Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Innocent Israeli civilians.
They are defending their illegitimate settler colonial project.
It is not a conflict. A conflict has two sides. Settler colonialism is unilateral.
Such as?
(COMMENT)They are defending their illegitimate settler colonial project.
It is not a conflict. A conflict has two sides. Settler colonialism is unilateral.
Such as?
(COMMENT)Of course, the aim of Arab propaganda is to appeal to the lowest denominator of its target audience, and sabotage any rational conversation about this conflict as much as possible.
And although we can agree or disagree on details, or oppose ideologically, eventually this bears a question - how much of that matters relative to
plainly revenge?
Because as far as I understand, this is how this operation is portrayed to us Israelis, specifically for the 50 rockets and recent murders. This is how we do it, for now.
So the question of revenge relative to any details or ideology, which is a stronger motive to follow, and what place do such goals have in military conduct?
The Palestinian people have the right to sovereignty inside their defined territory. They have the right to defend themselves by all means necessary including armed struggle.RE: Who are the Israelis?
SUBTOPIC: Perspectives on the Concept...
※→ P F Tinmore, rylah, et al,
(PREFACE)
When we look at the reasoning as to why the Non-State Armed Groups (NSAGs) (ICRC terminology) in the general view or the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in the specific view, the first aspect of the Arab-Israeli Conflict which forces to the surface the theory of actoritas princiipis (meaning the supreme authority for the action) as may be applied by a government. And prior to December 2012, the Arab Palestinians waging hostile action was based more on NSAGs than any legitimate national authority. And to a very large extent today, the Arab Palestinians, although they call it the State of Palestine, are hard-pressed to define it. It is still largely composed of NSAGs.
(COMMENT)
◈ When we speak of Area "C" - then we are speaking within the parameters of the Oslo Accord II and Functional jurisdiction in Area C, as detailed in Article IV of Annex III. (Special Provisions concerning Area C)
Meaning "The transfer of powers and responsibilities in Area C shall not affect Israel's continued authority to exercise its powers and responsibilities with regard to internal security and public order, as well as with regard to other powers and responsibilities not transferred." Without regard to fairness and equity of this specific agreement over Area "C" - it was agreed to by the Arab Palestinians in control through the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). At the 7th Arab League Summit in Rabat, Morocco a half-century ago, the PLO was recognized as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.
◈ The term "Conflict" is a generalized literary description.
Your application and challenges are laid open for all to examine. Your segway is a red herring.
- The phrase "International Armed Conflict (IAC)" is defined by treatise: Common Article 2 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
- The phrase Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC) is defined by treatise: Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
◈ The casualty rate for the Arab Palestinians in all categories is a direct result of failure to comply with the Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL) which generally governs the conflict. I bring your attention to the violations of (but not limited to) Rules 23, 24, 95, 96, and 97. Additionally, the often-claimed justification of the right to engage in Armed Conflict, I bring your attention to Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Article 68 makes any criminal offense committed by the Arab Palestinians that is solely intended to harm the Israeli Occupying Power, liable to prosecution and internment. There is no such right for the Arab Palestinians to take hostile action against the Israelis. This is covered by the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).
(COMMENT)
◈ I agree that the vast majority of the contributions to this discussion group are counterproductive to "rational conversation about this conflict."
◈ IMO, the Arab Palestinians (particularly the NASGs) have long ago lost the "Just Cause" for some justice they perceive. There is an element of ultima ratio that is missing to justify their many hostile acts.
◈ IMO, retaliation - and - revenge are two different concepts. However, there is a time limit on the response to a hostile event. And it must be made clear that the response to a hostile action is indeed a true response as punishment for the deed.
◈ In the case of the Arab-Israeli Conflict must be a reasonable and justifiable intention (recta intentio), that being the restoration of peace and security. And in most cases - success is an ends and means (debitus modus).
.
(∑ Ω)
The concepts and tactics employed by the HoAP and Palestinian NASGs have long since lost their justification. This would be especially of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS).
Most Respectfully,
R
The Palestinian people have the right to sovereignty inside their defined territory. They have the right to defend themselves by all means necessary including armed struggle.
A state or a government is not necessary as it is the people who hold sovereignty.
Look at the 1949 Armistice Agreements.They don't have any defined territory.
Rights groups seek independent inquiry into 'targeted killings' by Israel
Look at the 1949 Armistice Agreements.
Is deflection all you got?Great, which agreements were signed by Palestine?
Is deflection all you got?
They referenced Palestine's international borders. That was the topic at hand.You mentioned the Armistice agreements.
How is it a deflection to ask which ones actually involved Palestine?
Admit it, they were all signed by Israel. LOL!
They referenced Palestine's international borders. That was the topic at hand.
There were no borders for Israel.In the document signed by a bunch of Jews and zero Palestinians?
What about all the references to the borders of Israel?
