Terrorist Snipers Open Fire on IDF Soldiers

[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.

Simple double talk...

They have just signed the Geneva Conventions and are already in breach of them. Wont go down very well in the UN when they apply for full membership, you can expect a few dissenting votes when the facts are laid out on the table.

 

[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

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

So that means targeting the Palestinians in militia uniform is resistance as well, or do you apply a different set of rules for the Jews ?

It is either legal for both to target each other or it isn't, make your mind up.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Now under the Geneva conventions it is illegal for a civilian to take up arms and attack a soldier. If they do they are no longer civilians and can be shot, same goes for anyone who wears the military uniform to confuse or does not wear the uniform to confuse.

 

[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

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

This from your link applies

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.

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.

Civilians who take a direct part in hostilities against the occupying power
may be prosecuted. Remnants of the occupied country’s armed forces who
continue fighting are of course combatants and must be treated as such. If
captured, they are entitled to POW status and treatment as laid down in the
Third Geneva Convention. In particular, they cannot be tried for the simple
fact of taking part in hostilities. If, however, they commit acts in violation
of the law of armed conflict, they may be subject to prosecution.

Serious offences may be punishable by death. The law of armed conflict
in no way, however, sanctions the death penalty, which many States
worldwide have now banned. What it says is that if the death penalty
still exists in the occupied territory and the serious offences listed below
were punishable by death before the occupation began, then and only
then can the death penalty be imposed.
Serious offences are exclusively:
• espionage;
• serious acts of sabotage against the occupying power’s military
installations;
• intentional acts causing the death of one or more persons, insofar as
the national law in effect prior to occupation allows the death penalty
for such acts.


So it looks like you did not read your own link and just thought you would try and look good. Any act that carried the death penalty in the land under occupation can still be carried out.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Explain how shooting at children from hiding is resistance ?

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Explain why it is that the pale4stinians and their stooges refuse to apply the right of return to the Jews and claim that the land is not theirs even though they have land deeds. Also explain why the Palestinians can elect to abolish the parts of treaties they have signed that they no longer want to abide by.

Now read the Geneva conventions on armed conflict and what measures must be taken by all parties. Specially the parts covering uniforms, civilian areas and Illegal weapons.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Here you go the definitive article

Gaza: Palestinian Rockets Unlawfully Targeted Israeli Civilians | Human Rights Watch

(Jerusalem) – Palestinian armed groups in Gaza violated the laws of war during the November 2012 fighting by launching hundreds of rockets toward population centers in Israel.


CNN Finally Admits Hamas Kills Its Own And Deliberately Targets Israeli Civilians ~ J O S H U A P U N D I T

This CNN report not only admits that Hamas uses its own civilians as human shields, but that it fires missiles indiscriminately at Israeli civilians.



Are these Israeli propaganda as well ?

 

[Phoenall]

They don't.



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.

It is also in the UN archives and the repositories of all High Contracting Parties that have signed the Geneva conventions


You really are acting stupid now, claiming that the Geneva Conventions are Israeli propaganda because they deatroy your arguments.

 

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

What land did Israel annex?

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

(COMMENT)

With the exception of the July 1980 action by the Israeli Knesset (Parliament equivalent) which formally declared Arab East Jerusalem the capital of Israel (de facto annexation), I am not really aware of any Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) Territory (West Bank or Gaza Strip) that has been annexed. Can you bring me up to speed?

It should also be noted that in November 1988, the HoAP declared the remainder of Jerusalem as the formal Capital of the new State of Palestine.

At the time of Israeli Annexation of Arab East Jerusalem, there was no State of Palestine. The Annexation did not interfere with any Arab Government or sovereignty that I am aware of. I do recognize the adverse reaction of the UN (S/RES/478 (1980) 20 August 1980) concerning the Annexation of Arab East Jerusalem; and the conflict this action has created with UNSC Resolution 476 (1980) passed the month prior. But given the providence of hindsight, it was relatively clear that the HoAP, in changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, were attempting to cutoff free access by Jews to Jerusalem.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Israel owns what, Roccor? .06% of the middle east? With the muslims owning the other 99.04% of the middle east? Who is stealing land??! Israel is the size of a DOT on the world map! How much smaller can she get and still be able to protect herself?

 

[P F Tinmore]

pbel, et al,

What land did Israel annex?

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

(COMMENT)

With the exception of the July 1980 action by the Israeli Knesset (Parliament equivalent) which formally declared Arab East Jerusalem the capital of Israel (de facto annexation), I am not really aware of any Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) Territory (West Bank or Gaza Strip) that has been annexed. Can you bring me up to speed?

It should also be noted that in November 1988, the HoAP declared the remainder of Jerusalem as the formal Capital of the new State of Palestine.

At the time of Israeli Annexation of Arab East Jerusalem, there was no State of Palestine. The Annexation did not interfere with any Arab Government or sovereignty that I am aware of. I do recognize the adverse reaction of the UN (S/RES/478 (1980) 20 August 1980) concerning the Annexation of Arab East Jerusalem; and the conflict this action has created with UNSC Resolution 476 (1980) passed the month prior. But given the providence of hindsight, it was relatively clear that the HoAP, in changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, were attempting to cutoff free access by Jews to Jerusalem.

Most Respectfully,
R

You, and many others, constantly say that to imply that the Palestinians have no rights.

That is not true.

1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

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

6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

It is illegal to take land by force and it is illegal to annex occupied territory.

 

[Sally]

pbel, et al,

What land did Israel annex?

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

(COMMENT)

With the exception of the July 1980 action by the Israeli Knesset (Parliament equivalent) which formally declared Arab East Jerusalem the capital of Israel (de facto annexation), I am not really aware of any Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) Territory (West Bank or Gaza Strip) that has been annexed. Can you bring me up to speed?

It should also be noted that in November 1988, the HoAP declared the remainder of Jerusalem as the formal Capital of the new State of Palestine.

At the time of Israeli Annexation of Arab East Jerusalem, there was no State of Palestine. The Annexation did not interfere with any Arab Government or sovereignty that I am aware of. I do recognize the adverse reaction of the UN (S/RES/478 (1980) 20 August 1980) concerning the Annexation of Arab East Jerusalem; and the conflict this action has created with UNSC Resolution 476 (1980) passed the month prior. But given the providence of hindsight, it was relatively clear that the HoAP, in changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, were attempting to cutoff free access by Jews to Jerusalem.

Most Respectfully,
R

You, and many others, constantly say that to imply that the Palestinians have no rights.

That is not true.

1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

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

6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

It is illegal to take land by force and it is illegal to annex occupied territory.

I wonder if Mr. Tinmore is on any forum saying it was illegal for the Turks to take part of Cyprus. I also wonder if he thinks the Turks should leave Cyprus. After all, he has repeatedly says it is illegal to take land by force, and isn't that what Turkey did?

 

[RoccoR]

Jeremiah, et al,

Ownership is a real estate (civil property) issue and mutually exclusive of matters pertaining to self-governance, sovereignty and independence.

The issue pertaining to access of the Holy City of Jerusalem is yet a separate matter for the collective consciousness of civilization to resolve. It is neither an issue to be resolved though political science or secular law.

Israel owns what, Roccor? .06% of the middle east? With the muslims owning the other 99.04% of the middle east? Who is stealing land??! Israel is the size of a DOT on the world map! How much smaller can she get and still be able to protect herself?

(BLUF)

In all the arguments, pitting interpretations of law against human implementations of the original intent, we've forgotten why humanity forged this mess to begin with, and the basics.

It is not a matter of great and small, or animal territoriality. We are above marking our territory by urination (like my Black Labrador Retriever) or rubbing prominent markers with our bodies (like my Maine Coon).

This started with the understanding by the Allied Powers that civilization need to extend special protections to a minority aspect of human culture that was in danger from the "tyranny of the majority." And the Allied Powers, seeing a grave need, set about to create a special refuge to act as a shelter or protection from danger of unnecessary persecution - so that this small fragment of culture may survive the inhumanity of historical cycles of abuse. The Allied Powers set out to establish a Jewish National Home (not well defined), with a very clear set of intentions.

At the end of the Great War (1914-1918), the war to end all wars, we saw the unprecedented collapse of four Great Empires; one of which relinquishing its sovereignty over a huge expanse in the Middle East (the Ottoman Empire) to the Allied Powers. And behold, it so happens, that within this huge expanse is the historical point of origin for the culture in need of shelter and protection. And so it began.

(COMMENT)

Not having the gift of precognition, the Allied Powers made, what appeared to be, a rational decision.

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

SOURCE: The San Remo Conference decided on April 24, 1920 to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] under the League of Nations to Britain.

The Allied Powers never really thought about how similar my Lab and Maine Coon were to the Arabs in terms of animal territoriality. And we are where we are today due to that mistake. The Allied Powers thought that given time, the Arab aspect of humanity would eventually grasp the understanding of cultural preservation.

Had the Allied Powers acted faster and in a more decisive manner, it may have mitigated the extermination of more than 6 million Jews. There would have been a refuge and safe haven. But the animal territoriality of the Arab placed there materialistic needs and pursuit of Arab Kingdoms above that of the moral need to preserve a segment of civilization.

Many of us tend to forget what the true nature of the struggle is all about. It is not just about the materialistic needs and pursuit of Arab Kingdoms wrapped around the silken cords of self-determination and boundaries (animal territoriality). It is something much bigger in term of humanity; beyond that understood and appreciated by many pro-Palestinian activists.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sally]

Jeremiah, et al,

Ownership is a real estate (civil property) issue and mutually exclusive of matters pertaining to self-governance, sovereignty and independence.

The issue pertaining to access of the Holy City of Jerusalem is yet a separate matter for the collective consciousness of civilization to resolve. It is neither an issue to be resolved though political science or secular law.

Israel owns what, Roccor? .06% of the middle east? With the muslims owning the other 99.04% of the middle east? Who is stealing land??! Israel is the size of a DOT on the world map! How much smaller can she get and still be able to protect herself?

(BLUF)

In all the arguments, pitting interpretations of law against human implementations of the original intent, we've forgotten why humanity forged this mess to begin with, and the basics.

It is not a matter of great and small, or animal territoriality. We are above marking our territory by urination (like my Black Labrador Retriever) or rubbing prominent markers with our bodies (like my Maine Coon).

This started with the understanding by the Allied Powers that civilization need to extend special protections to a minority aspect of human culture that was in danger from the "tyranny of the majority." And the Allied Powers, seeing a grave need, set about to create a special refuge to act as a shelter or protection from danger of unnecessary persecution - so that this small fragment of culture may survive the inhumanity of historical cycles of abuse. The Allied Powers set out to establish a Jewish National Home (not well defined), with a very clear set of intentions.

At the end of the Great War (1914-1918), the war to end all wars, we saw the unprecedented collapse of four Great Empires; one of which relinquishing its sovereignty over a huge expanse in the Middle East (the Ottoman Empire) to the Allied Powers. And behold, it so happens, that within this huge expanse is the historical point of origin for the culture in need of shelter and protection. And so it began.

(COMMENT)

Not having the gift of precognition, the Allied Powers made, what appeared to be, a rational decision.

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

SOURCE: The San Remo Conference decided on April 24, 1920 to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] under the League of Nations to Britain.

The Allied Powers never really thought about how similar my Lab and Maine Coon were to the Arabs in terms of animal territoriality. And we are where we are today due to that mistake. The Allied Powers thought that given time, the Arab aspect of humanity would eventually grasp the understanding of cultural preservation.

Had the Allied Powers acted faster and in a more decisive manner, it may have mitigated the extermination of more than 6 million Jews. There would have been a refuge and safe haven. But the animal territoriality of the Arab placed there materialistic needs and pursuit of Arab Kingdoms above that of the moral need to preserve a segment of civilization.

Many of us tend to forget what the true nature of the struggle is all about. It is not just about the materialistic needs and pursuit of Arab Kingdoms wrapped around the silken cords of self-determination and boundaries (animal territoriality). It is something much bigger in term of humanity; beyond that understood and appreciated by many pro-Palestinian activists.

Most Respectfully,
R

I hate to break in here, Rocco, but I think I know what you mean. To me it is the same as a Muslinm woman from a southern state in India who is now living in the U.S. She would repeatedly post that she wants 850 million Hindus in India eradicated just so Islam could rule India. In my wildest imagination, I would never expect anyone these days to want the deaths of 850 million people just so another religion could rule the land. She felt that since Islam once ruled the land of India at one point in history, they should rule it once again.

 

[montelatici]

Jeremiah, et al,

Ownership is a real estate (civil property) issue and mutually exclusive of matters pertaining to self-governance, sovereignty and independence.

The issue pertaining to access of the Holy City of Jerusalem is yet a separate matter for the collective consciousness of civilization to resolve. It is neither an issue to be resolved though political science or secular law.

Israel owns what, Roccor? .06% of the middle east? With the muslims owning the other 99.04% of the middle east? Who is stealing land??! Israel is the size of a DOT on the world map! How much smaller can she get and still be able to protect herself?

(BLUF)

In all the arguments, pitting interpretations of law against human implementations of the original intent, we've forgotten why humanity forged this mess to begin with, and the basics.

It is not a matter of great and small, or animal territoriality. We are above marking our territory by urination (like my Black Labrador Retriever) or rubbing prominent markers with our bodies (like my Maine Coon).

This started with the understanding by the Allied Powers that civilization need to extend special protections to a minority aspect of human culture that was in danger from the "tyranny of the majority." And the Allied Powers, seeing a grave need, set about to create a special refuge to act as a shelter or protection from danger of unnecessary persecution - so that this small fragment of culture may survive the inhumanity of historical cycles of abuse. The Allied Powers set out to establish a Jewish National Home (not well defined), with a very clear set of intentions.

At the end of the Great War (1914-1918), the war to end all wars, we saw the unprecedented collapse of four Great Empires; one of which relinquishing its sovereignty over a huge expanse in the Middle East (the Ottoman Empire) to the Allied Powers. And behold, it so happens, that within this huge expanse is the historical point of origin for the culture in need of shelter and protection. And so it began.

(COMMENT)

Not having the gift of precognition, the Allied Powers made, what appeared to be, a rational decision.

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

SOURCE: The San Remo Conference decided on April 24, 1920 to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] under the League of Nations to Britain.

The Allied Powers never really thought about how similar my Lab and Maine Coon were to the Arabs in terms of animal territoriality. And we are where we are today due to that mistake. The Allied Powers thought that given time, the Arab aspect of humanity would eventually grasp the understanding of cultural preservation.

Had the Allied Powers acted faster and in a more decisive manner, it may have mitigated the extermination of more than 6 million Jews. There would have been a refuge and safe haven. But the animal territoriality of the Arab placed there materialistic needs and pursuit of Arab Kingdoms above that of the moral need to preserve a segment of civilization.

Many of us tend to forget what the true nature of the struggle is all about. It is not just about the materialistic needs and pursuit of Arab Kingdoms wrapped around the silken cords of self-determination and boundaries (animal territoriality). It is something much bigger in term of humanity; beyond that understood and appreciated by many pro-Palestinian activists.

Most Respectfully,
R

And the Allied Powers, seeing a grave need, set about to create a special refuge to act as a shelter or protection from danger of unnecessary persecution

Shouldn't have they taken a part of Germany and Austria and given it to the Jews? Why did the non-Jews of Palestine have to pay for the crimes of certain Europeans? I really don't get the logic.

 

[Sally]

Jeremiah, et al,

Ownership is a real estate (civil property) issue and mutually exclusive of matters pertaining to self-governance, sovereignty and independence.

The issue pertaining to access of the Holy City of Jerusalem is yet a separate matter for the collective consciousness of civilization to resolve. It is neither an issue to be resolved though political science or secular law.

Israel owns what, Roccor? .06% of the middle east? With the muslims owning the other 99.04% of the middle east? Who is stealing land??! Israel is the size of a DOT on the world map! How much smaller can she get and still be able to protect herself?

(BLUF)

In all the arguments, pitting interpretations of law against human implementations of the original intent, we've forgotten why humanity forged this mess to begin with, and the basics.

It is not a matter of great and small, or animal territoriality. We are above marking our territory by urination (like my Black Labrador Retriever) or rubbing prominent markers with our bodies (like my Maine Coon).

This started with the understanding by the Allied Powers that civilization need to extend special protections to a minority aspect of human culture that was in danger from the "tyranny of the majority." And the Allied Powers, seeing a grave need, set about to create a special refuge to act as a shelter or protection from danger of unnecessary persecution - so that this small fragment of culture may survive the inhumanity of historical cycles of abuse. The Allied Powers set out to establish a Jewish National Home (not well defined), with a very clear set of intentions.

At the end of the Great War (1914-1918), the war to end all wars, we saw the unprecedented collapse of four Great Empires; one of which relinquishing its sovereignty over a huge expanse in the Middle East (the Ottoman Empire) to the Allied Powers. And behold, it so happens, that within this huge expanse is the historical point of origin for the culture in need of shelter and protection. And so it began.

(COMMENT)

Not having the gift of precognition, the Allied Powers made, what appeared to be, a rational decision.

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

SOURCE: The San Remo Conference decided on April 24, 1920 to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] under the League of Nations to Britain.

The Allied Powers never really thought about how similar my Lab and Maine Coon were to the Arabs in terms of animal territoriality. And we are where we are today due to that mistake. The Allied Powers thought that given time, the Arab aspect of humanity would eventually grasp the understanding of cultural preservation.

Had the Allied Powers acted faster and in a more decisive manner, it may have mitigated the extermination of more than 6 million Jews. There would have been a refuge and safe haven. But the animal territoriality of the Arab placed there materialistic needs and pursuit of Arab Kingdoms above that of the moral need to preserve a segment of civilization.

Many of us tend to forget what the true nature of the struggle is all about. It is not just about the materialistic needs and pursuit of Arab Kingdoms wrapped around the silken cords of self-determination and boundaries (animal territoriality). It is something much bigger in term of humanity; beyond that understood and appreciated by many pro-Palestinian activists.

Most Respectfully,
R

And the Allied Powers, seeing a grave need, set about to create a special refuge to act as a shelter or protection from danger of unnecessary persecution

Shouldn't have they taken a part of Germany and Austria and given it to the Jews? Why did the non-Jews of Palestine have to pay for the crimes of certain Europeans? I really don't get the logic.

Why did the Hindus have to pay by having their land carved off to make Pakistan because the Muslims had to have their own country? I honestly don't get the logic why in this day and age so much of the Muslim world can't be tolerant when it comes to religious beliefs but has to harass and murder people who are non believers and destroy their houses of worship. Perhaps Haniya or Defeat67 can tell us what is their reasoning behind this. There are plenty of wrongs in this world, and the land that happens to be governed by Israel is really the least of it. I wonder if anyone can tell us why Muslims have left their various homelands by the thousands and thousands to settled in places like Europe, America and Canada. Are they bemoaning that they want to go back?

 

[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

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.........

A terrorist uniform?

Interesting,

Can you get them at a terrorist surplus store?

 

[Hossfly]

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.........

A terrorist uniform?

Interesting,

Can you get them at a terrorist surplus store?

They can buy them at K-mart. They can be wearing anything and if they have a weapon in their hand then they are an armed enemy. Uniforms be damned.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Jeremiah, et al,

Ownership is a real estate (civil property) issue and mutually exclusive of matters pertaining to self-governance, sovereignty and independence.

The issue pertaining to access of the Holy City of Jerusalem is yet a separate matter for the collective consciousness of civilization to resolve. It is neither an issue to be resolved though political science or secular law.

Israel owns what, Roccor? .06% of the middle east? With the muslims owning the other 99.04% of the middle east? Who is stealing land??! Israel is the size of a DOT on the world map! How much smaller can she get and still be able to protect herself?

(BLUF)

In all the arguments, pitting interpretations of law against human implementations of the original intent, we've forgotten why humanity forged this mess to begin with, and the basics.

It is not a matter of great and small, or animal territoriality. We are above marking our territory by urination (like my Black Labrador Retriever) or rubbing prominent markers with our bodies (like my Maine Coon).

This started with the understanding by the Allied Powers that civilization need to extend special protections to a minority aspect of human culture that was in danger from the "tyranny of the majority." And the Allied Powers, seeing a grave need, set about to create a special refuge to act as a shelter or protection from danger of unnecessary persecution - so that this small fragment of culture may survive the inhumanity of historical cycles of abuse. The Allied Powers set out to establish a Jewish National Home (not well defined), with a very clear set of intentions.

At the end of the Great War (1914-1918), the war to end all wars, we saw the unprecedented collapse of four Great Empires; one of which relinquishing its sovereignty over a huge expanse in the Middle East (the Ottoman Empire) to the Allied Powers. And behold, it so happens, that within this huge expanse is the historical point of origin for the culture in need of shelter and protection. And so it began.

(COMMENT)

Not having the gift of precognition, the Allied Powers made, what appeared to be, a rational decision.

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

SOURCE: The San Remo Conference decided on April 24, 1920 to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] under the League of Nations to Britain.

The Allied Powers never really thought about how similar my Lab and Maine Coon were to the Arabs in terms of animal territoriality. And we are where we are today due to that mistake. The Allied Powers thought that given time, the Arab aspect of humanity would eventually grasp the understanding of cultural preservation.

Had the Allied Powers acted faster and in a more decisive manner, it may have mitigated the extermination of more than 6 million Jews. There would have been a refuge and safe haven. But the animal territoriality of the Arab placed there materialistic needs and pursuit of Arab Kingdoms above that of the moral need to preserve a segment of civilization.

Many of us tend to forget what the true nature of the struggle is all about. It is not just about the materialistic needs and pursuit of Arab Kingdoms wrapped around the silken cords of self-determination and boundaries (animal territoriality). It is something much bigger in term of humanity; beyond that understood and appreciated by many pro-Palestinian activists.

Most Respectfully,
R

This would be more clear to you if you would answer the question that you have been ducking.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.


(OBSERVATION from YOUR SOURCE)



(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

You are still talking about local codes when my question was about international law.