Civilians vs Combatents

[Hollie]

What's a civilian? What's a combatent? Is it EVER ok to target civilians? If you target a military installation, knowing there will be huge civilian casualties...is that justified?

What about a civilian factory that produces components for weapons (or manufactures uniforms, food, etc for the military)? The factory is a legitimate military target and the civilian employees are by the very nature of their work contributing to the war effort. That makes them legitimate targets.

I think the pro-Islamic terrorist taqiyya movement types are intending to play off the Islamic terrorist slogan that because all Israelis will perform military duty, they are all military targets.

It does show the corruption of the convert mindset, especially for the converts waging their gee-had from behind their keyboard.

What the pro-Islamic terrorist taqiyya movement types don't understand is that if Israel chooses to abandon its practice of acting with measured responses to acts of Islamic terrorism and proceeds on the basis that all Arabs-Moslems occupying the disputed territories are military targets, the West Bank and Gaza could quickly become an Israeli shopping mall and parking lot.

 

[Hollie]

Civilians or combatants?

Someone, of course, is now going to post the predictable pictures of Palestinian children...as if somehow trying to justify designating children as legitimate targets.

That is seriously sick.

Blaming the parents for the actions of terrorists (not freedom fighters) who deliberately choose to target children is not much better. There is no excuse for targeting children.

I never said there was.

I responded to Shusha's question, "What makes a civilian a civilian?" In the case of Zionist Israel, a very large proportion of the population are military reservists or active IDF members. The photographs pose the question, are they legitimate targets and if so, are they using their unarmed fellow citizens as human shields, a charge often made against Palestinians? RoccoR will doubtless give us all the "legal definition" according to whatever convention applies, so I won't waste my time on that.

I deliberately avoided posting pictures of children carrying and/or playing with weapons as I agree that such pictures are no justification at all to target children.

The two pictures at the end, however pose another quandary; who would be responsible for the death and injury to the children depicted should a Palestinian mortar or rocket hit the artillery position (Gaza) or the tank (Golan Heights)? The shooter or the parents/soldiers who allowed the children to be there in a conflict zone the first place?

What matters in my mind...is intent. If the intent is to target and kill children, or if the intent is an indiscrimminate strike targeting civilian areas, regardless of where they are - are they suddenly not civilians?

As to who is responsible for civilians living in contested areas - that's tricky. IMO, until it's resolved and borders drawn, responsibility lies with the government controlling the territory and allowing civilians to live there. Likewise - who is responsible for civilian deaths when Gaza is struck? Is it the Israeli's? Or is it the government that allows rockets to be fired into Israeli civilian areas?

"Intent" by itself is only one of the features.
Every suspect (by law) has at least two of the following three -
1.Intent
2.Capability
3.Weapon
Upon having all three (which can happen in a second) the suspect must be neutralized.
If not all three exist then there is a special procedure for suspects.
(*Side note - none of the people in the pictures actually have a loaded weapon)
That is the law in Israel, wanna know what is the law in Gaza? Please tell me because I don't have a clue.

Laws passed by the PLC in 1999:

It is legal for Palestine to manufacture and import weapons.

Palestinians have the right to bear arms.

Islamic terrorists passing "laws".

Now that's funny.

 

[Challenger]

Civilians or combatants?

Someone, of course, is now going to post the predictable pictures of Palestinian children...as if somehow trying to justify designating children as legitimate targets.

That is seriously sick.

Blaming the parents for the actions of terrorists (not freedom fighters) who deliberately choose to target children is not much better. There is no excuse for targeting children.

I never said there was.

I responded to Shusha's question, "What makes a civilian a civilian?" In the case of Zionist Israel, a very large proportion of the population are military reservists or active IDF members. The photographs pose the question, are they legitimate targets and if so, are they using their unarmed fellow citizens as human shields, a charge often made against Palestinians? RoccoR will doubtless give us all the "legal definition" according to whatever convention applies, so I won't waste my time on that.

I deliberately avoided posting pictures of children carrying and/or playing with weapons as I agree that such pictures are no justification at all to target children.

The two pictures at the end, however pose another quandary; who would be responsible for the death and injury to the children depicted should a Palestinian mortar or rocket hit the artillery position (Gaza) or the tank (Golan Heights)? The shooter or the parents/soldiers who allowed the children to be there in a conflict zone the first place?

What matters in my mind...is intent. If the intent is to target and kill children, or if the intent is an indiscrimminate strike targeting civilian areas, regardless of where they are - are they suddenly not civilians?

As to who is responsible for civilians living in contested areas - that's tricky. IMO, until it's resolved and borders drawn, responsibility lies with the government controlling the territory and allowing civilians to live there. Likewise - who is responsible for civilian deaths when Gaza is struck? Is it the Israeli's? Or is it the government that allows rockets to be fired into Israeli civilian areas?

"Intent" by itself is only one of the features.
Every suspect (by law) has at least two of the following three -
1.Intent
2.Capability
3.Weapon
Upon having all three (which can happen in a second) the suspect must be neutralized.
If not all three exist then there is a special procedure for suspects.
(*Side note - none of the people in the pictures actually have a loaded weapon)
That is the law in Israel, wanna know what is the law in Gaza? Please tell me because I don't have a clue.

Laws passed by the PLC in 1999:

It is legal for Palestine to manufacture and import weapons.

Palestinians have the right to bear arms.

If the Zionists had their way it would be the right to bare arms, and then only grudgingly.

 

[Shusha]

Drivel.

Zionist Israeli settlers have alway been considered illegal settlers, if they carry arms (as just about all of them seem to do) and use them against civillians; either to kill or to intimidate, that turns them from "civilians" to "combatants" and thus fair game.

Ah, no. If Jewish Israeli citizens living in Area C fire weapons on civilians, unprovoked, they would be terrorists. If Jewish Israeli citizens living in Area C fire weapons, provoked, they would be defending themselves.

(Provocation meaning being physically attacked themselves).

The possession of a gun, of itself, does not make one a combatant.

 

[Coyote]

Drivel.

Zionist Israeli settlers have alway been considered illegal settlers, if they carry arms (as just about all of them seem to do) and use them against civillians; either to kill or to intimidate, that turns them from "civilians" to "combatants" and thus fair game.

Ah, no. If Jewish Israeli citizens living in Area C fire weapons on civilians, unprovoked, they would be terrorists. If Jewish Israeli citizens living in Area C fire weapons, provoked, they would be defending themselves.

(Provocation meaning being physically attacked themselves).

The possession of a gun, of itself, does not make one a combatant.

Then, does that mean that Gazan civilians, firing weapons in response to an attack by Israel, are defending themselves?

 

[Shusha]

Then, does that mean that Gazan civilians, firing weapons in response to an attack by Israel, are defending themselves?

Of course. Why would you think I would answer differently? EVERYONE has the right to defend themselves when being attacked. And every country (or wanna-be country) has a right to protect its sovereignty (or wanna-be sovereignty).

But Israel does not instigate attacks against Gaza. Israel responds against attacks from Gaza. And Israel is not attempting to remove the Palestinists sovereignty in Gaza, but only to prevent further attacks on Israel, thus protecting Israel's sovereignty and citizens.

Every action Israel has taken against Gaza since its withdrawal in 2005 has been an act of defense against harm to her citizens or her sovereignty. Every attack by Gaza has been an affront to Israel's citizens or sovereignty.

 

[Coyote]

Then, does that mean that Gazan civilians, firing weapons in response to an attack by Israel, are defending themselves?

Of course. Why would you think I would answer differently? EVERYONE has the right to defend themselves when being attacked. And every country (or wanna-be country) has a right to protect its sovereignty (or wanna-be sovereignty).

But Israel does not instigate attacks against Gaza. Israel responds against attacks from Gaza. And Israel is not attempting to remove the Palestinists sovereignty in Gaza, but only to prevent further attacks on Israel, thus protecting Israel's sovereignty and citizens.

Every action Israel has taken against Gaza since its withdrawal in 2005 has been an act of defense against harm to her citizens or her sovereignty. Every attack by Gaza has been an affront to Israel's citizens or sovereignty.

Every time Israel militarily enters Gaza, regardless of the reason - Gazan civilians do have the right to defend themselves - but if they do, they are labeled "combatents". I think these distinctions have the ability to get very murky.

 

[Shusha]

Every time Israel militarily enters Gaza, regardless of the reason - Gazan civilians do have the right to defend themselves - but if they do, they are labeled "combatents". I think these distinctions have the ability to get very murky.

Sure. When Israel militarily enters Gaza (which she does only in order to defend herself against belligerent attacks) Gazans have the right to defend themselves (keeping in mind they are the instigator and thus responsible for the consequences of the instigation). And Israel has a right to defend themselves against that attack. Everyone has the right defend themselves when attacked.

And yes, if a civilian actively assists in the acts of war and violence -- he/she becomes a combatant. If he/she leaves the battlefield, he/she remains a civilian and is protected. I don't understand how this is murky. If you fight, you are a combatant. If you choose not to fight, you are a civilian.

 

[RoccoR]

Shusha, Challenger, et al,

Well, --- you have to think about this with a little more detail. You have to think about this with a clear eye.

Drivel. Zionist Israeli settlers have alway been considered illegal settlers,

(COMMENT)

Yes, but are they really? And even if this was true (no legal finding one way or the other), some complaints can be placed on a different level all together through mitigation and negotiation. Most complainers seem to make a big leap. On the record (1993/1995), the entire issue of "settlements" was placed --- included --- to the Oslo Accords (Permanent Status of Negotiation).

Settlements, as an agreed upon protocol, within Area C under exclusive Israeli control. If there were to be a dispute to develop, there was a "Dispute Resolution Process" agreed upon.

The Arab-Palestinians never activated the "Dispute Resolution Process."

IF Area "C" is under exclusive Israeli control, that has not been contested by any Arab Palestinian faction using the agreed upon protocols, THEN the exclusive control granted by the Arab Palestinian provides the proper authority.

The legitimacy of the OSLO is established in a multitude of ways. But none of them holds a candle to International Recognition:

EXCERPT: Presentation Speech by Francis Sejersted, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee
In the committee's view, the so-called Oslo Accords2 concluded last year between Israel and the PLO meant that developments in the Middle East had taken a new turning. What was revolutionary about them was the de facto mutual recognition by the two parties. Not least by virtue of that recognition, the accords opened up a possible way out of the vicious circle of violence breeding violence, and towards peaceful co-existence.
​

if they carry arms (as just about all of them seem to do) and use them against civilians);

(COMMENT)

All types of people carry firearms that are not considered "armed forces or combatants." Police, criminals, and other for security and personal protection. The definition of a civilian and member of an armed force

If Jewish Israeli citizens living in Area C fire weapons, provoked, they would be defending themselves.

(Provocation meaning being physically attacked themselves).

The possession of a gun, of itself, does not make one a combatant.

(COMMENT)

Self-defense and events of provocation are matters for a case-by-case operational or area security incident investigations. Anyone that questions "provocation" must have information of a detail that describes the event in a evidentiary manner.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Shusha, Challenger, et al,

Well, --- you have to think about this with a little more detail. You have to think about this with a clear eye.

Drivel. Zionist Israeli settlers have alway been considered illegal settlers,

(COMMENT)

Yes, but are they really? And even if this was true (no legal finding one way or the other), some complaints can be placed on a different level all together through mitigation and negotiation. Most complainers seem to make a big leap. On the record (1993/1995), the entire issue of "settlements" was placed --- included --- to the Oslo Accords (Permanent Status of Negotiation).

Settlements, as an agreed upon protocol, within Area C under exclusive Israeli control. If there were to be a dispute to develop, there was a "Dispute Resolution Process" agreed upon.

The Arab-Palestinians never activated the "Dispute Resolution Process."

IF Area "C" is under exclusive Israeli control, that has not been contested by any Arab Palestinian faction using the agreed upon protocols, THEN the exclusive control granted by the Arab Palestinian provides the proper authority.

The legitimacy of the OSLO is established in a multitude of ways. But none of them holds a candle to International Recognition:

View attachment 77488
EXCERPT: Presentation Speech by Francis Sejersted, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee
In the committee's view, the so-called Oslo Accords2 concluded last year between Israel and the PLO meant that developments in the Middle East had taken a new turning. What was revolutionary about them was the de facto mutual recognition by the two parties. Not least by virtue of that recognition, the accords opened up a possible way out of the vicious circle of violence breeding violence, and towards peaceful co-existence.
​

if they carry arms (as just about all of them seem to do) and use them against civilians);

(COMMENT)

All types of people carry firearms that are not considered "armed forces or combatants." Police, criminals, and other for security and personal protection. The definition of a civilian and member of an armed force

If Jewish Israeli citizens living in Area C fire weapons, provoked, they would be defending themselves.

(Provocation meaning being physically attacked themselves).

The possession of a gun, of itself, does not make one a combatant.

(COMMENT)

Self-defense and events of provocation are matters for a case-by-case operational or area security incident investigations. Anyone that questions "provocation" must have information of a detail that describes the event in a evidentiary manner.

Most Respectfully,
R

Self-defense and events of provocation are matters...​

Occupation/colonization is not an event. It is a violent and aggressive process. It is 24/7 violence.

Anything the Palestinians do is a response.

 

[Hollie]

Shusha, Challenger, et al,

Well, --- you have to think about this with a little more detail. You have to think about this with a clear eye.

Drivel. Zionist Israeli settlers have alway been considered illegal settlers,

(COMMENT)

Yes, but are they really? And even if this was true (no legal finding one way or the other), some complaints can be placed on a different level all together through mitigation and negotiation. Most complainers seem to make a big leap. On the record (1993/1995), the entire issue of "settlements" was placed --- included --- to the Oslo Accords (Permanent Status of Negotiation).

Settlements, as an agreed upon protocol, within Area C under exclusive Israeli control. If there were to be a dispute to develop, there was a "Dispute Resolution Process" agreed upon.

The Arab-Palestinians never activated the "Dispute Resolution Process."

IF Area "C" is under exclusive Israeli control, that has not been contested by any Arab Palestinian faction using the agreed upon protocols, THEN the exclusive control granted by the Arab Palestinian provides the proper authority.

The legitimacy of the OSLO is established in a multitude of ways. But none of them holds a candle to International Recognition:

View attachment 77488
EXCERPT: Presentation Speech by Francis Sejersted, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee
In the committee's view, the so-called Oslo Accords2 concluded last year between Israel and the PLO meant that developments in the Middle East had taken a new turning. What was revolutionary about them was the de facto mutual recognition by the two parties. Not least by virtue of that recognition, the accords opened up a possible way out of the vicious circle of violence breeding violence, and towards peaceful co-existence.
​

if they carry arms (as just about all of them seem to do) and use them against civilians);

(COMMENT)

All types of people carry firearms that are not considered "armed forces or combatants." Police, criminals, and other for security and personal protection. The definition of a civilian and member of an armed force

If Jewish Israeli citizens living in Area C fire weapons, provoked, they would be defending themselves.

(Provocation meaning being physically attacked themselves).

The possession of a gun, of itself, does not make one a combatant.

(COMMENT)

Self-defense and events of provocation are matters for a case-by-case operational or area security incident investigations. Anyone that questions "provocation" must have information of a detail that describes the event in a evidentiary manner.

Most Respectfully,
R

Self-defense and events of provocation are matters...​

Occupation/colonization is not an event. It is a violent and aggressive process. It is 24/7 violence.

Anything the Palestinians do is a response.

Actually, no.

The Hamas charter is a statement of offensive gee-had. You should familiarize youself with the islamo-fascist concept of waqf. That term is used explicitly in the islamo-fascist charter that whines incessantly about islamo-supremacy and the continuing failure of Islamism to achieve its goals.

 

[montelatici]

Hamas is one Palestinian party. The Likud party's ZioNazi charter is similar in asserting Jewish supremacy over non-Jews.

 

[Hollie]

Hamas is one Palestinian party. The Likud party's ZioNazi charter is similar in asserting Jewish supremacy over non-Jews.

Another of your silly attempts at analogy.

The Likud party is one political entity within a framework of a representative government.

The Hamas Islamic terrorists rule by force of threat and intimidation and have complete control over a population that has no effective voice of dissent.

Flailing your Pom Poms for Islamic terrorists is hilarious.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, there is a difference between what an "Occupation" is -- and the definition of "Aggression." You are merely trying to justify the use of terrorism and the targeting of civilians by drawing on sympathy.

Similarly, there is a difference between "colonization" (A/RES/3314) on behalf of a foreign power, "Colonial Countries" and Peoples (A/RES/15/1514), and the authorized "immigration" by the government holding title and rights to the territory.

(COMMENT)​

Self-defense and events of provocation are matters for a case-by-case operational or area security incident investigations. Anyone that questions "provocation" must have information of a detail that describes the event in a evidentiary manner.

Occupation/colonization is not an event. It is a violent and aggressive process. It is 24/7 violence.

Anything the Palestinians do is a response.

(COMMENT)

Actually not.

The conflict and disruption within the territory Israeli occupied from the Egyptians, and the territory annexed by the Jordanian, is a direct cause of the ArabPalestinian opposing peace, stability and security.

• The Committee 24 already has indicated that Palestine (any part it) is not applicable for implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960).

• The "Occupation" was not established with the Arab Palestinians. The Issues of Aggression, if there were actually any issues, was resolved by Treaty.
​

The Arab Palestinians have no real record of being peaceful or cooperative, even with the Jordanians that came to their rescue (for the last 100 years). The non-consensual nature of the belligerent occupation was a natural and logical outcome of the hostile diplomacy and the total disregard of customary IHL; particularly after the Armistice period; beginning 1949.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Challenger]

Yes, but are they really?

Yes, according to the Israeli Supreme Court, the ICJ, the UNGA, the UNSC and the world in general.

 

[Challenger]

Shusha, Challenger, et al,

Well, --- you have to think about this with a little more detail. You have to think about this with a clear eye.

Drivel. Zionist Israeli settlers have alway been considered illegal settlers,

(COMMENT)

Yes, but are they really? And even if this was true (no legal finding one way or the other), some complaints can be placed on a different level all together through mitigation and negotiation. Most complainers seem to make a big leap. On the record (1993/1995), the entire issue of "settlements" was placed --- included --- to the Oslo Accords (Permanent Status of Negotiation).

Settlements, as an agreed upon protocol, within Area C under exclusive Israeli control. If there were to be a dispute to develop, there was a "Dispute Resolution Process" agreed upon.

The Arab-Palestinians never activated the "Dispute Resolution Process."

IF Area "C" is under exclusive Israeli control, that has not been contested by any Arab Palestinian faction using the agreed upon protocols, THEN the exclusive control granted by the Arab Palestinian provides the proper authority.

The legitimacy of the OSLO is established in a multitude of ways. But none of them holds a candle to International Recognition:

View attachment 77488
EXCERPT: Presentation Speech by Francis Sejersted, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee
In the committee's view, the so-called Oslo Accords2 concluded last year between Israel and the PLO meant that developments in the Middle East had taken a new turning. What was revolutionary about them was the de facto mutual recognition by the two parties. Not least by virtue of that recognition, the accords opened up a possible way out of the vicious circle of violence breeding violence, and towards peaceful co-existence.
​

if they carry arms (as just about all of them seem to do) and use them against civilians);

(COMMENT)

All types of people carry firearms that are not considered "armed forces or combatants." Police, criminals, and other for security and personal protection. The definition of a civilian and member of an armed force

If Jewish Israeli citizens living in Area C fire weapons, provoked, they would be defending themselves.

(Provocation meaning being physically attacked themselves).

The possession of a gun, of itself, does not make one a combatant.

(COMMENT)

Self-defense and events of provocation are matters for a case-by-case operational or area security incident investigations. Anyone that questions "provocation" must have information of a detail that describes the event in a evidentiary manner.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Oslo Accords have lapsed, or hadn't you heard? Anyone carrying arms during hostilities, in uniform or not, is not a "protected person" so is therfore a "combatant"

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

Settlements Rulings have been individual or sometimes, in multiples depending on the relationships they have to each other.

Yes, but are they really?

Yes, according to the Israeli Supreme Court, the ICJ, the UNGA, the UNSC and the world in general.

(REFERENCE)

Israel's top court orders West Bank settlement demolished
Los Angeles Times
Israel’s Supreme Court has ordered the government to demolish the West Bank settlement of Amona within two years and relocate its 300 Jewish residents, moving to end a years-long legal battle.

Israeli Supreme Court Rejects Compromise
Israel's High Court of Justice rejected a compromise deal between the state and residents of the West Bank outpost of Migron on Sunday, an agreement that would have prevented Israel from having to dismantle the settlement following a Supreme Court ruling.
read more: Israel Supreme Court rejects compromise deal on West Bank settlement of Migron

Israeli Court Rules Against Illegal Settlement
Migron is an unauthorized Israeli outpost located on privately held Palestinian land in the West Bank. Israeli “ultranationalists” settled Migron illegally in 2001. The Israeli supreme court has now ruled that its government must evacuate Migron by August 1, 2012. But Palestinians are still skeptical that the ruling will be carried out. According to the Palestinian authority, Migron is one of many illegal Israeli-outpost settlements that are supposed to be evacuated.

Israeli Court Orders Three West Bank Settlements Demolished
ULPANA, Beit El, Occupied West Bank - The European Union this week continued the international condemnation of Israel's policy of building settlements in largely Palestinian areas. The enclaves are a stumbling block to restarting peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians. But in a minor win for Palestinians, an Israeli court has ordered three small West Bank settlements to be demolished after ruling they were illegal.
​

(COMMENT)

The Israeli Supreme Court has not ruled, as you imply, that ALL settlements are illegal. But there have been a dozen or so ordered demolished.

The ICJ, in its "Advisory Opinion" concluded that the "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law;" contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention which provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” HOWEVER, the ICJ did not have a hearing on the issue of the Settlements.

No question, there are a number of UN Security Council Resolution that can be interpreted as condemning the State of Israel. Collectively, the UN the Security Council and the ICJ/ICC are all related. And Just as it is --- one decision from any one of those entities, is merely repeated in a different form, from an adjacent International activity. But let there be no mistake, the fact that the International Community has, for the last 7 decades, consistently exercise their discretion, which is the power to choose whether or not to condemn or convict the Jewish National Home of some violated the law; is misfeasance on the part of the body and malfeasance on the part of the courts.

• Collectively, the international bodies have made NO attempt to avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

• The ICJ/ICC have allowed their procedures to be used bothe in terms of propaganda and as a weapon for extending improper influences from business, family, position, party, or person.

• The international community and court made no attempt to avoid activities that would impugn the dignity of the the law. The Palestinians are encouraged, and indeed in some ways facilitated, in the commission of violations in Customary and International Humanitarian Law, and to pursue criminal acts in violation of the Laws of Armed Conflict; while at the same time launching criminal investigations against Israel and the Jewish National Home (JNH). This is known as SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT and a symptom of a corrupt system.
​

Your post only adds to the justification that Israel should continue to maintain, strengthen and improve security countermeasures designed to protect and preserve the Jewish National Home described a century ago in the Balfour Declaration.

The events, in recent times, when the JNH is besieged by multiple facets within the International Community, may at some point it becomes necessary for a member nation preserving the JNH to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with the United Nations and to separate from that body to initiate a new and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and common sense apply. That waypoint is coming ever closer to a reality, not just for Israel, but a number of nations wherein there is no further benefit to the affiliation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, there is a difference between what an "Occupation" is -- and the definition of "Aggression." You are merely trying to justify the use of terrorism and the targeting of civilians by drawing on sympathy.

Similarly, there is a difference between "colonization" (A/RES/3314) on behalf of a foreign power, "Colonial Countries" and Peoples (A/RES/15/1514), and the authorized "immigration" by the government holding title and rights to the territory.

(COMMENT)​

Self-defense and events of provocation are matters for a case-by-case operational or area security incident investigations. Anyone that questions "provocation" must have information of a detail that describes the event in a evidentiary manner.

Occupation/colonization is not an event. It is a violent and aggressive process. It is 24/7 violence.

Anything the Palestinians do is a response.

(COMMENT)

Actually not.

The conflict and disruption within the territory Israeli occupied from the Egyptians, and the territory annexed by the Jordanian, is a direct cause of the ArabPalestinian opposing peace, stability and security.

• The Committee 24 already has indicated that Palestine (any part it) is not applicable for implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960).

• The "Occupation" was not established with the Arab Palestinians. The Issues of Aggression, if there were actually any issues, was resolved by Treaty.
​

The Arab Palestinians have no real record of being peaceful or cooperative, even with the Jordanians that came to their rescue (for the last 100 years). The non-consensual nature of the belligerent occupation was a natural and logical outcome of the hostile diplomacy and the total disregard of customary IHL; particularly after the Armistice period; beginning 1949.

Most Respectfully,
R

Great link, thanks. A/RES/29/3314 - Definition of Aggression - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements

It is a virtually perfect description of Israel's occupation of Palestine in1948.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, there is a difference between what an "Occupation" is -- and the definition of "Aggression." You are merely trying to justify the use of terrorism and the targeting of civilians by drawing on sympathy.

Similarly, there is a difference between "colonization" (A/RES/3314) on behalf of a foreign power, "Colonial Countries" and Peoples (A/RES/15/1514), and the authorized "immigration" by the government holding title and rights to the territory.

(COMMENT)​

Self-defense and events of provocation are matters for a case-by-case operational or area security incident investigations. Anyone that questions "provocation" must have information of a detail that describes the event in a evidentiary manner.

Occupation/colonization is not an event. It is a violent and aggressive process. It is 24/7 violence.

Anything the Palestinians do is a response.

(COMMENT)

Actually not.

The conflict and disruption within the territory Israeli occupied from the Egyptians, and the territory annexed by the Jordanian, is a direct cause of the ArabPalestinian opposing peace, stability and security.

• The Committee 24 already has indicated that Palestine (any part it) is not applicable for implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960).

• The "Occupation" was not established with the Arab Palestinians. The Issues of Aggression, if there were actually any issues, was resolved by Treaty.
​

The Arab Palestinians have no real record of being peaceful or cooperative, even with the Jordanians that came to their rescue (for the last 100 years). The non-consensual nature of the belligerent occupation was a natural and logical outcome of the hostile diplomacy and the total disregard of customary IHL; particularly after the Armistice period; beginning 1949.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco,

People that are being colonized by people from another continent, sanctioned and promoted by a foreign imperial colonial power, are not required to cooperate and welcome their dispossession.

No allied power had the right to undertake the invasion or colonization by non-inhabitants of the territory relinquished by the Central Powers. This was clearly stated in the Covenant of the League of Nations Article 22 to wit:

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

Watching you do the monkey see no evil, hear no evil thing is embarrassing when the legal point is clear.

The Covenant made it clear that the British *who signed the Covenant" were not permitted to harm the inhabitants by implementing a colonial project which would dispossess the native inhabitants.

Palestine's status as a non-self governing territory is addressed in separate UN resolutions and acts, specifically. As you well know.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, Article 22 does say that. But Article 22 was (literally) written by the Allied Powers in 1919 (nearly a century ago). And a century ago, the Allied Powers were involved in the Great War (WWI). Emerging out of that Great War were the Principle Allied Powers and the many new countries that were created.

Remember that 1949 Geneva Conventions (all) represent a significant piece to the international law and, establishes Rules of Conduct for parties engaged in armed conflict. The norms of humanitarian law require that violent acts be consonant with fundamental human rights. Two principles underlie the law:

√ First, “all peoples have a right to self-determination and ... a right to engage in revolution”; and

√ Second, “international law ... limits the permissibility of armed revolution and participation of individuals in revolutionary social violence.”
​

And it is this "second" part where we start to split apart. Wars/Conflicts (AIC/NAIC) of these general types come in several varieties containing profile characteristics:

(1) Struggles of peoples fighting a foreign invader or occupant;

(2) Those that have evolved within the UN and identified as colonial entities and non-self-governing institutions and/or racist regimes involved in an armed struggles aimed at resisting the imposition of governance;

(3) Dissident movements which take up arms to overthrow the government and the social order it stands for. Their members may consider themselves as a “liberation movement” waging a “war of national liberation” against a regime or government which masks or represents “alien domination;”

(4) Armed Struggle of dissident movements representing a component people which aims at seceding and creating a new State on part of the territory of the existing one.
​

People that are being colonized by people from another continent, sanctioned and promoted by a foreign imperial colonial power, are not required to cooperate and welcome their dispossession.

No allied power had the right to undertake the invasion or colonization by non-inhabitants of the territory relinquished by the Central Powers. This was clearly stated in the Covenant of the League of Nations Article 22 to wit:

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

Watching you do the monkey see no evil, hear no evil thing is embarrassing when the legal point is clear.

The Covenant made it clear that the British *who signed the Covenant" were not permitted to harm the inhabitants by implementing a colonial project which would dispossess the native inhabitants.

Palestine's status as a non-self governing territory is addressed in separate UN resolutions and acts, specifically. As you well know.

(COMMENT)

First, the easy one: There is no non-self-governing territory (NSGT) anywhere in the Middle East. The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960). The official UN NSGTs List is at the
Non-Self-Governing Territories List. Palestine IS NOT a NSGT,

You haven't made a legal point yet. Article 22 was written by the Applied Powers and for the use by the Allied Powers. It is not for the Arab Palestinians to determine what was in the best interest and well-being and development of such peoples. In fact, if you compare the Arab League to the State of Israel for composite statistics of life expectancy, education, and income per capita indicators, which are used to rank countries into four tiers of human development, you will find you will find that Israel (The Jewish State) is much farther along.

The occupied Palestinian territories (or the Palestinians in general) have not yet demonstrated that they were "able to stand alone" [Article 22(4)]; as evidenced by the amount of donor contributions.

Most Respectfully,
R