Can you feel the approaching danger ?

[Phoenall]

The Mufti seems to have had the same ideas as the current Israeli Minister of Justice.

What that the Palestinians should either fight as a whole or sue for peace.

No, she agrees with the Mufti on what to do with the women and children:

"Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

Israel s new justice minister considers all Palestinians to be the enemy - The Washington Post

Read it again as she asks the Palestinians as a whole to fight or surrender, not to use propaganda to gain sympathy becasuse only Jew hater sympathise with the hamas terrorists these days.

 

[Phoenall]

From your WashPost article that you did not read...

In July, in a controversial post on Facebook, the then-member of the Knesset posted the text of an article by the late Israeli writer Uri Elitzur that referred to Palestinian children as "little snakes" and appeared to justify the mass punishment of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation. The post has since been deleted, but an archived version remains.

It was put up shortly after the discovery of the bodies of three Israeli teens kidnapped last year while hiking in the West Bank.


The leftist site Mondoweiss offers a full translation of Shaked's controversial posting, which quotes Elitzur, a former Netanyahu adviser, here. Some excerpts:


Like I said -- IT WOULD be extremely troubling IF she had actually wrote it.. Even tho you still insist on misinterpreting large parts of it..

Whether she wrote it or not is irrelevant, the fact that she published it implies, at the very least, an endorsement of these views.

Does this go for you then when you post other peoples words, are you endorsing them and their views ?

 

[Phoenall]

From your WashPost article that you did not read...

In July, in a controversial post on Facebook, the then-member of the Knesset posted the text of an article by the late Israeli writer Uri Elitzur that referred to Palestinian children as "little snakes" and appeared to justify the mass punishment of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation. The post has since been deleted, but an archived version remains.

It was put up shortly after the discovery of the bodies of three Israeli teens kidnapped last year while hiking in the West Bank.


The leftist site Mondoweiss offers a full translation of Shaked's controversial posting, which quotes Elitzur, a former Netanyahu adviser, here. Some excerpts:


Like I said -- IT WOULD be extremely troubling IF she had actually wrote it.. Even tho you still insist on misinterpreting large parts of it..

That's basically all that this false propagandist liar does. He's an expert at mutilation and distortion of "sources".

After just over a minute of islamonazi propaganda and Lies I switched of, I did not need to listen anymore

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

It was the political decision based on the jurisdictional issues and the magnitude of the crime.

If the Mufti was so "evil incarnate" as the Zionists claim, I'm led to wonder why they would spend the time and resources to travel 8000 miles to kidnap Eichmann to bring him to justice, but allow the Mufti to live peacefully less than 100 miles away in Lebanon until his death in 1974.

(COMMENT)

There were a number of key Arab Palestinians that were not prosecuted for on reason of another.

√ -- SALAMA was killed by Israeli Forces:

Hasan Salama was the deputy commander of the Palestinian Holy War Army in the 1948 Palestine War. Salama, a member of a special commando unit of the Waffen SS in Operation ATLAS (In a meeting between Adolf Hitler and Grand Mufti al-Husseini, the Mufti arranged for Salama and other Arab fighters to be flown to Germany for military training. The Germans trained Salama to be a paratrooper.), which was jointly operated by Abwehr (German Intelligence) and Grand Mufti al-Husseini, was killed by the IDF in the Battle of Ras al-Ein on 2 June 1948.​

√ -- Al-QAWUQJI had service as a squadron commanded for King Faisal; held political asylum.

Fawzi al-Qawuqji, former Colonel - Wehrmacht (German Army), Ottoman Majidi Medal Valor, German Iron Cross (2C), formerly a commission officer with service in the 12th Ottoman Corps, allied to Germany during World War II, Soviet POW 1945-1947, formerly Supreme Commander of the Arab Revolution in South-Syrian Palestine, and Field Commander Arab Liberation Army (ALA) during the 1948 Palestine War. Took flight to Lebanon to avoid prosecution; and died in 1977.

"I have come to Palestine to stay and fight until Palestine is a free and united Arab country or until I am killed and buried here," ...
His aim, he declared, borrowing the slogan that was becoming the leitmotiv of the Arab leadership, was "to drive all the Jews into the sea."​

√ -- EL-HUSSEINI held political asylum.

Haj Amin el-Husseini was investigated. One must remember that the Gand Mufti was a UK Citizen. The UK began extradition proceedings in May 1945, on charges of enemy collaboration and in connection with the mass murder and massacres of 200,000 Jewish Serbs. The Gand Mufti fled to Lebanon to avoid prosecution. The French Judiciary, in procedural hearings, classified the Grand Mufti as a political prisoner and refused to comply with the British request. The Grand Mufti died in Lebanon in 1974.​

Many believe that the extradition of the Grand Mufti was a political (not judicial) decision based on the possibility that it might create a religious backlash and cause domestic unrest.

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Mufti seems to have had the same ideas as the current Israeli Minister of Justice.

What that the Palestinians should either fight as a whole or sue for peace.

No, she agrees with the Mufti on what to do with the women and children:

"Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

Israel s new justice minister considers all Palestinians to be the enemy - The Washington Post

Indeed, that is probably why the nationals of an occupying power are not considered protected persons (civilians) by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,

You always (always - always) get this wrong.

Indeed, that is probably why the nationals of an occupying power are not considered protected persons (civilians) by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

(COMMENT)

While it is true that nationals of the occupation power are not covered under the Article 4 of the Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949; they are covered by both RULE #1 Customary IHL and Articles 68, with "the principle of distinction between combatants and civilians codified in Articles 48, 51(2) and 52(2) of Additional Protocol I, to which no reservations have been made. According to Additional Protocol I, “attacks” means “acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offence or in defence”."

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Definition of civilians and civilian population:

Article 50 -- Definition of civilians and civilian population

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

• 
  Article 43 -- Armed forces
  
  
  1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, ' inter alia ', shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
  

  2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 [ Link ] of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.
  

  3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.​

2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.
​

"The prohibition on directing attacks against civilians is also laid down in Protocol II, Amended Protocol II and Protocol III to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and in the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel landmines. In addition, under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities” [ICC-RS Part II Article 8(2b)i] constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts."

Rule 1 - Customary International Humanitarian Law.

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.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

The Basic rule

• Article 48 -- Basic rule
  
  In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.

ALL "protected persons" are "civilians," --- BUT NOT ALL "civilians" are "protected persons".

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Roudy]

The Mufti seems to have had the same ideas as the current Israeli Minister of Justice.

What that the Palestinians should either fight as a whole or sue for peace.

No, she agrees with the Mufti on what to do with the women and children:

"Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

Israel s new justice minister considers all Palestinians to be the enemy - The Washington Post

Indeed, that is probably why the nationals of an occupying power are not considered protected persons (civilians) by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Typical terrorist mentality that openly supports the genocide of Jews in their own holy land. This wet dream is never gonna happen, dirtbag. You can jerk yourself off to it from now to eternity.

This is why Israel will eventually annex the West Bank after it puts all the terrorist Hamas dogs out of their misery. There can never be peace with people who have such a sick depraved culture.

 

[Roudy]

P F Tinmore,

You always (always - always) get this wrong.

Indeed, that is probably why the nationals of an occupying power are not considered protected persons (civilians) by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

(COMMENT)

While it is true that nationals of the occupation power are not covered under the Article 4 of the Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949; they are covered by both RULE #1 Customary IHL and Articles 68, with "the principle of distinction between combatants and civilians codified in Articles 48, 51(2) and 52(2) of Additional Protocol I, to which no reservations have been made. According to Additional Protocol I, “attacks” means “acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offence or in defence”."

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Definition of civilians and civilian population:

Article 50 -- Definition of civilians and civilian population

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

• 
  Article 43 -- Armed forces
  
  
  1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, ' inter alia ', shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
  2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 [ Link ] of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.
  3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.​

2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.​

"The prohibition on directing attacks against civilians is also laid down in Protocol II, Amended Protocol II and Protocol III to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and in the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel landmines. In addition, under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities” [ICC-RS Part II Article 8(2b)i] constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts."

Rule 1 - Customary International Humanitarian Law.

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.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

The Basic rule

• Article 48 -- Basic rule
  
  In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.

ALL "protected persons" are "civilians," --- BUT NOT ALL "civilians" are "protected persons".

Most Respectfully,
R

It's called Palestinian mentality. Comes from being around too many Palestinian terrorist lovers for too long.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,

You always (always - always) get this wrong.

Indeed, that is probably why the nationals of an occupying power are not considered protected persons (civilians) by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

(COMMENT)

While it is true that nationals of the occupation power are not covered under the Article 4 of the Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949; they are covered by both RULE #1 Customary IHL and Articles 68, with "the principle of distinction between combatants and civilians codified in Articles 48, 51(2) and 52(2) of Additional Protocol I, to which no reservations have been made. According to Additional Protocol I, “attacks” means “acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offence or in defence”."

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Definition of civilians and civilian population:

Article 50 -- Definition of civilians and civilian population

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

• 
  Article 43 -- Armed forces
  
  
  1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, ' inter alia ', shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
  2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 [ Link ] of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.
  3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.​

2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.​

"The prohibition on directing attacks against civilians is also laid down in Protocol II, Amended Protocol II and Protocol III to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and in the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel landmines. In addition, under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities” [ICC-RS Part II Article 8(2b)i] constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts."

Rule 1 - Customary International Humanitarian Law.

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.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

The Basic rule

• Article 48 -- Basic rule
  
  In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.

ALL "protected persons" are "civilians," --- BUT NOT ALL "civilians" are "protected persons".

Most Respectfully,
R

Why would they specifically be removed from protection in one area if they remained protected elsewhere?

What would be the point?

You don't make any sense.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore,

You always (always - always) get this wrong.

Indeed, that is probably why the nationals of an occupying power are not considered protected persons (civilians) by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

(COMMENT)

While it is true that nationals of the occupation power are not covered under the Article 4 of the Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949; they are covered by both RULE #1 Customary IHL and Articles 68, with "the principle of distinction between combatants and civilians codified in Articles 48, 51(2) and 52(2) of Additional Protocol I, to which no reservations have been made. According to Additional Protocol I, “attacks” means “acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offence or in defence”."

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Definition of civilians and civilian population:

Article 50 -- Definition of civilians and civilian population

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

• 
  Article 43 -- Armed forces
  
  
  1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, ' inter alia ', shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
  2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 [ Link ] of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.
  3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.​

2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.​

"The prohibition on directing attacks against civilians is also laid down in Protocol II, Amended Protocol II and Protocol III to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and in the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel landmines. In addition, under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities” [ICC-RS Part II Article 8(2b)i] constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts."

Rule 1 - Customary International Humanitarian Law.

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.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

The Basic rule

• Article 48 -- Basic rule
  
  In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.

ALL "protected persons" are "civilians," --- BUT NOT ALL "civilians" are "protected persons".

Most Respectfully,
R

Why would they specifically be removed from protection in one area if they remained protected elsewhere?

What would be the point?

You don't make any sense.

No, you don't make any sense. The citizens of Israel are not living in occupied territory, so it does not apply. Very simple.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You cannot kill civilians. Write that 100 times. It is a basic Rule; albeit --- hard for Palestinians to understand.

Why would they specifically be removed from protection in one area if they remained protected elsewhere?

What would be the point?

You don't make any sense.

(COMMENT)

"Protected Persons" come under a different set of rules than do other "civilians."

Article 8 --- War crimes
2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:

• 
  (b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
  • 
    (i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
    (ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
    (iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

It is what it is. I know that the moral values behind the Arab Palestinian are questionable, but for crying out loud, don't advocate for something that is blantantly against international law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You cannot kill civilians. Write that 100 times. It is a basic Rule; albeit --- hard for Palestinians to understand.

Why would they specifically be removed from protection in one area if they remained protected elsewhere?

What would be the point?

You don't make any sense.

(COMMENT)

"Protected Persons" come under a different set of rules than do other "civilians."

Article 8 --- War crimes
2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:

• 
  (b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
  • 
    (i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
    (ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
    (iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

It is what it is. I know that the moral values behind the Arab Palestinian are questionable, but for crying out loud, don't advocate for something that is blantantly against international law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why is it that the Israelis can't understand that you can't kill civilians?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You cannot kill civilians. Write that 100 times. It is a basic Rule; albeit --- hard for Palestinians to understand.

Why would they specifically be removed from protection in one area if they remained protected elsewhere?

What would be the point?

You don't make any sense.

(COMMENT)

"Protected Persons" come under a different set of rules than do other "civilians."

Article 8 --- War crimes
2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:

• 
  (b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
  • 
    (i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
    (ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
    (iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

It is what it is. I know that the moral values behind the Arab Palestinian are questionable, but for crying out loud, don't advocate for something that is blantantly against international law.

Most Respectfully,
R

You didn't answer the questions.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

The laws were written because there are people like you and P F Tinmore that cannot apply the rules of Chivalry; that just don't have the where-with-all to understand that on the battlefield or in a zone of occupation, you are going to run into all different kinds and classes of people.

Why is it that the Israelis can't understand that you can't kill civilians?

(COMMENT)

In Tinmore's case, he doesn't understand that an Armed Force doesn't occupy its own territory (that would be Martial Law). It occupies another nations territory. The people in both cases are subject to protections under the law. The people (not taking part in the occupation or conflict) of the nation that does the occupation are civilians and subject to their home laws. The people in occupied territory are subject to international laws governing their protection. Two different sets of protections and tow different sets of laws.

Any Palestinian that attacks the Occupation Force (people, installation, property, etc) are subject to prosecution under the Geneva Code.

Relative to the collateral casualties:

There is no one law that covers the protection of civilians; but a set of (161) interlocking laws that effects that protection. In the case of collateral casualties, the works like this.

• You cannot intentionally target civilians not taking part in the conflict. (Rule 1)
• The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks that needlessly endanger civilian lives. (Rule 11)
• Each party to the conflict must do everything feasible to verify that targets are military objectives. (Rule 16)
• Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited. (Rule 14)
• Prohibition of "Area Bombardment" of populated areas (AKA: Carpet Bombing). (Rule 13)
• In the conduct of military operations, constant care must be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects. All feasible precautions must be taken to avoid, and in any event to minimize, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects. (Rule 15)
• Each party to the conflict must give effective advance warning of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit. (Rule 20)

It is important to remember that unlike the Hostile Arab Palestinian, Jihadist, Resistance Movements, etc... Israel attempts to follow these (and many more) rules in earnest. The HoAP is known to:

• Intentionally target civilians and advocate the continued targeting of civilians.
• Fire rockets and mortars indiscriminately towards civilians.
• Never verifies targets for to reduce civilian casualties.
• Launches attacks with no direct military advantage.
• No constant care to spare civilians.
• No advanced warning.

In the conflict, there will always be mistakes. But the intentional attacks upon a civilian life which may cause death, attacks upon the physical integrity of a civilians not involve in hostilities, kidnapping or hostage taking of innocents, causing extensive destruction to public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss, and the seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport, for the purpose of coercing a nation to submit to a political agenda, is not in keeping with either international laws of the territorial laws of the nation in which the crimes were committed.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

The laws were written because there are people like you and P F Tinmore that cannot apply the rules of Chivalry; that just don't have the where-with-all to understand that on the battlefield or in a zone of occupation, you are going to run into all different kinds and classes of people.

Why is it that the Israelis can't understand that you can't kill civilians?

(COMMENT)

In Tinmore's case, he doesn't understand that an Armed Force doesn't occupy its own territory (that would be Martial Law). It occupies another nations territory. The people in both cases are subject to protections under the law. The people (not taking part in the occupation or conflict) of the nation that does the occupation are civilians and subject to their home laws. The people in occupied territory are subject to international laws governing their protection. Two different sets of protections and tow different sets of laws.

Any Palestinian that attacks the Occupation Force (people, installation, property, etc) are subject to prosecution under the Geneva Code.

Relative to the collateral casualties:

There is no one law that covers the protection of civilians; but a set of (161) interlocking laws that effects that protection. In the case of collateral casualties, the works like this.

• You cannot intentionally target civilians not taking part in the conflict. (Rule 1)
• The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks that needlessly endanger civilian lives. (Rule 11)
• Each party to the conflict must do everything feasible to verify that targets are military objectives. (Rule 16)
• Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited. (Rule 14)
• Prohibition of "Area Bombardment" of populated areas (AKA: Carpet Bombing). (Rule 13)
• In the conduct of military operations, constant care must be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects. All feasible precautions must be taken to avoid, and in any event to minimize, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects. (Rule 15)
• Each party to the conflict must give effective advance warning of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit. (Rule 20)

It is important to remember that unlike the Hostile Arab Palestinian, Jihadist, Resistance Movements, etc... Israel attempts to follow these (and many more) rules in earnest. The HoAP is known to:

• Intentionally target civilians and advocate the continued targeting of civilians.
• Fire rockets and mortars indiscriminately towards civilians.
• Never verifies targets for to reduce civilian casualties.
• Launches attacks with no direct military advantage.
• No constant care to spare civilians.
• No advanced warning.

In the conflict, there will always be mistakes. But the intentional attacks upon a civilian life which may cause death, attacks upon the physical integrity of a civilians not involve in hostilities, kidnapping or hostage taking of innocents, causing extensive destruction to public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss, and the seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport, for the purpose of coercing a nation to submit to a political agenda, is not in keeping with either international laws of the territorial laws of the nation in which the crimes were committed.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are still ducking my question.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,

What specifically are you driving at in your question?

You are still ducking my question.

(COMMENT)

Is it you cannot tell the difference between the two types of civilians?

Is it you don't understand the legal standard?

Is it you don't understand that it is improper to target civilian of any type that are not participating in the conflict?

What is it you are not grasping here?

v/r
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,

What specifically are you driving at in your question?

You are still ducking my question.

(COMMENT)

Is it you cannot tell the difference between the two types of civilians?

Is it you don't understand the legal standard?

Is it you don't understand that it is improper to target civilian of any type that are not participating in the conflict?

What is it you are not grasping here?

v/r
R

My original post was:

Why would they specifically be removed from protection in one area if they remained protected elsewhere?

What would be the point?

You don't make any sense.​

You have not addressed those questions

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confused.

P F Tinmore,

What specifically are you driving at in your question?

You are still ducking my question.

(COMMENT)

Is it you cannot tell the difference between the two types of civilians?

Is it you don't understand the legal standard?

Is it you don't understand that it is improper to target civilian of any type that are not participating in the conflict?

What is it you are not grasping here?

v/r
R

My original post was:

Why would they specifically be removed from protection in one area if they remained protected elsewhere?

What would be the point?

You don't make any sense.​

You have not addressed those questions

(COMMENT)


Q: Why would they specifically be removed from protection in one area if they remained protected elsewhere?

A: The law that prohibits the targeting of "civilians" not participating in a conflict is not restricted or delimited by an "area." As stated before:

The definition of civilians as persons who are not members of the armed forces is set forth in Article 50 of Additional Protocol I, to which no reservations have been made. It is also contained in numerous military manuals.[2] It is reflected in reported practice. This practice includes that of States not, or not at the time, party to Additional Protocol I.

Definition of civilians and civilian population

• 
  Article 50 [ Link ] -- Definition of civilians and civilian population
  
  1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.
  
  2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.
  
  3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.

The definition is not based on location or area. A "protected person" has limitation within the definition.

At a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of:

• A Party to the conflict; or
• Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.
Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

The Article 4, GCIV has nothing to do with locality, but rather "custody" (in the hands of).

One of the laws says you cannot target civilians and the other deals with the protections while in custody.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confused.

P F Tinmore,

What specifically are you driving at in your question?

You are still ducking my question.

(COMMENT)

Is it you cannot tell the difference between the two types of civilians?

Is it you don't understand the legal standard?

Is it you don't understand that it is improper to target civilian of any type that are not participating in the conflict?

What is it you are not grasping here?

v/r
R

My original post was:

Why would they specifically be removed from protection in one area if they remained protected elsewhere?

What would be the point?

You don't make any sense.​

You have not addressed those questions

(COMMENT)


Q: Why would they specifically be removed from protection in one area if they remained protected elsewhere?

A: The law that prohibits the targeting of "civilians" not participating in a conflict is not restricted or delimited by an "area." As stated before:

The definition of civilians as persons who are not members of the armed forces is set forth in Article 50 of Additional Protocol I, to which no reservations have been made. It is also contained in numerous military manuals.[2] It is reflected in reported practice. This practice includes that of States not, or not at the time, party to Additional Protocol I.

Definition of civilians and civilian population

• 
  Article 50 [ Link ] -- Definition of civilians and civilian population
  
  1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.
  
  2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.
  
  3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.

The definition is not based on location or area. A "protected person" has limitation within the definition.

At a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of:

• A Party to the conflict; or
• Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.
Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

The Article 4, GCIV has nothing to do with locality, but rather "custody" (in the hands of).

One of the laws says you cannot target civilians and the other deals with the protections while in custody.

Most Respectfully,
R

I may not have been clear. By area I meant area of the law not a geographical location.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

The laws were written because there are people like you and P F Tinmore that cannot apply the rules of Chivalry; that just don't have the where-with-all to understand that on the battlefield or in a zone of occupation, you are going to run into all different kinds and classes of people.

Why is it that the Israelis can't understand that you can't kill civilians?

(COMMENT)

In Tinmore's case, he doesn't understand that an Armed Force doesn't occupy its own territory (that would be Martial Law). It occupies another nations territory. The people in both cases are subject to protections under the law. The people (not taking part in the occupation or conflict) of the nation that does the occupation are civilians and subject to their home laws. The people in occupied territory are subject to international laws governing their protection. Two different sets of protections and tow different sets of laws.

Any Palestinian that attacks the Occupation Force (people, installation, property, etc) are subject to prosecution under the Geneva Code.

Relative to the collateral casualties:

There is no one law that covers the protection of civilians; but a set of (161) interlocking laws that effects that protection. In the case of collateral casualties, the works like this.

• You cannot intentionally target civilians not taking part in the conflict. (Rule 1)
• The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks that needlessly endanger civilian lives. (Rule 11)
• Each party to the conflict must do everything feasible to verify that targets are military objectives. (Rule 16)
• Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited. (Rule 14)
• Prohibition of "Area Bombardment" of populated areas (AKA: Carpet Bombing). (Rule 13)
• In the conduct of military operations, constant care must be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects. All feasible precautions must be taken to avoid, and in any event to minimize, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects. (Rule 15)
• Each party to the conflict must give effective advance warning of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit. (Rule 20)

It is important to remember that unlike the Hostile Arab Palestinian, Jihadist, Resistance Movements, etc... Israel attempts to follow these (and many more) rules in earnest. The HoAP is known to:

• Intentionally target civilians and advocate the continued targeting of civilians.
• Fire rockets and mortars indiscriminately towards civilians.
• Never verifies targets for to reduce civilian casualties.
• Launches attacks with no direct military advantage.
• No constant care to spare civilians.
• No advanced warning.

In the conflict, there will always be mistakes. But the intentional attacks upon a civilian life which may cause death, attacks upon the physical integrity of a civilians not involve in hostilities, kidnapping or hostage taking of innocents, causing extensive destruction to public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss, and the seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport, for the purpose of coercing a nation to submit to a political agenda, is not in keeping with either international laws of the territorial laws of the nation in which the crimes were committed.

Most Respectfully,
R

No Rocco, you are just full of shit and a racist. Israeli Jews kill thousands of Christian and Muslim civilians on a regular basis. You, being a southern Italian of Arab heritage, are simply a self hating Arab. It's that simple.