Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[Shusha]

You act like the Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves.

Palestinians absolutely have the right to defend themselves. As does every individual and every State.

The problem is that the Palestinians have nothing to defend themselves FROM. Palestinians are not being attacked.

The fact that they want political control over more land than they have does not, in any way, constitute an attack.

You need to read up on Israel's settler colonialism.

No worries. I am quite sure I am at LEAST as read-up as you are. The presence of Jewish people in a place does NOT constitute an attack.

 

[Shusha]

Eloy

Your last post went off on so many tangents I can't be bothered to address it point by point. If there is anything specific you want to address, let me know. I will say though, that I fully support Palestinian nationalism and self-determination on part of the territory. Always have.

 

[Eloy]

It's past time for you to quit the sophistry.

Am I the only one who reads this as, "Stop using actual facts, I can't keep up."

Regrettably, you and about three others do nothing but distort the truth in the hope that you will mislead others.

Feel free to point out to me where 242 mentions the Palestinians or the State of Palestine.

As the entire world is aware, the Palestinians were born and live in the occupied territories which Resolution 242 says should be vacated by the Israelis.

 

[Eloy]

Eloy

Your last post went off on so many tangents I can't be bothered to address it point by point. If there is anything specific you want to address, let me know. I will say though, that I fully support Palestinian nationalism and self-determination on part of the territory. Always have.

What I wrote was limited to addressing the errors of your previous post. Self-determination of the Palestinians in only part of occupied Palestine is not good enough.

 

[Phoenall]

Eloy, et al,

Yes, this is a very important point. --- It is a very important point.

Something you could benefit from keeping in mind is that occupation of a territory in time of war was never understood to last for half a century and that such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over. The occupation of Palestine is bogus and is in fact the acquisition of land by Israel through war which is illegal.

(QUESTIONS)

•• When is a war over?

** In 1967, the Six Day War had (still in place) the 1949 Armistice Lines left over from a War that was still not over.

•• What war are you talking about? AND! Who were the parties to the war?

(COMMENT)

This is my opportunity to learn something from you. My understanding was:

•• Whether you talk about the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War, there were several "parties to the conflict" (somebody was at war with somebody). There was no party to any of the conflicts or an Armistice, or a treaty, pertaining to any party know as the "Palestinians" or any variation of that name.
•• Relative to the War most related to the Gaza Strip, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Egyptians. The 1979 Peace Treaty established "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary." This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
•• Relative to the War most related to the West Bank, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Jordanians. The 1994 Peace Treaty established "[t]he international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein." This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
​

All differences and disputes relative to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have been resolved. Permanent international borders have been established.

•• Israel was not at War with the Arab Palestinians.
•• Israel did not have an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.
•• Israel neither seized, conquered, occupied or acquired anything from the Arab Palestinian.

•∆• Sovereign territory from the Jordanians - YES!
•∆• A Military Governorship from Egypt - YES!
•§• Nothing from any other sovereign or independent power pertaining to the West Bank or Gaza Strip.
​

So when you say "such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over;" what meaning does that have?

Nothing was taking from the inhabitance. If you check, you will find that on 31 July 1988, under the Jordanian Disengagement from the West Bank, King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This effectively abandon the West Bank to the Israelis; absent any other self-governing institution available.

Immediately following the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, Egypt took control and placed a military administration over the newly formed Gaza Strip. Israel, after the 1967 Six-Day War, relieved the Egyptians of the Gaza Strip. Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo accords signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the (new) Palestinian Authority (PA) much of the security and civilian responsibility for the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank (Areas and Authority defined by the Agreements). Negotiations to determine the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stalled in 2001, after which the area erupted into what became known as the Intifada. Neither of the two Sides activated the dispute resolution process. The two sides did not resume (in good faith) the Permanent Status negotiations. One side demands preconditions before talks resume and the other requires that no preconditions before talks resume.

Most Respectfully,
R

I am repeating what the United Nations Security Council agreed about the recent (1967) war in Resolution 242 where Israel is required to remove all its military to the 1967 borders. I thought you knew.

Israel was told to give up "territories" captured in the war, but not "all the territories". The language was deliberately ambiguous. In fact by giving up the Sinai, Israel has already complied.

Correct and the arab muslims by refusing to lay down their weapons did not comply and are still in breach to this day. Far too many people ignore the sections aimed at the arab muslims, and also ignore the fact that palestine and palestinians are not on the agenda

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made. It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces --- are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.

NOTHING could be further from the truth.

There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.

(COMMENT)

•• Protected Persons (in this case the HoAP) who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.

•• Protected Person (in this case the HoAP) in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power (in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..

•• The Occupying Power (in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person (in this case the HoAP) in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

§ The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.

§ Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis (Terra Nullius). While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.
​

For reference see:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]
​

It should be remembered that Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
​

In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.

Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think people call Israel an occupation for the lack of a better term. It is an occupation in the sense that it is a foreign military power controlling land that is not theirs. You know that an occupation is preceded by the attack phase. This is military attacks on the territory. The occupation begins when the foreign forces take control of the civil administration and the local military is no longer in force..

At this point the territory is under civil control using local civil laws with few exceptions. Any attacks (resistance) against the occupation is a matter of civilian law enforcement not military action. Life under occupation should be fairly normal for the local population.

Although Palestine is under military control, Israel has not fully transitioned into the occupation phase. The rules of occupation include the rights of the occupying power (Article 68) and a number of obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of its obligations and restrictions. Israel has not become a "legal" occupation.

This "occupation" can only be defined by its true activities. Settler colonialism.

So once again you deny the Jews their rights under international law to their national home. The land is for the Jewish national home and to deny that is to deny the Jews all their rights under all international laws, all treaties and all UN resolutions.

The attack came in 1967 when Egypt closed the straits as an act of war accepted by the UN as being the case. Then the invasion force from Jordan and Syria mobilising to wipe out the Jews and steal their lands. A pity the arab muslims lost once more and ran like cowards from the lesser Jewish forces.

Israel took full military and civil administration control and set in place the Geneva convention rules of occupation.

So why haven't you posted these rules and designated the parts that Israel is in breach of, or is this because you cant due to them being non existent and the Jews not being in breach of them

All this so you could claim your fantasy phase of Settler colonialism that only exists on the hate sites and your world of substance abuse

The civilian population of an occupied territory owes no allegiance to
the occupying power. As we will see in detail later, it cannot be forced
to fight its own country, be involved in any way with the armed forces
or give military assistance to the occupying power.

Civilians are at all times entitled to respect for their persons, honour,
family rights, religious convictions, and manners and customs. Their
private property is protected.

Collective penalties, measures of intimidation, terrorism and hostage-taking are prohibited.

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed
by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power
and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent
national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which
might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.

Individual or mass forcible transfers and deportations of the civilian
population from occupied territory are prohibited.

The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian
population into the territory it occupies.

After effective occupation of territory, members of the territory’s armed
forces who have not surrendered, organized resistance movements and
genuine national liberation movements may resist the occupation.

Indirect support for the resistance movement, such as providing infor-
mation or non-military supplies, does not constitute taking a direct part
in hostilities. Those so engaged are civilians and therefore protected
against attack.

As legitimate State authority has now passed into the hands of the occu-
pying power, the latter must take all measures in its power to restore
and ensure, as far as possible, law and order and public safety.
As a rule, the occupying power must allow the territory to be adminis-
tered as before. It must respect the laws in force in the territory before
occupation unless it is absolutely prevented from doing so.

The occupying power does not acquire ownership of public buildings,
real estate and agricultural estates in occupied territory.

Private property cannot be confiscated.

Property used for religious purposes, for charity, education, or the arts
and sciences, must be treated as private property even if it belongs to
the State. Here the law is quite clear. It is forbidden to seize, destroy or
wilfully damage such property. The same applies to historical monuments
and cultural property.

Destruction of property.
The occupying power is not allowed to destroy
real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private
persons, to the State, to other public authorities or to social or co-operative
organizations, except where such destruction is made absolutely necessary
by military operations.

The prohibition does not cover service in the civilian police force, whose
duty is to maintain law and order. Here too, though, it would be wrong
for the occupying power to use members of the population to fight the
resistance, even in a policing role.

The law refers to basic needs and to other
supplies essential to the survival of the civilian population in the occupied
territory. It specifies basic food and medical supplies as well as clothing,
bedding and means of shelter.

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

This is not the law of occupation at all it is a school lesson by the ICRC. It uses international law that never existed and then uses international law that does out of context and retroactively. The only law of occupation is to be found in the Geneva conventions so try referencing to that and that alone

Not true, of course.

The first codification of international rules relating to occupation can be
found in the Hague Regulations of 1899 and 1907, which themselves
were built on customary international law. Many lessons drawn from
the crimes committed in the occupied territories of Europe and the Far
East during the Second World War were subsequently incorporated into
the Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention, which codifies a substantial part of
modern international law applicable to occupation.​

And made out of date and no longer valid by the introduction of the Geneva conventions. You cant have two sets of rules for the same action as it just confuses the issue.


And using the red cross school lesson as evidence shows that you are really desperate to start winning arguments. Then to compound the issue you dont give the link to your cut and paste contrary to board rules. And your cut and paste says what I did that the only extanct law of occupation is that of the Geneva conventions. Or cant you read that part in English because it goes against your POV and brainwashing

 

[Phoenall]

First, a cartoon like handbook, written on the 8th Grade Level, is not the same as the authority documents I presented.

So they used fake information. .

No they created fake information and got morons like you to believe it, all down to anti semitism and Jew hatred by people in high places

 

[Phoenall]

It's past time for you to quit the sophistry.

Am I the only one who reads this as, "Stop using actual facts, I can't keep up."

Regrettably, you and about three others do nothing but distort the truth in the hope that you will mislead others.

Feel free to point out to me where 242 mentions the Palestinians or the State of Palestine.

As the entire world is aware, the Palestinians were born and live in the occupied territories which Resolution 242 says should be vacated by the Israelis.

No that is the interpretation of the islamonazis and other hate groups that believe international law should be denied to the Jews. Does this mean that 6 million palestinians dont have a legal claim to live in Israel because they were not born there but in foriegn lands. And 242 does not say that Israel has to vacate the occupied territories does it.

 

[Phoenall]

It's past time for you to quit the sophistry.

Am I the only one who reads this as, "Stop using actual facts, I can't keep up."

Regrettably, you and about three others do nothing but distort the truth in the hope that you will mislead others.

Feel free to point out to me where 242 mentions the Palestinians or the State of Palestine.

As the entire world is aware, the Palestinians were born and live in the occupied territories which Resolution 242 says should be vacated by the Israelis.

No that is the interpretation of the islamonazis and other hate groups that believe international law should be denied to the Jews. Does this mean that 6 million palestinians dont have a legal claim to live in Israel because they were not born there but in foriegn lands. And 242 does not say that Israel has to vacate the occupied territories does it.

 

[Phoenall]

Eloy

Your last post went off on so many tangents I can't be bothered to address it point by point. If there is anything specific you want to address, let me know. I will say though, that I fully support Palestinian nationalism and self-determination on part of the territory. Always have.

What I wrote was limited to addressing the errors of your previous post. Self-determination of the Palestinians in only part of occupied Palestine is not good enough.

So what about the self determination of the Jews on the land that is theirs by right of international laws, or are you denying the Jews their rights so you can give the arab muslims rights they are not entitled to under internatinal laws ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Did I say that? No! You are trying to challenge my discussion by suggesting I lied...

First, a cartoon like handbook, written on the 8th Grade Level, is not the same as the authority documents I presented.

So they used fake information. .

(COMMENT)

The handbook is not written to singularly support the discussion we are having. Make no mistake, the 8th Grade Handbook is accurate as far as it goes; but is not intended to be used to support those that ARE suspected of, or engaged in, activities hostile to the security of the State (Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence). Such individual persons or groups shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) as would, if exercised in the favor of to the security of State of Israel. This is spelled out in Article 5, GCIV.

The general opinion is that convention does not forbid fighting without an official uniform. However, if the combatant (or partisan) does not comply with the provisions of Articles 1, 2 or 3 of the 1907 Hague Regulation, this same combatant (or partisan) cannot claim any of the protections of The Hague Regulation or that of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

There is a big difference between:

• "inhabitants of a territory which HAS NOT BEEN occupied" (Article 2, Hague Regulation)
​

And that of:

• Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters that operate in the shadows, from densely populated areas, addressed by the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII) which specifically reaffirmed the distinction between "lawful" and "unlawful" combatants, where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.​

The level at which the discussion has ascended certainly is much different from that of the handbook.

Most Respectfully,
R

My post was in response to the question of Israel's violations.

If you like, we could discuss The Palestinian's piddly little violations in response to Israel's massive violations.

And did not address any violations at all, were are the violations of international law by the Israeli's detailed in that school lesson. You fail again by making claims and then not following up with the details.

Yes lets discuss the many war crimes, crimes against humanity and illegal weapons employed by the palestinians and compare them to the actual international laws that Israel work to in their dealings with the palestinians

 

[Phoenall]

Don't quibble. The UN and the Security Council have consistently stated the the Geneva Convention applied.

Not in my lifetime. Palestine is a law free zone.

So you are now saying that the palestinians do not have to comply with international laws, UN resolutions, UN charter or IHL. Does this extend to the Jewish palestinians as well, and will you stop nit picking when Israel starts acting as you want and ignoring the Geneva conventions

 

[Phoenall]

serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power

Israel claims that it does not occupy Palestine.

Do those rules apply to settler colonialism?

Or the attack phase before a proper occupation.

Here you go again with your made up settler colonialism that cant exist on land you own under international law

When the arab muslims attack the Israeli's will beat them back and reclaim more of their lands thus ending the settler coloialism by arab muslims

 

[Phoenall]

Don't quibble. The UN and the Security Council have consistently stated the the Geneva Convention applied.

Not in my lifetime. Palestine is a law free zone.

What does that mean, "Law free zone?"

Sounds like that means the Palestinians can organize & carry out all the terrorism they want without laws to prevent them.

Must be. I have never seen them in court.

Do you visit Israeli courts much in your free time. I have seen many reports of arab muslim terrorists being tried and found guilty on this board. The majority want the money for their family so commit suicide by cop and dont get to court.

But here
is a link for you that you must trust as it is a source you use

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_866_weill.pdf

Since the beginning of the Israeli occupation more than 200,000 cases have been
brought before military courts, where Palestinian civilians have been prosecuted and
judged by the military authorities. However, despite the large number of judicial
decisions, this jurisprudence has not received the attention it merits.

Or this from an isamonazi source

US court orders Palestinians to pay Israeli attack victims more than $218M

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is just camoflage in the dilution of the question.

Are Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) criminally accountable for:

• Offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power?
• Guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons?
​

The answer is yes! Of course they are. There is an entire section on how the detain and administer punish in the Geneva Convention.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't quibble. The UN and the Security Council have consistently stated the the Geneva Convention applied.

AND the idea you submit that: "This "occupation" can only be defined by its true activities. Settler colonialism." These ideas are completely separate and independent. There are many example in which one can point-out an OCCUPATION absent COLONIALISM and vise-versa.

The civilian population of an occupied territory owes no allegiance to the occupying power. As we will see in detail later, it cannot be forced to fight its own country, be involved in any way with the armed forces or give military assistance to the occupying power.

(COMMENT)

I do not see or recall any Israeli effort to conscript Arab Palestinians of the West Bank for the purpose of combating HoAP. Can you point to the involuntary service for me?

Civilians are at all times entitled to respect for their persons, honour, family rights, religious convictions, and manners and customs. Their private property is protected.

(COMMENT)

I have not heard of the IDF, Border Police, or Security Services shaking-down Arab Palestinians for money, jewry or other precious assets. I really don't see major or minor proterties taken outside those necessary for a security advantage.

Collective penalties, measures of intimidation, terrorism and hostage-taking are prohibited.

(COMMENT)

I've not seen a violation of this. This is a protocol for the Palestinian Government that supports and praises
Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters.

Each State has a duty to defend itself, it citizenry and sovereign integrity and independence. Israel has all three and the burden of responsibility. The Arab Palestinians have not yet reach the ability to protect anything of consequence.

The Israeli Occupying Power with the authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power
and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is 100% correct. You just don't make an agreement; that would preclude most Peace Treaties.

Individual or mass forcible transfers and deportations of the civilian

population from occupied territory are prohibited. The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

(COMMENT)

I have not observed this since the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) went into force.

After effective occupation of territory, members of the territory’s armed forces who have not surrendered, organized resistance movements and genuine national liberation movements may resist the occupation.

(COMMENT)

It may, and it must live with both the legal, economic and physical consequence of that decision.

Indirect support for the resistance movement, such as providing information or non-military supplies, does not constitute taking a direct part in hostilities. Those so engaged are civilians and therefore protected against attack.

(COMMENT)

A person is guilty of espionage, or of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offense which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offense were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

The words "duty of allegiance" constitute an acknowledgment of the fundamental principle according to which the occupation does not sever the bond existing between the inhabitants and the conquered State. Protected persons must nevertheless obey legitimate orders issued by the Occupying Power. (See COMMENTARY OF 1958)
​

As legitimate State authority has now passed into the hands of the occupying power, the latter must take all measures in its power to restore and ensure, as far as possible, law and order and public safety. As a rule, the occupying power must allow the territory to be administered as before. It must respect the laws in force in the territory before
occupation unless it is absolutely prevented from doing so.

(COMMENT)

In many cases, the law (Jordanian and Egyptian) are many times more restrictive that Israeli law. How were the Arab Palestinians in Black September treated? How long do Egyptian protestors like the Muslim Brotherhood last in Egypt.

I can go on with each and every point you make, but I think you understand that you must give a little more thought to you position, then to just cut and paste an high-pocket training guide for Sergeants to train their squads.

Most Respectfully,
R

Civilians are at all times entitled to respect for their persons, honour, family rights, religious convictions, and manners and customs. Their private property is protected.
(COMMENT)

I have not heard of the IDF, Border Police, or Security Services shaking-down Arab Palestinians for money, jewry or other precious assets. I really don't see major or minor proterties taken outside those necessary for a security advantage.​

Of course not. Israeli propaganda would not report such things.

The destruction of property and the theft of land is the most common. Israel has stolen things like farm equipment and solar panels. Israel even stole sewing machines, cloth, and finished clothing from a girl's orphanage. But destruction of private property is Israel's main gig.

And as international law says once the palestinians use private property for any military purpose it loses its protected status and can be destroyed. For someone that spouts irrelevant international laws you are lacking in any comprehension of relevant international laws. Or is this deliberate because you dont want international laws to work for the Jews and just want to see them wiped out ?

Your only source for these claims is some LYING POS ISLAMONAZI TERRORIST that should never be believed, no back up from an unbiased source making your claims suspect

 

[P F Tinmore]

Do you visit Israeli courts much in your free time.

I didn't mean Israeli kangaroo courts.

 

[Phoenall]

Not in my lifetime. Palestine is a law free zone.

What does that mean, "Law free zone?"

Sounds like that means the Palestinians can organize & carry out all the terrorism they want without laws to prevent them.

Must be. I have never seen them in court.

Courts and due process are not concepts that Islamic terrorists need to concern themselves with.

Gaza: Hamas killed and tortured, says Amnesty

Gaza: Hamas killed and tortured, says Amnesty - BBC News

Hamas forces in the Gaza Strip committed serious human rights abuses including abductions, torture and extra-judicial killings of Palestinian civilians in 2014, a report says.

And yes, according to our friend P F Tinmore: "Civilians are at all times entitled to respect for their persons, honour, family rights, religious convictions, and manners and customs. Their private property is protected."

And the illegal government in the West Bank is worse. And Israel is worse yet.

Your word is worthless so how about a link from an unbiased source ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

And as international law says once the palestinians use private property for any military purpose it loses its protected status and can be destroyed.

OK, what percentage of Palestinian destroyed property was used for military purposes.

Do you have the stats on that or are you just shoveling shit?

 

[Phoenall]

Since 1950, when the Fourth Geneva Convention went into effect as binding, almost every single military engagement was a causal effect of the depraved indifference to human life by the radical and irrational Arab League leaders and the uncontrollable Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile, blah, blah, blah...

You act like the Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves.

Attacking unarmed women and children is not defending yourself, unless you want the same rules to apply to both sides. But this would mean you would no longer have any argument when the bodies of women and children started to mount up in the streets of gaza and the west bank. What ever you apply to the palestinians MUST be applied to the Israelis until only one group is left

 

[Phoenall]

What does that mean, "Law free zone?"

Sounds like that means the Palestinians can organize & carry out all the terrorism they want without laws to prevent them.

Must be. I have never seen them in court.

Explain "Law free zone", Tinmore.

C'mon P F Tinmore Don't be bashful

Accusation of international law violations have been flying around for decades.

I don't recall anyone ever going to court.

Of course you dont as you just ignore such things and wipe them from your memory and computer. To accept them would be to accept that your POV is wrong and a result of brainwashing

 

[Phoenall]

Do you visit Israeli courts much in your free time.

I didn't mean Israeli kangaroo courts.

That is only your interpretation based on brainwashing and an inability to accept truth and reality.

Now how about a link to an unbiased source that proves the Israeli courts are " kangaroo courts " or is that an impossible task ?