Palestine Today

[P F Tinmore]

Are You saying civilians are "fair game" during war?

No.

I've seen this argument from him before. He is trying to argue that people who have the same nationality as the "occupiers" are not civilians and therefore ARE fair game during conflict as they have none of the human rights afforded all other peoples. And, of course, he applies this only to Jews.

Don't blame me. I am just posting what I read.

 

[Shusha]

It is Israel's conflict. The Palestinians have no choice in the matter.

Don't be ridiculous. The Arab Palestinians, and the Gazans in particular, have every single option available to them. The fact that they continue to provoke Israel with ineffective acts of violence is a matter of CHOICE. They have plenty of other choices.

 

[Shusha]

Are You saying civilians are "fair game" during war?

No.

I've seen this argument from him before. He is trying to argue that people who have the same nationality as the "occupiers" are not civilians and therefore ARE fair game during conflict as they have none of the human rights afforded all other peoples. And, of course, he applies this only to Jews.

Don't blame me. I am just posting what I read.

I can't believe you just owned that. Do you realize how hideous it is to believe that certain groups of people have NO human rights?

 

[rylah]

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

You keep tossing around "international law" as though you can make it mean anything you want it to mean.

Just because a person falls outside a definition of a particular convention or legal instrument does not mean that no other conventions or legal instruments apply to that person. For example, Americans are protected under the US Constitution. That doesn't mean Canadians have no rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Just because Israeli civilians do not fall under the definition "protected persons" in GCIV does not mean they are not protected by other IHL, including the right to life. (And frankly, to imply otherwise -- that Israelis and Jews are not "protected" and have no right to life -- is vehemently, uncompromisingly evil. It is the very basis for the Shoah).

And while "terrorism" may not have a legal definition, it has a very clear everyday one: The use of violence, usually against innocents ,to cause fear and pressure for political ends. This is most certainly what Hamas is doing.

Just because a person falls outside a definition of a particular convention or legal instrument does not mean that no other conventions or legal instruments apply to that person.

The law applies or not depending on the situation. In the case of occupation, protected person does not apply.

Are You saying civilians are "fair game" during war?

Only if they are Jewish.

Scratch a #BDS-hole...and he'll eventually himself prove beyond any doubt why Jews deserve Israel.
Will get right over his head though

 

[Shusha]

As is understood by the civilized world, Nothing can justify Arab Palestinian terrorism — ever. No Arab Palestinian grievance, no Arab Palestinian goal, no Arab Palestinian cause can excuse terrorist acts.

Do you have a link for that?

Are you trying to argue that terrorist acts (specifically the murder of civilians in civilian settings) is legal, under certain circumstances? Do YOU have a link for THAT?

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is Israel's conflict. The Palestinians have no choice in the matter.

Don't be ridiculous. The Arab Palestinians, and the Gazans in particular, have every single option available to them. The fact that they continue to provoke Israel with ineffective acts of violence is a matter of CHOICE. They have plenty of other choices.

I don't recall the Palestinians ever choosing to be attacked by Israel.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore
How else do You define a suicidal inclination at continuing the conflict on the account of Your own people, for mere existence of the conflict??

It is Israel's conflict. The Palestinians have no choice in the matter.

Actually, it is the Arabs-Moslems who are the aggressors. Self defense is an inherent right.

 

[Hollie]

It is Israel's conflict. The Palestinians have no choice in the matter.

Don't be ridiculous. The Arab Palestinians, and the Gazans in particular, have every single option available to them. The fact that they continue to provoke Israel with ineffective acts of violence is a matter of CHOICE. They have plenty of other choices.

I don't recall the Palestinians ever choosing to be attacked by Israel.

Arabs-Moslems choose to attack Israel thus provoking a response.

 

[P F Tinmore]

As is understood by the civilized world, Nothing can justify Arab Palestinian terrorism — ever. No Arab Palestinian grievance, no Arab Palestinian goal, no Arab Palestinian cause can excuse terrorist acts.

Do you have a link for that?

Are you trying to argue that terrorist acts (specifically the murder of civilians in civilian settings) is legal, under certain circumstances? Do YOU have a link for THAT?

"Civilian" is not the proper term to use.

 

[Shusha]

I don't recall the Palestinians ever choosing to be attacked by Israel.

The presence of Jews in their own homeland is not an "attack". Gazans have every choice right now, in this moment. They choose to continue to attempt to provoke Israel with acts of violence. They have other choices.

 

[Shusha]

As is understood by the civilized world, Nothing can justify Arab Palestinian terrorism — ever. No Arab Palestinian grievance, no Arab Palestinian goal, no Arab Palestinian cause can excuse terrorist acts.

Do you have a link for that?

Are you trying to argue that terrorist acts (specifically the murder of civilians in civilian settings) is legal, under certain circumstances? Do YOU have a link for THAT?

"Civilian" is not the proper term to use.

Yes, yes. I know. You want to find a term which makes it legal to kill certain groups of people based on their belonging to that group. Out of curiosity, what term would you use in my sentence? Non-combatants? Innocents? People?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

More subterfuge. You have a lack of understanding.

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Violations of law, are not justified because others (may or may not have) committed similar legal indiscretions.

For example: Hamas does not operate outside its own borders and does not attack protected persons as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. So where is the terrorism? Yet Israel throws around terrorism like candy at a blossom time parade when it comes to Hamas. This is just political name calling.

For example:

Hamas murdered civilians in Tel-Aviv and Tiberias, in a cafe and on a bus.

Israel murders civilians all of the time.

You never play the terrorist card on them.

(COMMENT)

You cannot compare the (Israeli) actions taken under the Law of Land Warfare, the Geneva Convention, or the Charter Right of Self-Defense, WITH (Arab Palestinian) violations of Customary IHL Rules.

Most Respectfully,
R

You can't claim self-defense against the occupied territory.

Look it up.[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

If, an attack originated from an Occupied Area, but targets another country, it is self-defense under Charter Article 51: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member."

The Israelis have the authority to take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, pursuant to Article 43 HR.

Protected persons (the Arab Palestinians) who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (ie Israel) are subject to that force necessary to subdue and apprehend offenders:
Article 68 GCIV

Liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed.

The death penalty may be pronounced against a protected person (Arab Palestinians) In any case, Arab Palestinian 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.​

Don't try to avoid the actual situation in the Territories and the action actually taken by the Arab Palestinian. They are responsible for their actions and liable for what they do.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

I don't recall the Palestinians ever choosing to be attacked by Israel.

The presence of Jews in their own homeland is not an "attack". Gazans have every choice right now, in this moment. They choose to continue to attempt to provoke Israel with acts of violence. They have other choices.

Palestinians are attacked in their own villages and neighborhoods. They do not go attack Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

If, an attack originated from an Occupied Area, but targets another country,

The Palestinians never cross a border into another country.

 

[Hollie]

I don't recall the Palestinians ever choosing to be attacked by Israel.

The presence of Jews in their own homeland is not an "attack". Gazans have every choice right now, in this moment. They choose to continue to attempt to provoke Israel with acts of violence. They have other choices.

Palestinians are attacked in their own villages and neighborhoods. They do not go attack Israel.

Except when Islamic terrorists attack Israel.

How Hamas uses its tunnels to kill and capture Israeli soldiers

 

[RoccoR]

As is understood by the civilized world, Nothing can justify Arab Palestinian terrorism — ever. No Arab Palestinian grievance, no Arab Palestinian goal, no Arab Palestinian cause can excuse terrorist acts.

Do you have a link for that?

(REFERENCE)

Paragraph 7: No Policy to Fight Terrorism Can Succeed without Addressing Conditions Promoting Its Spread, Secretary-General Tells Security Council Debate
SG/SM/14764-SC/10883
15 January 2013
v/r
R

 

[Hollie]

If, an attack originated from an Occupied Area, but targets another country,

The Palestinians never cross a border into another country.

Except when the Islamist terrorists burrow into Egypt or Israel.

Israel says it destroyed 'attack tunnel' that went from Gaza into Israel and Egypt

 

[Shusha]

Palestinians are attacked in their own villages and neighborhoods. They do not go attack Israel.

If they are not attacking Israel -- then they are attacking Jews. They attack Jews for being present in a space they believe should be Jew-free. Thank you for acknowledging that the violence committed by Arab "Palestinians" is not an attack on Israel -- but just an attack on Jews. We agree.

 

[P F Tinmore]

As is understood by the civilized world, Nothing can justify Arab Palestinian terrorism — ever. No Arab Palestinian grievance, no Arab Palestinian goal, no Arab Palestinian cause can excuse terrorist acts.

Do you have a link for that?

(REFERENCE)

Paragraph 7: No Policy to Fight Terrorism Can Succeed without Addressing Conditions Promoting Its Spread, Secretary-General Tells Security Council Debate
SG/SM/14764-SC/10883
15 January 2013
v/r
R

No mention of Palestine here.

 

[Shusha]

The Palestinians never cross a border into another country.

Agreed. It is an internal civil war between the Jewish and some Arab "Palestinians" (now called Israelis) and some Arab "Palestinians". Therefore, there is no occupation and all your claims about no self-defense for occupiers is bogus.