I will not Bow!

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It has to be remembered that the State of Palestine is not the center of the universe. The Rules of Law are written for everyone, not just the Jihadist and Fedayeen of Palestine.

Palestine is not mentioned in any of your links.

Are you just blowing smoke again?

(COMMENT)

There are general commitments that apply universally. Not smoke, not at all.

Most Respectfully,
R

And the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.

 

[Victory67]

No distortions but the truth that you cant handle, even if I produced an Islamic extremist site that said the same thing you would deny it because it goes against you POV. The site is one used to teach history in many schools including those with a large Islamic population.

YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS CERTIFIABLY INSANE.

He has lost, he knows he has lost and he shows it in true commie fashion by hurling insults.

Do you have any evidence that they are not distortions? Many websites add their own spin to historical events.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now I think we all recognize that small arms and light weapons (SALW) are traded, manufactured and retained by States for legitimate security, sporting and commercial considerations. However, there are some States that have particular associations with organizations and groups that organize, instigate, facilitate, participate in, finance, encourage or tolerating hostile activities and acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens; the recognized State of Israel being the most targeted State at this time and in this context. And I also think that most of us understand that the lack of the Rule of Law (RoL) and lack of good governance, but some cultures and countries has promoted a culture counter to peace, justice and human development, ethnic, national and religious tolerance, and respect for all religions. It is also clear that some nations, states, and cultures claim some special grievance that is in their perspective, beyond peaceful solutions relative to the development of friendly relations with other nations and States. While recognizing that none of these unusual grievances or conditions can excuse or justify acts of terrorism (Jihad) or armed struggle (by Fedayeen), and that the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries and international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement of another State, to satisfy their grievances, it is none the less noticed that the illicit trade in SALW further these unjustifiable aims.

Thus the greater international community recognizes that laws and institutions must be put in place to mitigate the potential threat by allowing unregulated flows of SALWs into areas of conflict. Given that some countries, like the State of Palestine, have made public specific threats of violence, and have a history that demonstrates they are willing to carry-out such threats (past practice of criminal behaviors), the international community established a few RoL.

Could you quote the passage of the GC that says that?

(OBSERVATION)

(COMMENT)

This is just a sample of some of those agreements made and managed by the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs, Geneva.

I hope this helps.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine is not mentioned in any of your links.

Are you just blowing smoke again?

You should be thanking Rocco for the work he puts into his posts, not telling he's blowing smoke.
He's taught you a lot about the I/P conflict, show a bit more respect

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It has to be remembered that the State of Palestine is not the center of the universe. The Rules of Law are written for everyone, not just the Jihadist and Fedayeen of Palestine.

Palestine is not mentioned in any of your links.

Are you just blowing smoke again?

(COMMENT)

There are general commitments that apply universally. Not smoke, not at all.

Most Respectfully,
R

And the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.

Broken record, broken record, broken record.................

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now I think we all recognize that small arms and light weapons (SALW) are traded, manufactured and retained by States for legitimate security, sporting and commercial considerations. However, there are some States that have particular associations with organizations and groups that organize, instigate, facilitate, participate in, finance, encourage or tolerating hostile activities and acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens; the recognized State of Israel being the most targeted State at this time and in this context. And I also think that most of us understand that the lack of the Rule of Law (RoL) and lack of good governance, but some cultures and countries has promoted a culture counter to peace, justice and human development, ethnic, national and religious tolerance, and respect for all religions. It is also clear that some nations, states, and cultures claim some special grievance that is in their perspective, beyond peaceful solutions relative to the development of friendly relations with other nations and States. While recognizing that none of these unusual grievances or conditions can excuse or justify acts of terrorism (Jihad) or armed struggle (by Fedayeen), and that the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries and international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement of another State, to satisfy their grievances, it is none the less noticed that the illicit trade in SALW further these unjustifiable aims.

Thus the greater international community recognizes that laws and institutions must be put in place to mitigate the potential threat by allowing unregulated flows of SALWs into areas of conflict. Given that some countries, like the State of Palestine, have made public specific threats of violence, and have a history that demonstrates they are willing to carry-out such threats (past practice of criminal behaviors), the international community established a few RoL.


(OBSERVATION)


(COMMENT)

This is just a sample of some of those agreements made and managed by the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs, Geneva.

I hope this helps.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine is not mentioned in any of your links.

Are you just blowing smoke again?

You should be thanking Rocco for the work he puts into his posts, not telling he's blowing smoke.
He's taught you a lot about the I/P conflict, show a bit more respect

Rocco is good on his accuracy.

He just needs to work on his relevance.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It has to be remembered that the State of Palestine is not the center of the universe. The Rules of Law are written for everyone, not just the Jihadist and Fedayeen of Palestine.

Palestine is not mentioned in any of your links.

Are you just blowing smoke again?

(COMMENT)

There are general commitments that apply universally. Not smoke, not at all.

Most Respectfully,
R

And the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.

The problem is that their definition of defending themselves is killing innocent civilians in Israel. Which explains a lot of the current situation of course

 

[Hossfly]

Palestine is not mentioned in any of your links.

Are you just blowing smoke again?

You should be thanking Rocco for the work he puts into his posts, not telling he's blowing smoke.
He's taught you a lot about the I/P conflict, show a bit more respect

Rocco is good on his accuracy.

He just needs to work on his relevance.

WTF is that supposed to mean?

 

[aris2chat]

Why don't you prove it to us.

Like President Clinton, Israel and the Likud party now formally agreed that the objectionable clauses of the charter had been abrogated, in official statements and statements by Prime Minister Netanyahu, Foreign Minister Sharon, Defense Minister Mordechai and Trade and Industry Minister Sharansky.[13][14][15][16] With official Israeli objections to the Charter disappearing henceforward from lists of Palestinian violations of agreements,[17] the international legal controversy ended.

Palestinian National Covenant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The draft of the Constitution of the State of Palestine makes no mention of destroying Israel.

Palestinian Constitutition - First Part

From your link we see this which destroys your argument

Despite President Clinton's optimism, the events of 1998 did not entirely resolve the controversy of the Charter. A June 1999 report by the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Information on the status of the Charter made no mention of the 1998 events and leading Palestinians continue to state that the Charter has not yet been amended

In March 2011 the PLO-EC Chairman asked the PLO-EC to convene the PLO Constitution Committee, either in Amman or in Cairo, and advised that the committee should draw up amendments to the PLO charter by September 31, when it's is scheduled that the state-building project of the PNA Prime Minister is to be completed.


SO YOU ARE CAUGHT LYING AGAIN LIKE A GOOD LITTLE ISLAMONAZI

In 2001 the first draft of a constitution authorized by the PLO's Central Committee, calling for a respect for borders, human and civil rights as defined under international law appeared.[18]
Regarding PLO reform
...
The PLO Constitutional Committee first convened in 2005, but hasn't met since 2006 and the provisions for the inclusion of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the PLO are not yet adopted.[23]
In March 2011 the PLO-EC Chairman asked the PLO-EC to convene the PLO Constitution Committee, either in Amman or in Cairo, and advised that the committee should draw up amendments to the PLO charter by September 31, when it's is scheduled that the state-building project of the PNA Prime Minister is to be completed.[23][24]

Israeli views

Although the PNC met in Gaza on 24 April 1996, it did NOT revoke or change the covenant, but only issued a statement saying that it had become aged, and that an undefined part of it would be rewritten at an undetermined date in the future. While the English language press release stated that the PLO Covenant was "hereby amended", the Arabic version of Yassir Arafat's letter on this declaration stated:
It has been decided upon: 1. Changing the Palestine National Charter by canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged between the PLO and the Government of Israel, on 9 and 10 September 1993. 2. The PNC will appoint a legal committee with the task of redrafting the National Charter. The Charter will be presented to the first meeting of the Central Council.
The New York Times and others [25][26] quoted similarly language (the ambiguous phrase decides to amend is quoted instead of herby amended):
Formally, the resolution adopted by the council consisted of two simple clauses. The first declared that the council "decides to amend the Palestinian National Covenant by canceling clauses which contradict the letters exchanged between the P.L.O. and the Israeli Government." The second ordered a new charter to be drafted within six months.[27]

"Peace Watch", an Israeli organization declaring itself to be "an apolitical, independent Israeli organization monitoring bilateral compliance with the Israel-PLO accords"[28] issued the following statement:

The decision fails to meet the obligations laid out in the Oslo accords in two respects.
First, the actual amendment of the Covenant has been left for a Future date.
As of now, the old Covenant, in its original form, remains the governing document of the PLO, and will continue in this status until the amendments are actually approved... There is a sharp difference between calling for something to change and actually implementing the changes. Second, the decision does not specify which clauses will be amended.

UN inquiry says Israel must end settlements - Page 4

 

[P F Tinmore]

Like President Clinton, Israel and the Likud party now formally agreed that the objectionable clauses of the charter had been abrogated, in official statements and statements by Prime Minister Netanyahu, Foreign Minister Sharon, Defense Minister Mordechai and Trade and Industry Minister Sharansky.[13][14][15][16] With official Israeli objections to the Charter disappearing henceforward from lists of Palestinian violations of agreements,[17] the international legal controversy ended.

Palestinian National Covenant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The draft of the Constitution of the State of Palestine makes no mention of destroying Israel.

Palestinian Constitutition - First Part

From your link we see this which destroys your argument

Despite President Clinton's optimism, the events of 1998 did not entirely resolve the controversy of the Charter. A June 1999 report by the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Information on the status of the Charter made no mention of the 1998 events and leading Palestinians continue to state that the Charter has not yet been amended

In March 2011 the PLO-EC Chairman asked the PLO-EC to convene the PLO Constitution Committee, either in Amman or in Cairo, and advised that the committee should draw up amendments to the PLO charter by September 31, when it's is scheduled that the state-building project of the PNA Prime Minister is to be completed.


SO YOU ARE CAUGHT LYING AGAIN LIKE A GOOD LITTLE ISLAMONAZI

In 2001 the first draft of a constitution authorized by the PLO's Central Committee, calling for a respect for borders, human and civil rights as defined under international law appeared.[18]
Regarding PLO reform
...
The PLO Constitutional Committee first convened in 2005, but hasn't met since 2006 and the provisions for the inclusion of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the PLO are not yet adopted.[23]
In March 2011 the PLO-EC Chairman asked the PLO-EC to convene the PLO Constitution Committee, either in Amman or in Cairo, and advised that the committee should draw up amendments to the PLO charter by September 31, when it's is scheduled that the state-building project of the PNA Prime Minister is to be completed.[23][24]

Israeli views

Although the PNC met in Gaza on 24 April 1996, it did NOT revoke or change the covenant, but only issued a statement saying that it had become aged, and that an undefined part of it would be rewritten at an undetermined date in the future. While the English language press release stated that the PLO Covenant was "hereby amended", the Arabic version of Yassir Arafat's letter on this declaration stated:
It has been decided upon: 1. Changing the Palestine National Charter by canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged between the PLO and the Government of Israel, on 9 and 10 September 1993. 2. The PNC will appoint a legal committee with the task of redrafting the National Charter. The Charter will be presented to the first meeting of the Central Council.
The New York Times and others [25][26] quoted similarly language (the ambiguous phrase decides to amend is quoted instead of herby amended):
Formally, the resolution adopted by the council consisted of two simple clauses. The first declared that the council "decides to amend the Palestinian National Covenant by canceling clauses which contradict the letters exchanged between the P.L.O. and the Israeli Government." The second ordered a new charter to be drafted within six months.[27]

"Peace Watch", an Israeli organization declaring itself to be "an apolitical, independent Israeli organization monitoring bilateral compliance with the Israel-PLO accords"[28] issued the following statement:

The decision fails to meet the obligations laid out in the Oslo accords in two respects.
First, the actual amendment of the Covenant has been left for a Future date.
As of now, the old Covenant, in its original form, remains the governing document of the PLO, and will continue in this status until the amendments are actually approved... There is a sharp difference between calling for something to change and actually implementing the changes. Second, the decision does not specify which clauses will be amended.

UN inquiry says Israel must end settlements - Page 4

I believe you are correct, however, Oslo died in the late '90s.

 

[aris2chat]

From your link we see this which destroys your argument

Despite President Clinton's optimism, the events of 1998 did not entirely resolve the controversy of the Charter. A June 1999 report by the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Information on the status of the Charter made no mention of the 1998 events and leading Palestinians continue to state that the Charter has not yet been amended

In March 2011 the PLO-EC Chairman asked the PLO-EC to convene the PLO Constitution Committee, either in Amman or in Cairo, and advised that the committee should draw up amendments to the PLO charter by September 31, when it's is scheduled that the state-building project of the PNA Prime Minister is to be completed.


SO YOU ARE CAUGHT LYING AGAIN LIKE A GOOD LITTLE ISLAMONAZI

In 2001 the first draft of a constitution authorized by the PLO's Central Committee, calling for a respect for borders, human and civil rights as defined under international law appeared.[18]
Regarding PLO reform
...
The PLO Constitutional Committee first convened in 2005, but hasn't met since 2006 and the provisions for the inclusion of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the PLO are not yet adopted.[23]
In March 2011 the PLO-EC Chairman asked the PLO-EC to convene the PLO Constitution Committee, either in Amman or in Cairo, and advised that the committee should draw up amendments to the PLO charter by September 31, when it's is scheduled that the state-building project of the PNA Prime Minister is to be completed.[23][24]

Israeli views

Although the PNC met in Gaza on 24 April 1996, it did NOT revoke or change the covenant, but only issued a statement saying that it had become aged, and that an undefined part of it would be rewritten at an undetermined date in the future. While the English language press release stated that the PLO Covenant was "hereby amended", the Arabic version of Yassir Arafat's letter on this declaration stated:
It has been decided upon: 1. Changing the Palestine National Charter by canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged between the PLO and the Government of Israel, on 9 and 10 September 1993. 2. The PNC will appoint a legal committee with the task of redrafting the National Charter. The Charter will be presented to the first meeting of the Central Council.
The New York Times and others [25][26] quoted similarly language (the ambiguous phrase decides to amend is quoted instead of herby amended):
Formally, the resolution adopted by the council consisted of two simple clauses. The first declared that the council "decides to amend the Palestinian National Covenant by canceling clauses which contradict the letters exchanged between the P.L.O. and the Israeli Government." The second ordered a new charter to be drafted within six months.[27]

"Peace Watch", an Israeli organization declaring itself to be "an apolitical, independent Israeli organization monitoring bilateral compliance with the Israel-PLO accords"[28] issued the following statement:

The decision fails to meet the obligations laid out in the Oslo accords in two respects.
First, the actual amendment of the Covenant has been left for a Future date.
As of now, the old Covenant, in its original form, remains the governing document of the PLO, and will continue in this status until the amendments are actually approved... There is a sharp difference between calling for something to change and actually implementing the changes. Second, the decision does not specify which clauses will be amended.

UN inquiry says Israel must end settlements - Page 4

I believe you are correct, however, Oslo died in the late '90s.

and the palestinian charter has not official changed

 

[Kondor3]

WERE IS YOUR PROOF when even the Palestinians say they left willingly and lost everything. The truth is you are just a semi literate mouthpiece for islamonazi terrorist scum

He has lost, he knows he has lost and he shows it in true commie fashion by hurling insults.

Lots of research has been done by this showing that perhaps half of the refugees left on their own and the other half were kicked out by the Israeli forces. Tens of thousands more were kicked out after the war even ended.

Then Israel refused to allow Arabs who were still in Israel to return to their lands in Israel.

This middle ground is, indeed, the truth of the matter, according to most intelligent analyses of the situation and events and developments of the 1947-1949 timeframe, and what is commonly and broadly understood and accepted out in the Real World.

"...Pure racism."

Incorrect.

That would be a contest between White and Brown, and actions based largely on skin-color.

This was a contest between Jews and Muslims, and between Euro-Jewish culture and Arab culture, with actions based largely on religion and cultural loyalties, without respect to race.

And, given that some sizable minority percentage of the Jews of the region had been there for centuries and were largely and genetically very similar to the Arab-Muslim genetics of the region, the argument for 'racism' is further weakened.

Pure racism?

I'm not sure that there was even enough 'diluted' racism at-work here, to play a substantive part in those proceedings of 65-70 years ago.

 

[RoccoR]

Victory67, et al,

I'm not sure this is true.

The USA and Israel considers the PLO Charter to have been amended and the anti-Israel resolutions to have been removed.

(COMMENT)

I can not see where The PLO Executive Committee made any change to the National Charter (still posted to this day on the PLO Web site). I see the Arafat Letter, but I don't see where it was actually implemented.

The text of the Palestinian National Covenant remains as it was and no changes whatsoever were made to it. This has caused it to be frozen, not annulled. The drafting of the new National Covenant will take into account the extent of Israeli fulfillment of its previous and coming obligations... evil and corrupt acts are expected from the Israeli side... The fact that the PNC did not hold a special session to make changes and amendments in the text of the National Covenant at this stage... was done to defend the new Covenant from being influenced by the current Israeli dictatorship.[29][30]
In January 1998, before the second Gaza meeting, Faisal Hamdi Husseini, head of the legal committee appointed by the PNC, stated "There has been a decision to change the Covenant. The change has not yet been carried out".[31]
PLO spokesman Marwan Kanafani was videotaped telling reporters, "This is not an amendment. This is a license to start a new charter."

While the Palestinian National Council (PNC) declared its readiness in April 1996 to change the document, the only practical step taken was the empowerment of a legal committee to draft a new Covenant for presentation at a future date. In May 1996, PNC Chairman Selim Zaanoun asserted that the Covenant had been amended but added that no specific articles were cancelled, and in an interview on 22 January 1998 the head of the PNC's legal committee, Faisal Hamdi Husseini, stated that the changes had not been carried out. Israel pointed out that Chairman Arafat had committed himself to the Note for the Record of the Hebron Protocol, an agreement which included the principle of reciprocity: Israel would not be expected to implement its commitments if the PLO did not fulfil its pledges, including its pledge to revise the Covenant.
SOURCE: YEARBOOK OF THE UNITED NATIONS 1998 VOL. 52 31 December 1998

SOURCE: Palestinian National Covenant From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you have new information?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

Palestine is not mentioned in any of your links.

Are you just blowing smoke again?

You should be thanking Rocco for the work he puts into his posts, not telling he's blowing smoke.
He's taught you a lot about the I/P conflict, show a bit more respect

Rocco is good on his accuracy.

He just needs to work on his relevance.

I disagree. He is excellent with both.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What are you using as a basis for this "right to defend themselves?"

It has to be remembered that the State of Palestine is not the center of the universe. The Rules of Law are written for everyone, not just the Jihadist and Fedayeen of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

There are general commitments that apply universally. Not smoke, not at all.

Most Respectfully,
R

And the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.

The problem is that their definition of defending themselves is killing innocent civilians in Israel. Which explains a lot of the current situation of course

(COMMENT)

Remembering of course that even under Humanitarian Law, the Occupation Force (in this case the Israelis) have the right to respond:

Art. 68. 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: GCIV

Any action through Jihad or the Fedayeen that crosses the 1949 Armistice Line is an international offense; remembering that under

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.

SOURCE: Rule of Law Site: General Assembly Resolution 2525

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Victory67]

[MENTION=25033]RoccoR[/MENTION], do you believe an Occupied people have the right to resist Occupation?

Does the 4th GC address this at all?

 

[aris2chat]

[MENTION=25033]RoccoR[/MENTION], do you believe an Occupied people have the right to resist Occupation?

Does the 4th GC address this at all?

Sometimes people need to accept the things they cannot change and adapt to the new.
Work within the system to change what you can.

Muslims have the ability to think of tomorrow as if a thousand years from now. Patience and peaceful change.

 

[RoccoR]

Victory67, et al,

Answering in reverse order.

[MENTION=25033]RoccoR[/MENTION], do you believe an Occupied people have the right to resist Occupation?

Does the 4th GC address this at all?

(COMMENT)

• Q1: Does the 4th GC address this at all?

NO! It does not address it directly; but indirectly. The GCIV (Fourth Geneva Convention) addresses resistance in the reverse manner. It stipulates how the protections extend to the people under occupation when they do form a hostile resistance movement.

Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

The real discussion (and stronger reference) deals with the right of self-determination while under occupation (Primary Reference A/RES/49/148 - Universal Realization of the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination). There is a relationship between Occupation and the Self-Determination in that there is an assumption that Occupation hinders the of Self-Determination. However, the Right of Self-Determination does not imply a "resistance by any means necessary." This is at odds with the view held long by the Arabs of the Middle East.

Affirming the right of peoples to combat foreign occupation and aggression by whatever means, including armed struggle, in order to liberate their territories and secure their right to self-determination, and independence and to do so in such a manner as to preserve the territorial integrity of each Arab country, of the foregoing being in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Organization's resolutions.

SOURCE: Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism, adopted by the Council of Arab Ministers of the Interior and the Council of Arab Ministers of Justice.

• (D)o you (meaning RoccoR) believe an Occupied people have the right to resist Occupation?

YES! I do, with qualifications:

• It is not a right as in law. It is a right, in that it is a self-determination (an individual or collective decision made on the part of the people). But like all decisions that defy the standing powers in control (sovereign or occupation), there is a consequence for the action of resistance; should it fail. (Article 5, GCIV)
• The right does not extend to a resistance by any means. "Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts." (UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon) Nor does this it allow the targeting of persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. (Article 3, GCIV) You cannot target non-combatants, children in school buses, old people in wheel chairs, or simply fire (direct or indirect into civilian populated areas), etc.

I hope I answered your question.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Victory67]

Interesting POV. Occupied persons have the right to fight for self-determination but there are legal consequences to those actions if they involve violence.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What are you using as a basis for this "right to defend themselves?"

And the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.

The problem is that their definition of defending themselves is killing innocent civilians in Israel. Which explains a lot of the current situation of course

(COMMENT)

Remembering of course that even under Humanitarian Law, the Occupation Force (in this case the Israelis) have the right to respond:

Art. 68. 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: GCIV

Any action through Jihad or the Fedayeen that crosses the 1949 Armistice Line is an international offense; remembering that under

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.

SOURCE: Rule of Law Site: General Assembly Resolution 2525

Most Respectfully,
R

It is Palestine on both sides of the armistice lines. Which part of Palestine are the Palestinians not supposed to be?

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;

6. Appeals to all States and international organizations to extend their support to the Palestinian people in its struggle to restore its rights, in accordance with the Charter;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237

 

[Kondor3]

They have a right to fight for self determination.

They also have a right to die for self determination.

And their militias do that exceedingly well, and in huge numbers.

At least the Palestinians managed to get something right.