I will not Bow!

[P F Tinmore]

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

The west Bank was not Jordan.

The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law.

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

 

[P F Tinmore]

Then who is the governing power in the West Bank?

Israel

 

[Phoenall]

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!


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.

Then who represents the Palestinians in the UN, and is judged by all nations to be the governing body ?


See the Geneva conventions for the details and then see if Israel exceeds those boundaries.

Provides paid employment that gives wages over and above those paid by the P.A.

Which is the clause you never seem to understand when you make your FALSE CLAIMS about Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,



(ANSWER)



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.

Sabotage operations are lawful combat activities provided they are
carried out by lawful combatants and against legitimate military targets.

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

 

[Phoenall]

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

Didn't you state only yesterday that the P.A had no army, so this does not apply. Even if it did they have certain rules to follow that include the wearing of some form of uniform to distinguish them from ordinary civilians. No military action from civilian areas, or using civilians as human shields, no targeting children or unarmed civilians, no terrorist attacks and no illegal weapons.

Any breach of the above is a criminal offence under International law and Jordanian/Egyptian law at the time they occupied Palestine.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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!


Occupying powers have obligations and restrictions.

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


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.

Then who represents the Palestinians in the UN, and is judged by all nations to be the governing body ?


See the Geneva conventions for the details and then see if Israel exceeds those boundaries.

Provides paid employment that gives wages over and above those paid by the P.A.

Which is the clause you never seem to understand when you make your FALSE CLAIMS about Israel.

Nice duck.

 

[Phoenall]

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

The west Bank was not Jordan.

The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law.

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

Jordan occupied the west bank with the Palestinians acceptance of their rule, who did they conquer to annexe this land. Which sovereign nation had government control of the land before Jordan invaded and who did they depose as leader of that nation ?

 

[Phoenall]

Then who is the governing power in the West Bank?

Israel

Are you now saying that the west bank is now part of Israel and that the people have accepted their rule.
Or is it a fact that the P.A. still govern the west bank and represent the peoples interests in the UN .

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Sabotage operations are lawful combat activities provided they are
carried out by lawful combatants and against legitimate military targets.

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

And as you stated yesterday the P.A. has no standing army, so the attacks are illegal terrorism

 

[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

Didn't you state only yesterday that the P.A had no army, so this does not apply. Even if it did they have certain rules to follow that include the wearing of some form of uniform to distinguish them from ordinary civilians. No military action from civilian areas, or using civilians as human shields, no targeting children or unarmed civilians, no terrorist attacks and no illegal weapons.

Any breach of the above is a criminal offence under International law and Jordanian/Egyptian law at the time they occupied Palestine.

Palestinian defense forces have always been civilians.

They are wearing their traditional "uniform."

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

Sabotage operations are lawful combat activities provided they are
carried out by lawful combatants and against legitimate military targets.

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

And as you stated yesterday the P.A. has no standing army, so the attacks are illegal terrorism

Oh boy, so now you are playing the terrorist card.

 

[toastman]

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

Didn't you state only yesterday that the P.A had no army, so this does not apply. Even if it did they have certain rules to follow that include the wearing of some form of uniform to distinguish them from ordinary civilians. No military action from civilian areas, or using civilians as human shields, no targeting children or unarmed civilians, no terrorist attacks and no illegal weapons.

Any breach of the above is a criminal offence under International law and Jordanian/Egyptian law at the time they occupied Palestine.

Palestinian defense forces have always been civilians.

They are wearing their traditional "uniform."

Israeli soldiers have also always been civilians. Whats your point?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Didn't you state only yesterday that the P.A had no army, so this does not apply. Even if it did they have certain rules to follow that include the wearing of some form of uniform to distinguish them from ordinary civilians. No military action from civilian areas, or using civilians as human shields, no targeting children or unarmed civilians, no terrorist attacks and no illegal weapons.

Any breach of the above is a criminal offence under International law and Jordanian/Egyptian law at the time they occupied Palestine.

Palestinian defense forces have always been civilians.

They are wearing their traditional "uniform."

Israeli soldiers have also always been civilians. Whats your point?

Israeli soldiers and citizens are not considered "civilians."

 

[toastman]

Sabotage operations are lawful combat activities provided they are
carried out by lawful combatants and against legitimate military targets.

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

And as you stated yesterday the P.A. has no standing army, so the attacks are illegal terrorism

Oh boy, so now you are playing the terrorist card.

Nice deflection.

Btw, how is calling out terrorists for who they are playing the 'terrorist card'

Its as if you are getting offended that we are calling your buddies terrorists lol.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Then who is the governing power in the West Bank?

Israel

Are you now saying that the west bank is now part of Israel and that the people have accepted their rule.
Or is it a fact that the P.A. still govern the west bank and represent the peoples interests in the UN .

No, they rule by military force with no elective legitimacy.

 

[toastman]

Palestinian defense forces have always been civilians.

They are wearing their traditional "uniform."

Israeli soldiers have also always been civilians. Whats your point?

Israeli soldiers and citizens are not considered "civilians."

Citizens of Israel are civilians. Just because Israel is the 'occupying power' in the West Bank, it has nothing to do with it.

 

[toastman]

Israel

Are you now saying that the west bank is now part of Israel and that the people have accepted their rule.
Or is it a fact that the P.A. still govern the west bank and represent the peoples interests in the UN .

No, they rule by military force with no elective legitimacy.

The PA is the governing for e of the Palestinians in the West Bank. Just because you're pissed that he has surpassed his term, doesnt change anything

 

[P F Tinmore]

And as you stated yesterday the P.A. has no standing army, so the attacks are illegal terrorism

Oh boy, so now you are playing the terrorist card.

Nice deflection.

Btw, how is calling out terrorists for who they are playing the 'terrorist card'

Its as if you are getting offended that we are calling your buddies terrorists lol.

"Terrorist" is third grade, political name calling.

The Palestinians do not fit the definition of terrorists.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Are you now saying that the west bank is now part of Israel and that the people have accepted their rule.
Or is it a fact that the P.A. still govern the west bank and represent the peoples interests in the UN .

No, they rule by military force with no elective legitimacy.

The PA is the governing for e of the Palestinians in the West Bank. Just because you're pissed that he has surpassed his term, doesnt change anything

Does the PA control its borders?
Control its airspace?
Control its imports and exports?
Control its travel and tourism?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israeli soldiers have also always been civilians. Whats your point?

Israeli soldiers and citizens are not considered "civilians."

Citizens of Israel are civilians. Just because Israel is the 'occupying power' in the West Bank, it has nothing to do with it.

Not true. Look it up.