UN report on Gaza war likely to bolster international criminal court inquiry

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What is your point? The Francis Boyle interview is an opinion arguing for one side alone, and not a legal evaluation of both sides simultaneously. While a good presentation for the pro-Palestinian side, it is not balanced.

Charging Israel with War Crimes | Interview with Francis Boyle

(COMMENT)

The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) and the State of Palestine have both committed violations of International Law. In fact the HoAP not only declared Jihad (WAR) against Israel, but committed acts of war against Israel.

In some respects, the current conflict can be seen as a continuation of the 1948 War of Independence for Israel.

While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion 9 July 2004, General List 131, it is a unstable decision and still an opinion that needs litigation. Israel does not maintain "effective control" in that it does not have the ability to impose Law and Order such that it can prevent HoAP irregular forces from launching attacks directed by the Palestinian Government in the Gaza Strip. Second, in actuality and under the Oslo II Accords (Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) Hostile/Belligerent Government of Palestine has full civil and security control that is exercised by the Palestinian Authority in Area "A"; and within Area "B" the Hostile/Belligerent Palestinian Authority maintains civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control. Within the Gaza Strip, under the control of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), which is part of the Unity Government over Palestine, has near complete control (civil and Security) maintained through the irregular paramilitary Jihadist (mainly the Izz Al Din Al Qassam Brigades and Al Quds Brigades --- but also includes the Al Nasser Salah Al Din Brigades of the Popular Resistance Committees, Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, Popular Front for the Liberation of Paestine, + Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the National Resistance Brigades); having some 5000 to 6000 insurgent fighters.

These two questions need to be formally answered before things go to far.

• Is this a continuation of the 1948 War?
• Is the Gaza Strip contained by Israeli Forces, or is it under the Effective Control of Israeli Forces?
• What impact, if any, does that have on Palestinian Statehood?
• Does a "State of War" exist between the State of Israel and the the State of Palestine?

Another point to be made hear is that through a slight of hand, the Recent UN Human Rights Council Report ( A/HRC/29/CRP.4) did not evaluate the past criminal history of the Palestinians to establish a pattern of wrong doing and Humanitarian/War Crimes. It conveniently starts 13 June 2014. Nor did it under international humanitarian law and international human rights law establish the facts and circumstances of such violations and of the crimes perpetrated and to identify those responsible. The reason for this is not published, but it might be because the Palestinians do not have clean hands.

“The commission was able to gather substantial information pointing to serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law by Israel and by Palestinian armed groups,”​

In the case of the Frank Boyle interview, I say this. The legal system is an adversarial system. The Defense side against the Prosecutors side. Boyle picked to Prosecute the Israelis. But his evaluation and interpretation is not the end all - be all of the legal issues. A Israeli can only be held criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court if the material elements of the offense are committed with intent and knowledge.

I noticed that Frank Boyle and the Commission Report mentioned that something about the Israeli's committing a Crime Against Humanity for building Settlement in Area "C"; in which they cite Article 7(2d) of the Rome Statutes.

• Article 7 (2) (d) Crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population
  • Element 1. The perpetrator deported or forcibly transferred, without grounds permitted under international law, one or more persons to another State or location, by expulsion or other coercive acts.
    • 12 The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.
    • 13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.
  • Element 2. Such person or persons were lawfully present in the area from which they were so deported or transferred.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the lawfulness of such presence.
  • Element 4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

And then there was this constant cry on War Crimes.

• Article 8 (2) (b) (i) War crime of attacking civilians
  • Element 1. The perpetrator directed an attack.
  • Element 2. The object of the attack was a civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator intended the civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities to be the object of the attack.
  • Element 4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

• Article 8 (2) (b) (ii) War crime of attacking civilian objects
  • Element 1. The perpetrator directed an attack.
  • Element 2. The object of the attack was civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator intended such civilian objects to be the object of the attack.
  • Element 4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

If one element is missing, there is no crime. The common element is the "intent." In one case you have to prove that the Israel object of the attack was a civilian population; and in the other case you have to prove that the Israelis object of the attack was a civilian object.

In this respect, I find the UNHRC Inquiry less than useless. Relative to the OP (Post #1), it is not likely to be all that useful at the International Criminal Court. In fact the effect might go in the opposite direction.

Most Respectfully,
R

-All elements of a crime do not have to be present.

Pursuant to the treaty:

"1. Elements of Crimes shall assist the Court in the interpretation and application of articles 6, 7 and 8. "

Bombing UN schools whose coordinates had been provided to the IDF covers intent.

Bombing UN schools whose coordinates had been provided to the IDF covers intent.

Were those the schools your terrorist buddies were launching rockets from?

No, they were the UN schools that were hosting refugees and were being bombed by your terrorist buddies, punk,

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Again, your interpretation is lacking.

-All elements of a crime do not have to be present.

Pursuant to the treaty:

"1. Elements of Crimes shall assist the Court in the interpretation and application of articles 6, 7 and 8. "

Bombing UN schools whose coordinates had been provided to the IDF covers intent.

(COMMENT)

The Elements of the Offense are a set of facts that must all be proven to convict a defendant of a crime..

The Court shall apply: (Article 21 --- Part II --- Applicable Law --- Rome Statues --- International Criminal Court)

(a) In the first place, this Statute, Elements of Crimes and its Rules of Procedure and Evidence;

(b) In the second place, where appropriate, applicable treaties and the principles and rules of international law, including the established principles of the international law of armed conflict;

(c) Failing that, general principles of law derived by the Court from national laws of legal systems of the world including, as appropriate, the national laws of States that would normally exercise jurisdiction over the crime, provided that those principles are not inconsistent with this Statute and with international law and internationally recognized norms and standards.​

2. The Court may apply principles and rules of law as interpreted in its previous decisions.

Part III General principles of Criminal Law --- Article 22 --- Nullum crimen sine lege

1. A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.

2. The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

3. This article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal under international law independently of this Statute.
​

When HAMAS utilizes the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations --- constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts. (Rule #97 - Customary International Law and Additional Protocol I and II) When HAMAS deliberately uses UN Schools to shield military operations (Rocket Launch Platforms) it becomes contrary to the principle of distinction and violates the obligation to take feasible precautions to separate civilians and military objectives (see Rules 23–24).

HAMAS was attempting to shield its military operations by setting-up launch platforms beside or in close proximity of the UN School, some of which were used to store HAMAS rockets and mortars. Returning fire on a target detected by C-RAM (a set of systems used to detect and/or destroy incoming artillery, rockets and mortar rounds).

Don't let cowardly HAMAS Jihadist the option to shield them from returning counter-fire.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

The UN schools, which housed refugees, whose coordinates were provided to the IDF, did not store arms, nor were missiles launched from near those specified schools.

The only cowards are the Israelis that kill children with standoff weapons.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

UN returned as many as 20 rockets to Hamas

This is called providing material support and assistance.​

UN statement supported assertions by the Israeli military that Hamas and its Palestinian militia allies were using schools and mosques

Verification​

The latest rockets were found between two other UN schools that sheltered 1,500 Palestinians

This is called use of Human Shield to make the munitions immune from Israeli interdiction and fire.​

"No, they were the UN schools that were hosting refugees and were being bombed by your terrorist buddies, punk,

(INFO ONLY)

Western diplomats, however, said the UN returned as many as 20 rockets to Hamas. Canada has called for an investigation of the UN action.

“I was appalled to hear reports, one as recent as today, of stockpiles of rockets in a school run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in Gaza,” Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird said. “Even more alarming were reports that in the first case, officials with the United Nations returned these weapons to Hamas, a listed terrorist organization, once Israeli officials discovered their location.”

The UN statement supported assertions by the Israeli military that Hamas and its Palestinian militia allies were using schools and mosques for rocket storage and attacks. In a report in mid-July, the UN said the Israeli military has been providing warning before attacks on civilian facilities
believed to contain weapons.

“Hamas has dug terrorist tunnels under hospitals, mosques, schools, homes, to penetrate our territory, to kidnap and kill Israelis,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on July 22.

The latest rockets were found between two other UN schools that sheltered 1,500 Palestinians who fled their homes during the current war.

The UN said the concealment of rockets marked a “flagrant violation of the inviolability of its premises under international law.”
SOURCE: Last Couple Paragraphs, Special to WorldTribune.com, Wednesday, July 23rd, 2014]

Their is no doubt in my mind that the storage had a UNRWA Inside Man.

U.N. Agency That Runs School Hit in Gaza Employed Hamas ...

www.foxnews.com/story/2009/01/14/un-agency-that-runs-school-hit-in...
Jan 14, 2009 ·
The United Nations agency that administers a school in Gaza where dozens of civilians were killed by Israeli mortar fire last week has admitted to employing terrorists to work at its Palestinian schools in the past, has no system in place to keep members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad off its payroll, and provides textbooks to children that contain hate speech and other incendiary information.

A growing chorus of critics has taken aim at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in recent years, although momentum on Capitol Hill has been slow. But last week's incident, which Israel maintains was prompted by Hamas operatives firing mortars at Israelis from a location near the school, has prompted some lawmakers to scrutinize the U.N. agency.
​

It is what it is. The UN, in particular the UNRWA and UNHRC have a very strong anti-Israel component to it. Public confidence in the UN may be eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct of a UNRWA and UNHRC officials.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

UN returned as many as 20 rockets to Hamas

This is called providing material support and assistance.​

UN statement supported assertions by the Israeli military that Hamas and its Palestinian militia allies were using schools and mosques

Verification​

The latest rockets were found between two other UN schools that sheltered 1,500 Palestinians

This is called use of Human Shield to make the munitions immune from Israeli interdiction and fire.​

"No, they were the UN schools that were hosting refugees and were being bombed by your terrorist buddies, punk,

(INFO ONLY)

Western diplomats, however, said the UN returned as many as 20 rockets to Hamas. Canada has called for an investigation of the UN action.

“I was appalled to hear reports, one as recent as today, of stockpiles of rockets in a school run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in Gaza,” Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird said. “Even more alarming were reports that in the first case, officials with the United Nations returned these weapons to Hamas, a listed terrorist organization, once Israeli officials discovered their location.”

The UN statement supported assertions by the Israeli military that Hamas and its Palestinian militia allies were using schools and mosques for rocket storage and attacks. In a report in mid-July, the UN said the Israeli military has been providing warning before attacks on civilian facilities
believed to contain weapons.

“Hamas has dug terrorist tunnels under hospitals, mosques, schools, homes, to penetrate our territory, to kidnap and kill Israelis,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on July 22.

The latest rockets were found between two other UN schools that sheltered 1,500 Palestinians who fled their homes during the current war.

The UN said the concealment of rockets marked a “flagrant violation of the inviolability of its premises under international law.”
SOURCE: Last Couple Paragraphs, Special to WorldTribune.com, Wednesday, July 23rd, 2014]

Their is no doubt in my mind that the storage had a UNRWA Inside Man.

U.N. Agency That Runs School Hit in Gaza Employed Hamas ...

www.foxnews.com/story/2009/01/14/un-agency-that-runs-school-hit-in...
Jan 14, 2009 ·
The United Nations agency that administers a school in Gaza where dozens of civilians were killed by Israeli mortar fire last week has admitted to employing terrorists to work at its Palestinian schools in the past, has no system in place to keep members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad off its payroll, and provides textbooks to children that contain hate speech and other incendiary information.

A growing chorus of critics has taken aim at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in recent years, although momentum on Capitol Hill has been slow. But last week's incident, which Israel maintains was prompted by Hamas operatives firing mortars at Israelis from a location near the school, has prompted some lawmakers to scrutinize the U.N. agency.
​

It is what it is. The UN, in particular the UNRWA and UNHRC have a very strong anti-Israel component to it. Public confidence in the UN may be eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct of a UNRWA and UNHRC officials.

Most Respectfully,
R

The United Nations agency that administers a school in Gaza where dozens of civilians were killed by Israeli mortar fire last week has admitted to employing terrorists to work at its Palestinian schools in the past,...​

Do you have a link where the UN admits to employing terrorists or is this just a bullshit report?

 

[Billo_Really]

If the rocket kills a couple of dozen children, then can the launching neighborhood be demolished?

No harm done? Asshole!

There have been only 28 people killed (total), since the rocket fire began in 2001, you dumbass inbred dickboy.

 

[Billo_Really]

UN returned as many as 20 rockets to Hamas

This is called providing material support and assistance.​

UN statement supported assertions by the Israeli military that Hamas and its Palestinian militia allies were using schools and mosques

Verification​

The latest rockets were found between two other UN schools that sheltered 1,500 Palestinians

This is called use of Human Shield to make the munitions immune from Israeli interdiction and fire.
​

It is what it is. The UN, in particular the UNRWA and UNHRC have a very strong anti-Israel component to it. Public confidence in the UN may be eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct of a UNRWA and UNHRC officials.

Most Respectfully,
R

No, the irresponsible conduct is from you and the Israeli's.

They only found weapons at a vacant school. And giving them back, is not providing material support. Despite what you think, the Pals ARE ALLOWED to have weapons to defend themselves. If you don't like it, tough shit! Stop being such a ******* primadonna.

If you don't like the rockets, then end the ******* blockade and occupation. You have no one but yourself to blame.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If the rocket kills a couple of dozen children, then can the launching neighborhood be demolished?

No harm done? Asshole!

There have been only 28 people killed (total), since the rocket fire began in 2001, you dumbass inbred dickboy.

Keep sucking that terrorist dick you like so much.

 

[Billo_Really]

Keep sucking that terrorist dick you like so much.

Is that what you're in to?

Sodo-terrorism?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What is your point? The Francis Boyle interview is an opinion arguing for one side alone, and not a legal evaluation of both sides simultaneously. While a good presentation for the pro-Palestinian side, it is not balanced.

Charging Israel with War Crimes | Interview with Francis Boyle

(COMMENT)

The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) and the State of Palestine have both committed violations of International Law. In fact the HoAP not only declared Jihad (WAR) against Israel, but committed acts of war against Israel.

In some respects, the current conflict can be seen as a continuation of the 1948 War of Independence for Israel.

While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion 9 July 2004, General List 131, it is a unstable decision and still an opinion that needs litigation. Israel does not maintain "effective control" in that it does not have the ability to impose Law and Order such that it can prevent HoAP irregular forces from launching attacks directed by the Palestinian Government in the Gaza Strip. Second, in actuality and under the Oslo II Accords (Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) Hostile/Belligerent Government of Palestine has full civil and security control that is exercised by the Palestinian Authority in Area "A"; and within Area "B" the Hostile/Belligerent Palestinian Authority maintains civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control. Within the Gaza Strip, under the control of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), which is part of the Unity Government over Palestine, has near complete control (civil and Security) maintained through the irregular paramilitary Jihadist (mainly the Izz Al Din Al Qassam Brigades and Al Quds Brigades --- but also includes the Al Nasser Salah Al Din Brigades of the Popular Resistance Committees, Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, Popular Front for the Liberation of Paestine, + Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the National Resistance Brigades); having some 5000 to 6000 insurgent fighters.

These two questions need to be formally answered before things go to far.

• Is this a continuation of the 1948 War?
• Is the Gaza Strip contained by Israeli Forces, or is it under the Effective Control of Israeli Forces?
• What impact, if any, does that have on Palestinian Statehood?
• Does a "State of War" exist between the State of Israel and the the State of Palestine?

Another point to be made hear is that through a slight of hand, the Recent UN Human Rights Council Report ( A/HRC/29/CRP.4) did not evaluate the past criminal history of the Palestinians to establish a pattern of wrong doing and Humanitarian/War Crimes. It conveniently starts 13 June 2014. Nor did it under international humanitarian law and international human rights law establish the facts and circumstances of such violations and of the crimes perpetrated and to identify those responsible. The reason for this is not published, but it might be because the Palestinians do not have clean hands.

“The commission was able to gather substantial information pointing to serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law by Israel and by Palestinian armed groups,”​

In the case of the Frank Boyle interview, I say this. The legal system is an adversarial system. The Defense side against the Prosecutors side. Boyle picked to Prosecute the Israelis. But his evaluation and interpretation is not the end all - be all of the legal issues. A Israeli can only be held criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court if the material elements of the offense are committed with intent and knowledge.

I noticed that Frank Boyle and the Commission Report mentioned that something about the Israeli's committing a Crime Against Humanity for building Settlement in Area "C"; in which they cite Article 7(2d) of the Rome Statutes.

• Article 7 (2) (d) Crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population
  • Element 1. The perpetrator deported or forcibly transferred, without grounds permitted under international law, one or more persons to another State or location, by expulsion or other coercive acts.
    • 12 The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.
    • 13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.
  • Element 2. Such person or persons were lawfully present in the area from which they were so deported or transferred.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the lawfulness of such presence.
  • Element 4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

And then there was this constant cry on War Crimes.

• Article 8 (2) (b) (i) War crime of attacking civilians
  • Element 1. The perpetrator directed an attack.
  • Element 2. The object of the attack was a civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator intended the civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities to be the object of the attack.
  • Element 4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

• Article 8 (2) (b) (ii) War crime of attacking civilian objects
  • Element 1. The perpetrator directed an attack.
  • Element 2. The object of the attack was civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator intended such civilian objects to be the object of the attack.
  • Element 4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

If one element is missing, there is no crime. The common element is the "intent." In one case you have to prove that the Israel object of the attack was a civilian population; and in the other case you have to prove that the Israelis object of the attack was a civilian object.

In this respect, I find the UNHRC Inquiry less than useless. Relative to the OP (Post #1), it is not likely to be all that useful at the International Criminal Court. In fact the effect might go in the opposite direction.

Most Respectfully,
R

-All elements of a crime do not have to be present.

Pursuant to the treaty:

"1. Elements of Crimes shall assist the Court in the interpretation and application of articles 6, 7 and 8. "

Bombing UN schools whose coordinates had been provided to the IDF covers intent.

So if there is no body then a murder has not taken place, is this what you are now saying ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What is your point? The Francis Boyle interview is an opinion arguing for one side alone, and not a legal evaluation of both sides simultaneously. While a good presentation for the pro-Palestinian side, it is not balanced.

Charging Israel with War Crimes | Interview with Francis Boyle

(COMMENT)

The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) and the State of Palestine have both committed violations of International Law. In fact the HoAP not only declared Jihad (WAR) against Israel, but committed acts of war against Israel.

In some respects, the current conflict can be seen as a continuation of the 1948 War of Independence for Israel.

While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion 9 July 2004, General List 131, it is a unstable decision and still an opinion that needs litigation. Israel does not maintain "effective control" in that it does not have the ability to impose Law and Order such that it can prevent HoAP irregular forces from launching attacks directed by the Palestinian Government in the Gaza Strip. Second, in actuality and under the Oslo II Accords (Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) Hostile/Belligerent Government of Palestine has full civil and security control that is exercised by the Palestinian Authority in Area "A"; and within Area "B" the Hostile/Belligerent Palestinian Authority maintains civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control. Within the Gaza Strip, under the control of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), which is part of the Unity Government over Palestine, has near complete control (civil and Security) maintained through the irregular paramilitary Jihadist (mainly the Izz Al Din Al Qassam Brigades and Al Quds Brigades --- but also includes the Al Nasser Salah Al Din Brigades of the Popular Resistance Committees, Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, Popular Front for the Liberation of Paestine, + Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the National Resistance Brigades); having some 5000 to 6000 insurgent fighters.

These two questions need to be formally answered before things go to far.

• Is this a continuation of the 1948 War?
• Is the Gaza Strip contained by Israeli Forces, or is it under the Effective Control of Israeli Forces?
• What impact, if any, does that have on Palestinian Statehood?
• Does a "State of War" exist between the State of Israel and the the State of Palestine?

Another point to be made hear is that through a slight of hand, the Recent UN Human Rights Council Report ( A/HRC/29/CRP.4) did not evaluate the past criminal history of the Palestinians to establish a pattern of wrong doing and Humanitarian/War Crimes. It conveniently starts 13 June 2014. Nor did it under international humanitarian law and international human rights law establish the facts and circumstances of such violations and of the crimes perpetrated and to identify those responsible. The reason for this is not published, but it might be because the Palestinians do not have clean hands.

“The commission was able to gather substantial information pointing to serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law by Israel and by Palestinian armed groups,”​

In the case of the Frank Boyle interview, I say this. The legal system is an adversarial system. The Defense side against the Prosecutors side. Boyle picked to Prosecute the Israelis. But his evaluation and interpretation is not the end all - be all of the legal issues. A Israeli can only be held criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court if the material elements of the offense are committed with intent and knowledge.

I noticed that Frank Boyle and the Commission Report mentioned that something about the Israeli's committing a Crime Against Humanity for building Settlement in Area "C"; in which they cite Article 7(2d) of the Rome Statutes.

• Article 7 (2) (d) Crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population
  • Element 1. The perpetrator deported or forcibly transferred, without grounds permitted under international law, one or more persons to another State or location, by expulsion or other coercive acts.
    • 12 The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.
    • 13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.
  • Element 2. Such person or persons were lawfully present in the area from which they were so deported or transferred.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the lawfulness of such presence.
  • Element 4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

And then there was this constant cry on War Crimes.

• Article 8 (2) (b) (i) War crime of attacking civilians
  • Element 1. The perpetrator directed an attack.
  • Element 2. The object of the attack was a civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator intended the civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities to be the object of the attack.
  • Element 4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

• Article 8 (2) (b) (ii) War crime of attacking civilian objects
  • Element 1. The perpetrator directed an attack.
  • Element 2. The object of the attack was civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator intended such civilian objects to be the object of the attack.
  • Element 4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

If one element is missing, there is no crime. The common element is the "intent." In one case you have to prove that the Israel object of the attack was a civilian population; and in the other case you have to prove that the Israelis object of the attack was a civilian object.

In this respect, I find the UNHRC Inquiry less than useless. Relative to the OP (Post #1), it is not likely to be all that useful at the International Criminal Court. In fact the effect might go in the opposite direction.

Most Respectfully,
R

What is your point? The Francis Boyle interview is an opinion arguing for one side alone, and not a legal evaluation of both sides simultaneously. While a good presentation for the pro-Palestinian side, it is not balanced.​

There is no balance between occupier and occupied.

So because you support the terrorists they are absolved of all blame and can do no wrong. So the laws must be changed to take this into account and remove Palestinians from their jurisdiction.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What is your point? The Francis Boyle interview is an opinion arguing for one side alone, and not a legal evaluation of both sides simultaneously. While a good presentation for the pro-Palestinian side, it is not balanced.

Charging Israel with War Crimes | Interview with Francis Boyle

(COMMENT)

The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) and the State of Palestine have both committed violations of International Law. In fact the HoAP not only declared Jihad (WAR) against Israel, but committed acts of war against Israel.

In some respects, the current conflict can be seen as a continuation of the 1948 War of Independence for Israel.

While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion 9 July 2004, General List 131, it is a unstable decision and still an opinion that needs litigation. Israel does not maintain "effective control" in that it does not have the ability to impose Law and Order such that it can prevent HoAP irregular forces from launching attacks directed by the Palestinian Government in the Gaza Strip. Second, in actuality and under the Oslo II Accords (Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) Hostile/Belligerent Government of Palestine has full civil and security control that is exercised by the Palestinian Authority in Area "A"; and within Area "B" the Hostile/Belligerent Palestinian Authority maintains civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control. Within the Gaza Strip, under the control of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), which is part of the Unity Government over Palestine, has near complete control (civil and Security) maintained through the irregular paramilitary Jihadist (mainly the Izz Al Din Al Qassam Brigades and Al Quds Brigades --- but also includes the Al Nasser Salah Al Din Brigades of the Popular Resistance Committees, Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, Popular Front for the Liberation of Paestine, + Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the National Resistance Brigades); having some 5000 to 6000 insurgent fighters.

These two questions need to be formally answered before things go to far.

• Is this a continuation of the 1948 War?
• Is the Gaza Strip contained by Israeli Forces, or is it under the Effective Control of Israeli Forces?
• What impact, if any, does that have on Palestinian Statehood?
• Does a "State of War" exist between the State of Israel and the the State of Palestine?

Another point to be made hear is that through a slight of hand, the Recent UN Human Rights Council Report ( A/HRC/29/CRP.4) did not evaluate the past criminal history of the Palestinians to establish a pattern of wrong doing and Humanitarian/War Crimes. It conveniently starts 13 June 2014. Nor did it under international humanitarian law and international human rights law establish the facts and circumstances of such violations and of the crimes perpetrated and to identify those responsible. The reason for this is not published, but it might be because the Palestinians do not have clean hands.

“The commission was able to gather substantial information pointing to serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law by Israel and by Palestinian armed groups,”​

In the case of the Frank Boyle interview, I say this. The legal system is an adversarial system. The Defense side against the Prosecutors side. Boyle picked to Prosecute the Israelis. But his evaluation and interpretation is not the end all - be all of the legal issues. A Israeli can only be held criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court if the material elements of the offense are committed with intent and knowledge.

I noticed that Frank Boyle and the Commission Report mentioned that something about the Israeli's committing a Crime Against Humanity for building Settlement in Area "C"; in which they cite Article 7(2d) of the Rome Statutes.

• Article 7 (2) (d) Crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population
  • Element 1. The perpetrator deported or forcibly transferred, without grounds permitted under international law, one or more persons to another State or location, by expulsion or other coercive acts.
    • 12 The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.
    • 13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.
  • Element 2. Such person or persons were lawfully present in the area from which they were so deported or transferred.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the lawfulness of such presence.
  • Element 4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

And then there was this constant cry on War Crimes.

• Article 8 (2) (b) (i) War crime of attacking civilians
  • Element 1. The perpetrator directed an attack.
  • Element 2. The object of the attack was a civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator intended the civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities to be the object of the attack.
  • Element 4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

• Article 8 (2) (b) (ii) War crime of attacking civilian objects
  • Element 1. The perpetrator directed an attack.
  • Element 2. The object of the attack was civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator intended such civilian objects to be the object of the attack.
  • Element 4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

If one element is missing, there is no crime. The common element is the "intent." In one case you have to prove that the Israel object of the attack was a civilian population; and in the other case you have to prove that the Israelis object of the attack was a civilian object.

In this respect, I find the UNHRC Inquiry less than useless. Relative to the OP (Post #1), it is not likely to be all that useful at the International Criminal Court. In fact the effect might go in the opposite direction.

Most Respectfully,
R

In some respects, the current conflict can be seen as a continuation of the 1948 War of Independence for Israel.​

It is.

Or the 1947 war or 1917.

Or the massacre from 635 C.E that started it all, and the Jews finally said NO MORE

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What is your point? The Francis Boyle interview is an opinion arguing for one side alone, and not a legal evaluation of both sides simultaneously. While a good presentation for the pro-Palestinian side, it is not balanced.

Charging Israel with War Crimes | Interview with Francis Boyle

(COMMENT)

The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) and the State of Palestine have both committed violations of International Law. In fact the HoAP not only declared Jihad (WAR) against Israel, but committed acts of war against Israel.

In some respects, the current conflict can be seen as a continuation of the 1948 War of Independence for Israel.

While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion 9 July 2004, General List 131, it is a unstable decision and still an opinion that needs litigation. Israel does not maintain "effective control" in that it does not have the ability to impose Law and Order such that it can prevent HoAP irregular forces from launching attacks directed by the Palestinian Government in the Gaza Strip. Second, in actuality and under the Oslo II Accords (Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) Hostile/Belligerent Government of Palestine has full civil and security control that is exercised by the Palestinian Authority in Area "A"; and within Area "B" the Hostile/Belligerent Palestinian Authority maintains civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control. Within the Gaza Strip, under the control of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), which is part of the Unity Government over Palestine, has near complete control (civil and Security) maintained through the irregular paramilitary Jihadist (mainly the Izz Al Din Al Qassam Brigades and Al Quds Brigades --- but also includes the Al Nasser Salah Al Din Brigades of the Popular Resistance Committees, Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, Popular Front for the Liberation of Paestine, + Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the National Resistance Brigades); having some 5000 to 6000 insurgent fighters.

These two questions need to be formally answered before things go to far.

• Is this a continuation of the 1948 War?
• Is the Gaza Strip contained by Israeli Forces, or is it under the Effective Control of Israeli Forces?
• What impact, if any, does that have on Palestinian Statehood?
• Does a "State of War" exist between the State of Israel and the the State of Palestine?

Another point to be made hear is that through a slight of hand, the Recent UN Human Rights Council Report ( A/HRC/29/CRP.4) did not evaluate the past criminal history of the Palestinians to establish a pattern of wrong doing and Humanitarian/War Crimes. It conveniently starts 13 June 2014. Nor did it under international humanitarian law and international human rights law establish the facts and circumstances of such violations and of the crimes perpetrated and to identify those responsible. The reason for this is not published, but it might be because the Palestinians do not have clean hands.

“The commission was able to gather substantial information pointing to serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law by Israel and by Palestinian armed groups,”​

In the case of the Frank Boyle interview, I say this. The legal system is an adversarial system. The Defense side against the Prosecutors side. Boyle picked to Prosecute the Israelis. But his evaluation and interpretation is not the end all - be all of the legal issues. A Israeli can only be held criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court if the material elements of the offense are committed with intent and knowledge.

I noticed that Frank Boyle and the Commission Report mentioned that something about the Israeli's committing a Crime Against Humanity for building Settlement in Area "C"; in which they cite Article 7(2d) of the Rome Statutes.

• Article 7 (2) (d) Crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population
  • Element 1. The perpetrator deported or forcibly transferred, without grounds permitted under international law, one or more persons to another State or location, by expulsion or other coercive acts.
    • 12 The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.
    • 13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.
  • Element 2. Such person or persons were lawfully present in the area from which they were so deported or transferred.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the lawfulness of such presence.
  • Element 4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

And then there was this constant cry on War Crimes.

• Article 8 (2) (b) (i) War crime of attacking civilians
  • Element 1. The perpetrator directed an attack.
  • Element 2. The object of the attack was a civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator intended the civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities to be the object of the attack.
  • Element 4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

• Article 8 (2) (b) (ii) War crime of attacking civilian objects
  • Element 1. The perpetrator directed an attack.
  • Element 2. The object of the attack was civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator intended such civilian objects to be the object of the attack.
  • Element 4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

If one element is missing, there is no crime. The common element is the "intent." In one case you have to prove that the Israel object of the attack was a civilian population; and in the other case you have to prove that the Israelis object of the attack was a civilian object.

In this respect, I find the UNHRC Inquiry less than useless. Relative to the OP (Post #1), it is not likely to be all that useful at the International Criminal Court. In fact the effect might go in the opposite direction.

Most Respectfully,
R

-All elements of a crime do not have to be present.

Pursuant to the treaty:

"1. Elements of Crimes shall assist the Court in the interpretation and application of articles 6, 7 and 8. "

Bombing UN schools whose coordinates had been provided to the IDF covers intent.

Bombing UN schools whose coordinates had been provided to the IDF covers intent.

Were those the schools your terrorist buddies were launching rockets from?

Or is monte telling lies again and the IDF bombed the rocket launchers close to the schools and caused monor collateral damage.

 

[Phoenall]

Keep sucking that terrorist dick you like so much.

Is that what you're in to?

Sodo-terrorism?

It seems that you are, or is it Munchausen's by proxy

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What is your point? The Francis Boyle interview is an opinion arguing for one side alone, and not a legal evaluation of both sides simultaneously. While a good presentation for the pro-Palestinian side, it is not balanced.

Charging Israel with War Crimes | Interview with Francis Boyle

(COMMENT)

The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) and the State of Palestine have both committed violations of International Law. In fact the HoAP not only declared Jihad (WAR) against Israel, but committed acts of war against Israel.

In some respects, the current conflict can be seen as a continuation of the 1948 War of Independence for Israel.

While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion 9 July 2004, General List 131, it is a unstable decision and still an opinion that needs litigation. Israel does not maintain "effective control" in that it does not have the ability to impose Law and Order such that it can prevent HoAP irregular forces from launching attacks directed by the Palestinian Government in the Gaza Strip. Second, in actuality and under the Oslo II Accords (Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) Hostile/Belligerent Government of Palestine has full civil and security control that is exercised by the Palestinian Authority in Area "A"; and within Area "B" the Hostile/Belligerent Palestinian Authority maintains civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control. Within the Gaza Strip, under the control of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), which is part of the Unity Government over Palestine, has near complete control (civil and Security) maintained through the irregular paramilitary Jihadist (mainly the Izz Al Din Al Qassam Brigades and Al Quds Brigades --- but also includes the Al Nasser Salah Al Din Brigades of the Popular Resistance Committees, Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, Popular Front for the Liberation of Paestine, + Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the National Resistance Brigades); having some 5000 to 6000 insurgent fighters.

These two questions need to be formally answered before things go to far.

• Is this a continuation of the 1948 War?
• Is the Gaza Strip contained by Israeli Forces, or is it under the Effective Control of Israeli Forces?
• What impact, if any, does that have on Palestinian Statehood?
• Does a "State of War" exist between the State of Israel and the the State of Palestine?

Another point to be made hear is that through a slight of hand, the Recent UN Human Rights Council Report ( A/HRC/29/CRP.4) did not evaluate the past criminal history of the Palestinians to establish a pattern of wrong doing and Humanitarian/War Crimes. It conveniently starts 13 June 2014. Nor did it under international humanitarian law and international human rights law establish the facts and circumstances of such violations and of the crimes perpetrated and to identify those responsible. The reason for this is not published, but it might be because the Palestinians do not have clean hands.

“The commission was able to gather substantial information pointing to serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law by Israel and by Palestinian armed groups,”​

In the case of the Frank Boyle interview, I say this. The legal system is an adversarial system. The Defense side against the Prosecutors side. Boyle picked to Prosecute the Israelis. But his evaluation and interpretation is not the end all - be all of the legal issues. A Israeli can only be held criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court if the material elements of the offense are committed with intent and knowledge.

I noticed that Frank Boyle and the Commission Report mentioned that something about the Israeli's committing a Crime Against Humanity for building Settlement in Area "C"; in which they cite Article 7(2d) of the Rome Statutes.

• Article 7 (2) (d) Crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population
  • Element 1. The perpetrator deported or forcibly transferred, without grounds permitted under international law, one or more persons to another State or location, by expulsion or other coercive acts.
    • 12 The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.
    • 13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.
  • Element 2. Such person or persons were lawfully present in the area from which they were so deported or transferred.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the lawfulness of such presence.
  • Element 4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

And then there was this constant cry on War Crimes.

• Article 8 (2) (b) (i) War crime of attacking civilians
  • Element 1. The perpetrator directed an attack.
  • Element 2. The object of the attack was a civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator intended the civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities to be the object of the attack.
  • Element 4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

• Article 8 (2) (b) (ii) War crime of attacking civilian objects
  • Element 1. The perpetrator directed an attack.
  • Element 2. The object of the attack was civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator intended such civilian objects to be the object of the attack.
  • Element 4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

If one element is missing, there is no crime. The common element is the "intent." In one case you have to prove that the Israel object of the attack was a civilian population; and in the other case you have to prove that the Israelis object of the attack was a civilian object.

In this respect, I find the UNHRC Inquiry less than useless. Relative to the OP (Post #1), it is not likely to be all that useful at the International Criminal Court. In fact the effect might go in the opposite direction.

Most Respectfully,
R

-All elements of a crime do not have to be present.

Pursuant to the treaty:

"1. Elements of Crimes shall assist the Court in the interpretation and application of articles 6, 7 and 8. "

Bombing UN schools whose coordinates had been provided to the IDF covers intent.

Bombing UN schools whose coordinates had been provided to the IDF covers intent.

Were those the schools your terrorist buddies were launching rockets from?

No, they were the UN schools that were hosting refugees and were being bombed by your terrorist buddies, punk,

islamocatholic NAZI LIAR

 

[Phoenall]

The UN schools, which housed refugees, whose coordinates were provided to the IDF, did not store arms, nor were missiles launched from near those specified schools.

The only cowards are the Israelis that kill children with standoff weapons.

LIAR as the UN confirmed that the rockets were fired from within 100 metres of the schools

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

UN returned as many as 20 rockets to Hamas

This is called providing material support and assistance.​

UN statement supported assertions by the Israeli military that Hamas and its Palestinian militia allies were using schools and mosques

Verification​

The latest rockets were found between two other UN schools that sheltered 1,500 Palestinians

This is called use of Human Shield to make the munitions immune from Israeli interdiction and fire.​

"No, they were the UN schools that were hosting refugees and were being bombed by your terrorist buddies, punk,

(INFO ONLY)

Western diplomats, however, said the UN returned as many as 20 rockets to Hamas. Canada has called for an investigation of the UN action.

“I was appalled to hear reports, one as recent as today, of stockpiles of rockets in a school run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in Gaza,” Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird said. “Even more alarming were reports that in the first case, officials with the United Nations returned these weapons to Hamas, a listed terrorist organization, once Israeli officials discovered their location.”

The UN statement supported assertions by the Israeli military that Hamas and its Palestinian militia allies were using schools and mosques for rocket storage and attacks. In a report in mid-July, the UN said the Israeli military has been providing warning before attacks on civilian facilities
believed to contain weapons.

“Hamas has dug terrorist tunnels under hospitals, mosques, schools, homes, to penetrate our territory, to kidnap and kill Israelis,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on July 22.

The latest rockets were found between two other UN schools that sheltered 1,500 Palestinians who fled their homes during the current war.

The UN said the concealment of rockets marked a “flagrant violation of the inviolability of its premises under international law.”
SOURCE: Last Couple Paragraphs, Special to WorldTribune.com, Wednesday, July 23rd, 2014]

Their is no doubt in my mind that the storage had a UNRWA Inside Man.

U.N. Agency That Runs School Hit in Gaza Employed Hamas ...

www.foxnews.com/story/2009/01/14/un-agency-that-runs-school-hit-in...
Jan 14, 2009 ·
The United Nations agency that administers a school in Gaza where dozens of civilians were killed by Israeli mortar fire last week has admitted to employing terrorists to work at its Palestinian schools in the past, has no system in place to keep members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad off its payroll, and provides textbooks to children that contain hate speech and other incendiary information.

A growing chorus of critics has taken aim at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in recent years, although momentum on Capitol Hill has been slow. But last week's incident, which Israel maintains was prompted by Hamas operatives firing mortars at Israelis from a location near the school, has prompted some lawmakers to scrutinize the U.N. agency.
​

It is what it is. The UN, in particular the UNRWA and UNHRC have a very strong anti-Israel component to it. Public confidence in the UN may be eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct of a UNRWA and UNHRC officials.

Most Respectfully,
R

The United Nations agency that administers a school in Gaza where dozens of civilians were killed by Israeli mortar fire last week has admitted to employing terrorists to work at its Palestinian schools in the past,...​

Do you have a link where the UN admits to employing terrorists or is this just a bullshit report?

Link given or are you completey moronic

 

[Phoenall]

If the rocket kills a couple of dozen children, then can the launching neighborhood be demolished?

No harm done? Asshole!

There have been only 28 people killed (total), since the rocket fire began in 2001, you dumbass inbred dickboy.

Which is 28 too many to be killed by illegal weapons before the UN sends in the troops to eliminate the threat. Maybe Israel should start firing unguided missiles into gaza armed with rotten meat, disease infected substances and anti blood clotting agents to see how long it takes the UN to call a halt.

 

[Phoenall]

UN returned as many as 20 rockets to Hamas

This is called providing material support and assistance.​

UN statement supported assertions by the Israeli military that Hamas and its Palestinian militia allies were using schools and mosques

Verification​

The latest rockets were found between two other UN schools that sheltered 1,500 Palestinians

This is called use of Human Shield to make the munitions immune from Israeli interdiction and fire.
​

It is what it is. The UN, in particular the UNRWA and UNHRC have a very strong anti-Israel component to it. Public confidence in the UN may be eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct of a UNRWA and UNHRC officials.

Most Respectfully,
R

No, the irresponsible conduct is from you and the Israeli's.

They only found weapons at a vacant school. And giving them back, is not providing material support. Despite what you think, the Pals ARE ALLOWED to have weapons to defend themselves. If you don't like it, tough shit! Stop being such a ******* primadonna.

If you don't like the rockets, then end the ******* blockade and occupation. You have no one but yourself to blame.

So they can have nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons and weapons banned by treaty can they, because you are a NAZI JEW HATER.

If you don't like Israel defending itself against these illegal weapons then tell your terrorist buddies to stop attacking, you habe no one to blame but yourselves for the deaths and destruction

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

UN returned as many as 20 rockets to Hamas

This is called providing material support and assistance.​

UN statement supported assertions by the Israeli military that Hamas and its Palestinian militia allies were using schools and mosques

Verification​

The latest rockets were found between two other UN schools that sheltered 1,500 Palestinians

This is called use of Human Shield to make the munitions immune from Israeli interdiction and fire.​

"No, they were the UN schools that were hosting refugees and were being bombed by your terrorist buddies, punk,

(INFO ONLY)

Western diplomats, however, said the UN returned as many as 20 rockets to Hamas. Canada has called for an investigation of the UN action.

“I was appalled to hear reports, one as recent as today, of stockpiles of rockets in a school run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in Gaza,” Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird said. “Even more alarming were reports that in the first case, officials with the United Nations returned these weapons to Hamas, a listed terrorist organization, once Israeli officials discovered their location.”

The UN statement supported assertions by the Israeli military that Hamas and its Palestinian militia allies were using schools and mosques for rocket storage and attacks. In a report in mid-July, the UN said the Israeli military has been providing warning before attacks on civilian facilities
believed to contain weapons.

“Hamas has dug terrorist tunnels under hospitals, mosques, schools, homes, to penetrate our territory, to kidnap and kill Israelis,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on July 22.

The latest rockets were found between two other UN schools that sheltered 1,500 Palestinians who fled their homes during the current war.

The UN said the concealment of rockets marked a “flagrant violation of the inviolability of its premises under international law.”
SOURCE: Last Couple Paragraphs, Special to WorldTribune.com, Wednesday, July 23rd, 2014]

Their is no doubt in my mind that the storage had a UNRWA Inside Man.

U.N. Agency That Runs School Hit in Gaza Employed Hamas ...

www.foxnews.com/story/2009/01/14/un-agency-that-runs-school-hit-in...
Jan 14, 2009 ·
The United Nations agency that administers a school in Gaza where dozens of civilians were killed by Israeli mortar fire last week has admitted to employing terrorists to work at its Palestinian schools in the past, has no system in place to keep members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad off its payroll, and provides textbooks to children that contain hate speech and other incendiary information.

A growing chorus of critics has taken aim at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in recent years, although momentum on Capitol Hill has been slow. But last week's incident, which Israel maintains was prompted by Hamas operatives firing mortars at Israelis from a location near the school, has prompted some lawmakers to scrutinize the U.N. agency.
​

It is what it is. The UN, in particular the UNRWA and UNHRC have a very strong anti-Israel component to it. Public confidence in the UN may be eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct of a UNRWA and UNHRC officials.

Most Respectfully,
R

The United Nations agency that administers a school in Gaza where dozens of civilians were killed by Israeli mortar fire last week has admitted to employing terrorists to work at its Palestinian schools in the past,...​

Do you have a link where the UN admits to employing terrorists or is this just a bullshit report?

Link given or are you completey moronic

The link is just Fox News say so. No source is mentioned and there is nothing in quotes.