I will not Bow!

[Kondor3]

...

And when did he say he doesn't believe in Palestinians can defend himself?

...Rocco always refers to Palestinian defense as hostilities....

Give me three specific examples of the Palestinians defending themselves

Anything to resist or remove the occupation.

When the IDF fires upon Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza, and the Palestinians shoot back, that's defense.

When the Palestinians shoot first, that's hostile aggression.

When the Palestinians launch rocket barrages outside of a counter-fire context, that's hostile aggression.

Don't want the IDF to land on your heads like an 800-pound gorilla?

Don't shoot first.

Don't launch rockets.

Anything else can be viewed and rightfully spun as hostile aggression and will just get more of your people hurt in futile and pointless gestures.

 

[toastman]

...

And when did he say he doesn't believe in Palestinians can defend himself?

...Rocco always refers to Palestinian defense as hostilities....

Give me three specific examples of the Palestinians defending themselves

Anything to resist or remove the occupation.

When the IDF fires upon Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza, and the Palestinians shoot back, that's defense.

When the Palestinians shoot first, that's hostile aggression.

When the Palestinians launch rocket barrages outside of a counter-fire context, that's hostile aggression.

Don't want the IDF to land on your heads like an 800-pound gorilla?

Don't shoot first.

Don't launch rockets.

Anything else can be viewed and rightfully spun as hostile aggression and will just get more of your people hurt in futile and pointless gestures.

'Don't shoot first'

But that would violate their 'when you're in a hole, keep digging' mentality

 

[P F Tinmore]

...

And when did he say he doesn't believe in Palestinians can defend himself?

...Rocco always refers to Palestinian defense as hostilities....

Give me three specific examples of the Palestinians defending themselves

Anything to resist or remove the occupation.

When the IDF fires upon Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza, and the Palestinians shoot back, that's defense.

When the Palestinians shoot first, that's hostile aggression.

When the Palestinians launch rocket barrages outside of a counter-fire context, that's hostile aggression.

Don't want the IDF to land on your heads like an 800-pound gorilla?

Don't shoot first.

Don't launch rockets.

Anything else can be viewed and rightfully spun as hostile aggression and will just get more of your people hurt in futile and pointless gestures.

The yet to be named Israel fired the first shot in 1917.

 

[Phoenall]

That you do all of the time. You always slime the Palestinians, though.

But then again, you don't believe that the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.

Croc of crap Tinmore. I challenge you to refute one thing Rocco said.

It is not so much that I refute what he says. It is whenever I mention that the Palestinians have the right to self determination without external interference, his come back is a page of things that foreigners did. That confirms my point.

And when did he say he doesn't believe in Palestinians can defend himself?

Rocco always refers to Palestinian defense as hostilities.

Give me three specific examples of the Palestinians defending themselves

Anything to resist or remove the occupation.

Yet the only outside interference for the Palestinians came from the arab league, who made all the decisions for the arab Palestinians.

Because terrorism is not defence, and never has been. Unless you want to give Israel the same amount of leeway and proclaim their defence is legal ?

More specific as that could include shooting an unarmed pregnant mother and her 4 children in the back from cover. Or planting a bomb in a childrens playground.

Niether of which are defensive measures

 

[Phoenall]

... ...Rocco always refers to Palestinian defense as hostilities....
Anything to resist or remove the occupation.

When the IDF fires upon Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza, and the Palestinians shoot back, that's defense.

When the Palestinians shoot first, that's hostile aggression.

When the Palestinians launch rocket barrages outside of a counter-fire context, that's hostile aggression.

Don't want the IDF to land on your heads like an 800-pound gorilla?

Don't shoot first.

Don't launch rockets.

Anything else can be viewed and rightfully spun as hostile aggression and will just get more of your people hurt in futile and pointless gestures.

The yet to be named Israel fired the first shot in 1917.

And the yet to be named Palestinians mass murdered the first tribe of Jews in 632 C.E. and have been mass murdering them since then on the commands of their two gods allah and Mohamed.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The right of "self-defense" is not all encompassing.

Pertaining to the dispute at hand --- the Palestinians have the right of self-defense, in cases where that involves defending oneself as a protected person, or the well-being of another from harm that violates the status of a protected person.

Anything to resist or remove the occupation.

(COMMENT)

But you know as well as I do, that even a Protected Person is barred from crimes intended to harm the Occupying Power. They are punishable by law just the same as if the were committed in a unoccupied zone. While it is true --- that the courts have some latitude and discretion to convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period; in cases that do not involve some of the more serious crimes --- even the international sees certain crimes as capital offenses. Even Palestinians holding the status of a protected person, guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or resistance movement crimes which have caused the death of one or more persons, are offenses punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began. (See Article 68 of the Geneva Code)

In the cases I've just discussed, the Palestinian has the rights to self-defense very similar to that of any American in the US. But when you attempt to apply that to the resistance movement against the occupation, it changes. Even under Humanitarian Law, the Hostile Arab Palestinian does not have the right to use any deadly force against the Occupation Power.

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 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 and 65 may impose the death penalty against 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 on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

SOURCE: Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons

It is not "Rocco" that makes the claim, it is the law. Protected Palestinian Persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, including acts of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, or intentional acts which have caused the death of one or more persons are subject to fine, imprisonment, or capitol punishment befitting the crime. This includes resistance action defined under Article 13 of the HAMAS Covenant (There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.) or Article 9 of the Palestine National Charter (Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.) Even the suggest and support of such violent or hostile action against the Occupation Force is a violation of the Plan of Action, Part II, Paragraph 1, Annex to A/RES/60/288, wherein instigating and encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities intended to be committed against other States or their citizens is a violation of international law.

Self-defense for common law purposes is otherwise similar to that of any other nation.

Resistance comes in two forms: violent and non-violent. Non-violent resistance, such as BDS, is entirely legal. Violent resistance is illegal.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

... ...Rocco always refers to Palestinian defense as hostilities....
Anything to resist or remove the occupation.

When the IDF fires upon Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza, and the Palestinians shoot back, that's defense.

When the Palestinians shoot first, that's hostile aggression.

When the Palestinians launch rocket barrages outside of a counter-fire context, that's hostile aggression.

Don't want the IDF to land on your heads like an 800-pound gorilla?

Don't shoot first.

Don't launch rockets.

Anything else can be viewed and rightfully spun as hostile aggression and will just get more of your people hurt in futile and pointless gestures.

The yet to be named Israel fired the first shot in 1917.

Link? And how can you say yet to be named Israel when there was no Israel. Makes no sense

 

[Kondor3]

... ...Rocco always refers to Palestinian defense as hostilities....
Anything to resist or remove the occupation.

When the IDF fires upon Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza, and the Palestinians shoot back, that's defense.

When the Palestinians shoot first, that's hostile aggression.

When the Palestinians launch rocket barrages outside of a counter-fire context, that's hostile aggression.

Don't want the IDF to land on your heads like an 800-pound gorilla?

Don't shoot first.

Don't launch rockets.

Anything else can be viewed and rightfully spun as hostile aggression and will just get more of your people hurt in futile and pointless gestures.

The yet to be named Israel fired the first shot in 1917.

I'm sure that can be spun either way, with a little digging, so, why bother?

Somebody has to STOP shooting first.

The Israelis are holding a Straight Flush...

You are holding a pair of Deuces...

I suggest you 'hold' when the bet comes 'round to you next time, rather than bumping again, to no good purpose...

Or lose the whole friggin' pot...

You have far more to lose by not ceasing fire...

I suggest that you cease fire while you still can...

But you won't...

You're (metaphorically, the Palestinians who decide such things) not smart enough for that, and can't break free of your juvenile, unrealistic petulance and self-delusion about likely outcomes, long enough to do that...

Which, in the end, is why the world really doesn't give much of a damn...

It's rather difficult to care for very long or very intensely about dumb-asses who keep shooting themselves in the foot...

You are running out of time, and that more quickly than you can possibly imagine...

Cease fire...

While you still can...

 

[Phoenall]

When the IDF fires upon Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza, and the Palestinians shoot back, that's defense.

When the Palestinians shoot first, that's hostile aggression.

When the Palestinians launch rocket barrages outside of a counter-fire context, that's hostile aggression.

Don't want the IDF to land on your heads like an 800-pound gorilla?

Don't shoot first.

Don't launch rockets.

Anything else can be viewed and rightfully spun as hostile aggression and will just get more of your people hurt in futile and pointless gestures.

The yet to be named Israel fired the first shot in 1917.

Link? And how can you say yet to be named Israel when there was no Israel. Makes no sense

He has also given Israel legitimacy as far back as 1917, something that Palestine did not get until 1988.

 

[toastman]

The yet to be named Israel fired the first shot in 1917.

Link? And how can you say yet to be named Israel when there was no Israel. Makes no sense

He has also given Israel legitimacy as far back as 1917, something that Palestine did not get until 1988.

How can someone who doesn't know when Palestine became a state have any credibility at all when discussing the I P conflict ?

 

[Hossfly]

When the IDF fires upon Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza, and the Palestinians shoot back, that's defense.

When the Palestinians shoot first, that's hostile aggression.

When the Palestinians launch rocket barrages outside of a counter-fire context, that's hostile aggression.

Don't want the IDF to land on your heads like an 800-pound gorilla?

Don't shoot first.

Don't launch rockets.

Anything else can be viewed and rightfully spun as hostile aggression and will just get more of your people hurt in futile and pointless gestures.

The yet to be named Israel fired the first shot in 1917.

I'm sure that can be spun either way, with a little digging, so, why bother?

Somebody has to STOP shooting first.

The Israelis are holding a Straight Flush...

You are holding a pair of Deuces...

I suggest you 'hold' when the bet comes 'round to you next time, rather than bumping again, to no good purpose...

Or lose the whole friggin' pot...

You have far more to lose by not ceasing fire...

I suggest that you cease fire while you still can...

But you won't...

You're (metaphorically, the Palestinians who decide such things) not smart enough for that, and can't break free of your juvenile, unrealistic petulance and self-delusion about likely outcomes, long enough to do that...

Which, in the end, is why the world really doesn't give much of a damn...

It's rather difficult to care for very long or very intensely about dumb-asses who keep shooting themselves in the foot...

You are running out of time, and that more quickly than you can possibly imagine...

Cease fire...

While you still can...

Using your poker terms, Tinmore is playing to an inside straight and the card he wants is already lying face up in your hand.

 

[Lipush]

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Here she is

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Here she is

And here is the scum a few years earlier in 2007 begging for forgiveness, yet above in the more recent 2012 video she is gloating at her release.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The right of "self-defense" is not all encompassing.

Pertaining to the dispute at hand --- the Palestinians have the right of self-defense, in cases where that involves defending oneself as a protected person, or the well-being of another from harm that violates the status of a protected person.

Anything to resist or remove the occupation.

(COMMENT)

But you know as well as I do, that even a Protected Person is barred from crimes intended to harm the Occupying Power. They are punishable by law just the same as if the were committed in a unoccupied zone. While it is true --- that the courts have some latitude and discretion to convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period; in cases that do not involve some of the more serious crimes --- even the international sees certain crimes as capital offenses. Even Palestinians holding the status of a protected person, guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or resistance movement crimes which have caused the death of one or more persons, are offenses punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began. (See Article 68 of the Geneva Code)

In the cases I've just discussed, the Palestinian has the rights to self-defense very similar to that of any American in the US. But when you attempt to apply that to the resistance movement against the occupation, it changes. Even under Humanitarian Law, the Hostile Arab Palestinian does not have the right to use any deadly force against the Occupation Power.

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 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 and 65 may impose the death penalty against 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 on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

SOURCE: Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons

It is not "Rocco" that makes the claim, it is the law. Protected Palestinian Persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, including acts of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, or intentional acts which have caused the death of one or more persons are subject to fine, imprisonment, or capitol punishment befitting the crime. This includes resistance action defined under Article 13 of the HAMAS Covenant (There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.) or Article 9 of the Palestine National Charter (Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.) Even the suggest and support of such violent or hostile action against the Occupation Force is a violation of the Plan of Action, Part II, Paragraph 1, Annex to A/RES/60/288, wherein instigating and encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities intended to be committed against other States or their citizens is a violation of international law.

Self-defense for common law purposes is otherwise similar to that of any other nation.

Resistance comes in two forms: violent and non-violent. Non-violent resistance, such as BDS, is entirely legal. Violent resistance is illegal.

Most Respectfully,
R

But you know as well as I do, that even a Protected Person is barred from crimes intended to harm the Occupying Power. They are punishable by law just the same as if the were committed in a unoccupied zone.

This is misleading.

This only applies to the prosecution by the occupying power for violation of local laws.

International law is different.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The right of "self-defense" is not all encompassing.

Pertaining to the dispute at hand --- the Palestinians have the right of self-defense, in cases where that involves defending oneself as a protected person, or the well-being of another from harm that violates the status of a protected person.

Anything to resist or remove the occupation.

(COMMENT)

But you know as well as I do, that even a Protected Person is barred from crimes intended to harm the Occupying Power. They are punishable by law just the same as if the were committed in a unoccupied zone. While it is true --- that the courts have some latitude and discretion to convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period; in cases that do not involve some of the more serious crimes --- even the international sees certain crimes as capital offenses. Even Palestinians holding the status of a protected person, guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or resistance movement crimes which have caused the death of one or more persons, are offenses punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began. (See Article 68 of the Geneva Code)

In the cases I've just discussed, the Palestinian has the rights to self-defense very similar to that of any American in the US. But when you attempt to apply that to the resistance movement against the occupation, it changes. Even under Humanitarian Law, the Hostile Arab Palestinian does not have the right to use any deadly force against the Occupation Power.



It is not "Rocco" that makes the claim, it is the law. Protected Palestinian Persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, including acts of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, or intentional acts which have caused the death of one or more persons are subject to fine, imprisonment, or capitol punishment befitting the crime. This includes resistance action defined under Article 13 of the HAMAS Covenant (There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.) or Article 9 of the Palestine National Charter (Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.) Even the suggest and support of such violent or hostile action against the Occupation Force is a violation of the Plan of Action, Part II, Paragraph 1, Annex to A/RES/60/288, wherein instigating and encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities intended to be committed against other States or their citizens is a violation of international law.

Self-defense for common law purposes is otherwise similar to that of any other nation.

Resistance comes in two forms: violent and non-violent. Non-violent resistance, such as BDS, is entirely legal. Violent resistance is illegal.

Most Respectfully,
R

But you know as well as I do, that even a Protected Person is barred from crimes intended to harm the Occupying Power. They are punishable by law just the same as if the were committed in a unoccupied zone.

This is misleading.

This only applies to the prosecution by the occupying power for violation of local laws.

International law is different.

Intentionally harming non military targets is NOT resisting and it's not defending. It's really that simple.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The right of "self-defense" is not all encompassing.

Pertaining to the dispute at hand --- the Palestinians have the right of self-defense, in cases where that involves defending oneself as a protected person, or the well-being of another from harm that violates the status of a protected person.

Anything to resist or remove the occupation.

(COMMENT)

But you know as well as I do, that even a Protected Person is barred from crimes intended to harm the Occupying Power. They are punishable by law just the same as if the were committed in a unoccupied zone. While it is true --- that the courts have some latitude and discretion to convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period; in cases that do not involve some of the more serious crimes --- even the international sees certain crimes as capital offenses. Even Palestinians holding the status of a protected person, guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or resistance movement crimes which have caused the death of one or more persons, are offenses punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began. (See Article 68 of the Geneva Code)

In the cases I've just discussed, the Palestinian has the rights to self-defense very similar to that of any American in the US. But when you attempt to apply that to the resistance movement against the occupation, it changes. Even under Humanitarian Law, the Hostile Arab Palestinian does not have the right to use any deadly force against the Occupation Power.

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 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 and 65 may impose the death penalty against 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 on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

SOURCE: Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons

It is not "Rocco" that makes the claim, it is the law. Protected Palestinian Persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, including acts of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, or intentional acts which have caused the death of one or more persons are subject to fine, imprisonment, or capitol punishment befitting the crime. This includes resistance action defined under Article 13 of the HAMAS Covenant (There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.) or Article 9 of the Palestine National Charter (Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.) Even the suggest and support of such violent or hostile action against the Occupation Force is a violation of the Plan of Action, Part II, Paragraph 1, Annex to A/RES/60/288, wherein instigating and encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities intended to be committed against other States or their citizens is a violation of international law.

Self-defense for common law purposes is otherwise similar to that of any other nation.

Resistance comes in two forms: violent and non-violent. Non-violent resistance, such as BDS, is entirely legal. Violent resistance is illegal.

Most Respectfully,
R

The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which
peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist
régimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter
of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning
Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the
United Nations.”​

The aim of paragraph 4 as quoted above seems to be to try to establish that certain armed conflicts that might be viewed by some as essentially internal in character, are really international, and hence fully subject to the better-developed legal regime governing international armed conflicts. As far as its specific reference to occupation is concerned, the paragraph does not concern itself directly with the definition or scope of ‘alien occupation’; and it adds little to the scope of application as spelt out in the 1949 Geneva Conventions themselves. All it really does is to close a tiny technical loophole in common Article 2, by making a little clearer what was already widely accepted – namely, that the law on occupations is applicable even in situations (like the West Bank and Gaza) where the occupied territory was not universally viewed as having been part of “the territory of a High Contracting Party.” As Bothe, Partsch and Solf say, it appears that the term ‘alien occupation’ is “meant to cover cases in which a High Contracting Party occupies territories of a State which is not a HCP, or territories with a controversial international status, and to establish that the population of such territory is fighting against the occupant in the exercise of their right of self-determination.”

http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-4094.pdf

 

[Billo_Really]

You hear that Billo? That's the sound of your credibility being flushed down the toilet.

Why? Because I made a valid comparison?

Hey, Billo's credibility, say hi to Tinmores credibility when you're down there!

Tinny's not down there. Maybe Santa will put it in your stocking this Christmas?

Speaking of Nazis, doesnt Hamas have the same final solution, or a very similar one as Hitler did?

No they don't.

Speaking of Nazis, haven't many many MANY Palestinians screamed for the Genocide of Israelis?

No they haven't.

Only difference is Hitler hid his intentions while the Arabs scream it from the rooftops

Bad analogy.

Hitler's intentions were to scapegoat the jews for all the problems in his country, which they weren't.

Israel, however, "is" the cause of all the Palestinian's problems.

 

[Billo_Really]

Since you brought up Neil Diamond, I bet you don't know that Neil Diamond's mother lived in the San Fernando Valley in the Oakwood Apartments in the 1970's-1980's and played cards with the other Jewish women there such as the mother of a friend of mine.

No, I did not know that and thank you for sharing.

It is amusing how Billy has had no problem calling the females who have a different view from his twisted sisters when it appears that he is very twisted himself.

The difference is, she was born that way, whereas I need mind-altering drugs to get in that state.

 

[Billo_Really]

No comment on these attacks then by the Palestinians

December 1947 – Small kibbutzim were subjected to attacks – Gvulot, Ben-Shemen, Holon, Safed, Bat Yam and Kfar Yavetz. Sixty-two Jews were murdered by Arabs around Palestine.
December 30, 1947 – 39 Jews were killed by Arab rioters at Haifa’s oil refinery
January 16, 1948 – 35 Jews were killed trying to reach Gush Etzion
February 22, 1948 – 44 Jews were murdered in a bombing on Jerusalem’s Rehov Ben-Yehuda
February 29, 1948 – 23 Jews were killed all across Palestine, eight of them at the Hayotzek iron foundry.
January and February 1948 – Rishon Lezion, Yehiam, Mishmar Hayarden, Tirat Zvi, Sde Eliahu, Ein Hanatziv, Magdiel, Mitzpe Hagalil and Ma’anit were all subjected to attacks. Arab attackers also bombed The Palestine Post
April 13, 1948 – 35 Jew were murdered during the Hadassah medical convoy massacre

I never said the arabs had no blood on their hands. There was violence on both sides. The Zionists, however, did a lot more of it. And it was because of Zionist violence, that precipitated arab violence.