War Crimes, List Of Charges Filed Against Hamas

[aris2chat]

http://www.thelawfareproject.org/Hamas_Intl_Law.pdf

>>
HAMAS’S VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Customary International Humanitarian Law Rule 1. The Principle of Distinction between Civilians and Combatants The parties to the conflict must at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants. Attacks may only be directed against combatants. Attacks must not be directed against civilians.
Hamas Violations:
 The U.S. State Department has condemned Hamas rocket fire on Israeli civilians.
 Hamas declared that all Israelis had become targets for its missile attacks.
 Ibrahim Kreisheh, the Palestinian delegate to the UN Human Rights Council, stated: “The missiles that are now being launched against Israel, each and every missile constitutes a crime against humanity, whether it hits or missed, because it is directed at civilian targets… Therefore, targeting civilians, be it one civilian or a thousand, is considered a crime against humanity.”<<

PDF 11 pgs.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Lawfare Project Is an Israeli propaganda site.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Don't you love all these UN & Hague idiots who themselves would never dream of picking up a rifle to defend anything, but who spend their lives sitting in our courts behind their benighted benches writing up "rules" of war?

Why aren't they out there during the shooting? Why aren't they out there on the front lines insisting that the "rules" be honored? There's only one rule of war: the winners make the rules.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now whenever a Hams fighter resists, he simply needs to killed, not taken prisoner.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

The Lawfare Project Is an Israeli propaganda site.

any thinking person can see thats so obviously true.

 

[aris2chat]

Some people really make me wonder if the conspiracy mindset is learned or genetic?

 

[toastman]

The Lawfare Project Is an Israeli propaganda site.

No it isn't. Any site that doesn't kiss Palestinian ass is an 'Israeli propaganda' site according to you.

BTW, can you refute any of the allegations in the OP?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Lawfare Project Is an Israeli propaganda site.

No it isn't. Any site that doesn't kiss Palestinian ass is an 'Israeli propaganda' site according to you.

BTW, can you refute any of the allegations in the OP?

Sure.

The U.S. State Department has condemned Hamas rocket fire on Israeli civilians.

Civilian is not the definitive term in international law. The term is protected person as not all civilians are protected.

 

[toastman]

The Lawfare Project Is an Israeli propaganda site.

No it isn't. Any site that doesn't kiss Palestinian ass is an 'Israeli propaganda' site according to you.

BTW, can you refute any of the allegations in the OP?

Sure.

The U.S. State Department has condemned Hamas rocket fire on Israeli civilians.

Civilian is not the definitive term in international law. The term is protected person as not all civilians are protected.

False. Israelis living in Israeli proper are civilians. The West Bank 'occupation' has nothing to do Israelis living in Israel proper.

 

[toastman]

And all civilians in Israel are protected.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've made a mistake.

The Lawfare Project Is an Israeli propaganda site.

No it isn't. Any site that doesn't kiss Palestinian ass is an 'Israeli propaganda' site according to you.

BTW, can you refute any of the allegations in the OP?

Sure.

The U.S. State Department has condemned Hamas rocket fire on Israeli civilians.

Civilian is not the definitive term in international law. The term is protected person as not all civilians are protected.

(COMMENT)

The term "protected persons" is a ICRC Geneva Convention term.

For the purposes of ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the term "civilian" is defined in Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

Exception
An exception to this rule is the levée en masse, whereby the inhabitants of a country which has not yet been occupied, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to form themselves into an armed force. Such persons are considered combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war (see commentary to Rule 106). This is a long-standing rule of customary international humanitarian law already recognized in the Lieber Code and the Brussels Declaration. It is codified in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention. Although of limited current application, the levée en masse is still repeated in many military manuals, including very recent ones.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've made a mistake.

The Lawfare Project Is an Israeli propaganda site.

No it isn't. Any site that doesn't kiss Palestinian ass is an 'Israeli propaganda' site according to you.

BTW, can you refute any of the allegations in the OP?

Sure.

The U.S. State Department has condemned Hamas rocket fire on Israeli civilians.

Civilian is not the definitive term in international law. The term is protected person as not all civilians are protected.

(COMMENT)

The term "protected persons" is a ICRC Geneva Convention term.

For the purposes of ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the term "civilian" is defined in Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

Exception
An exception to this rule is the levée en masse, whereby the inhabitants of a country which has not yet been occupied, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to form themselves into an armed force. Such persons are considered combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war (see commentary to Rule 106). This is a long-standing rule of customary international humanitarian law already recognized in the Lieber Code and the Brussels Declaration. It is codified in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention. Although of limited current application, the levée en masse is still repeated in many military manuals, including very recent ones.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you've made a mistake.

As nationals of an occupying power, Israeli citizens are exempt from the protected persons classification.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I understand this quite well.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've made a mistake.

The Lawfare Project Is an Israeli propaganda site.

No it isn't. Any site that doesn't kiss Palestinian ass is an 'Israeli propaganda' site according to you.

BTW, can you refute any of the allegations in the OP?

Sure.

The U.S. State Department has condemned Hamas rocket fire on Israeli civilians.

Civilian is not the definitive term in international law. The term is protected person as not all civilians are protected.

(COMMENT)

The term "protected persons" is a ICRC Geneva Convention term.

For the purposes of ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the term "civilian" is defined in Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

Exception
An exception to this rule is the levée en masse, whereby the inhabitants of a country which has not yet been occupied, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to form themselves into an armed force. Such persons are considered combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war (see commentary to Rule 106). This is a long-standing rule of customary international humanitarian law already recognized in the Lieber Code and the Brussels Declaration. It is codified in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention. Although of limited current application, the levée en masse is still repeated in many military manuals, including very recent ones.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you've made a mistake.

As nationals of an occupying power, Israeli citizens are exempt from the protected persons classification.

(COMMENT)

I understand that the civilians of the Occupation Power are not "protected persons;" but they are still "civilians." And it is still unethical and unlawful for them to be targeted by the belligerent elements of those under Occupation.

The reasoning for the exemption is that the citizens of the Occupation Power are already covered by the protections they enjoy as citizens of the Occupation Power. Whereas, the citizens of the Occupied Territory are covered by the Geneva Convention protections.

There is some attempt by the Palestinians to suggest that Israelis, not "protected persons" are fair game for attack by some misguided notion on the part of the Resistance. To attack the civilians (noncombatants) is always wrong; by the Geneva Convention (Article 68) and Customary IHL.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I understand this quite well.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've made a mistake.

The Lawfare Project Is an Israeli propaganda site.

No it isn't. Any site that doesn't kiss Palestinian ass is an 'Israeli propaganda' site according to you.

BTW, can you refute any of the allegations in the OP?

Sure.

The U.S. State Department has condemned Hamas rocket fire on Israeli civilians.

Civilian is not the definitive term in international law. The term is protected person as not all civilians are protected.

(COMMENT)

The term "protected persons" is a ICRC Geneva Convention term.

For the purposes of ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the term "civilian" is defined in Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

Exception
An exception to this rule is the levée en masse, whereby the inhabitants of a country which has not yet been occupied, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to form themselves into an armed force. Such persons are considered combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war (see commentary to Rule 106). This is a long-standing rule of customary international humanitarian law already recognized in the Lieber Code and the Brussels Declaration. It is codified in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention. Although of limited current application, the levée en masse is still repeated in many military manuals, including very recent ones.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you've made a mistake.

As nationals of an occupying power, Israeli citizens are exempt from the protected persons classification.

(COMMENT)

I understand that the civilians of the Occupation Power are not "protected persons;" but they are still "civilians." And it is still unethical and unlawful for them to be targeted by the belligerent elements of those under Occupation.

The reasoning for the exemption is that the citizens of the Occupation Power are already covered by the protections they enjoy as citizens of the Occupation Power. Whereas, the citizens of the Occupied Territory are covered by the Geneva Convention protections.

There is some attempt by the Palestinians to suggest that Israelis, not "protected persons" are fair game for attack by some misguided notion on the part of the Resistance. To attack the civilians (noncombatants) is always wrong; by the Geneva Convention (Article 68) and Customary IHL.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are grasping at straws. Israeli citizens are a necessary and integral part of the occupation.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Oh yea. Look down there at the bottom of the page. Isis is being commercialized now. Here come the books, videos, TV series, and of course, Hollywood's treatment. What'll it be do you think? Isis versusing Rambo Jr.? Isis and Seal Team 6 Go Out On a Date? Isis Gives Head? I can hardly wait.

Sorry to digress, but "rules of war" don't mean shit without the muscle to enforce them...and the will of course.

 

[docmauser1]

Civilian is not the definitive term in international law. The term is protected person as not all civilians are protected.

So, what's that palistanians and their cheersquad here are bitchin'about?

 

[docmauser1]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I understand this quite well.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've made a mistake.

No it isn't. Any site that doesn't kiss Palestinian ass is an 'Israeli propaganda' site according to you.

BTW, can you refute any of the allegations in the OP?

Sure.

The U.S. State Department has condemned Hamas rocket fire on Israeli civilians.

Civilian is not the definitive term in international law. The term is protected person as not all civilians are protected.

(COMMENT)

The term "protected persons" is a ICRC Geneva Convention term.

For the purposes of ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the term "civilian" is defined in Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

Exception
An exception to this rule is the levée en masse, whereby the inhabitants of a country which has not yet been occupied, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to form themselves into an armed force. Such persons are considered combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war (see commentary to Rule 106). This is a long-standing rule of customary international humanitarian law already recognized in the Lieber Code and the Brussels Declaration. It is codified in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention. Although of limited current application, the levée en masse is still repeated in many military manuals, including very recent ones.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you've made a mistake.

As nationals of an occupying power, Israeli citizens are exempt from the protected persons classification.

(COMMENT)

I understand that the civilians of the Occupation Power are not "protected persons;" but they are still "civilians." And it is still unethical and unlawful for them to be targeted by the belligerent elements of those under Occupation.

The reasoning for the exemption is that the citizens of the Occupation Power are already covered by the protections they enjoy as citizens of the Occupation Power. Whereas, the citizens of the Occupied Territory are covered by the Geneva Convention protections.

There is some attempt by the Palestinians to suggest that Israelis, not "protected persons" are fair game for attack by some misguided notion on the part of the Resistance. To attack the civilians (noncombatants) is always wrong; by the Geneva Convention (Article 68) and Customary IHL.
Most Respectfully,
R

You are grasping at straws. Israeli citizens are a necessary and integral part of the occupation.

Otherwise palistanians wouldn't have their occupation, of course.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I understand this quite well.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've made a mistake.

No it isn't. Any site that doesn't kiss Palestinian ass is an 'Israeli propaganda' site according to you.

BTW, can you refute any of the allegations in the OP?

Sure.

The U.S. State Department has condemned Hamas rocket fire on Israeli civilians.

Civilian is not the definitive term in international law. The term is protected person as not all civilians are protected.

(COMMENT)

The term "protected persons" is a ICRC Geneva Convention term.

For the purposes of ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the term "civilian" is defined in Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

Exception
An exception to this rule is the levée en masse, whereby the inhabitants of a country which has not yet been occupied, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to form themselves into an armed force. Such persons are considered combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war (see commentary to Rule 106). This is a long-standing rule of customary international humanitarian law already recognized in the Lieber Code and the Brussels Declaration. It is codified in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention. Although of limited current application, the levée en masse is still repeated in many military manuals, including very recent ones.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you've made a mistake.

As nationals of an occupying power, Israeli citizens are exempt from the protected persons classification.

(COMMENT)

I understand that the civilians of the Occupation Power are not "protected persons;" but they are still "civilians." And it is still unethical and unlawful for them to be targeted by the belligerent elements of those under Occupation.

The reasoning for the exemption is that the citizens of the Occupation Power are already covered by the protections they enjoy as citizens of the Occupation Power. Whereas, the citizens of the Occupied Territory are covered by the Geneva Convention protections.

There is some attempt by the Palestinians to suggest that Israelis, not "protected persons" are fair game for attack by some misguided notion on the part of the Resistance. To attack the civilians (noncombatants) is always wrong; by the Geneva Convention (Article 68) and Customary IHL.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are grasping at straws. Israeli citizens are a necessary and integral part of the occupation.

No, YOU are grasping at straws. Israeli citizens in Israel proper have nothing to do with the 'occupation'. Israel is sovereign territory not occupied territory.

 

[Humanity]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I understand this quite well.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've made a mistake.

Sure.
Civilian is not the definitive term in international law. The term is protected person as not all civilians are protected.

(COMMENT)

The term "protected persons" is a ICRC Geneva Convention term.

For the purposes of ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the term "civilian" is defined in Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

Exception
An exception to this rule is the levée en masse, whereby the inhabitants of a country which has not yet been occupied, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to form themselves into an armed force. Such persons are considered combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war (see commentary to Rule 106). This is a long-standing rule of customary international humanitarian law already recognized in the Lieber Code and the Brussels Declaration. It is codified in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention. Although of limited current application, the levée en masse is still repeated in many military manuals, including very recent ones.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you've made a mistake.

As nationals of an occupying power, Israeli citizens are exempt from the protected persons classification.

(COMMENT)

I understand that the civilians of the Occupation Power are not "protected persons;" but they are still "civilians." And it is still unethical and unlawful for them to be targeted by the belligerent elements of those under Occupation.

The reasoning for the exemption is that the citizens of the Occupation Power are already covered by the protections they enjoy as citizens of the Occupation Power. Whereas, the citizens of the Occupied Territory are covered by the Geneva Convention protections.

There is some attempt by the Palestinians to suggest that Israelis, not "protected persons" are fair game for attack by some misguided notion on the part of the Resistance. To attack the civilians (noncombatants) is always wrong; by the Geneva Convention (Article 68) and Customary IHL.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are grasping at straws. Israeli citizens are a necessary and integral part of the occupation.

No, YOU are grasping at straws. Israeli citizens in Israel proper have nothing to do with the 'occupation'. Israel is sovereign territory not occupied territory.

Oh wake up and smell the coffee Toasty!