Praying at the temple mount

[Billo_Really]

She didn't. It beeped.

That's the big lie you keep telling.

 

[Phoenall]

ACCORDING TO THE HADITHS IT WAS BUILT 2100 YEARS BEFORE THE INVENTION OF ISLAM


Abu Dhar al-Ghifari|Abu Dhar]] narrated: I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Which mosque was first built on the surface of the earth?" He said, "Al-Masjid-ul-,Haram (in Mecca)." I said, "Which was built next?" He replied "The mosque of Al-Aqsa ( in Jerusalem)." I said, "What was the period of construction between the two?" He said, "Forty years." He added, "Wherever (you may be, and) the prayer time becomes due, perform the prayer there, for the best thing is to do so (i.e. to offer the prayers in time)



The mosque in mecca was built by a Jewish patriarch in 2130 BCE according to the muslims.-

So you can see how disjointed and out of synch the whole of islam is.

I think that can be said of any religion who's roots lie in ancient history - lots of contradictions and translations. We certainly see that in the bible. Ultimately it doesn't really matter - it's what people believe and they've believed in it as an important holy site for 1300 years. It is what it is - a very important holy site to 3 world religions.

Yet other peoples were writing down history by the 7C and much of it is corroborated by other writings. In the case of islam they took parts of the Torah and Bible to use for their own ends. Now with the evidence available to us we can see that this is indeed the case and that the stories are exaggerations or even outright lies. They claim islam was around 2100 years before it was invented and that is why the world belongs to them as they populated the world back then.

Yet, often that history was iffy and not always corroborated. How many parts of the Bible were discarded during political and religious changes? It ultimately makes no difference when you are talking about 1300 years of a place being an important holy site. Just give it up and acknowledge that it belongs to 3 faiths and everyone needs to learn to share and treat it like the holy place their faith purports it to be.

That is what the muslims want so they can then stop everyone from going there. How soon after would Jerusalem then become like Mecca and have a no infidel law in place. The mosque in Mecca was built by a Jew originally before islam was invented, and mo'mad needed a seat for his new religion so he evicted the Jews by force and took Mecca and Medina . Everything about islam is a sham and faked so that a mentally unstable camel herder could rape children and murder other people. He altered existing laws so they worked in his favour, and enforced them with violence. In one case he made it legal for the religious head man to marry his own family because he wanted to have sex with his brothers daughter.

Look up islam and what it did originally, and how mo'mad changed his words almost daily so he could get what he wanted. Like the satanic verses that the muslims covered up by claiming that it was the devil that gave him those words, when the reality was he needed more men so he enlisted a tribe that had 3 goddesses

 

[USAF 2023]

Why is it such a big deal that Jews not pray at the Temple Mount. Why the hell shouldn't they. They should feel free to pray any damn where they feel like it. It's not like they close down a street and get in the way of business while praying to Mecca like the Islamics do.

It's bullshit they made such a deal.

You illegally migrate into the area; drive out half the residents using Jewish terrorism; declare yourself a Jewish State; then only allow the land to be farmed with Jewish labor; stick your white-trash settlers into an area you don't even own; then want THEM to share THEIR mosque with you!

Listen you selfish pieces of shit, you need to BACK THE FUCK OFF!

Typical Pro Palestinian with his unrefined Dirty Mouth . FUCK OFF you piece of SHIT

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

I think you have made a mistake.

I don't believe that anyone who followed the 1907 Hague Convention (Articles 29-31) was found guilty of a War Crime during the Nuremberg Trails. There were German Military Officers that were guilty of aiding and abetting War Crimes, or the furtherance of War Crimes; or what would be considered today as the Customary IHL pertaining to land warfare (and separately warfare at sea).

Article 30 is extended thus:The Convention contains several provisions in this respect which extend the principle and make it precise. Thus Article 3 prohibits "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples".Article 3 although it applies only to armed conflicts not of an international character, contains rules of absolutely general application. The prohibition mentioned is, moreover, confirmed by Article 5 and Articles 64-76.It should also be noted that paragraph 2 of Article 68 authorizes the Occupying Power under certain conditions to inflict the death penalty on protected persons found guilty of espionage.
​

Rocco would have been a great SS officer during the Nazi occupation but afterwards, he would have had trouble.. German military that punished and exacted justice on the local population that attacked them were hung or served lifetime sentences. One of the last to be caught was Erich Priebke, who as a German officer exacted justice and punished Italian partisans that attacked German soldiers, was pursued by the Italian authorities for 50 years and was extradited to Italy after 50 years where he was found guilty of murder and crimes against humanity. He claimed he was simply following the law and orders.

No matter how you try to justify the actions of an occupation force, you will be proven wrong Rocco.

(COMMENT)

You will note that I did not advocate "simply following orders;" or stepping outside existing law. You will kindly note that I advocated following the law and the Geneva Code as outlined in Article 68 (Penalty) of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

BTW, There is no country in the world more sensitive to the backlash of the "War Crimes" than the Jewish Community. It was not that long ago (maybe 7 years) that Lithuania's Chief Prosecutor opened a pretrial investigation of Jewish Partisans of 1944 (anti-NAZI) wartime actions in Kaniukai. Yitzhak Arad, former chairman of the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem, was quoted as saying: "The murderers are now becoming national heroes, and we, the few surviving victims who took up arms and fought the murderers, are under investigation as criminals."
​

No one has every been punished for following the Fourth Geneva Convention as I have advocate; even in regards to the "right to punish or exact justice." It is important to remember that the Occupation is "provisional" in nature. It will only last until the Palestinians successfully negotiate a peace. The Occupying Power understands that Neither occupation itself --- nor the law of war --- grant any authority to transfer sovereignty over the territory occupied.

It is, in point of fact, that you are advocating the violation of law.

Most Respectfully,
R

You have made an error, Just a little example, German soldiers of the occupation forces that were prosecuted and convicted for the crime of Sippenhaft (collective punishment). It was a common practice of the Nazis in which relatives of persons accused of crimes against the Occupation Forces were held to share the responsibility for those crimes. The Israelis commit this crime on a regular basis.

Quoting propaganda, does not make your nonsensical Zionist diatribes any more reasonable or true.

There is nothing "provisional" about the occupation of Palestine. The Jews have no intention of lifting the occupation/blockade they have imposed.

Just as you quoting islamonazi/carholic propaganda does not make your blood libels true either

 

[Phoenall]

Billo_Really, et al,

What is a binding resolution? What constitutes and International Law?

I only quoted Customary IHL. No propaganda at all. You are just trying to justify the Arab Palestinian use of violence to intimidate and coerce the Palestinian agenda. There is absolutely no law (Customary or IHL) that permits making threats or using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel. And no law that permits hostilities directed against the Occupation Powers to inflict harm.

Your example does not even remotely resemble what I was talking about. The implementation of "families sharing the responsibility for a crime," relative to war, is a violation of Rule #103, is a variation of the imposition of “collective penalties,” possibly an Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), as well as a potential violation of Article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, is generally considered a war crime. I did not suggest to violate this rule. You are grasping at straws.

Most Respectfully,
R

UN resolutions affirming the right of Palestinian's to use force against the occupiers...

United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/33/24 of 29 November 1978:
“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, particularly armed struggle;”​

General Assembly Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX) of 29 November 1974:
7. Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;​

UNGA Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX; 29 November 1974)
UNGA Resolution A/RES/33/24 (29 November 1978)
UNGA Resolution A/RES/34/44 (23 November 1979)
UNGA Resolution A/RES/35/35 (14 November 1980)
UNGA Resolution A/RES/36/9 (28 October 1981)​

All of those, make it a legal right for the Palestinian's to use force against the most immoral army in the world.

(COMMENT)

This is an example of an attempt to persuade people that these General Assembly Resolutions authorize the unrestricted use of force over and above the UN Charter [Chaptert I, Article 2(4)] as binding to members,

• Non-binding Resolution relative to the Use of Force - NOT LAW: UNGA Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX; 29 November 1974)
• Non-binding Resolution relative to the Use of Force - NOT LAW: UNGA Resolution A/RES/33/24 (29 November 1978)
• Non-binding Resolution relative to the Use of Force - NOT LAW: UNGA Resolution A/RES/34/44 (23 November 1979)
• Non-binding Resolution relative to the Use of Force - NOT LAW: UNGA Resolution A/RES/35/35 (14 November 1980)
• Non-binding Resolution relative to the Use of Force - NOT LAW: UNGA Resolution A/RES/36/9 (28 October 1981)

These resolutions, coming from the General Assembly do not carry the weight of law; they are NOT binding in the same fashion as the Charter. They merely reflect the views of some sovereign states (some of which did not want to go on record of opposing Islamic Radicalism). You will also note that the no Resolution since the 1988 Declaration of Independence (Jordan cut all ties to the West Bank in 1988) by the Palestinians has used the phrase "all available means" in relation to the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Tell you what, you stop bringing up 181 and I'll stop using GA resolutions.

Deal?

You can bring them up all you want, as long as you realise that they are not legally binding and are just recommendations. You know like your doctors recommendations to stop smoking, drinking and using drugs.

 

[Phoenall]

They most likely would have been treated as weirdos, in that case.

They wouldn't have been stoned or butchered. That's the kind of thing your beloved Palestinians do.

They would've been shot in the back, then a knife placed next to their body.

That's the kind of thing your beloved IDF does.

And your American police who do it at least once a day

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

No. I did not make a mistake. You just didn't read what I wrote.

You have made an error, Just a little example, German soldiers of the occupation forces that were prosecuted and convicted for the crime of Sippenhaft (collective punishment). It was a common practice of the Nazis in which relatives of persons accused of crimes against the Occupation Forces were held to share the responsibility for those crimes. The Israelis commit this crime on a regular basis.

Quoting propaganda, does not make your nonsensical Zionist diatribes any more reasonable or true.

There is nothing "provisional" about the occupation of Palestine. The Jews have no intention of lifting the occupation/blockade they have imposed.

(COMMENT)

I only quoted Customary IHL. No propaganda at all. You are just trying to justify the Arab Palestinian use of violence to intimidate and coerce the Palestinian agenda. There is absolutely no law (Customary or IHL) that permits making threats or using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel. And no law that permits hostilities directed against the Occupation Powers to inflict harm.

Your example does not even remotely resemble what I was talking about. The implementation of "families sharing the responsibility for a crime," relative to war, is a violation of Rule #103, is a variation of the imposition of “collective penalties,” possibly an Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), as well as a potential violation of Article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, is generally considered a war crime. I did not suggest to violate this rule. You are grasping at straws.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, this is a side track, but wouldn't this "The implementation of "families sharing the responsibility for a crime, relative to war, is a violation of Rule #103, is a variation of the imposition of “collective penalties,” mean that the Israeli practice of punishing the families of criminals by demolishing their homes is a violation?

No as that is covered by the Geneva Conventions iv that say they can do this if the structure was used by military/militia. In most cases the houses were used to facilitate terrorism and so were demolished.
Don't the US courts punish the families of Americans when they put them in prison for crimes committed, is that not a violation also ?

 

[Phoenall]

Why is it such a big deal that Jews not pray at the Temple Mount. Why the hell shouldn't they. They should feel free to pray any damn where they feel like it. It's not like they close down a street and get in the way of business while praying to Mecca like the Islamics do.

It's bullshit they made such a deal.

You illegally migrate into the area; drive out half the residents using Jewish terrorism; declare yourself a Jewish State; then only allow the land to be farmed with Jewish labor; stick your white-trash settlers into an area you don't even own; then want THEM to share THEIR mosque with you!

Listen you selfish pieces of shit, you need to BACK THE FUCK OFF!

Illegaly migrate? The Temple Mount was and still is the TEMPLE mount, before Muhammad came down with his flying horse and declaired it his. You built your house on the ruins of another who was forced out, invent a total different wheel of events, in which according to (your own history) you were the ones kicked out instead of the one benefiting from the kicking, and then try to force the Jews out of their own sites.... Yeah, no wonder there's war.

Dear, King Herod built the temple mount. Its not yours, never was. There is no proof of Sol's temple and the Persians owned the land when some of the Hebrews went back.

And the same Persians lost the land and it then became Jewish under a 1923 international law.

Now when was the first mosque built in Jerusalem again ?

 

[Phoenall]

I only quoted Customary IHL. No propaganda at all. You are just trying to justify the Arab Palestinian use of violence to intimidate and coerce the Palestinian agenda. There is absolutely no law (Customary or IHL) that permits making threats or using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel. And no law that permits hostilities directed against the Occupation Powers to inflict harm.

Your example does not even remotely resemble what I was talking about. The implementation of "families sharing the responsibility for a crime," relative to war, is a violation of Rule #103, is a variation of the imposition of “collective penalties,” possibly an Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), as well as a potential violation of Article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, is generally considered a war crime. I did not suggest to violate this rule. You are grasping at straws.

Most Respectfully,
R

UN resolutions affirming the right of Palestinian's to use force against the occupiers...

United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/33/24 of 29 November 1978:
“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, particularly armed struggle;”​

General Assembly Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX) of 29 November 1974:
7. Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;​

UNGA Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX; 29 November 1974)
UNGA Resolution A/RES/33/24 (29 November 1978)
UNGA Resolution A/RES/34/44 (23 November 1979)
UNGA Resolution A/RES/35/35 (14 November 1980)
UNGA Resolution A/RES/36/9 (28 October 1981)​

All of those, make it a legal right for the Palestinian's to use force against the most immoral army in the world.

WRONG as they are not legally binding. If they are then it means that Israel can use the same resolutions against the Palestinians which means that you will have to accept the consequences of the Israelis responding in greater force to the attacks

 

[Phoenall]

And if that was the case and he could prove it then he would get away free on a charge of murder. He would not get away free for the breaking and entry charge though. The law is there to protect against wrongful punishment, which is why it is always changing

This is you...

An ideologue is someone who sees the world in the limiting terms of a doctrine or dogma.

It is limiting because the human world does not operate or evolve according to any one dogma.

ideologues must wear blinders that result in tunnel vision – a tunnel which, like a Procrustean bed, tries to force the world to fit their chosen ideology.

There are hundreds of ideologies out there, both religious and secular, and in every case the resulting tunnel vision eventually results in absurdities – claims about the world that, seen from outside of the ideology, make little or no sense.

So it is with the ideology of Zionism and the doctrinaire interpretations its adherents make about their own behavior and the behavior of others who oppose them.​

And there's no better example of it than this than...

Phoeny the Phraud:
"And if that was the case and he could prove it then he would get away free on a charge of murder."​

What's a Zionists favorite fish?
A red herring!

And you are wrong as I am a pragmatist and see the world as it should be seen.

Would you accept being executed for a crime you did not commit because some RACIST POS decides they they are right and you should be executed. If you defend yourself from harm and kill someone in the process then you are innocent of murder. The fact you went to kill the person is of no matter other than mitigating circumstances and should not cloud the issue. take a drunk who falls over and kills a child, is he guilty of drunkenness or murder ?

 

[Phoenall]

Let us try it again.

This is what the Palestinians say happened:

This is what happened really:

And I just showed you the video of the IDF placing the knife near the body.

A video you refuse to comment on.

BTW, if what you said was true, how did she get the knife through the metal detector at the checkpoint?

But it did not show that happening did it, so you LIE again.

 

[Phoenall]

What was that he handed to him, exactly? You're trying to say it was the knife?

In Iraq, they call them "drop weapons".

And what do the American police call them ?

 

[Phoenall]

In the video, which I just watched on my 25" monitor, you're little circle trick DID NOT contain a knife.
If it DID contain a knife, the knife would be 1" from the body.
BUT...the best part of your usual idiocy is that the image shows the knife about 3 feet from the body.
You lose again, asshole.

So someone went and kicked it away to make it look like they were disarming the suspect.

Clutching at straws now that the video has been picked clean. There was no knife placed in the video was there, and you just believed what your handler told you.

 

[Phoenall]

Where exactly did you spot a knife in that video?

If you would've watched the video, you would see one IDF soldier, handing the knife to another IDF soldier about 8 seconds in and then that other IDF soldier leaning over the body and dropping the knife next to it.

Do you have to stand on one leg, wear a gimp mask and drink slurry through a straw while perfoming Handel's Messiah on the bagpipes underwater before you can see this ?

 

[Phoenall]

She didn't. It beeped.

That's the big lie you keep telling.

Only according to you, I make metal detectors beep as well and I cant remove the metal as it is implanted. But I carry a card that allows me to bypass airport security

 

[Penelope]

They have the wailing wall, they can pray there. Actually what did they do for the centuries they weren't even anywhere near Palestine?

 

[RoccoR]

Phoenall, et al,

Well, I'm not sure that we are talking about the same thing.

I only quoted Customary IHL. No propaganda at all. You are just trying to justify the Arab Palestinian use of violence to intimidate and coerce the Palestinian agenda. There is absolutely no law (Customary or IHL) that permits making threats or using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel. And no law that permits hostilities directed against the Occupation Powers to inflict harm.

Your example does not even remotely resemble what I was talking about. The implementation of "families sharing the responsibility for a crime," relative to war, is a violation of Rule #103, is a variation of the imposition of “collective penalties,” possibly an Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), as well as a potential violation of Article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, is generally considered a war crime. I did not suggest to violate this rule. You are grasping at straws.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, this is a side track, but wouldn't this "The implementation of "families sharing the responsibility for a crime, relative to war, is a violation of Rule #103, is a variation of the imposition of “collective penalties,” mean that the Israeli practice of punishing the families of criminals by demolishing their homes is a violation?

No as that is covered by the Geneva Conventions iv that say they can do this if the structure was used by military/militia. In most cases the houses were used to facilitate terrorism and so were demolished.
Don't the US courts punish the families of Americans when they put them in prison for crimes committed, is that not a violation also ?[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

The entire set of rules in this regard is diametrically opposed to the conduct of war. While some of the Rules to Warfare (Air, Land and Sea) are humanitarian; some are strictly designed to make the conduct of war so cumbersome as to warrant a peaceful resolution. In war, one of the goal to making the objective, is to break the will of --- not only the Opposing Force --- but to break the will of the citizenry that make the support to the Opposing Force available. It is the variation on the theme to cut supply lines.

In the case of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, the 67 year duration was a direct result of the Rules of War being so rigid that Israel was not allowed to inflict such damage on the Arabs as to break the will to continue hostile activity.

If the Allied Powers of WWII had been bound by these same rules, we would all be speaking German and there would be no Jewish population left. Eventually, the Germans would have turned against their allies and destroyed the Muslim World as well.
​

There is absolutely substitute in war for attaining the goal of "breaking the will of the opponent to wage war." And as long as the IHL effectively prevents this outcome, it will be a stalemate --- a region of continuous conflict; where neither side will lose the will to wage war.

The phases are:

1) jus ad bellum, which concerns the justice of resorting to war in the first place;
2) jus in bello, which concerns the justice of conduct within war, after it has begun; and
3) jus post bellum, which concerns the justice of peace agreements and the termination phase of war.
​

The Arab-Israeli Conflict is, and has been for over 60 years, in the jus in bello phase. And the attempt to contain the conflict through the use of IHL has prolonged the conflict. For Israel --- the conflict will be a continuing albatross around the neck of the Jewish People; they will not lose but they are denied a win. For the Arab Palestinian --- the conflict is an unattainable objective, a struggle in which they have no capability to will, but are protected by the UN which allows them the opportunity to continue an asymmetric battle. They fight until they can no longer fight, then get the UN to arrange a ceasefire. Then they re-arm, and reopen hostilities. Other than casualties, their is no consequence to pursuing war-like activities.

Currently, nearly every pro-Palestinian believes that they have a sacred duty to pursue Jihad against the Jewish People. Their entire way of life revolves around the conflict with the Jewish People. They really don't know any other ways of life. For more than three generations the children of the Arab Palestinian have been taught that they have the moral and legal right to ALL the territory between the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. they teach each new generation that there will never be recognition of the State of Israel in Palestine; and no legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long they maintain this illegal government. This has been re-enforced by Khaled Meshal, the Head of the Politburo of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS). And contrary to the UN charter (Articles 1 and 2), he advocates for Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle.

This is advocacy for Palestinians and war. And as long as the Hostile Arab Palestinians are permitted to pursue this strategy, the longer they will be an immovable of threats to the peace. [Article 1(1)]

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Penelope]

Phoenall, et al,

Well, I'm not sure that we are talking about the same thing.

I only quoted Customary IHL. No propaganda at all. You are just trying to justify the Arab Palestinian use of violence to intimidate and coerce the Palestinian agenda. There is absolutely no law (Customary or IHL) that permits making threats or using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel. And no law that permits hostilities directed against the Occupation Powers to inflict harm.

Your example does not even remotely resemble what I was talking about. The implementation of "families sharing the responsibility for a crime," relative to war, is a violation of Rule #103, is a variation of the imposition of “collective penalties,” possibly an Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), as well as a potential violation of Article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, is generally considered a war crime. I did not suggest to violate this rule. You are grasping at straws.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, this is a side track, but wouldn't this "The implementation of "families sharing the responsibility for a crime, relative to war, is a violation of Rule #103, is a variation of the imposition of “collective penalties,” mean that the Israeli practice of punishing the families of criminals by demolishing their homes is a violation?

No as that is covered by the Geneva Conventions iv that say they can do this if the structure was used by military/militia. In most cases the houses were used to facilitate terrorism and so were demolished.
Don't the US courts punish the families of Americans when they put them in prison for crimes committed, is that not a violation also ?

(COMMENT)

The entire set of rules in this regard is diametrically opposed to the conduct of war. While some of the Rules to Warfare (Air, Land and Sea) are humanitarian; some are strictly designed to make the conduct of war so cumbersome as to warrant a peaceful resolution. In war, one of the goal to making the objective, is to break the will of --- not only the Opposing Force --- but to break the will of the citizenry that make the support to the Opposing Force available. It is the variation on the theme to cut supply lines.

In the case of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, the 67 year duration was a direct result of the Rules of War being so rigid that Israel was not allowed to inflict such damage on the Arabs as to break the will to continue hostile activity.

If the Allied Powers of WWII had been bound by these same rules, we would all be speaking German and there would be no Jewish population left. Eventually, the Germans would have turned against their allies and destroyed the Muslim World as well. ​

There is absolutely substitute in war for attaining the goal of "breaking the will of the opponent to wage war." And as long as the IHL effectively prevents this outcome, it will be a stalemate --- a region of continuous conflict; where neither side will lose the will to wage war.

The phases are:

1) jus ad bellum, which concerns the justice of resorting to war in the first place;
2) jus in bello, which concerns the justice of conduct within war, after it has begun; and
3) jus post bellum, which concerns the justice of peace agreements and the termination phase of war.
​

The Arab-Israeli Conflict is, and has been for over 60 years, in the jus in bello phase. And the attempt to contain the conflict through the use of IHL has prolonged the conflict. For Israel --- the conflict will be a continuing albatross around the neck of the Jewish People; they will not lose but they are denied a win. For the Arab Palestinian --- the conflict is an unattainable objective, a struggle in which they have no capability to will, but are protected by the UN which allows them the opportunity to continue an asymmetric battle. They fight until they can no longer fight, then get the UN to arrange a ceasefire. Then they re-arm, and reopen hostilities. Other than casualties, their is no consequence to pursuing war-like activities.

Currently, nearly every pro-Palestinian believes that they have a sacred duty to pursue Jihad against the Jewish People. Their entire way of life revolves around the conflict with the Jewish People. They really don't know any other ways of life. For more than three generations the children of the Arab Palestinian have been taught that they have the moral and legal right to ALL the territory between the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. they teach each new generation that there will never be recognition of the State of Israel in Palestine; and no legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long they maintain this illegal government. This has been re-enforced by Khaled Meshal, the Head of the Politburo of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS). And contrary to the UN charter (Articles 1 and 2), he advocates for Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle.

This is advocacy for Palestinians and war. And as long as the Hostile Arab Palestinians are permitted to pursue this strategy, the longer they will be an immovable of threats to the peace. [Article 1(1)]

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]

Well how would you feel if people in hoards came to your land and claimed it as their own and
have been stealing more and more of it ever since. Not too happy I suppose.

 

[montelatici]

Phoenall, et al,

Well, I'm not sure that we are talking about the same thing.

I only quoted Customary IHL. No propaganda at all. You are just trying to justify the Arab Palestinian use of violence to intimidate and coerce the Palestinian agenda. There is absolutely no law (Customary or IHL) that permits making threats or using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel. And no law that permits hostilities directed against the Occupation Powers to inflict harm.

Your example does not even remotely resemble what I was talking about. The implementation of "families sharing the responsibility for a crime," relative to war, is a violation of Rule #103, is a variation of the imposition of “collective penalties,” possibly an Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), as well as a potential violation of Article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, is generally considered a war crime. I did not suggest to violate this rule. You are grasping at straws.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, this is a side track, but wouldn't this "The implementation of "families sharing the responsibility for a crime, relative to war, is a violation of Rule #103, is a variation of the imposition of “collective penalties,” mean that the Israeli practice of punishing the families of criminals by demolishing their homes is a violation?

No as that is covered by the Geneva Conventions iv that say they can do this if the structure was used by military/militia. In most cases the houses were used to facilitate terrorism and so were demolished.
Don't the US courts punish the families of Americans when they put them in prison for crimes committed, is that not a violation also ?

(COMMENT)

The entire set of rules in this regard is diametrically opposed to the conduct of war. While some of the Rules to Warfare (Air, Land and Sea) are humanitarian; some are strictly designed to make the conduct of war so cumbersome as to warrant a peaceful resolution. In war, one of the goal to making the objective, is to break the will of --- not only the Opposing Force --- but to break the will of the citizenry that make the support to the Opposing Force available. It is the variation on the theme to cut supply lines.

In the case of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, the 67 year duration was a direct result of the Rules of War being so rigid that Israel was not allowed to inflict such damage on the Arabs as to break the will to continue hostile activity.

If the Allied Powers of WWII had been bound by these same rules, we would all be speaking German and there would be no Jewish population left. Eventually, the Germans would have turned against their allies and destroyed the Muslim World as well. ​

There is absolutely substitute in war for attaining the goal of "breaking the will of the opponent to wage war." And as long as the IHL effectively prevents this outcome, it will be a stalemate --- a region of continuous conflict; where neither side will lose the will to wage war.

The phases are:

1) jus ad bellum, which concerns the justice of resorting to war in the first place;
2) jus in bello, which concerns the justice of conduct within war, after it has begun; and
3) jus post bellum, which concerns the justice of peace agreements and the termination phase of war.
​

The Arab-Israeli Conflict is, and has been for over 60 years, in the jus in bello phase. And the attempt to contain the conflict through the use of IHL has prolonged the conflict. For Israel --- the conflict will be a continuing albatross around the neck of the Jewish People; they will not lose but they are denied a win. For the Arab Palestinian --- the conflict is an unattainable objective, a struggle in which they have no capability to will, but are protected by the UN which allows them the opportunity to continue an asymmetric battle. They fight until they can no longer fight, then get the UN to arrange a ceasefire. Then they re-arm, and reopen hostilities. Other than casualties, their is no consequence to pursuing war-like activities.

Currently, nearly every pro-Palestinian believes that they have a sacred duty to pursue Jihad against the Jewish People. Their entire way of life revolves around the conflict with the Jewish People. They really don't know any other ways of life. For more than three generations the children of the Arab Palestinian have been taught that they have the moral and legal right to ALL the territory between the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. they teach each new generation that there will never be recognition of the State of Israel in Palestine; and no legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long they maintain this illegal government. This has been re-enforced by Khaled Meshal, the Head of the Politburo of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS). And contrary to the UN charter (Articles 1 and 2), he advocates for Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle.

This is advocacy for Palestinians and war. And as long as the Hostile Arab Palestinians are permitted to pursue this strategy, the longer they will be an immovable of threats to the peace. [Article 1(1)]

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]

Rocco, your Zionist propagandist credentials are confirmed.

Firstly, Palestinians have nothing against "the Jewish people". They have nothing against Jews in New York, Rome, Paris etc., as long as they don't finance the arming of Zionists in Israel. The Palestinians, Christians and Muslims alike, know they have a moral and legal right to fight to recover homes and lands stolen from their ancestors by the European Jewish invader.

The Palestinian Christians haven't declared a Jihad against the Zionists, if need be, their resistance against the Zionists would be called a Crusade, which is in line with their Christian culture. The Muslim Palestinians call it a Jihad. In both cases it is a struggle against a powerful nuclear armed invader that is supported by the most powerful nation in the world.

Armed resistance is the only way to liberate Palestine from the Zionists. The Zionists (just as the whites in South Africa vis-a-vis the non-whites) will never relinquish their power over the non-Jewish majority under their control.

A few legal points (there are many more) regarding occupation that illustrate that the nonsense you write is ridiculous Zionist propaganda.:

1. The civilian population of an occupied territory owes no allegiance to the occupying power. It cannot be forced to fight its own country, be involved in any way with the armed forces or give military assistance to the occupying power.

2. The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. (See settlement activity)

3. After effective occupation of territory, members of the territory’s armed forces who have not surrendered, organized resistance movements and genuine national liberation movements may resist the occupation.

4.Indirect support for the resistance movement, such as providing information or non-military supplies, does not constitute taking a direct part in hostilities. Those so engaged are civilians and therefore protected against attack.

5. Destruction of property. The occupying power is not allowed to destroy real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, to the State, to other public authorities or to social or co-operative organizations . (Israeli home demolitions)

6. The occupying power must not compel members of the population to serve in its armed forces. Doing so constitutes a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. Any pressure or propaganda aimed at securing enlistment is also prohibited. The ban applies to participation in military operations and even mere recruitment into the forces, whether armed, paramilitary or auxiliary. For example, it is prohibited to use members of the population to fight the resistance in an occupied country. (Offering citizenship or other inducements to non-Jews to join IDF is prohibited)

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf

 

[Billo_Really]

Typical Pro Palestinian with his unrefined Dirty Mouth .

I'm not "Pro-Palestinian". I could care less about either side.

FUCK OFF you piece of SHIT

No, I think I'll hang around.

Whacha got to say to that, ILOVESUCKINGISRAELIDICK?