collective punishments

[P F Tinmore]

Whereas, each instance of counter-battery fires by the Israelis on the point of origin,

The Palestinians say the same thing. We fire in the direction that the planes and tanks come from.

 

[toastman]

Whereas, each instance of counter-battery fires by the Israelis on the point of origin,

The Palestinians say the same thing. We fire in the direction that the planes and tanks come from.

What??

 

[P F Tinmore]

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)



(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.​

[/INDENT]

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 – while exercising its policing functions – 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 – 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 – albeit under strictly pre-established conditions – civilian losses to a certain extent, often described broadly as “collateral damage.”

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

Most Respectfully,
R

Your information on proportionality seem to coincide with mine.

I question the validity of the statement by the Red Cross on the Palestinians' violation of international law. I have always questioned that but something I heard cements that belief.

Bill Moyers was interviewing Richard Goldstone. Moyers asked if he believed in Israel's right to defend itself. Goldstone answered: "That's a given."

What an odd answer. What did he mean by that?

In your USE OF FORCE IN OCCUPIED TERRITORY thing, there are international laws that conflict and are more pertinent to Palestine.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

 

[Billo_Really]

</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=

WTF is your problem, moron?

What on that webpage specifically deals with the West Bank.

And BTW, that's not the ICJ, it's the ICRC.

 

[Billo_Really]

here you go dipstick

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

From your own link...

The Hezbollah Brigades says it has abducted the three Israeli teens, but there's no evidence to support the claim.

 

[Billo_Really]

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

I posted the specific ICJ webpage addressing this issue and it said the opposite.

 

[Billo_Really]

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

Not at civilian targets.

But you're a fucking liar! The ICJ doesn't say that.

 

[docmauser1]

Since I frequently argue that what the debate needs is a sense of proportion ...

Indeed, like a rocket for a rocket in the general direction, for example, since the international community is firmly determined to experiment on live palistanians.

 

[docmauser1]

I did not say that at all. Where did you get that stuff?

Poor P F Tinmore's lost in his own drivel, indeed.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are some issues that seem to be misunderstood.

Your information on proportionality seem to coincide with mine.

(COMMENT)

The Rule on Proportionality is often misunderstood. It is one of those issues that really doesn't lend itself to a simplified discussion. But in most cases, and in most arguments, it is confused between the two models. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, and its arguments, it is often misapplied.

I question the validity of the statement by the Red Cross on the Palestinians' violation of international law. I have always questioned that but something I heard cements that belief.

(COMMENT)

What did you hear?

The ICRC is the international authority on Human Rights Law.

Bill Moyers was interviewing Richard Goldstone. Moyers asked if he believed in Israel's right to defend itself. Goldstone answered: "That's a given."

What an odd answer. What did he mean by that?

(COMMENT)

It means that it goes without question. It is a given that Israel has the right to defend itself.

In your USE OF FORCE IN OCCUPIED TERRITORY thing, there are international laws that conflict and are more pertinent to Palestine.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

(COMMENT)

The UN Laws relative to Colonization/Decolonization simply don't apply to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. It was not colonized by the Mandate Powers. It was under mandate by authority. And the Mandate had several objectives; one of which was to create a Jewish National Home.

I think it is generally understood that the West Bank is under occupation, not colonization. Although the settlements are arguable, they are covered under the Permanent Status of Negotiations in Article V of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (Oslo I Accords)(A/48/486 S/26560 11 October 1993) and in ARTICLE XII - Arrangements for Security and Public Order of the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Oslo II Accords) (A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997).

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) very clearly applies "Occupation Law," as opposed to the Resolution on Decolonization.

The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.

SOURCE: 9 July 2004 General List No. 131

Additionally, and even before the Oslo Accords, "the Security Council examined ìthe policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967. In resolution 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, the Security Council considered that those settlements had no legal validity and affirmed once more that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem." (Page 40 of ICJ Opinion)

It goes without question that the prevailing opinion stipulates the applicability within the Occupied Palestinian Territory of international humanitarian law and human rights law; particularly those laws dealing with the right of self-determination.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[docmauser1]

... The International Court of Justice (ICJ) very clearly applies "Occupation Law," ...

"Kangaroo Court: a self-appointed or mob-operated tribunal that perverts, violates, disregards, or parodies established legal procedure or human rights." Other than all that, the ICJ is all white and fluffy, of course.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Quote: Originally Posted by P F Tinmore View Post
Bill Moyers was interviewing Richard Goldstone. Moyers asked if he believed in Israel's right to defend itself. Goldstone answered: "That's a given."

What an odd answer. What did he mean by that?
(COMMENT)

It means that it goes without question. It is a given that Israel has the right to defend itself.

So, he is assuming that something he has heard his entire life is true and there is no thought about confirming it. He is basing his opinion on an assumption that may or may not be true.

The Red Cross seems to be basing its opinion on an assumption also.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "right of self-defense" is established in Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter. It is not an "assumption."

The right to self defense is an inherent concept in law “and is fundamental to the system of states.”

See also Mark W. Janis, "An Introduction to International Law,” (2d ed. 1993) at 179 (citing Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 432 (3d ed. 1979) at 433, "A sovereign state is entitled to defend itself, that is to protect its territorial integrity." "Wheaton saw the 'right to self-preservation' as an absolute right, lying at the foundation of all the other rights of states.”).​

Quote: Originally Posted by P F Tinmore View Post
Bill Moyers was interviewing Richard Goldstone. Moyers asked if he believed in Israel's right to defend itself. Goldstone answered: "That's a given."

What an odd answer. What did he mean by that?
(COMMENT)

It means that it goes without question. It is a given that Israel has the right to defend itself.

So, he is assuming that something he has heard his entire life is true and there is no thought about confirming it. He is basing his opinion on an assumption that may or may not be true.

The Red Cross seems to be basing its opinion on an assumption also.

(COMMENT)

No, nothing of the sort.

Security Council Resolutions 1368 (2001)

Recogniz[es] the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in accordance with the Charter;
​

Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001)

Reaffirming the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense as recognized by the Charter of the United Nations as reiterated in resolution 1368 (2001),
​

There is no "assumption" or hearsay at all - on the part of the ICRC; none. It is an "inherent right."

Throw in the fact that many of the Palestinian organization that claim the status of freedom fighters also are registered terrorist organizations, and the "right to self-defense" is amplified.

The Palestinians have NO special right to engage activities covered under Article 1(3) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP sets out the meaning of "terrorist act". "Terrorist acts" mean intentional acts which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or international organisation and which are defined as an offence under national law. These include:

• attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
• attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
• kidnapping or hostage taking;
• causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility;
• seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
• manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives, or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons,
• participating in the activities of a terrorist group, including by supplying information or material resources, or by funding its activities in any way, with knowledge of the fact that such participation will contribute to the criminal activities of the group.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "right of self-defense" is established in Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter. It is not an "assumption."

The right to self defense is an inherent concept in law “and is fundamental to the system of states.”

See also Mark W. Janis, "An Introduction to International Law,” (2d ed. 1993) at 179 (citing Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 432 (3d ed. 1979) at 433, "A sovereign state is entitled to defend itself, that is to protect its territorial integrity." "Wheaton saw the 'right to self-preservation' as an absolute right, lying at the foundation of all the other rights of states.”).​

Quote: Originally Posted by P F Tinmore View Post
Bill Moyers was interviewing Richard Goldstone. Moyers asked if he believed in Israel's right to defend itself. Goldstone answered: "That's a given."

What an odd answer. What did he mean by that?
(COMMENT)

It means that it goes without question. It is a given that Israel has the right to defend itself.

So, he is assuming that something he has heard his entire life is true and there is no thought about confirming it. He is basing his opinion on an assumption that may or may not be true.

The Red Cross seems to be basing its opinion on an assumption also.

(COMMENT)

No, nothing of the sort.

Security Council Resolutions 1368 (2001)

Recogniz[es] the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in accordance with the Charter;
​

Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001)

Reaffirming the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense as recognized by the Charter of the United Nations as reiterated in resolution 1368 (2001),
​

There is no "assumption" or hearsay at all - on the part of the ICRC; none. It is an "inherent right."

Throw in the fact that many of the Palestinian organization that claim the status of freedom fighters also are registered terrorist organizations, and the "right to self-defense" is amplified.

The Palestinians have NO special right to engage activities covered under Article 1(3) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP sets out the meaning of "terrorist act". "Terrorist acts" mean intentional acts which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or international organisation and which are defined as an offence under national law. These include:

• attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
• attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
• kidnapping or hostage taking;
• causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility;
• seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
• manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives, or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons,
• participating in the activities of a terrorist group, including by supplying information or material resources, or by funding its activities in any way, with knowledge of the fact that such participation will contribute to the criminal activities of the group.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Could you explain how any of your links have any relevance to my post?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The "right of self-defense" is established in Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter. It is not an "assumption."

The right to self defense is not the assumption.

It is that Israel has the right to self defense and Palestine does not is the assumption.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In this thread of the immediate discussion, I did not address the Palestinian condition; or make the assumption you assert. In fact, I rarely make assumptions that go unsubstantiated.

In this case, your expanding the discussion beyond the right of self-defense of Israel, to that of Palestine (present condition).

The "right of self-defense" is established in Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter. It is not an "assumption."

The right to self defense is not the assumption.

It is that Israel has the right to self defense and Palestine does not is the assumption.

(COMMENT)

I could write a whole book on this, but will try to condense it down to the associated perspectives. In this, I will address the conditions of Palestinian self-defense.

GENERAL SITUATION:

Israel never invaded the territory of the State of Palestine. In 1967, Israel occupied the sovereign territory of Jordan. That occupation never terminated, but remains continuous to this day. What changed was the status of the people and the territory.

In 1967/68, the Palestinians updated and formalized their threat against Israel; and essentially declared Jihad and Armed Struggle against Israel with the goal of attempting to control all of the former territory under the British Mandate. To that end, a number of insurgent activities emerged using terrorist tactics against Israel and regional assets of Israeli allies. That Jihadist strategy continues through today. This Jihadist Strategy and policy of "armed struggle" poses a threat to the national security of Israel and its territorial integrity, as well as, a threat to the safety and security of the citizens of Israel. It is this threat that is a catalyst for the continuation of occupation.

In 1988, the Kingdom abandon the West Bank, and later the people of the West Bank declared Independence.

The 1988 Declaration of Independence for today's State of Palestine happened during occupation.
​

CONDITION #1:

Palestinians inside the Occupied Territory were belligerent, and the Occupation has a belligerent flavor to it. None the less, within the Occupation Zone, the Palestinians DO NOT have a right to conduct armed struggle and pursue Jihadist activity. Such activity is covered under Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. And Protected persons who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, and persons engaged in acts 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 of the Occupying Power, are subject to criminal sanctions.

This is not an "assumption," but a fact under international law.​

CONDITION #2:

Palestinians inside the Occupied Territory DO NOT have a right to conduct armed struggle and pursue Jihadist activity on sovereign territory of Israel or any other nation. "Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts." (SG/SM/14764 SC/10883) International Law stipulates that all States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter (A/RES/25/2625) Further more, Palestinians shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. (A/RES/25/2625)

This is not an "assumption," but a fact under international law.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel never invaded the territory of the State of Palestine.

Egypt and Jordan did not invade Palestine in 1948. They entered Palestine to fight Israeli troops. They did not "invade Palestine" as they were not at war with Palestine.

Nevertheless they occupied Palestinian territory until 1967.

What state were they occupying?

 

[toastman]

Israel never invaded the territory of the State of Palestine.

Egypt and Jordan did not invade Palestine in 1948. They entered Palestine to fight Israeli troops. They did not "invade Palestine" as they were not at war with Palestine.

Nevertheless they occupied Palestinian territory until 1967.

What state were they occupying?

By attacking Israeli troops stationed in ISRAEL, they were attacking Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

In 1967/68, the Palestinians updated and formalized their threat against Israel; and essentially declared Jihad and Armed Struggle against Israel with the goal of attempting to control all of the former territory under the British Mandate.

The mandate was temporarily assigned to Palestine to render administrative assistance and advise according to the League of Nations Covenant. It had no territory of its own. Palestine existed separate from the mandate.

So, what was your purpose for using that term?

 

[Hossfly]

In 1967/68, the Palestinians updated and formalized their threat against Israel; and essentially declared Jihad and Armed Struggle against Israel with the goal of attempting to control all of the former territory under the British Mandate.

The mandate was temporarily assigned to Palestine to render administrative assistance and advise according to the League of Nations Covenant. It had no territory of its own. Palestine existed separate from the mandate.

So, what was your purpose for using that term?

You've had that issue explained a hundred times and you continue to dig, Tinmore. Soon you will be speaking Chinese if you don't stop digging.