I will not Bow!

[Phoenall]

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.

That is International Law you buffoon, it is the article from the Geneva conventions that covers this. Local Laws always take precedence over International Laws or we would have no LAW AT ALL. If local laws say no urinating against public buildings no International law can say otherwise. So if the P.A. has it as a local law that premeditated shooting of another person carries the death penalty then under occupation the same law applies. And it does not distinguish if the person is indigenous or occupying power, but this can be used to mitigate the circumstances surrounding the shooting.

 

[Phoenall]

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

From your link

the ICJ stated that occupation required the exercise of actual
authority by the foreign forces (emphasis added).5 In others words, the ICJ decided that foreign
troops should substantiate their authority in order to qualify as an occupying power.

Therefore, most of the experts supported a test based on the ability of enemy foreign forces to exert
authority over a specific area. As illustration, one expert referred to the situation of Denmark during
World War II when German armed forces, despite their military supremacy, had chosen not to exert
authority and had let the Danish Government do so instead.

Now isnt the P.A. in control of the west bank ?

Most of the experts agreed that Article 43 of THR should be interpreted broadly to allow the
occupying power to fulfil its duties under occupation law, in particular the administration
of the occupied territory for the benefit of the local population, while ensuring the security
of its own armed forces.



Always make sure your link does not say the opposite to what you are meaning.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Lets see if you can answer a very simple set of questions honestly and truthfully shall we

1) were was Israel in 627 C.E. when Mohamed the founder of Islam proclaimed to his followers "KILL ALL THE JEWS"

2) what breaches of International Law did Israel commit in 1929 that resulted in the riots in Hebron.

3) do explain how Hitler came by his final solution that mirrors that set up by the muslims many years earlier.

4) what comparison is there between the yellow star worn by Jews in Islamic nations 500 years ago and that worn by Jews in 1930's Europe.


Now for the calls of the genocide of the Jews take a look at these

PA Official Publicly Calls for Genocide of Jews - Middle East - News - Israel National News

The principal Palestinian Authority’s religious leader, the Mufti Muhammad Hussein, speaking last week, presented the killing of Jews by Muslims as a religious Islamic goal

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs0xLdFqU_s]Palestinian girl calls for genocide of Jews on Palestinian Authority TV - YouTube[/ame]

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This absolutely and quintessential wrong.

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.

(COMMENT)

There is no human right to anything using "all means."

In this case, I can only refer you to understand the essence of Article 68 of the Geneva Code and the Rome Statutes.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

Lets see if you can answer a very simple set of questions honestly and truthfully shall we

Yes we shall!

1) were was Israel in 627 C.E. when Mohamed the founder of Islam proclaimed to his followers "KILL ALL THE JEWS"

I dunno! I don't give a shit, either.

What happened 2000 years ago, don't mean shit today.

2) what breaches of International Law did Israel commit in 1929 that resulted in the riots in Hebron.

Their weren't any. IHL didn't come into existence until the end of WWII.

3) do explain how Hitler came by his final solution that mirrors that set up by the muslims many years earlier.

I can't. Because I don't know about "that set up", you're referring to.

Why don't you enlighten me with some specifics and links?

4) what comparison is there between the yellow star worn by Jews in Islamic nations 500 years ago and that worn by Jews in 1930's Europe.

Can't answer that one, either.

For two reasons:

1. I'm not qualified to answer that
2. I don't give a shit about any comparison and could care less

So how'd I do?

Now for the calls of the genocide of the Jews take a look at these

PA Official Publicly Calls for Genocide of Jews - Middle East - News - Israel National News

The principal Palestinian Authority’s religious leader, the Mufti Muhammad Hussein, speaking last week, presented the killing of Jews by Muslims as a religious Islamic goal

Palestinian girl calls for genocide of Jews on Palestinian Authority TV - YouTube

He's a ******* asshole and a moron! **** him!

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Then stop taking them and eventually you will be free of your demons, could take 10 years. So in the meantime stop posting NAZI ANTI SEMOITIC JEW HATRED and yiu will find the transition easier.

 

[Billo_Really]

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

Because of the over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints.

What can you point to that it's not?

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Not according to the real history books. But you have ignored the much more prevalent mass murders of Jews by the Palestinians by not giving them equal credence.

Now show were Jews mass murdered Palestinians using a credible source for your evidence of Zionist violence. Not your usual NAZI and ISLAMONAZI sites that are known to be lying. Lets see a near 200 mass murder tally by the "Zionists" that is not retaliation to ISLAMONAZI VIOLENT TERRORISM using illegal weapons aimed at children.

 

[Phoenall]

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?

Are you saying that 1400 years of mass murder, land theft, rape, forced conversion, brutality, mindless violence and attempted genocide has no affect on the Israeli's daily lives. To say nothing of their relief when it was eventually brought to a halt and the ISLAMONAZI TERRORIST SCUM were given a tiny taste of the treatment they have dished out to the Jews. All they need to do is stop the rockets, bombs, mortars and bullets aimed at Israeli children and stand by their word given under the Oslo accords and they will get blockade, checkpoints and roadblocks lifted.

 

[Phoenall]

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



(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.​

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

It is not Israeli law that counts but the law of the nation that had the control and government of the land prior to occupation. In this case it was Jordan, and whatever laws they put in place while they had governmental control.

The Palestinians have been given that right and have abused it time and time again.
I don't believe you even understand what the right to self determination actually means, but in the Palestinians case they have determined that they will engage on violent terrorist actions that result in retaliations from the people they terrorise. A good example is Jordan that shot 50,000 in one month because they freely determined that they would terrorise Jordan into giving up their land.
The only people standing in the way of peace and a nationality are the Palestinians themselves when they refuse to talk like grown ups and make unrealistic demands.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

MURDER, TREASON, SEDITION AND SUBVERSION are all illegal under any law in all civilised nations. Shooting an enemy soldier is not murder, shooting a child and a pregnant woman is even if they are of the enemy.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

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.

Sabotage is illegal in any country, and espionage still caries the death penalty. Why not take a look at the Laws of Jordan and Egypt and see how they apply to the west bank and gaza.

 

[Phoenall]

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?

Now were in the reply was that said, or is it your fantasy world putting those words in because you are losing the argument AGAIN.

Refusing to surrender is criminally insane, and shows once again that the Palestinians are not yet ready for any free determination

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You make me laugh.

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.

Be very careful on what you say next as the above is an actual breach of International law. Under International Law terrorism, murder, chemical/biological weapons, mass murder, attacks on children and many other actions carried out by the Palestinians are ILLEGAL and they can not and should not use them to regain their land back. They have not lost any rights under the occupation as they are governed by the P.A.

So if you want to incite the use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons be aware that you could be held responsible for other peoples actions

 

[Phoenall]

Lets see if you can answer a very simple set of questions honestly and truthfully shall we

Yes we shall!

1) were was Israel in 627 C.E. when Mohamed the founder of Islam proclaimed to his followers "KILL ALL THE JEWS"

I dunno! I don't give a shit, either.

What happened 2000 years ago, don't mean shit today.

Their weren't any. IHL didn't come into existence until the end of WWII.

I can't. Because I don't know about "that set up", you're referring to.

Why don't you enlighten me with some specifics and links?

4) what comparison is there between the yellow star worn by Jews in Islamic nations 500 years ago and that worn by Jews in 1930's Europe.

Can't answer that one, either.

For two reasons:

1. I'm not qualified to answer that
2. I don't give a shit about any comparison and could care less

So how'd I do?

Now for the calls of the genocide of the Jews take a look at these

PA Official Publicly Calls for Genocide of Jews - Middle East - News - Israel National News

The principal Palestinian Authority’s religious leader, the Mufti Muhammad Hussein, speaking last week, presented the killing of Jews by Muslims as a religious Islamic goal

Palestinian girl calls for genocide of Jews on Palestinian Authority TV - YouTube

He's a ******* asshole and a moron! **** him!

You fail to even attempt an honest answer because it shows the problems lie with the deranged Palestinian religion. When it is shown that the Palestinians are just following their religious commands you don't want to know. When it is shown that the Jews in Palestine were brutalised by the Palestinians you don't want to know. And then when it is shown that the Nazis just copied the dhimma laws you ignore the reality.
IN OTHER WORDS YOU DONT CARE ABOUT THE REAL PROBLEMS IN THE M.E. JUST THE ONES YOU CAN USE TO DEMONISE AND CASTIGATE THE JEWS WITH.

 

[Phoenall]

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

Because of the over 500 roadblocks and checkpoints.

What can you point to that it's not?

The 5,000 rocket attacks, the 500 suicide bombings of children, the 1,000's of unprovoked attacks and finally the commands of their religion that tells them " KILL ALL THE JEWS "

 

[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.


(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

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

From your link

the ICJ stated that occupation required the exercise of actual
authority by the foreign forces (emphasis added).5 In others words, the ICJ decided that foreign
troops should substantiate their authority in order to qualify as an occupying power.

Therefore, most of the experts supported a test based on the ability of enemy foreign forces to exert
authority over a specific area. As illustration, one expert referred to the situation of Denmark during
World War II when German armed forces, despite their military supremacy, had chosen not to exert
authority and had let the Danish Government do so instead.

Now isnt the P.A. in control of the west bank ?

No!

Most of the experts agreed that Article 43 of THR should be interpreted broadly to allow the occupying power to fulfil its duties under occupation law,

Occupying powers have obligations and restrictions.

What are those and what is Israel's record of compliance?

in particular the administration of the occupied territory for the benefit of the local population,

What does Israel do to benefit the local population?

while ensuring the security
of its own armed forces.



Always make sure your link does not say the opposite to what you are meaning.

 

[toastman]

Then who is the governing power in the West Bank?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Remnants of the occupied country’s armed forces who
continue fighting are of course combatants and must be treated as such. If
captured, they are entitled to POW status and treatment as laid down in the
Third Geneva Convention. In particular, they cannot be tried for the simple
fact of taking part in hostilities.

http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

So!

Remnants of the occupied country’s armed forces who
continue fighting are of course combatants and must be treated as such. If
captured, they are entitled to POW status and treatment as laid down in the
Third Geneva Convention. In particular, they cannot be tried for the simple
fact of taking part in hostilities.

http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf

(COMMENT)

In 1967, the War was fought between Israel and the forces of Jordan (including all the West Bank) and Egypt (including all the Gaza Strip). The war is concluded. Peace treaties are signed, and there are no remnants. There was no such country as Palestine at the time.

As you so often say.... irrelevant!

Most Respectfully,
R