What if Israel Quite Trying to Play the Nice Guy

[Boston1]

This business of calling occupied and oppressed people hostile is so childish. Should they be anything but hostile, Rocco? After all, the native people did not invite the Europeans to invade and colonize the land they and their ancestors had lived on for millennia.

Grow up.

LOL your daft, even the simplest of explanations goes right over your head.

The guys some kinda international lawyer and you just can't even follow along let alone contribute to the conversation.

The deal is that Israel is the defending party and its the Arabs who are the Illegal aggressive belligerent combatants

Add that to these kinda radicals are impossible to negotiate with

The easiest solution and the fastest rout to freeing innocent children from the hands of terrorists is to simply win the war and move on.

 

[montelatici]

The Zionists came from Europe and invaded Palestine with the intent to colonize the area. That's just a fact. You have a case of cognitive dissonance.

You have a case of ignorance.
And they bought a LOT of that land which you know quite well.

No, they did not buy "a lot" of land, Jews owned less than 5% of the land at the time of partition, and even if they had owned "a lot" of land, it does not condone invasion, ethnic cleansing and colonization.

 

[montelatici]

This business of calling occupied and oppressed people hostile is so childish. Should they be anything but hostile, Rocco? After all, the native people did not invite the Europeans to invade and colonize the land they and their ancestors had lived on for millennia.

Grow up.

LOL your daft, even the simplest of explanations goes right over your head.

The guys some kinda international lawyer and you just can't even follow along let alone contribute to the conversation.

The deal is that Israel is the defending party and its the Arabs who are the Illegal aggressive belligerent combatants

Add that to these kinda radicals are impossible to negotiate with

The easiest solution and the fastest rout to freeing innocent children from the hands of terrorists is to simply win the war and move on.

How can an invader from another continent that evicts the local population to implement a colonial project be defending anything? Your logic is suspect.

 

[Indeependent]

The Zionists came from Europe and invaded Palestine with the intent to colonize the area. That's just a fact. You have a case of cognitive dissonance.

You have a case of ignorance.
And they bought a LOT of that land which you know quite well.

No, they did not buy "a lot" of land, Jews owned less than 5% of the land at the time of partition, and even if they had owned "a lot" of land, it does not condone invasion, ethnic cleansing and colonization.

OK; I'll play "I get my history from Muslim web-sites" and respond with a Muslim answer...
Death to the Infidels!!!!

The UNIVERSE is Muslim Holy Land and if you don't pay your Infidel Tax...Off with your head!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Well, actually --- to some of us, the correct terminology will have a significant being on the issue.

This business of calling occupied and oppressed people hostile is so childish. Should they be anything but hostile, Rocco? After all, the native people did not invite the Europeans to invade and colonize the land they and their ancestors had lived on for millennia.

Grow up.

(REFERENCE)

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

• 
  ARTICLE 5 [ Link ]
  
  Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
  Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
  In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
ARMED FORCES

• 
  Article 43 [ Link ] -- Armed forces
  
  1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, ' inter alia ', shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
  
  2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 [ Link ] of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.
  
  3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.
  

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
PROTECTION OF PERSONS WHO HAVE TAKEN PART IN HOSTILITIES

• 
  Article 45 [ Link ] -- Protection of persons who have taken part in hostilities
  
  1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore shall be protected by the Third Convention, if he claims the status of prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf by notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
  
  2. If a person who has fallen into the power of an adverse Party is not held as a prisoner of war and is to be tried by that Party for an offence arising out of the hostilities, he shall have the right to assert his entitlement to prisoner-of-war status before a judicial tribunal and to have that question adjudicated. Whenever possible under the applicable procedure, this adjudication shall occur before the trial for the offence. The representatives of the Protecting Power shall be entitled to attend the proceedings in which that question is adjudicated, unless, exceptionally, the proceedings are held ' in camera ' in the interest of State security. In such a case the detaining Power shall advise the Protecting Power accordingly.
  
  3. Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more favorable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 [ Link ] of this Protocol. In occupied territory, any such person, unless he is held as a spy, shall also be entitled, notwithstanding Article 5 [ Link ] of the Fourth Convention, to his rights of communication under that Convention.

(COMMENT)

I thought we went through this before; but we will do it again. There are Article 5 Hostile elements within the Arab Palestinian population. Not everyone is a Hostile. Most merely provide support to the Jihadist and Asymmetric components.

Then of course, there are the classic Article 4 Protected Persons.

In any event the tag "Hostile" in connection with an "Occupied Territory" means something specific.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Which just goes to show that one must let go of all the revisionist nonsense before the light of day can shine through.

Of course I support the embargo, it helps keep arms from the terrorists, and of course I'd support ending all aid other than in designation centers where terrorists can be segregated from civilians. You also might be curious to know that I'd declare a lot of the people erroneously on the UNWRA payrolls as refugees and employees, civilians.

Removing the UNWRA removes a lot of problems as the organization is designed to perpetuate the issues rather than resolve them. That nonsense about descendants for instance.

So really the embargo and its structures are perfectly positioned to facilitate my suggestion to end the war. Finish it. Couldn't be a more obvious solution to a decades long problem.

Which if you were to actually take the time to read the conventions included the segregation of POWs from civilians and refugees.

It's not a war and the UN has already ruled the blockade is collective punishment.

The problem is not the Pals, it's the Israeli occupation and blockade. There will be no peace until those end.

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

One thing is for sure, Ruddy is consistent. He is consistently wrong (or lying).

"UN agencies join in shared call for end to Israeli blockade of Gaza

“For over five years in Gaza, more than 1.6 million people have been under blockade in violation of international law. More than half of these people are children. We, the undersigned, say with one voice: ‘end the blockade now,’” the 50 organizations and agencies said in a joint statement.

The UN agencies involved in Thursday’s joint statement are the office of the Humanitarian Coordination/Resident Coordinator for the occupied Palestinian territory, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women), and the World Health Organization (WHO)."

UN News - UN agencies join in shared call for end to Israeli blockade of Gaza

Yeah, and you constantly hurl the same irrelvant off topic BS. Any other country that faced what Israel did with the 5000 rockets coming from a neighbor ruled by a Hamas, a terrorist organization, would have carpet bombed the place and freed the people from being ruled by Islamist animals, as the US did with Afghanistan.

As far as the legality of the blockade, you can remove your hoof from your mouth any time, Nazi boy:

UN independent panel rules Israel blockade of Gaza illegal

Are you holding Afghanistan up as a success in modern warfare?

 

[montelatici]

The records of the League of Nations are not hosted on a Muslim website. They are the facts, something you ideologues fail to accept. As you can see The Survey of Palestine, prepared by the Anglo-American survey team provides us with the exact amount of land owned by Jews which amounted to 1,514,247 dunums while the non-Jews owned 26,184.702 dunums. This data is in Vol. 2, page 556. All three volumes are available online at the Berman Jewish Policy Archive maintained by NYU and Wagner Universities. Vol. 2 can be accessed via this link:

A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Well, actually --- to some of us, the correct terminology will have a significant being on the issue.

This business of calling occupied and oppressed people hostile is so childish. Should they be anything but hostile, Rocco? After all, the native people did not invite the Europeans to invade and colonize the land they and their ancestors had lived on for millennia.

Grow up.

(REFERENCE)

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

• 
  ARTICLE 5 [ Link ]
  
  Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
  Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
  In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
ARMED FORCES

• 
  Article 43 [ Link ] -- Armed forces
  
  1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, ' inter alia ', shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
  
  2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 [ Link ] of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.
  
  3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
PROTECTION OF PERSONS WHO HAVE TAKEN PART IN HOSTILITIES

• 
  Article 45 [ Link ] -- Protection of persons who have taken part in hostilities
  
  1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore shall be protected by the Third Convention, if he claims the status of prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf by notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
  
  2. If a person who has fallen into the power of an adverse Party is not held as a prisoner of war and is to be tried by that Party for an offence arising out of the hostilities, he shall have the right to assert his entitlement to prisoner-of-war status before a judicial tribunal and to have that question adjudicated. Whenever possible under the applicable procedure, this adjudication shall occur before the trial for the offence. The representatives of the Protecting Power shall be entitled to attend the proceedings in which that question is adjudicated, unless, exceptionally, the proceedings are held ' in camera ' in the interest of State security. In such a case the detaining Power shall advise the Protecting Power accordingly.
  
  3. Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more favorable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 [ Link ] of this Protocol. In occupied territory, any such person, unless he is held as a spy, shall also be entitled, notwithstanding Article 5 [ Link ] of the Fourth Convention, to his rights of communication under that Convention.

(COMMENT)

I thought we went through this before; but we will do it again. There are Article 5 Hostile elements within the Arab Palestinian population. Not everyone is a Hostile. Most merely provide support to the Jihadist and Asymmetric components.

Then of course, there are the classic Article 4 Protected Persons.

In any event the tag "Hostile" in connection with an "Occupied Territory" means something specific.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then be consistent and use the term Belligerent Jewish Occupier (BJO) for the other side.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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 pussy 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?

Of course not. Most are just misinformed.

 

[Boston1]

This business of calling occupied and oppressed people hostile is so childish. Should they be anything but hostile, Rocco? After all, the native people did not invite the Europeans to invade and colonize the land they and their ancestors had lived on for millennia.

Grow up.

LOL your daft, even the simplest of explanations goes right over your head.

The guys some kinda international lawyer and you just can't even follow along let alone contribute to the conversation.

The deal is that Israel is the defending party and its the Arabs who are the Illegal aggressive belligerent combatants

Add that to these kinda radicals are impossible to negotiate with

The easiest solution and the fastest rout to freeing innocent children from the hands of terrorists is to simply win the war and move on.

How can an invader from another continent that evicts the local population to implement a colonial project be defending anything? Your logic is suspect.

Wow, you really just can't find the common decency to actually follow a subject can you.

we were talking about the option Israel has of simple squashing the pali's like the bugs they are. There is no reason for Israel to put up with all these barbaric acts of terrorism.

I say follow the war to its inevitable conclusion, unconditional surrender. Its the fastest way to secure the safety of all the innocents stuck in the middle

 

[Roudy]

montelatici, et al,

Well, actually --- to some of us, the correct terminology will have a significant being on the issue.

This business of calling occupied and oppressed people hostile is so childish. Should they be anything but hostile, Rocco? After all, the native people did not invite the Europeans to invade and colonize the land they and their ancestors had lived on for millennia.

Grow up.

(REFERENCE)

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

• 
  ARTICLE 5 [ Link ]
  
  Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
  Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
  In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
ARMED FORCES

• 
  Article 43 [ Link ] -- Armed forces
  
  1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, ' inter alia ', shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
  
  2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 [ Link ] of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.
  
  3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
PROTECTION OF PERSONS WHO HAVE TAKEN PART IN HOSTILITIES

• 
  Article 45 [ Link ] -- Protection of persons who have taken part in hostilities
  
  1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore shall be protected by the Third Convention, if he claims the status of prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf by notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
  
  2. If a person who has fallen into the power of an adverse Party is not held as a prisoner of war and is to be tried by that Party for an offence arising out of the hostilities, he shall have the right to assert his entitlement to prisoner-of-war status before a judicial tribunal and to have that question adjudicated. Whenever possible under the applicable procedure, this adjudication shall occur before the trial for the offence. The representatives of the Protecting Power shall be entitled to attend the proceedings in which that question is adjudicated, unless, exceptionally, the proceedings are held ' in camera ' in the interest of State security. In such a case the detaining Power shall advise the Protecting Power accordingly.
  
  3. Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more favorable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 [ Link ] of this Protocol. In occupied territory, any such person, unless he is held as a spy, shall also be entitled, notwithstanding Article 5 [ Link ] of the Fourth Convention, to his rights of communication under that Convention.

(COMMENT)

I thought we went through this before; but we will do it again. There are Article 5 Hostile elements within the Arab Palestinian population. Not everyone is a Hostile. Most merely provide support to the Jihadist and Asymmetric components.

Then of course, there are the classic Article 4 Protected Persons.

In any event the tag "Hostile" in connection with an "Occupied Territory" means something specific.

Most Respectfully,
R

You can lead a horse to water but you can never make it drink. Well, in this case it's a donkey....

 

[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 pussy 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?

Of course not. Most are just misinformed.

Over 200 million Americans are misinformed? Or perhaps they aren't buying your crap? I'll take option 2, Alec.

 

[montelatici]

Yes, they are very misinformed and have been brainwashed. But young Americans are now able to do their own research with the internet and are supporting the Palestinians. Things are turning around for the better. In ten years most Americans will blame Israel, as it should be.

"Young Americans take a dim view of Israel’s actions

Among 18 to 29-year olds, 29 percent blame Israel more for the current wave of violence, while 21 percent blame Hamas."

Young Americans take a dim view of Israel’s actions

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

What would you call a military attack on a civilian population?

 

[Roudy]

Yes, they are very misinformed and have been brainwashed. But young Americans are now able to do their own research with the internet and are supporting the Palestinians. Things are turning around for the better. In ten years most Americans will blame Israel, as it should be.

"Young Americans take a dim view of Israel’s actions

Among 18 to 29-year olds, 29 percent blame Israel more for the current wave of violence, while 21 percent blame Hamas."

Young Americans take a dim view of Israel’s actions

It's always like that. They grow up and realize that the Palestinian cause is bullshit. That's why Support for Israel has not diminished, but on the rise. Keep dreaming. LOL

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, this is an example of the Hostile Arab Palestinian NOT taking responsibility for their actions and spreading disinformation.

Was Palestine a member of the Arab League?

The Arab League invaded Palestine. They did not attack Israel.

Palestine was already under attack by foreign forces before the 1948 war and that attack continues. There were already over 300,000 Palestinian refugees before the 1948 war.

(COMMENT)

The Arab League and the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) were acting on behalf of the Palestinians which had no organizational structure of its own. The fact that the Palestinians never objected to the representation, is tacit approval. The Arab League representation lasted until the Seventh Arab Summit Resolution on Palestine, Rabat, Morocco, October 1974, when the League of Arab States (LAS) established an independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.

Now, it is not uncommon for the Arab Palestinian to argue or deny facts already a matter of record and already internationally accepted. So there will always be some radicalized hostile element, unable to achieve by peaceful means, some gratuitous aspect which they believe they have an absolute right to --- and which the world conspired to cheat them out of. The LAS and AHC had no authority to represent the Arab Palestinians, the Jewish People invade them, the Ottomans surrendered the land to them but the Allied Powers stole it or did not administer it to Arab Palestinian standards, etc, etc, etc.

Again, the Allied Power agreed to and the League of Nations adopted. There was no invasion of the territory to which the Mandate Applied, under British control. I

EXCERPT Mandate for Palestine
"shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land"
​

Most Respectfully,
R

And that is supposed to negate the Palestinians inalienable rights?

 

[montelatici]

Yes, they are very misinformed and have been brainwashed. But young Americans are now able to do their own research with the internet and are supporting the Palestinians. Things are turning around for the better. In ten years most Americans will blame Israel, as it should be.

"Young Americans take a dim view of Israel’s actions

Among 18 to 29-year olds, 29 percent blame Israel more for the current wave of violence, while 21 percent blame Hamas."

Young Americans take a dim view of Israel’s actions

It's always like that. They grow up and realize that the Palestinian cause is bullshit. That's why Support for Israel has not diminished, but on the rise. Keep dreaming. LOL

It amazes me how when presented with a validated fact with a source, in this case a Pew poll reported by the Washington Post, you deny it. That is the definition of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Roudy]

Phew poll? Yeah Phew would be right.

Israel enjoys record approval numbers, and it keeps going up. Get your head about of your Nazi anus.

Seven in 10 Americans Continue to View Israel Favorably

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What is the right?

And that is supposed to negate the Palestinians inalienable rights?

v/r
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Combatants in organized militias or armies are required by the Geneva Conventions to be aged 16 years and up.

Also aggressive acts of war are illegal.

From the convention for the definition of aggression

Quote

The convention defined an act of aggression as follows:

• Declaration of war upon another State.
• Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State.
• Attack by its land, naval or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another State.
• Naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another State.
• Provision of support to armed bands formed in its territory which have invaded the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded State, to take, in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.

End Quote

At which point i'd invite you to read the following

Quote

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court[edit]

Main article: Crime of aggression

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court lists the crime of aggression as one of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community, and provides that the crime falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, Article 5.2 of the Rome Statute states that "The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations."[23] The Assembly of States Parties of the ICC adopted such a definition at the 2010 Kampala Review Conference.[24][25]

End Quote

I'd next refer you to the the Arab League declaration of war against the soveriegn state of Israel.

See

Arab League declaration of the invasion of palestine 15 May 1948

So in fact that act of aggression by the 14 year old palestinian against the border guard or of the two 13 year old palestinians against the train guard is an illegal act of war against the sovereign state of Israel.

Israel on the other hand is in the legal position of the defending party.

Its also quite obvious since the declaration admits its an invasion that its the Arabs who are occupying Israeli territory and not the other way around.

See
Post 85 this thread

Thank you. That defines Israel's attacks on Palestine.