corrupt US government blocks UN from having an independent investigation into 61 murdered palestines

[Hollie]

Israel only attacks Gazans when attacked or when the border is being violated via tunneling or attempts to cross it.
Stay on your side of the border and don't fire anything at Israel and you won't be shot.

The buffer zone is on their side of the border and you still killed 119 of them.

Who was the medic attacking when you killed her?

The majority of those gloriously martyred were Hamas flunkies.

The alleged "medic" was in a war zone created by islamics. War zones are dangerous places.

It's telling how you Islamic terrorist Pom Pom flailers screech with phony "outrage" surrounding the death of the so-called "medic". It's so contrived.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Well? Which is it?

Either people are allowed to have lethal weapons to use to defend themselves from people threatening to kill them.

OR

People have no right to use lethal weapons to defend themselves from people threatening to kill them.

You can't have it one way for the Palestinians and one way for the Israelis.

People can have lethal weapons to use to defend themselves from people trying to kill them. Israelis are actively trying to kill Gazans. Gazans have a right to have lethal weapons to defend themselves. If Gazans had Cobra gunships, I doubt Israeli snipers would've shot 119 Gazan protesters to death.

Israel only attacks Gazans when attacked or when the border is being violated via tunneling or attempts to cross it.
Stay on your side of the border and don't fire anything at Israel and you won't be shot.

any more lies and propaganda for the day that your boss has instructed you to post lately? comedy gold.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Except when they are.

Resisting the occupation of a foreign force, is not terrorism. Shooting at people fishing and farming, is.

which is the norm for Israel troops on palestine civillians.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: corrupt US government blocks UN from having an independent investigation into 61 murdered palestines
※→ Billo_Really, Shusha, et al,

Again, this is a twisting of facts designed to draw sympathy.

Terrorism has absolutely NO connection with an "occupation;" a "resistance," or a "foreign force." None of these conditions are necessary to define terrorism. We discussed this just recently in Posting #9 (RE: I guess these guys won't be moving their embassy anytime soon...).

Terrorism is often, though not always, defined in terms of four characteristics:

1. The threat or use of violence;
2. A political objective; the desire to change the status quo;
3. The intention to spread fear by committing spectacular public acts;
4. The intentional targeting of civilians. It is this last element - targeting innocent civilians - that stands out in efforts to distinguish state terrorism from other forms of state violence. Declaring war and sending the military to fight other militaries is not terrorism, nor is the use of violence to punish criminals who have been convicted of violent crimes.

However, the legality of a "resistance movement,"is governed under Customary and International Humanitarian Law and is punishable under Article 68 fo the Fourth Geneva Convention: (It is punishable because it violates the law.)

Protected persons [Arab Palestinians] who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power [Israel], but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offenses, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power [Israel], in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person [Arab Palestinians] only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power [Israel] or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began [Jordanian Law].

The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.

In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offense.

Except when they are.

Resisting the occupation of a foreign force, is not terrorism. Shooting at people fishing and farming, is.

(COMMENT)

It is not now, nor has it very been, really clear as to the status of some armed group which arose from the civil population of the Occupied Territory ⇒ to resist the occupying power and to disrupt civil order and stability. What is clear is that a resistance movement that intentionally targets → or indiscriminately fires upon civilians (either protected persons or civilians of the occupying power) IS "terrorism." (See Item #4 above)

In respect to the "resistance movement," there is no special dispensation under Customary IHL. In the case of Terrorism, your implication that the general modus operendi for HAMAS PIJ, PFLP etc, is punishable by law. Why? (RHETORICAL) Because in the eyes of those in the 21st Century with a moral compus, it is wrong.

When Israel (the occupying force) is using the entitled to use the ‘conduct-of-hostilities’ model (a shift from the law enforcement) against armed forces of HAMAS or othe Hostile Arab Palestinians (the occupied territories, affiliated militias or other resistance movements) since active hostilities have persisted within the framework of the original international armed conflict for seven decades, the methods and procedures for Maritime Interception Operations (MIO) has essentially remained the same. And when a vessel is ordered to "heave-to" or alter course and fails to do so, it is not unusual to fire shot across the bow. This has been a long standing Maritime practice. It is a point of laughter among mariners when Arab Palestinians claim they are being fired at.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Terrorism is often, though not always, defined in terms of four characteristics:

1. The threat or use of violence;
2. A political objective; the desire to change the status quo;
3. The intention to spread fear by committing spectacular public acts;
4. The intentional targeting of civilians. It is this last element - targeting innocent civilians - that stands out in efforts to distinguish state terrorism from other forms of state violence. Declaring war and sending the military to fight other militaries is not terrorism, nor is the use of violence to punish criminals who have been convicted of violent crimes.

Fits Israel to a T.

Terrorism is usually just juvenile name calling to slime your opponent.

 

[Hollie]

Terrorism is often, though not always, defined in terms of four characteristics:

1. The threat or use of violence;
2. A political objective; the desire to change the status quo;
3. The intention to spread fear by committing spectacular public acts;
4. The intentional targeting of civilians. It is this last element - targeting innocent civilians - that stands out in efforts to distinguish state terrorism from other forms of state violence. Declaring war and sending the military to fight other militaries is not terrorism, nor is the use of violence to punish criminals who have been convicted of violent crimes.

Fits Israel to a T.

Terrorism is usually just juvenile name calling to slime your opponent.

Well actually, because you are acting out like a petulant child, you might want to take notice to the fact that it was your Islamist co-religionists who made threats, initiated the violence with threats to “rip their hearts out (of the Israelis), and are maintaining their violent, retrograde behavior.

You do have this habit of “sliming the Arabs-Moslems”, by flailing your Pom Poms for their failed gee-had.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Terrorism is often, though not always, defined in terms of four characteristics:

1. The threat or use of violence;
2. A political objective; the desire to change the status quo;
3. The intention to spread fear by committing spectacular public acts;
4. The intentional targeting of civilians. It is this last element - targeting innocent civilians - that stands out in efforts to distinguish state terrorism from other forms of state violence. Declaring war and sending the military to fight other militaries is not terrorism, nor is the use of violence to punish criminals who have been convicted of violent crimes.

Fits Israel to a T.

Terrorism is usually just juvenile name calling to slime your opponent.

Well actually, because you are acting out like a petulant child, you might want to take notice to the fact that it was your Islamist co-religionists who made threats, initiated the violence with threats to “rip their hearts out (of the Israelis), and are maintaining their violent, retrograde behavior.

You do have this habit of “sliming the Arabs-Moslems”, by flailing your Pom Poms for their failed gee-had.

Are you going to base your shtick on what one nut case says?

 

[Hollie]

Terrorism is often, though not always, defined in terms of four characteristics:

1. The threat or use of violence;
2. A political objective; the desire to change the status quo;
3. The intention to spread fear by committing spectacular public acts;
4. The intentional targeting of civilians. It is this last element - targeting innocent civilians - that stands out in efforts to distinguish state terrorism from other forms of state violence. Declaring war and sending the military to fight other militaries is not terrorism, nor is the use of violence to punish criminals who have been convicted of violent crimes.

Fits Israel to a T.

Terrorism is usually just juvenile name calling to slime your opponent.

Well actually, because you are acting out like a petulant child, you might want to take notice to the fact that it was your Islamist co-religionists who made threats, initiated the violence with threats to “rip their hearts out (of the Israelis), and are maintaining their violent, retrograde behavior.

You do have this habit of “sliming the Arabs-Moslems”, by flailing your Pom Poms for their failed gee-had.

Are you going to base your shtick on what one nut case says?

Are you going to continue your pattern of self-imposed ignorance?

 

[Billo_Really]

RE: corrupt US government blocks UN from having an independent investigation into 61 murdered palestines
※→ Billo_Really, Shusha, et al,

Again, this is a twisting of facts designed to draw sympathy.

Terrorism has absolutely NO connection with an "occupation;" a "resistance," or a "foreign force." None of these conditions are necessary to define terrorism. We discussed this just recently in Posting #9 (RE: I guess these guys won't be moving their embassy anytime soon...).

Terrorism is often, though not always, defined in terms of four characteristics:

1. The threat or use of violence;
2. A political objective; the desire to change the status quo;
3. The intention to spread fear by committing spectacular public acts;
4. The intentional targeting of civilians. It is this last element - targeting innocent civilians - that stands out in efforts to distinguish state terrorism from other forms of state violence. Declaring war and sending the military to fight other militaries is not terrorism, nor is the use of violence to punish criminals who have been convicted of violent crimes.

However, the legality of a "resistance movement,"is governed under Customary and International Humanitarian Law and is punishable under Article 68 fo the Fourth Geneva Convention: (It is punishable because it violates the law.)

Protected persons [Arab Palestinians] who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power [Israel], but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offenses, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power [Israel], in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person [Arab Palestinians] only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power [Israel] or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began [Jordanian Law].

The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.

In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offense.

Except when they are.

Resisting the occupation of a foreign force, is not terrorism. Shooting at people fishing and farming, is.

(COMMENT)

It is not now, nor has it very been, really clear as to the status of some armed group which arose from the civil population of the Occupied Territory ⇒ to resist the occupying power and to disrupt civil order and stability. What is clear is that a resistance movement that intentionally targets → or indiscriminately fires upon civilians (either protected persons or civilians of the occupying power) IS "terrorism." (See Item #4 above)

In respect to the "resistance movement," there is no special dispensation under Customary IHL. In the case of Terrorism, your implication that the general modus operendi for HAMAS PIJ, PFLP etc, is punishable by law. Why? (RHETORICAL) Because in the eyes of those in the 21st Century with a moral compus, it is wrong.

When Israel (the occupying force) is using the entitled to use the ‘conduct-of-hostilities’ model (a shift from the law enforcement) against armed forces of HAMAS or othe Hostile Arab Palestinians (the occupied territories, affiliated militias or other resistance movements) since active hostilities have persisted within the framework of the original international armed conflict for seven decades, the methods and procedures for Maritime Interception Operations (MIO) has essentially remained the same. And when a vessel is ordered to "heave-to" or alter course and fails to do so, it is not unusual to fire shot across the bow. This has been a long standing Maritime practice. It is a point of laughter among mariners when Arab Palestinians claim they are being fired at.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel satisfies the 4 definitions you stated. So Israel practices state-sanctioned terrorism.

 

[Hollie]

RE: corrupt US government blocks UN from having an independent investigation into 61 murdered palestines
※→ Billo_Really, Shusha, et al,

Again, this is a twisting of facts designed to draw sympathy.

Terrorism has absolutely NO connection with an "occupation;" a "resistance," or a "foreign force." None of these conditions are necessary to define terrorism. We discussed this just recently in Posting #9 (RE: I guess these guys won't be moving their embassy anytime soon...).

Terrorism is often, though not always, defined in terms of four characteristics:

1. The threat or use of violence;
2. A political objective; the desire to change the status quo;
3. The intention to spread fear by committing spectacular public acts;
4. The intentional targeting of civilians. It is this last element - targeting innocent civilians - that stands out in efforts to distinguish state terrorism from other forms of state violence. Declaring war and sending the military to fight other militaries is not terrorism, nor is the use of violence to punish criminals who have been convicted of violent crimes.

However, the legality of a "resistance movement,"is governed under Customary and International Humanitarian Law and is punishable under Article 68 fo the Fourth Geneva Convention: (It is punishable because it violates the law.)

Protected persons [Arab Palestinians] who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power [Israel], but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offenses, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power [Israel], in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person [Arab Palestinians] only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power [Israel] or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began [Jordanian Law].

The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.

In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offense.

Except when they are.

Resisting the occupation of a foreign force, is not terrorism. Shooting at people fishing and farming, is.

(COMMENT)

It is not now, nor has it very been, really clear as to the status of some armed group which arose from the civil population of the Occupied Territory ⇒ to resist the occupying power and to disrupt civil order and stability. What is clear is that a resistance movement that intentionally targets → or indiscriminately fires upon civilians (either protected persons or civilians of the occupying power) IS "terrorism." (See Item #4 above)

In respect to the "resistance movement," there is no special dispensation under Customary IHL. In the case of Terrorism, your implication that the general modus operendi for HAMAS PIJ, PFLP etc, is punishable by law. Why? (RHETORICAL) Because in the eyes of those in the 21st Century with a moral compus, it is wrong.

When Israel (the occupying force) is using the entitled to use the ‘conduct-of-hostilities’ model (a shift from the law enforcement) against armed forces of HAMAS or othe Hostile Arab Palestinians (the occupied territories, affiliated militias or other resistance movements) since active hostilities have persisted within the framework of the original international armed conflict for seven decades, the methods and procedures for Maritime Interception Operations (MIO) has essentially remained the same. And when a vessel is ordered to "heave-to" or alter course and fails to do so, it is not unusual to fire shot across the bow. This has been a long standing Maritime practice. It is a point of laughter among mariners when Arab Palestinians claim they are being fired at.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel satisfies the 4 definitions you stated. So Israel practices state-sanctioned terrorism.

Actually, you should learn some foundational elements of critical thinking skills.

 

[Humanity]

No one is suggesting that it is morally or legally permissible to target and kill unarmed demonstrators who pose no threat. It is certainly not Israel's policy to do so.

Now did you want to stop denying reality and discuss armed combatants who DO pose a threat?

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from Israeli aggression.

Exactly. And they have the right to die as combatants in the conflict. They also have an obligation to protect the innocent civilians in their midst and remove them from areas of conflict where combatants are engaged.

You will find that Israel also has an obligation to protect the innocent civilians when it decides to bomb Gaza, fire live rounds into a crowd.

 

[Slyhunter]

No one is suggesting that it is morally or legally permissible to target and kill unarmed demonstrators who pose no threat. It is certainly not Israel's policy to do so.

Now did you want to stop denying reality and discuss armed combatants who DO pose a threat?

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from Israeli aggression.

Exactly. And they have the right to die as combatants in the conflict. They also have an obligation to protect the innocent civilians in their midst and remove them from areas of conflict where combatants are engaged.

You will find that Israel also has an obligation to protect the innocent civilians when it decides to bomb Gaza, fire live rounds into a crowd.

um, no. If innocent civilians mix themselves in with combatants then they become valid targets. Real innocent civilians would remove themselves from the situation.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: corrupt US government blocks UN from having an independent investigation into 61 murdered palestines
※→ Humanity, et al,

Anyone that describes the events as "61 Murdered Palestinians" has already made the determination of guilt. Any investigation is corrupted even before it starts. You might as well forgo any pretense of a judicial tribunal because it blatantly disregards recognized standards justice.

No one is suggesting that it is morally or legally permissible to target and kill unarmed demonstrators who pose no threat. It is certainly not Israel's policy to do so.

Now did you want to stop denying reality and discuss armed combatants who DO pose a threat?

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from Israeli aggression.

Exactly. And they have the right to die as combatants in the conflict. They also have an obligation to protect the innocent civilians in their midst and remove them from areas of conflict where combatants are engaged.

You will find that Israel also has an obligation to protect the innocent civilians when it decides to bomb Gaza, fire live rounds into a crowd.

(COMMENT)

There are any number of times where the actions of the Arab Palestinian Leadership have acted in a way that:

• Created a substantial risk of serious physical injury to innocent Arab Palestinian.

• Acted in a way that showed an utter disregard for the foreseeable adverse and harmful consequences of the actions.​

Many Arab Palestinian Leadership sponsored, aggravated, or incited conduct that has shown a culpable disregard of probable consequences to innocent persons from an act --- or the omission --- of the act to be reckless conduct.

It is not necessary that the Arab Palestinian Leadership have an intention to cause harm. But in the nonfeasance of Customary and International Humanitarian Laws are responsible --- and should be held accountable as the cause of injury or death:

• Locating Jihadist, Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric fighters within or near densely populated areas or within crowds of demonstrators.

• Intentionally NOT removing innocent civilian persons under its jurisdiction and governmental control from the vicinity of active engagements or areas very likely to cause serious harm to innocent civilians.

• Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or Jihadist, Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric fighter activity immune from Israeli response engagement. Using the presence of a civilian or other protected person to screen Jihadist, Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric fighter activity from interdiction by the Israeli Forces.​

There is no question that Arab Palestinian Leadership have demonstrated depraved indifference to innocent lives when they purposely place protected persons in harms way. The Arab Palestinian Leadership has acted both recklessly and willfully in the intentional disregard of the consequences.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

No one is suggesting that it is morally or legally permissible to target and kill unarmed demonstrators who pose no threat. It is certainly not Israel's policy to do so.

Now did you want to stop denying reality and discuss armed combatants who DO pose a threat?

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from Israeli aggression.

Exactly. And they have the right to die as combatants in the conflict. They also have an obligation to protect the innocent civilians in their midst and remove them from areas of conflict where combatants are engaged.

You will find that Israel also has an obligation to protect the innocent civilians when it decides to bomb Gaza, fire live rounds into a crowd.

Israel absolutely does have that obligation. And she has been fulfilling that obligation astoundingly well by the military practices she has been using.

What has the government of Gaza been doing to protect the innocent civilians? Are they policing the protest and ensuring that all children and innocent civilians keep at least 300m from the fence? Are they searching people and removing weapons from everyone except combatants? Are they publicly urging calm and obedience to IDF instruction? What?

 

[Humanity]

No one is suggesting that it is morally or legally permissible to target and kill unarmed demonstrators who pose no threat. It is certainly not Israel's policy to do so.

Now did you want to stop denying reality and discuss armed combatants who DO pose a threat?

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from Israeli aggression.

Exactly. And they have the right to die as combatants in the conflict. They also have an obligation to protect the innocent civilians in their midst and remove them from areas of conflict where combatants are engaged.

You will find that Israel also has an obligation to protect the innocent civilians when it decides to bomb Gaza, fire live rounds into a crowd.

um, no. If innocent civilians mix themselves in with combatants then they become valid targets. Real innocent civilians would remove themselves from the situation.

Aha, just like Israel, you clearly do not have any understanding of international law...

You, just like Israel, should go check it out. It's quite fascinating!

 

[Humanity]

No one is suggesting that it is morally or legally permissible to target and kill unarmed demonstrators who pose no threat. It is certainly not Israel's policy to do so.

Now did you want to stop denying reality and discuss armed combatants who DO pose a threat?

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from Israeli aggression.

Exactly. And they have the right to die as combatants in the conflict. They also have an obligation to protect the innocent civilians in their midst and remove them from areas of conflict where combatants are engaged.

You will find that Israel also has an obligation to protect the innocent civilians when it decides to bomb Gaza, fire live rounds into a crowd.

Israel absolutely does have that obligation. And she has been fulfilling that obligation astoundingly well by the military practices she has been using.

What has the government of Gaza been doing to protect the innocent civilians? Are they policing the protest and ensuring that all children and innocent civilians keep at least 300m from the fence? Are they searching people and removing weapons from everyone except combatants? Are they publicly urging calm and obedience to IDF instruction? What?

Well, at least you didn't deny Israels obligation!

Israel has FAILED the obligations to protect the civilians of Gaza. Period!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No one is suggesting that it is morally or legally permissible to target and kill unarmed demonstrators who pose no threat. It is certainly not Israel's policy to do so.

Now did you want to stop denying reality and discuss armed combatants who DO pose a threat?

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from Israeli aggression.

Exactly. And they have the right to die as combatants in the conflict. They also have an obligation to protect the innocent civilians in their midst and remove them from areas of conflict where combatants are engaged.

You will find that Israel also has an obligation to protect the innocent civilians when it decides to bomb Gaza, fire live rounds into a crowd.

um, no. If innocent civilians mix themselves in with combatants then they become valid targets. Real innocent civilians would remove themselves from the situation.

Aha, just like Israel, you clearly do not have any understanding of international law...

You, just like Israel, should go check it out. It's quite fascinating!

Launching rockets at Israeli civilians, Hamas violation of international law.
Doing so while hiding amongst Palestinian civilians, another Hamas violation of international law.

 

[Humanity]

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from Israeli aggression.

Exactly. And they have the right to die as combatants in the conflict. They also have an obligation to protect the innocent civilians in their midst and remove them from areas of conflict where combatants are engaged.

You will find that Israel also has an obligation to protect the innocent civilians when it decides to bomb Gaza, fire live rounds into a crowd.

um, no. If innocent civilians mix themselves in with combatants then they become valid targets. Real innocent civilians would remove themselves from the situation.

Aha, just like Israel, you clearly do not have any understanding of international law...

You, just like Israel, should go check it out. It's quite fascinating!

Launching rockets at Israeli civilians, Hamas violation of international law.
Doing so while hiding amongst Palestinian civilians, another Hamas violation of international law.

Well at least you don't try and defend Israel...

A step in the right direction!

 

[Hollie]

No one is suggesting that it is morally or legally permissible to target and kill unarmed demonstrators who pose no threat. It is certainly not Israel's policy to do so.

Now did you want to stop denying reality and discuss armed combatants who DO pose a threat?

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from Israeli aggression.

Exactly. And they have the right to die as combatants in the conflict. They also have an obligation to protect the innocent civilians in their midst and remove them from areas of conflict where combatants are engaged.

You will find that Israel also has an obligation to protect the innocent civilians when it decides to bomb Gaza, fire live rounds into a crowd.

Israel absolutely does have that obligation. And she has been fulfilling that obligation astoundingly well by the military practices she has been using.

What has the government of Gaza been doing to protect the innocent civilians? Are they policing the protest and ensuring that all children and innocent civilians keep at least 300m from the fence? Are they searching people and removing weapons from everyone except combatants? Are they publicly urging calm and obedience to IDF instruction? What?

Well, at least you didn't deny Israels obligation!

Israel has FAILED the obligations to protect the civilians of Gaza. Period!

Why is Israel responsible for protecting Arabs-Moslems from themselves? When Arabs-Moslems insist on making decisions and assuming behaviors that puts them at risk, they must assume responsibility for those decisions.

 

[Shusha]

No one is suggesting that it is morally or legally permissible to target and kill unarmed demonstrators who pose no threat. It is certainly not Israel's policy to do so.

Now did you want to stop denying reality and discuss armed combatants who DO pose a threat?

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from Israeli aggression.

Exactly. And they have the right to die as combatants in the conflict. They also have an obligation to protect the innocent civilians in their midst and remove them from areas of conflict where combatants are engaged.

You will find that Israel also has an obligation to protect the innocent civilians when it decides to bomb Gaza, fire live rounds into a crowd.

Israel absolutely does have that obligation. And she has been fulfilling that obligation astoundingly well by the military practices she has been using.

What has the government of Gaza been doing to protect the innocent civilians? Are they policing the protest and ensuring that all children and innocent civilians keep at least 300m from the fence? Are they searching people and removing weapons from everyone except combatants? Are they publicly urging calm and obedience to IDF instruction? What?

Well, at least you didn't deny Israels obligation!

Israel has FAILED the obligations to protect the civilians of Gaza. Period!

Israel has not failed in her obligation. On the contrary, her actions have been exemplary under the conditions. If you feel they are not, please provide an explanation of how they do not conform to international law and/or how you believe they should improve under the conditions.

Also please address my second set of points concerning what actions the government of Gaza is obligated to take to protect its own citizens.