All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

[Billo_Really]

That is actually a huge shift in the actual law as it was written. And there are at least nine other places in the world which are actually under occupation (the West Bank and Gaza are not) where the demographics have been drastically changed. This law is only applied to Israel. Double standards.

Wrong. It's International Humanitarian Law (IHL). And it applies to every member state. If Israel doesn't like IHL, tough shit. The West Bank and Gaza have been under occupation for the last 50 years.

Called out on your disgusting denial of the universal human right to life, and you double down on it. Disgusting.

You're no one to be lecturing anyone on the right to life. What did you say about the medic who was murdered by an Israeli sniper? What were your comments about the IDF shooting at Palestinian fishermen?

As far as Israeli insurgents, I'm just quoting the law. If you don't like that law, I don't give a fuck!

 

[USAF 2023]

Yep. I get it. Your issue is with the Jewish people who formed a liberation movement and successfully reconstituted their sovereignty in their own homeland. You can't pretend that they are not Jews, try as you might.

Listen bitch, you don't tell me what my issue is, I tell you. And right now, that issue is the Israelis holding on to land they have no sovereign title to.

Listen, Prick, she has every right to tell you what your issue is. They left Gaza and offered almost all of the WestbBank; Territories that FORMALLY belonged to Egypt and Jordan who initiated the War

 

[Billo_Really]

After Palestinian terror groups in Gaza launched hundreds of rockets at Israeli civilians, killing one bystander, injuring scores, and traumatizing hundreds of thousands of other, CBS News broadcast that attacks were launched at the Israeli military.

Luckily, a watchdog group called the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America(CAMERA) caught it and forced CBS to make a correction.

One can’t help wonder why CBS News chose to air report on the attacks in this manner, when the facts were sitting right in front of them.

(full article and video online)

WATCH: CBS News Forced to Admit Truth About Gaza Rocket Attacks

What a bullshit story. If you don't want rockets, end the occupation.

 

[Billo_Really]

Listen, Prick, she has every right to tell you what your issue is.

No she doesn't. It's my issue, not hers. So I tell her. I also tell you.

They left Gaza and offered almost all of the WestbBank;

You can't offer what you don't have. And the West Bank is not Israeli land. Nor will it ever be Israeli land. For the world to allow Israel to keep the West Bank, that would be like saying it was okay for Hitler to annex Poland. And that ain't gonna happen. It's been 50 years and still, there isn't a single country on the planet that recognizes Israels right to that land.

Territories that FORMALLY belonged to Egypt and Jordan who initiated the War

That war started when Israel rolled tanks into Egypt.

 

[Hollie]

After Palestinian terror groups in Gaza launched hundreds of rockets at Israeli civilians, killing one bystander, injuring scores, and traumatizing hundreds of thousands of other, CBS News broadcast that attacks were launched at the Israeli military.

Luckily, a watchdog group called the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America(CAMERA) caught it and forced CBS to make a correction.

One can’t help wonder why CBS News chose to air report on the attacks in this manner, when the facts were sitting right in front of them.

(full article and video online)

WATCH: CBS News Forced to Admit Truth About Gaza Rocket Attacks

What a bullshit story. If you don't want rockets, end the occupation.

It won’t change a thing.

Historically, there was (is) a religious-based class system with Moslems at the apex, dhimmis (Jews and Christians) below, and the rest of humanity the least. It's really no different than the methodology used by Hitlerian Germany and fascist Italy in the 1930's.

I’ll take it that you never understood why the Hamas Charter makes references to the entirety of the geographic area of “Palestine” as an Islamist waqf. You should familiarize yourself with some facts.

I'll suggest a good book by A.S. Tritton entitled "The Caliphs and their Non-Muslim Subjects" This book discusses many of the consequences of such a discriminatory system of religious and social apartheid.

http://www.archive.org/stream/caliph...90mbp_djvu.txt


"...[C]aliphs destroyed churches to obtain materials for their buildings, and the mob was always ready to pillage churches and monasteries...dhimmis...always lived on sufferance, exposed to the caprices of the ruler and the passions of the mob...in later times..[t]hey were much more liable to suffer from the violence of the crowd, and the popular fanaticism was accompanied by an increasing strictness among the educated. The spiritual isolation of Islam was accomplished. The world was divided into two classes, Muslims and others, and only Islam counted...Indeed the general feeling was that the leavings of the Muslims were good enough for the dhimmis.}"

 

[Hollie]

Listen bitch, you don't tell me what my issue is, I tell you. And right now, that issue is the Israelis holding on to land they have no sovereign title to.

You chest-heaving, internet tough guys are funny.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

You have that exactly backward. Or as they say, 180º out of phase. You should have said:

IF you don't want "Occupation" THEN cease hostile action.​

(full article and video online)
WATCH: CBS News Forced to Admit Truth About Gaza Rocket Attacks

What a bullshit story. If you don't want rockets, end the occupation.

(COMMENT)

IF you consider the Gaza Strip to be "Occupied" by the Israelis, THEN it is incumbent upon the Hostile Arab Palestinians to Cease and Desists in the Hostile activity alla Posting #5919.

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

IF you consider that HAMAS accepted responsibility for the governance of the Gaza Strip in 2005 when the Israelis unilaterally withdrew, THEN it is the Arab Palestinians, and the government imparticular,

Who, after claiming to have --- and having exhibited their Full Powers and Sovereignty, refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, including Isreal.

In the final analysis, the Hostile Arab Palestinian must be such that it no longer poses a threat to the State of Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Wrong. It's International Humanitarian Law (IHL). And it applies to every member state. If Israel doesn't like IHL, tough shit.

You are trying to sell me on the idea that international humanitarian law allows the widespread killing of civilians if they are of the wrong ethnicity living in the wrong place, such as people of Moroccan ethnicity living in Western Sahara. Again you double down. Its not only disgusting, its the worst kind of willful ignorance imaginable.

No. International Humanitarian Law does not allow the killing of civilians. Period.

 

[Shusha]

You can't offer what you don't have. And the West Bank is not Israeli land. Nor will it ever be Israeli land. For the world to allow Israel to keep the West Bank, that would be like saying it was okay for Hitler to annex Poland. And that ain't gonna happen. It's been 50 years and still, there isn't a single country on the planet that recognizes Israels right to that land.

No. It is not like one State annexing another State's land. It is the formation of a NEW State -- the State of Palestine from territory which can only be territory belonging to the State of Israel or be terra nullius (land belonging to no one). That is the legal reality.

International law is not a popularity contest and States and their borders are not created by popular UN vote. Borders between States are created by treaty, and only by treaty, between the parties involved. Until there is a treaty delineating borders between Israel and Palestine, there is NO border. Therefore, you can't claim that any particular piece of land is "Arab Palestinian land". Yet.

Since, Israel, by treaty (!), has full control over Area C until the border dispute is settled, they are legally responsible, indeed obligated, to control that territory and ensure the safety of everyone in that territory. That territory is not occupied.

That said, I think Palestine should have territory and be a State. The sooner the better. But they can't seem to manage it. They can't stop the hostilities against Israel.

You keep saying that the violence will continue until the occupation ends. You are reversing cause and effect. The CAUSE of the occupation in Areas A and B and the blockade in Gaza is the NECESSITY of safety and security of Israeli citizens in the face of people like you who believe that its permissible to kill Israeli civilians with impunity. Israel is not going to withdraw its safety and and security measures until Israeli citizens are safe and secure.

 

[USAF 2023]

Listen, Prick, she has every right to tell you what your issue is.

No she doesn't. It's my issue, not hers. So I tell her. I also tell you.

They left Gaza and offered almost all of the WestbBank;

You can't offer what you don't have. And the West Bank is not Israeli land. Nor will it ever be Israeli land. For the world to allow Israel to keep the West Bank, that would be like saying it was okay for Hitler to annex Poland. And that ain't gonna happen. It's been 50 years and still, there isn't a single country on the planet that recognizes Israels right to that land.

Territories that FORMALLY belonged to Egypt and Jordan who initiated the War

That war started when Israel rolled tanks into Egypt.

Another Pro Pal lie. The War started when Egypt Blocked the Staits of Tiran with their Military massing at Israel’s border and the U.N PEACEKEEPERS left !!! Please tell us why

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Billo_Really, Shusha, et al,

OH! My friend "Billo_Really," our friend "Shusha" is absolutely correct... Absolutely...

Wrong. It's International Humanitarian Law (IHL). And it applies to every member state. If Israel doesn't like IHL, tough shit.

You are trying to sell me on the idea that international humanitarian law allows the widespread killing of civilians if they are of the wrong ethnicity living in the wrong place, such as people of Moroccan ethnicity living in Western Sahara. Again you double down. Its not only disgusting, its the worst kind of willful ignorance imaginable.

No. International Humanitarian Law does not allow the killing of civilians. Period.

(COMMENT)

There is absolutely no (Customary or International Humanitarian) law the supports the intentional targeting of civilians.

Article 51 [ Link ] -- Protection of the civilian population •
The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

​

I cannot hardly believe you would say such a thing.

​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Billo_Really, Shusha, et al,

OH! My friend "Billo_Really," our friend "Shusha" is absolutely correct... Absolutely...

Wrong. It's International Humanitarian Law (IHL). And it applies to every member state. If Israel doesn't like IHL, tough shit.

You are trying to sell me on the idea that international humanitarian law allows the widespread killing of civilians if they are of the wrong ethnicity living in the wrong place, such as people of Moroccan ethnicity living in Western Sahara. Again you double down. Its not only disgusting, its the worst kind of willful ignorance imaginable.

No. International Humanitarian Law does not allow the killing of civilians. Period.

(COMMENT)

There is absolutely no (Customary or International Humanitarian) law the supports the intentional targeting of civilians.

Article 51 [ Link ] -- Protection of the civilian population •
The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

​

I cannot hardly believe you would say such a thing.

​

Most Respectfully,
R

The nationals of an occupying power are not protected persons.

 

[Hollie]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Billo_Really, Shusha, et al,

OH! My friend "Billo_Really," our friend "Shusha" is absolutely correct... Absolutely...

Wrong. It's International Humanitarian Law (IHL). And it applies to every member state. If Israel doesn't like IHL, tough shit.

You are trying to sell me on the idea that international humanitarian law allows the widespread killing of civilians if they are of the wrong ethnicity living in the wrong place, such as people of Moroccan ethnicity living in Western Sahara. Again you double down. Its not only disgusting, its the worst kind of willful ignorance imaginable.

No. International Humanitarian Law does not allow the killing of civilians. Period.

(COMMENT)

There is absolutely no (Customary or International Humanitarian) law the supports the intentional targeting of civilians.

Article 51 [ Link ] -- Protection of the civilian population •
The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

​

I cannot hardly believe you would say such a thing.

​

Most Respectfully,
R

The nationals of an occupying power are not protected persons.

Israel is not an occupying power.

No matter your silly, ignorant one-liners, there is no allowance for acts of Islamic terrorism.

 

[Shusha]

The nationals of an occupying power are not protected persons.

Seriously?! You are also trying to argue that it is allowable in International Humanitarian Law to kill civilians and non-combatants?!

No. Just no. There is absolutely no allowance in international law which permits this. The very idea is abhorrent. And it is especially abhorrent considering that the basis for who is "allowable to kill" is ethnicity. You are literally creating justifications for killing Moroccans. Disgusting.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

That is exactly correct. Israeli Citizens are not "protected persons" because they are not under occupation. BUT, they are still civilians and they are still covered either under criminal sanctions or humanitarian sanctions.

Remember, it is 100% wrong to target civilians that are NOT under arms at any time, except to protect others from immediate harm.

The nationals of an occupying power are not protected persons.

(COMMENT)

Civilian is a broad category that includes the set of:

• protected persons
• other nations
• nationals of the occupying power.​

In the case of the Israeli citizens, they are covered under

International armed conflicts

The definition of civilians as persons who are not members of the armed forces is set forth in Article 50 of Additional Protocol I, to which no reservations have been made. It is also contained in numerous military manuals. It is reflected in reported practice. This practice includes that of States not, or not at the time, a party to Additional Protocol I.​

Article 50 [ Link ] -- Definition of civilians and civilian population

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. In case of doubt, whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.​

​

I suppose they wrote these because some people couldn't figure out that the Occupying power does not act with ill will to its own citizens. In the case of "Israeli occupation" it is important to remember:

• ARTICLE 68 [ Link ] •

Protected persons {generally the Arab Palestinians} who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power {that would be an Israeli}, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offenses, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power {that would be an Israeli} in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person {generally the Arab Palestinians} only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.

In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offense.

The first paragraph generally covers non-capital offenses. The second paragraph covers capital offenses.

Your implication that the nature of the status of the Israeli civilian does not afford them legal protection is simply wrong. While they {that would be an Israeli} are not "protected persons," they are given protections against misdemeanors and felonies that the protected person {generally the Arab Palestinians} that may be perpetrated against them.

(POINT OF ORDER)

Recalling that all States must cooperate fully in the fight against terrorism, in accordance with their obligations under international law, in order to find, deny safe haven and bring to justice, on the basis of the principle of extradite or prosecute, any person who supports, facilitates, participates or attempts to participate in the financing, planning, preparation or commission of terrorist acts or provides safe havens,

1. Calls upon all States to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:

(a) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;

(b) Prevent such conduct;

(c) Deny safe haven to any persons with respect to whom there is credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of such conduct;
​

I am of the opinion that anyone that supports the promotion of the idea that is lawful to kill Israeli Civilians is, in fact, guilty of "inciting violence." Further, I am of the opinion that anyone that contributes to or receives a pay-out/stipend from the ≈ $350M Martyr Fund is guilt of "criminal financing of terrorism" after the fact.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

I am of the opinion that anyone that supports the promotion of the idea that is lawful to kill Israeli Civilians is, in fact, guilty of "inciting violence."

I agree. Its unconscionable.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

That is exactly correct. Israeli Citizens are not "protected persons" because they are not under occupation. BUT, they are still civilians and they are still covered either under criminal sanctions or humanitarian sanctions.

Remember, it is 100% wrong to target civilians that are NOT under arms at any time, except to protect others from immediate harm.

The nationals of an occupying power are not protected persons.

(COMMENT)

Civilian is a broad category that includes the set of:

• protected persons
• other nations
• nationals of the occupying power.​

In the case of the Israeli citizens, they are covered under

International armed conflicts

The definition of civilians as persons who are not members of the armed forces is set forth in Article 50 of Additional Protocol I, to which no reservations have been made. It is also contained in numerous military manuals. It is reflected in reported practice. This practice includes that of States not, or not at the time, a party to Additional Protocol I.​

Article 50 [ Link ] -- Definition of civilians and civilian population

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. In case of doubt, whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.​

I suppose they wrote these because some people couldn't figure out that the Occupying power does not act with ill will to its own citizens. In the case of "Israeli occupation" it is important to remember:

• ARTICLE 68 [ Link ] •

Protected persons {generally the Arab Palestinians} who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power {that would be an Israeli}, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offenses, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power {that would be an Israeli} in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person {generally the Arab Palestinians} only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.

In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offense.

The first paragraph generally covers non-capital offenses. The second paragraph covers capital offenses.

Your implication that the nature of the status of the Israeli civilian does not afford them legal protection is simply wrong. While they {that would be an Israeli} are not "protected persons," they are given protections against misdemeanors and felonies that the protected person {generally the Arab Palestinians} that may be perpetrated against them.

(POINT OF ORDER)

Recalling that all States must cooperate fully in the fight against terrorism, in accordance with their obligations under international law, in order to find, deny safe haven and bring to justice, on the basis of the principle of extradite or prosecute, any person who supports, facilitates, participates or attempts to participate in the financing, planning, preparation or commission of terrorist acts or provides safe havens,

1. Calls upon all States to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:

(a) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;

(b) Prevent such conduct;

(c) Deny safe haven to any persons with respect to whom there is credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of such conduct;
​

I am of the opinion that anyone that supports the promotion of the idea that is lawful to kill Israeli Civilians is, in fact, guilty of "inciting violence." Further, I am of the opinion that anyone that contributes to or receives a pay-out/stipend from the ≈ $350M Martyr Fund is guilt of "criminal financing of terrorism" after the fact.

Most Respectfully,
R

All Israeli settlers are necessary, integral, and active members of Israel's settler colonial project.

Now I don't believe that settler colonialism, per se, is illegal. However virtually every action required to achieve such a project is illegal.

Can you name anything about Israel that is actually legal?

I await your response.

 

[Shusha]

Can you name anything about Israel that is actually legal?

Ooooooh. Tough one. /sarcasm.

Self-determination. Legal.
Development of self-governing systems. Legal.
Declaration of Independence. Legal.
International recognition. Legal.
Return. Legal.
Treaties with other States. Legal.
Self-defense. Legal.


Did you want to argue that any of these objective concepts are not legal? Go for it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Further, I am of the opinion that anyone that contributes to or receives a pay-out/stipend from the ≈ $350M Martyr Fund is guilt of "criminal financing of terrorism" after the fact.

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorism shit?

 

[Billo_Really]

It won’t change a thing.

Historically, there was (is) a religious-based class system with Moslems at the apex, dhimmis (Jews and Christians) below, and the rest of humanity the least. It's really no different than the methodology used by Hitlerian Germany and fascist Italy in the 1930's.

I’ll take it that you never understood why the Hamas Charter makes references to the entirety of the geographic area of “Palestine” as an Islamist waqf. You should familiarize yourself with some facts.

I'll suggest a good book by A.S. Tritton entitled "The Caliphs and their Non-Muslim Subjects" This book discusses many of the consequences of such a discriminatory system of religious and social apartheid.

http://www.archive.org/stream/caliph...90mbp_djvu.txt


"...[C]aliphs destroyed churches to obtain materials for their buildings, and the mob was always ready to pillage churches and monasteries...dhimmis...always lived on sufferance, exposed to the caprices of the ruler and the passions of the mob...in later times..[t]hey were much more liable to suffer from the violence of the crowd, and the popular fanaticism was accompanied by an increasing strictness among the educated. The spiritual isolation of Islam was accomplished. The world was divided into two classes, Muslims and others, and only Islam counted...Indeed the general feeling was that the leavings of the Muslims were good enough for the dhimmis.}"

And you keep pointing to a 40 year old document that is no longer relevant.