All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

[Toddsterpatriot]

Keeping foreign trouble makers out of Israel?

How perfectly awful!!! snicker

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wanton killing of innocent civilians is a Palestinian aspiration.

 

[RoccoR]

Wanton killing of innocent civilians is a Palestinian aspiration.

(OBSERVATION in SUPPORT)
PALESTINIAN ARAB OFFICIAL ADMITS “KILLING ISRAELIS IS NOT TERROR, IT’S LEGITIMATE”

 

[P F Tinmore]

Wanton killing of innocent civilians is a Palestinian aspiration.

(OBSERVATION in SUPPORT)
PALESTINIAN ARAB OFFICIAL ADMITS “KILLING ISRAELIS IS NOT TERROR, IT’S LEGITIMATE”

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.

Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949 - 4 - - Commentary of 1958

 

[Hollie]

Wanton killing of innocent civilians is a Palestinian aspiration.

(OBSERVATION in SUPPORT)
PALESTINIAN ARAB OFFICIAL ADMITS “KILLING ISRAELIS IS NOT TERROR, IT’S LEGITIMATE”

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.

Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949 - 4 - - Commentary of 1958

Much as you like to play fast and loose with terms and definitions, you have made no case for occupation of any sovereign Pally lands.

Can you cut and paste the parts of icrc document that disallows the right to self defense from Islamic terrorist gee-had attack?

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
SUBTOPIC: Definition of Protected Persons 'vs' Civilians
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: ONCE AGAIN! I believe that someone is confusing the terms "Civilians" and that of "Protected Persons."

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.

Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949 - 4 - - Commentary of 1958

(REFERENCE)

See Posting #19125. Definition of Civilians (ICRC)
All the links are imbedded.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure what your point is... But if you are trying to defend the legality of attacking Israel Civilians anywhere in the Regional Conflict, you are wrong.

◈ Attacking civilians is on International Crime.​

◈ Advocating that it is legal to attack civilians is another separate crime.​

​

The settlers are "civilians" and are accorded the treatment associated with civilians IAW​

Rule 6 → Civilians are protected against attack, unless and for such time as they take ​

a direct part in hostilities.​

In fact, I see you as being so wrong, I must be misunderstanding what you are saying and why!

SO: What is your point?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
SUBTOPIC: Definition of Protected Persons 'vs' Civilians
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: ONCE AGAIN! I believe that someone is confusing the terms "Civilians" and that of "Protected Persons."

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.

Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949 - 4 - - Commentary of 1958

(REFERENCE)

See Posting #19125. Definition of Civilians (ICRC)
All the links are imbedded.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure what your point is... But if you are trying to defend the legality of attacking Israel Civilians anywhere in the Regional Conflict, you are wrong.

◈ Attacking civilians is on International Crime.​

◈ Advocating that it is legal to attack civilians is another separate crime.​

​

The settlers are "civilians" and are accorded the treatment associated with civilians IAW​

Rule 6 → Civilians are protected against attack, unless and for such time as they take ​

a direct part in hostilities.​

In fact, I see you as being so wrong, I must be misunderstanding what you are saying and why!

SO: What is your point?

Most Respectfully,
R

Protected persons and civilians are not the same thing. Some civilians are protected persons and some are not. Some militants are protected persons and some are not.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Canadian Association of University Teachers Censures University of Toronto After Job Rescinded Over Criticism of Israel

Faculty group’s first boycott order in over a decade affirms pro-Israel interference in hiring of scholar Valentina Azarova

bdsmovement.net

Canadian Association of University Teachers Censures University of Toronto After Job Rescinded Over Criticism of Israel

Dr Azarova is an international law practitioner and researcher at the University of Manchester who last August was the unanimous top choice of a search panel of Toronto’s Faculty of Law to become director of its international human rights programme.

But within days of the panel’s decision, Judge Spiro – a 1987 Toronto law school graduate who was appointed to the Tax Court of Canada in 2019 and comes from a family that has given tens of millions of dollars to the university and its hospitals – told a university fund-raising official of his concern.

Dr Azarova has written critically of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people, and Toronto faculty involved in the case said that Judge Spiro was aiming to warn the dean at the time, Edward Iacobucci, of his concern about her politics.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Residents of Sheikh Jarrah confront settlers’ incursion

Residents of the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in Occupied Jerusalem on Thursday night fended off the incursions of settler groups into the neighborhood and its homes.

english.palinfo.com

 

[Hollie]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
SUBTOPIC: Definition of Protected Persons 'vs' Civilians
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: ONCE AGAIN! I believe that someone is confusing the terms "Civilians" and that of "Protected Persons."

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.

Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949 - 4 - - Commentary of 1958

(REFERENCE)

See Posting #19125. Definition of Civilians (ICRC)
All the links are imbedded.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure what your point is... But if you are trying to defend the legality of attacking Israel Civilians anywhere in the Regional Conflict, you are wrong.

◈ Attacking civilians is on International Crime.​

◈ Advocating that it is legal to attack civilians is another separate crime.​

​

The settlers are "civilians" and are accorded the treatment associated with civilians IAW​

Rule 6 → Civilians are protected against attack, unless and for such time as they take ​

a direct part in hostilities.​

In fact, I see you as being so wrong, I must be misunderstanding what you are saying and why!

SO: What is your point?

Most Respectfully,
R

Protected persons and civilians are not the same thing. Some civilians are protected persons and some are not. Some militants are protected persons and some are not.

Residents of Sheikh Jarrah confront settlers’ incursion

Residents of the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in Occupied Jerusalem on Thursday night fended off the incursions of settler groups into the neighborhood and its homes.

english.palinfo.com

Can you post a YouTube video that clarifies the term "occupied Jerusalem"? That appears to be a slogan used by Arabs-Moslems to claim ownership of territory as part of an Islamic waqf.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
SUBTOPIC: Definition of Protected Persons 'vs' Civilians
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: There is no "militant" the holds the status of a "protected person" and "combatant."

Protected persons and civilians are not the same thing. Some civilians are protected persons and some are not. Some militants are protected persons and some are not.

(COMMENT)

You many have notice that I often use the term HOSTILE ARAB PALESTINIAN (HoAP). That is because the Article 5 of the General Provisions, Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) uses the terminology: "engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State."

ARTICLE 5 — PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN PERSONS GCIV: Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.​

​

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.​

In the first instance we are talking about sovereign territory (ie Israel) and processing under domestic law. In the second case, we are talking about the occupied territories. In the second case, the most often talked about cases in the Arab-Israeli Conflict, we are taking about the implementation of ARTICLE 68 as in the "Protected Persons" who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power.

Your term "Militant" is undefined in the International Humanitarian Law (IHL). I would say that only 66% of your comment is correct with the remaining third shadowy, in layman's terms. But I (think I) understand your meaning.

But what is your point? All HoAP are bad guys. There is nothing in IHL that gives them any special privilege or dispensation. If they engage in activities that are intended to harm the Occupying Power (people, property, administration or the installations) then it is subject to prosecution. Plan and Simple - SO! What is your point? Why would you even bring it up.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
SUBTOPIC: Definition of Protected Persons 'vs' Civilians
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: There is no "militant" the holds the status of a "protected person" and "combatant."

Protected persons and civilians are not the same thing. Some civilians are protected persons and some are not. Some militants are protected persons and some are not.

(COMMENT)

You many have notice that I often use the term HOSTILE ARAB PALESTINIAN (HoAP). That is because the Article 5 of the General Provisions, Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) uses the terminology: "engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State."

ARTICLE 5 — PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN PERSONS GCIV: Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.​

​

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.​

In the first instance we are talking about sovereign territory (ie Israel) and processing under domestic law. In the second case, we are talking about the occupied territories. In the second case, the most often talked about cases in the Arab-Israeli Conflict, we are taking about the implementation of ARTICLE 68 as in the "Protected Persons" who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power.

Your term "Militant" is undefined in the International Humanitarian Law (IHL). I would say that only 66% of your comment is correct with the remaining third shadowy, in layman's terms. But I (think I) understand your meaning.

But what is your point? All HoAP are bad guys. There is nothing in IHL that gives them any special privilege or dispensation. If they engage in activities that are intended to harm the Occupying Power (people, property, administration or the installations) then it is subject to prosecution. Plan and Simple - SO! What is your point? Why would you even bring it up.

Most Respectfully,
R

Article 68 is about domestic law and civilian police.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
SUBTOPIC: Definition of Protected Persons 'vs' Civilians
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: There is no "militant" the holds the status of a "protected person" and "combatant."

Protected persons and civilians are not the same thing. Some civilians are protected persons and some are not. Some militants are protected persons and some are not.

(COMMENT)

You many have notice that I often use the term HOSTILE ARAB PALESTINIAN (HoAP). That is because the Article 5 of the General Provisions, Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) uses the terminology: "engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State."

ARTICLE 5 — PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN PERSONS GCIV: Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.​

​

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.​

In the first instance we are talking about sovereign territory (ie Israel) and processing under domestic law. In the second case, we are talking about the occupied territories. In the second case, the most often talked about cases in the Arab-Israeli Conflict, we are taking about the implementation of ARTICLE 68 as in the "Protected Persons" who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power.

Your term "Militant" is undefined in the International Humanitarian Law (IHL). I would say that only 66% of your comment is correct with the remaining third shadowy, in layman's terms. But I (think I) understand your meaning.

But what is your point? All HoAP are bad guys. There is nothing in IHL that gives them any special privilege or dispensation. If they engage in activities that are intended to harm the Occupying Power (people, property, administration or the installations) then it is subject to prosecution. Plan and Simple - SO! What is your point? Why would you even bring it up.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why are nationals of the occupying state singled out for exception?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
SUBTOPIC: Expanded
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You are making very poor assumptions. I'm still trying to figure-out what you are trying to get at...

Article 68 is about domestic law and civilian police.

(COMMENT)

I don't think you have even the most basic understanding of the Civil Administration of Occupied Territory. Law Enforcement is generally handled by Israeli Border Police (Civilian Law Enforcement).

Domestic Law applies to everyone on sovereign Israeli territory, or, in the case of Occupied Territory, at the discretion of the Occupying Power.

"ART. 66. — In case of a breach of the penal provisions promulgated by it by virtue of the second paragraph of Article 64, the Occupying Power may hand over the accused to its properly constituted, non-political military courts, on condition that the said courts sit in the occupied country. Courts of appeal shall preferably sit in the occupied country."​

​

ART. 68. — Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power,​

Why are nationals if the occupying state singled out for exception?

(COMMENT)

Because they are subject to the laws and provisions of their respective domestic legal system. While in Occupied Territory - they are civilians and protected under Customary and IHL → Rule 6 Civilians are protected against attack.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
SUBTOPIC: Expanded
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You are making very poor assumptions. I'm still trying to figure-out what you are trying to get at...

Article 68 is about domestic law and civilian police.

(COMMENT)

I don't think you have even the most basic understanding of the Civil Administration of Occupied Territory. Law Enforcement is generally handled by Israeli Border Police (Civilian Law Enforcement).

Domestic Law applies to everyone on sovereign Israeli territory, or, in the case of Occupied Territory, at the discretion of the Occupying Power.

"ART. 66. — In case of a breach of the penal provisions promulgated by it by virtue of the second paragraph of Article 64, the Occupying Power may hand over the accused to its properly constituted, non-political military courts, on condition that the said courts sit in the occupied country. Courts of appeal shall preferably sit in the occupied country."​

​

ART. 68. — Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power,​

Why are nationals if the occupying state singled out for exception?

(COMMENT)

Because they are subject to the laws and provisions of their respective domestic legal system. While in Occupied Territory - they are civilians and protected under Customary and IHL → Rule 6 Civilians are protected against attack.

Most Respectfully,
R

Is Israel a proper occupation? Occupying powers have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of them.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
SUBTOPIC: Expanded
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This is not the first time you've made this non-specific claim and undefined blanket set of charges. It is the same as making no change at all.

Is Israel a proper occupation? Occupying powers have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of them.

(COMMENT)

Name one claim or charge you say is violated...

◈. Be specific.​

◈. Make a citation for the source.​

Under International Humanitarian Law, what citation defines a "proper occupation."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
SUBTOPIC: Expanded
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This is not the first time you've made this non-specific claim and undefined blanket set of charges. It is the same as making no change at all.

Is Israel a proper occupation? Occupying powers have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of them.

(COMMENT)

Name one claim or charge you say is violated...

◈. Be specific.​

◈. Make a citation for the source.​

Under International Humanitarian Law, what citation defines a "proper occupation."

Most Respectfully,
R

There are a lot but here are a couple things.

The British Government, like other EU partners, does not recognise the annexation of East Jerusalem. We consider these territories to be under occupation and that Israel is obliged to administer them under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits forcible deportations, detention without trial, destruction of property, denial of access to food, health and education, and settlement by the occupying power of its own civilians in occupied territory.

Occupation

lawofwar.org

--------------------
The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.

http://lcwu.edu.pk/ocd/cfiles/International%20Relations/Maj/IR-305/law9_final.pdf

Think Oslo.

 

[Hollie]

Think Oslo.

Think false assumptions.

Oslo is dead™. That’s one of your favorite slogans.