PCHR condemns Israel's 'extra-judicial execution' attempt in Gaza

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Targeted assassinations are unlawful under international and I read that the Palestinian human rights organization PCHR condemns Israels Attempt To Carry Out A Targeted killling/EXTRAJUDICIAL Assassination Attempt On Sunday.

I point out Btselem also condemns and tracks targeted killings on their website.

Under international law, it is only lawful to target persons when they are participating in the hostilities.

A man driving a motorcycle down a road in a civilian area is not a legitimate military target, nor is an 11 year old boy or houses or buses in the vicinity which were attacked by Israel in this unlawful airstrike.

PCHR condemns Israel's 'extra-judicial execution' attempt in Gaza

BETHLEHEM (Ma'an) --

"A Palestinian human rights organization on Sunday condemned what it called an "extra-judicial execution attempt" by Israeli forces on the same day."

PCHR, The Palestinian Center for Human Rights, declared in a statement yesterday, Sunday, January 19, 2014, that an Israeli airstrike that targeted a member of a Palestinian militant group serves "to escalate tension in the region and (threatens) the lives of Palestinian civilians."

PCHR stated that an Israeli drone strike seriously injured an al-Quds Brigades member named Ahmad Saad while he was riding his motorcycle in northern Gaza.

PCHR further stated:"Additionally, a passing child, 11-year-old Salah Fareed al-Ghuf, was injured by shrapnel to the right foot."

And PCHR addresses further damage to civilian objects in the Israeli strike, indicating that the strike also damaged a Palestinian family's home and two buses.

According to PCHR, this Israeli attack was the first of its kind in 2014, and the second since April 2013.

On April 30, 2013, an Israeli drone targeted and killed Hiatham al-Mis’hal, from Gaza City.

"Since 2004, 636 Palestinians, including 392 civilians (this number includes 184 children and 14 women), have been killed and 438 others, including 401 civilians (this number includes 364 children and 4 women) have been wounded in attacks launched by Israeli drones."

The PCHR stated they were "deeply concerned" about the attacks, stating they reflected "Israel's disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians," and calling upon the international community to pressure Israel to stop them.

PCHR condemns Israel's 'extra-judicial execution' attempt in Gaza | Maan News Agency

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

We now learn the name of the child who Israel injured in their airstrike yesterday.

He was just a child passing by on the street, he is 11 years old, and his name is Salah Fareed al-Ghuf.

It was reported yesterday he was taken to the hospital after suffering serious injuries.

I read now more about his injuries, he was injured by shrapnel to the right foot.

And I thank God this child appears to be recovering, to God is owed all the credit.

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

What is the concept behind extrajudicial action?

When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) claim that they have no other choice but to conduct Jihadist activities (by any mean necessary --- aggression by whatever means, including armed struggle --- the means and opportunities that will enable them to continue to carry out their leading role in the armed revolution --- encouraging resistance to it by all means), is that "extrajudicial action?"

References:

• HAMAS Covenant: Article 21: Mutual social responsibility
  
• Palestine National Charter of 1968: Article 15: The liberation of Palestine,
  
• Arab Convention: Right of Peoples to Combat Foreign Occupation
  
• Senior Hamas Official: The Resistance Is Entitled To Attack

(QUESTIONS)

The argument for or against "extrajudicial action" is seldom one-sided. It is a matter of perception and justification (the quality of being fair, equitableness, or moral righteousness recognized by society). If the concept of "extrajudicial action" is ever rational and justifiable, then there must --- at some point --- be a sound and valid argument in its favor. What is that argument?

Is their ever a condition in which there is no inherent right to self-defense in the face of an armed attack? Is there ever a condition in which the a self-defense is unjustified if the aggressor, exercising "extrajudicial action," has opened a goal of genocide ("genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group) ([URL="http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/b9ee848fd989e7af85256fb00075c092?OpenDocument"]“The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out – man women and child.")[/URL]?

If a religious group, backed by the UN General Assembly, establish a independent state in accordance with its recommendations and implementation procedures, and then is attacked by hostile external influences for following the UN Protocols, would such a set of conditions justify "extrajudicial action" by any mean necessary --- aggression by whatever means, including armed struggle --- the means and opportunities that will enable them to continue to carry out their leading role in the armed revolution --- encouraging resistance to it by all means --- to secure life, liberty, and the protection of the sovereign state?

(COMMENT)

If must be understood what these phases mean:

• any mean necessary
• by whatever means
• the means and opportunities that will enable them to continue

An "occupation" is within the capture phrase: "by any means."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

My focus is on The Fourth Geneva Convention and international legal principles governing Occupation.

That is very clear, proper military targets are persons participating in the hostilities when targeted.

To be a proper target, a person must be participating in hostilities when attacked.

Riding a motorcycle down a road in a civilian area is not participating in hostilities.

 

[irosie91]

I am delighted that sherri objects vigorously to all operations carred on
against Israel by neighboring countries since 1948. I can think of not one
that targeted persons actually engaged in hostilities. -----She has---in the past
defended even sneak in and slit the baby's throats actions and has certainly
objected to incarceration of those holding the knives. We are certainly
"GETTING SOMEWHERE" now

She has fiinally repudiated that well known stand amongst 'palestinians'---"i
can kill anyone---regardless of age or gender or activity who I believe is
'part of the occupation' " Perhaps she will notify both Al Azhar University and
Iran of this 'NEW GOSPEL"

 

[Phoenall]

My focus is on The Fourth Geneva Convention and international legal principles governing Occupation.

That is very clear, proper military targets are persons participating in the hostilities when targeted.

To be a proper target, a person must be participating in hostilities when attacked.

Riding a motorcycle down a road in a civilian area is not participating in hostilities.

Cherry picking the parts that support your POV again, did you deliberately miss this part because it destroys your argument

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.

Now as far as I am aware the gazan muslims are not bound by the Geneva conventions, so they are not protected by it.

 

[irosie91]

My focus is on The Fourth Geneva Convention and international legal principles governing Occupation.

That is very clear, proper military targets are persons participating in the hostilities when targeted.

To be a proper target, a person must be participating in hostilities when attacked.

Riding a motorcycle down a road in a civilian area is not participating in hostilities.

Cherry picking the parts that support your POV again, did you deliberately miss this part because it destroys your argument

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.

Now as far as I am aware the gazan muslims are not bound by the Geneva conventions, so they are not protected by it.

really phoen? do you know---off hand of other nations whose nationals engage in the
filth of jihad-----which are not participants? You present a very intriguing issue-----to
wit----lots of people are NOT protected by the Geneva conference details -------gee----would
that include the people at GUANTANOMO? If a person of a nation covered goes to
fight for a non-participating nation-----is that person "protected"?

 

[P F Tinmore]

My focus is on The Fourth Geneva Convention and international legal principles governing Occupation.

That is very clear, proper military targets are persons participating in the hostilities when targeted.

To be a proper target, a person must be participating in hostilities when attacked.

Riding a motorcycle down a road in a civilian area is not participating in hostilities.

Cherry picking the parts that support your POV again, did you deliberately miss this part because it destroys your argument

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.

Now as far as I am aware the gazan muslims are not bound by the Geneva conventions, so they are not protected by it.

I guess that means that it is not illegal to target Israeli citizens.

 

[toastman]

My focus is on The Fourth Geneva Convention and international legal principles governing Occupation.

That is very clear, proper military targets are persons participating in the hostilities when targeted.

To be a proper target, a person must be participating in hostilities when attacked.

Riding a motorcycle down a road in a civilian area is not participating in hostilities.

Cherry picking the parts that support your POV again, did you deliberately miss this part because it destroys your argument

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.

Now as far as I am aware the gazan muslims are not bound by the Geneva conventions, so they are not protected by it.

I guess that means that it is not illegal to target Israeli citizens.

You're a massive piece of shit

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

"101. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in any occupied territory in the event of an armed conflict arising between two or more High Contracting Parties. Israel and Jordan were parties to that Convention when the 1967 armed conflict broke out. The Court accordingly finds that that Convention is applicable in the Palestinian territories which before the conflict lay to the east of the Green Line and which, during that conflict, were occupied by Israel, there being no need for any enquiry into the precise prior status of those territories."

http://www.geocities.com/savepalest...2003/studyguides/icj2003sghumanitarianlaw.htm


What are you blabbering?

Israel occupies Gaza, they can only target military targets, defined under Protocol 1 of The Fourth Geneva Convention as persons participating in the hostilities.

The Fourth Geneva Convention does apply to Israels Occupation in Palestine, held applicable by The International Court of Justice in the Advisory Opinion on The Wall.

My focus is on The Fourth Geneva Convention and international legal principles governing Occupation.

That is very clear, proper military targets are persons participating in the hostilities when targeted.

To be a proper target, a person must be participating in hostilities when attacked.

Riding a motorcycle down a road in a civilian area is not participating in hostilities.

Cherry picking the parts that support your POV again, did you deliberately miss this part because it destroys your argument

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.

Now as far as I am aware the gazan muslims are not bound by the Geneva conventions, so they are not protected by it.

 

[Phoenall]

My focus is on The Fourth Geneva Convention and international legal principles governing Occupation.

That is very clear, proper military targets are persons participating in the hostilities when targeted.

To be a proper target, a person must be participating in hostilities when attacked.

Riding a motorcycle down a road in a civilian area is not participating in hostilities.

Cherry picking the parts that support your POV again, did you deliberately miss this part because it destroys your argument

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.

Now as far as I am aware the gazan muslims are not bound by the Geneva conventions, so they are not protected by it.

really phoen? do you know---off hand of other nations whose nationals engage in the
filth of jihad-----which are not participants? You present a very intriguing issue-----to
wit----lots of people are NOT protected by the Geneva conference details -------gee----would
that include the people at GUANTANOMO? If a person of a nation covered goes to
fight for a non-participating nation-----is that person "protected"?

To be protected by the Geneva conventions your state must first sign up to abide by them, as far as I know there is no state of Palestine that has ever signed up to abide by the Geneva conventions. In fact most Islamic nations have refused to sign up to the Geneva conventions, yet are amongst the first to demand that they apply in any fighting they become involved in. So YES the inmates of Guantanamo bay are not "PROTECTED PERSONS" by dint of the fact their adoptive nation has not signed up

 

[Phoenall]

My focus is on The Fourth Geneva Convention and international legal principles governing Occupation.

That is very clear, proper military targets are persons participating in the hostilities when targeted.

To be a proper target, a person must be participating in hostilities when attacked.

Riding a motorcycle down a road in a civilian area is not participating in hostilities.

Cherry picking the parts that support your POV again, did you deliberately miss this part because it destroys your argument

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.

Now as far as I am aware the gazan muslims are not bound by the Geneva conventions, so they are not protected by it.

I guess that means that it is not illegal to target Israeli citizens.

Wrong as Israel has signed up to the Geneva Conventions so its citizens are "PROTECTED PERSONS" . What it does mean is that in most cases International Law does not apply to gaza and the west bank in regards to treatment of prisoners and injured people.

makes for very enlightening reading do the Geneva conventions, and they state that the use of civilian areas for the firing of weapons nulls their protected status and changes it to valid military target.

 

[Phoenall]

"101. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in any occupied territory in the event of an armed conflict arising between two or more High Contracting Parties. Israel and Jordan were parties to that Convention when the 1967 armed conflict broke out. The Court accordingly finds that that Convention is applicable in the Palestinian territories which before the conflict lay to the east of the Green Line and which, during that conflict, were occupied by Israel, there being no need for any enquiry into the precise prior status of those territories."

Study Guide: Humanitarian Law applicability


What are you blabbering?

Israel occupies Gaza, they can only target military targets, defined under Protocol 1 of The Fourth Geneva Convention as persons participating in the hostilities.

The Fourth Geneva Convention does apply to Israels Occupation in Palestine, held applicable by The International Court of Justice in the Advisory Opinion on The Wall.

My focus is on The Fourth Geneva Convention and international legal principles governing Occupation.

That is very clear, proper military targets are persons participating in the hostilities when targeted.

To be a proper target, a person must be participating in hostilities when attacked.

Riding a motorcycle down a road in a civilian area is not participating in hostilities.

Cherry picking the parts that support your POV again, did you deliberately miss this part because it destroys your argument

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.

Now as far as I am aware the gazan muslims are not bound by the Geneva conventions, so they are not protected by it.

Wrong as the Un had to have this ratified when the Islamic SC sent a resolution to the GA demanding that the Un take action under the Geneva conventions. The Lawyers who deal with International law found that Israel being a signatory to the articles were covered the filistans having not signed and refusing to sign were not covered.

The Geneva conventions make this quite plain Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it

 

[aris2chat]

"101. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in any occupied territory in the event of an armed conflict arising between two or more High Contracting Parties. Israel and Jordan were parties to that Convention when the 1967 armed conflict broke out. The Court accordingly finds that that Convention is applicable in the Palestinian territories which before the conflict lay to the east of the Green Line and which, during that conflict, were occupied by Israel, there being no need for any enquiry into the precise prior status of those territories."

Study Guide: Humanitarian Law applicability


What are you blabbering?

Israel occupies Gaza, they can only target military targets, defined under Protocol 1 of The Fourth Geneva Convention as persons participating in the hostilities.

The Fourth Geneva Convention does apply to Israels Occupation in Palestine, held applicable by The International Court of Justice in the Advisory Opinion on The Wall.

My focus is on The Fourth Geneva Convention and international legal principles governing Occupation.

That is very clear, proper military targets are persons participating in the hostilities when targeted.

To be a proper target, a person must be participating in hostilities when attacked.

Riding a motorcycle down a road in a civilian area is not participating in hostilities.

Cherry picking the parts that support your POV again, did you deliberately miss this part because it destroys your argument

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.

Now as far as I am aware the gazan muslims are not bound by the Geneva conventions, so they are not protected by it.

If as you presume 181 does not apply, then It is all Israeli land and none of it is occupied.

You guys need to stop living in the past and carry picking your resolutions.
Time for the PA to start modifying their demands to the reality of the ground before they loss the chance of a state altogether.

 

[irosie91]

My focus is on The Fourth Geneva Convention and international legal principles governing Occupation.

That is very clear, proper military targets are persons participating in the hostilities when targeted.

To be a proper target, a person must be participating in hostilities when attacked.

Riding a motorcycle down a road in a civilian area is not participating in hostilities.

Cherry picking the parts that support your POV again, did you deliberately miss this part because it destroys your argument

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.

Now as far as I am aware the gazan muslims are not bound by the Geneva conventions, so they are not protected by it.

I guess that means that it is not illegal to target Israeli citizens.

According to the AUTHORITIES OF ISLAMIC LAW At AL AZHAR UNIVERSITY---
it is legal to target ANY JEW OF ANY AGE OR GENDER IN THE WORLD--at any time.
Israeli targeting of known murderers who murder to delight you-----and are likely
to murder more------is an entirely different issue. Even in the USA---such people
are legal targets of police action. The geneva conference is not "the beginning and
the end of human law and ethics"

 

[RoccoR]

SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

The problem here is that our friend SherriMunnerlyn is absolutely correct as far as she goes. Notice that she only addresses military targets. There are several other categories of people.

My focus is on The Fourth Geneva Convention and international legal principles governing Occupation.

That is very clear, proper military targets are persons participating in the hostilities when targeted.

To be a proper target, a person must be participating in hostilities when attacked.

Riding a motorcycle down a road in a civilian area is not participating in hostilities.

(COMMENT)

One type of person is a civilian, who would otherwise be a protected person, yet is a dangerous felon. The penal laws of the occupied territory that were in force, are normally still in force under the Occupying Power. For instance, under Artcile 64 of the GCIV, murder in areas under Sharia Law would:

• Pay "Blood Money"
• or Pardoned,
• or Executed.

On the other hand, the penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases 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, provided that such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

In such case, the use of deadly force is authorized in the apprehension and arrest of such felons.

So, if the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) claims protection under the GCIV, then there are some serious consequences to this legal position. HoAP cannot claim both:

• The right of peoples to combat foreign occupation and aggression by whatever means, including armed struggle, in order to liberate their territories and secure their right to self-determination,
  
• The Protection under the GCIV.

The HoAP claim that they have the right to combat foreign occupation by any means, thus they fall under Articles 64 thru 68 of the GCIV. The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against 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.

Most Respectfully,
R