Terrorist Snipers Open Fire on IDF Soldiers

[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.


(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.

​

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?

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?

This is why: Note: This is a Jewish writer from the "Jewish Journal"

"This massive report in Tehelka on a 2002 massacre of Muslims in India will really make your stomach turn. Rampaging Hindu zealots—yes, they come in all religious flavors—left more than 2,000 people dead, some in the most gruesome ways possible."

Muslim massacre in Hindu India | The God Blog | Jewish Journal

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You have to look at it closely.

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.

​

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.

Bullshit . Rocco more than addressed your post!

 

[toastman]

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.

So when people state the fact that Palestine was not a country, that automatically means they are saying that the 'Palestinian' Arabs had no rights?

BTW, your link has zilch to do with what Rocco posted. Fail.

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You have to look at it closely.


(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.

​

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.



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.

Bullshit . Rocco more than addressed your post!

Tinmore always has to come back with some assinine remark or pointless question to evade, avoid and cloud the issue. He knows and understands but he has to be placated and babied.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Article 68, GCIV, is International Law.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You have to look at it closely.

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.

​

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.

(COMMENT)

I've given you the International Law (less the Rome Statues) and the Jordanian Law. What more do you want?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You have to look at it closely.


(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.

​

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.



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.

Bullshit . Rocco more than addressed your post!

Yes, Rocco posts bullshit. With a name like Rocco he is probably of southern Italian ancestry and southern Italians have quite a bit of Arabian ancestry.

 

[Hossfly]

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

Bullshit . Rocco more than addressed your post!

Yes, Rocco posts bullshit. With a name like Rocco he is probably of southern Italian ancestry and southern Italians have quite a bit of Arabian ancestry.

Then you know the feeling, Ms. Bigoted Asshole.

 

[Sally]

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?

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?

This is why: Note: This is a Jewish writer from the "Jewish Journal"

"This massive report in Tehelka on a 2002 massacre of Muslims in India will really make your stomach turn. Rampaging Hindu zealots—yes, they come in all religious flavors—left more than 2,000 people dead, some in the most gruesome ways possible."

Muslim massacre in Hindu India | The God Blog | Jewish Journal

Actually, Haniya, your Muslims brethren have had a jolly good time murdering millions of Hindus in India. They have murdered them in years past, and they are still murdering them. Not only that, they are busy murdering the Shia and Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan. Say why not tell us what happened in Pakistan the other day when your Muslim brethren were hard at work blowing up people. I guess Haniya will never tell us about the gruesome way her own brethren kill. Maybe she and Defeat67 like to see heads rolling.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Article 68, GCIV, is International Law.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You have to look at it closely.


(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.

​

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.



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.

(COMMENT)

I've given you the International Law (less the Rome Statues) and the Jordanian Law. What more do you want?

Most Respectfully,
R

That wasn't my question.

Was I unclear?

 

[Sally]

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

Bullshit . Rocco more than addressed your post!

Yes, Rocco posts bullshit. With a name like Rocco he is probably of southern Italian ancestry and southern Italians have quite a bit of Arabian ancestry.

Regardless, Haniya or Defeat57 (whichever one of you is posting at the moment), this forum is lucky to have a poster like Rocco. I think the readers can see that you don't like what he says even though we can see that he has actually studied the subject thoroughly (after all he was in Army Intelligence and probably did a pretty darn job for this country). Have you ever thought that most of the readers probably think that your posts are bullshit.

I wonder if Defeat67 can tell us in which Muslim country are his roots since he is telling us about Rocco as if Defeat67 has given Rocco a DNA test. Hmm, you know many of this pro Palestinian posters also get on other forums (just like the one you once mentioned, Defeat67)) and they probably pick up people all over to help them post. Could it be that Defeat67 is one of the Iranian gang who picked up Haniya in another forum? Maybe they get their orders directly from one of the crazy Mullahs or Ayatollahs in Iran.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Very much the same thing with Spain and parts of Europe, once the land is under Islamic control then it is forever Islamic. They even have terms to describe the different aspects of the land. If it is owned by islam then it is Dar al Islam, if it is land that is not owned by islam then it is Dar al Harb or land at war with islam.

So to the islamonazis the world outside of their ownership is at war with islam.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Well by the same token the muslims of Palestine could have been given the surface of the sun, after all why should the Jews and Christians have to pay for the crimes of the arab muslims.

Read the League of Nations declaration and you will see that even they saw that the Jews had a greater claim to the land than the migrant arab muslim workers. It is their historic homeland and the arab muslims do not have a valid claim to any part of it.

You will never get the logic at all being an ISLAMONAZI and thinking along Islamic lines.

 

[Phoenall]

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?

The terms of the Geneva conventions which have just been signed demand that military personnel wear a uniform or other distinguishing marks and carry their weapons openly. failure to do so could see them shot as spies and terrorists for whom the Geneva conventions do not apply as they do for civilians.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

No uniform and they become instant targets for shoot to kill policy, hidden weapons and the same applies. It seems that Abbas the dumbass has just signed the death warrants of all the hamas terrorists in gaza, do you think he could be shrewder than we thought ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You have to look at it closely.

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.

​

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.

Because local laws take precedence over International Law in these cases. The standing laws of a territory can not be repealed by an outside source to suit the whims of a left wing lunatic. In the case of the Geneva conventions this is made clear that if the death penalty is in place then under occupation the same death penalty is still in place. No International law can alter that and this is allowed for in the epitome of International law the Geneva conventions.

 

[Phoenall]

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?

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?

This is why: Note: This is a Jewish writer from the "Jewish Journal"

"This massive report in Tehelka on a 2002 massacre of Muslims in India will really make your stomach turn. Rampaging Hindu zealots—yes, they come in all religious flavors—left more than 2,000 people dead, some in the most gruesome ways possible."

Muslim massacre in Hindu India | The God Blog | Jewish Journal

YEP giving the muslims a taste of their own medicine, they were revenge attacks for the 20 million raped and murdered by the rampaging muslim immigrants stealing Hindu land

 

[Phoenall]

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

Bullshit . Rocco more than addressed your post!

Yes, Rocco posts bullshit. With a name like Rocco he is probably of southern Italian ancestry and southern Italians have quite a bit of Arabian ancestry.

So you are now saying that arab muslims are all liars are you, I wonder if your handlers know about this.........

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Article 68, GCIV, is International Law.

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

(COMMENT)

I've given you the International Law (less the Rome Statues) and the Jordanian Law. What more do you want?

Most Respectfully,
R

That wasn't my question.

Was I unclear?

You asked which international law made attacking soldiers illegal and you were given the very one that spells it out. What don't you understand about the answer, when the Geneva conventions are International law.

 

[Billo_Really]

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.

An occupational force cannot claim self defense.

However, if you're being shot at, no one in their right mind would think you couldn't shoot back.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Article 68, GCIV, is International Law.


(COMMENT)

I've given you the International Law (less the Rome Statues) and the Jordanian Law. What more do you want?

Most Respectfully,
R

That wasn't my question.

Was I unclear?

You asked which international law made attacking soldiers illegal and you were given the very one that spells it out. What don't you understand about the answer, when the Geneva conventions are International law.

Shooting occupation forces may be illegal under local law.

But the question was: Is it illegal under international law?