collective punishments

[Phoenall]

no, I think they do care.

and the answer to your question is hopefully "because we want peace."

Is that why they celebrated the kidnappings in true ISLAMONAZI style then, that alone makes then guilty of all charges

Be patient, Phoen

Have I ever been patient, long time no talk how the devil are you these days.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Proportionality has nothing to do with a similarity of weapons. It has to do with excessive civilian casualties in an attack on an enemy.

A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv)).

(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).

Proportionality (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[irosie91]

Translation; The end of the Jewish State. That will never happen.

It'll NEVER happen? It HAS to happen. Even Rome wasn't eternal.

actually----rome is still there ----isn't it?

 

[Phoenall]

Apart from the Palestinians saying that they had done it............... good enough evidence for a court to convict then.

No one has claimed responsibility, moron.

I swear, you're the biggest fucking liar on this website.

here you go dipstick

The Jewish Press » » Third Terror Group Says it Kidnapped Israeli Teens

 

[Phoenall]

So when will the Palestinians stop the hostilities as a pretext for land grabbing.......

When Israel ends the occupation.

This has been told to you many times, but you're too much of a coward to remember it.

According to the ICJ the occupation is legal, the attacks on Israeli non combatants are not.

Or are you just too dumb and wasted to understand that

 

[P F Tinmore]

Translation; The end of the Jewish State. That will never happen.

It'll NEVER happen? It HAS to happen. Even Rome wasn't eternal.

actually----rome is still there ----isn't it?

So is South Africa.

What is this destroy Israel mantra?

 

[Phoenall]

Yes lets talk about the collective punishment of the Jews by the Palestinians firing rockets all day and all night

They have a reason to fire rockets, you don't have a reason to occupy their land against their will.

They have no reason to fire rockets at civilian targets what so ever, Israel has a perfectly valid reason to occupy the west bank according to the ICJ

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes lets talk about the collective punishment of the Jews by the Palestinians firing rockets all day and all night

They have a reason to fire rockets, you don't have a reason to occupy their land against their will.

They have no reason to fire rockets at civilian targets what so ever, Israel has a perfectly valid reason to occupy the west bank according to the ICJ

Link?

 

[Phoenall]

Since I frequently argue that what the debate needs is a sense of proportion, I thought I would post this to show what the fallout has been since the three young Yeshiva students went missing:

I'm sorry, you can't mention IDF murders of children because it anti-semitism.
Anything that mentions the IDF, guard dogs of the extremist Israeli government, murdering children is clearly anti Jewish, so must be banned from the news or even mentioned in private.
That's why you haven't read about it in the American newspapers.

Not at all if you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that individual IDF soldiers pre meditate about killing Palestinian children without a care for their families then take it to the Israeli courts. But if you are claiming that children used as human shields have been killed then take it up with the Palestinian courts as the Palestinians are responsible for the murders. Covered in the Geneva conventions and the apportionment of blame is on the scum using the children as human shields.


That is why you have not read about it because the Palestinians have suppressed the truth, and started BLOOD LIBELS.

 

[Phoenall]

Now, in the interests of fairness, I must also object to real anti-semitism, blaming all Jews for the actions of the bastard extremists and murderous IDF.
That also constitutes collective punishment.

Aren't the extremists the ones you muslims love and welcome as brothers, the true torah Jews who believe that the world must die so they can ascend to heaven.

 

[irosie91]

It'll NEVER happen? It HAS to happen. Even Rome wasn't eternal.

actually----rome is still there ----isn't it?

So is South Africa.

What is this destroy Israel mantra?

I heard the "destroy Israel" mantra----from the mouths of diplomats from
arab countries and also from other muslim countries in May 1967----during
televised UN sessions. It went like this "we will not tolerate the existence of the
Zionist entity---in our midst" -------I took that as a desire to destroy Israel--how do you
interpret it?

 

[Phoenall]

Could you give me some numbers?

242, 338 for starters

Where does it say that in those resolutions?

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."



United Nations Security Council Resolution 338 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The resolution states:


The Security Council,

Calls upon all parties to present fighting to cease all firing and terminate all military activity immediately, no later than 12 hours after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions they now occupy; Calls upon all parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts;

Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the cease-fire, negotiations start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.

 

[Phoenall]

Why is "liberate" a dirty word for you?

What do you find objectionable about liberation?

Explain how imposing a two state solution is sanctioned by international law. I don't see any compliance.

Because the concept went into International Law when it was first broached by the UN in 1947.

Your version of "liberate" includes the destruction of Israel and the mass murder of 6 million Jews. ( the PLO definition of Palestinian Jew has ended because no Jew if 164 years old )

Resolution 181 was a non binding recommendation.

What actual law did it reference?

The one it brought into existence, which is how all International laws are formulated, that set the scene for a two state solution in Palestine. This passed into International law and is now to be obeyed by all the member states of the UN. No UN resolutions are binding until they pass into International law, and if you read 338 you will see that it makes 242 International Law.

So when will the palestinians sit down and start peace talks and agree mutual borders as defined by International Law and the UN conventions they recently signed. If I was the UN secretary General I would be giving the P.A. the ultimatum round about now, sit down and talk without pre conditions or have a peace imposed by force of arms

 

[Phoenall]

Proportionality has nothing to do with a similarity of weapons. It has to do with excessive civilian casualties in an attack on an enemy.

A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv)).

(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).

Proportionality (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Invalid argument when the Palestinians are no longer civilians because of their religious beliefs. Under the Geneva conventions any civilian that becomes attached to a militia unit is no longer a civilian but a militia auxillary hence a valid military target. The response is proportional to the threat of reprisals so the harder they go in the less the reprisals will be.

If the Palestinians don't like being hit hard then all they need to do is abide by International law and stop all belligerence.

 

[Phoenall]

It'll NEVER happen? It HAS to happen. Even Rome wasn't eternal.

actually----rome is still there ----isn't it?

So is South Africa.

What is this destroy Israel mantra?

The one intoned by the Palestinians, you know the one that is enshrined in their religion .

 

[Phoenall]

They have a reason to fire rockets, you don't have a reason to occupy their land against their will.

They have no reason to fire rockets at civilian targets what so ever, Israel has a perfectly valid reason to occupy the west bank according to the ICJ

Link?

</title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=

 

[P F Tinmore]

They have no reason to fire rockets at civilian targets what so ever, Israel has a perfectly valid reason to occupy the west bank according to the ICJ

Link?

</title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=

Where does it say what you said?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you need to re-read the law and the Human Rights findings.

Proportionality has nothing to do with a similarity of weapons. It has to do with excessive civilian casualties in an attack on an enemy.

A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv)).

(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).

Proportionality (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(REFERENCE)

2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:

(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;

(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;​

SOURCE: PART 2. JURISDICTION, ADMISSIBILITY AND APPLICABLE LAW
​

(COMMENT)

Point #1:

The concept of "proportionality" is not mentioned once in Article 8 - War Crimes, or for that matter, in the entire section of Part II - Applicable Law.​

Point #2:

Any rocket or mortar fired from Gaza or the West Bank is a violation of Law.​

J. Findings

1687. There is no justification in international law for the launching of rockets and mortars that cannot be directed at specific military targets into areas where civilian populations are located. Indeed, Palestinian armed groups, among them Hamas, have publicly expressed their intention to target Israel civilians. The al-Qassam Brigades, on their website, claimed responsibility for the deaths of each of the Israeli civilians killed by rocket fire during the operations in Gaza.

1688. From the facts it ascertained, the Mission finds that the Palestinian armed groups have failed in their duty to protect and respect civilians. Even though the al-Qassam Brigades and other armed groups in Gaza have recently claimed that they do not intend to harm civilians, the fact that they continue to launch rockets at populated areas without any definite military targets and are aware of the consequences to civilians indicates an intent to target civilians.

Furthermore, the launching of unguided rockets and mortars breaches the fundamental principle of distinction: an attack must distinguish between military and civilian targets. Where there is no intended military target and the rockets and mortars are launched into civilian areas, they constitute a deliberate attack against the civilian population.
​

SOURCE: A/HRC/12/48 page 365

There may be cases in which the Israelis were negligent. In any war, lasting as long as the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have prolonged this particular conflict, there will be instances of violations. But "every" case, (and you don't get to use the word "every" very often) of the HoAP firing rockets and mortars into Israel "constitute a deliberate attack against the civilian population;" and is a violation of Articles 7 and 8, Rome Statutes, ICC. Whereas, each instance of counter-battery fires by the Israelis on the point of origin, is in response to hostile fire and not directed against the Palestinian civilian population.

Based on the fundamental distinction between these two models, one could argue that their rules and standards governing the use of force are also inherently dissimilar. The law enforcement model imposes stricter standards on the occupying power by prohibiting it from arbitrarily depriving individuals of their right to life. This means that the occupying power is authorized to use lethal force &#8211; while exercising its policing functions &#8211; only under very strict circumstances. In fact, under this model, the occupying power may use lethal force only when this is strictly unavoidable in order to protect life and when less extreme means are insufficient for achieving that objective. The second model &#8211; which relates to the conduct of hostilities - provides more leeway to the occupying power for using force. During hostilities, occupying forces are normally permitted to attack enemy combatants as well as civilians directly participating in the fighting. The law of armed conflict also does not prohibit &#8211; albeit under strictly pre-established conditions &#8211; civilian losses to a certain extent, often described broadly as &#8220;collateral damage.&#8221;

SOURCE: Page 109/110 Report prepared and edited by Tristan Ferraro Legal adviser, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[irosie91]

I cannot quote LAWs----but I do know that the US occupied
west Germany and Japan---and a bunch of islands---post world war II---
and the residents thereof did not slit the throats of our infants

 

[P F Tinmore]

Can you tell us when Palestine was recognized as a member of the U.N. the same way that Israel is?

You are missing the point.

The UN cannot create states nor can it bestow legitimacy. It can only render political opinions on such matters. Membership in the UN is meaningless to international law. Switzerland did not become a member of the UN until 2002. Does that mean that it was not a country before then?

Are you saying that Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt are not legal states? because they were formed in exactly the same manner as Israel and Palestine..............

I did not say that at all.

Where did you get that stuff?