Hamas announces: No Gaza border protests this Friday - report

[toomuchtime_]

Hamas announced on Thursday that there will not be 'March of Return' this Friday, according to a Channel 13 report. This would be the first time that the protests are cancelled since March 2109, over half a year ago.

According to the report, the Hamas announcement came in an attempt to deescalate the situation following over 400 rockets that were launched at Israel by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad as a response to IDF operation 'Black Belt' that killed PIJ commander Bahaa Abu al-Ata.

Hamas announces: No Gaza border protests this Friday - report

I wonder how Pij will respond to this.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Hamas announces: No Gaza border protests this Friday - report
⁜→ toomuchtime, et al,

I'm not sure that the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) is all that effective; paper tiger among Islamic terrorist operators.

I wonder how Pij will respond to this.

(COMMENT)

As I look at the Global Terrorist Database (GTD) (search term: PIJ) over the entire year of 2018, I noticed that not a single fatality/casualty could legitimately be attributed to them.

To say, as some write, that the PIJ is the second largest terrorist group in the Gaza Strip is to actually obscure the fact that there is no other group of any appreciable significance to even be mentioned. The PIJ is estimated to have around 6,000 tactical operatives and 9,000 activists performing direct support (or 15,000 assets in total). Yet they have an exceptionally dismal record.

So, I would not count on much of a response or any retaliatory action of any consequence. They might make some sort of symbolic effort, but nothing dramatic.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Hamas announces: No Gaza border protests this Friday - report
⁜→ toomuchtime, et al,

I'm not sure that the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) is all that effective; paper tiger among Islamic terrorist operators.

I wonder how Pij will respond to this.

(COMMENT)

As I look at the Global Terrorist Database (GTD) (search term: PIJ) over the entire year of 2018, I noticed that not a single fatality/casualty could legitimately be attributed to them.

View attachment 289883 View attachment 289884​

To say, as some write, that the PIJ is the second largest terrorist group in the Gaza Strip is to actually obscure the fact that there is no other group of any appreciable significance to even be mentioned. The PIJ is estimated to have around 6,000 tactical operatives and 9,000 activists performing direct support (or 15,000 assets in total). Yet they have an exceptionally dismal record.

So, I would not count on much of a response or any retaliatory action of any consequence. They might make some sort of symbolic effort, but nothing dramatic.


Most Respectfully,
R

What are the casualties by Hamas compared to the casualties by Israel?

 

[Hollie]

RE: Hamas announces: No Gaza border protests this Friday - report
⁜→ toomuchtime, et al,

I'm not sure that the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) is all that effective; paper tiger among Islamic terrorist operators.

I wonder how Pij will respond to this.

(COMMENT)

As I look at the Global Terrorist Database (GTD) (search term: PIJ) over the entire year of 2018, I noticed that not a single fatality/casualty could legitimately be attributed to them.

View attachment 289883 View attachment 289884​

To say, as some write, that the PIJ is the second largest terrorist group in the Gaza Strip is to actually obscure the fact that there is no other group of any appreciable significance to even be mentioned. The PIJ is estimated to have around 6,000 tactical operatives and 9,000 activists performing direct support (or 15,000 assets in total). Yet they have an exceptionally dismal record.

So, I would not count on much of a response or any retaliatory action of any consequence. They might make some sort of symbolic effort, but nothing dramatic.


Most Respectfully,
R

What are the casualties by Hamas compared to the casualties by Israel?

Well, what are the casualties by Hamas compared to the casualties by Israel?

Link?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Hamas announces: No Gaza border protests this Friday - report
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is such an unbelievably naive comment you have made here.

What are the casualties by Hamas compared to the casualties by Israel?

(COMMENT)

This is not a "tit•for•tat" (infliction of an injury or insult in return for infliction of an injury or insult) situation (absolute compliance to strict proportionality). The case of proportionality (equivalent retaliation) is not the same as a case self-defense.

NOTE: The Secretary-General’s High-level Panel Report on Threats, Challenges and Change (A/59/565 2 DEC 2004) did not come to a consensus on the issue; even with all the extensive literature on the subject.

Article 4 • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)

1 . In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.​

​

Action taken by the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) which presents threats or involve act against to the peace in Israel, breaches of the peace which endanger the life of the nation or the existence of the State of Israel, as well as other acts of aggression" (prohibited by the Charter), triggers the case that activates → "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence." Such conditions of threatening acts by the HoAP make it necessary (in the reality of the real-world) for the law of self-defense needs to include and reinforce the mechanisms of peace for Israel; not create advantages for the HoAP aggressors.

The Panel unanimously agreed that the older interpretation of self-defense under the U.N. Charter was correct: threatened State, according to long-established international law, can take military action as long as the threatened attack is imminent, no other means would deflect it and the action is proportionate. The problem arises where the threat in question is not imminent but still claimed to be real: for example the acquisition, with allegedly hostile intent, of nuclear weapons-making capability.

The The Secretary-General’s High-level Panel Report on Threats, Challenges and Change did reaffirmed that the law of self-defense included the concept of an anticipatory self-defense, provided the threat was imminent.

The principles of "necessity and proportionality" still pose questions beyond concensus. It revolves around the need for the response to the acts of aggression to be of such a magnitude ass to qwell the hostile activity for a reasonable amount of time. If the response to rocket fire only deters another volley until the next day, or a week, then clearly, the next response should be of a greater magnitude as the previous response.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

(A/59/565 2 DEC 2004)

OK, so?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Hamas announces: No Gaza border protests this Friday - report
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is such an unbelievably naive comment you have made here.

What are the casualties by Hamas compared to the casualties by Israel?

(COMMENT)

This is not a "tit•for•tat" (infliction of an injury or insult in return for infliction of an injury or insult) situation (absolute compliance to strict proportionality). The case of proportionality (equivalent retaliation) is not the same as a case self-defense.

NOTE: The Secretary-General’s High-level Panel Report on Threats, Challenges and Change (A/59/565 2 DEC 2004) did not come to a consensus on the issue; even with all the extensive literature on the subject.

Article 4 • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)

1 . In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.​

Action taken by the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) which presents threats or involve act against to the peace in Israel, breaches of the peace which endanger the life of the nation or the existence of the State of Israel, as well as other acts of aggression" (prohibited by the Charter), triggers the case that activates → "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence." Such conditions of threatening acts by the HoAP make it necessary (in the reality of the real-world) for the law of self-defense needs to include and reinforce the mechanisms of peace for Israel; not create advantages for the HoAP aggressors.

The Panel unanimously agreed that the older interpretation of self-defense under the U.N. Charter was correct: threatened State, according to long-established international law, can take military action as long as the threatened attack is imminent, no other means would deflect it and the action is proportionate. The problem arises where the threat in question is not imminent but still claimed to be real: for example the acquisition, with allegedly hostile intent, of nuclear weapons-making capability.

​

The The Secretary-General’s High-level Panel Report on Threats, Challenges and Change did reaffirmed that the law of self-defense included the concept of an anticipatory self-defense, provided the threat was imminent.

The principles of "necessity and proportionality" still pose questions beyond concensus. It revolves around the need for the response to the acts of aggression to be of such a magnitude ass to qwell the hostile activity for a reasonable amount of time. If the response to rocket fire only deters another volley until the next day, or a week, then clearly, the next response should be of a greater magnitude as the previous response.


Most Respectfully,
R

Deflection city. What does this have to do with my post?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Hamas announces: No Gaza border protests this Friday - report
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

And you lend us again, another unresponsive set of comments.

(A/59/565 2 DEC 2004)

OK, so?

(COMMENT)

I suppose you cannot see that your comparison casual (ie "casualties by Hamas compared to the casualties by Israel") is an expression on the "proportionality." And that your question is not focused at all given that the history of Israeli attacks:

◈ Has not produced the direct military advantage anticipated (capitulation of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in favor of peace) in over a half century. Meaning the Israeli strikes are not devistating enough to achive that desired goal (peace).

◈ The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.​

Deflection city. What does this have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

I see that you are not able to discern the obvious. Remember, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) set the requirement themselves: "wipe them out — man, woman, and child."

The Secretary-General’s High-level Panel was intended to answer the impossible question of "proportionality" in cases where a decisive victory was the goal.

The practical question is: How many casualties, how much damage and how much destruction do the Israelies have to inflict in order to guarantee a victory such that Israel will not peace could be restored? The obvious answer is that Israel must:

◈ Inflict more casualties.

◈ Inflict more damage.

◈ Inflict more destruction.​

The question of casualties totally irrelevant to the conflict. The HoAP already set the requirement for victory: "Wipe them out — man, woman, and child." So no number of casualties is disproportionate to victory, as establish by the HoAP.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

RE: Hamas announces: No Gaza border protests this Friday - report
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is such an unbelievably naive comment you have made here.

What are the casualties by Hamas compared to the casualties by Israel?

(COMMENT)

This is not a "tit•for•tat" (infliction of an injury or insult in return for infliction of an injury or insult) situation (absolute compliance to strict proportionality). The case of proportionality (equivalent retaliation) is not the same as a case self-defense.

NOTE: The Secretary-General’s High-level Panel Report on Threats, Challenges and Change (A/59/565 2 DEC 2004) did not come to a consensus on the issue; even with all the extensive literature on the subject.

Article 4 • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)

1 . In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.​

Action taken by the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) which presents threats or involve act against to the peace in Israel, breaches of the peace which endanger the life of the nation or the existence of the State of Israel, as well as other acts of aggression" (prohibited by the Charter), triggers the case that activates → "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence." Such conditions of threatening acts by the HoAP make it necessary (in the reality of the real-world) for the law of self-defense needs to include and reinforce the mechanisms of peace for Israel; not create advantages for the HoAP aggressors.

The Panel unanimously agreed that the older interpretation of self-defense under the U.N. Charter was correct: threatened State, according to long-established international law, can take military action as long as the threatened attack is imminent, no other means would deflect it and the action is proportionate. The problem arises where the threat in question is not imminent but still claimed to be real: for example the acquisition, with allegedly hostile intent, of nuclear weapons-making capability.

​

The The Secretary-General’s High-level Panel Report on Threats, Challenges and Change did reaffirmed that the law of self-defense included the concept of an anticipatory self-defense, provided the threat was imminent.

The principles of "necessity and proportionality" still pose questions beyond concensus. It revolves around the need for the response to the acts of aggression to be of such a magnitude ass to qwell the hostile activity for a reasonable amount of time. If the response to rocket fire only deters another volley until the next day, or a week, then clearly, the next response should be of a greater magnitude as the previous response.


Most Respectfully,
R

Deflection city. What does this have to do with my post?

You’re just frustrated that Rocco , as usual , demolished your so called argument .
Israel has ZERO reason to target civilians. The same can not be said for Palestinians

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Hamas announces: No Gaza border protests this Friday - report
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

And you lend us again, another unresponsive set of comments.

(A/59/565 2 DEC 2004)

OK, so?

(COMMENT)

I suppose you cannot see that your comparison casual (ie "casualties by Hamas compared to the casualties by Israel") is an expression on the "proportionality." And that your question is not focused at all given that the history of Israeli attacks:

◈ Has not produced the direct military advantage anticipated (capitulation of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in favor of peace) in over a half century. Meaning the Israeli strikes are not devistating enough to achive that desired goal (peace).

◈ The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.​

Deflection city. What does this have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

I see that you are not able to discern the obvious. Remember, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) set the requirement themselves: "wipe them out — man, woman, and child."

The Secretary-General’s High-level Panel was intended to answer the impossible question of "proportionality" in cases where a decisive victory was the goal.

The practical question is: How many casualties, how much damage and how much destruction do the Israelies have to inflict in order to guarantee a victory such that Israel will not peace could be restored? The obvious answer is that Israel must:

◈ Inflict more casualties.

◈ Inflict more damage.

◈ Inflict more destruction.​

The question of casualties totally irrelevant to the conflict. The HoAP already set the requirement for victory: "Wipe them out — man, woman, and child." So no number of casualties is disproportionate to victory, as establish by the HoAP.

Most Respectfully,
R

Partition and colonization are illegal. The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from this foreign aggression.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Hamas announces: No Gaza border protests this Friday - report
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

And you lend us again, another unresponsive set of comments.

(A/59/565 2 DEC 2004)

OK, so?

(COMMENT)

I suppose you cannot see that your comparison casual (ie "casualties by Hamas compared to the casualties by Israel") is an expression on the "proportionality." And that your question is not focused at all given that the history of Israeli attacks:

◈ Has not produced the direct military advantage anticipated (capitulation of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in favor of peace) in over a half century. Meaning the Israeli strikes are not devistating enough to achive that desired goal (peace).

◈ The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.​

Deflection city. What does this have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

I see that you are not able to discern the obvious. Remember, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) set the requirement themselves: "wipe them out — man, woman, and child."

The Secretary-General’s High-level Panel was intended to answer the impossible question of "proportionality" in cases where a decisive victory was the goal.

The practical question is: How many casualties, how much damage and how much destruction do the Israelies have to inflict in order to guarantee a victory such that Israel will not peace could be restored? The obvious answer is that Israel must:

◈ Inflict more casualties.

◈ Inflict more damage.

◈ Inflict more destruction.​

The question of casualties totally irrelevant to the conflict. The HoAP already set the requirement for victory: "Wipe them out — man, woman, and child." So no number of casualties is disproportionate to victory, as establish by the HoAP.

Most Respectfully,
R

Partition and colonization are illegal. The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from this foreign aggression.

The Israelis certainly have a right to defend themselves from Islamic terrorist aggression such as is spelled out in the Hamas charter.

 

[Shusha]

RE: Hamas announces: No Gaza border protests this Friday - report
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

And you lend us again, another unresponsive set of comments.

(A/59/565 2 DEC 2004)

OK, so?

(COMMENT)

I suppose you cannot see that your comparison casual (ie "casualties by Hamas compared to the casualties by Israel") is an expression on the "proportionality." And that your question is not focused at all given that the history of Israeli attacks:

◈ Has not produced the direct military advantage anticipated (capitulation of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in favor of peace) in over a half century. Meaning the Israeli strikes are not devistating enough to achive that desired goal (peace).

◈ The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.​

Deflection city. What does this have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

I see that you are not able to discern the obvious. Remember, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) set the requirement themselves: "wipe them out — man, woman, and child."

The Secretary-General’s High-level Panel was intended to answer the impossible question of "proportionality" in cases where a decisive victory was the goal.

The practical question is: How many casualties, how much damage and how much destruction do the Israelies have to inflict in order to guarantee a victory such that Israel will not peace could be restored? The obvious answer is that Israel must:

◈ Inflict more casualties.

◈ Inflict more damage.

◈ Inflict more destruction.​

The question of casualties totally irrelevant to the conflict. The HoAP already set the requirement for victory: "Wipe them out — man, woman, and child." So no number of casualties is disproportionate to victory, as establish by the HoAP.

Most Respectfully,
R

Partition and colonization are illegal. The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from this foreign aggression.

Partition is illegal?!

Wow. It’s been a while since you came up with a doozy like that.



....



Wait for it....


...


“It’s true. Look it up.”

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Hamas announces: No Gaza border protests this Friday - report
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

And you lend us again, another unresponsive set of comments.

(A/59/565 2 DEC 2004)

OK, so?

(COMMENT)

I suppose you cannot see that your comparison casual (ie "casualties by Hamas compared to the casualties by Israel") is an expression on the "proportionality." And that your question is not focused at all given that the history of Israeli attacks:

◈ Has not produced the direct military advantage anticipated (capitulation of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in favor of peace) in over a half century. Meaning the Israeli strikes are not devistating enough to achive that desired goal (peace).

◈ The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.​

Deflection city. What does this have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

I see that you are not able to discern the obvious. Remember, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) set the requirement themselves: "wipe them out — man, woman, and child."

The Secretary-General’s High-level Panel was intended to answer the impossible question of "proportionality" in cases where a decisive victory was the goal.

The practical question is: How many casualties, how much damage and how much destruction do the Israelies have to inflict in order to guarantee a victory such that Israel will not peace could be restored? The obvious answer is that Israel must:

◈ Inflict more casualties.

◈ Inflict more damage.

◈ Inflict more destruction.​

The question of casualties totally irrelevant to the conflict. The HoAP already set the requirement for victory: "Wipe them out — man, woman, and child." So no number of casualties is disproportionate to victory, as establish by the HoAP.

Most Respectfully,
R

Partition and colonization are illegal. The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from this foreign aggression.

Partition is illegal?!

Wow. It’s been a while since you came up with a doozy like that.



....



Wait for it....


...


“It’s true. Look it up.”

Indeed, it violates the right to territorial integrity.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Hamas announces: No Gaza border protests this Friday - report
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

And you lend us again, another unresponsive set of comments.

(A/59/565 2 DEC 2004)

OK, so?

(COMMENT)

I suppose you cannot see that your comparison casual (ie "casualties by Hamas compared to the casualties by Israel") is an expression on the "proportionality." And that your question is not focused at all given that the history of Israeli attacks:

◈ Has not produced the direct military advantage anticipated (capitulation of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in favor of peace) in over a half century. Meaning the Israeli strikes are not devistating enough to achive that desired goal (peace).

◈ The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.​

Deflection city. What does this have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

I see that you are not able to discern the obvious. Remember, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) set the requirement themselves: "wipe them out — man, woman, and child."

The Secretary-General’s High-level Panel was intended to answer the impossible question of "proportionality" in cases where a decisive victory was the goal.

The practical question is: How many casualties, how much damage and how much destruction do the Israelies have to inflict in order to guarantee a victory such that Israel will not peace could be restored? The obvious answer is that Israel must:

◈ Inflict more casualties.

◈ Inflict more damage.

◈ Inflict more destruction.​

The question of casualties totally irrelevant to the conflict. The HoAP already set the requirement for victory: "Wipe them out — man, woman, and child." So no number of casualties is disproportionate to victory, as establish by the HoAP.

Most Respectfully,
R

Partition and colonization are illegal. The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from this foreign aggression.

Partition is illegal?!

Wow. It’s been a while since you came up with a doozy like that.



....



Wait for it....


...


“It’s true. Look it up.”

Indeed, it violates the right to territorial integrity.

Indeed. Israelis will not allow the gee-had border rioters to violate their territorial integrity


Look it up, on YouTube. .

 

[Shusha]

RE: Hamas announces: No Gaza border protests this Friday - report
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

And you lend us again, another unresponsive set of comments.

(A/59/565 2 DEC 2004)

OK, so?

(COMMENT)

I suppose you cannot see that your comparison casual (ie "casualties by Hamas compared to the casualties by Israel") is an expression on the "proportionality." And that your question is not focused at all given that the history of Israeli attacks:

◈ Has not produced the direct military advantage anticipated (capitulation of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in favor of peace) in over a half century. Meaning the Israeli strikes are not devistating enough to achive that desired goal (peace).

◈ The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.​

Deflection city. What does this have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

I see that you are not able to discern the obvious. Remember, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) set the requirement themselves: "wipe them out — man, woman, and child."

The Secretary-General’s High-level Panel was intended to answer the impossible question of "proportionality" in cases where a decisive victory was the goal.

The practical question is: How many casualties, how much damage and how much destruction do the Israelies have to inflict in order to guarantee a victory such that Israel will not peace could be restored? The obvious answer is that Israel must:

◈ Inflict more casualties.

◈ Inflict more damage.

◈ Inflict more destruction.​

The question of casualties totally irrelevant to the conflict. The HoAP already set the requirement for victory: "Wipe them out — man, woman, and child." So no number of casualties is disproportionate to victory, as establish by the HoAP.

Most Respectfully,
R

Partition and colonization are illegal. The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from this foreign aggression.

Partition is illegal?!

Wow. It’s been a while since you came up with a doozy like that.



....



Wait for it....


...


“It’s true. Look it up.”

Indeed, it violates the right to territorial integrity.

It is improper (read: incorrect) to claim that partition is illegal. This is not true. (See: USSR. Yugoslavia. India/Pakistan/Bangladesh. Ottoman Empire. And many others.)

The concepts of territorial integrity and self-determination are at odds with each other. Its a tension in current international law. Notice it was much less of a tension between 1920 and 1948.

Partition is not only legal. It is quite normal.

 

[toastman]

RE: Hamas announces: No Gaza border protests this Friday - report
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

And you lend us again, another unresponsive set of comments.

(A/59/565 2 DEC 2004)

OK, so?

(COMMENT)

I suppose you cannot see that your comparison casual (ie "casualties by Hamas compared to the casualties by Israel") is an expression on the "proportionality." And that your question is not focused at all given that the history of Israeli attacks:

◈ Has not produced the direct military advantage anticipated (capitulation of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in favor of peace) in over a half century. Meaning the Israeli strikes are not devistating enough to achive that desired goal (peace).

◈ The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.​

Deflection city. What does this have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

I see that you are not able to discern the obvious. Remember, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) set the requirement themselves: "wipe them out — man, woman, and child."

The Secretary-General’s High-level Panel was intended to answer the impossible question of "proportionality" in cases where a decisive victory was the goal.

The practical question is: How many casualties, how much damage and how much destruction do the Israelies have to inflict in order to guarantee a victory such that Israel will not peace could be restored? The obvious answer is that Israel must:

◈ Inflict more casualties.

◈ Inflict more damage.

◈ Inflict more destruction.​

The question of casualties totally irrelevant to the conflict. The HoAP already set the requirement for victory: "Wipe them out — man, woman, and child." So no number of casualties is disproportionate to victory, as establish by the HoAP.

Most Respectfully,
R

Partition and colonization are illegal. The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from this foreign aggression.

Explain how these so called ‘palestinians’ are defending themselves...

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Hamas announces: No Gaza border protests this Friday - report
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You get these concepts wrong at frequent intervals.

Partition and colonization are illegal.

(COMMENT)

I would very much like to see your citation for this (rather) bold statement. I cannot find prohibitions in "LAW" anywhere.

AS SPECIFICALLY APPLICABLE TO "PALESTINE"​

✦ Page #149 • Demarcation Lines • Encyclopedia of Public International Law 4 - Use of Force, War and Neutrality, Peace Treaties (A-M) - Installment 3.pdf

◈ "The partition of Palestine came about through the unilateral proclamation of the State of - Israel (May 14, 1948) and the armed conflict between Israel and her Arab neighbour States (- Israel and the Arab States)."

◈ "Usually lines of demarcation are established legally by an armistice treaty which contains provisions on the partition of territories as well as on the mutual rights and duties of the contesting parties."​

✦ Page #245 • Liberation Movements • Definition of Concept • Encyclopedia of Public International Law 4 - Use of Force, War and Neutrality, Peace Treaties (A-M) - Installment 3.pdf

◈ In a narrower construction developed under the auspices of the ---+ United Nations, liberation movements are partial subjects of international law only with reference to the implementation of the principle of ---+ self-determination of peoples as contained in the ---+ United Nations Charter and interpreted and applied by UN organs in cooperation with regional organizations, in particular with the ---+ Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the League of Arab States (LAS) (--.Arab States, League of). Liberation movements have evolved as agents of nation-building in the course of ---+ decolonization stricto sensu and in similar situations such as that involving the -- Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). With the purpose of representing the "true aspirations of peoples struggling for independence and national identity" (UN GA Res. 2928 (XXVII) against "colonial domination, foreign occupation and racist regimes" (UN GA Res. 3103 (XXVIII), liberation movements promote their causes on two distinct levels: politically through negotiations and diplomatic intercourse and rnilitarily through armed struggle against the government forcibly withholding self-determination (target State/government).​

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from this foreign aggression.

(COMMENT)

This is true, only from the vantage point that "all people" have the right to defend themselves;" just as all people have the right to breathe. However, the right to defend has limitations:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Penal legislation. V. Penalties. Death penalty
• ARTICLE 68 [ Link ] •

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, 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 offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ] 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 in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power 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.
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 offence.​

(ENTANGLEMENT)

The Arab Palestinians must remember that IF they claim to be "occupied" THEN Article 68 applies (the prohibition against acts solely intended to harm the Occupying Power).

IF on the other hand, the Arab Palestinians claim the right to defend against "aggression," THEN they also claim that at the time of the "act of aggression" the act was committed against Arab Palestinian "sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition. In that case, the Arab Palestinians must be able to establish that "at the time of the act of aggression," the Arab Palestinians had:

a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
​

The Arab Palestinians, in nearly every case, have difficulty demonstrating they had these four characteristics at a time when an "act of aggression" occurred.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

◈ "The partition of Palestine came about through the unilateral proclamation of the State of - Israel (May 14, 1948) and the armed conflict between Israel and her Arab neighbour States (- Israel and the Arab States)."

Has nothing to do with Palestine. Palestine has never had an army so it has never been at war. It has always been civilians defending their territory.

 

[P F Tinmore]

◈ In a narrower construction developed under the auspices of the ---+ United Nations, liberation movements are partial subjects of international law only with reference to the implementation of the principle of ---+ self-determination of peoples as contained in the ---+ United Nations Charter and interpreted and applied by UN organs in cooperation with regional organizations, in particular with the ---+ Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the League of Arab States (LAS) (--.Arab States, League of). Liberation movements have evolved as agents of nation-building in the course of ---+ decolonization stricto sensu and in similar situations such as that involving the -- Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). With the purpose of representing the "true aspirations of peoples struggling for independence and national identity" (UN GA Res. 2928 (XXVII) against "colonial domination, foreign occupation and racist regimes" (UN GA Res. 3103 (XXVIII), liberation movements promote their causes on two distinct levels: politically through negotiations and diplomatic intercourse and rnilitarily through armed struggle against the government forcibly withholding self-determination (target State/government).

Thank you.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Hamas announces: No Gaza border protests this Friday - report
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an absurd response. Even for you... These (Posting #18 and #19) are childlike answers.

Has nothing to do with Palestine. Palestine has never had an army so it has never been at war. It has always been civilians defending their territory.

(COMMENT)

You cannot say both statements are true simultaneously.


Most Respectfully,
R