Terrorist Snipers Open Fire on IDF Soldiers

[Hossfly]

I guess there are those on this forum who feel the IDF should never fire back. In fact, they probably don't think the IDF should have fired their rifles into the air to scare off the snipers.

Terrorist Snipers Open Fire on IDF Soldiers
Posted by: Lea Speyer April 9, 2014 , 10:20 am


Terrorist snipers in the Gaza Strip opened fire on IDF troops stationed near the Israel-Gaza border Wednesday morning. The soldiers, who were near the Israeli community of Kissufim, responded back by firing rounds into the air to warn and scare off the snipers.


Read more at Terrorist Snipers Open Fire on IDF Soldiers | Breaking Israel News

Targeting the IDF is not terrorism, it's resistance.

Absolutement, Billy. Resistance to sane thinking.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Our friend "P F Tinmore" has a minor point here, in that, the use of the descriptor "terrorist" is not defined.

I guess there are those on this forum who feel the IDF should never fire back. In fact, they probably don't think the IDF should have fired their rifles into the air to scare off the snipers.

Terrorist Snipers Open Fire on IDF Soldiers
Posted by: Lea Speyer April 9, 2014 , 10:20 am

Terrorist snipers in the Gaza Strip opened fire on IDF troops stationed near the Israel-Gaza border Wednesday morning. The soldiers, who were near the Israeli community of Kissufim, responded back by firing rounds into the air to warn and scare off the snipers.

Read more at Terrorist Snipers Open Fire on IDF Soldiers | Breaking Israel News

Attacks on soldiers are not terrorism.

What kind of Propaganda sites do you read?

(OBSERVATION)

Article 5

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.​

Article 68

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.​

SOURCE: ICRC GCIV

(COMMENT)

Oddly enough, the Arab Palestinians just signed (2 April 2014) the Geneva Conventions.

In this case, "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 Arab Palestinian has NO special authority of dispensation to commit violent acts against the Occupation Power, no matter what the cause.

In this case, it is not terrorism, even though it might sound like it. This is merely another act of criminal activity (murder/attempted murder) to add to the past practices and history of criminal behaviors established by the Arab Palestinian.

Make no mistake: This is a punishable act and criminal offense by the Hostile Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

What you say is true under certain circumstances but is not under different circumstances.

The law of belligerent occupation
http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf

 

[toastman]

Ok but what does attacking troops accomplish??? Nothing!

Except if you a soldier you will go to jail for life or be killed yourself.
Even if you injure the soldier, you will be severely punished.

So, is it worth it??

I guess if you're an Islamic extremist, then killing Jews/Israelis is always worth it because doing so will please Allah.

When the opponent is far stronger, it doesn't accomplish anything. It is stupid. The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto shot at the Germans, it was stupid, but they did it anyway and they were absolutely right in doing it. It was not worth it for the Jews, but it was right.

What a disgusting and pathetic comparison

 

[toastman]

I guess there are those on this forum who feel the IDF should never fire back. In fact, they probably don't think the IDF should have fired their rifles into the air to scare off the snipers.

Terrorist Snipers Open Fire on IDF Soldiers
Posted by: Lea Speyer April 9, 2014 , 10:20 am


Terrorist snipers in the Gaza Strip opened fire on IDF troops stationed near the Israel-Gaza border Wednesday morning. The soldiers, who were near the Israeli community of Kissufim, responded back by firing rounds into the air to warn and scare off the snipers.


Read more at Terrorist Snipers Open Fire on IDF Soldiers | Breaking Israel News

Targeting the IDF is not terrorism, it's resistance.

Explain how shooting at soldiers who are just sitting around is resisting??

Do you realize how stupid that sounds??






Who am I kidding, of course you don't, you're Billo.

 

[proudveteran06]

Attacks on soldiers are not terrorism.

What kind of Propaganda sites do you read?

Is that what you call resistance ??

Occupation troops are legitimate targets.

Israel shoots Palestinian farmers across that same fence.

Too bad they didn't think of the " occupation" before 1967 . If the Arabs had won does anybody in their right mind believe Israel wouldn't be wiped off the map ?

 

[MrMax]

Ok but what does attacking troops accomplish??? Nothing!

Except if you a soldier you will go to jail for life or be killed yourself.
Even if you injure the soldier, you will be severely punished.

So, is it worth it??

I guess if you're an Islamic extremist, then killing Jews/Israelis is always worth it because doing so will please Allah.

When the opponent is far stronger, it doesn't accomplish anything. It is stupid. The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto shot at the Germans, it was stupid, but they did it anyway and they were absolutely right in doing it. It was not worth it for the Jews, but it was right.

What a disgusting and pathetic comparison

Maybe not, if we push his analogy further, shouldn't the Jews exterminate all the arabs in Gaza and the WB?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, there are some circumstances when "resistance" and "criminal activity" cut a fine line.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Our friend "P F Tinmore" has a minor point here, in that, the use of the descriptor "terrorist" is not defined.

Attacks on soldiers are not terrorism.

What kind of Propaganda sites do you read?

(OBSERVATION)

Article 5

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.​

Article 68

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.​

SOURCE: ICRC GCIV

(COMMENT)

Oddly enough, the Arab Palestinians just signed (2 April 2014) the Geneva Conventions.

In this case, "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 Arab Palestinian has NO special authority of dispensation to commit violent acts against the Occupation Power, no matter what the cause.

In this case, it is not terrorism, even though it might sound like it. This is merely another act of criminal activity (murder/attempted murder) to add to the past practices and history of criminal behaviors established by the Arab Palestinian.

Make no mistake: This is a punishable act and criminal offense by the Hostile Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

What you say is true under certain circumstances but is not under different circumstances.

The law of belligerent occupation
http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf

(OBSERVATION from YOUR SOURCE)

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. If they do so, they must distinguish themselves from the civilian population, or on the basis of GP I, at least carry their weapons openly during attacks and deployments.

Civilians who take a direct part in such hostilities lose their protection against attack for the time of their direct participation, but not their civilian status. If they do not participate directly in hostilities or no longer do so (for example, if they are hors de combat), they are protected against attacks. You know this from the lesson on the conduct of operations. 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. They may, however, be in contravention of security laws passed by the occupying power. In that case, they can be tried and sentenced or their freedom of movement restricted.

(COMMENT)

Again, there is no legal standing or special dispensation for what the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) does; no matter what standard you apply.

The Belligerent status of an occupation works both ways. The occupation may turn sour just because the the Palestinians turned sour.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

I guess there are those on this forum who feel the IDF should never fire back. In fact, they probably don't think the IDF should have fired their rifles into the air to scare off the snipers.

Terrorist Snipers Open Fire on IDF Soldiers
Posted by: Lea Speyer April 9, 2014 , 10:20 am


Terrorist snipers in the Gaza Strip opened fire on IDF troops stationed near the Israel-Gaza border Wednesday morning. The soldiers, who were near the Israeli community of Kissufim, responded back by firing rounds into the air to warn and scare off the snipers.


Read more at Terrorist Snipers Open Fire on IDF Soldiers | Breaking Israel News

Targeting the IDF is not terrorism, it's resistance.

Explain how shooting at soldiers who are just sitting around is resisting??

Do you realize how stupid that sounds??

Who am I kidding, of course you don't, you're Billo.

Explain how shooting at farmers picking beans is defense.

 

[MrMax]

Targeting the IDF is not terrorism, it's resistance.

Explain how shooting at soldiers who are just sitting around is resisting??

Do you realize how stupid that sounds??

Who am I kidding, of course you don't, you're Billo.

Explain how shooting at farmers picking beans is defense.

After you explain how shooting rockets at civilians is defense.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, there are some circumstances when "resistance" and "criminal activity" cut a fine line.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Our friend "P F Tinmore" has a minor point here, in that, the use of the descriptor "terrorist" is not defined.


(OBSERVATION)


(COMMENT)

Oddly enough, the Arab Palestinians just signed (2 April 2014) the Geneva Conventions.

In this case, "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 Arab Palestinian has NO special authority of dispensation to commit violent acts against the Occupation Power, no matter what the cause.

In this case, it is not terrorism, even though it might sound like it. This is merely another act of criminal activity (murder/attempted murder) to add to the past practices and history of criminal behaviors established by the Arab Palestinian.

Make no mistake: This is a punishable act and criminal offense by the Hostile Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

What you say is true under certain circumstances but is not under different circumstances.

The law of belligerent occupation
http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf

(OBSERVATION from YOUR SOURCE)

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. If they do so, they must distinguish themselves from the civilian population, or on the basis of GP I, at least carry their weapons openly during attacks and deployments.

Civilians who take a direct part in such hostilities lose their protection against attack for the time of their direct participation, but not their civilian status. If they do not participate directly in hostilities or no longer do so (for example, if they are hors de combat), they are protected against attacks. You know this from the lesson on the conduct of operations. 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. They may, however, be in contravention of security laws passed by the occupying power. In that case, they can be tried and sentenced or their freedom of movement restricted.

(COMMENT)

Again, there is no legal standing or special dispensation for what the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) does; no matter what standard you apply.

The Belligerent status of an occupation works both ways. The occupation may turn sour just because the the Palestinians turned sour.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel is not just a belligerent occupation, it is also a settler colonial project. The rules governing those two scenarios can be different and sometimes conflicting.

I would like to see where attacks on foreign enemy troops is illegal under international law.

What you posted previously applied to enforcement of local laws.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Explain how shooting at soldiers who are just sitting around is resisting??

Do you realize how stupid that sounds??

Who am I kidding, of course you don't, you're Billo.

Explain how shooting at farmers picking beans is defense.

After you explain how shooting rockets at civilians is defense.

They don't.

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

</title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=

That is just Israeli propaganda.

 

[MrMax]

Explain how shooting at farmers picking beans is defense.

After you explain how shooting rockets at civilians is defense.

They don't.

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

</title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=

That is just Israeli propaganda.

WoW! Now you're quoting an opinion by the ******* RED CROSS!!!!!!!!

You run out of meaningless mandates or something?

 

[P F Tinmore]

After you explain how shooting rockets at civilians is defense.

They don't.

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

</title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=

That is just Israeli propaganda.

WoW! Now you're quoting an opinion by the ******* RED CROSS!!!!!!!!

You run out of meaningless mandates or something?

Now that you have done the knee jerk propaganda reaction to my post, you will see the identical information at the Jewish virtual Library.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You have to look at it closely.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, there are some circumstances when "resistance" and "criminal activity" cut a fine line.

What you say is true under certain circumstances but is not under different circumstances.

The law of belligerent occupation
http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf

(OBSERVATION from YOUR SOURCE)

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. If they do so, they must distinguish themselves from the civilian population, or on the basis of GP I, at least carry their weapons openly during attacks and deployments.

Civilians who take a direct part in such hostilities lose their protection against attack for the time of their direct participation, but not their civilian status. If they do not participate directly in hostilities or no longer do so (for example, if they are hors de combat), they are protected against attacks. You know this from the lesson on the conduct of operations. 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. They may, however, be in contravention of security laws passed by the occupying power. In that case, they can be tried and sentenced or their freedom of movement restricted.

(COMMENT)

Again, there is no legal standing or special dispensation for what the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) does; no matter what standard you apply.

The Belligerent status of an occupation works both ways. The occupation may turn sour just because the the Palestinians turned sour.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel is not just a belligerent occupation, it is also a settler colonial project. The rules governing those two scenarios can be different and sometimes conflicting.

I would like to see where attacks on foreign enemy troops is illegal under international law.

What you posted previously applied to enforcement of local laws.

(COMMENT)

Article 68 says: "such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began."

At the time of the occupation by Israel in 1967, the West Bank (as an example) was sovereign Jordanian Territory, annexed under Jordanian Law.

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.

SOURCE: History: The Tragedy of Palestine, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

The law that was in place at the time (the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began) was Jordanian. It is a combination of both Islamic Religious Law (Sharia) and contemporary Western European Law (traditional French form); covering both national security and criminal codes. It follows the basic law adopted in 1956, with amendments over time, but basically mirrors many of the basic laws seen in any other national legal and judicial system.

The death penalty was authorized for murder, arson of an inhabited building, assassination of the king (or attempts on his life), and a broad range of serious crimes defined as threats to the security of the state. These latter offenses included acts such as treason, espionage on behalf of an unfriendly foreign power, and armed insurrection. The act of selling land in the West Bank to occupying Israeli authorities was considered high treason and therefore a capital offense. Some Palestinians had been sentenced in absentia to death under this decree but as of 1989 these sentences had never been carried out. Executions were rare and politically sensitive in Jordan. Three death sentences for murder were carried out in 1985, none in 1986, and only one in 1987. In the 1987 case, the assassin of a PLO Executive Committee member in the West Bank was put to death.

Imprisonment for life was imposed for such felonies as lesser crimes against national security, homicide during commission of a misdemeanor or that resulted from torture, and the more serious forms of theft. Shorter imprisonment was prescribed for these same offenses if mitigating circumstances warranted. Such punishment also was authorized for terrorist activity, membership in subversive organizations, counterfeiting, forgery of official documents, and abduction.

Sources: The Library of Congress Country Studies; CIA World Factbook

I absolutely assure you that the law of the occupied territory in force before the Israeli occupation began covers (much more harshly) that which is in force today.

It was illegal for the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) to engage Jordanian Police and Military activities during first the Jordanian Occupation and then after Annexation. And it is just as much illegal for HoAP to engage Israeli Police and Military activities during the Israeli Occupation.​

So it really doesn't matter if you use ICRC Humanitarian Code (GCIV), or the Law previously in place before the occupation, the answer is still the same: Make no mistake: This is a punishable act and criminal offense by the Hostile Arab Palestinian. AND --- again, there is no legal standing or special dispensation for what the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) does; no matter what standard you apply.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Synthaholic]

Terrorist Snipers Open Fire on IDF Soldiers


How do you know they aren't Freedom Fighters?

 

[toastman]

Explain how shooting at farmers picking beans is defense.

After you explain how shooting rockets at civilians is defense.

They don't.

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

</title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=

That is just Israeli propaganda.

Oh please Tinmore. How can you accuse others of posting propaganda when you are a master of Palestinian/Arab propaganda

 

[Phoenall]

I guess there are those on this forum who feel the IDF should never fire back. In fact, they probably don't think the IDF should have fired their rifles into the air to scare off the snipers.

Terrorist Snipers Open Fire on IDF Soldiers
Posted by: Lea Speyer April 9, 2014 , 10:20 am


Terrorist snipers in the Gaza Strip opened fire on IDF troops stationed near the Israel-Gaza border Wednesday morning. The soldiers, who were near the Israeli community of Kissufim, responded back by firing rounds into the air to warn and scare off the snipers.


Read more at Terrorist Snipers Open Fire on IDF Soldiers | Breaking Israel News

Attacks on soldiers are not terrorism.

What kind of Propaganda sites do you read?

They are if you read the Geneva Conventions, when they are done to cause terror by civilians to force a Religious or Political ideology on a group of people. Gaza is not occupied just blockaded to stop any weapon from getting in.

If you were decent you would be condemning the cowardly Palestinians for hiding behind civilians and wearing civilian clothes to attack Israelis. Or would you see the return of fire at anyone dressed as the terrorists are as legal and valid. Remember you cant have it both ways, either it is illegal to fire on the IDF from hiding and this makes it legal for the IDF to fire back at the people wearing the same clothes. Or it is not legal.........

 

[Phoenall]

Attacks on soldiers are not terrorism.

What kind of Propaganda sites do you read?

Is that what you call resistance ??

Occupation troops are legitimate targets.

Israel shoots Palestinian farmers across that same fence.

Do they wear the Palestinian uniform that shows they are terrorists, if they do then they are valid targets ...................

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Our friend "P F Tinmore" has a minor point here, in that, the use of the descriptor "terrorist" is not defined.

Attacks on soldiers are not terrorism.

What kind of Propaganda sites do you read?

(OBSERVATION)

Article 5

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.​

Article 68

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.​

SOURCE: ICRC GCIV

(COMMENT)

Oddly enough, the Arab Palestinians just signed (2 April 2014) the Geneva Conventions.

In this case, "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 Arab Palestinian has NO special authority of dispensation to commit violent acts against the Occupation Power, no matter what the cause.

In this case, it is not terrorism, even though it might sound like it. This is merely another act of criminal activity (murder/attempted murder) to add to the past practices and history of criminal behaviors established by the Arab Palestinian.

Make no mistake: This is a punishable act and criminal offense by the Hostile Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R

So tell us Rocco, does this mean the Israeli's can keep stealing land by annexation?

Why don't you tell us when Israel has annexed any land ?

 

[Phoenall]

I don't get it, the Palestinians just can't win. If they attack civilians they are terrorists, if they attack occupation troops they are terrorists. While I believe that the Palestinians should adopt a Gandhi style peaceful resistance approach as a more productive tactic, attacking occupation troops is what occupied people are allowed to do under International law.

Did you read the Geneva Conventions that RoccoR posted that spell it out, they cant attack the occupying soldiers and not face punishment. This means that the IDF can shoot to kill if they are under attack and feel threatened. Can arrest and inter anyone they suspect of attacking them, and no trial is required as they are seen as POW's. Or they can arrest and execute if found guilty of murder/attempted murder