Stats About Israeli And Palestinian In ME

[Phoenall]

Freeman, et al,

Again, you are wrong.

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 ]

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ] of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.​

The UN Security Council has reminded, on several occasions, the Jewish State of Israel are to accept and scrupulously abide by the de jure application of the Geneva Conventions as a "rightful entitlement."

Even if you claim that the HoAP are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regimes ---by international law they are international conflicts. (Article 1(4) Protocol I, GCIV)

Those laws is for normal states not for occupied territories, there is no international law against fighting settlements in occupied territories.​

(REFERENCEs)

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, COLLECTIVE PENALTIES, PILLAGE, REPRISALS
ARTICLE 33 [ Link ]

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.​

Palestinian Stated Positions

• Jihad is its path and death...
• There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
• It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters.​

(COMMENT)​

No matter how you twist the words, no matter what claims are made --- there simply is no justification for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to conduct the premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocent people of Israel intended to influence their political position.

The advocacy of the use of force to achieve political goals which cannot be achieved through diplomatic means is violence perpetrated against innocent people to achieve that end.

It is quite cynical, and a propaganda ploy, to claim the Palestinian legal right to resist occupation. because THEY BELIEVE they are involved in a struggle for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation.

And even if they did have this "imaginary right" to "resist occupation" it would not include the use of force to intended to harm the Occupying Power or facilities (Article 68 GCIV). It would not include either attacks against unarmed civilians or the indiscriminate rocket and mortar fire on civilian in urban areas.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

Those laws imply in countries like Syria, settlers are not civilians they are armed.

The defence in occupied territories is an international right.

Under which LAW, as the Geneva conventions which are international laws in this instance says otherwise. Because islamonazi illiterates say that their laws take precedence over international laws does make it right.


And you realise that it is te arab muslims occupying Jewish lands dont you, as shown by the land registry and the UN archives

It's really laughable when we note zionazis like you give lessons about Geneva conventions!

Israeli Violations of International Law

And in every case your link provides there was no such international law to cover these acts. You are laughable in your futile attempts at using LIARS and EXTREMISTS to cover up islamonazi violence. terrorism and breaches of international law.

ANOTHER ISLAMIC FAILURE WHO DOES NOT DO THE RESEARCH AND JUST POSTS THE FIRST THING THAT COMES UP

 

[rylah]

Rocket hits in Israel since the Hamas takeover of Gaza, 2006
(Figures as of March 15, 2016))

 

[rylah]

"The moment a Palestinian is convicted of an act of terror – “violent resistance” is the Palestinians’ preferred propaganda term – against Israel, whether against a soldier or civilian, that convicted terrorist is automatically entered into the PA ’s public payroll to receive a generous monthly salary (to be paid from the date of his or her arrest, not conviction). Salaries range from around $400 a month to up to $3,400 a month – up to 10 times the average pay earned by many working Palestinians, according to Black."

Crime pays ‑ for Palestinian terrorists

 

[P F Tinmore]

Freeman, et al,

Again, you are wrong.

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 ]

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ] of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.​

The UN Security Council has reminded, on several occasions, the Jewish State of Israel are to accept and scrupulously abide by the de jure application of the Geneva Conventions as a "rightful entitlement."

Even if you claim that the HoAP are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regimes ---by international law they are international conflicts. (Article 1(4) Protocol I, GCIV)

Those laws is for normal states not for occupied territories, there is no international law against fighting settlements in occupied territories.​

(REFERENCEs)

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, COLLECTIVE PENALTIES, PILLAGE, REPRISALS
ARTICLE 33 [ Link ]

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.​

Palestinian Stated Positions

• Jihad is its path and death...
• There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
• It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters.​

(COMMENT)​

No matter how you twist the words, no matter what claims are made --- there simply is no justification for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to conduct the premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocent people of Israel intended to influence their political position.

The advocacy of the use of force to achieve political goals which cannot be achieved through diplomatic means is violence perpetrated against innocent people to achieve that end.

It is quite cynical, and a propaganda ploy, to claim the Palestinian legal right to resist occupation. because THEY BELIEVE they are involved in a struggle for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation.

And even if they did have this "imaginary right" to "resist occupation" it would not include the use of force to intended to harm the Occupying Power or facilities (Article 68 GCIV). It would not include either attacks against unarmed civilians or the indiscriminate rocket and mortar fire on civilian in urban areas.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

Article 68 applies to civilian law enforcement not military action.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Freeman, et al,

These stats mean something, but NOT what you are implying.

Those are latest stats about "israeli" and palestinian conflict that summarize the horrible war of the zionazis in the occupied territories.

(COMMENT)

Whether you are the Police (of any country) in an armed confrontation with criminals and vigilantes, --- OR --- if you are a conventional military engaged in a lethal struggle with jihadist, terrorists, insurgent, rebel, self-proclaimed deadly resistance perpetrators or revolutionary, --- OR --- a paramilitary defense force opposite a hostile entity that intentionally selected unarmed and innocent civilian targets (Customary IHL Rule 21), there is no respectable leader of Protective Organization (such as described here) responsible for the safety and security of the population or sovereign territory that will endure casualties at an unacceptable level. A commander simply does not intentionally respond to a provocation that will result in unacceptable losses.

In this case, we are talking about the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) opposing the various Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) involved in jihadist, terrorists, insurgent, rebel, self-proclaimed deadly resistance perpetrators or irregular revolutionary and radicalized Islamic fighters. The intent is to gradually intensify the military response to HoAP provocations with ever increasing extreme destructive power, which would deter future hostile activity.

As the defenders deferent force is slowly ratcheted up to meet the HoAP action solely intended to harm the Israeli Civilians or the Occupying Power, or engage the capability of the HoAP intent on inflicting seriously casualties or property damage of the occupying forces or administration or the installations, the HIGHER the HoAP is expected to climb and the lower the defenders casualty rate (GCIV Article 68 Illegal Activity).

When the HoAP begin to reach a point where the HoAP Commander becomes overwhelmed by unacceptable losses, the intensity of the conflict will begin to recede. The HoAP will gradually reduce the number of confrontations it provokes, and the casualties and damage on both sides will begin to diminish. But in the case of the HoAP, given the such low value it puts on both combatants and its civilian population, which it seldom defends, unacceptable loss figure will be high on the part of the HoAP and the attrition warfare effect will continue.

The idea that a the ratio between HoAP losses and Israeli losses implies something evil, unfair or improper it ridiculous. Political Leaders and Military Commanders strive to achieve the highest ratio as possible. In terms of kill ratios, "parity is unacceptable." At the height of the F6F Hellcat combat serviceability and life, it achieved a 19 : 1 kill ratio. The AH-64 Apache (either IDF or American) has a phenomenal kill ratio. What makes the Armed Force dangerous is its ability to sweep in, make clean kills and engage a new target.

View attachment 87929
This is an Apache Longbow
AH-64D
צילום מסוק הינשוף ממסוק שרף
​

This comparison of Palestinian Losses to Israeli Losses is 100% ridiculous. All it demonstrates is that the HoAP are not very skilled in their ability to prosecute their war; and don't follow Customary ILH very well.

Most Respectfully,
R








.

Indeed, Israel needs to defend it colonial project.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Freeman, et al,

My response (Posting #17) was specifically constructed to answer the issues you raised (which I copied in the response).

It's really laughable when we note zionazis like you give lessons about Geneva conventions!
Israeli Violations of International Law

(SIDEBAR)

These crafted listings are representative of the work done by Arab League/Arab-Palestinians that start with the claim that "Israel annexes land occupied by force during 1948 war (lands external to those given by the UN partition plan)."

Of course:

• The UN did not "give" and lands to Israel."
​

Almost each allegation has a flaw that sounds true, but on closer examination, is not true.

I could go through this list, item by item, and point out the fallacies; but, that would lead to a very long Posting.

BTW: Protocol I to the GCIV, did not go into effect until 1977. Even if it had an applicability to the discussion, it is not applicable law because in 1967, no Palestinian Territory was Occupied by Israel. The West Bank (including Jerusalem) was sovereign Jordanian territory. Similarly, in 1967, the Gaza Strip was an Egyptian Military Governorship.

• A 1977 Law cannot be retroactively applied to a set of conditions and actions performed a decade earlier.
• The State of Israel never occupied any territory sovereign to the Arab Palestinians.

∆ In August 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank (including Jerusalem) to the Israeli Occupation Force.
∆ In 1967, the Egyptian Military Governorship withdrew from the Gaza Strip. The Israeli Occupation Force did not extend its Occupation Authority over territory sovereign to the Arab Palestinians.
∆ In 1979 and 1995 treaties were concluded between both Egypt and Jordan, which included the establishment of International Boundaries.
∆ I(n 1995, Oslo II Accords were concluded. Areas A, B, and C, were established; with Settlements subject to the Permanent Status of Negotiations.
​

There was no territory taken by force from the Arab Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

At no time did the State of Israel independently initiate hostilities with the Arab Palestinians. On the contrary, both the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Islamic Resistance Movement armed struggle and jihad against Israel.

I'm not exactly sure if you are attempting to insult me or not ("we note zionazis like you") or open some sort of an attack on my character, or motive, --- rather than attacking the argument directly. In fact, I'm not exactly sure what the criteria is to be a "zionazi."

Zionazi - Wiktionary
Zionazi - Wiktionary
Jul 26, 2016 · Zionazi ‎(plural Zionazis) (offensive, pejorative) A Zionist with nazi-like tendencies. 1988, slogan spray-painted on the wall of the Jewish Student ...
​

I'm not sure if this term (words of description) changes it meaning over time.

Most Respectfully,
R​

• The UN did not "give" and lands to Israel."​

That is true. Nor did the LoN or the Mandate as none had that authority.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Freeman, et al,

My response (Posting #17) was specifically constructed to answer the issues you raised (which I copied in the response).

It's really laughable when we note zionazis like you give lessons about Geneva conventions!
Israeli Violations of International Law

(SIDEBAR)

These crafted listings are representative of the work done by Arab League/Arab-Palestinians that start with the claim that "Israel annexes land occupied by force during 1948 war (lands external to those given by the UN partition plan)."

Of course:

• The UN did not "give" and lands to Israel."
​

Almost each allegation has a flaw that sounds true, but on closer examination, is not true.

I could go through this list, item by item, and point out the fallacies; but, that would lead to a very long Posting.

BTW: Protocol I to the GCIV, did not go into effect until 1977. Even if it had an applicability to the discussion, it is not applicable law because in 1967, no Palestinian Territory was Occupied by Israel. The West Bank (including Jerusalem) was sovereign Jordanian territory. Similarly, in 1967, the Gaza Strip was an Egyptian Military Governorship.

• A 1977 Law cannot be retroactively applied to a set of conditions and actions performed a decade earlier.
• The State of Israel never occupied any territory sovereign to the Arab Palestinians.

∆ In August 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank (including Jerusalem) to the Israeli Occupation Force.
∆ In 1967, the Egyptian Military Governorship withdrew from the Gaza Strip. The Israeli Occupation Force did not extend its Occupation Authority over territory sovereign to the Arab Palestinians.
∆ In 1979 and 1995 treaties were concluded between both Egypt and Jordan, which included the establishment of International Boundaries.
∆ I(n 1995, Oslo II Accords were concluded. Areas A, B, and C, were established; with Settlements subject to the Permanent Status of Negotiations.
​

There was no territory taken by force from the Arab Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

At no time did the State of Israel independently initiate hostilities with the Arab Palestinians. On the contrary, both the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Islamic Resistance Movement armed struggle and jihad against Israel.

I'm not exactly sure if you are attempting to insult me or not ("we note zionazis like you") or open some sort of an attack on my character, or motive, --- rather than attacking the argument directly. In fact, I'm not exactly sure what the criteria is to be a "zionazi."

Zionazi - Wiktionary
Zionazi - Wiktionary
Jul 26, 2016 · Zionazi ‎(plural Zionazis) (offensive, pejorative) A Zionist with nazi-like tendencies. 1988, slogan spray-painted on the wall of the Jewish Student ...
​

I'm not sure if this term (words of description) changes it meaning over time.

Most Respectfully,
R​

These crafted listings are representative of the work done by Arab League/Arab-Palestinians that start with the claim that "Israel annexes land occupied by force during 1948 war​

Where is this incorrect?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Rocket hits in Israel since the Hamas takeover of Gaza, 2006
(Figures as of March 15, 2016))

Do you have a point here?

 

[RoccoR]

PF Tinmore, et al,

The dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Article 68 applies to civilian law enforcement not military action.​

(COMMENT)

Article 68 (and indeed the entire body of the Hague and Geneva Conventions) places no limitations, requirements, or restrictions on the enforcement method or mechanism. It is the companion to Law and Order in the name of the Occupation Power.

But again, your comment would not matter. Any action taken by the Protected Persons in doing harm to the Occupation Power, is still in violation of international law; no matter the mechanism of enforcement.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Israel has no "Colonial Project." But even if it did, who has the jurisdiction to demand a justification for anything against a terrorist regime.

Indeed, Israel needs to defend it colonial project.

(COMMENT)

At the current time, the UN Committee 24, having the mandate in monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960), does not recognize any condition in the Middle East relative to situations addressed by the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples.

This is just wishful thinking; Hostile Arab Palestinians attempting to grasp at straws for some sort of justification related to their modus operandi; which include but are not limited to:

International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages
Provides that "any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offence of taking of hostage within the meaning of this Convention"

Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation
Take actions it an offence for any person on board an aircraft in flight to "unlawfully, by force or threat thereof, or any other form of intimidation, [to] seize or exercise control of that aircraft" or to attempt to do so.

International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings
Creates a regime of universal jurisdiction over the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore et al,

Yes, that is correct. We can agree on this; as far as it goes.

• The UN did not "give" and lands to Israel."

​

​

That is true. Nor did the LoN or the Mandate as none had that authority.

(COMMENT)

At the end of WWI, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic relinquish full title and all rights to the "Allied Powers."

Israel declared independence under the right of self-determination in the territory for which it extends and practices sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

PF Tinmore, et al,

The dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Article 68 applies to civilian law enforcement not military action.​

(COMMENT)

Article 68 (and indeed the entire body of the Hague and Geneva Conventions) places no limitations, requirements, or restrictions on the enforcement method or mechanism. It is the companion to Law and Order in the name of the Occupation Power.

But again, your comment would not matter. Any action taken by the Protected Persons in doing harm to the Occupation Power, is still in violation of international law; no matter the mechanism of enforcement.

Most Respectfully,
R

You need to read that in context.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I see no record of an annexation by Israel in the 1948-1949 War of Independence on which the Armistice Lines and Agreements are based.

These crafted listings are representative of the work done by Arab League/Arab-Palestinians that start with the claim that "Israel annexes land occupied by force during 1948 war

Where is this incorrect?

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians had no sovereignty in the territory, thus no territory which Israel could annex.

The Hostile Arab Palestinians made "NO" effort to open a dialog pertaining to any claim they might have had then.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore et al,

Yes, that is correct. We can agree on this; as far as it goes.

• The UN did not "give" and lands to Israel."

​

​

That is true. Nor did the LoN or the Mandate as none had that authority.

(COMMENT)

At the end of WWI, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic relinquish full title and all rights to the "Allied Powers."

Israel declared independence under the right of self-determination in the territory for which it extends and practices sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise declared sovereignty over that land. It was not theirs to give away. Even you yourself said that the land was not up for grabs.

This is exactly what Israel had to do to claim land that nobody had the authority to give away.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is interesting...

These crafted listings are representative of the work done by Arab League/Arab-Palestinians that start with the claim that "Israel annexes land occupied by force during 1948 war

Where is this incorrect?

(COMMENT)

Where and when do you see a record of Annexation by the Israelis in 1948 or 1949?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I see no record of an annexation by Israel in the 1948-1949 War of Independence on which the Armistice Lines and Agreements are based.

These crafted listings are representative of the work done by Arab League/Arab-Palestinians that start with the claim that "Israel annexes land occupied by force during 1948 war

Where is this incorrect?

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians had no sovereignty in the territory, thus no territory which Israel could annex.

The Hostile Arab Palestinians made "NO" effort to open a dialog pertaining to any claim they might have had then.

Most Respectfully,
R

The armistice lanes were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.

The UN had to specify that because it had no authority to change Palestine's political or territorial boundaries.

The Palestinians had no sovereignty in the territory, thus no territory which Israel could annex.​

Not true. The people are the sovereigns. A government or a state are not requirements. The Palestinians were the legal citizens of Palestine.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is interesting...

These crafted listings are representative of the work done by Arab League/Arab-Palestinians that start with the claim that "Israel annexes land occupied by force during 1948 war

Where is this incorrect?

(COMMENT)

Where and when do you see a record of Annexation by the Israelis in 1948 or 1949?

Most Respectfully,
R

I never have. I don't see anything where Israel has ever legally acquired any land.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is interesting...

These crafted listings are representative of the work done by Arab League/Arab-Palestinians that start with the claim that "Israel annexes land occupied by force during 1948 war

Where is this incorrect?

(COMMENT)

Where and when do you see a record of Annexation by the Israelis in 1948 or 1949?

Most Respectfully,
R

I never have. I don't see anything where Israel has ever legally acquired any land.

That's only because you frequent nothing but antisemitic hate sites.

You can't see anything when you aren't looking.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is interesting...

These crafted listings are representative of the work done by Arab League/Arab-Palestinians that start with the claim that "Israel annexes land occupied by force during 1948 war

Where is this incorrect?

(COMMENT)

Where and when do you see a record of Annexation by the Israelis in 1948 or 1949?

Most Respectfully,
R

I never have. I don't see anything where Israel has ever legally acquired any land.

That's only because you frequent nothing but antisemitic hate sites.

You can't see anything when you aren't looking.

OK then, links?

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I see no record of an annexation by Israel in the 1948-1949 War of Independence on which the Armistice Lines and Agreements are based.

These crafted listings are representative of the work done by Arab League/Arab-Palestinians that start with the claim that "Israel annexes land occupied by force during 1948 war

Where is this incorrect?

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians had no sovereignty in the territory, thus no territory which Israel could annex.

The Hostile Arab Palestinians made "NO" effort to open a dialog pertaining to any claim they might have had then.

Most Respectfully,
R

The armistice lanes were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.

The UN had to specify that because it had no authority to change Palestine's political or territorial boundaries.

The Palestinians had no sovereignty in the territory, thus no territory which Israel could annex.​

Not true. The people are the sovereigns. A government or a state are not requirements. The Palestinians were the legal citizens of Palestine.

Interesting that an invented people with an invented national identity could become citizens of a non-existent "state".