I will not Bow!

[SAYIT]

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

Camel crap.
Palestinian Arabs are no different than their Arab/Muslim neighbors and their probs are of their own making.

 

[Billo_Really]

This is where I got my username from, not Neil Diamond.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojEtTcqAh5A

That song kicks! It's a cool tune.

And consequently, so is your user name. Kudo's.

Since you showed me yours, I guess I'll show you mine.

This is where I got my user name (figuratively speaking)...

...it's a combination of being the antithesis to Bill O' Reilly and this guy...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gINmYyQst4c]Sam Kinison- Gonna Raise Hell - YouTube[/ame]


Gratuitous zone 2 compliance:
Oh yes, I will not bow! Ever.

 

[Billo_Really]

Camel crap.
Palestinian Arabs are no different than their Arab/Muslim neighbors and their probs are of their own making.

So you're saying the 47 year occupation, with it's over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank, have no affect on the Palestinian's daily lives?

 

[SAYIT]

Camel crap.
Palestinian Arabs are no different than their Arab/Muslim neighbors and their probs are of their own making.

So you're saying the 47 year occupation, with it's over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank, have no affect on the Palestinian's daily lives?

Why not? You claimed Israel "is" the cause of all the Palestinian's problems.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Your source document, Occupation and Other Forms of administration of Foreign Territory, is not actually law, or even an interpretation by a court. It is a consensus document publish by the Legal Division, ICRC. It is not specific to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, but discusses several principles which are applicable.

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

(OBSERVATION)

From your source: Occupation and Other Forms of administration of Foreign Territory

These experts were of the opinion that the context of armed conflict in which the occupier was carrying out law enforcement activities permitted it greater latitude in the use of force than would have been the case in police operations carried out on its own territory. In addition, one expert pointed out, Article*27§4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (part of the law enforcement model based on occupation law) authorized the occupying power to take any security measures that “may be necessary” because of the occupation. The expert said that since the use of force during police operations would necessarily fall under this provision, the result would be substantial flexibility under the law enforcement model in situations of occupation. He suggested that security measures, including the use of force, within the meaning of Article*27§4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention were based not on the standard of “strict” or “absolute necessity” required under human rights law, but on the more generous concept of military necessity underlying IHL.

However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.

SOURCE: ICRC CGIV

(COMMENT)

First, I did not rely on Article 2 concepts, as your rebuttal centers on. I cited the concepts of Article 27 and quoted Article 68 of the Geneva Convention. While as interesting as your rebuttal is, it doesn't address my position at all. (Or as you are so fond of say, it is irrelevant.)

Within your source document is an elegant set of arguments. But at the end of the day, on Page 120, the outcome was.

Special Note: I encourage you to read PART ONE: DELIMITING THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE TO THE USE OF FORCE IN OCCUPIED TERRITORY --- SECTION D. THE ROLE OF OCCUPATION LAW IN REGULATING LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES, specifically pages 119 and 120. It will be helpful to you.​

Finally, the experts tried to identify the kinds of activity that would necessarily fall under the law enforcement model in occupied territory. Unfortunately, the participants were unable to reach a consensus on this issue, except in the case of criminal activities clearly unconnected to the occupation and the potential hostilities related to it. In fact, the experts only agreed that the law enforcement model would always prevail when the occupying forces were engaged in police operations aimed at enforcing the law against criminal acts not linked to the armed conflict.

Further, I also relied on the a fact that is often forgotten in the discussion. In 1967 Israel did not occupy "Palestine." Israel occupied the Gaza Strip, territory under Egyptian Occupation and Administration. And, Israel occupied the West Bank, which was under the Sovereign control of Jordan. And since that time, it was the Israelis that allowed the Palestinian people to declare independence --- a form of self-determination, and not either Arab League Nation.

Nothing in your rebuttal suggest, even in the slightest way, that the Hostile Arab Palestinians have some special dispensation to conduct solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, including acts of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, with exemption or immunity from punishment or recrimination (impunity).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

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?

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.

Yes they do and yes they have. Not all of course. ****, you're ignorant.
And no, you didnt make a valid comparison. Go in your post history and find the post where I dismantled all those idiotic comparisons you made.

Hitlers 'final solution' was to kill all the Jews you LYING PROPAGANDIST. What is it with pro Palestinians and distorting history?? I dont get it.

 

[toastman]

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.

And it was because of Arab violence that precipitated Zionist violence

 

[toastman]

Camel crap.
Palestinian Arabs are no different than their Arab/Muslim neighbors and their probs are of their own making.

So you're saying the 47 year occupation, with it's over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank, have no affect on the Palestinian's daily lives?

The 'occupation' is a result of Jordan joining the war in 1967. The continuing of the 'occupation' is because there is no peace treaty. And because the Palestinians have not show Israel can trust them in the sense that ending the 'occupation ' would mean that it would be extremely easy for Palestinian terrorists to infiltrate Israel. If you didnt only read propaganda sites, you would read that there have plenty of arrests of those affiliated with Hamas planning attacks.
Checkpoints are there because...well... Do I need to explain that to you??

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah! --- So close, yet no banana!

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.

(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.

(COMMENT)

Intentionally attacking "non-military" targets is a violation under any standard you cite.

But more importantly, under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), specifically the Geneva Convention, you will not that it says (Article 68, supra) that "under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began." (Read it twice.) In the case of the West Bank it would be Jordanian Law, and in the case of the Gaza Strip it would be Egyptian Occupation Law. I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.

No matter how you slice it, the mere fact that you are attempting to argue in favor of criminal activity in violation of all the laws we've cited thus far, is an example of criminal intent.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Your source document, Occupation and Other Forms of administration of Foreign Territory, is not actually law, or even an interpretation by a court. It is a consensus document publish by the Legal Division, ICRC. It is not specific to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, but discusses several principles which are applicable.

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

(OBSERVATION)

From your source: Occupation and Other Forms of administration of Foreign Territory

These experts were of the opinion that the context of armed conflict in which the occupier was carrying out law enforcement activities permitted it greater latitude in the use of force than would have been the case in police operations carried out on its own territory. In addition, one expert pointed out, Article*27§4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (part of the law enforcement model based on occupation law) authorized the occupying power to take any security measures that “may be necessary” because of the occupation. The expert said that since the use of force during police operations would necessarily fall under this provision, the result would be substantial flexibility under the law enforcement model in situations of occupation. He suggested that security measures, including the use of force, within the meaning of Article*27§4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention were based not on the standard of “strict” or “absolute necessity” required under human rights law, but on the more generous concept of military necessity underlying IHL.

(COMMENT)

First, I did not rely on Article 2 concepts, as your rebuttal centers on. I cited the concepts of Article 27 and quoted Article 68 of the Geneva Convention. While as interesting as your rebuttal is, it doesn't address my position at all. (Or as you are so fond of say, it is irrelevant.)

Within your source document is an elegant set of arguments. But at the end of the day, on Page 120, the outcome was.

Special Note: I encourage you to read PART ONE: DELIMITING THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE TO THE USE OF FORCE IN OCCUPIED TERRITORY --- SECTION D. THE ROLE OF OCCUPATION LAW IN REGULATING LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES, specifically pages 119 and 120. It will be helpful to you.​

Finally, the experts tried to identify the kinds of activity that would necessarily fall under the law enforcement model in occupied territory. Unfortunately, the participants were unable to reach a consensus on this issue, except in the case of criminal activities clearly unconnected to the occupation and the potential hostilities related to it. In fact, the experts only agreed that the law enforcement model would always prevail when the occupying forces were engaged in police operations aimed at enforcing the law against criminal acts not linked to the armed conflict.

Further, I also relied on the a fact that is often forgotten in the discussion. In 1967 Israel did not occupy "Palestine." Israel occupied the Gaza Strip, territory under Egyptian Occupation and Administration. And, Israel occupied the West Bank, which was under the Sovereign control of Jordan. And since that time, it was the Israelis that allowed the Palestinian people to declare independence --- a form of self-determination, and not either Arab League Nation.

Nothing in your rebuttal suggest, even in the slightest way, that the Hostile Arab Palestinians have some special dispensation to conduct solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, including acts of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, with exemption or immunity from punishment or recrimination (impunity).

Most Respectfully,
R

Thank you for confirming my point about local law enforcement that is separate from international violations.

and to establish that the population of such territory is fighting against the occupant in the exercise of their right of self-determination.”

Fighting against the occupation is a right even though Israel may have some little local laws against it.

Recognizing that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Expressing its grave concern that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;

3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;

4. Recognizes that the Palestinian people is a principal party in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

5. Further recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah! --- So close, yet no banana!

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.

(COMMENT)

Intentionally attacking "non-military" targets is a violation under any standard you cite.

But more importantly, under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), specifically the Geneva Convention, you will not that it says (Article 68, supra) that "under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began." (Read it twice.) In the case of the West Bank it would be Jordanian Law, and in the case of the Gaza Strip it would be Egyptian Occupation Law. I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.

No matter how you slice it, the mere fact that you are attempting to argue in favor of criminal activity in violation of all the laws we've cited thus far, is an example of criminal intent.

Most Respectfully,
R

I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.

OK, quote any law that makes any of that illegal against foreign forces or occupation.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah! --- So close, yet no banana!

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

(COMMENT)

Intentionally attacking "non-military" targets is a violation under any standard you cite.

But more importantly, under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), specifically the Geneva Convention, you will not that it says (Article 68, supra) that "under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began." (Read it twice.) In the case of the West Bank it would be Jordanian Law, and in the case of the Gaza Strip it would be Egyptian Occupation Law. I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.

No matter how you slice it, the mere fact that you are attempting to argue in favor of criminal activity in violation of all the laws we've cited thus far, is an example of criminal intent.

Most Respectfully,
R

I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.

OK, quote any law that makes any of that illegal against foreign forces or occupation.

(ANSWER)

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: ICRC GCIV

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah! --- So close, yet no banana!

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

(COMMENT)

Intentionally attacking "non-military" targets is a violation under any standard you cite.

But more importantly, under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), specifically the Geneva Convention, you will not that it says (Article 68, supra) that "under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began." (Read it twice.) In the case of the West Bank it would be Jordanian Law, and in the case of the Gaza Strip it would be Egyptian Occupation Law. I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.

No matter how you slice it, the mere fact that you are attempting to argue in favor of criminal activity in violation of all the laws we've cited thus far, is an example of criminal intent.

Most Respectfully,
R

I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.

OK, quote any law that makes any of that illegal against foreign forces or occupation.

Whats the point. Even when anyone gives you a link that clearly proves what they say or clearly disproves what you said, you still argue and claim you are right.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah! --- So close, yet no banana!


(COMMENT)

Intentionally attacking "non-military" targets is a violation under any standard you cite.

But more importantly, under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), specifically the Geneva Convention, you will not that it says (Article 68, supra) that "under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began." (Read it twice.) In the case of the West Bank it would be Jordanian Law, and in the case of the Gaza Strip it would be Egyptian Occupation Law. I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.

No matter how you slice it, the mere fact that you are attempting to argue in favor of criminal activity in violation of all the laws we've cited thus far, is an example of criminal intent.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, quote any law that makes any of that illegal against foreign forces or occupation.

(ANSWER)

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: ICRC GCIV

Most Respectfully,
R

I thought we were talking about Jordan and Egyptian law.

And when it comes to things like sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, those are only violations when committed against your own country.

 

[Indeependent]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah! --- So close, yet no banana!

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

(COMMENT)

Intentionally attacking "non-military" targets is a violation under any standard you cite.

But more importantly, under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), specifically the Geneva Convention, you will not that it says (Article 68, supra) that "under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began." (Read it twice.) In the case of the West Bank it would be Jordanian Law, and in the case of the Gaza Strip it would be Egyptian Occupation Law. I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.

No matter how you slice it, the mere fact that you are attempting to argue in favor of criminal activity in violation of all the laws we've cited thus far, is an example of criminal intent.

Most Respectfully,
R

I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.

OK, quote any law that makes any of that illegal against foreign forces or occupation.

I personally prefer your implied idea that every last living Arab in the Jordanian West Bank be exterminated since they won't surrender...You said it (many times), not me.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah! --- So close, yet no banana!


(COMMENT)

Intentionally attacking "non-military" targets is a violation under any standard you cite.

But more importantly, under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), specifically the Geneva Convention, you will not that it says (Article 68, supra) that "under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began." (Read it twice.) In the case of the West Bank it would be Jordanian Law, and in the case of the Gaza Strip it would be Egyptian Occupation Law. I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.

No matter how you slice it, the mere fact that you are attempting to argue in favor of criminal activity in violation of all the laws we've cited thus far, is an example of criminal intent.

Most Respectfully,
R

I'm quite sure that they both have laws against armed assaults, murder, sabotage, espionage, subversion, treason and sedition, as well as the other normal run of the mill crimes.

OK, quote any law that makes any of that illegal against foreign forces or occupation.

I personally prefer your implied idea that every last living Arab in the Jordanian West Bank be exterminated since they won't surrender...You said it (many times), not me.

Refusing to surrender is illegal?

Link?

 

[Hossfly]

OK, quote any law that makes any of that illegal against foreign forces or occupation.

I personally prefer your implied idea that every last living Arab in the Jordanian West Bank be exterminated since they won't surrender...You said it (many times), not me.

Refusing to surrender is illegal?

Link?

I don't think he said or implied that, PF.

 

[Indeependent]

OK, quote any law that makes any of that illegal against foreign forces or occupation.

I personally prefer your implied idea that every last living Arab in the Jordanian West Bank be exterminated since they won't surrender...You said it (many times), not me.

Refusing to surrender is illegal?

Link?

Refusing to surrender is neither legal or illegal.
The Torah concept of war never mentions surrender.
[1] Give the enemy a warning before battle...Leave or die.
[2] If you don't leave and you lose, you live by our rules.
[3] If you are hostile after you lose the war you die.

Simple enough...God said it, not me.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You make me laugh.

OK, quote any law that makes any of that illegal against foreign forces or occupation.

I personally prefer your implied idea that every last living Arab in the Jordanian West Bank be exterminated since they won't surrender...You said it (many times), not me.

Refusing to surrender is illegal?

Link?

(COMMENT)

I did not say or imply that.

Whether or not the opposing force surrenders or not, doesn't negate occupation law.

There is little to no question that Israel is an Occupation Force. The Geneva Convention applies.

The explanation in Posting #2905 still applies.

Finally, the experts tried to identify the kinds of activity that would necessarily fall under the law enforcement model in occupied territory. Unfortunately, the participants were unable to reach a consensus on this issue, except in the case of criminal activities clearly unconnected to the occupation and the potential hostilities related to it. In fact, the experts only agreed that the law enforcement model would always prevail when the occupying forces were engaged in police operations aimed at enforcing the law against criminal acts not linked to the armed conflict.

From your source: Occupation and Other Forms of administration of Foreign Territory

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You make me laugh.

I personally prefer your implied idea that every last living Arab in the Jordanian West Bank be exterminated since they won't surrender...You said it (many times), not me.

Refusing to surrender is illegal?

Link?

(COMMENT)

I did not say or imply that.

Whether or not the opposing force surrenders or not, doesn't negate occupation law.

There is little to no question that Israel is an Occupation Force. The Geneva Convention applies.

The explanation in Posting #2905 still applies.

Finally, the experts tried to identify the kinds of activity that would necessarily fall under the law enforcement model in occupied territory. Unfortunately, the participants were unable to reach a consensus on this issue, except in the case of criminal activities clearly unconnected to the occupation and the potential hostilities related to it. In fact, the experts only agreed that the law enforcement model would always prevail when the occupying forces were engaged in police operations aimed at enforcing the law against criminal acts not linked to the armed conflict.

From your source: Occupation and Other Forms of administration of Foreign Territory

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, that is law enforcement for things the occupation deems illegal.

That is not illegal under international law. The Palestinians have the right to regain their rights by all means.