Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[Shusha]

Yes --- As I said: Your interpretation of the International Laws must be so, otherwise the Arab Palestinians lose thier legitimacy. So they MUST TWIST the law in order to achieve the illusion of legitimacy.

So true. We see this over and over in this conflict. Laws twisted and new meanings found for them.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I'm confused.

Indeed!

I thought that in 2014, when the Unity Government was formed, that President Mahmoud Abbas said the Unity Government was unable to operate in the Gaza Strip.

OK, you are getting close.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This question presupposes that the Arab Palestinians had something to defend...

Your assertion that the Arab Palestinians has the "Right TO:" resist occupation through force of arms, is exactly the opposite.

Where does it say that the Palestinians are exempt from the right to defend themselves?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Please tell me what sovereignty the Arab Palestinians had to defend.

This is illusionary.

Where is the boundaries for which the Arab Palestinians claims and maintains sovereignty?... If they are actually defending their land, then their should be some land which the Title and Rights are established as theirs.

In Israel, that is well established by the UNIFIL in the North, Jordanians to the East, and the Egyptians to the South.

Where are the Palestinians borders? I'll give you Gaza... But I'm not sure what Gaza is... It is almost a tiny country by itself.

Most Respectfully,
R

Pursuant to Article 73 of the Charter of the United nations,which Britain signed, sovereignty was held in trust on behalf of the inhabitants of Palestine up and until the British ended the mandate. The Muslim and Christian Arabs, who represented 70% of the population, as the majority, should have been supported in the creation of the independent state of Palestine. It is clear that the United Nations was not legally competent to decide or impose Palestine’s constitutional organization, it was for the majority of the inhabitants to decide, assuming minority protections, and they decided that:

1. That an Arab State in the whole of Palestine be established on democratic lines.

2. That the Arab State of Palestine would respect human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law.

3. That the Arab State of Palestine would protect the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities.

4. That freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places would be guaranteed to all.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This question presupposes that the Arab Palestinians had something to defend...

Your assertion that the Arab Palestinians has the "Right TO:" resist occupation through force of arms, is exactly the opposite.

Where does it say that the Palestinians are exempt from the right to defend themselves?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Please tell me what sovereignty the Arab Palestinians had to defend.

This is illusionary.

Where is the boundaries for which the Arab Palestinians claims and maintains sovereignty?... If they are actually defending their land, then their should be some land which the Title and Rights are established as theirs.

In Israel, that is well established by the UNIFIL in the North, Jordanians to the East, and the Egyptians to the South.

Where are the Palestinians borders? I'll give you Gaza... But I'm not sure what Gaza is... It is almost a tiny country by itself.

Most Respectfully,
R

Pursuant to Article 73 of the Charter of the United nations,which Britain signed, sovereignty was held in trust on behalf of the inhabitants of Palestine up and until the British ended the mandate. The Muslim and Christian Arabs, who represented 70% of the population, as the majority, should have been supported in the creation of the independent state of Palestine. It is clear that the United Nations was not legally competent to decide or impose Palestine’s constitutional organization, it was for the majority of the inhabitants to decide, assuming minority protections, and they decided that:

1. That an Arab State in the whole of Palestine be established on democratic lines.

2. That the Arab State of Palestine would respect human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law.

3. That the Arab State of Palestine would protect the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities.

4. That freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places would be guaranteed to all.

The 1948 Palestinian declaration of independence was completely in compliance of the law.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This question presupposes that the Arab Palestinians had something to defend...

Your assertion that the Arab Palestinians has the "Right TO:" resist occupation through force of arms, is exactly the opposite.

Where does it say that the Palestinians are exempt from the right to defend themselves?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Please tell me what sovereignty the Arab Palestinians had to defend.

This is illusionary.

Where is the boundaries for which the Arab Palestinians claims and maintains sovereignty?... If they are actually defending their land, then their should be some land which the Title and Rights are established as theirs.

In Israel, that is well established by the UNIFIL in the North, Jordanians to the East, and the Egyptians to the South.

Where are the Palestinians borders? I'll give you Gaza... But I'm not sure what Gaza is... It is almost a tiny country by itself.

Most Respectfully,
R

Pursuant to Article 73 of the Charter of the United nations,which Britain signed, sovereignty was held in trust on behalf of the inhabitants of Palestine up and until the British ended the mandate. The Muslim and Christian Arabs, who represented 70% of the population, as the majority, should have been supported in the creation of the independent state of Palestine. It is clear that the United Nations was not legally competent to decide or impose Palestine’s constitutional organization, it was for the majority of the inhabitants to decide, assuming minority protections, and they decided that:

1. That an Arab State in the whole of Palestine be established on democratic lines.

2. That the Arab State of Palestine would respect human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law.

3. That the Arab State of Palestine would protect the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities.

4. That freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places would be guaranteed to all.

The 1948 Palestinian declaration of independence was completely in compliance of the law.

You've fallen down and bumped your head again, right?

 

[theliq]

theliq, et al,

You are using generic allegations (theft, murder, and expulsion), not pinned to a particular event of period in time. The current ad hoc Government of Palestine is fractured and on the verge of being dysfunctional. The principle Factions now operating in [what has come to be called as the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt)] the territory occupied since 1967 (A/RES/43/177). The oPt has a mixture of rejectionist groups including (but not limited to) Islamic and secular movements:

§ Selected elements of the People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded 1961;
§ People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded in 1964;
§ Selected elements of the Palestine Popular Struggle Front (PPSF) Founded in 1967;
§ Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP) Founded 1967;
§ Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC) Founded 1968;
§ Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) Founded in 1969;
§ Revolutionary Communist Party (RCPof Palestine) Founded 1982;
§ Fatah Intifada (Abu Musa)Founded 1983;
§ Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) Founded 1987;
§ Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) Founded 1987;
​

To mitigate the emergence of multiple hostile foreign national aggressors

Do you mean the people fighting against theft, murder, and expulsion?

(COMMENT)

All that can be said, is in the Fourth Geneva Convention, which the UN Security Council directed to be applied in UNSC Resolution 237: and again in Resolution 446:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY

ARTICLE 68 --- STATES IN PART: ---

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

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional 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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Additional Protocol I
Article 43(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

Additional Protocol II
Article 1(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides that the Protocol
shall apply to all armed conflicts … which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.
​

The Arab Palestinians have no special rights or dispensation to Jihad and Armed Conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

No question that the Palestinians have been their own greatest enemy. It's called Palestinian mentality.

Native people that have been invaded by foreigners have every right to resist the invader in any way possible. Pursuant to

"United Nations
A/RES/37/43

​

General Assembly
Distr. GENERAL

3 December 1982

ORIGINAL:
ENGLISH



.........................2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,
including armed struggle;"

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

Would you say the Native American mentality that caused them to resist the European invasion was unreasonable?

As much as you would hope to encourage the Arabs-Moslems toward violence and armed attacks directed at the Israelis, nothing in your article provides an entitlement to kill israeli citizens.

That's the problem you are confronted with when you mindlessly cut and paste articles without understanding some very basic principles.

NO one is saying they want Violence against Jews......so STOP inferring such nonsense Hollie,get REAL

 

[RoccoR]

theliq, et al,

I don't believe this is true.

NO one is saying they want Violence against Jews......so STOP inferring such nonsense Hollie, get REAL

(COMMENT)

Many have said they want violence. Jihad and Armed Struggle is the preferred approach in answering the Question on Palestine.

It comes from the very first threat in February 1948, it is embedded in both the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement and the Palestinian National Charter. Violence is taught in summer camp for kids. Palestinian Leaders reinforce violence each time they praise martyrdom. Palestinians, are rejectionists and make demands to provoke confrontation. Palestinians promote themselves as warriors --- all the while attacking innocent and unarmed civilian targets. Whether it is HAMAS that announces it has not abandoned the option of suicide bombings (2013); or - Palestinian groups called for launching a third intifada against Israel --- the outcome is always the same. The Palestinians search for justification and means to inflict violence; generally in the form of cowardice attacks on unsuspecting innocents.

They want violence. They are a threat to peace and security. The Palestinians are unwilling to exercise Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[theliq]

theliq, et al,

I don't believe this is true.

NO one is saying they want Violence against Jews......so STOP inferring such nonsense Hollie, get REAL

(COMMENT)

Many have said they want violence. Jihad and Armed Struggle is the preferred approach in answering the Question on Palestine.

It comes from the very first threat in February 1948, it is embedded in both the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement and the Palestinian National Charter. Violence is taught in summer camp for kids. Palestinian Leaders reinforce violence each time they praise martyrdom. Palestinians, are rejectionists and make demands to provoke confrontation. Palestinians promote themselves as warriors --- all the while attacking innocent and unarmed civilian targets. Whether it is HAMAS that announces it has not abandoned the option of suicide bombings (2013); or - Palestinian groups called for launching a third intifada against Israel --- the outcome is always the same. The Palestinians search for justification and means to inflict violence; generally in the form of cowardice attacks on unsuspecting innocents.

They want violence. They are a threat to peace and security. The Palestinians are unwilling to exercise Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R

Come

 

[Eloy]

theliq, et al,

I don't believe this is true.

NO one is saying they want Violence against Jews......so STOP inferring such nonsense Hollie, get REAL

(COMMENT)

Many have said they want violence. Jihad and Armed Struggle is the preferred approach in answering the Question on Palestine.

It comes from the very first threat in February 1948, it is embedded in both the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement and the Palestinian National Charter. Violence is taught in summer camp for kids. Palestinian Leaders reinforce violence each time they praise martyrdom. Palestinians, are rejectionists and make demands to provoke confrontation. Palestinians promote themselves as warriors --- all the while attacking innocent and unarmed civilian targets. Whether it is HAMAS that announces it has not abandoned the option of suicide bombings (2013); or - Palestinian groups called for launching a third intifada against Israel --- the outcome is always the same. The Palestinians search for justification and means to inflict violence; generally in the form of cowardice attacks on unsuspecting innocents.

They want violence. They are a threat to peace and security. The Palestinians are unwilling to exercise Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R

Resistance to Israelis is not resistance to Jews. Israeli and Jew are not interchangeable words.

 

[theliq]

theliq, et al,

I don't believe this is true.

NO one is saying they want Violence against Jews......so STOP inferring such nonsense Hollie, get REAL

(COMMENT)

Many have said they want violence. Jihad and Armed Struggle is the preferred approach in answering the Question on Palestine.

It comes from the very first threat in February 1948, it is embedded in both the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement and the Palestinian National Charter. Violence is taught in summer camp for kids. Palestinian Leaders reinforce violence each time they praise martyrdom. Palestinians, are rejectionists and make demands to provoke confrontation. Palestinians promote themselves as warriors --- all the while attacking innocent and unarmed civilian targets. Whether it is HAMAS that announces it has not abandoned the option of suicide bombings (2013); or - Palestinian groups called for launching a third intifada against Israel --- the outcome is always the same. The Palestinians search for justification and means to inflict violence; generally in the form of cowardice attacks on unsuspecting innocents.

They want violence. They are a threat to peace and security. The Palestinians are unwilling to exercise Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R

CC


Come off it Rocco,the Zionists have been waging War on the Palestinians prior to and ever since 1948........lets be honest here for a change(and yes some on here have stated that the Palestinians should be driven into the sea....you have seen all these negative Zionist commentary on here) all the Palestinians want is their own State/Country.FULL STOP.

Israel/Zionists have NO MORAL HIGH GROUND in this instance at all

As for your incendiary comment regarding the teaching of children to create violence towards Jews is churlish at best...........My Jewish friend allowed his two sons to go to Israel in their teens(a right of passage as it were) The boys were lovely kids....After 3 weeks of indoctorination they came back Rabid Haters of Palestinians.....much to the disappointment of their father and mother.......so pleasssseeeee stop all this nonsense about only the Palestinians because the Jews/Zionists are much worse....at least the Palestinian children see the violence and injustice as the live it every day....It is a shame that this type of thing occurs from both sides as it just continues this schism.

I note you never criticize Zionists,but are happy to dump on the Palestinians all the time....it is just a form of mental myopia,if you get my drift........your post would have been more appropriate if you had also gave a list of Jewish Terrorist etc., and dates of formation(which you more than most are quite capable of....but you chose not to..Why ?

And another thing Rocco,stop implying I somehow am trying to Tarnish you in any way......I was responding to your inaccurate post about the growth rate in Israel(which I might add,has been natrually sic created/occurred by the Ultras and Palestinians birth rates) and by immigrants coming to Israel.....as I said thousands of Jews have left and are leaving Israel.

I expect a lot from you Rocco I know but that is the way it is.......I will take this opportunity of wishing Your Family and Yourself Seasons Greetings...steve

 

[Shusha]

Resistance to Israelis is not resistance to Jews. Israeli and Jew are not interchangeable words.

Bullshit. How many Arab Israelis have been stabbed or run over by cars? How many clerics have called for the stabbing of Muslims?

 

[Eloy]

Resistance to Israelis is not resistance to Jews. Israeli and Jew are not interchangeable words.

Bullshit. How many Arab Israelis have been stabbed or run over by cars? How many clerics have called for the stabbing of Muslims?

This is the first time you characterized any of my posts with an expletive. Do not expect to hear from me again.

 

[P F Tinmore]

theliq, et al,

I don't believe this is true.

NO one is saying they want Violence against Jews......so STOP inferring such nonsense Hollie, get REAL

(COMMENT)

Many have said they want violence. Jihad and Armed Struggle is the preferred approach in answering the Question on Palestine.

It comes from the very first threat in February 1948, it is embedded in both the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement and the Palestinian National Charter. Violence is taught in summer camp for kids. Palestinian Leaders reinforce violence each time they praise martyrdom. Palestinians, are rejectionists and make demands to provoke confrontation. Palestinians promote themselves as warriors --- all the while attacking innocent and unarmed civilian targets. Whether it is HAMAS that announces it has not abandoned the option of suicide bombings (2013); or - Palestinian groups called for launching a third intifada against Israel --- the outcome is always the same. The Palestinians search for justification and means to inflict violence; generally in the form of cowardice attacks on unsuspecting innocents.

They want violence. They are a threat to peace and security. The Palestinians are unwilling to exercise Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R

Jews spend a day in Gaza. Funny, I don't see any violence.

 

[Phoenall]

I'm confused.

Indeed!

I thought that in 2014, when the Unity Government was formed, that President Mahmoud Abbas said the Unity Government was unable to operate in the Gaza Strip.

OK, you are getting close.

Why dont you just provide the link and then watch as it is taken apart strand by strand and proven to be just another tinmore LIE

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This question presupposes that the Arab Palestinians had something to defend...

Your assertion that the Arab Palestinians has the "Right TO:" resist occupation through force of arms, is exactly the opposite.

Where does it say that the Palestinians are exempt from the right to defend themselves?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Please tell me what sovereignty the Arab Palestinians had to defend.

This is illusionary.

Where is the boundaries for which the Arab Palestinians claims and maintains sovereignty?... If they are actually defending their land, then their should be some land which the Title and Rights are established as theirs.

In Israel, that is well established by the UNIFIL in the North, Jordanians to the East, and the Egyptians to the South.

Where are the Palestinians borders? I'll give you Gaza... But I'm not sure what Gaza is... It is almost a tiny country by itself.

Most Respectfully,
R

Pursuant to Article 73 of the Charter of the United nations,which Britain signed, sovereignty was held in trust on behalf of the inhabitants of Palestine up and until the British ended the mandate. The Muslim and Christian Arabs, who represented 70% of the population, as the majority, should have been supported in the creation of the independent state of Palestine. It is clear that the United Nations was not legally competent to decide or impose Palestine’s constitutional organization, it was for the majority of the inhabitants to decide, assuming minority protections, and they decided that:

1. That an Arab State in the whole of Palestine be established on democratic lines.

2. That the Arab State of Palestine would respect human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law.

3. That the Arab State of Palestine would protect the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities.

4. That freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places would be guaranteed to all.

The arab and Christian refused to be part of the deal so lost out and in the process lost the ability to declare independence. Even my 7 year old grand daughter knows this and understands that you lose if you dont take part


1) They have already said that no Jew born after 1870 will be allowed to live in palestine

2) They made the same promise in 1988 and the world is still waiting for it to be put in place

3) They have shown how they will do that by wiping them out

4) They wont allow the Jews and Christians any access to their holy places now so what chance that crock of shit.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This question presupposes that the Arab Palestinians had something to defend...

Your assertion that the Arab Palestinians has the "Right TO:" resist occupation through force of arms, is exactly the opposite.

Where does it say that the Palestinians are exempt from the right to defend themselves?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Please tell me what sovereignty the Arab Palestinians had to defend.

This is illusionary.

Where is the boundaries for which the Arab Palestinians claims and maintains sovereignty?... If they are actually defending their land, then their should be some land which the Title and Rights are established as theirs.

In Israel, that is well established by the UNIFIL in the North, Jordanians to the East, and the Egyptians to the South.

Where are the Palestinians borders? I'll give you Gaza... But I'm not sure what Gaza is... It is almost a tiny country by itself.

Most Respectfully,
R

Pursuant to Article 73 of the Charter of the United nations,which Britain signed, sovereignty was held in trust on behalf of the inhabitants of Palestine up and until the British ended the mandate. The Muslim and Christian Arabs, who represented 70% of the population, as the majority, should have been supported in the creation of the independent state of Palestine. It is clear that the United Nations was not legally competent to decide or impose Palestine’s constitutional organization, it was for the majority of the inhabitants to decide, assuming minority protections, and they decided that:

1. That an Arab State in the whole of Palestine be established on democratic lines.

2. That the Arab State of Palestine would respect human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law.

3. That the Arab State of Palestine would protect the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities.

4. That freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places would be guaranteed to all.

The 1948 Palestinian declaration of independence was completely in compliance of the law.

Apart from it claimed land that was already claimed by the Jews, italso failed to show they had free determination and were capable of standing on their own. The declaration was made by a third party, the arab league, making it unlawful outside influence. So what you see as being in compliance with the law was no such thing, it was a tactic to circumvent the Jews already valid acceptance and it failed.

 

[Phoenall]

theliq, et al,

You are using generic allegations (theft, murder, and expulsion), not pinned to a particular event of period in time. The current ad hoc Government of Palestine is fractured and on the verge of being dysfunctional. The principle Factions now operating in [what has come to be called as the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt)] the territory occupied since 1967 (A/RES/43/177). The oPt has a mixture of rejectionist groups including (but not limited to) Islamic and secular movements:

§ Selected elements of the People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded 1961;
§ People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded in 1964;
§ Selected elements of the Palestine Popular Struggle Front (PPSF) Founded in 1967;
§ Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP) Founded 1967;
§ Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC) Founded 1968;
§ Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) Founded in 1969;
§ Revolutionary Communist Party (RCPof Palestine) Founded 1982;
§ Fatah Intifada (Abu Musa)Founded 1983;
§ Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) Founded 1987;
§ Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) Founded 1987;
​

Do you mean the people fighting against theft, murder, and expulsion?

(COMMENT)

All that can be said, is in the Fourth Geneva Convention, which the UN Security Council directed to be applied in UNSC Resolution 237: and again in Resolution 446:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY

ARTICLE 68 --- STATES IN PART: ---

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

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional 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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Additional Protocol I
Article 43(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

Additional Protocol II
Article 1(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides that the Protocol
shall apply to all armed conflicts … which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.
​

The Arab Palestinians have no special rights or dispensation to Jihad and Armed Conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

No question that the Palestinians have been their own greatest enemy. It's called Palestinian mentality.

Native people that have been invaded by foreigners have every right to resist the invader in any way possible. Pursuant to

"United Nations
A/RES/37/43

​

General Assembly
Distr. GENERAL

3 December 1982

ORIGINAL:
ENGLISH



.........................2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,
including armed struggle;"

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

Would you say the Native American mentality that caused them to resist the European invasion was unreasonable?

As much as you would hope to encourage the Arabs-Moslems toward violence and armed attacks directed at the Israelis, nothing in your article provides an entitlement to kill israeli citizens.

That's the problem you are confronted with when you mindlessly cut and paste articles without understanding some very basic principles.

NO one is saying they want Violence against Jews......so STOP inferring such nonsense Hollie,get REAL

Have youread the palestinian charter and the hamas charter recently. Or watched the videos of palestinians inciting violence against the Jews ?
OR WILL YOU CLAIM THESE ARE ZIONIST LIES ?

 

[Phoenall]

theliq, et al,

I don't believe this is true.

NO one is saying they want Violence against Jews......so STOP inferring such nonsense Hollie, get REAL

(COMMENT)

Many have said they want violence. Jihad and Armed Struggle is the preferred approach in answering the Question on Palestine.

It comes from the very first threat in February 1948, it is embedded in both the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement and the Palestinian National Charter. Violence is taught in summer camp for kids. Palestinian Leaders reinforce violence each time they praise martyrdom. Palestinians, are rejectionists and make demands to provoke confrontation. Palestinians promote themselves as warriors --- all the while attacking innocent and unarmed civilian targets. Whether it is HAMAS that announces it has not abandoned the option of suicide bombings (2013); or - Palestinian groups called for launching a third intifada against Israel --- the outcome is always the same. The Palestinians search for justification and means to inflict violence; generally in the form of cowardice attacks on unsuspecting innocents.

They want violence. They are a threat to peace and security. The Palestinians are unwilling to exercise Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R

Resistance to Israelis is not resistance to Jews. Israeli and Jew are not interchangeable words.

Then why do you use them as such ?

 

[Phoenall]

Resistance to Israelis is not resistance to Jews. Israeli and Jew are not interchangeable words.

Bullshit. How many Arab Israelis have been stabbed or run over by cars? How many clerics have called for the stabbing of Muslims?

This is the first time you characterized any of my posts with an expletive. Do not expect to hear from me again.

Typical coward that backs out rather than fight the corner. Will you leave for good and not come back when everyone does the same thing to you

 

[Phoenall]

theliq, et al,

I don't believe this is true.

NO one is saying they want Violence against Jews......so STOP inferring such nonsense Hollie, get REAL

(COMMENT)

Many have said they want violence. Jihad and Armed Struggle is the preferred approach in answering the Question on Palestine.

It comes from the very first threat in February 1948, it is embedded in both the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement and the Palestinian National Charter. Violence is taught in summer camp for kids. Palestinian Leaders reinforce violence each time they praise martyrdom. Palestinians, are rejectionists and make demands to provoke confrontation. Palestinians promote themselves as warriors --- all the while attacking innocent and unarmed civilian targets. Whether it is HAMAS that announces it has not abandoned the option of suicide bombings (2013); or - Palestinian groups called for launching a third intifada against Israel --- the outcome is always the same. The Palestinians search for justification and means to inflict violence; generally in the form of cowardice attacks on unsuspecting innocents.

They want violence. They are a threat to peace and security. The Palestinians are unwilling to exercise Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R

Jews spend a day in Gaza. Funny, I don't see any violence.

You wont when the arab muslims are mooching of the left wing Jews, but let them say we have no more to give and the violence will erupt