Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
GCIV emphasised an important change in international law. The United Nations Charter (June 26, 1945) had prohibited war of aggression (See articles 1.1, 2.3, 2.4) and GCIV Article 47, the first paragraph in Section III: Occupied territories, restricted the territorial gains which could be made through war by stating:
Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.
Article 49 prohibits the forced mass movement of people out of or into occupied state's territory:
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. ... The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
Military occupation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Except it's being abused. It's allowing people to be detained indefinately for any or no reason - and no transparency.
So any comment on it happening much more in Egypt then, have you heard about the 4 year old sentenced to life for his part in a terror attack. Or how about this one, In June 2014, Baher Mohamed, Mohamed Fahmy and Peter Greste were found guilty of aiding a terrorist organization all journalists
You won't get a rational response. The arguments supporting the terrorists aren't themselves rational nor are the beliefs needed to maintain the racism and bigotry involved in the Arab mind set concerning Israel.
I provided a rational response.
Who has made an argument supporting terrorists? Show me the evidence he is a terrorist and I'll support it. I happen to believe in the value of a justice system that relies on evidence.
The simple fact is that Israel has every right to detain him indefinitely or until the end of hostilities.
That's your belief, and that might be technically legal under international law but I disagree with it. I find it interesting that you guys are happy to quote international law and UN decisions when it suits you, but label them racist and anti-semitic when they work against you.
Martial law as defined within the Geneva Conventions doesn't require that a detainee be charged. Period. End of subject.
By speaking out in favor and support of the terrorists and joining your voice with theirs for their release rather than continued detention you are supporting the terrorists.
Oh and they did give him a reason, "incitement" which is a big deal in Israel.
So again your response simply defies rational when you blatantly ignore the applicable international laws
I've not spoken out in favor of support of TERRORISTS. I've asked for evidence, and if there is evidence then he should be tried - beyond just Israel's say-so. The same as I would demand of Egypt. But keep on distorting it.
So any comment on it happening much more in Egypt then, have you heard about the 4 year old sentenced to life for his part in a terror attack. Or how about this one, In June 2014, Baher Mohamed, Mohamed Fahmy and Peter Greste were found guilty of aiding a terrorist organization all journalists
You won't get a rational response. The arguments supporting the terrorists aren't themselves rational nor are the beliefs needed to maintain the racism and bigotry involved in the Arab mind set concerning Israel.
I provided a rational response.
Who has made an argument supporting terrorists? Show me the evidence he is a terrorist and I'll support it. I happen to believe in the value of a justice system that relies on evidence.
The simple fact is that Israel has every right to detain him indefinitely or until the end of hostilities.
That's your belief, and that might be technically legal under international law but I disagree with it. I find it interesting that you guys are happy to quote international law and UN decisions when it suits you, but label them racist and anti-semitic when they work against you.
Martial law as defined within the Geneva Conventions doesn't require that a detainee be charged. Period. End of subject.
By speaking out in favor and support of the terrorists and joining your voice with theirs for their release rather than continued detention you are supporting the terrorists.
Oh and they did give him a reason, "incitement" which is a big deal in Israel.
So again your response simply defies rational when you blatantly ignore the applicable international laws
I've not spoken out in favor of support of TERRORISTS. I've asked for evidence, and if there is evidence then he should be tried - beyond just Israel's say-so. The same as I would demand of Egypt. But keep on distorting it.
Yes you asked for evidence.
But under international law as set forth in the Geneva Conventions no evidence is required to hold prisoners of war or those who forfeit their protected persons status indefinitely
Ergo Israel isn't required to try or charge detainees.
So by taking up the pali cause and demanding that charges be filed or the prisoner released what you are doing is not only ignoring international law ( thus me claim that your view is irrational ) but also you are supporting the pali propaganda machine in its false claims that Israel is somehow required to press charges.
So you are supporting the terrorist diatribe and by extension the terrorists themselves
You won't get a rational response. The arguments supporting the terrorists aren't themselves rational nor are the beliefs needed to maintain the racism and bigotry involved in the Arab mind set concerning Israel.
I provided a rational response.
Who has made an argument supporting terrorists? Show me the evidence he is a terrorist and I'll support it. I happen to believe in the value of a justice system that relies on evidence.
The simple fact is that Israel has every right to detain him indefinitely or until the end of hostilities.
That's your belief, and that might be technically legal under international law but I disagree with it. I find it interesting that you guys are happy to quote international law and UN decisions when it suits you, but label them racist and anti-semitic when they work against you.
Martial law as defined within the Geneva Conventions doesn't require that a detainee be charged. Period. End of subject.
By speaking out in favor and support of the terrorists and joining your voice with theirs for their release rather than continued detention you are supporting the terrorists.
Oh and they did give him a reason, "incitement" which is a big deal in Israel.
So again your response simply defies rational when you blatantly ignore the applicable international laws
I've not spoken out in favor of support of TERRORISTS. I've asked for evidence, and if there is evidence then he should be tried - beyond just Israel's say-so. The same as I would demand of Egypt. But keep on distorting it.
Yes you asked for evidence.
But under international law as set forth in the Geneva Conventions no evidence is required to hold prisoners of war or those who forfeit their protected persons status indefinitely
Ergo Israel isn't required to try or charge detainees.
So by taking up the pali cause and demanding that charges be filed or the prisoner released what you are doing is not only ignoring international law ( thus me claim that your view is irrational ) but also you are supporting the pali propaganda machine in its false claims that Israel is somehow required to press charges.
So you are supporting the terrorist diatribe and by extension the terrorists themselves
Which makes it really convenient for Israel doesn't it (kind of like Russia does, and Egypt does all in the name of a war on terrorism and extremism? And if one dares to question it, one is accused of supporting terrorists. Israel can do no wrong.
How do you stand on the arrest of muslim terrorists caged in Gitmo then ?
Not happy with Gitmo either - they should be tried and done with and whether it ends in execution or life or whatever, I don't care - they deserve a trial. That applies to anyone in captivity.
To have a fair trial the courts need all the details, if the defendant refuses to give their details them the wrong person could be found guilty. So the Geneva conventions were changed to reflect this and allowed for prisoners to be detained until the end of hostilities. This was deemed the fairest result possible under the circumstances, after the first released prisoner was arrested engaging in terrorism the doors should have been shut for good.
Except it's being abused. It's allowing people to be detained indefinately for any or no reason - and no transparency.
So any comment on it happening much more in Egypt then, have you heard about the 4 year old sentenced to life for his part in a terror attack. Or how about this one, In June 2014, Baher Mohamed, Mohamed Fahmy and Peter Greste were found guilty of aiding a terrorist organization all journalists
Actually, it's funny you should mention Egypt - I've complained plenty about Egypt's crack down on political dissent and journalists recently, but the standard response has been to ignore it or justify it as a remedy for the Muslim Brotherhood. Where were you?
For example - this thread. Morsi sentenced to death
So I'm curious - do you think administrative detainment doesn't get abused? How many journalists (including the one in the OP) never get charged with anything or convicted of anything?
You haven't been very good at proving me wrong.Lets work on staying on topic.
If Quds or whatever his name is prefers to starve should the Israeli's force feed him or not.
I'd say they should so as not to encourage these kinds of tantrums in the future. Let him go a few years with a feeding tube in him and see if he's a little more cooperative then.
And take lots of pictures so all the other terrorist collaborators can see what awaits them if they pull the same stunt.
Where is the evidence that he is a terrorist collaborator? Oh wait...there isn't any.
The only two things we can say for a FACT are that he is a Palestinian Journalist and Israel has a history of targeting journalists.
Where is the due legal procedure that you would be demanding be put in place if it was a Jew under house arrest. You would be telling everyone to stop asking for the evidence if they wanted a case to be heard.
Look up the term sub judice and see what it means, then ask yourself if only a Jew hater would keep asking for the evidence that you are asking for.
Wrong. I would demand the same thing regardless of who it is but you and I both know this seldom happens with Jews. In fact, only recently, after the firebombing of the Palestinian family, has it been used on Jewish extremists and the public outcry was intense.
Until you are proven wrong yet again, and have to eat humble pie.
How many times now have Jews been arrested, found guilty and been sentenced. Only to come back a week later and claim that Israel never puts Jews in prison, or arrests them or charges them with criminal offences. Rather two faced aren't you when it comes to racially demonising the Jews.
I don't use the term "never". What I've said, and backed up with evidence, is that Jews are far less likely to face the same penalties for the same actions as Palestinians. Crimes against Jews are pursued far more vigourously than crimes against Palestinians by Jews. Jews who commit the same crimes as Palestinians, particularly juviniles, face far less harsh treatment and have better legal protections. This isn't demonizing anyone - it's stating facts that I've supported over and over.
Not happy with Gitmo either - they should be tried and done with and whether it ends in execution or life or whatever, I don't care - they deserve a trial. That applies to anyone in captivity.
To have a fair trial the courts need all the details, if the defendant refuses to give their details them the wrong person could be found guilty. So the Geneva conventions were changed to reflect this and allowed for prisoners to be detained until the end of hostilities. This was deemed the fairest result possible under the circumstances, after the first released prisoner was arrested engaging in terrorism the doors should have been shut for good.
Except it's being abused. It's allowing people to be detained indefinately for any or no reason - and no transparency.
So any comment on it happening much more in Egypt then, have you heard about the 4 year old sentenced to life for his part in a terror attack. Or how about this one, In June 2014, Baher Mohamed, Mohamed Fahmy and Peter Greste were found guilty of aiding a terrorist organization all journalists
You won't get a rational response. The arguments supporting the terrorists aren't themselves rational nor are the beliefs needed to maintain the racism and bigotry involved in the Arab mind set concerning Israel.
I provided a rational response.
Who has made an argument supporting terrorists? Show me the evidence he is a terrorist and I'll support it. I happen to believe in the value of a justice system that relies on evidence.
The simple fact is that Israel has every right to detain him indefinitely or until the end of hostilities.
That's your belief, and that might be technically legal under international law but I disagree with it. I find it interesting that you guys are happy to quote international law and UN decisions when it suits you, but label them racist and anti-semitic when they work against you.
Not happy with Gitmo either - they should be tried and done with and whether it ends in execution or life or whatever, I don't care - they deserve a trial. That applies to anyone in captivity.
To have a fair trial the courts need all the details, if the defendant refuses to give their details them the wrong person could be found guilty. So the Geneva conventions were changed to reflect this and allowed for prisoners to be detained until the end of hostilities. This was deemed the fairest result possible under the circumstances, after the first released prisoner was arrested engaging in terrorism the doors should have been shut for good.
Except it's being abused. It's allowing people to be detained indefinately for any or no reason - and no transparency.
So any comment on it happening much more in Egypt then, have you heard about the 4 year old sentenced to life for his part in a terror attack. Or how about this one, In June 2014, Baher Mohamed, Mohamed Fahmy and Peter Greste were found guilty of aiding a terrorist organization all journalists
You won't get a rational response. The arguments supporting the terrorists aren't themselves rational nor are the beliefs needed to maintain the racism and bigotry involved in the Arab mind set concerning Israel.
I provided a rational response.
Who has made an argument supporting terrorists? Show me the evidence he is a terrorist and I'll support it. I happen to believe in the value of a justice system that relies on evidence.
The simple fact is that Israel has every right to detain him indefinitely or until the end of hostilities.
That's your belief, and that might be technically legal under international law but I disagree with it. I find it interesting that you guys are happy to quote international law and UN decisions when it suits you, but label them racist and anti-semitic when they work against you.
Which is why the US government tells its journalists that they are on their own if they go to those places. You might not see how many are arrested in Iran because your government tries to keep it quiet, but we do see the numbers here and ask why isn't Obama doing something about it
We do. It is not a secret. However, I have never before heard of a jailed journalist's hunger strike being labeled a "tantrum". That must only apply to Palestinian Journalists detained indefinately without charges.
Such is the wages of the terrorist supporter. We see them being arrested all the time in the UK, and their lawyers know better than to keep demanding evidence of their ties to terrorist organisations.
Most of what Palestinians do are just tantrums, until they realise that they wont get their own way and have gone too far to back down. The IRA soon learnt their lessons when they were allowed to die alone and in pain, even the church were banned from seeing them.
However there is no evidence that he did anything wrong. Given Israel's past history with journalists, I suspect that what they are detaiming him for.
More conjecture based on your Jew hatred, now you will deny that you show any Jew hatred
Sorry dude, you're stuck on "jew hatred" - maybe that's to cover up deficiencies on your partMy "conjecture" is backed, I'll repost the source: Reporters Without Borders
GCIV emphasised an important change in international law. The United Nations Charter (June 26, 1945) had prohibited war of aggression (See articles 1.1, 2.3, 2.4) and GCIV Article 47, the first paragraph in Section III: Occupied territories, restricted the territorial gains which could be made through war by stating:
Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.
Article 49 prohibits the forced mass movement of people out of or into occupied state's territory:
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. ... The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
Military occupation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Within the West Bank and Gaza Strip, any Israeli district army commander can issue an administrative detention order, and the order can be appealed at the Israeli district military court, or, if denied there, at the Supreme Court. Here too, an administrative detention order is valid for at most six months, but can be renewed by the appropriate authority. Israel refers its use of administrative detention in the occupied territories to Article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention 1949, which states that "If the Occupying Power considers it necessary, for imperative reasons of security, to take safety measures concerning protected persons, it may, at the most, subject them to assigned residence or to internment."[23]
According to Addameer, Israel held 285 Palestinians in administrative detention in June 2012.[24] Eighteen of them were members of parliament, out of 4,706 political prisoners. According to B'Tselem, as of April 2012, about 308 Palestinians were being held under administrative detention by the Israel Prisons Service(IPS) and statistics on those held by the IDF were unavailable.[25] According to IPS figures for December 2012, 178 Palestinians were being held in administrative detention (without charge or trial).[26] As of December 2013, B'Tselem reported that 140 Palestinians were being held under administrative detention by the IPS
Administrative detention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Except it's being abused. It's allowing people to be detained indefinately for any or no reason - and no transparency.
So any comment on it happening much more in Egypt then, have you heard about the 4 year old sentenced to life for his part in a terror attack. Or how about this one, In June 2014, Baher Mohamed, Mohamed Fahmy and Peter Greste were found guilty of aiding a terrorist organization all journalists
You won't get a rational response. The arguments supporting the terrorists aren't themselves rational nor are the beliefs needed to maintain the racism and bigotry involved in the Arab mind set concerning Israel.
I provided a rational response.
Who has made an argument supporting terrorists? Show me the evidence he is a terrorist and I'll support it. I happen to believe in the value of a justice system that relies on evidence.
The simple fact is that Israel has every right to detain him indefinitely or until the end of hostilities.
That's your belief, and that might be technically legal under international law but I disagree with it. I find it interesting that you guys are happy to quote international law and UN decisions when it suits you, but label them racist and anti-semitic when they work against you.
Martial law as defined within the Geneva Conventions doesn't require that a detainee be charged. Period. End of subject.
By speaking out in favor and support of the terrorists and joining your voice with theirs for their release rather than continued detention you are supporting the terrorists.
Oh and they did give him a reason, "incitement" which is a big deal in Israel.
So again your response simply defies rational when you blatantly ignore the applicable international laws
I've not spoken out in favor of support of TERRORISTS. I've asked for evidence, and if there is evidence then he should be tried - beyond just Israel's say-so. The same as I would demand of Egypt. But keep on distorting it.
You won't get a rational response. The arguments supporting the terrorists aren't themselves rational nor are the beliefs needed to maintain the racism and bigotry involved in the Arab mind set concerning Israel.
I provided a rational response.
Who has made an argument supporting terrorists? Show me the evidence he is a terrorist and I'll support it. I happen to believe in the value of a justice system that relies on evidence.
The simple fact is that Israel has every right to detain him indefinitely or until the end of hostilities.
That's your belief, and that might be technically legal under international law but I disagree with it. I find it interesting that you guys are happy to quote international law and UN decisions when it suits you, but label them racist and anti-semitic when they work against you.
Martial law as defined within the Geneva Conventions doesn't require that a detainee be charged. Period. End of subject.
By speaking out in favor and support of the terrorists and joining your voice with theirs for their release rather than continued detention you are supporting the terrorists.
Oh and they did give him a reason, "incitement" which is a big deal in Israel.
So again your response simply defies rational when you blatantly ignore the applicable international laws
I've not spoken out in favor of support of TERRORISTS. I've asked for evidence, and if there is evidence then he should be tried - beyond just Israel's say-so. The same as I would demand of Egypt. But keep on distorting it.
Yes you asked for evidence.
But under international law as set forth in the Geneva Conventions no evidence is required to hold prisoners of war or those who forfeit their protected persons status indefinitely
Ergo Israel isn't required to try or charge detainees.
So by taking up the pali cause and demanding that charges be filed or the prisoner released what you are doing is not only ignoring international law ( thus me claim that your view is irrational ) but also you are supporting the pali propaganda machine in its false claims that Israel is somehow required to press charges.
So you are supporting the terrorist diatribe and by extension the terrorists themselves
Which makes it really convenient for Israel doesn't it (kind of like Russia does, and Egypt does all in the name of a war on terrorism and extremism? And if one dares to question it, one is accused of supporting terrorists. Israel can do no wrong.
I provided a rational response.
Who has made an argument supporting terrorists? Show me the evidence he is a terrorist and I'll support it. I happen to believe in the value of a justice system that relies on evidence.
That's your belief, and that might be technically legal under international law but I disagree with it. I find it interesting that you guys are happy to quote international law and UN decisions when it suits you, but label them racist and anti-semitic when they work against you.
Martial law as defined within the Geneva Conventions doesn't require that a detainee be charged. Period. End of subject.
By speaking out in favor and support of the terrorists and joining your voice with theirs for their release rather than continued detention you are supporting the terrorists.
Oh and they did give him a reason, "incitement" which is a big deal in Israel.
So again your response simply defies rational when you blatantly ignore the applicable international laws
I've not spoken out in favor of support of TERRORISTS. I've asked for evidence, and if there is evidence then he should be tried - beyond just Israel's say-so. The same as I would demand of Egypt. But keep on distorting it.
Yes you asked for evidence.
But under international law as set forth in the Geneva Conventions no evidence is required to hold prisoners of war or those who forfeit their protected persons status indefinitely
Ergo Israel isn't required to try or charge detainees.
So by taking up the pali cause and demanding that charges be filed or the prisoner released what you are doing is not only ignoring international law ( thus me claim that your view is irrational ) but also you are supporting the pali propaganda machine in its false claims that Israel is somehow required to press charges.
So you are supporting the terrorist diatribe and by extension the terrorists themselves
Which makes it really convenient for Israel doesn't it (kind of like Russia does, and Egypt does all in the name of a war on terrorism and extremism? And if one dares to question it, one is accused of supporting terrorists. Israel can do no wrong.
You're inventing a false equivalence again. The Arab league declared war on Israel from day one. Under the Geneva Conventions the conditions for that war to have ended have yet to be established. Ergo the war continues and Israel is the defending party.
Which is nothing at all like the two examples you've offered
So any comment on it happening much more in Egypt then, have you heard about the 4 year old sentenced to life for his part in a terror attack. Or how about this one, In June 2014, Baher Mohamed, Mohamed Fahmy and Peter Greste were found guilty of aiding a terrorist organization all journalists
You won't get a rational response. The arguments supporting the terrorists aren't themselves rational nor are the beliefs needed to maintain the racism and bigotry involved in the Arab mind set concerning Israel.
I provided a rational response.
Who has made an argument supporting terrorists? Show me the evidence he is a terrorist and I'll support it. I happen to believe in the value of a justice system that relies on evidence.
The simple fact is that Israel has every right to detain him indefinitely or until the end of hostilities.
That's your belief, and that might be technically legal under international law but I disagree with it. I find it interesting that you guys are happy to quote international law and UN decisions when it suits you, but label them racist and anti-semitic when they work against you.
Martial law as defined within the Geneva Conventions doesn't require that a detainee be charged. Period. End of subject.
By speaking out in favor and support of the terrorists and joining your voice with theirs for their release rather than continued detention you are supporting the terrorists.
Oh and they did give him a reason, "incitement" which is a big deal in Israel.
So again your response simply defies rational when you blatantly ignore the applicable international laws
I've not spoken out in favor of support of TERRORISTS. I've asked for evidence, and if there is evidence then he should be tried - beyond just Israel's say-so. The same as I would demand of Egypt. But keep on distorting it.
Tried for what, and what should he get if he is found guilty ?
Not happy with Gitmo either - they should be tried and done with and whether it ends in execution or life or whatever, I don't care - they deserve a trial. That applies to anyone in captivity.
To have a fair trial the courts need all the details, if the defendant refuses to give their details them the wrong person could be found guilty. So the Geneva conventions were changed to reflect this and allowed for prisoners to be detained until the end of hostilities. This was deemed the fairest result possible under the circumstances, after the first released prisoner was arrested engaging in terrorism the doors should have been shut for good.
Except it's being abused. It's allowing people to be detained indefinately for any or no reason - and no transparency.
So any comment on it happening much more in Egypt then, have you heard about the 4 year old sentenced to life for his part in a terror attack. Or how about this one, In June 2014, Baher Mohamed, Mohamed Fahmy and Peter Greste were found guilty of aiding a terrorist organization all journalists
Actually, it's funny you should mention Egypt - I've complained plenty about Egypt's crack down on political dissent and journalists recently, but the standard response has been to ignore it or justify it as a remedy for the Muslim Brotherhood. Where were you?
For example - this thread. Morsi sentenced to death
So I'm curious - do you think administrative detainment doesn't get abused? How many journalists (including the one in the OP) never get charged with anything or convicted of anything?
Proving that it does work as it puts fear into their hearts, and stops the LIES being spread. If a journalist is suspected of having ties to a terrorist group then they should come clean and let the authorities know what they have learnt. Keeping it hidden shows they are hiding something and under suspicion of more than just fact finding.
We do. It is not a secret. However, I have never before heard of a jailed journalist's hunger strike being labeled a "tantrum". That must only apply to Palestinian Journalists detained indefinately without charges.
Such is the wages of the terrorist supporter. We see them being arrested all the time in the UK, and their lawyers know better than to keep demanding evidence of their ties to terrorist organisations.
Most of what Palestinians do are just tantrums, until they realise that they wont get their own way and have gone too far to back down. The IRA soon learnt their lessons when they were allowed to die alone and in pain, even the church were banned from seeing them.
However there is no evidence that he did anything wrong. Given Israel's past history with journalists, I suspect that what they are detaiming him for.
More conjecture based on your Jew hatred, now you will deny that you show any Jew hatred
Sorry dude, you're stuck on "jew hatred" - maybe that's to cover up deficiencies on your part
Dodging the issue again I see because you would incriminate yourself if you gave a lucid answer.
Are you denying that you show Jew hatred in your posts.............. YES or NO
I provided a rational response.
Who has made an argument supporting terrorists? Show me the evidence he is a terrorist and I'll support it. I happen to believe in the value of a justice system that relies on evidence.
That's your belief, and that might be technically legal under international law but I disagree with it. I find it interesting that you guys are happy to quote international law and UN decisions when it suits you, but label them racist and anti-semitic when they work against you.
Martial law as defined within the Geneva Conventions doesn't require that a detainee be charged. Period. End of subject.
By speaking out in favor and support of the terrorists and joining your voice with theirs for their release rather than continued detention you are supporting the terrorists.
Oh and they did give him a reason, "incitement" which is a big deal in Israel.
So again your response simply defies rational when you blatantly ignore the applicable international laws
I've not spoken out in favor of support of TERRORISTS. I've asked for evidence, and if there is evidence then he should be tried - beyond just Israel's say-so. The same as I would demand of Egypt. But keep on distorting it.
Yes you asked for evidence.
But under international law as set forth in the Geneva Conventions no evidence is required to hold prisoners of war or those who forfeit their protected persons status indefinitely
Ergo Israel isn't required to try or charge detainees.
So by taking up the pali cause and demanding that charges be filed or the prisoner released what you are doing is not only ignoring international law ( thus me claim that your view is irrational ) but also you are supporting the pali propaganda machine in its false claims that Israel is somehow required to press charges.
So you are supporting the terrorist diatribe and by extension the terrorists themselves
Which makes it really convenient for Israel doesn't it (kind of like Russia does, and Egypt does all in the name of a war on terrorism and extremism? And if one dares to question it, one is accused of supporting terrorists. Israel can do no wrong.
And the biggest culprits happen to be the USA who detain people without trial, withhold lawyers and refuse to try them in a court. So why aren't you comparing your own country and others doing the same with Israel, or is it your Jew hatred stepping in and stopping you
Martial law as defined within the Geneva Conventions doesn't require that a detainee be charged. Period. End of subject.
By speaking out in favor and support of the terrorists and joining your voice with theirs for their release rather than continued detention you are supporting the terrorists.
Oh and they did give him a reason, "incitement" which is a big deal in Israel.
So again your response simply defies rational when you blatantly ignore the applicable international laws
I've not spoken out in favor of support of TERRORISTS. I've asked for evidence, and if there is evidence then he should be tried - beyond just Israel's say-so. The same as I would demand of Egypt. But keep on distorting it.
Yes you asked for evidence.
But under international law as set forth in the Geneva Conventions no evidence is required to hold prisoners of war or those who forfeit their protected persons status indefinitely
Ergo Israel isn't required to try or charge detainees.
So by taking up the pali cause and demanding that charges be filed or the prisoner released what you are doing is not only ignoring international law ( thus me claim that your view is irrational ) but also you are supporting the pali propaganda machine in its false claims that Israel is somehow required to press charges.
So you are supporting the terrorist diatribe and by extension the terrorists themselves
Which makes it really convenient for Israel doesn't it (kind of like Russia does, and Egypt does all in the name of a war on terrorism and extremism? And if one dares to question it, one is accused of supporting terrorists. Israel can do no wrong.
You're inventing a false equivalence again. The Arab league declared war on Israel from day one. Under the Geneva Conventions the conditions for that war to have ended have yet to be established. Ergo the war continues and Israel is the defending party.
Which is nothing at all like the two examples you've offered
That war is over.
Such is the wages of the terrorist supporter. We see them being arrested all the time in the UK, and their lawyers know better than to keep demanding evidence of their ties to terrorist organisations.
Most of what Palestinians do are just tantrums, until they realise that they wont get their own way and have gone too far to back down. The IRA soon learnt their lessons when they were allowed to die alone and in pain, even the church were banned from seeing them.
However there is no evidence that he did anything wrong. Given Israel's past history with journalists, I suspect that what they are detaiming him for.
More conjecture based on your Jew hatred, now you will deny that you show any Jew hatred
Sorry dude, you're stuck on "jew hatred" - maybe that's to cover up deficiencies on your part
Dodging the issue again I see because you would incriminate yourself if you gave a lucid answer.
Are you denying that you show Jew hatred in your posts.............. YES or NO
Now you're just throwing mud trying to see if it hits. Grow up a little. I provided a source showing Israel's suppression and intimidation of Palestinian journalists.
