What percentage of Palestinians are terrorists?

[abi]

They remain human beings and as such are protected. And its appalling that you need to be quoted IHL in order to believe that it is not okay to kill people because they are Jews.

PFT never did that. What a grotesque, unsubstantiated charge, but that's what you do.

People should not have to be told that its illegal (not to mention abhorrent) to kill Jews.

They don't, but in your fantasy (see above).

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, ... shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

Israel never gets punished for this.

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

This is daily life for any Palestinians who require move around at the zionist checkpoints.

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Israel charges Palestinians in a military court with no real protections. It is one of the keys to understanding the apartheid system for what it is.

(b) taking of hostages;

Are the Palestinians not held hostage by zionists and have they not been held hostage now for decades?

 

[abi]

I can understand you’re hoping to legitimize the murder of Israeli citizens

I'm not, please.

If the shoe fits. Yes. If you believe that it is legally and morally permissible or desirable to stab civilians for political purposes -- you are a terrorist. If you call for that behaviour -- you are a terrorist. If you encourage that behaviour -- you are a terrorist. If you celebrate that behaviour -- you are a terrorist. If you accept payment on behalf of someone who commits that behaviour -- you are a terrorist. Shoe seems to fit like a glass slipper.

So, this applies to the zionists? The IDF themselves? The settlers and the violence they bring which is protected by the IDF?

ALL human beings who do not participate in the hostilities are civilians and protected by basic, rudimentary humanitarian law. Period. End of story. No exceptions.

But, you JUST SAID... oh, never mind.

The amount of hypocrisy you are capable of providing in a single post is off the charts.

 

[Shusha]

PFT never did that. What a grotesque, unsubstantiated charge, but that's what you do.

That is EXACTLY what he is arguing. He and I have had this discussion before. Be real clear. He is arguing that Jewish people who live where they are not supposed to -- and to him that means ALL of the territory from river to sea -- are not civilians and not protected persons and that therefore it is legally and morally permissible to kill them at any time.

Ask him. He'll even admit it. He already has on this thread. And on others.

 

[abi]

Please, please, little miss I-am-on-the-side-of-peace, tell me you do NOT think it is either legally or morally permissible to stab entire families to death while they sleep in their beds or sit down to Shabbat supper.

NO! Period, end of story.

But, if you want to talk in reality about families killed in their sleep, the Israelis have killed far more Palestinians as they slept, with bombing planes no less, than the Palestinians are even capable of.

 

[abi]

He is arguing that Jewish people who live where they are not supposed to

NO! That is in your fantasy. He argues that ANYBODY, not Jews. It just so happens in this case these illegal and openly hateful and violent settlers are Jewish. I am sure his argument would not change if they were Buddhist or any other religion.

 

[Shusha]

So, this applies to ....

It applies to everyone. No exceptions. Am I in any way unclear? Persons not taking part in the hostilities have the absolute right to life and other protections.

You AGREE then, that the Knife Intifada, like all other intifadas, is illegal and immoral, yes?

 

[jillian]

I have done some searching and I can not seem to come up with anything solid. I keep reading posts which indicate that all Palestinians are terrorists. While I'm quite sure that this can't be true, I would love to know how we are defining terrorists when it comes to the Palestinians and what percentage of the population meets that criteria.

Thanks for any help.

not all Palestinians are terrorists.

but the ones that voted for Hamas are terrorists supporters who installed a terrorist organization into power.

 

[jillian]

He is arguing that Jewish people who live where they are not supposed to

NO! That is in your fantasy. He argues that ANYBODY, not Jews. It just so happens in this case these illegal and openly hateful and violent settlers are Jewish. I am sure his argument would not change if they were Buddhist or any other religion.

maybe the pal terrorists supporters should sign a peace deal instead of stamping their feet and demanding that Israel make unilateral concessions.

frankly, when you don't think Israel should have riparian rights, I lack sympathy for their objections to settlers.

 

[abi]

It applies to everyone. No exceptions. Am I in any way unclear? Persons not taking part in the hostilities have the absolute right to life and other protections.

You AGREE then, that the Knife Intifada, like all other intifadas, is illegal and immoral, yes?

Yes, of course. But, if you want to talk in reality about families killed in their sleep, the Israelis have killed far more Palestinians as they slept, with bombing planes no less, than the Palestinians are even capable of.

You agree, yes?

 

[Shusha]

He is arguing that Jewish people who live where they are not supposed to

NO! That is in your fantasy. He argues that ANYBODY, not Jews. It just so happens in this case these illegal and openly hateful and violent settlers are Jewish. I am sure his argument would not change if they were Buddhist or any other religion.

He is arguing that it is legal and morally permissible to slit the throats of children in their sleep. As long as its the "right" children.

Seriously? You justify this?

 

[abi]

Seriously? You justify this?

No... read... at least prior to this typical feigning indignance you love. I was simply explaining his views are not because they are Jewish as you charged.

 

[Shusha]

It applies to everyone. No exceptions. Am I in any way unclear? Persons not taking part in the hostilities have the absolute right to life and other protections.

You AGREE then, that the Knife Intifada, like all other intifadas, is illegal and immoral, yes?

Yes, of course.

Thank you.

About 60% of Arab Palestinians (higher in Gaza and lower in the WB) disagree with you. They believe the intifadas are a viable moral way to achieve a political end. THAT IS TERRORISM.

And we agree that it is abhorrent and certainly illegal.


Now if you want to talk about modern warfare and the risks and responsibilities of each party to the conflict -- start a thread. I'll be there.

 

[Shusha]

Seriously? You justify this?

No... read... at least prior to this typical feigning indignance you love. I was simply explaining his views are not because they are Jewish as you charged.

Oddly enough, he never points out that it is permissible to murder Arab Christians whose families moved there in the past 100 years. Just the Jewish ones.

As a matter of fact, he has never suggested that we should check the id and family history of the people who are permitted to be murdered.

Out of curiosity, how, exactly, would an Arab with a knife know if those people sitting down for Shabbat have a family history going back hundreds of years or even thousands of years in Israel? Is this some secret Arab ability that I am unaware of?

 

[abi]

About 60% of Arab Palestinians (higher in Gaza and lower in the WB) disagree with you. They believe the intifadas are a viable moral way to achieve a political end. THAT IS TERRORISM.

And Israel bomb families as they sleep. THAT IS TERRORISM ON ACID.

And we agree that it is abhorrent and certainly illegal.

Of course, but I don't have drunk, uneducated settlers living next to me on my families land who routinely use hateful language at myself and my children and use violence as well. The fact that these settlers and their crimes are protected by the IDF makes this whole thing all the more difficult to understand.

 

[Shusha]

but I don't have drunk, uneducated settlers living next to me ...

Oh, well now. If they are drunk and uneducated, then I can see why it is legal to kill them. Why didn't you say so at the beginning of the conversation. I'm sure that is written somewhere in GCIV. You can't kill civilians -- unless they are drunk and uneducated.

 

[abi]

Oh, well now. If they are drunk and uneducated, then I can see why it is legal to kill them. Why didn't you say so at the beginning of the conversation. I'm sure that is written somewhere in GCIV. You can't kill civilians -- unless they are drunk and uneducated.

Nobody came close to saying that.

 

[Shusha]

Oh, well now. If they are drunk and uneducated, then I can see why it is legal to kill them. Why didn't you say so at the beginning of the conversation. I'm sure that is written somewhere in GCIV. You can't kill civilians -- unless they are drunk and uneducated.

Nobody came close to saying that.

Really? So what was the point of your last post? We already agreed that it was both illegal and immoral to kill innocent civilians, didn't we?

So why bring up all the qualifiers as though it makes a difference?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Pretty sure there is an international law against stabbing non-combatant civilians.

Indeed, but Israeli settlers are not considered protected persons (civilians) by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Bullshit.

True. Look it up.

Link?

Why do you post here when you know so little?

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - By topic​

/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument

Thanks!
​

(1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power). ​

​

Looks like that covers a situation like the nation of Germany invading the nation of France.​

What nation did Israel invade? When?​

​

​

​

 

[a loss for words]

while the actual attackers are relatively rare, there is something disgusting about the PA paying the families blood money for the assassins

 

[abi]

while the actual attackers are relatively rare, there is something disgusting about the PA paying the families blood money for the assassins

That is a zionist lie. Ask them what they have to prove that claim. Regardless of their claim, the zionists receive billions and billions, year-in, year-out, not only for mass murder, but for what Mandela himself called the worst apartheid he had ever seen. Disgusting indeed.