The Palestine Solution

[Boston1]

You fail to realize that the "native people" were not native at all but Islamist colonizers who used war and rapine as their method of colonization.

That's a load of crap!

Palestinian's have been living in that area for the last 2000 years. They are the genetic descendants of ancient Jews.

"In 2001, Human Immunology magazine published a genetic study conducted by Prof. Antonio Arnez-Vilna, a Spanish researcher from the University of Complutense in Madrid, who discovered that the immune systems of the Jews and the Palestinians are extremely close to one another in a way that almost absolutely demonstrates a similar genetic identity."​

Other DNA studies show...

...that "the Palestinians are genetically much closer to Ashkenazi Jews than they are to the Arabs."​

So no, they were not "Islamist colonizers", as you claim.


You're suffering from what is called cognitive dissonance.

Pure utter nonsense.

From
Demographic history of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free ...

Quote

It is known that the Arab population of Palestine doubled during the British Mandate era, from 670,000 in 1922 to over 1.2 million in 1948,

End Quote

Do you really think the presentation of one lie after another is doing anything to further your cause, whatever that might be.

 

[Billo_Really]

Name one other instance where so called colonizers PURCHASED LAND LEGALLY

According to UN records, as the British vacated the area, Zionist terrorist squads moved in and took more land that was given to them in the Partition Plan.

From writings of Zionist leaders, it is evident that Zionist policy was to occupy, during the period of withdrawal, as much territory as possible (including the "West Bank") beyond the boundaries assigned to the Jewish State by the partition resolution.​

 

[Shusha]

People going from another continent to colonize land on a different continent are, by definition colonizers. Palestine was not ancestral land of Europeans, of whatever faith.

Israel and Judah ARE the ancestral lands of the Jewish people. You can't seriously be denying the connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, can you?

 

[montelatici]

You are full of crap as usual. You are making a fool of yourself. As I said, we have debunked your propaganda with source documentation over and over again.

OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF ​

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY​

​

SUPPLEMENT No. 11​

​

UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE​

​

REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY​

​

VOLUME 1​

​

Lake Success
New York
1947


(b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths.

 

[montelatici]

People going from another continent to colonize land on a different continent are, by definition colonizers. Palestine was not ancestral land of Europeans, of whatever faith.

Israel and Judah ARE the ancestral lands of the Jewish people. You can't seriously be denying the connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, can you?

Of course we are denying that fairly tale.

 

[Billo_Really]

Pure utter nonsense.

Prove it. Prove the DNA studies were wrong.

From
Demographic history of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free ...

From your own link...

the make-up of the population of Palestine is debated due to data being sparse in the historical record.​

DNA testing is anything but "sparse".

Quote

It is known that the Arab population of Palestine doubled during the British Mandate era, from 670,000 in 1922 to over 1.2 million in 1948,

End Quote

According to UN records...

The transformation of Mandated Palestine

The Jewish population:
At the culmination of a quarter century of Mandatory rule, Palestine had been radically transformed in demographic terms. The population of Palestine had increased tremendously - from the 750,000 of the 1922 census to almost 1,850,000 at the end of 1946 - an increase of nearly 250 per cent. During this period the Jewish population had soared from 56,000 after the First World War to 84,000 in 1922 to 608,000 in 1946, an increase of about 725 per cent. From constituting less than a tenth of the population in Palestine after the First World War, the Jewish community in 1947 constituted nearly a third.​

725% increase in the Jewish population and they still only amounted to a 1/3 of the total residents.

Here's the official immigration records according to the UN...



Do you see that? Over 5,000 Jews immigrated in (a good third illegally) and only a little over 1,300 Arabs migrated into the area during that same period.

Embrace the horror, Arabs have been the majority population in that area for the last 2000 years.

Do you really think the presentation of one lie after another is doing anything to further your cause, whatever that might be.

Why don't you prove they are lies, instead just saying they are?

 

[montelatici]

Boston has only access to Zionist propaganda. He has never researched the source documentation. Hasbara types never do.

 

[Shusha]

Israel and Judah ARE the ancestral lands of the Jewish people. You can't seriously be denying the connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, can you?

Of course we are denying that fairly tale.

I am honestly at a loss as to how one can deny the connection of the Jewish people to the lands of our ancestors. It is an impressively inaccurate ideology. I can't even imagine what hoops you must jump through to believe this.

Please, you will have to explain this to me. I will start another thread.

 

[Shusha]

All DNA evidence "proves" is that the Arab peoples living in Israel/Mandate for Palestine are closely related to the Jewish people living all over the world, with the Arab peoples having an admixture of various Arab populations and the Jewish people having an admixture of various European populations. (Which, of course, makes perfect sense as people do tend to procreate with the people around them. Procreation with people who are far away is decidely problematic.)

Enough of that. DNA is not a valid measure of people's rights.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

WOW!

People going from another continent to colonize land on a different continent are, by definition colonizers. Palestine was not ancestral land of Europeans, of whatever faith.

Israel and Judah ARE the ancestral lands of the Jewish people. You can't seriously be denying the connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, can you?

Of course we are denying that fairly tale.

(OBSERVATION)

Jerusalem Post Diplomacy & Politics --- Abbas denies the Jewish connection to Jerusalem
12.29.2015 | 17 Tevet, 5776

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas denied the Jewish connection to Jerusalem on Tuesday, the same day he spoke by phone with both Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s envoy Yitzhak Molcho.

Abbas issued a statement Tuesday, marking the 43rd anniversary of an attempt by deranged Australian Christian Denis Michael Rohan to set fire to al-Aksa mosque, saying that Jerusalem’s Arab and Islamic identity was a Palestinian red line.
​

(COMMENT)

This is not unusual for the pro-Palestinians to make this claim/denial. This claim made periodically. What I find some remarkable is that so many actually believe it.

Palestinian Leaders Deny Jerusalem's Past
Wall Street Journal (WSJ) By BARI WEISS
Updated Sept. 25, 2009 12:01 a.m. ET

Jews have no history in the city of Jerusalem: They have never lived there, the Temple never existed, and Israeli archaeologists have admitted as much. Those who deny this are simply liars. Or so says Sheik Tayseer Rajab Tamimi, chief Islamic judge of the Palestinian Authority.

His claims, made last month, would be laughable if they weren't so common among Palestinians. Sheik Tamimi is only the latest to insist that, in his words, Jerusalem is solely "an Arab and Islamic city and it has always been so." His comments come on the heels of those by Shamekh Alawneh, a lecturer in modern history at Al Quds University. On an Aug. 11 PA television program, "Jerusalem—History and Culture," Mr. Alawneh argued that the Jews invented their connection to Jerusalem. "It has no historical roots," he said, adding that the Jews are engaging in "an attack on history, theft of culture, falsification of facts, erasure of the truth, and Judaization of the place."
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[aris2chat]

montelatici, et al,

WOW!

People going from another continent to colonize land on a different continent are, by definition colonizers. Palestine was not ancestral land of Europeans, of whatever faith.

Israel and Judah ARE the ancestral lands of the Jewish people. You can't seriously be denying the connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, can you?

Of course we are denying that fairly tale.

(OBSERVATION)

Jerusalem Post Diplomacy & Politics --- Abbas denies the Jewish connection to Jerusalem
12.29.2015 | 17 Tevet, 5776

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas denied the Jewish connection to Jerusalem on Tuesday, the same day he spoke by phone with both Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s envoy Yitzhak Molcho.

Abbas issued a statement Tuesday, marking the 43rd anniversary of an attempt by deranged Australian Christian Denis Michael Rohan to set fire to al-Aksa mosque, saying that Jerusalem’s Arab and Islamic identity was a Palestinian red line.
​

(COMMENT)

This is not unusual for the pro-Palestinians to make this claim/denial. This claim made periodically. What I find some remarkable is that so many actually believe it.

Palestinian Leaders Deny Jerusalem's Past
Wall Street Journal (WSJ) By BARI WEISS
Updated Sept. 25, 2009 12:01 a.m. ET

Jews have no history in the city of Jerusalem: They have never lived there, the Temple never existed, and Israeli archaeologists have admitted as much. Those who deny this are simply liars. Or so says Sheik Tayseer Rajab Tamimi, chief Islamic judge of the Palestinian Authority.

His claims, made last month, would be laughable if they weren't so common among Palestinians. Sheik Tamimi is only the latest to insist that, in his words, Jerusalem is solely "an Arab and Islamic city and it has always been so." His comments come on the heels of those by Shamekh Alawneh, a lecturer in modern history at Al Quds University. On an Aug. 11 PA television program, "Jerusalem—History and Culture," Mr. Alawneh argued that the Jews invented their connection to Jerusalem. "It has no historical roots," he said, adding that the Jews are engaging in "an attack on history, theft of culture, falsification of facts, erasure of the truth, and Judaization of the place."
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Some mosques around the world are still calling jews pigs and dogs or shaitan that should be killed.

What happened to people of the book and religion of peace?

 

[RoccoR]

aris2chat, et al,

It is a mistake to consider any group of people as a "people of the book and religion of peace;" especially and Islamic groups that practices or advocate "jihad" and moves to "incite or radicalize people to commit a terrorist act or acts; providing support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists; (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

Some mosques around the world are still calling jews pigs and dogs or shaitan that should be killed.

What happened to people of the book and religion of peace?

(COMMENT)

The pro-Palestinian that is radicalized believes that the Hostile Arab Palestinian has some special exemption to the general rule that nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts; to include their political cause.

But Hostile Arab Palestinians are of the exact same moral depravity as any other sociopaths or psychopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse for the indifference innocent death; nor can they distinguish between inadvertent deaths and that of intentional targeting. Psychopaths have no guilt of performing an act that will cause innocent deaths through their depraved indifference; a Machiavellian policy of using any means they considered necessary to achieve their political objective in establishing an Islamic State.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

It is the Zionists that believe that their child murdering is justified. They cannot fathom the thought that bombing a school filled with children or an apartment building housing women and children is a murderous act. The Zionists are psychopaths and they feel no guilt when they cause thousands of innocent deaths. It is the rule in a Zionist state. The Zionists hope to achieve their political objectives through the murder of innocents. But, the worlds is turning against them.

 

[P F Tinmore]

aris2chat, et al,

It is a mistake to consider any group of people as a "people of the book and religion of peace;" especially and Islamic groups that practices or advocate "jihad" and moves to "incite or radicalize people to commit a terrorist act or acts; providing support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists; (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

Some mosques around the world are still calling jews pigs and dogs or shaitan that should be killed.

What happened to people of the book and religion of peace?

(COMMENT)

The pro-Palestinian that is radicalized believes that the Hostile Arab Palestinian has some special exemption to the general rule that nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts; to include their political cause.

But Hostile Arab Palestinians are of the exact same moral depravity as any other sociopaths or psychopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse for the indifference innocent death; nor can they distinguish between inadvertent deaths and that of intentional targeting. Psychopaths have no guilt of performing an act that will cause innocent deaths through their depraved indifference; a Machiavellian policy of using any means they considered necessary to achieve their political objective in establishing an Islamic State.

Most Respectfully,
R

The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.
In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Some one is pulling you leg.

aris2chat, et al,

It is a mistake to consider any group of people as a "people of the book and religion of peace;" especially and Islamic groups that practices or advocate "jihad" and moves to "incite or radicalize people to commit a terrorist act or acts; providing support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists; (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

Some mosques around the world are still calling jews pigs and dogs or shaitan that should be killed.

What happened to people of the book and religion of peace?

(COMMENT)

The pro-Palestinian that is radicalized believes that the Hostile Arab Palestinian has some special exemption to the general rule that nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts; to include their political cause.

But Hostile Arab Palestinians are of the exact same moral depravity as any other sociopaths or psychopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse for the indifference innocent death; nor can they distinguish between inadvertent deaths and that of intentional targeting. Psychopaths have no guilt of performing an act that will cause innocent deaths through their depraved indifference; a Machiavellian policy of using any means they considered necessary to achieve their political objective in establishing an Islamic State.

Most Respectfully,
R

The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.
In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org

(COMMENT)

The Definition of "civilians" in Rule #5, is quite specific. There is only one exception to the Rule. The ICRC never change that Rule. If that Rule were changed, then the Palestinian Complaint before the ICC would have no validity.

The definition of civilians as persons who are not members of the armed forces is set forth in Article 50 of Additional Protocol I, to which no reservations have been made. It is also contained in numerous military manuals. It is reflected in reported practice.[3] This practice includes that of States not, or not at the time, party to Additional Protocol I.

In its judgment in the Blaškić case in 2000, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia defined civilians as “persons who are not, or no longer, members of the armed forces”.

The definition that "any person who is not a member of armed forces is considered to be a civilian" and that "the civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians" was included in the draft of Additional Protocol II.

Exception

An exception to this rule is the levée en masse, whereby the inhabitants of a country which has not yet been occupied, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to form themselves into an armed force. Such persons are considered combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war (see commentary to Rule 106). This is a long-standing rule of customary international humanitarian law already recognized in the Lieber Code and the Brussels Declaration. It is codified in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention. Although of limited current application, the levée en masse is still repeated in many military manuals, including very recent ones.

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[montelatici]

Most of the settlers are active duty military, and armed by the military.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Some one is pulling you leg.

aris2chat, et al,

It is a mistake to consider any group of people as a "people of the book and religion of peace;" especially and Islamic groups that practices or advocate "jihad" and moves to "incite or radicalize people to commit a terrorist act or acts; providing support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists; (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

Some mosques around the world are still calling jews pigs and dogs or shaitan that should be killed.

What happened to people of the book and religion of peace?

(COMMENT)

The pro-Palestinian that is radicalized believes that the Hostile Arab Palestinian has some special exemption to the general rule that nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts; to include their political cause.

But Hostile Arab Palestinians are of the exact same moral depravity as any other sociopaths or psychopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse for the indifference innocent death; nor can they distinguish between inadvertent deaths and that of intentional targeting. Psychopaths have no guilt of performing an act that will cause innocent deaths through their depraved indifference; a Machiavellian policy of using any means they considered necessary to achieve their political objective in establishing an Islamic State.

Most Respectfully,
R

The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.
In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org

(COMMENT)

The Definition of "civilians" in Rule #5, is quite specific. There is only one exception to the Rule. The ICRC never change that Rule. If that Rule were changed, then the Palestinian Complaint before the ICC would have no validity.

The definition of civilians as persons who are not members of the armed forces is set forth in Article 50 of Additional Protocol I, to which no reservations have been made. It is also contained in numerous military manuals. It is reflected in reported practice.[3] This practice includes that of States not, or not at the time, party to Additional Protocol I.

In its judgment in the Blaškić case in 2000, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia defined civilians as “persons who are not, or no longer, members of the armed forces”.

The definition that "any person who is not a member of armed forces is considered to be a civilian" and that "the civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians" was included in the draft of Additional Protocol II.

Exception

An exception to this rule is the levée en masse, whereby the inhabitants of a country which has not yet been occupied, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to form themselves into an armed force. Such persons are considered combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war (see commentary to Rule 106). This is a long-standing rule of customary international humanitarian law already recognized in the Lieber Code and the Brussels Declaration. It is codified in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention. Although of limited current application, the levée en masse is still repeated in many military manuals, including very recent ones.

Most Respectfully,
R​

They were using the lay term. The actual term is protected persons. GCIV exempts the nationals of an occupying power from protected status.

So when Israel says that Palestinians are targeting "civilians" they are just shoveling shit.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well that is also wrong.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Some one is pulling you leg.

aris2chat, et al,

It is a mistake to consider any group of people as a "people of the book and religion of peace;" especially and Islamic groups that practices or advocate "jihad" and moves to "incite or radicalize people to commit a terrorist act or acts; providing support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists; (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

Some mosques around the world are still calling jews pigs and dogs or shaitan that should be killed.

What happened to people of the book and religion of peace?

(COMMENT)

The pro-Palestinian that is radicalized believes that the Hostile Arab Palestinian has some special exemption to the general rule that nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts; to include their political cause.

But Hostile Arab Palestinians are of the exact same moral depravity as any other sociopaths or psychopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse for the indifference innocent death; nor can they distinguish between inadvertent deaths and that of intentional targeting. Psychopaths have no guilt of performing an act that will cause innocent deaths through their depraved indifference; a Machiavellian policy of using any means they considered necessary to achieve their political objective in establishing an Islamic State.

Most Respectfully,
R

The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.
In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org

(COMMENT)

The Definition of "civilians" in Rule #5, is quite specific. There is only one exception to the Rule. The ICRC never change that Rule. If that Rule were changed, then the Palestinian Complaint before the ICC would have no validity.

The definition of civilians as persons who are not members of the armed forces is set forth in Article 50 of Additional Protocol I, to which no reservations have been made. It is also contained in numerous military manuals. It is reflected in reported practice.[3] This practice includes that of States not, or not at the time, party to Additional Protocol I.

In its judgment in the Blaškić case in 2000, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia defined civilians as “persons who are not, or no longer, members of the armed forces”.

The definition that "any person who is not a member of armed forces is considered to be a civilian" and that "the civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians" was included in the draft of Additional Protocol II.

Exception

An exception to this rule is the levée en masse, whereby the inhabitants of a country which has not yet been occupied, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to form themselves into an armed force. Such persons are considered combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war (see commentary to Rule 106). This is a long-standing rule of customary international humanitarian law already recognized in the Lieber Code and the Brussels Declaration. It is codified in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention. Although of limited current application, the levée en masse is still repeated in many military manuals, including very recent ones.

Most Respectfully,
R​

They were using the lay term. The actual term is protected persons. GCIV exempts the nationals of an occupying power from protected status.

So when Israel says that Palestinians are targeting "civilians" they are just shoveling shit.

(COMMENT)

The are two difference terms, both in use in ICRC Geneva Convention.

Protected Persons are NOT necessarily civilians. A POW is a protected person but not a civilian. The unarmed, non-service connect civilian of the enemy occupied territory is generally a "protected person." In the case of the Israeli citizen, the are "civilians" but not "protected persons."

Both the "protect person" and the "civilian" are addressed and covered separately in the ICRC Geneva Convention.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well that is also wrong.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Some one is pulling you leg.

aris2chat, et al,

It is a mistake to consider any group of people as a "people of the book and religion of peace;" especially and Islamic groups that practices or advocate "jihad" and moves to "incite or radicalize people to commit a terrorist act or acts; providing support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists; (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

Some mosques around the world are still calling jews pigs and dogs or shaitan that should be killed.

What happened to people of the book and religion of peace?

(COMMENT)

The pro-Palestinian that is radicalized believes that the Hostile Arab Palestinian has some special exemption to the general rule that nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts; to include their political cause.

But Hostile Arab Palestinians are of the exact same moral depravity as any other sociopaths or psychopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse for the indifference innocent death; nor can they distinguish between inadvertent deaths and that of intentional targeting. Psychopaths have no guilt of performing an act that will cause innocent deaths through their depraved indifference; a Machiavellian policy of using any means they considered necessary to achieve their political objective in establishing an Islamic State.

Most Respectfully,
R

The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.
In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org

(COMMENT)

The Definition of "civilians" in Rule #5, is quite specific. There is only one exception to the Rule. The ICRC never change that Rule. If that Rule were changed, then the Palestinian Complaint before the ICC would have no validity.

The definition of civilians as persons who are not members of the armed forces is set forth in Article 50 of Additional Protocol I, to which no reservations have been made. It is also contained in numerous military manuals. It is reflected in reported practice.[3] This practice includes that of States not, or not at the time, party to Additional Protocol I.

In its judgment in the Blaškić case in 2000, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia defined civilians as “persons who are not, or no longer, members of the armed forces”.

The definition that "any person who is not a member of armed forces is considered to be a civilian" and that "the civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians" was included in the draft of Additional Protocol II.

Exception

An exception to this rule is the levée en masse, whereby the inhabitants of a country which has not yet been occupied, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to form themselves into an armed force. Such persons are considered combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war (see commentary to Rule 106). This is a long-standing rule of customary international humanitarian law already recognized in the Lieber Code and the Brussels Declaration. It is codified in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention. Although of limited current application, the levée en masse is still repeated in many military manuals, including very recent ones.

Most Respectfully,
R​

They were using the lay term. The actual term is protected persons. GCIV exempts the nationals of an occupying power from protected status.

So when Israel says that Palestinians are targeting "civilians" they are just shoveling shit.

(COMMENT)

The are two difference terms, both in use in ICRC Geneva Convention.

Protected Persons are NOT necessarily civilians. A POW is a protected person but not a civilian. The unarmed, non-service connect civilian of the enemy occupied territory is generally a "protected person." In the case of the Israeli citizen, the are "civilians" but not "protected persons."

Both the "protect person" and the "civilian" are addressed and covered separately in the ICRC Geneva Convention.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thank you, that clarifies what I said.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Unless you want to change the definition of colonization, I think I have made my point.

Name one other instance where so called colonizers PURCHASED LAND LEGALLY

Indeed, the Jews only purchased about 7% of the land. The rest they took at the point of a gun.