Security Council has reminded, on several occasions, the Jewish State of Israel are to accept and scrupulously abide by the de jure application of the Geneva Conventions as a "rightful entitlement."

Even if you claim that the HoAP are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regimes ---by international law they are international conflicts. (Article 1(4) Protocol I, GCIV)

Those laws is for normal states not for occupied territories, there is no international law against fighting settlements in occupied territories.​

(REFERENCEs)

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, COLLECTIVE PENALTIES, PILLAGE, REPRISALS
ARTICLE 33 [ Link ]

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.​

Palestinian Stated Positions

• Jihad is its path and death...
• There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
• It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters.
​

(COMMENT)​

No matter how you twist the words, no matter what claims are made --- there simply is no justification for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to conduct the premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocent people of Israel intended to influence their political position.

The advocacy of the use of force to achieve political goals which cannot be achieved through diplomatic means is violence perpetrated against innocent people to achieve that end.

It is quite cynical, and a propaganda ploy, to claim the Palestinian legal right to resist occupation. because THEY BELIEVE they are involved in a struggle for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation.

And even if they did have this "imaginary right" to "resist occupation" it would not include the use of force to intended to harm the Occupying Power or facilities (Article 68 GCIV). It would not include either attacks against unarmed civilians or the indiscriminate rocket and mortar fire on civilian in urban areas.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

 

[Freeman]

Freeman, et al,

Again, you are wrong.

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.​

The UN Security Council has reminded, on several occasions, the Jewish State of Israel are to accept and scrupulously abide by the de jure application of the Geneva Conventions as a "rightful entitlement."

Even if you claim that the HoAP are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regimes ---by international law they are international conflicts. (Article 1(4) Protocol I, GCIV)

Those laws is for normal states not for occupied territories, there is no international law against fighting settlements in occupied territories.​

(REFERENCEs)

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, COLLECTIVE PENALTIES, PILLAGE, REPRISALS
ARTICLE 33 [ Link ]

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.​

Palestinian Stated Positions

• Jihad is its path and death...
• There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
• It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters.​

(COMMENT)​

No matter how you twist the words, no matter what claims are made --- there simply is no justification for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to conduct the premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocent people of Israel intended to influence their political position.

The advocacy of the use of force to achieve political goals which cannot be achieved through diplomatic means is violence perpetrated against innocent people to achieve that end.

It is quite cynical, and a propaganda ploy, to claim the Palestinian legal right to resist occupation. because THEY BELIEVE they are involved in a struggle for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation.

And even if they did have this "imaginary right" to "resist occupation" it would not include the use of force to intended to harm the Occupying Power or facilities (Article 68 GCIV). It would not include either attacks against unarmed civilians or the indiscriminate rocket and mortar fire on civilian in urban areas.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

Those laws imply in countries like Syria, settlers are not civilians they are armed.

The defence in occupied territories is an international right.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Freeman, et al,

Again, you are wrong.

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.​

The UN Security Council has reminded, on several occasions, the Jewish State of Israel are to accept and scrupulously abide by the de jure application of the Geneva Conventions as a "rightful entitlement."

Even if you claim that the HoAP are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regimes ---by international law they are international conflicts. (Article 1(4) Protocol I, GCIV)

Those laws is for normal states not for occupied territories, there is no international law against fighting settlements in occupied territories.​

(REFERENCEs)

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, COLLECTIVE PENALTIES, PILLAGE, REPRISALS
ARTICLE 33 [ Link ]

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.​

Palestinian Stated Positions

• Jihad is its path and death...
• There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
• It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters.​

(COMMENT)​

No matter how you twist the words, no matter what claims are made --- there simply is no justification for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to conduct the premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocent people of Israel intended to influence their political position.

The advocacy of the use of force to achieve political goals which cannot be achieved through diplomatic means is violence perpetrated against innocent people to achieve that end.

It is quite cynical, and a propaganda ploy, to claim the Palestinian legal right to resist occupation. because THEY BELIEVE they are involved in a struggle for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation.

And even if they did have this "imaginary right" to "resist occupation" it would not include the use of force to intended to harm the Occupying Power or facilities (Article 68 GCIV). It would not include either attacks against unarmed civilians or the indiscriminate rocket and mortar fire on civilian in urban areas.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

Those laws imply in countries like Syria, settlers are not civilians they are armed.

The defence in occupied territories is an international right.

Yes, Israelis get to defend themselves against your terrorist buddies.

 

[RoccoR]

Freeman, et al,

Now you are really confusing me. I'm speaking directly to the application of the provisions as they apply to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

We were NOT talking about Syria; which is what is called a complex conflict. It is a different matter altogether.

Those laws imply in countries like Syria, settlers are not civilians they are armed.

(COMMENT)

In the case we are talking about Area "C" Settlements that are under the total civil and security control of the Israelis. Pursuant to the OSLO II Accords (Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip), all Israeli settlements, including those in and around East Jerusalem, are located in Area C, and subject to the Permanent Status of Negotiations (PSN). This is an agreement inside the framework of International Law; but outside its jurisdiction. The Arab Palestinians made an agreement.

ARTICLE XII --- OSLO II
Arrangements for Security and Public Order

5. For the purpose of this Agreement, "the Settlements" means, in the West Bank the settlements in Area C; and in the Gaza Strip - the Gush Katif and Erez settlement areas, as well as the other settlements in the Gaza Strip, as shown on attached map No. 2.
​

CHAPTER 3 - LEGAL AFFAIRS
ARTICLE XVII --- OSLO II
Jurisdiction

2. Accordingly, the authority of the Council encompasses all matters that fall within its territorial, functional and personal jurisdiction, as follows:

a. The territorial jurisdiction of the Council shall encompass Gaza Strip territory, except for the Settlements and the Military Installation Area shown on map No. 2, and West Bank territory, except for Area C which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in three phases, each to take place after an interval of six months, to be completed 18 months after the inauguration of the Council. At this time, the jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations.
​

The Arab Palestinian have no responsibility for the administration OR protection of Area C.

The defence in occupied territories is an international right.

(COMMENT)

You need to review Part II Protocol I,

"Part III and several chapters of Part IV (Articles 35-60) deal with the conduct of hostilities, i.e. questions which hitherto were regulated by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and by customary international law. Their reaffirmation and development is important in view of the age of the Hague Conventions and of the new States which had no part in their elaboration. Article 43 and 44 give a new definition of armed forces and combatants. Among the most important Articles are those on the protection of the civilian population against the effects of hostilities. They contain a definition of military objectives and prohibitions of attack on civilian persons and objects. Further Articles (61-79) deal with the protection of civil defence organizations, relief actions and the treatment of persons in the power of a party to a conflict."

Article 65 [ Link ] -- Cessation of protection

1. The protection to which civilian civil defence organizations, their personnel, buildings, shelters and ' matériel ' are entitled shall not cease unless they commit or are used to commit, outside their proper tasks, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a warning has been given setting, whenever appropriate, a reasonable time-limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.
​

Under Article 43 of the Hague Regulation, limited power and authority to restore and ensure public order and safety in the territory. However, to a degree, some potential was withheld in order to prevent their use to inflict or commit offenses which which the Hostile Arab Palestinian continue to direct solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (Israel).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Freeman, et al,

Again, you are wrong.

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.​

The UN Security Council has reminded, on several occasions, the Jewish State of Israel are to accept and scrupulously abide by the de jure application of the Geneva Conventions as a "rightful entitlement."

Even if you claim that the HoAP are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regimes ---by international law they are international conflicts. (Article 1(4) Protocol I, GCIV)

Those laws is for normal states not for occupied territories, there is no international law against fighting settlements in occupied territories.​

(REFERENCEs)

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, COLLECTIVE PENALTIES, PILLAGE, REPRISALS
ARTICLE 33 [ Link ]

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.​

Palestinian Stated Positions

• Jihad is its path and death...
• There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
• It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters.​

(COMMENT)​

No matter how you twist the words, no matter what claims are made --- there simply is no justification for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to conduct the premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocent people of Israel intended to influence their political position.

The advocacy of the use of force to achieve political goals which cannot be achieved through diplomatic means is violence perpetrated against innocent people to achieve that end.

It is quite cynical, and a propaganda ploy, to claim the Palestinian legal right to resist occupation. because THEY BELIEVE they are involved in a struggle for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation.

And even if they did have this "imaginary right" to "resist occupation" it would not include the use of force to intended to harm the Occupying Power or facilities (Article 68 GCIV). It would not include either attacks against unarmed civilians or the indiscriminate rocket and mortar fire on civilian in urban areas.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

Those laws imply in countries like Syria, settlers are not civilians they are armed.

The defence in occupied territories is an international right.

Under which LAW, as the Geneva conventions which are international laws in this instance says otherwise. Because islamonazi illiterates say that their laws take precedence over international laws does make it right.


And you realise that it is te arab muslims occupying Jewish lands dont you, as shown by the land registry and the UN archives

 

[Freeman]

Freeman, et al,

Again, you are wrong.

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.​

The UN Security Council has reminded, on several occasions, the Jewish State of Israel are to accept and scrupulously abide by the de jure application of the Geneva Conventions as a "rightful entitlement."

Even if you claim that the HoAP are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regimes ---by international law they are international conflicts. (Article 1(4) Protocol I, GCIV)

Those laws is for normal states not for occupied territories, there is no international law against fighting settlements in occupied territories.​

(REFERENCEs)

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, COLLECTIVE PENALTIES, PILLAGE, REPRISALS
ARTICLE 33 [ Link ]

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.​

Palestinian Stated Positions

• Jihad is its path and death...
• There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
• It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters.​

(COMMENT)​

No matter how you twist the words, no matter what claims are made --- there simply is no justification for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to conduct the premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocent people of Israel intended to influence their political position.

The advocacy of the use of force to achieve political goals which cannot be achieved through diplomatic means is violence perpetrated against innocent people to achieve that end.

It is quite cynical, and a propaganda ploy, to claim the Palestinian legal right to resist occupation. because THEY BELIEVE they are involved in a struggle for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation.

And even if they did have this "imaginary right" to "resist occupation" it would not include the use of force to intended to harm the Occupying Power or facilities (Article 68 GCIV). It would not include either attacks against unarmed civilians or the indiscriminate rocket and mortar fire on civilian in urban areas.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

Those laws imply in countries like Syria, settlers are not civilians they are armed.

The defence in occupied territories is an international right.

Under which LAW, as the Geneva conventions which are international laws in this instance says otherwise. Because islamonazi illiterates say that their laws take precedence over international laws does make it right.


And you realise that it is te arab muslims occupying Jewish lands dont you, as shown by the land registry and the UN archives

It's really laughable when we note zionazis like you give lessons about Geneva conventions!

Israeli Violations of International Law

 

[RoccoR]

Freeman, et al,

My response (Posting #17) was specifically constructed to answer the issues you raised (which I copied in the response).

It's really laughable when we note zionazis like you give lessons about Geneva conventions!
Israeli Violations of International Law

(SIDEBAR)

These crafted listings are representative of the work done by Arab League/Arab-Palestinians that start with the claim that "Israel annexes land occupied by force during 1948 war (lands external to those given by the UN partition plan)."

Of course:

• The UN did not "give" and lands to Israel."
​

Almost each allegation has a flaw that sounds true, but on closer examination, is not true.

I could go through this list, item by item, and point out the fallacies; but, that would lead to a very long Posting.

BTW: Protocol I to the GCIV, did not go into effect until 1977. Even if it had an applicability to the discussion, it is not applicable law because in 1967, no Palestinian Territory was Occupied by Israel. The West Bank (including Jerusalem) was sovereign Jordanian territory. Similarly, in 1967, the Gaza Strip was an Egyptian Military Governorship.

• A 1977 Law cannot be retroactively applied to a set of conditions and actions performed a decade earlier.
• The State of Israel never occupied any territory sovereign to the Arab Palestinians.

∆ In August 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank (including Jerusalem) to the Israeli Occupation Force.
∆ In 1967, the Egyptian Military Governorship withdrew from the Gaza Strip. The Israeli Occupation Force did not extend its Occupation Authority over territory sovereign to the Arab Palestinians.
∆ In 1979 and 1995 treaties were concluded between both Egypt and Jordan, which included the establishment of International Boundaries.
∆ I(n 1995, Oslo II Accords were concluded. Areas A, B, and C, were established; with Settlements subject to the Permanent Status of Negotiations.
​

There was no territory taken by force from the Arab Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

At no time did the State of Israel independently initiate hostilities with the Arab Palestinians. On the contrary, both the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Islamic Resistance Movement armed struggle and jihad against Israel.

I'm not exactly sure if you are attempting to insult me or not ("we note zionazis like you") or open some sort of an attack on my character, or motive, --- rather than attacking the argument directly. In fact, I'm not exactly sure what the criteria is to be a "zionazi."

Zionazi - Wiktionary
Zionazi - Wiktionary
Jul 26, 2016 · Zionazi ‎(plural Zionazis) (offensive, pejorative) A Zionist with nazi-like tendencies. 1988, slogan spray-painted on the wall of the Jewish Student ...
​

I'm not sure if this term (words of description) changes it meaning over time.

Most Respectfully,
R​