Israel does not target civilians?

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

There is a falsehood here, a truth here, a misrepresentation of a fact, and an extremely complex argument of a moral and ethical nature here.

The Geneva Convention documents are available on the UN website and says the same thing.

Article 1(4) of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 POW status now extends to members of an organized group fighting “against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination”

There is a policy of targeting civilians.

Dahiyah Doctrine

(OBSERVATION)

Ask yourself these simple questions.

Has anyone of you actually read the text of the Official Form (so-called) "Dahiya Doctrine?"
Do you personally know anyone who has read this (so-called) doctrine?

The description of the "Dahiya Doctrine" is based largely on a US Embassy Cable (OCT 2008) that essential is very short on explanation:

Maj. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot described a GOI policy to respond with indiscriminate force against Lebanon should hostilities resume.
​

This Dahiya Doctrine is a variation of 1991 US Doctrine:

An established principle has been that the use of force, once its necessity was determined, should be implemented through a concentration of overwhelming force. While serving as Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell, adopted the Powell Doctrine, establishing the principle of overwhelming force as a necessary condition for waging war.
​

War and Military Conflicts are “the continuation of policy by other means, and the very thing which creates policy.” (General Carl von Clausewitz Prussian General Staff) GEN Clausewitz understood that the definition of war was “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will.”

NOTE: What most people don't grasp is the War/Conflict differ from terrorism in that terrorism is precisely the use of random violence—especially killing force—against civilians, with the intent of spreading fear throughout a population, hoping this fear will advance a political objective (breaking the will of the opposition to continue the struggle). It is not terrorism if the overwhelming force is directed against a specific military objective, even if it generates civilian casualties.
​

Wars/Conflicts are fought on the basis of:

• A state must intend to fight the war only for the sake of its just cause.
• A state may go to war only if the decision has been made by the appropriate authorities, according to the proper process, and made public.
• A state may resort to war only if it has exhausted all plausible, peaceful alternatives to resolving the conflict in question, in particular diplomatic negotiation.
• A state may not resort to war if it can foresee that doing so will have no measurable impact on the situation.
• A state must, prior to initiating a war, weigh the universal goods expected to result from it, such as securing the just cause, against the universal evils expected to result, notably casualties.

(COMMENT)

The (so-called) Dahiya Doctrine has nothing to do with the targeting of "civilians." It has everything to do with:

• A state may not resort to war if it can foresee that doing so will have no measurable impact on the situation.
• A state must, prior to initiating a war, weigh the consequence expected to result from the engagement (strategic or tactical, such as securing the just cause, against the recognized evils result; notably casualties.

The military force may not use weapons or methods which are “evil in themselves.” These include: mass rape campaigns; genocide or ethnic cleansing; using poison or treachery (like disguising soldiers to look like the Red Cross).

In most of the discussion here, especial in this discussion thread (Israel does not target civilians), is centrically bound to the issues of (1) genocide or ethnic cleansing --- and ---- (2) the incriminate fires which are in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

The destruction of the civilian infrastructure of hostile regimes or opposing force, as a means of establishing deterrence against militant use of that infrastructure, or as a means of breaking the will of the opposing force by depriving the support of the general population, is not a war crime. One of the key element in the adopted Powell Doctrine asks the question: "Is the action supported by the American people?"

Neither the US Powell Doctrine or the IS Dahiya Doctrine are evil in themselves.

Most Respectfully,
R

The destruction of the civilian infrastructure of hostile regimes or opposing force, as a means of establishing deterrence against militant use of that infrastructure, or as a means of breaking the will of the opposing force by depriving the support of the general population, is not a war crime.​

Would firing rockets on illegal settlements be a crime?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

That is not what I am saying ---

Are you suggesting that the Palestinians stole someone else's territory.

Link?

(COMMENT)

I'm say that what is today called sovereign Israel was never taken from a sovereign Arab State.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And just where does it say that the Arab has the right of insurrection or to steal the sovereignty of the territory of another.

Rehmani, et al,

OK --- I'll play: Arab Palestine for 200$...

Invaders are invader and they have no right to own some one else country and invaders have to leave.

(COMMENT)

What Arab State did the Jewish Immigrants take?

What Arab State existed, west of the Jordan River, on 15 MAY 1948?

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you keep pimping Israeli propaganda.

You know that the rights of the people do not require a state.

(COMMENT)

The treaty did not surrender the land to the Arab, it surrendered the land to the Allied Powers.

The argument that the right of the Jewish Immigrants is just as valid; even more so since they successfully defended their independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you suggesting that the Palestinians stole someone else's territory.

Link?

YES look at the terms and conditions of the LoN charter and the LoN mandate for Palestine. The arab muslims received 78% of Palestine and the Jews 22%. So why do the arab muslims want what was never theirs to begin with.

The LoN didn't have any land.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

That is not what I am saying ---

Are you suggesting that the Palestinians stole someone else's territory.

Link?

(COMMENT)

I'm say that what is today called sovereign Israel was never taken from a sovereign Arab State.

Most Respectfully,
R

5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And just where does it say that the Arab has the right of insurrection or to steal the sovereignty of the territory of another.

Rehmani, et al,

OK --- I'll play: Arab Palestine for 200$...

Invaders are invader and they have no right to own some one else country and invaders have to leave.

(COMMENT)

What Arab State did the Jewish Immigrants take?

What Arab State existed, west of the Jordan River, on 15 MAY 1948?

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you keep pimping Israeli propaganda.

You know that the rights of the people do not require a state.

(COMMENT)

The treaty did not surrender the land to the Arab, it surrendered the land to the Allied Powers.

The argument that the right of the Jewish Immigrants is just as valid; even more so since they successfully defended their independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are confused. Palestine (and Syria) were under a joint Occupied Enemy Territory Administration or OETA was a joint British and French military administration until the mandates were established. The mandates, to be valid once the Covenant of the League of Nations was signed, had to be consistent with the Covenant. To be consistent with eh Covenant, the Mandatory's obligation was to bring the native people to a condition in which they would be self-governing. The native people were not the Jewish Europeans that had been migrating.

The Covenant article 22, states in part:

"To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population..."

While most non-partisans agree that Palestine was, in fact, considered to be one of the former Turkish territories that were given provisional statehood, even were Palestine to be considered one of the latter cases, the Mandatory was still required to manage the country to the benefit of the native inhabitants. Furthermore, if there were any previous agreements that prevented a signatory to the Covenant from fulfilling its duties to the native people, such as the Balfour Declaration, Article 20 required that such agreements be abrogated.

So Rocco, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Furthermore, it is the Zionist Europeans with the complicity of the British, that led an insurrection to steal the provisional or promised (under treaty) sovereignty from the native people of Palestine.

ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And just where does it say that the Arab has the right of insurrection or to steal the sovereignty of the territory of another.

Rehmani, et al,

OK --- I'll play: Arab Palestine for 200$...

Invaders are invader and they have no right to own some one else country and invaders have to leave.

(COMMENT)

What Arab State did the Jewish Immigrants take?

What Arab State existed, west of the Jordan River, on 15 MAY 1948?

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you keep pimping Israeli propaganda.

You know that the rights of the people do not require a state.

(COMMENT)

The treaty did not surrender the land to the Arab, it surrendered the land to the Allied Powers.

The argument that the right of the Jewish Immigrants is just as valid; even more so since they successfully defended their independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are confused. Palestine (and Syria) were under a joint Occupied Enemy Territory Administration or OETA was a joint British and French military administration until the mandates were established. The mandates, to be valid once the Covenant of the League of Nations was signed, had to be consistent with the Covenant. To be consistent with eh Covenant, the Mandatory's obligation was to bring the native people to a condition in which they would be self-governing. The native people were not the Jewish Europeans that had been migrating.

The Covenant article 22, states in part:

"To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population..."

While most non-partisans agree that Palestine was, in fact, considered to be one of the former Turkish territories that were given provisional statehood, even were Palestine to be considered one of the latter cases, the Mandatory was still required to manage the country to the benefit of the native inhabitants. Furthermore, if there were any previous agreements that prevented a signatory to the Covenant from fulfilling its duties to the native people, such as the Balfour Declaration, Article 20 required that such agreements be abrogated.

So Rocco, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Furthermore, it is the Zionist Europeans with the complicity of the British, that led an insurrection to steal the provisional or promised (under treaty) sovereignty from the native people of Palestine.

ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.​

It says that Britain had to ditch the Balfour Declaration before it could be a member of the LoN.

Interesting.

 

[Humanity]

Once a Palestinian Haven, Affluent Gaza Town Reduced to Rubble

read more: Once a Palestinian haven, affluent Gaza town reduced to rubble - Diplomacy and Defense

Source is Reuters and we all know how they like to be biased against the Jews

Hang on... You just said it was Al Jazeera and proven to be Syria?

So, it IS Gaza then...

To be fair, I really don't give a flying **** whether you think that Reuters are biased or not (I believe them to be pretty balanced)...

But Reuters did NOT raise this Gazan town to the ground!

The source was Rueters and it was reproduced by Al Jazeera. The fact that doing a google search on the pictures shows it to be Syria is what counts.

And there are far too many groups proving reuters to be biased against Israel for them not to be.

Well, two things....

1) Provide a link that proves this is Syria...
2) I do find it quick sick that you prefer to argue over where a photograph is taken than deplore the actions...

We can all search Google for images of destruction in Gaza... None very different to the 'questionable' image

images of gaza destroyed - Pesquisa Google

Why don't you the means and methods of doing so have been posted on this board many times

What I find sick is islamonuts believing that every picture supposedly of gaza is actually gaza so they can justify their hatred of the Jews, Zionists and Israel

Why don't you understand that, when you make a statement and you are challenged that it's YOUR responsibility to back it up...

But hey, you never do.... Too much to expect...

I provided a link to photos of Gaza in pieces!

 

[Challenger]

Off topic.

Israel is killing civilian. Are you blind.

The question at-hand is whether Israel INTENTIONALLY TARGETS civilians, not whether they're killing them.

When Hamas embeds its war-assets amongst its civilian population, hiding behind the skirts of its women and children like cowards, casualties are inevitable.

Hamas does not hide "behind the skirts of it woamen and children". It is Zionist propaganda. The cowards are the Israelis, that intentional bomb residential apartment buildings housing women and children or schools, killing women and children by the thousands. Israel intentionally bombs civilians no amount of projection and propaganda mongering can change the facts as presented by the UN or various NGOs and human rights organizations.

"Well, you know, despite the Israeli ambassador’s claim that Israel deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for its extraordinary restraint and its extraordinary care to spare civilian lives, Human Rights Watch has seen from the ground, based on our investigations in Gaza, that that’s anything but the case. And no matter how many times the Israeli military spokesmen scream, "Human shields! Human shields!" most of the people being killed in Gaza are being killed because Israel is paying insufficient care to saving civilian lives. There’s been case after case in which Israel has used the wrong weaponry or has shot at people with many civilians around. And these, in our view, are war crimes."

Kenneth Roth

Former federal prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and Executive Director of HRW. Kenneth Roth is Jewish, by the way.

Hamas usage of human shields is a well established and proven fact. Their cowardice knows no bounds.

And you know the facts but don't have enough courage to accept the facts as it all jews nature.

The facts are that Hamas uses its own civilians as human shields. Their fighters do not wear uniforms for this very purpose. They're savages and cowards. But then again, that's what all Islamists are.

Not quite the spit and polish of the Brigade of Guards, or the USMC perhaps, but they look uniformed to me...

 

[Hollie]

The question at-hand is whether Israel INTENTIONALLY TARGETS civilians, not whether they're killing them.

When Hamas embeds its war-assets amongst its civilian population, hiding behind the skirts of its women and children like cowards, casualties are inevitable.

Hamas does not hide "behind the skirts of it woamen and children". It is Zionist propaganda. The cowards are the Israelis, that intentional bomb residential apartment buildings housing women and children or schools, killing women and children by the thousands. Israel intentionally bombs civilians no amount of projection and propaganda mongering can change the facts as presented by the UN or various NGOs and human rights organizations.

"Well, you know, despite the Israeli ambassador’s claim that Israel deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for its extraordinary restraint and its extraordinary care to spare civilian lives, Human Rights Watch has seen from the ground, based on our investigations in Gaza, that that’s anything but the case. And no matter how many times the Israeli military spokesmen scream, "Human shields! Human shields!" most of the people being killed in Gaza are being killed because Israel is paying insufficient care to saving civilian lives. There’s been case after case in which Israel has used the wrong weaponry or has shot at people with many civilians around. And these, in our view, are war crimes."

Kenneth Roth

Former federal prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and Executive Director of HRW. Kenneth Roth is Jewish, by the way.

Hamas usage of human shields is a well established and proven fact. Their cowardice knows no bounds.

And you know the facts but don't have enough courage to accept the facts as it all jews nature.

The facts are that Hamas uses its own civilians as human shields. Their fighters do not wear uniforms for this very purpose. They're savages and cowards. But then again, that's what all Islamists are.

Not quite the spit and polish of the Brigade of Guards, or the USMC perhaps, but they look uniformed to me...

Thats a wonderful Islamic terrorist fashion show (for Islamic terrorist cowards), but such silly cutting and pasting serves only to reinforce a lot of negative stereotypes about you Islamic terrorist Pom Pom flailers.

 

[Challenger]

The destruction of the civilian infrastructure of hostile regimes or opposing force, as a means of establishing deterrence against militant use of that infrastructure, or as a means of breaking the will of the opposing force by depriving the support of the general population, is not a war crime.

The Nuremburg Charter might disagree with you. Zionist Israel will have to prove military necessity to avoid article 6b defining War Crimes "...wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity..."

 

[Hollie]

The destruction of the civilian infrastructure of hostile regimes or opposing force, as a means of establishing deterrence against militant use of that infrastructure, or as a means of breaking the will of the opposing force by depriving the support of the general population, is not a war crime.

The Nuremburg Charter might disagree with you. Zionist Israel will have to prove military necessity to avoid article 6b defining War Crimes "...wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity..."

Just curious what the Nuremburg Charter addresses in regard to acts of war by Islamic terrorists.

 

[Challenger]

"In Khuzaa, people say at least 70 were killed and more bodies may lie beneath the rubble. It was a site of fierce fighting between Israeli forces, Hamas and other Palestinian militants, who said they detonated explosives and fired anti-tank rockets at Israeli troops."

You missed a bit,

"Citing residents, Human Rights Watch said on Monday Israeli forces fired on and killed civilians in the town between July 23 to 25, actions which it said if proven would be war crimes."

So unless IDF soldiers were just shooting at random, for fun....

Lets read what IDF soldiers themselves say, from Breaking the Silence:

"testimony catalog number: 88919
rank: Captain
area: Gaza strip
period: 2014

I’ll tell you about something that I consider very, very, very problematic. It took place within our forces, and it happened in lots of cases. During quiet moments, when not a lot of intelligence was coming in, when we weren’t really firing at any targets, at times when there was a lull – for whatever reason, and Hamas was quiet and not firing as much as usual – then there was always a question mark: is [Hamas] not shooting now because we managed to hit a strategic target? And then we start digging into our intelligence to see if something specific happened, or maybe they’re just collecting themselves? Or maybe they really are taking a break because we called a ceasefire and they are honoring it. And during such a lull an officer will come up to you – sometimes a more senior one, sometimes less – and say, “OK, we have this moment of quiet, let’s see which targets we haven’t bombed yet, what else we can incriminate, what else we can declare as definite targets, let’s start working on it.” And then you find yourself – and I’m being very careful about how I say this – coercing yourself to find more targets that are quality targets, good targets. Now, in some cases that’s totally legit. You’ve suddenly got a moment of quiet so you can clear out all the noise and look at the data that’s coming in and see if it’s really quality and if you can wrest some targets out of it, or figure out some puzzle that eluded you until now by cross-checking data or something else. And sometimes the forces are so eager to keep firing or creating more targets for themselves, that often you cut a few corners to be able to say, “OK, there might be something here, and in the past when we saw such things we turned out to be right, and, well, if the house is empty and you happen to have the munitions then OK, go ahead, take it down.” That was how it was for everyone. Everyone wanted to take part."

 

[Challenger]

The destruction of the civilian infrastructure of hostile regimes or opposing force, as a means of establishing deterrence against militant use of that infrastructure, or as a means of breaking the will of the opposing force by depriving the support of the general population, is not a war crime.

The Nuremburg Charter might disagree with you. Zionist Israel will have to prove military necessity to avoid article 6b defining War Crimes "...wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity..."

Just curious what the Nuremburg Charter addresses in regard to acts of war by Islamic terrorists.

Look it up for yourself: Refworld | Charter of the International Military Tribunal - Annex to the Agreement for the prosecution and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis ("London Agreement")

 

[Hollie]

"In Khuzaa, people say at least 70 were killed and more bodies may lie beneath the rubble. It was a site of fierce fighting between Israeli forces, Hamas and other Palestinian militants, who said they detonated explosives and fired anti-tank rockets at Israeli troops."

You missed a bit,

"Citing residents, Human Rights Watch said on Monday Israeli forces fired on and killed civilians in the town between July 23 to 25, actions which it said if proven would be war crimes."

So unless IDF soldiers were just shooting at random, for fun....

Lets read what IDF soldiers themselves say, from Breaking the Silence:

"testimony catalog number: 88919
rank: Captain
area: Gaza strip
period: 2014

I’ll tell you about something that I consider very, very, very problematic. It took place within our forces, and it happened in lots of cases. During quiet moments, when not a lot of intelligence was coming in, when we weren’t really firing at any targets, at times when there was a lull – for whatever reason, and Hamas was quiet and not firing as much as usual – then there was always a question mark: is [Hamas] not shooting now because we managed to hit a strategic target? And then we start digging into our intelligence to see if something specific happened, or maybe they’re just collecting themselves? Or maybe they really are taking a break because we called a ceasefire and they are honoring it. And during such a lull an officer will come up to you – sometimes a more senior one, sometimes less – and say, “OK, we have this moment of quiet, let’s see which targets we haven’t bombed yet, what else we can incriminate, what else we can declare as definite targets, let’s start working on it.” And then you find yourself – and I’m being very careful about how I say this – coercing yourself to find more targets that are quality targets, good targets. Now, in some cases that’s totally legit. You’ve suddenly got a moment of quiet so you can clear out all the noise and look at the data that’s coming in and see if it’s really quality and if you can wrest some targets out of it, or figure out some puzzle that eluded you until now by cross-checking data or something else. And sometimes the forces are so eager to keep firing or creating more targets for themselves, that often you cut a few corners to be able to say, “OK, there might be something here, and in the past when we saw such things we turned out to be right, and, well, if the house is empty and you happen to have the munitions then OK, go ahead, take it down.” That was how it was for everyone. Everyone wanted to take part."

You missed a bit,

"citing residents"...

In your cut and paste travels, you might want to cut and paste some independent testimony.

 

[Hollie]

The destruction of the civilian infrastructure of hostile regimes or opposing force, as a means of establishing deterrence against militant use of that infrastructure, or as a means of breaking the will of the opposing force by depriving the support of the general population, is not a war crime.

The Nuremburg Charter might disagree with you. Zionist Israel will have to prove military necessity to avoid article 6b defining War Crimes "...wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity..."

Just curious what the Nuremburg Charter addresses in regard to acts of war by Islamic terrorists.

Look it up for yourself: Refworld | Charter of the International Military Tribunal - Annex to the Agreement for the prosecution and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis ("London Agreement")

I did. The language is less amenable to acts of war (irrespective of affiliation to an Islamic terrorist organization or in furtherance of the Hamas Charter) than you are.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't like to address hypotheticals.

The destruction of the civilian infrastructure of hostile regimes or opposing force, as a means of establishing deterrence against militant use of that infrastructure, or as a means of breaking the will of the opposing force by depriving the support of the general population, is not a war crime.​

Would firing rockets on illegal settlements be a crime?

(COMMENT)

There are two general principles that take precedence as the correct protocols:

• Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

• Examples of rules found to be customary and which have corresponding provisions in Additional Protocol I include: the principle of distinction between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives; the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks; and the unwarranted direct targeting of civilians and civilian object.
​

If you deliberately target "settlements" of dubious military consequence, then there must be more than merely the 'just cause" argument. Civilians must not be deliberate targets of the conflict; great care must be taken to avoid inadvertent civilian casualties. Precautions should be taken to minimize civilian casualties,

Within the overarching concept of "HARM's WAY" there are two doctrines within "Just War Theory" – the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) and the Doctrine of Supreme Emergency (DSE) – suspend these provisions:

• The DDE offers justification for killing civilians in war, so long as those deaths constitute (foreseeable) accidents rather than intentional acts;

• The DSE vacates non-combatant immunity in situations where the military acts as the agent of a nation-state facing total annihilation.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[fanger]

...Then why not, jews stuck around Telaviv in Israel. Why jews invade home land of Palestinian.

Off topic.

But it does not make any difference... the Jews own the place now... time for your people to leave.

Off topic.

Israel is killing civilian. Are you blind.

The question at-hand is whether Israel INTENTIONALLY TARGETS civilians, not whether they're killing them.

When Hamas embeds its war-assets amongst its civilian population, hiding behind the skirts of its women and children like cowards, casualties are inevitable.

But the facts are that Israelis are killing civilian brutally and cowardly.

Can you provide a link that Israelis target civilians intentionally. But we do know that's what Islamist animals do in the name of Allah.

Here ya go

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Nonsense.

So Rocco, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Furthermore, it is the Zionist Europeans with the complicity of the British, that led an insurrection to steal the provisional or promised (under treaty) sovereignty from the native people of Palestine.

ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.

(COMMENT)

Nothing in the League of Nation Covenant addresses politico-military agreements made after the Covenant. Nothing in the covenant promises anything specific to the Arab Palestinians (although the Mandate for Palestine partitioned 77% of the territory to be an Arab State), or obligates the Allied Power to surrender anything (to the inhabitants of the enemy occupied territory) that was surrendered to the Allied Powers after the Covenant.

Remember the Allied Powers wrote the Covenant, and the Allied Powers wrote the Convention, treaties and mandates which followed. The Allied Powers determine the proper disposition just as the 1924 Treaty of Lausanne states:

ARTICLE 16. Treaty of Lausanne

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
​

The parties concerned being the Allied Powers who accepted the "renounced rights and titles." The Allied Powers determine the future of the territories.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960

It is not within the "Functions and Powers" of the General Assembly (Chapter IV Articles 9 thru 22, of the Charter), to create international law.

Article 10: The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters. If a Resolutions is intended to be law, the it is recommended to the Sixth Committee, one of the six Main Committees of the General Assembly, is allocated agenda items related to legal matters. That is how a resolution gets on the path to become International law :

The Sixth Committee submits a separate report to the plenary on every agenda item allocated to it. Each report:

• indicates the meetings at which the item was considered
• summarizes the committee's consideration of the item
• identifies the sponsors of draft resolutions
• reports the vote, if any, of Member States on draft texts
• transmits the final version of draft resolutions and/or decisions recommended to the plenary for adoption
• symbol pattern
  • A/session/-
  • example: A/69/502

The plenary considers each report and votes on the draft resolutions or decisions it contains.
​

Nothing in the The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration supersedes the Charter; including Article 73.

P F Tinmore, et al,

That is not what I am saying ---

Are you suggesting that the Palestinians stole someone else's territory.

Link?

(COMMENT)

I'm say that what is today called sovereign Israel was never taken from a sovereign Arab State.

Most Respectfully,
R

5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

(COMMENT)

This is not a demand or International Law.

It comes after the establishment of the State of Israel.
It does not apply to the West Bank or Gaza Strip because those partitioned territories are covered under treaties (Jordan and Egypt).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

1. There is no international dispute, the conflict is between an occupied population and the occupier.

2. Settlements in occupied Palestine are not civilian, they are military citadels which are utilized to facilitate further military conquest

montelatici, et al,

Nonsense.

So Rocco, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Furthermore, it is the Zionist Europeans with the complicity of the British, that led an insurrection to steal the provisional or promised (under treaty) sovereignty from the native people of Palestine.

ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.

(COMMENT)

Nothing in the League of Nation Covenant addresses politico-military agreements made after the Covenant. Nothing in the covenant promises anything specific to the Arab Palestinians (although the Mandate for Palestine partitioned 77% of the territory to be an Arab State), or obligates the Allied Power to surrender anything (to the inhabitants of the enemy occupied territory) that was surrendered to the Allied Powers after the Covenant.

Remember the Allied Powers wrote the Covenant, and the Allied Powers wrote the Convention, treaties and mandates which followed. The Allied Powers determine the proper disposition just as the 1924 Treaty of Lausanne states:

ARTICLE 16. Treaty of Lausanne

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
​

The parties concerned being the Allied Powers who accepted the "renounced rights and titles." The Allied Powers determine the future of the territories.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are very confused.

1. The Covenant promises the native people, in the case of Palestine the Arabs, the Mandatory's tutelage to enable the native people to assume full sovereignty from provisional sovereignty.

2. By signing the Covenant the party signing agreed that:

"The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."

The Balfour Declaration was inconsistent with the Covenant. The Zionists were not natives of Palestine. They were Europeans.

What is so difficult for you to understand?