Boycott Israel

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tiinmore, et al,

This is subterfuge. You are implying that it is OK to target and kill Israelis! That would be wrong. 100% Wrong.

They have never killed a protected person.

(COMMENT)

THREE very important aspects here which your implications is in conflict with:

• It is NEVER permissible to intentionally target and kill civilians.
Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

• Hostile Arab Palestinians who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Israeli Occupying Power, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.

• Hostile Arab Palestinians guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Israeli Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians have the legal right to defend themselves.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH for crying out loud.

What frivolous complaints?

(COMMENT)

You cannot make a legitimate complaint if you never st at the negotiating table in good faith.

For instance, you cannot complain about the Settlements when the are subject to Permanent Negotiations; and yo never even attempt to utilize the agreed upon dispute process. (Just one example...)

Most Respectfully,
R

There is nothing on the table to negotiate.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tiinmore, et al,

Well, I don't know that your statement is actually true.

The Palestinians have the legal right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions is effectively the same as Treaty Law. There is no such thing as an absolute right (that I am aware of anyway).

What International Law says otherwise. Remember, the West Bank and Jerusalem were under the control of Jordan at the time it was seized by the Israelis. The Israelis did not assume effective control over any territory under the sovereignty of the Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tiinmore, et al,

Well, I don't know that your statement is actually true.

The Palestinians have the legal right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions is effectively the same as Treaty Law. There is no such thing as an absolute right (that I am aware of anyway).

What International Law says otherwise. Remember, the West Bank and Jerusalem were under the control of Jordan at the time it was seized by the Israelis. The Israelis did not assume effective control over any territory under the sovereignty of the Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Article 68 is civil law applied to a proper occupation. Israel is still in the attack phase.

 

[P F Tinmore]

the West Bank and Jerusalem were under the control of Jordan

Jordanian control over Palestinian territory. The territory was not Jordan's to lose.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tiinmore, et al,

How absurd!

If that were true, then everyone of any importance, has it all wrong. If the attack is ongoing, then the territory is not and has not been ever under occupation.

Article 68 is civil law applied to a proper occupation. Israel is still in the attack phase.

(COMMENT)

Just when did the attack start and what sovereignty's were evolved?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tiinmore, et al,

How absurd!

If that were true, then everyone of any importance, has it all wrong. If the attack is ongoing, then the territory is not and has not been ever under occupation.

[QUOTE="P F Tinmore, post: 19060575, member: 21837"
Article 68 is civil law applied to a proper occupation. Israel is still in the attack phase.

(COMMENT)

Just when did the attack start and what sovereignty's were evolved?

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
Indeed, I always had problems with that term. I think occupation is used for the lack of a better term.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tiinmore, et al,

No, I don't think you are correct.

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tiinmore, et al,

How absurd!

If that were true, then everyone of any importance, has it all wrong. If the attack is ongoing, then the territory is not and has not been ever under occupation.

Article 68 is civil law applied to a proper occupation. Israel is still in the attack phase.

(COMMENT)

Just when did the attack start and what sovereignty's were evolved?

Most Respectfully,
R
Indeed, I always had problems with that term. I think occupation is used for the lack of a better term.

(COMMENT)

It is what it is:

Annex to the Convention: Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land - Section III : Military authority over the territory of the hostile state - Regulations:

Article 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

The operative phrase here is: "when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army."

Now you can make the argument that it is NOT under the authority of a "Hostile" army...

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tiinmore, et al,

How absurd!

If that were true, then everyone of any importance, has it all wrong. If the attack is ongoing, then the territory is not and has not been ever under occupation.

Article 68 is civil law applied to a proper occupation. Israel is still in the attack phase.

(COMMENT)

Just when did the attack start and what sovereignty's were evolved?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tiinmore, et al,

No, I don't think you are correct.

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tiinmore, et al,

How absurd!

If that were true, then everyone of any importance, has it all wrong. If the attack is ongoing, then the territory is not and has not been ever under occupation.

Article 68 is civil law applied to a proper occupation. Israel is still in the attack phase.

(COMMENT)

Just when did the attack start and what sovereignty's were evolved?

Most Respectfully,
R
Indeed, I always had problems with that term. I think occupation is used for the lack of a better term.

(COMMENT)

It is what it is:

Annex to the Convention: Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land - Section III : Military authority over the territory of the hostile state - Regulations:

Article 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

The operative phrase here is: "when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army."

Now you can make the argument that it is NOT under the authority of a "Hostile" army...

Most Respectfully,
R

A proper occupation has obligations and restrictions. Palestine is under military control, however, Israel thumbs its nose at the obligations and restrictions. Israel still attacks Palestinians militarily when it should use civil police.

It is a mixed bag.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Netanyahu arrives in India, greeted on tarmac by PM Modi

 

[Hollie]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tiinmore, et al,

No, I don't think you are correct.

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tiinmore, et al,

How absurd!

If that were true, then everyone of any importance, has it all wrong. If the attack is ongoing, then the territory is not and has not been ever under occupation.

Article 68 is civil law applied to a proper occupation. Israel is still in the attack phase.

(COMMENT)

Just when did the attack start and what sovereignty's were evolved?

Most Respectfully,
R
Indeed, I always had problems with that term. I think occupation is used for the lack of a better term.

(COMMENT)

It is what it is:

Annex to the Convention: Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land - Section III : Military authority over the territory of the hostile state - Regulations:

Article 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

The operative phrase here is: "when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army."

Now you can make the argument that it is NOT under the authority of a "Hostile" army...

Most Respectfully,
R

A proper occupation has obligations and restrictions. Palestine is under military control, however, Israel thumbs its nose at the obligations and restrictions. Israel still attacks Palestinians militarily when it should use civil police.

It is a mixed bag.

I think you need to understand the terms you use. Your screeching about Israeli “attacks” is actually a matter of Israel defending itself from islamic terrorist provocations.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tiinmore, et al,

No, I don't think you are correct.

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tiinmore, et al,

How absurd!

If that were true, then everyone of any importance, has it all wrong. If the attack is ongoing, then the territory is not and has not been ever under occupation.

Article 68 is civil law applied to a proper occupation. Israel is still in the attack phase.

(COMMENT)

Just when did the attack start and what sovereignty's were evolved?

Most Respectfully,
R
Indeed, I always had problems with that term. I think occupation is used for the lack of a better term.

(COMMENT)

It is what it is:

Annex to the Convention: Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land - Section III : Military authority over the territory of the hostile state - Regulations:

Article 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

The operative phrase here is: "when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army."

Now you can make the argument that it is NOT under the authority of a "Hostile" army...

Most Respectfully,
R

A proper occupation has obligations and restrictions. Palestine is under military control, however, Israel thumbs its nose at the obligations and restrictions. Israel still attacks Palestinians militarily when it should use civil police.

It is a mixed bag.

I think you need to understand the terms you use. Your screeching about Israeli “attacks” is actually a matter of Israel defending itself from islamic terrorist provocations.

No, Israel attacks people when they protest getting their stuff stolen.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tiinmore, et al,

No, I don't think you are correct.

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tiinmore, et al,

How absurd!

If that were true, then everyone of any importance, has it all wrong. If the attack is ongoing, then the territory is not and has not been ever under occupation.

(COMMENT)

Just when did the attack start and what sovereignty's were evolved?

Most Respectfully,
R
Indeed, I always had problems with that term. I think occupation is used for the lack of a better term.

(COMMENT)

It is what it is:

Annex to the Convention: Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land - Section III : Military authority over the territory of the hostile state - Regulations:

Article 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

The operative phrase here is: "when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army."

Now you can make the argument that it is NOT under the authority of a "Hostile" army...

Most Respectfully,
R

A proper occupation has obligations and restrictions. Palestine is under military control, however, Israel thumbs its nose at the obligations and restrictions. Israel still attacks Palestinians militarily when it should use civil police.

It is a mixed bag.

I think you need to understand the terms you use. Your screeching about Israeli “attacks” is actually a matter of Israel defending itself from islamic terrorist provocations.

No, Israel attacks people when they protest getting their stuff stolen.

Actually, no. Israel defends itself from Islamist ideology.

The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tiinmore, et al,

No, I don't think you are correct.


(COMMENT)

It is what it is:

Annex to the Convention: Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land - Section III : Military authority over the territory of the hostile state - Regulations:

Article 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

The operative phrase here is: "when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army."

Now you can make the argument that it is NOT under the authority of a "Hostile" army...

Most Respectfully,
R

A proper occupation has obligations and restrictions. Palestine is under military control, however, Israel thumbs its nose at the obligations and restrictions. Israel still attacks Palestinians militarily when it should use civil police.

It is a mixed bag.

I think you need to understand the terms you use. Your screeching about Israeli “attacks” is actually a matter of Israel defending itself from islamic terrorist provocations.

No, Israel attacks people when they protest getting their stuff stolen.

Actually, no. Israel defends itself from Islamist ideology.

The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

Who was Israel's boogyman before there was Hamas?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tiinmore, et al,

Now, you are mixing your personal criteria with that of the international criteria. If you go back and look at Post #3768, you will notice that the international definition of an occupation is Article 42 of the Hague Regulation.

A proper occupation has obligations and restrictions. Palestine is under military control, however, Israel thumbs its nose at the obligations and restrictions. Israel still attacks Palestinians militarily when it should use civil police.

It is a mixed bag.

(COMMENT)

You have, yourself, submitted video of events (staged or real) which show (or depict) Israeli Border Police as opposed to military personnel in them. But them, the more belligerent the Hostile Arab Palestinians become, the greater the danger the higher threat areas of the territories become. The higher the threat, the more restrictive the countermeasures.

Now, you may argue the merits as to how well the Israelis manage the Occupation; but as long as the Arab Palestinian Leadership condones, incites and praises the use of violence, as they do today (and have for more than half a century) → the less likely it will be for the Israelis to adopt a more benevolent police posture and be to focus on conditions that make environment conducive to the spread of violence. But clearly, the more the Arab Paestinian become belligerent, the more evidence that emerges in the need for ever increasingly more stringent security countermeasures necessary to maintain the minimum restraints necessary to achieve Article 43 HR → taking "all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety."

Enlightened people are not fooled in that least into thinking that staged media events like that of Palestinian activist Ahed Tamimi, the heroine of the day, is any less a product of the Jihadist and Fedayeen as was Dalal Mughrabi (once an adviser to Mahmoud Abbas) → the Palestinian princess and member of the Fatah from within the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and most remembered for the 1978 Coastal Road massacre in Israel, in a time even before the PLO declared independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

You have, yourself, submitted video of events (staged or real) which show (or depict) Israeli Border Police as opposed to military personnel in them.

Same shit, different asshole.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tiinmore, et al,

No, I don't think you are correct.

(COMMENT)

It is what it is:
The operative phrase here is: "when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army."

Now you can make the argument that it is NOT under the authority of a "Hostile" army...

Most Respectfully,
R

A proper occupation has obligations and restrictions. Palestine is under military control, however, Israel thumbs its nose at the obligations and restrictions. Israel still attacks Palestinians militarily when it should use civil police.

It is a mixed bag.

I think you need to understand the terms you use. Your screeching about Israeli “attacks” is actually a matter of Israel defending itself from islamic terrorist provocations.

No, Israel attacks people when they protest getting their stuff stolen.

Actually, no. Israel defends itself from Islamist ideology.

The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

Who was Israel's boogyman before there was Hamas?

No boogyman. You’re just incensed that the world has passed by the time and place when Islamist ideology was imposed by force. I’m afraid you can’t bring back dhimmitude. Your brand of religious fascism is not tolerated by Israel.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tiinmore, et al,

Do I get a Badge of Honor with that slur?

You have, yourself, submitted video of events (staged or real) which show (or depict) Israeli Border Police as opposed to military personnel in them.

Same shit, different asshole.

(COMMENT)

BTW, was just less then a month ago that Israeli Border Police in the West Bank were involved in an incident:

15 December 2017 9:54 am by Barney Breen-Portnoy
• Israeli Border Police Officer Wounded by Palestinian Stabber Wearing Apparent Bomb Belt •

​

Somewhere here, in the last couple days, you made mention that the Hostile Arab Palestinian has some right to take such action. Well, here is an example of such an action, and I inserted the International Convention that makes it illegal.

This is an example of why, even greater counterintelligence/counter-terrorism and security countermeasures are needed in the face of such psychopaths in the West Bank. They are a danger to themselves, and a danger to everyone around them.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tiinmore, et al,

Now, you are mixing your personal criteria with that of the international criteria. If you go back and look at Post #3768, you will notice that the international definition of an occupation is Article 42 of the Hague Regulation.

A proper occupation has obligations and restrictions. Palestine is under military control, however, Israel thumbs its nose at the obligations and restrictions. Israel still attacks Palestinians militarily when it should use civil police.

It is a mixed bag.

(COMMENT)

You have, yourself, submitted video of events (staged or real) which show (or depict) Israeli Border Police as opposed to military personnel in them. But them, the more belligerent the Hostile Arab Palestinians become, the greater the danger the higher threat areas of the territories become. The higher the threat, the more restrictive the countermeasures.

Now, you may argue the merits as to how well the Israelis manage the Occupation; but as long as the Arab Palestinian Leadership condones, incites and praises the use of violence, as they do today (and have for more than half a century) → the less likely it will be for the Israelis to adopt a more benevolent police posture and be to focus on conditions that make environment conducive to the spread of violence. But clearly, the more the Arab Paestinian become belligerent, the more evidence that emerges in the need for ever increasingly more stringent security countermeasures necessary to maintain the minimum restraints necessary to achieve Article 43 HR → taking "all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety."

Enlightened people are not fooled in that least into thinking that staged media events like that of Palestinian activist Ahed Tamimi, the heroine of the day, is any less a product of the Jihadist and Fedayeen as was Dalal Mughrabi (once an adviser to Mahmoud Abbas) → the Palestinian princess and member of the Fatah from within the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and most remembered for the 1978 Coastal Road massacre in Israel, in a time even before the PLO declared independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you only know Israel's bullshit version of history?