Israel could face Palestinian war crimes charges

[Lipush]

Of course that would only apply after Israel ends its occupation.

That is not going to happen.

Do you, as one who does not eccept Israel's right to exist, agree with withdrawing from WB and stopping the Gaza blockade, as a agreement to stop terror against Israel, and Hamas' war crimes?

The Palestinians are calling for three things:
1) End the occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and E. Jerusalem.
2) Equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel.
3) Right of return.

I don't disagree with any of those.

You keep ignoreing my question.

And the third condition is hypocrite condition, which in no way can or SHOULD be respected.

 

[Lipush]

There are no "Palestinian citizens" in Israel.

If there is a Palestine, the Israeli Arabs should be kicked the hell out into the new "Palestine" (Gaza or WB). The condition of "equarl rights" will no longer be an issue, because there WILL be no Palestinians, or Arabs, in Israel, once there is a Palestine.

 

[Jos]

Israel's West Bank settlements violate international law

The Israeli government’s announcement that it is to expand settlements in the West Bank in response to the United Nations vote on Palestinian statehood violates human rights and international humanitarian law, Amnesty International said today.
"This announcement sends a strong signal to the world that the current Israeli government has no respect for human rights and international law.

“Building settlements violates the rights of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and is prohibited in all circumstances.

“Settlement construction is the cause of forced displacement, a myriad of human rights violations and is a flagrant violation of international law. Israel must immediately halt all construction of settlements and related infrastructure as a first step towards removing all settlers from the occupied territories.”

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupying power from transferring its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

AIUK : Israel's West Bank settlements violate international law

 

[Hossfly]

Of course that would only apply after Israel ends its occupation.

That is not going to happen.

Do you, as one who does not eccept Israel's right to exist, agree with withdrawing from WB and stopping the Gaza blockade, as a agreement to stop terror against Israel, and Hamas' war crimes?

The Palestinians are calling for three things:
1) End the occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and E. Jerusalem.
2) Equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel.
3) Right of return.

I don't disagree with any of those.

Tinnie certainly has been busy on his magic computer that really isn't there while he works on a non-existent job, unless his job is Hamas spokesman on the East Coast. Meanwhile, the Arabs in Israel certainly have it much better than Arabs who live in Arab countries. Even Muslim Arab journalists admit that. Of course, Tinnie would like to see all those so-called Palestinians to be allowed into Israel so that his Muslim friends can eventually take over and run it like other Muslim countries are run. I wonder what Tinnie thinks about the millions and millions of Displaced Persons after World War II whose ancestors, unlike these "Palestinians," actually lived on their land for thousands of years and who were able to get on with their lives in countries where the culture and language were so different. By the way, Tinnie, how many times is Jerusalem mentioned in the Koran? Maybe in Mohammed's dream, he thought he flew off to Timbuktu.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Do you, as one who does not eccept Israel's right to exist, agree with withdrawing from WB and stopping the Gaza blockade, as a agreement to stop terror against Israel, and Hamas' war crimes?

The Palestinians are calling for three things:
1) End the occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and E. Jerusalem.
2) Equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel.
3) Right of return.

I don't disagree with any of those.

You keep ignoreing my question.

And the third condition is hypocrite condition, which in no way can or SHOULD be respected.

That is a right given to the refugees by international law, and Israel is ultimately going to comply with international law or cease to exist! The writing us on the wall!

 

[Lipush]

The Palestinians are calling for three things:
1) End the occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and E. Jerusalem.
2) Equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel.
3) Right of return.

I don't disagree with any of those.

You keep ignoreing my question.

And the third condition is hypocrite condition, which in no way can or SHOULD be respected.

That is a right given to the refugees by international law, and Israel is ultimately going to comply with international law or cease to exist! The writing us on the wall!

Does Hamas respects international law?

 

[Roudy]

1) End the occupation of Gaza, - already happened the West Bank would have happened partially, but even that doesn't look good now, and E. Jerusalem.that will happen when hell freezes over
2) Equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel.Arabs in Israel already have that.
3) Right of return. demographic suicide? Won't happen either.

I don't disagree with any of those. we know, and we don't care.

 

[irosie91]

You keep ignoreing my question.

And the third condition is hypocrite condition, which in no way can or SHOULD be respected.

That is a right given to the refugees by international law, and Israel is ultimately going to comply with international law or cease to exist! The writing us on the wall!

Does Hamas respects international law?

Lipush do not trouble yourself with the laws of the slutti and the tin-ass,
They are shariah adherents in the name of isa-----for whom sneaking
into a house and slitting the throat of an infant is an act of piety
pleasing to allahisa. Remember what Achmadinejad said in a UN
speech-----"-SHARIAHSHIT IS THE LAW FOR THE WHOLE WORLD".
Some people laughed---a few walked out----then someone called
BELLEVUE----but the bellevue boys did not want to mess up
the one straight jacket that they had hanging in the padded room---
off in the corner of the emergency room----the last nut had already
vomited on it while screaming ALLAHISA AKBARRRRR

 

[toomuchtime_]

toomuchtime_, et al,

First, I did not bring up Article 49 of the GCVI, but merely responded to the improper interpretation. I used the RS-8-2b(viii).

Again, the GC conventions clearly refer to forcible transfers of population, and this did not occur in the West Bank. If you want to talk about original intent, the original intent of the Fourth Geneva Conventions was to deal the the occupation of sovereign territory of on high contracting party by another high contracting party, and since the West Bank and Gaza were not recognized as the sovereign territory of any nation, the Fourth Geneva Conventions do not apply, thus there is no legal occupation as described in that treaty and none of article 49 is relevant.

Annexation by population is not a legal principle, it is a propaganda line. Under the spin you are putting on article 49, it would have been a war crime for the Israeli government to have allowed a single Israeli to have moved into the West Bank, which is preposterous. What's more, nations aren't guilty of war crimes under customary international law, individuals are, so who would be the war criminal? The Israeli who moved of his own free will?

There are land disputes and boundary disputes which the PA refuses to negotiate, but as the Fourth Geneva Conventions are written, there are no war crimes here.

Because of Arab objections, Israel remains the only member of the UN which has never been allowed to serve on the Security Council and because of Arab objections Israel's Magen David Alom was denied membership in the International Red Cross until 2006. Israel has every reason to be suspicious of bias from international organizations, and no honest person who is familiar with the facts would dismiss these concerns as paranoia.

(COMMENT)

Now I agree that jurisdiction can be challenged, but not after each side stipulates:

It so happens that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has already rendered one "opinion" and "Advisory," on one aspect of the issue. And they used the GCVI:

120. As regards these settlemeilts, the Court notes that Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." That provision prohibits not only deportations or forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to oirganize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the ciccupied territory.

In this respect, the information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited.

.
.
.

The Council reaffirnned its position in resolutions 452 (1979) of 20 July 1979 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980. Indeed, in the latter case it described "Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrantis in [the occupied] territories" as a "flagrant violation" of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

SOURCE: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

No matter what my background may be, the opinion is "probable cause."

Now, I again emphasize, that the tone and manner of the court suggest that the ICJ may not acknowledge jurisdiction. (Totally unclear!) But that doesn't mean that International Law was not broken. It only means that no one wants to enforce the law.

(OBSERVATION)

Now that I have provided you the .pdf link, you might find it interesting to read the document starting with Para 147.

Having said that, I am no harder on the Israeli side of the equation as I am on the Palestinian side.

Most Respectfully,
R

The ICJ's opinion of what article 49 says cannot be found anywhere in the text of article 49 and this suggests it is more of a political opinion than a legal opinion. Indeed, the title of the opinion refers to the barrier as a wall when 90% of it is a fence, another suggestion that the ICJ's opinion is tainted by bias. Again, what is the ICJ's basis for calling the Israeli administration of the West Bank a legal occupation? The Fourth Geneva Convention clearly refers only to the territories of one high contracting party being occupied by another high contracting party, and since the West Bank was not recognized as Jordanian territory, there is no basis in the Fourth Geneva Convention for considering the Israeli presence there a legal occupation.

So the ICJ says article 49 states things it clearly doesn't, calls a fence a wall and blithely refers to a legal occupation without being able to cite a basis for that claim in law. This politically biased opinion stands as an indictment of the ICJ, not of Israeli actions or policies. Sadly, it shows us that international law in application is a mirage.

The Rome Statute does state, "The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory [is a war crime]"

There are two problems with this definition of a war crime. First, there is no basis in law for claiming the Israeli presence in the West Bank is a legal occupation since the Fourth Geneva Convention clearly refers only to territories of one high contracting party being occupied by another high contracting party and the West Bank was not recognized as the territory of any nation. Second, the statement is so broad and vague that it means nothing in particular. One has to wonder why the authors did not specify what would constitute indirectly transferring population. The answer is that if it means anything other than actively preventing Israelis to move to the West Bank, the actions it would have to list would be too petty and ridiculous to be seriously called war crimes. No court of appeal in the US or other developed countries would let stand an criminal conviction based on a statute stated in such broad terms.

All 25 of the other items in Article 8, section 2b are very specific about what constitutes a war crime, such as

(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;

(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;

(vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

(vii) Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;

and so on, and only item viii leaves it to our imaginations what indirectly transferring population means. Clearly, the reason for this is that they wanted to condemn the movement of Israelis to the West Bank but couldn't think of any specific actions committed by the Israeli government that could be taken seriously as war crimes.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

If Arab Israelis wanted to move to the West Bank but keep their Israeli citizenship and the Israeli government assisted them, there would be no complaints about annexation by population or silliness about indirectly transferring population being a war crime. It is only because the Israelis moving to the West Bank are Jewish that the Arabs are upset, and it is only because the Arabs are upset about Jews moving into the neighborhood that some members of the international community are making fools of themselves by inventing laws that were never written.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Of course that would only apply after Israel ends its occupation.

That is not going to happen.

Do you, as one who does not eccept Israel's right to exist, agree with withdrawing from WB and stopping the Gaza blockade, as a agreement to stop terror against Israel, and Hamas' war crimes?

The Palestinians are calling for three things:
1) End the occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and E. Jerusalem.
2) Equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel.
3) Right of return.

I don't disagree with any of those.

You mean some Palestinian Arabs are calling for these things, but your favorite Palestinian Arabs, Hamas, wants

“The PLO has paid a heavy political price for this representation because it relinquished its claim to the lands of 1948,” Hamdan said. “Therefore, the real achievement lies in the liberation of the land, the return of the refugees and achieving steadfastness on the land. These are the achievements which the people respect and appreciate.”

The Hamas leader said that the UN vote in favor of upgrading the Palestinians’ status would be considered a political achievement “only if it were part of a comprehensive strategy for liberation, with the resistance being its main basis.”

Hamdan explained that Hamas had welcomed the statehood bid “because it reflected the international community’s readiness to fix what it corrupted in Palestine.”

He also reiterated Hamas’s commitment to the armed struggle against Israel. He said that his movement would continue to seek the “liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.”

Hamas: State needs armed struggle with Isr... JPost - Middle East

 

[Billo_Really]

Do you, as one who does not eccept Israel's right to exist, agree with withdrawing from WB and stopping the Gaza blockade, as a agreement to stop terror against Israel, and Hamas' war crimes?

The Palestinians are calling for three things:
1) End the occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and E. Jerusalem.
2) Equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel.
3) Right of return.

I don't disagree with any of those.

You mean some Palestinian Arabs are calling for these things, but your favorite Palestinian Arabs, Hamas, wants

“The PLO has paid a heavy political price for this representation because it relinquished its claim to the lands of 1948,” Hamdan said. “Therefore, the real achievement lies in the liberation of the land, the return of the refugees and achieving steadfastness on the land. These are the achievements which the people respect and appreciate.”

The Hamas leader said that the UN vote in favor of upgrading the Palestinians’ status would be considered a political achievement “only if it were part of a comprehensive strategy for liberation, with the resistance being its main basis.”

Hamdan explained that Hamas had welcomed the statehood bid “because it reflected the international community’s readiness to fix what it corrupted in Palestine.”

He also reiterated Hamas’s commitment to the armed struggle against Israel. He said that his movement would continue to seek the “liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.”

Hamas: State needs armed struggle with Isr... JPost - Middle East

I'm sorry, but Hamas wants those 3 things to.

 

[RoccoR]

toomuchtime_, et al,

For your reference.

The ICJ's opinion of what article 49 says cannot be found anywhere in the text of article 49 and this suggests it is more of a political opinion than a legal opinion. Indeed, the title of the opinion refers to the barrier as a wall when 90% of it is a fence, another suggestion that the ICJ's opinion is tainted by bias. Again, what is the ICJ's basis for calling the Israeli administration of the West Bank a legal occupation? The Fourth Geneva Convention clearly refers only to the territories of one high contracting party being occupied by another high contracting party, and since the West Bank was not recognized as Jordanian territory, there is no basis in the Fourth Geneva Convention for considering the Israeli presence there a legal occupation.

So the ICJ says article 49 states things it clearly doesn't, calls a fence a wall and blithely refers to a legal occupation without being able to cite a basis for that claim in law. This politically biased opinion stands as an indictment of the ICJ, not of Israeli actions or policies. Sadly, it shows us that international law in application is a mirage.
.

Yes, your legal opinion versus their legal opinion. If Israel was so sure that your opinion is correct, then they would NOT contest an ICJ hearing.

I copied completely, the paragraph. I think the ICJ opinion is correct in its citation.

Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.

The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

SOURCE: International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention

I don't think your perspective is a winner. But that is just me; and I'm nobody.

Having said this, I think there is another perspective that would support Israel's action on national security grounds. But that is another topic.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

You keep ignoreing my question.

And the third condition is hypocrite condition, which in no way can or SHOULD be respected.

That is a right given to the refugees by international law, and Israel is ultimately going to comply with international law or cease to exist! The writing us on the wall!

Does Hamas respects international law?

Lipush,

The world is changing, the Middle East is changing, Israel's days are numbered unless they make peace with the Palestinians!

This has nothing at all to do with Hamas, who cares whether they respect intl law, Hamas is merely an organization created to resist Israel's Occupation, oocupations always invite resistance to them. And just look around you, look at Afghanistan, for example, how many times have they been occupied? How did the Occupiers fare, The Soviet Union, for example? Did the people in Afghanistan ever stop resisting their Occupations? How did Iraqis respond to their Occupation? Did they ever stop resisting? And Palestinains will never stop resisting their Occupation, either, until it ends!

Sherri

 

[toomuchtime_]

toomuchtime_, et al,

For your reference.

The ICJ's opinion of what article 49 says cannot be found anywhere in the text of article 49 and this suggests it is more of a political opinion than a legal opinion. Indeed, the title of the opinion refers to the barrier as a wall when 90% of it is a fence, another suggestion that the ICJ's opinion is tainted by bias. Again, what is the ICJ's basis for calling the Israeli administration of the West Bank a legal occupation? The Fourth Geneva Convention clearly refers only to the territories of one high contracting party being occupied by another high contracting party, and since the West Bank was not recognized as Jordanian territory, there is no basis in the Fourth Geneva Convention for considering the Israeli presence there a legal occupation.

So the ICJ says article 49 states things it clearly doesn't, calls a fence a wall and blithely refers to a legal occupation without being able to cite a basis for that claim in law. This politically biased opinion stands as an indictment of the ICJ, not of Israeli actions or policies. Sadly, it shows us that international law in application is a mirage.
.

Yes, your legal opinion versus their legal opinion. If Israel was so sure that your opinion is correct, then they would NOT contest an ICJ hearing.

I copied completely, the paragraph. I think the ICJ opinion is correct in its citation.

Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.

The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

SOURCE: International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention

I don't think your perspective is a winner. But that is just me; and I'm nobody.

Having said this, I think there is another perspective that would support Israel's action on national security grounds. But that is another topic.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why would Israel want a hearing before the ICJ? The ICJ has already issued the opinion that a fence is a wall and that article 49 says things it clearly does not say, so why would Israel trust the ICJ's judgment on any other issue if it can't tell the difference between a fence and a wall and doesn't understand what it reads?

 

[tjvh]

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) — A senior Palestinian official is warning that the West Bank government will pursue war crime charges against Israel if it doesn't stop settlement construction.

Palestinian official Nabil Shaath said late Monday that "many countries" have urged the Palestinian Authority not to use its new status to seek war crimes charges against Israel at the International Criminal Court, a U.N. body.

Shaath says that "by continuing these war crimes of settlement activities" on occupied territories, Israel is "pushing and forcing us to go to the ICC."

Israel could face Palestinian war crimes charges - Yahoo! News

I would be more inclined to think that arbitrarily firing rockets at innocent Israeli civilians is far more easily defined as a war crime than constructing settlements.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) — A senior Palestinian official is warning that the West Bank government will pursue war crime charges against Israel if it doesn't stop settlement construction.

Palestinian official Nabil Shaath said late Monday that "many countries" have urged the Palestinian Authority not to use its new status to seek war crimes charges against Israel at the International Criminal Court, a U.N. body.

Shaath says that "by continuing these war crimes of settlement activities" on occupied territories, Israel is "pushing and forcing us to go to the ICC."

Israel could face Palestinian war crimes charges - Yahoo! News

I would be more inclined to think that arbitrarily firing rockets at innocent Israeli civilians is far more easily defined as a war crime than constructing settlements.

They both are! Different provisions of The Fourth Geneva Convention define each as unlawful, and each are likely war crimes.

 

[irosie91]

it takes quite a slut to equate building a house with launching baby
brain smashing poison bombs in the THOUSANDS at residential villages.
But such is the depravity from which she was spawned

 

[P F Tinmore]

Roudy, SherriMunnerlyn, ima, et al,

The US Invasion of Iraq was ill fated and probably the biggest mistake the US has made since becoming a Super Power. But it was not true aggression. It was the wrong approach to establish an extended political-military hegemony into the region.

Bunch of nincompoops that don't even know the definition of a war crime, it's jurisdiction, or it's reach.

That's the great thing about the internet, it gives crazy morons like Sherri to spew their irrelevant, ignorant, bigoted vomit.

(COMMENT)

If the US Invasion is a "war crime," then you would have to indict the entire coalition for that.

To be a thief, all that is required is that you have stolen something. The Jurisdiction and the reach have to do with the judicial process; not the character of the crime or the criminal. So it is with a "war crime." The perfect crime is the one for which you are never prosecuted; but, for which you committed.

Most Respectfully,
R

Most respectfully, if you want to investigate "war crimes" the first place you'd have to focus on would be Arab / Muslim countries. They are the prime violators and commit the worst crimes against humanity one can envision. The war crimes prosecutor should have his hands full for the next 100 years.

Amnesty issued a report late last week criticizing Palestinian terror attacks on Israeli civilians as "crimes against humanity" Palestinian Authority Cabinet Secretary Ahmed Abdul Rahman said that although the Palestinian Authority condemns the bombings of Israeli civilians, they are "a normal consequence of their occupation and rejection of Palestinian rights."

The report, "Without Distinction: Attacks on Civilians by Palestinian Armed Groups" addresses what it identifies as 130 attacks since the outbreak of the intifada in September 2000 that have resulted in the deaths of 350 Israeli citizens -- including more than 60 children.

"The attacks by Palestinian armed groups are widespread, systematic and in pursuit of an explicit policy to attack civilians. They therefore constitute crimes against humanity under international law," Amnesty says in the report.

Amnesty decries Palestinian 'crimes against humanity' | j. the Jewish news weekly of Northern California

Israel had the opportunity to place Hamas in front of the ICC but turned it down.

 

[Lipush]

That is a right given to the refugees by international law, and Israel is ultimately going to comply with international law or cease to exist! The writing us on the wall!

Does Hamas respects international law?

Lipush,

The world is changing, the Middle East is changing, Israel's days are numbered unless they make peace with the Palestinians!

This has nothing at all to do with Hamas, who cares whether they respect intl law, Hamas is merely an organization created to resist Israel's Occupation, oocupations always invite resistance to them. And just look around you, look at Afghanistan, for example, how many times have they been occupied? How did the Occupiers fare, The Soviet Union, for example? Did the people in Afghanistan ever stop resisting their Occupations? How did Iraqis respond to their Occupation? Did they ever stop resisting? And Palestinains will never stop resisting their Occupation, either, until it ends!

Sherri

"This has nothing at all to do with Hamas, who cares whether they respect intl law, Hamas is merely an organization created to resist Israel's Occupation,"

See, this is where your logic fails, and I don't bother myself to continue reading when you make such drastic errors.

Hamas began an a "resistence oranization" to Israeli presence in the Jewish land. But later on thousands of Palestinians did vote for them and they became the new Palestinian government. Since THAT happened , Gaza basically became a state of Hamastan, therefor, like any other people, who have army (Hamas people) they are expected to respect international law. That's even more so, because they say all the time ISrael doesn't respect international law.

They point out Israel does not, but they do not, either. You know how do we call that?

YOU may not care, because you're anti-Zionist. I, as southern Israeli care very much. just because YOU love Hamas no matter which war crime they do, doesn't matter we all should say "amen" to that narrow thinking.

Yes, the MidEast is changing. So does Israel. The people are fed up with this hellhole called Gaza.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Does Hamas respects international law?

Lipush,

The world is changing, the Middle East is changing, Israel's days are numbered unless they make peace with the Palestinians!

This has nothing at all to do with Hamas, who cares whether they respect intl law, Hamas is merely an organization created to resist Israel's Occupation, oocupations always invite resistance to them. And just look around you, look at Afghanistan, for example, how many times have they been occupied? How did the Occupiers fare, The Soviet Union, for example? Did the people in Afghanistan ever stop resisting their Occupations? How did Iraqis respond to their Occupation? Did they ever stop resisting? And Palestinains will never stop resisting their Occupation, either, until it ends!

Sherri

"This has nothing at all to do with Hamas, who cares whether they respect intl law, Hamas is merely an organization created to resist Israel's Occupation,"

See, this is where your logic fails, and I don't bother myself to continue reading when you make such drastic errors.

Hamas began an a "resistence oranization" to Israeli presence in the Jewish land. But later on thousands of Palestinians did vote for them and they became the new Palestinian government. Since THAT happened , Gaza basically became a state of Hamastan, therefor, like any other people, who have army (Hamas people) they are expected to respect international law. That's even more so, because they say all the time ISrael doesn't respect international law.

They point out Israel does not, but they do not, either. You know how do we call that?

YOU may not care, because you're anti-Zionist. I, as southern Israeli care very much. just because YOU love Hamas no matter which war crime they do, doesn't matter we all should say "amen" to that narrow thinking.

Yes, the MidEast is changing. So does Israel. The people are fed up with this hellhole called Gaza.

Israel still occupies Palestine and Hamas is still a resistance organization.

Is Gaza a hellhole? Two women talk about Gaza. Starts @ 10:25

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq9zTDAjmiI]41 Sleepless Gaza Jerusalem...divx - YouTube[/ame]