UN vows inquiry into weapons found at UN sites in Gaza

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

I don't believe you know how ridiculous this statement actually sounds.

You don't give a sworn enemy of the state any advantage in Jihad (Holy War) that has the objective of dismantling you sovereignty.

"War is the continuation of policy [politics] by other means".
--- General Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831), Prussian Army

"Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle."
--- Khaled Meshal Political Leader of HAMAS
​

Targetting children and unarmed civilians with weapons of terror is not defence or resistance, it is an act of terrorist aggression....

Since the fireworks that come out of Gaza are unaimed and unguided, you cannot claim "targetting" of anyone or anything. It's not Hamas' fault if they point their rockets at the IDF and they veer off-course. Perhaps the Zionist JSIL should provide Hamas wityh advanced guidance technolgy and weapons so they can target the IDF fairly and squarely, you know, a level playing field.

(HYPOTHETICAL)

Suppose we had given the Germans the "Spitfire," during the Battle of Britian, to even the odds?
Suppose we had given the Japanese a couple of extra "Aircraft Carriers" in the Pacific Conflict, just to even the odds.

(COMMENT)

In a war, the object is to "win;" not to give the opposing force the opportunity to win.

As far as the "indiscriminate" fire by HAMAS ("the fireworks that come out of Gaza are unaimed and unguided, you cannot claim "targetting" of anyone or anything") is concerned, that is a violation of Rule 11: Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited, Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL); plain and simple. The Palestinians are always whining about human rights violations, yet the entire HAMAS war campaign is based on war by IHL violations.

This is foolishness. Come to peace terms or quit whining.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[teddyearp]

Since the fireworks that come out of Gaza are unaimed and unguided, you cannot claim "targetting" of anyone or anything. It's not Hamas' fault if they point their rockets at the IDF and they veer off-course. Perhaps the Zionist JSIL should provide Hamas wityh advanced guidance technolgy and weapons so they can target the IDF fairly and squarely, you know, a level playing field.

How about I come over to near your house and start firing a bunch of bottle rockets towards you?

 

[Challenger]

Since the fireworks that come out of Gaza are unaimed and unguided, you cannot claim "targetting" of anyone or anything. It's not Hamas' fault if they point their rockets at the IDF and they veer off-course. Perhaps the Zionist JSIL should provide Hamas wityh advanced guidance technolgy and weapons so they can target the IDF fairly and squarely, you know, a level playing field.

How about I come over to near your house and start firing a bunch of bottle rockets towards you?

Knock yourself out. If you don't do any damage, I'll ignore you. If you do, I'll call the police or at worst come over and punch your lights out. What I won't do is go to your house and kill your entire familly, pets and any of your friends that happen to be visiting, then set fire to your house and watch it burn while roasting marshmallows and drinking beer.

 

[Beelzebub]

Knock yourself out. If you don't do any damage, I'll ignore you. If you do, I'll call the police or at worst come over and punch your lights out. What I won't do is go to your house and kill your entire familly, pets and any of your friends that happen to be visiting, then set fire to your house and watch it burn while roasting marshmallows and drinking beer.

Hahaha!
I couldn't think of a better response if I pondered for a week.

 

[Challenger]

The Palestinians, in fact all people, have the right of self-defense. But no one can claim the right of aggression...

They don't. They claim the right to resist occupation and oppression by any and all means at their disposal, and no people have a "right of self defence" over territory it illegally occupies.

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 33 24 of 29 November 1978

 

[Phoenall]

... What would you say if Israel fired rockets at gazan schools, planted high explosives underneath gazan schools and targeted gazan children with chemical/biological weapons ?

But the Zionists do, all the time, that's why we, and the rest of the rational civilised world complain about it.

Then you will be able to produce the evidence of this wont you, a site that is non partisan that shows Israel tunnelling into gaza and planting H.E. underneath. Fire 2,000 rockets at gaza that have no guidance control and deliberately target gazan children.

What you complain about is Israel defending itself from the above almost constantly, and getting the blame when the Palestinians put their children on the front line. They may as well just carpet bomb gaza and face the consequences afterwards to save as many Israeli lives as possible.

 

[mudwhistle]

“I look forward to a thorough investigation by the Israeli Defense Forces of this and other incidents in which UN facilities sustained hits and many innocent people were killed,” he said. “I am planning to move forward with an independent Board of Inquiry to look into the most serious of those cases, as well as instances in which weaponry was found on UN premises.”

UN's Ban speaks in New York to the security council. And yeah for you pali's he is mostly concerned with the destruction of his precious UN facilities and any mention of inquiry into the illegal storage of weapons at UN sites was actually just lip service.

What a cull.

Further into the article:

In his meeting on Monday with Ya’alon, Ban confirmed his intention to establish a board of inquiry, and welcomed Israel’s support in bringing reconstruction materials into Gaza. Dujarric did not have any comment on assertions by Hamas that materials now coming into Gaza under a UN mechanism will be used for rebuilding the destroyed tunnels into Israel.

Hehehe, of course no comment. It seems as though Hamas and the UN are bed fellows.

Link: UN s Ban vows inquiry into weapons found at UN sites during Gaza war

Sure glad they're ready to investigate themselves.

About 20 years overdue.

Course there isn't even a smidgen of corruption here, but they have to at least go thru the motions

 

[Phoenall]

Targetting children and unarmed civilians with weapons of terror is not defence or resistance, it is an act of terrorist aggression....

Since the fireworks that come out of Gaza are unaimed and unguided, you cannot claim "targetting" of anyone or anything. It's not Hamas' fault if they point their rockets at the IDF and they veer off-course. Perhaps the Zionist JSIL should provide Hamas wityh advanced guidance technolgy and weapons so they can target the IDF fairly and squarely, you know, a level playing field.

Grad rockets from Iran have a guidance system and are used to target schools, kindergartens and playgrounds, so don't come that crap. If hamas wants a level playing field let them fire from open land and Israel will just use rifles to pick them off one by one. Or they can always buy them from foreign arms dealers at the going rate, say $100,000 per rocket.
Much better to just give up the fight now before the rest of the world starts blasting them with rockets.

Or how about Israel use qassams and grads to fire at gaza, then dig tunnels underneath the schools, hospitals and hamas leaders houses. pack them with H.E. and detonate them. That would be a level playing field wouldn't it, it would also be a levelled gaza in about 1 month

 

[Phoenall]

The Palestinians, in fact all people, have the right of self-defense. But no one can claim the right of aggression...

They don't. They claim the right to resist occupation and oppression by any and all means at their disposal, and no people have a "right of self defence" over territory it illegally occupies.

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 33 24 of 29 November 1978

Then you cant complain when Israel fires back and kills 2,000 terrorists resisting against an occupation the terrorists say is not in place.

Don't like getting your people killed then look at ways to stop it, like negotiating a peace and mutual borders

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

Yes, I've seen this before and used by pro-Johadist.

The Palestinians, in fact all people, have the right of self-defense. But no one can claim the right of aggression...

They don't. They claim the right to resist occupation and oppression by any and all means at their disposal, and no people have a "right of self defence" over territory it illegally occupies.

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 33 24 of 29 November 1978

(COMMENT)

It is a non-bidding General Assembly Resolution that pre-dates the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence. So, even if it were applicable, its application ceased on the acquisition of Independence.

Secondly, it is applicable to non-self-governing states seeking relief from foreign domination and occupation; not a rogue state controlled by international terrorists and Jihadist. It doesn't apply to states governed by governments with a long past history of criminal behaviors.

You will notice that it is never used as a recollection in Resolutions talking about Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Billo_Really, et al,

In any civilized country in the world, you will almost find (near universally) that they are all concerned and have laws pertaining to the use of small arms and light weapons (SALW) in the furtherance of peace and stability. This is not a policy shared by the Palestinians.

Why can't Hamas have weapons?

Are you saying they don't have a right to defend themselves?

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians, in fact all people, have the right of self-defense. But no one can claim the right of aggression. In the case of the Palestinians, they have consistently initiated hostilities in the name of liberating Palestine from Israeli Occupation. The Hostile Arab Palestinian have a an established policy to eliminate the Israeli State.

Reaffirms its Resolution 1373 (2001) and in particular its decisions that all States shall prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts and refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;​

The events that fomented and instigated Operation Protective Edge are aggressive actions, with the Palestinians as the aggressor.

• 
  The first use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression [Article 2. A/RES/3314(XXIX)] although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter.

The appropriate action, in the face of an aggressor with the well established past history of criminal and terrorist behaviors is:

Measures to eliminate international terrorism (A/RES/46/51) Calls upon all States to fulfill their obligations under international law to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in other States, or acquiescing in or encouraging activities within their territory directed towards the commission of such acts;​

The Palestinians instigated the assault on Israel, using weapons in a matter inconsistent with "self-defense."

Most Respectfully,
R

"In the case of the Palestinians, they have consistently initiated hostilities in the name of liberating Palestine from Israeli Occupation."​

As they have every right to do.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Challenger, et al,

Yes, I've seen this before and used by pro-Johadist.

The Palestinians, in fact all people, have the right of self-defense. But no one can claim the right of aggression...

They don't. They claim the right to resist occupation and oppression by any and all means at their disposal, and no people have a "right of self defence" over territory it illegally occupies.

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 33 24 of 29 November 1978

(COMMENT)

It is a non-bidding General Assembly Resolution that pre-dates the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence. So, even if it were applicable, its application ceased on the acquisition of Independence.

Secondly, it is applicable to non-self-governing states seeking relief from foreign domination and occupation; not a rogue state controlled by international terrorists and Jihadist. It doesn't apply to states governed by governments with a long past history of criminal behaviors.

You will notice that it is never used as a recollection in Resolutions talking about Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

"Secondly, it is applicable to non-self-governing states seeking relief from foreign domination and occupation;"​

Exactly!

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, not exactly.

"In the case of the Palestinians, they have consistently initiated hostilities in the name of liberating Palestine from Israeli Occupation."​

As they have every right to do.

(COMMENT)

You pay your quarter and you take your chance. Every action has a consequence.

• 
  ICRC Fourth Geneva Convention Article 68: "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 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 and 65 may impose the death penalty against 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."

It is a matter of Customary International Humanitarian Law that intending to do harm to the Occupying Power is punishable.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Challenger]

Challenger, et al,

Yes, I've seen this before and used by pro-Johadist.

The Palestinians, in fact all people, have the right of self-defense. But no one can claim the right of aggression...

They don't. They claim the right to resist occupation and oppression by any and all means at their disposal, and no people have a "right of self defence" over territory it illegally occupies.

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 33 24 of 29 November 1978

(COMMENT)

It is a non-bidding General Assembly Resolution that pre-dates the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence. So, even if it were applicable, its application ceased on the acquisition of Independence.

Secondly, it is applicable to non-self-governing states seeking relief from foreign domination and occupation; not a rogue state controlled by international terrorists and Jihadist. It doesn't apply to states governed by governments with a long past history of criminal behaviors.

You will notice that it is never used as a recollection in Resolutions talking about Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

On the contrary, this and several other preceeding resolutions form part of the corpus of Customary International Law in that the overwhelming majority of states on the planet recognise the validity of the principle involved. Moreover, since the fundamental, collective human right to self-determination is arguably the cornerstone of the entire international legal order, no nation state can legally oppose or prevent a peoples' right to self determination, which can entail resisting an armed foreign occupation of their land and oppression of their people.

 

[Phoenall]

Billo_Really, et al,

In any civilized country in the world, you will almost find (near universally) that they are all concerned and have laws pertaining to the use of small arms and light weapons (SALW) in the furtherance of peace and stability. This is not a policy shared by the Palestinians.

Why can't Hamas have weapons?

Are you saying they don't have a right to defend themselves?

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians, in fact all people, have the right of self-defense. But no one can claim the right of aggression. In the case of the Palestinians, they have consistently initiated hostilities in the name of liberating Palestine from Israeli Occupation. The Hostile Arab Palestinian have a an established policy to eliminate the Israeli State.

Reaffirms its Resolution 1373 (2001) and in particular its decisions that all States shall prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts and refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;​

The events that fomented and instigated Operation Protective Edge are aggressive actions, with the Palestinians as the aggressor.

• 
  The first use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression [Article 2. A/RES/3314(XXIX)] although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter.

The appropriate action, in the face of an aggressor with the well established past history of criminal and terrorist behaviors is:

Measures to eliminate international terrorism (A/RES/46/51) Calls upon all States to fulfill their obligations under international law to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in other States, or acquiescing in or encouraging activities within their territory directed towards the commission of such acts;​

The Palestinians instigated the assault on Israel, using weapons in a matter inconsistent with "self-defense."

Most Respectfully,
R

"In the case of the Palestinians, they have consistently initiated hostilities in the name of liberating Palestine from Israeli Occupation."​

As they have every right to do.

Even after Israel has ceased to occupy their land as they did in 2005 ?

 

[Phoenall]

Challenger, et al,

Yes, I've seen this before and used by pro-Johadist.

The Palestinians, in fact all people, have the right of self-defense. But no one can claim the right of aggression...

They don't. They claim the right to resist occupation and oppression by any and all means at their disposal, and no people have a "right of self defence" over territory it illegally occupies.

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 33 24 of 29 November 1978

(COMMENT)

It is a non-bidding General Assembly Resolution that pre-dates the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence. So, even if it were applicable, its application ceased on the acquisition of Independence.

Secondly, it is applicable to non-self-governing states seeking relief from foreign domination and occupation; not a rogue state controlled by international terrorists and Jihadist. It doesn't apply to states governed by governments with a long past history of criminal behaviors.

You will notice that it is never used as a recollection in Resolutions talking about Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

"Secondly, it is applicable to non-self-governing states seeking relief from foreign domination and occupation;"​

Exactly!

And so does not apply to Palestine which is a self-governing state

 

[Phoenall]

Challenger, et al,

Yes, I've seen this before and used by pro-Johadist.

The Palestinians, in fact all people, have the right of self-defense. But no one can claim the right of aggression...

They don't. They claim the right to resist occupation and oppression by any and all means at their disposal, and no people have a "right of self defence" over territory it illegally occupies.

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 33 24 of 29 November 1978

(COMMENT)

It is a non-bidding General Assembly Resolution that pre-dates the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence. So, even if it were applicable, its application ceased on the acquisition of Independence.

Secondly, it is applicable to non-self-governing states seeking relief from foreign domination and occupation; not a rogue state controlled by international terrorists and Jihadist. It doesn't apply to states governed by governments with a long past history of criminal behaviors.

You will notice that it is never used as a recollection in Resolutions talking about Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

On the contrary, this and several other preceeding resolutions form part of the corpus of Customary International Law in that the overwhelming majority of states on the planet recognise the validity of the principle involved. Moreover, since the fundamental, collective human right to self-determination is arguably the cornerstone of the entire international legal order, no nation state can legally oppose or prevent a peoples' right to self determination, which can entail resisting an armed foreign occupation of their land and oppression of their people.

Which the Palestinians have been granted when they declared independence under UN res 181. There was no interference from any source to oppose their free determination then or since. What has happened is they have shown their inability to self govern and act in accordance with the UN charter that calls for dialogue and debate instead of violence and war.

 

[Challenger]

Billo_Really, et al,

In any civilized country in the world, you will almost find (near universally) that they are all concerned and have laws pertaining to the use of small arms and light weapons (SALW) in the furtherance of peace and stability. This is not a policy shared by the Palestinians.

Why can't Hamas have weapons?

Are you saying they don't have a right to defend themselves?

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians, in fact all people, have the right of self-defense. But no one can claim the right of aggression. In the case of the Palestinians, they have consistently initiated hostilities in the name of liberating Palestine from Israeli Occupation. The Hostile Arab Palestinian have a an established policy to eliminate the Israeli State.

Reaffirms its Resolution 1373 (2001) and in particular its decisions that all States shall prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts and refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;​

The events that fomented and instigated Operation Protective Edge are aggressive actions, with the Palestinians as the aggressor.

• 
  The first use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression [Article 2. A/RES/3314(XXIX)] although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter.

The appropriate action, in the face of an aggressor with the well established past history of criminal and terrorist behaviors is:

Measures to eliminate international terrorism (A/RES/46/51) Calls upon all States to fulfill their obligations under international law to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in other States, or acquiescing in or encouraging activities within their territory directed towards the commission of such acts;​

The Palestinians instigated the assault on Israel, using weapons in a matter inconsistent with "self-defense."

Most Respectfully,
R

"In the case of the Palestinians, they have consistently initiated hostilities in the name of liberating Palestine from Israeli Occupation."​

As they have every right to do.

Even after Israel has ceased to occupy their land as they did in 2005 ?

Nope. Still occupied.

 

[Challenger]

Challenger, et al,

Yes, I've seen this before and used by pro-Johadist.

The Palestinians, in fact all people, have the right of self-defense. But no one can claim the right of aggression...

They don't. They claim the right to resist occupation and oppression by any and all means at their disposal, and no people have a "right of self defence" over territory it illegally occupies.

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 33 24 of 29 November 1978

(COMMENT)

It is a non-bidding General Assembly Resolution that pre-dates the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence. So, even if it were applicable, its application ceased on the acquisition of Independence.

Secondly, it is applicable to non-self-governing states seeking relief from foreign domination and occupation; not a rogue state controlled by international terrorists and Jihadist. It doesn't apply to states governed by governments with a long past history of criminal behaviors.

You will notice that it is never used as a recollection in Resolutions talking about Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

On the contrary, this and several other preceeding resolutions form part of the corpus of Customary International Law in that the overwhelming majority of states on the planet recognise the validity of the principle involved. Moreover, since the fundamental, collective human right to self-determination is arguably the cornerstone of the entire international legal order, no nation state can legally oppose or prevent a peoples' right to self determination, which can entail resisting an armed foreign occupation of their land and oppression of their people.

Which the Palestinians have been granted when they declared independence under UN res 181. There was no interference from any source to oppose their free determination then or since. What has happened is they have shown their inability to self govern and act in accordance with the UN charter that calls for dialogue and debate instead of violence and war.

Drivel.

 

[toastman]

Billo_Really, et al,

In any civilized country in the world, you will almost find (near universally) that they are all concerned and have laws pertaining to the use of small arms and light weapons (SALW) in the furtherance of peace and stability. This is not a policy shared by the Palestinians.

Why can't Hamas have weapons?

Are you saying they don't have a right to defend themselves?

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians, in fact all people, have the right of self-defense. But no one can claim the right of aggression. In the case of the Palestinians, they have consistently initiated hostilities in the name of liberating Palestine from Israeli Occupation. The Hostile Arab Palestinian have a an established policy to eliminate the Israeli State.

Reaffirms its Resolution 1373 (2001) and in particular its decisions that all States shall prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts and refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;​

The events that fomented and instigated Operation Protective Edge are aggressive actions, with the Palestinians as the aggressor.

• 
  The first use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression [Article 2. A/RES/3314(XXIX)] although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter.

The appropriate action, in the face of an aggressor with the well established past history of criminal and terrorist behaviors is:

Measures to eliminate international terrorism (A/RES/46/51) Calls upon all States to fulfill their obligations under international law to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in other States, or acquiescing in or encouraging activities within their territory directed towards the commission of such acts;​

The Palestinians instigated the assault on Israel, using weapons in a matter inconsistent with "self-defense."

Most Respectfully,
R

Resistance to a belligerent occupation, is not aggression.

What Hamas does is not resistance. And no, they should not have weapons