4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.Indiscriminate attacks are:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case,are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
This resolution was passed under Chapter 7, meaning that it has the force of international law.1. Condemns in the strongest terms all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation, whenever and by whomsoever committed, as one of the most serious threats to peace and security;
3. Recalls that criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, and all other acts which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature, and calls upon all States to prevent such acts and, if not prevented, to ensure that such acts are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.
The search for an agreed definition [of terrorism] usually stumbles on two issues. The first is the argument that any definition should include States’ use of armed forces against civilians. We believe that the legal and normative framework against State violations is far stronger than in the case of non-State actors and we do not find this objection to be compelling. The second objection is that peoples under foreign occupation have a right to resistance and a definition of terrorism should not override this right. The right to resistance is contested by some. But it is not the central point: the central point is that there is nothing in the fact of occupation that justifies the targeting and killing of civilians.
(COMMENT)EXCERPT From • said:That claim is made often by apologists for Palestinian terror. One prominent example is CJ Werleman's 2018 article titled "International law guarantees Palestinians the right to resist," which is entirely based on this claim:
---------The Fourth Geneva Convention, article 33 is unambiguous: "No protected person [i.e., civilian] may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited." There is no exception to this rule.The Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, article 51(2), is even more explicit: "The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited."SOURCE: Posting #21,145 by Sixties Fan
Thanks for the link.RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
SUBTOPIC: Tweets as a Propaganda Tool
⁜→ et al,
BLUF: Certain Social Networking and Media Outlets are notorious for being "half" wrong, but are great tools for spreading deceptive content, manipulated or altered information, and false commentary. As they say, highlighting a truth within a lie make the propaganda all the Moore effective.
Our friend "Sixties Fan" has found now here. in the TRTWorld Electronic Magazine Article by CJ Werleman's 2018 → Titled "International law guarantees Palestinians the right to resist,"
In this case, CJ Werleman starts off on the Topic of "Right to Resist" but his presentation neither cites international law, treaty or convention pertaining to the "Right of Self-Resist" for the "Right of Self-Defense." This is a writing style and technique used by many propagandists that twist the general media duty to perform a public service by informing and enlightening the public. (The Peter Parker principle → Stan Lee.). Most people are aware that Propagandist do not have a profound moral code or ethical standard towards the truth. And some writers and journalist are aware that publish content that incites discrimination, hostility or violence is prohibited, on the international level, by Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR). And these writers and journalist do the exact opposite effect of informing or enlightening the public in a responsible manner. There is a difference between than Arab Palestinian's "Right to Self-Defense" and the Arab Palestinian who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (the Israelis), an Arab Palestinian who commit an offense which is solely perform espionage, or serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power (Israel), or commit offences which have caused the death of people - no matter the race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status (any one at all). Arab Palestinians, no matter what cause they claim are subject to the prosecution under Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL). (See Article 68, Fourth Geneva Convention)
I would like to jump on the train and lend my support to the "Sixties Fan" and "Hollie" (as well as others) who have cited their objection to writers and journalist that disfigure the truth in favor of throwing rocks at Israel.
Thanks for the link.
In fact, international law is unambiguous in its endorsement of “armed struggle” for peoples who seek self-determination under “colonial and foreign domination.”
United Nations resolution 37/43, dated 3 December 1982, “reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle.”
Moreover, the resolution’s preamble makes clear that it refers not to a hypothetical in the abstract, but rather specifically to the rights of Palestinians, stating, “Considering that the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, sovereignty, independence and return to Palestine and the repeated acts of aggression by Israel against the peoples of the region constitute a serious threat to international peace and security.”
The preacher of Al-Aqsa Mosque, Sheikh Ikrima Sabri, warned today, Thursday, of an “existential danger” threatening the blessed mosque, as it wastransformed into a lawless intrusion arena for students of settlement schools, as part of their compulsory tours.
Sabri said that the occupation's transformation of the Al-Aqsa Mosque into a shrine for settlement schools is an attempt to promote the Jewish character of Jerusalem and end the Islamic landmarks in it.
He added that the occupation wants to make Jerusalem the capital of the Jews, and accordingly it completes its procedures with the purely Jewish characteristics to say that Jerusalem is Jewish.
He continued, "We've said before that Al-Aqsa Mosque is in danger, but today it is really facing dangers."
He considered the decision to include Al-Aqsa in the program of trips to the settlement schools as "a blatant interference in the affairs of the mosque, and an insult to its sanctity and its courtyards."
Sheikh Sabri stressed that Al-Aqsa Mosque is above being subject to the decisions of the Israeli Knesset or the occupation courts, as it is for Muslims alone and by a divine decision. "We categorically reject the Israeli decision regarding Al-Aqsa, and we hold the occupation government fully responsible for any damage to the blessed mosque," he added.
He cautioned about the seriousness of the decision, which violates Al-Aqsa courtyards, intensifies the presence of Jews inside it, and tightens the noose around Muslims, indicating that this step is in the interest of imposing Israeli sovereignty over the mosque.
Sheikh Sabri pointed out that "these extremist Jewish groups feel that the atmosphere is ripe for them to attack Al-Aqsa Mosque."
The preacher of Al-Aqsa Mosque called on the people of Palestine and Jerusalem to "intensify the pilgrimage to the blessed mosque, and to reconstruct it permanently, to repel any possibility that we might be surprised by the extremist Jews."