What if Israel Quite Trying to Play the Nice Guy

[Challenger]

...as the US did with Afghanistan...

Yeah, right. The US lost that one like it lost Iraq; go in, screw up the country, bug out when things start to unravel while bleating face saving platitudes...and the fundamentalist Islamist whack jobs walk in and take over.

If the Zionist paradise did what our bovine friend suggests, whatever makes you think that would be an end to it? Scatter the Palestinians throughout the region, fine, thats a load of new decentralised guerilla/resistance groups waiting in the shadows; that's several neighbouring countries probably destabilised and lots of weapons floating around for anyone to use; and with no Palestinians in the "cleansed" Zionist Paradise, everone in it can now be a target without worrying about hurting your own people.

Whatever "final solution to the Palestinian problem" the Zionist regime adopts, one thing is for absolute certain, the Law of Unintended Consequences will kick in.

 

[Challenger]

Israel has consistently tried to play the nice guy in the middle east conflict.

But what if the Israeli's accepted the war for what it is, acted within the Geneva Conventions and completed the war process. The most humane solution is to end the conflict ASAP, Clearly negotiating with the terrorist isn't working so obviously the fastest way to peace is to finish the war.

Anyone who is in any way familiar with the Geneva conventions and the UN charter would realize that Israel is well within its rights to defend itself. Since the Arab League declared war in 1948 a condition of war has existed. So why not follow it to its natural conclusion. Victory.

Why not take the pali terrorist enclaves one at a time and utterly defeat them. Start small, one of the smaller enclaves where terrorist activity exists. The security walls are perfect for isolating each enclave and from there all aid distribution in terms of food and medicine should be distributed just outside the security area in determination centers where combatants, those who assist combatants and those suspected of being or aiding combatants can be detained as POWs. The rest can be remanded to detention centers not unlike the centers the US set up for the Japanese in WW2. Any of them that refuse to come out to receive their aid can rot. Embargo all entry into the given area, no goods of any kind. Lay siege to enclaves one at a time until complete capitulation is achieved.

Anyone designated a POW according to the Geneva conventions should be repatriated to a neutral third country exactly as specified within the conventions.

Anyone designated a civilian or a refugee can be legally removed from the war zones until such time as its safe to return them.

Rinse and repeat

Once all pali enclaves have been swept for persons having forfeited their protected status, then the rest should be offered the opportunity for unconditional surrender. Should they refuse I'm pretty sure they can be held under military law by the controlling military power or repatriated to a neutral third country.

Regardless its time for the Israeli's to stop ***** footing around and end the war.

A negotiated solution has clearly failed. Which leaves us continuing the war to its logical conclusion. Unconditional surrender

Palestinians consistently call for peace based on international law.

Israel absolutely rejects that proposal.

That doesn't match your post.

They must be wrong because according to your own postings EVERYONE hates Israel and yet not ONE nation is acting upon this supposed international law.

The People and government lackeys are two different groups of people.

Are you calling the vast majority of American public that stands shoulder to shoulder with Israel "govt. lackeys"? Maybe you're the lackey, have you thought of that?

Majority, yes, but hardly vast.

 

[Billo_Really]

Nonsense

my bet is you didn't read the conventions as I suggested or even follow them to the articles which I provided that prove what I'm suggesting is completely legal.

It is most definitely a war and one thats been ongoing since 1948. Not just because of the Arab League declaration but as specified in the Geneva Conventions as well as the ICRC.

Lets review.

From the ICRC

Quote

International humanitarian law distinguishes two types of armed conflicts, namely:

• international armed conflicts, opposing two or more States, and
• non-international armed conflicts, between governmental forces and non-governmental armed groups, or between such groups only. IHL treaty law also establishes a distinction between non-international armed conflicts in the meaning of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and non-international armed conflicts falling within the definition provided in Art. 1 of Additional Protocol II.

Legally speaking, no other type of armed conflict exists. It is nevertheless important to underline that a situation can evolve from one type of armed conflict to another, depending on the facts prevailing at a certain moment.

End Quote

and from common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions

Quote

Part I. Scope of this Protocol

Art 1. Material field of application

1. This Protocol, which develops and supplements Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 without modifying its existing conditions of application, shall apply to all armed conflicts which are not covered by Article 1 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) and which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.

End Quote

Your whole argument hinges upon it being a war and it's not; it's an occupation.

This was just last week...

UN chief redoubles criticism of Israel’s ‘stifling’ occupation​

He didn't say, "Israel's stifling war", he said, "stifling occupation".

And that is the position of the entire free world.

So if you want to refer to the GC and ICRC, it's the "Laws of Occupation", that apply.

as far as the UNs general assembly resolution about the embargo its nothing more than political grandstanding. No UN general assembly resolutions are binding except for those dealing with house rules and administration. Ergo whatever resolution you might be referring to is nothing more than a suggestion.

I don't even have to go to the UN general assembly, I'll use your source, the GC...

Hague Regulations (1899)
Article 50 of the 1899 Hague Regulations provides: “No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, can be inflicted on the population on account of the acts of individuals for which it cannot be regarded as collectively responsible.”

Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 29 July 1899, Article 50.

Hague Regulations (1907)
Article 50 of the 1907 Hague Regulations provides: “No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.”

Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907, Article 50.

Geneva POW Convention
Article 46, fourth paragraph, of the 1929 Geneva POW Convention provides: “Collective penalties for individual acts are also prohibited.”
Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 27 July 1929, Article 46, fourth para.

Geneva Convention III
Article 26, sixth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention III states: “Collective disciplinary measures affecting food are prohibited.”
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 26, sixth para.

Article 87, third paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention III provides that “[c]ollective punishment for individual acts” is forbidden.

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 87, third para.

Geneva Convention IV
Article 33, first paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “Collective penalties … are prohibited.”

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 33, first para.

Additional Protocol I
Article 75(2)(d) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents: … collective punishments”.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Articles 75(2)(d). Article 75 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.43, 27 May 1977, p. 250.

Additional Protocol II
Article 4(2)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides: “The following acts against the persons referred to in paragraph I are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever: … collective punishments”.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 4(2)(b). Article 4 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.50, 3 June 1977, p. 90.

Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone

​

Article 3 of the 2002 Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone provides:

The Special Court shall have the power to prosecute persons who committed or ordered the commission of serious violations of article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the Protection of War Victims, and of Additional Protocol II thereto of 8 June 1977. These violations shall include:​

…
(b) Collective punishments.
Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, annexed to the 2002 Agreement on the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Freetown, 16 January 2002, annexed to Letter dated 6 March 2002 from the UN Secretary-General to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/2002/246, 8 March 2002, p. 29, Article 3(b).​

Kampala Convention
The 2009 Kampala Convention lists prohibited categories of arbitrary displacement, including “displacement used as a collective punishment”.
African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa, adopted in Kampala, Uganda, 23 October 2009, Article 4(4)(g).​

So, the blockade is collective punishment, much like your posts are.

 

[Boston1]

...as the US did with Afghanistan...

Yeah, right. The US lost that one like it lost Iraq; go in, screw up the country, bug out when things start to unravel while bleating face saving platitudes...and the fundamentalist Islamist whack jobs walk in and take over.

If the Zionist paradise did what our bovine friend suggests, whatever makes you think that would be an end to it? Scatter the Palestinians throughout the region, fine, thats a load of new decentralised guerilla/resistance groups waiting in the shadows; that's several neighbouring countries probably destabilised and lots of weapons floating around for anyone to use; and with no Palestinians in the "cleansed" Zionist Paradise, everone in it can now be a target without worrying about hurting your own people.

Whatever "final solution to the Palestinian problem" the Zionist regime adopts, one thing is for absolute certain, the Law of Unintended Consequences will kick in.

I don't see that the US lost Iraq, the error there was to not simply leave once we had Husain. Who cares how screwed up the country is, its not our problem. For once let the Arabs fix their own mess.

The pali's are already scattered to the winds and are already fodder for the lunes to recruit from, nothing new there.

When have the Arabs ever had enough respect for their own that they weren't willing to hide behind their woman and children while they risk the lives of countless others. If you are seriously suggesting that because there are pali's in Israel, they keep Israel safe from the racist hoards, your more deluded than I thought you were, and that would be quite a trick.

So rave on but Israel is fully capable of throwing down the gauntlet and finally engaging the pali's with a world class military that would make short work of them indeed.

This conflict could be over in a matter of months with some few hold outs starving themselves to death rather than come out and pick up their welfare at the determination stations.

Aid is a weapon. The pali's have grown dependent on support from the UNWRA. So use it. NO MORE AID goes in, let them start getting skinny and they'll be giving up in droves. It'll be the mother of all surrenders ;--)

 

[Boston1]

Nonsense

my bet is you didn't read the conventions as I suggested or even follow them to the articles which I provided that prove what I'm suggesting is completely legal.

It is most definitely a war and one thats been ongoing since 1948. Not just because of the Arab League declaration but as specified in the Geneva Conventions as well as the ICRC.

Lets review.

From the ICRC

Quote

International humanitarian law distinguishes two types of armed conflicts, namely:

• international armed conflicts, opposing two or more States, and
• non-international armed conflicts, between governmental forces and non-governmental armed groups, or between such groups only. IHL treaty law also establishes a distinction between non-international armed conflicts in the meaning of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and non-international armed conflicts falling within the definition provided in Art. 1 of Additional Protocol II.

Legally speaking, no other type of armed conflict exists. It is nevertheless important to underline that a situation can evolve from one type of armed conflict to another, depending on the facts prevailing at a certain moment.

End Quote

and from common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions

Quote

Part I. Scope of this Protocol

Art 1. Material field of application

1. This Protocol, which develops and supplements Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 without modifying its existing conditions of application, shall apply to all armed conflicts which are not covered by Article 1 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) and which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.

End Quote

Your whole argument hinges upon it being a war and it's not; it's an occupation.

This was just last week...

UN chief redoubles criticism of Israel’s ‘stifling’ occupation​

He didn't say, "Israel's stifling war", he said, "stifling occupation".

And that is the position of the entire free world.

So if you want to refer to the GC and ICRC, it's the "Laws of Occupation", that apply.

as far as the UNs general assembly resolution about the embargo its nothing more than political grandstanding. No UN general assembly resolutions are binding except for those dealing with house rules and administration. Ergo whatever resolution you might be referring to is nothing more than a suggestion.

I don't even have to go to the UN general assembly, I'll use your source, the GC...

Hague Regulations (1899)
Article 50 of the 1899 Hague Regulations provides: “No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, can be inflicted on the population on account of the acts of individuals for which it cannot be regarded as collectively responsible.”

Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 29 July 1899, Article 50.

Hague Regulations (1907)
Article 50 of the 1907 Hague Regulations provides: “No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.”

Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907, Article 50.

Geneva POW Convention
Article 46, fourth paragraph, of the 1929 Geneva POW Convention provides: “Collective penalties for individual acts are also prohibited.”
Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 27 July 1929, Article 46, fourth para.

Geneva Convention III
Article 26, sixth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention III states: “Collective disciplinary measures affecting food are prohibited.”
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 26, sixth para.

Article 87, third paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention III provides that “[c]ollective punishment for individual acts” is forbidden.

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 87, third para.

Geneva Convention IV
Article 33, first paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “Collective penalties … are prohibited.”

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 33, first para.

Additional Protocol I
Article 75(2)(d) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents: … collective punishments”.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Articles 75(2)(d). Article 75 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.43, 27 May 1977, p. 250.

Additional Protocol II
Article 4(2)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides: “The following acts against the persons referred to in paragraph I are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever: … collective punishments”.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 4(2)(b). Article 4 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.50, 3 June 1977, p. 90.

Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone

​

Article 3 of the 2002 Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone provides:

The Special Court shall have the power to prosecute persons who committed or ordered the commission of serious violations of article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the Protection of War Victims, and of Additional Protocol II thereto of 8 June 1977. These violations shall include:
…
(b) Collective punishments.
Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, annexed to the 2002 Agreement on the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Freetown, 16 January 2002, annexed to Letter dated 6 March 2002 from the UN Secretary-General to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/2002/246, 8 March 2002, p. 29, Article 3(b).​

Kampala Convention
The 2009 Kampala Convention lists prohibited categories of arbitrary displacement, including “displacement used as a collective punishment”.
African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa, adopted in Kampala, Uganda, 23 October 2009, Article 4(4)(g).​

So, the blockade is collective punishment, much like your posts are.

Oh thats a hoot

The UN says so eh. LMAO

Well guess what, the UNs own panel found the embargo legal.

See

report

So that dimwit Moon can grand stand till he's blue in the face, he's just howling at the moon trying to placate the Arab held UN after his own panel finds that he's been wrong all along and the embargo is perfectly legal.

And its disputed territories not occupied

Levy Report

End Quote

Just think of how fast this could be over if Israel decided to cut off all aid and force the woman and children to come out to the determination centers ( the UN calls them refugee registration centers but I propose we actually follow UN protocol at these "registration centers" and segregate civilians and legitimate refugees from combatants ) Let the ones who don't want to come out and register rot for all I care. Once they've skinnied up a little let the drubbing begin.

Its the humane thing to do. End it fast and save countless lives by using passive means to force them out. Take a page from Egypts book and flood all the tunnels in Gaza by simply digging a trench or two right smack through the middle of the place and letting the waters of the Mediterranean work its magic.

There's countless passive methods that would put these barbarians in their place so fast it would make your head spin.

Work one enclave at a time, rinse and repeat as necessary.

FINISH THE WAR. and move on.

 

[Challenger]

Who cares how screwed up the country is, its not our problem.

You're the one terrified of the "terrorist threat", not me. Screw up a country and it will come back to bite you sooner or later.

Currently Israelis traveling abroad get the following advice:

Israelis abroad are called upon to:

Be especially alert and aware of any unexpected phenomena.

Avoid visiting Arab, Islamic and other countries subject to travel warnings, including the Sinai Peninsula, Columbia, the Kashmir region in India, the island Mindanao in the Philippines, The Chechen Republic, Northern Nigeria, Southern Thailand, Kenya's coastal region.

Reject any enticing or unexpected offer to accept unexpected gifts or free offers from suspect or unknown sources.

Avoid entering hotel rooms or apartments of suspect or unexpected visitors.

Avoid routine during prolonged stays abroad. Change hotels from time to time, vary itineraries, etc.

The Terrorism Bureau also asks Israelis visiting or staying in the Philippines, Turkey, Thailand and Uzbekistan to practice extra caution from potential terrorist threats, even though it does not publish any specific warnings concerning these countries.

Updated Travel Warnings for Israeli Citizens

That list of countries will only get longer the more you scatter the Palestinians around the world. "world class militaries" are only "world class" in conventional wars. The US trashed Iraq and Afghanistans regular forces but lost in subsequent guerilla operations; seems no lessons have been learned since Vietnam.

If the Zionist unleash the full force of their military, all the Palestinian resistance have to do is to hide their weapons and blend in with the rest of the population and "surrender" while biding their time. It's called fighting the "war of the flea", you should look it up.

 

[Boston1]

Terrified, LOL nice try. You are but a flea on the ass of life. I'm just suggesting we swat the flea.

 

[Challenger]

Terrified, LOL nice try. You are but a flea on the ass of life. I'm just suggesting we swat the flea.

Good luck trying.

 

[Roudy]

Israel has consistently tried to play the nice guy in the middle east conflict.

But what if the Israeli's accepted the war for what it is, acted within the Geneva Conventions and completed the war process. The most humane solution is to end the conflict ASAP, Clearly negotiating with the terrorist isn't working so obviously the fastest way to peace is to finish the war.

Anyone who is in any way familiar with the Geneva conventions and the UN charter would realize that Israel is well within its rights to defend itself. Since the Arab League declared war in 1948 a condition of war has existed. So why not follow it to its natural conclusion. Victory.

Why not take the pali terrorist enclaves one at a time and utterly defeat them. Start small, one of the smaller enclaves where terrorist activity exists. The security walls are perfect for isolating each enclave and from there all aid distribution in terms of food and medicine should be distributed just outside the security area in determination centers where combatants, those who assist combatants and those suspected of being or aiding combatants can be detained as POWs. The rest can be remanded to detention centers not unlike the centers the US set up for the Japanese in WW2. Any of them that refuse to come out to receive their aid can rot. Embargo all entry into the given area, no goods of any kind. Lay siege to enclaves one at a time until complete capitulation is achieved.

Anyone designated a POW according to the Geneva conventions should be repatriated to a neutral third country exactly as specified within the conventions.

Anyone designated a civilian or a refugee can be legally removed from the war zones until such time as its safe to return them.

Rinse and repeat

Once all pali enclaves have been swept for persons having forfeited their protected status, then the rest should be offered the opportunity for unconditional surrender. Should they refuse I'm pretty sure they can be held under military law by the controlling military power or repatriated to a neutral third country.

Regardless its time for the Israeli's to stop ***** footing around and end the war.

A negotiated solution has clearly failed. Which leaves us continuing the war to its logical conclusion. Unconditional surrender

Palestinians consistently call for peace based on international law.

Israel absolutely rejects that proposal.

That doesn't match your post.

They must be wrong because according to your own postings EVERYONE hates Israel and yet not ONE nation is acting upon this supposed international law.

The People and government lackeys are two different groups of people.

Are you calling the vast majority of American public that stands shoulder to shoulder with Israel "govt. lackeys"? Maybe you're the lackey, have you thought of that?

Sure Israel has a lot of popular support, but that is changing now that the truth is getting out.

Yes, Israel's popular support is changing, it's increasing, now that the truth is getting out.

 

[Roudy]

Palestinians consistently call for peace based on international law.

Israel absolutely rejects that proposal.

That doesn't match your post.

They must be wrong because according to your own postings EVERYONE hates Israel and yet not ONE nation is acting upon this supposed international law.

The People and government lackeys are two different groups of people.

Are you calling the vast majority of American public that stands shoulder to shoulder with Israel "govt. lackeys"? Maybe you're the lackey, have you thought of that?

Sure Israel has a lot of popular support, but that is changing now that the truth is getting out.

I've been hearing that statement for at least 10 years now.

Try 60 years. LOL

 

[Roudy]

yada yada yada. The UN has ruled the blockade to be legal. Deal with it.

Still trying to push that debunked Palmer report, I see.

Debunked, only in your fantasies. For months we heard how the UN was going to rule the blockade illegal and Israel would be somehow "forced" to remove it. In the end all that donkey braying didn't didn't materialize, did it? Ha ha ha.

 

[Roudy]

Israel has consistently tried to play the nice guy in the middle east conflict.

But what if the Israeli's accepted the war for what it is, acted within the Geneva Conventions and completed the war process. The most humane solution is to end the conflict ASAP, Clearly negotiating with the terrorist isn't working so obviously the fastest way to peace is to finish the war.

Anyone who is in any way familiar with the Geneva conventions and the UN charter would realize that Israel is well within its rights to defend itself. Since the Arab League declared war in 1948 a condition of war has existed. So why not follow it to its natural conclusion. Victory.

Why not take the pali terrorist enclaves one at a time and utterly defeat them. Start small, one of the smaller enclaves where terrorist activity exists. The security walls are perfect for isolating each enclave and from there all aid distribution in terms of food and medicine should be distributed just outside the security area in determination centers where combatants, those who assist combatants and those suspected of being or aiding combatants can be detained as POWs. The rest can be remanded to detention centers not unlike the centers the US set up for the Japanese in WW2. Any of them that refuse to come out to receive their aid can rot. Embargo all entry into the given area, no goods of any kind. Lay siege to enclaves one at a time until complete capitulation is achieved.

Anyone designated a POW according to the Geneva conventions should be repatriated to a neutral third country exactly as specified within the conventions.

Anyone designated a civilian or a refugee can be legally removed from the war zones until such time as its safe to return them.

Rinse and repeat

Once all pali enclaves have been swept for persons having forfeited their protected status, then the rest should be offered the opportunity for unconditional surrender. Should they refuse I'm pretty sure they can be held under military law by the controlling military power or repatriated to a neutral third country.

Regardless its time for the Israeli's to stop ***** footing around and end the war.

A negotiated solution has clearly failed. Which leaves us continuing the war to its logical conclusion. Unconditional surrender

Palestinians consistently call for peace based on international law.

Israel absolutely rejects that proposal.

That doesn't match your post.

They must be wrong because according to your own postings EVERYONE hates Israel and yet not ONE nation is acting upon this supposed international law.

The People and government lackeys are two different groups of people.

Are you calling the vast majority of American public that stands shoulder to shoulder with Israel "govt. lackeys"? Maybe you're the lackey, have you thought of that?

Majority, yes, but hardly vast.

Opinions of Islamo-terrorist supporting lackeys don't count.

 

[Humanity]

Terrified, LOL nice try. You are but a flea on the ass of life. I'm just suggesting we swat the flea.

Good luck trying.

Good luck indeed...

I pity those who call for the genocide of people and are arrogant and uneducated enough to believe that a country committing such atrocities will be "Ok"...

I guess that's the brainwashing of the American foreign policies...

Those foreign policies that carry out terrorist attacks in countries based upon lies, doing half a job, abandoning the people and getting the hell out when it starts looking a bit too hot!

The "war of the flea" is belittled by unintelligent arrogance!

Putting that aside... There are plenty of countries that would stop Israel from any form of genocide against the Palestinians!

 

[montelatici]

Palestinians consistently call for peace based on international law.

Israel absolutely rejects that proposal.

That doesn't match your post.

They must be wrong because according to your own postings EVERYONE hates Israel and yet not ONE nation is acting upon this supposed international law.

The People and government lackeys are two different groups of people.

Are you calling the vast majority of American public that stands shoulder to shoulder with Israel "govt. lackeys"? Maybe you're the lackey, have you thought of that?

Majority, yes, but hardly vast.

Opinions of Islamo-terrorist supporting lackeys don't count.

You support Israeli state terrorism and child murder.

 

[Roudy]

They must be wrong because according to your own postings EVERYONE hates Israel and yet not ONE nation is acting upon this supposed international law.

The People and government lackeys are two different groups of people.

Are you calling the vast majority of American public that stands shoulder to shoulder with Israel "govt. lackeys"? Maybe you're the lackey, have you thought of that?

Majority, yes, but hardly vast.

Opinions of Islamo-terrorist supporting lackeys don't count.

You support Israeli state terrorism and child murder.

Keep up, the child killers and terrorists are the Muslims.

I am a proud supporter of the state of Israel and its right to exist and defend itself against genocidal Arab Muslim savages. So are overwhelming majority of hundreds of millions of Americans. What do you want to do about it other than whine like a Nazi boy having a hissyfit?

 

[RoccoR]

Boston1, et al,

I wouldn't waste any time on Billo_Really's commentary. He really doesn't understand the application of how they all come together. I especially like the inference he draws on "War - vs - Occupation."

From a International Law standpoint, the word "war" is a layman's term. There is no universally accepted definition of war, one proposed definition contains the following four elements:

(a) a contention;
(b) between at least two nation-states;
(c) wherein armed force is employed;
(d) with an intent to overwhelm.
​

After the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the Law of Armed Conflict can now be triggered by the existence of “armed conflict” between States. The Law of Armed Conflict is often referred to as the Law of War (LOW) or by the title you see very often: International Humanitarian Law (IHL). What is often misunderstood is that the purposes for the Law of Armed Conflict are to:

(1) integrate humanity into war, and
(2) serve as a tactical combat multiplier.
​

Let me impress this point one more time. The objectives of the law of armed conflict.

The purposes of the law of armed conflict are to:

(1) integrate humanity into war, and
(2) serve as a tactical combat multiplier.
​

The validity of the law of armed conflict is best explained in terms of both objectives. There are only two kinds of "armed Conflict."

International armed conflict (IAC)

The generally accepted criteria for the existence of an IAC are derived from Common Article 2 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which provides that: The present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
​

Non-international armed conflict (NIAC)

Treaty law, together with the ad hoc tribunals’ rich body of jurisprudence, provides detailed guidance as to when a situation of violence amounts to a NIAC and thus triggers the application of Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). Two instruments apply to NIAC: Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (CA3) and the 1977 Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions (APII). Of these, it is the latter that sets forth far more detailed rules, despite its narrower scope of application. As with IAC, there is no codified definition of NIAC, although treaty law does inform us as to what type of violence is not governed by LOAC.
​

"Wars" are very strange things. They can involve "state actors" and "non-state actors." But the basics and fundamentals in the evaluation of any Armed Conflict ("war") are: ••• These are most important. •••

• The gravity of attacks and their recurrence;
• The temporal and territorial expansion of violence and the collective character of hostilities;
• Whether various parties were able to operate from a territory under their control;
• An increase in the number of government forces;
• The mobilization of volunteers and the distribution and type of weapons among both parties to the conflict;
• The displacement of a large number of people owing to the conflict;
• Whether the conflict is subject to any relevant scrutiny or action by the UN Security Council.
​

Billo_Reilly's draws an incorrect inference when he states: "Your whole argument hinges upon it being a war and it's not; it's an occupation." Occupation is an outcome of conflict along the timeline. The terms "Armed Conflict" and "Occupation" recognize a change in conditions; NOT a change in law, merely applicability.

In any event, the overall legal framework remains unchanged. Billyo-Reilly's commentary is completely irrelevant.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rhodescholar]

Israel has consistently tried to play the nice guy in the middle east conflict.

But what if the Israeli's accepted the war for what it is, acted within the Geneva Conventions and completed the war process. The most humane solution is to end the conflict ASAP, Clearly negotiating with the terrorist isn't working so obviously the fastest way to peace is to finish the war.

Anyone who is in any way familiar with the Geneva conventions and the UN charter would realize that Israel is well within its rights to defend itself. Since the Arab League declared war in 1948 a condition of war has existed. So why not follow it to its natural conclusion. Victory.

Why not take the pali terrorist enclaves one at a time and utterly defeat them. Start small, one of the smaller enclaves where terrorist activity exists. The security walls are perfect for isolating each enclave and from there all aid distribution in terms of food and medicine should be distributed just outside the security area in determination centers where combatants, those who assist combatants and those suspected of being or aiding combatants can be detained as POWs. The rest can be remanded to detention centers not unlike the centers the US set up for the Japanese in WW2. Any of them that refuse to come out to receive their aid can rot. Embargo all entry into the given area, no goods of any kind. Lay siege to enclaves one at a time until complete capitulation is achieved.

Anyone designated a POW according to the Geneva conventions should be repatriated to a neutral third country exactly as specified within the conventions.

Anyone designated a civilian or a refugee can be legally removed from the war zones until such time as its safe to return them.

Rinse and repeat

Once all pali enclaves have been swept for persons having forfeited their protected status, then the rest should be offered the opportunity for unconditional surrender. Should they refuse I'm pretty sure they can be held under military law by the controlling military power or repatriated to a neutral third country.

Regardless its time for the Israeli's to stop ***** footing around and end the war.

A negotiated solution has clearly failed. Which leaves us continuing the war to its logical conclusion. Unconditional surrender

There are 2 reasons peace in the mideast is impossible:

1-the supremist death cult of islam, which sees itself as superior to all other belief systems, and according to arab muslims, cannot be altered as it is the "word of god"

2-the intolerance and racism of arab muslims, who have spent the past 14 centuries slaughtering and ethnically cleansing non-muslims out of the mideast

As long as the arab muslims adhere to the death cult known as "islam," and refuse to accept the soveriegnty of other people, peace is simply impossible with arab muslims.

 

[rhodescholar]

Has it? Never noticed. "What if Israel Quite Trying to Play the Nice Guy" Quit? When did it start?

When the arab muslims slaughtered all of the jews in Hebron in 1929, was that because of the so-called "occupation"?

How about the mass murders of jews by arab muslims in prior centuries?

 

[rhodescholar]

I see so ethnically cleansing 80% of the Muslim population is being "nice". Come back, Slobodan Milosevic we misjudged you...

Most of the arab muslims are hostile to Israel and support murders of israeli citizens and terrorism. How come you never complain about that, asshole?

As for Milosevic, he was merely protecting Serbia from muslim encroachment and attacks. But then, according to assholes like you, muslims are allowed to invade and attack others, but when those others defend themselves and fight back - then it becomes a problem. You're a ******* idiot.

 

[montelatici]

Has it? Never noticed. "What if Israel Quite Trying to Play the Nice Guy" Quit? When did it start?

When the arab muslims slaughtered all of the jews in Hebron in 1929, was that because of the so-called "occupation"?

How about the mass murders of jews by arab muslims in prior centuries?

The Jews attacked at Hebron were European Jews that the Arabs feared would eventually occupy and colonize their land. They were right. The Arabs offered the local Arab Jews immunity if they did not interfere.