Who are the Israelis?

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are the Israelis?
SUBTOPIC: Trying to Destroy the Palestinian People
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Was name calling your major at university?

(COMMENT)
.
Your claim of "Name Calling" (AKA: “Ad Hominem”) is a claim, by YOU, that I presented made irrelevant attempts to undermine the content of my presentation by suggesting there is something wrong with me (as you put it, the "name caller").

I gather, from your fallacious charge against me, that you object to my description of the Arab Palestinian; that they are NOT:

​

◈ Jihadist = Muslim who advocates or participates in a jihad (a crusade for a principle or belief).​

​

◈ Insurgent = A rebellious population that wants to be recognized as belligerents for what they consider to be a legal just cause.​

​

◈ Anti-Israel = An advocate for hostility toward Israel or Israelis.​

​

◈ Hostile Arab Palestines = Arab Palestinians that are engaged in activities against the Israelis.​

​

◈ Rogue Citizens = Independent citizens engaged in the hostile conflict without direct governmental support.​

​

◈ Asymmetric Combatants = Conflict participants wherein the belligerents with significant differences in combat power and have adopted asymmetric strategies to compensate.​

This is not "name-calling." They are legitimate terms used to describe Arab Palestinians that violate International Humanitarian Law (Article 68 GCIV). They oppose the right of any country to maintain border security. They follow a path of incitement to violence (Article 20 CCPR). The Arab Palestinians want their followers to believe that Article 22 - General Principles of Criminal Law - should be suspended in their case so that they can alter and apply new definitions and interpretations to the Rome Statutes (like "Apartheid").

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are the Israelis?
SUBTOPIC: Trying to Destroy the Palestinian People
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,


(COMMENT)
.
Your claim of "Name Calling" (AKA: “Ad Hominem”) is a claim, by YOU, that I presented made irrelevant attempts to undermine the content of my presentation by suggesting there is something wrong with me (as you put it, the "name caller").

I gather, from your fallacious charge against me, that you object to my description of the Arab Palestinian; that they are NOT:

​

◈ Jihadist = Muslim who advocates or participates in a jihad (a crusade for a principle or belief).​

​

◈ Insurgent = A rebellious population that wants to be recognized as belligerents for what they consider to be a legal just cause.​

​

◈ Anti-Israel = An advocate for hostility toward Israel or Israelis.​

​

◈ Hostile Arab Palestines = Arab Palestinians that are engaged in activities against the Israelis.​

​

◈ Rogue Citizens = Independent citizens engaged in the hostile conflict without direct governmental support.​

​

◈ Asymmetric Combatants = Conflict participants wherein the belligerents with significant differences in combat power and have adopted asymmetric strategies to compensate.​

This is not "name-calling." They are legitimate terms used to describe Arab Palestinians that violate International Humanitarian Law (Article 68 GCIV). They oppose the right of any country to maintain border security. They follow a path of incitement to violence (Article 20 CCPR). The Arab Palestinians want their followers to believe that Article 22 - General Principles of Criminal Law - should be suspended in their case so that they can alter and apply new definitions and interpretations to the Rome Statutes (like "Apartheid").

Most Respectfully,
R

Clearly, the purpose of your rant is to portray the Palestinian's legal right to self defence as illegitimate.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are the Israelis?
SUBTOPIC: Opposing View
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

INITIAL THOUGHT: I do not think of this as a RANT. I do NOT think my commentaries are lengthy wild, impassioned, or unsupported. I think that your retort is your reaction directed against me → as opposed to the evaluation of the content of my reply.

Clearly, the purpose of your rant is to portray the Palestinian's legal right to self defence as illegitimate.

(COMMENT)

It has been just short of a half-century since the Israelis have been involved in any International Armed Conflict in the territory of the West Bank and south to the Egyptian Frontier → or east of the Jordan River.

IF the Arab Palestinians of the territory in dispute (territory of the West Bank and south to the Egyptian Frontier, or east of the Jordan River) commit an offense that is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power → THEN the Arab Palestinian perpetrators shall be liable to internment or imprisonment, as prosecuted under the Customary and International Humanitarian Law since 1949.

Common Article 2 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 states that:​

​

"In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, 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".​

​

According to this provision, IACs are those which oppose "High Contracting Parties", meaning States. An IAC occurs when one or more States have recourse to armed force against another State, regardless of the reasons or the intensity of this confrontation. Relevant rules of IHL may be applicable even in the absence of open hostilities.​

​

"Apart from regular, inter-state armed conflicts, Additional Protocol I extends the definition of IAC to include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regimes in the exercise of their right to self-determination (wars of national liberation)."

It is perfectly clear that the Arab Palestinians have a "Right to Self-Defense." No one denies that. However, the Arab Palestinians can NOT hide under the cover of self-defense if:

◈ If the reason dates back months, years, and decades ago. The Right of Self-Defense takes place immediately following the act of aggression.​

​

◈ The Arab Palestinians can NOT claim the "Right of Self-Defense if the Arab Palestinians are NOT defending their territory. The Arab Palestinians must be defending a territory in which prior to the conflict, the Arab Palestinians had sovereignty. Nor does Article 51 of the UN Charter Apply.​

​

◈ There is no such crime in any International Law or binding agreement. Only Article 43 of the Hague Conventiion (1907) defines an occupation. The Arab Palestinians can NOT use this "Illegal Occupation" claim as cover for Jihadists, insurgents, asymmetric, or other hostile activities.​

BTW: This is not a rant. Like my previous posting:

---

​

Validity and Soundness​

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.​

​

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.​

---

Source Notes:

•. Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, art. 5, para. 2(g).• "It is irrelevant to the •​

•. It is irrelevant to the validity of international humanitarian law whether the States and Governments involved in the conflict recognize each other as States": Joint Services Regulations (ZDv) 15/2, in: D. Fleck, The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995, p. 45.​

• J. Pictet, Commentary on the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, ICRC, Geneva, 1952, p. 32.​

• Additional Protocol I, art. 1, para. 4: "armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations".​

Central Source Being: ICRC Opinion paper, March 2008

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is no such crime in any International Law or binding agreement. Only Article 43 of the Hague Conventiion (1907) defines an occupation. The Arab Palestinians can NOT use this "Illegal Occupation" claim as cover for Jihadists, insurgents, asymmetric, or other hostile activities.

This can be confusing. In war there is the invasion phase. At the end of the hostilities it moves into the occupation phase. This is more like a civil administration. Local laws and courts are used but under the control of the foreign country. There are obligations and restrictions on the foreign power. Israel violates all of those hence the illegal designation.

I say that Israel is still in the invasion stage. This is covered by a different set of rules.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This can be confusing. In war there is the invasion phase.

Who got invaded?

 

[rylah]

Clearly, the purpose of your rant is to portray the Palestinian's legal right to self defence as illegitimate.

Clearly, if you project intent but can't refute the facts,
then it's you who agrees, that what you imply is
both illegal and illegitimate.

 

[rylah]

This can be confusing. In war there is the invasion phase. At the end of the hostilities it moves into the occupation phase. This is more like a civil administration. Local laws and courts are used but under the control of the foreign country. There are obligations and restrictions on the foreign power. Israel violates all of those hence the illegal designation.

I say that Israel is still in the invasion stage. This is covered by a different set of rules.

But you miss the point,
that it is an act of Israeli sovereign decision,
when and how to designate land on both sides of the river.

There's a different set of rules for Israel against Arab imperialism?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are the Israelis?
SUBTOPIC: Opposing View
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

INITIAL THOUGHT: I do not think of this as a RANT. I do NOT think my commentaries are lengthy wild, impassioned, or unsupported. I think that your retort is your reaction directed against me → as opposed to the evaluation of the content of my reply.


(COMMENT)

It has been just short of a half-century since the Israelis have been involved in any International Armed Conflict in the territory of the West Bank and south to the Egyptian Frontier → or east of the Jordan River.

IF the Arab Palestinians of the territory in dispute (territory of the West Bank and south to the Egyptian Frontier, or east of the Jordan River) commit an offense that is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power → THEN the Arab Palestinian perpetrators shall be liable to internment or imprisonment, as prosecuted under the Customary and International Humanitarian Law since 1949.

Common Article 2 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 states that:​

​

"In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, 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".​

​

According to this provision, IACs are those which oppose "High Contracting Parties", meaning States. An IAC occurs when one or more States have recourse to armed force against another State, regardless of the reasons or the intensity of this confrontation. Relevant rules of IHL may be applicable even in the absence of open hostilities.​

​

"Apart from regular, inter-state armed conflicts, Additional Protocol I extends the definition of IAC to include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regimes in the exercise of their right to self-determination (wars of national liberation)."

It is perfectly clear that the Arab Palestinians have a "Right to Self-Defense." No one denies that. However, the Arab Palestinians can NOT hide under the cover of self-defense if:

◈ If the reason dates back months, years, and decades ago. The Right of Self-Defense takes place immediately following the act of aggression.​

​

◈ The Arab Palestinians can NOT claim the "Right of Self-Defense if the Arab Palestinians are NOT defending their territory. The Arab Palestinians must be defending a territory in which prior to the conflict, the Arab Palestinians had sovereignty. Nor does Article 51 of the UN Charter Apply.​

​

◈ There is no such crime in any International Law or binding agreement. Only Article 43 of the Hague Conventiion (1907) defines an occupation. The Arab Palestinians can NOT use this "Illegal Occupation" claim as cover for Jihadists, insurgents, asymmetric, or other hostile activities.​

BTW: This is not a rant. Like my previous posting:

---

​

---

Source Notes:

•. Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, art. 5, para. 2(g).• "It is irrelevant to the •​

•. It is irrelevant to the validity of international humanitarian law whether the States and Governments involved in the conflict recognize each other as States": Joint Services Regulations (ZDv) 15/2, in: D. Fleck, The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995, p. 45.​

• J. Pictet, Commentary on the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, ICRC, Geneva, 1952, p. 32.​

• Additional Protocol I, art. 1, para. 4: "armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations".​

Central Source Being: ICRC Opinion paper, March 2008

Most Respectfully,
R

It is irrelevant to the validity of international humanitarian law whether the States and Governments involved in the conflict recognize each other as States"

Additional Protocol I, art. 1, para. 4: "armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination,

 

[P F Tinmore]

But you miss the point,
that it is an act of Israeli sovereign decision,
when and how to designate land on both sides of the river.

There's a different set of rules for Israel against Arab imperialism?

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

 

[rylah]

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

Do you acquire sovereignty without occupation?
In other words, you've just defeated the
Arab claim to any sovereignty...

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[rylah]

Jerusalem Day - Modern Revival in Perspective



How it was under Muslim rule -

How it looked in 1967 -

How it is today -

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[rylah]

Reminder: Thousands of stones during the Sukkot Priestly Blessing, no casualties | Jerusalem Day in Perspective




Today - Chief City and Yeshivah Rabbis,
call to support the Temple Mount Yeshivah

 

[rylah]

Sovereignty Youth and Jerusalem Day in Tel Aviv

 

[rylah]

50,000 gather to pray for the Temple on Jerusalem Day |
Mk Ben-Gvit at the Temple Mount - 'Happy Jerusalem Day! I come here to say,
despite Hamas trying to threaten me, it's time to liberate the place from
all enemies of Israel'

 

[rylah]

Israeli Car With Toddler Inside Stolen, Found In Arab Village – The Yeshiva World

www.theyeshivaworld.com

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]