Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[Hollie]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
SUBTOPIC: Reward to a Terrorist Supporting Government
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: I would be very careful who YOU direct profanity at on this matter.

IF the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) commits an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (ie the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) →
THEN the HoAP is subject to prosecution under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in accordance with penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power.

...One of the PA’s celebrity gee-had killers was released from prison and Death Cult TV was falling over themselves to attach the “model of sacrifice” label...

What dumbfuck wrote this? Attacking foreign invading forces is not terrorism.
Look it up.

(COMMENT)

YOU might want to look-up the Customary and IHL (Article 68 of the GCIV). Yes, simple fact checking shows that YOU are 100% WRONG.

Furthermore, advocating (as YOU do) that attacks upon the Occupying Power (the IDF) are a legal undertaking is a violation of International Human Rights Law (HRL). YOU know this because it has been explained to you many times.

Article 20 - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)​

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.​

​

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​

​

YOU are (in my opinion) violating HRL just by using this forum to spread this false and inaccurate information, which is deliberately intended to deceive the reader and encourage further violence by susceptible readers.

S/RES/1624 (2005) • Reaffirming also the imperative to combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations by all means to comply with all their obligations under international law:​

​

1. Calls upon all States to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:​

​

(a) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;​

(YOU: "Attacking foreign invading forces is not terrorism. Look it up.")​

​

(b) Prevent such conduct;​

[By using your authoritative voice, you are essentially advocating that it is OK to commit such action as:​

Criminal Acts directed against the Occupying Power (Israel) with the intention of → or calculated to → cause death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities, the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population and to compel a government or an international organization to do (or to abstain from doing) some act that furthers the criminal objective.]​

​

(c) Deny safe haven to any persons with respect to whom there is credible​

and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of such conduct;​

IF what you are doing is not a direct violation of the law, it is surely outside the spirit of the HRL. You are NOT trying to improve and strengthen the peace, but rather imply that hostilities are warranted, which is not the proper direction at all (To maintain international peace and security).

Furthermore, when YOU make absurd ad Hominem accusations, such as you have done here ("What dumbfuck wrote this?"), YOU are engaged in a fallacy that verbally abuses a member of the Discussion Group rather than logically addressing the content of the contribution for which YOU disagree.

I have cited and link the salient point to specific sources that you may examine at your leasure.

OK, I'm off the Soapbox,

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel is not a propper occupying power. Thay are still in the invasion phase.

link?

To argue that Israel is employing legitimate “self-defense” when it militarily attacks Gaza affords the occupying power the right to use both police and military force in occupied territory. An occupying power cannot justify military force as self-defense in territory for which it is responsible as the occupant. The problem is that Israel has never regulated its own behavior in the West Bank and Gaza as in accordance with Occupation Law.

No, Israel Does Not Have the Right to Self-Defense In International Law Against Occupied Palestinian Territory

[In view of Israel`s assertions that its current attacks on the Gaza Strip are an exercise in legitimate self-defense, Jadaliyya re-posts an analysis of this claim by Co-Editor Noura Erakat initially published in 2012.] On the fourth day of Israel`s

www.jadaliyya.com

That’s so silly. A couple of gee-had wannabes.

Israel Has No Right of Self-Defense Against Gaza

Israel has no legal right to use any kind of force in Gaza — under any circumstances.

jacobinmag.com

Indeed, just guessing here, but I think the Israelis will disagree that Islamic terrorist attacks proceed without response.

Indeed, still nothing on those “new states”?

The Palestinians' Right to Self-Defense - Truthdig

If the international community will not halt Israel's Gaza attack and war crimes then it must concede to the Palestinians the right to self-defense under the U.N. Charter.

www.truthdig.com

Explicit calls by various islamic terrorist franchises and by Hamas and Fatah for attacks on Israeli citizens is not self defense.

When you endorse such behavior on the part of the Arabs-Moslems, you have no case to be made for complaining about the Israeli response to stop those attacks.

Put your Pom Poms down.

The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org

Hamas leader Ousama Hamdan discusses the resistance movement, the Hebron attacks, and Hamas' relationships with Islamic Jihad, Islamic groups in Gaza, and Syria.

www.worldpress.org

We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

Do you have a real source for this claim?

Indeed, the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Indeed, you want to selectively and falsely cite Geneva conventions while you flail your Pom Poms celebrating acts of Islamic terrorism.

 

[Hollie]

Well, this is strange. We're told "this is not about religion" relative to the conflict perpetuated by the Arabs-Moslems. This, in spite of the clear references to religious elements spurring the Islamic gee-had.

Palestinian Media Watch - A window to Palestinian society | PMW

Palestinian Media Watch is a research institute that studies Palestinian society from a broad range of perspectives by monitoring and analyzing the Palestinian Authority through its media and schoolbooks. PMW’s major focus is on the messages that the Palestinian leaders send to the population.

www.palwatch.org

‎“We are Allah’s hand,”‎ declares Fatah amid riots
Itamar Marcus | Apr 29, 2021

• Arabs are “Allah’s hand,” when attacking Jews in Jerusalem
• Fatah turns Jerusalem confrontations into religious war
• Fatah leader: Whoever doesn’t participate in the “battle to defend ‎Jerusalem… is a mute devil”‎

Arabs attacking Jews in Jerusalem are “Allah’s hand.” This message was Abbas’ ‎Fatah Movement’s response following days of violent Arab riots in Jerusalem, ‎which Fatah seems intent on turning into a religious war. ‎

In two posts on its official Facebook page, Fatah declared the Arabs committing the violence to ‎be “Allah’s hand”:‎

Posted text with image above: “We are Allah’s hand that will restore ‎Jerusalem’s status
‎#There_will_be_no_[PA]elections_without_Jerusalem
‎[Fatah] Commission of Information and Culture”‎
Text on image: “The Fatah Movement‎
The Commission of Information and Culture
We are Allah’s hand that will restore Jerusalem’s status”‎
[Facebook page of the Fatah Commission of Information and Culture, ‎April 26, 2021

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
SUBTOPIC: Reward to a Terrorist Supporting Government
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: I would be very careful who YOU direct profanity at on this matter.

IF the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) commits an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (ie the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) →
THEN the HoAP is subject to prosecution under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in accordance with penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power.

...One of the PA’s celebrity gee-had killers was released from prison and Death Cult TV was falling over themselves to attach the “model of sacrifice” label...

What dumbfuck wrote this? Attacking foreign invading forces is not terrorism.
Look it up.

(COMMENT)

YOU might want to look-up the Customary and IHL (Article 68 of the GCIV). Yes, simple fact checking shows that YOU are 100% WRONG.

Furthermore, advocating (as YOU do) that attacks upon the Occupying Power (the IDF) are a legal undertaking is a violation of International Human Rights Law (HRL). YOU know this because it has been explained to you many times.

Article 20 - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)​

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.​

​

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​

​

YOU are (in my opinion) violating HRL just by using this forum to spread this false and inaccurate information, which is deliberately intended to deceive the reader and encourage further violence by susceptible readers.

S/RES/1624 (2005) • Reaffirming also the imperative to combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations by all means to comply with all their obligations under international law:​

​

1. Calls upon all States to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:​

​

(a) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;​

(YOU: "Attacking foreign invading forces is not terrorism. Look it up.")​

​

(b) Prevent such conduct;​

[By using your authoritative voice, you are essentially advocating that it is OK to commit such action as:​

Criminal Acts directed against the Occupying Power (Israel) with the intention of → or calculated to → cause death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities, the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population and to compel a government or an international organization to do (or to abstain from doing) some act that furthers the criminal objective.]​

​

(c) Deny safe haven to any persons with respect to whom there is credible​

and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of such conduct;​

IF what you are doing is not a direct violation of the law, it is surely outside the spirit of the HRL. You are NOT trying to improve and strengthen the peace, but rather imply that hostilities are warranted, which is not the proper direction at all (To maintain international peace and security).

Furthermore, when YOU make absurd ad Hominem accusations, such as you have done here ("What dumbfuck wrote this?"), YOU are engaged in a fallacy that verbally abuses a member of the Discussion Group rather than logically addressing the content of the contribution for which YOU disagree.

I have cited and link the salient point to specific sources that you may examine at your leasure.

OK, I'm off the Soapbox,

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel is not a propper occupying power. Thay are still in the invasion phase.

link?

To argue that Israel is employing legitimate “self-defense” when it militarily attacks Gaza affords the occupying power the right to use both police and military force in occupied territory. An occupying power cannot justify military force as self-defense in territory for which it is responsible as the occupant. The problem is that Israel has never regulated its own behavior in the West Bank and Gaza as in accordance with Occupation Law.

No, Israel Does Not Have the Right to Self-Defense In International Law Against Occupied Palestinian Territory

[In view of Israel`s assertions that its current attacks on the Gaza Strip are an exercise in legitimate self-defense, Jadaliyya re-posts an analysis of this claim by Co-Editor Noura Erakat initially published in 2012.] On the fourth day of Israel`s

www.jadaliyya.com

That’s so silly. A couple of gee-had wannabes.

Israel Has No Right of Self-Defense Against Gaza

Israel has no legal right to use any kind of force in Gaza — under any circumstances.

jacobinmag.com

Indeed, just guessing here, but I think the Israelis will disagree that Islamic terrorist attacks proceed without response.

Indeed, still nothing on those “new states”?

The Palestinians' Right to Self-Defense - Truthdig

If the international community will not halt Israel's Gaza attack and war crimes then it must concede to the Palestinians the right to self-defense under the U.N. Charter.

www.truthdig.com

Explicit calls by various islamic terrorist franchises and by Hamas and Fatah for attacks on Israeli citizens is not self defense.

When you endorse such behavior on the part of the Arabs-Moslems, you have no case to be made for complaining about the Israeli response to stop those attacks.

Put your Pom Poms down.

The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org

Hamas leader Ousama Hamdan discusses the resistance movement, the Hebron attacks, and Hamas' relationships with Islamic Jihad, Islamic groups in Gaza, and Syria.

www.worldpress.org

We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

Do you have a real source for this claim?

Indeed, the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Post the portion you feel applies.
And the portion where the Israelis said settlers aren't civilians.

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.

Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949 - 4 - - Commentary of 1958

------------------
In fact, Hamas did not work to target civilians. It is so simple if you want to do that. However, Hamas does not target schools, cinemas, hospitals, which the Israelis have done all the time.

The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.
In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org

Hamas leader Ousama Hamdan discusses the resistance movement, the Hebron attacks, and Hamas' relationships with Islamic Jihad, Islamic groups in Gaza, and Syria.

www.worldpress.org

Halevi went back to Israel, but Sharon rejected the proposal. He said that he is not giving us the chance to kill his soldiers while his hands are tied behind the back because he retaliated against civilians.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
SUBTOPIC: Reward to a Terrorist Supporting Government
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: I would be very careful who YOU direct profanity at on this matter.

IF the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) commits an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (ie the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) →
THEN the HoAP is subject to prosecution under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in accordance with penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power.

...One of the PA’s celebrity gee-had killers was released from prison and Death Cult TV was falling over themselves to attach the “model of sacrifice” label...

What dumbfuck wrote this? Attacking foreign invading forces is not terrorism.
Look it up.

(COMMENT)

YOU might want to look-up the Customary and IHL (Article 68 of the GCIV). Yes, simple fact checking shows that YOU are 100% WRONG.

Furthermore, advocating (as YOU do) that attacks upon the Occupying Power (the IDF) are a legal undertaking is a violation of International Human Rights Law (HRL). YOU know this because it has been explained to you many times.

Article 20 - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)​

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.​

​

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​

​

YOU are (in my opinion) violating HRL just by using this forum to spread this false and inaccurate information, which is deliberately intended to deceive the reader and encourage further violence by susceptible readers.

S/RES/1624 (2005) • Reaffirming also the imperative to combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations by all means to comply with all their obligations under international law:​

​

1. Calls upon all States to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:​

​

(a) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;​

(YOU: "Attacking foreign invading forces is not terrorism. Look it up.")​

​

(b) Prevent such conduct;​

[By using your authoritative voice, you are essentially advocating that it is OK to commit such action as:​

Criminal Acts directed against the Occupying Power (Israel) with the intention of → or calculated to → cause death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities, the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population and to compel a government or an international organization to do (or to abstain from doing) some act that furthers the criminal objective.]​

​

(c) Deny safe haven to any persons with respect to whom there is credible​

and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of such conduct;​

IF what you are doing is not a direct violation of the law, it is surely outside the spirit of the HRL. You are NOT trying to improve and strengthen the peace, but rather imply that hostilities are warranted, which is not the proper direction at all (To maintain international peace and security).

Furthermore, when YOU make absurd ad Hominem accusations, such as you have done here ("What dumbfuck wrote this?"), YOU are engaged in a fallacy that verbally abuses a member of the Discussion Group rather than logically addressing the content of the contribution for which YOU disagree.

I have cited and link the salient point to specific sources that you may examine at your leasure.

OK, I'm off the Soapbox,

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel is not a propper occupying power. Thay are still in the invasion phase.

link?

To argue that Israel is employing legitimate “self-defense” when it militarily attacks Gaza affords the occupying power the right to use both police and military force in occupied territory. An occupying power cannot justify military force as self-defense in territory for which it is responsible as the occupant. The problem is that Israel has never regulated its own behavior in the West Bank and Gaza as in accordance with Occupation Law.

No, Israel Does Not Have the Right to Self-Defense In International Law Against Occupied Palestinian Territory

[In view of Israel`s assertions that its current attacks on the Gaza Strip are an exercise in legitimate self-defense, Jadaliyya re-posts an analysis of this claim by Co-Editor Noura Erakat initially published in 2012.] On the fourth day of Israel`s

www.jadaliyya.com

That’s so silly. A couple of gee-had wannabes.

Israel Has No Right of Self-Defense Against Gaza

Israel has no legal right to use any kind of force in Gaza — under any circumstances.

jacobinmag.com

Indeed, just guessing here, but I think the Israelis will disagree that Islamic terrorist attacks proceed without response.

Indeed, still nothing on those “new states”?

The Palestinians' Right to Self-Defense - Truthdig

If the international community will not halt Israel's Gaza attack and war crimes then it must concede to the Palestinians the right to self-defense under the U.N. Charter.

www.truthdig.com

Explicit calls by various islamic terrorist franchises and by Hamas and Fatah for attacks on Israeli citizens is not self defense.

When you endorse such behavior on the part of the Arabs-Moslems, you have no case to be made for complaining about the Israeli response to stop those attacks.

Put your Pom Poms down.

The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org

Hamas leader Ousama Hamdan discusses the resistance movement, the Hebron attacks, and Hamas' relationships with Islamic Jihad, Islamic groups in Gaza, and Syria.

www.worldpress.org

We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

Do you have a real source for this claim?

Indeed, the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Post the portion you feel applies.
And the portion where the Israelis said settlers aren't civilians.

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.

Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949 - 4 - - Commentary of 1958

------------------
In fact, Hamas did not work to target civilians. It is so simple if you want to do that. However, Hamas does not target schools, cinemas, hospitals, which the Israelis have done all the time.

The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.
In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org

Hamas leader Ousama Hamdan discusses the resistance movement, the Hebron attacks, and Hamas' relationships with Islamic Jihad, Islamic groups in Gaza, and Syria.

www.worldpress.org

Halevi went back to Israel, but Sharon rejected the proposal. He said that he is not giving us the chance to kill his soldiers while his hands are tied behind the back because he retaliated against civilians.

That's so cute. You cut and pasted a Hamas propaganda piece.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
SUBTOPIC: Definition of Civilians (ICRC)
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: I believe that someone is confusing the terms "civilians" and that of "Protected Persons."

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43 [ Link ] of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.

SOURCE: Article 50, Additional Protocol I, GCIV

(REFERENCES)

• Article 43 [ Link ] -- Armed forces •
• GCIII
ARTICLE 4 [ Link ]

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) that of carrying arms openly;

(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

(COMMENT)

The settlers are "civilians" and are accorded the treatment associated with civilians IAW Rule 6 → Civilians are protected against attack, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

This is basic stuff. This is another example of the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) promoting the conflict and the expansing of hostilities.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
SUBTOPIC: Reward to a Terrorist Supporting Government
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: I would be very careful who YOU direct profanity at on this matter.

IF the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) commits an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (ie the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) →
THEN the HoAP is subject to prosecution under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in accordance with penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power.

...One of the PA’s celebrity gee-had killers was released from prison and Death Cult TV was falling over themselves to attach the “model of sacrifice” label...

What dumbfuck wrote this? Attacking foreign invading forces is not terrorism.
Look it up.

(COMMENT)

YOU might want to look-up the Customary and IHL (Article 68 of the GCIV). Yes, simple fact checking shows that YOU are 100% WRONG.

Furthermore, advocating (as YOU do) that attacks upon the Occupying Power (the IDF) are a legal undertaking is a violation of International Human Rights Law (HRL). YOU know this because it has been explained to you many times.

Article 20 - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)​

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.​

​

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​

​

YOU are (in my opinion) violating HRL just by using this forum to spread this false and inaccurate information, which is deliberately intended to deceive the reader and encourage further violence by susceptible readers.

S/RES/1624 (2005) • Reaffirming also the imperative to combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations by all means to comply with all their obligations under international law:​

​

1. Calls upon all States to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:​

​

(a) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;​

(YOU: "Attacking foreign invading forces is not terrorism. Look it up.")​

​

(b) Prevent such conduct;​

[By using your authoritative voice, you are essentially advocating that it is OK to commit such action as:​

Criminal Acts directed against the Occupying Power (Israel) with the intention of → or calculated to → cause death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities, the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population and to compel a government or an international organization to do (or to abstain from doing) some act that furthers the criminal objective.]​

​

(c) Deny safe haven to any persons with respect to whom there is credible​

and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of such conduct;​

IF what you are doing is not a direct violation of the law, it is surely outside the spirit of the HRL. You are NOT trying to improve and strengthen the peace, but rather imply that hostilities are warranted, which is not the proper direction at all (To maintain international peace and security).

Furthermore, when YOU make absurd ad Hominem accusations, such as you have done here ("What dumbfuck wrote this?"), YOU are engaged in a fallacy that verbally abuses a member of the Discussion Group rather than logically addressing the content of the contribution for which YOU disagree.

I have cited and link the salient point to specific sources that you may examine at your leasure.

OK, I'm off the Soapbox,

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel is not a propper occupying power. Thay are still in the invasion phase.

link?

To argue that Israel is employing legitimate “self-defense” when it militarily attacks Gaza affords the occupying power the right to use both police and military force in occupied territory. An occupying power cannot justify military force as self-defense in territory for which it is responsible as the occupant. The problem is that Israel has never regulated its own behavior in the West Bank and Gaza as in accordance with Occupation Law.

No, Israel Does Not Have the Right to Self-Defense In International Law Against Occupied Palestinian Territory

[In view of Israel`s assertions that its current attacks on the Gaza Strip are an exercise in legitimate self-defense, Jadaliyya re-posts an analysis of this claim by Co-Editor Noura Erakat initially published in 2012.] On the fourth day of Israel`s

www.jadaliyya.com

That’s so silly. A couple of gee-had wannabes.

Israel Has No Right of Self-Defense Against Gaza

Israel has no legal right to use any kind of force in Gaza — under any circumstances.

jacobinmag.com

Indeed, just guessing here, but I think the Israelis will disagree that Islamic terrorist attacks proceed without response.

Indeed, still nothing on those “new states”?

The Palestinians' Right to Self-Defense - Truthdig

If the international community will not halt Israel's Gaza attack and war crimes then it must concede to the Palestinians the right to self-defense under the U.N. Charter.

www.truthdig.com

Explicit calls by various islamic terrorist franchises and by Hamas and Fatah for attacks on Israeli citizens is not self defense.

When you endorse such behavior on the part of the Arabs-Moslems, you have no case to be made for complaining about the Israeli response to stop those attacks.

Put your Pom Poms down.

The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org

Hamas leader Ousama Hamdan discusses the resistance movement, the Hebron attacks, and Hamas' relationships with Islamic Jihad, Islamic groups in Gaza, and Syria.

www.worldpress.org

We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

Do you have a real source for this claim?

Indeed, the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Post the portion you feel applies.
And the portion where the Israelis said settlers aren't civilians.

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.

Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949 - 4 - - Commentary of 1958

------------------
In fact, Hamas did not work to target civilians. It is so simple if you want to do that. However, Hamas does not target schools, cinemas, hospitals, which the Israelis have done all the time.

The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.
In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org

Hamas leader Ousama Hamdan discusses the resistance movement, the Hebron attacks, and Hamas' relationships with Islamic Jihad, Islamic groups in Gaza, and Syria.

www.worldpress.org

Halevi went back to Israel, but Sharon rejected the proposal. He said that he is not giving us the chance to kill his soldiers while his hands are tied behind the back because he retaliated against civilians.

Halevi went back to Israel, but Sharon rejected the proposal.

So the Israelis DID NOT say that "settlers were not civilians". One guy did.

He said that he is not giving us the chance to kill his soldiers while his hands are tied behind the back because he retaliated against civilians.

You have a real source for this? (Not a single Hamas source)

 

[Sixties Fan]

As the Palestinian Authority and the anti-Israel Left say that Israel has not been helping Palestinians during the COVID-19 crisis, the actual statistics of what Israel has provided the PA from last March through the end of 2020 shows that these are all lies.

According to data provided by the Civil Administration to the organization Im Tirtzu, during 2020 Israel transferred:

110 respirators,
170 monitors,
109 oxygen generators,
87 intensive care beds,
86 hospital beds,
2,313,050 surgical masks,
312,724 N95 masks,
6,967,823 surgical gloves,
248,544 PCR kits
Another 244,500 test kits.

(full article online)

Israel has given HUGE amounts of aid to Palestinians during COVID-19

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[Hollie]

Another Hamas beat down may take place in the near future. The competing Islamic terrorist franchises are posturing such that Israel will be blamed for Abbas canceling elections in May. It’s really about the competing, warring Islamic tribes failing to behave like adults. When the missiles fly out of Gaza, it will get ugly for Hamas as the Israelis send in retaliatory air strikes.

Israel braces for fallout as Abbas expected to delay Palestinian elections

Hamas, which stands to make gains in the vote, warns it will hold Israel responsible if ballot is postponed over dispute on East Jerusalem voting; Israel says it's not intervening

www.timesofisrael.com

Hamas, which stands to make gains in the vote, warns it will hold Israel responsible if ballot is postponed over dispute on East Jerusalem voting; Israel says it’s not intervening

 

[Hollie]

Wow. That was.... predictable.

Palestinian Authority Postpones Parliamentary Elections

The last elections were held in 2006 and the Palestinian parliament hasn't conducted real business in years. Many observers predict the Islamist party Hamas is poised to win if elections are held.

www.npr.org

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
SUBTOPIC: PA/FATAH/Palestinian Elections
⁜→ Hollie, et al,

BLUF: There was never any reason to hold the expectation that elections would occur.

Hamas, which stands to make gains in the vote, warns it will hold Israel responsible if ballot is postponed over dispute on East Jerusalem voting; Israel says it’s not intervening

(COMMENT)

There is a certain amount of resistance in any closed political environment to any change in the dimension of a territorial unit having a single source of political power. The single source of political power will generally attempt to continuously hold that reigns of power until the hold (the resistance) is broken by a superior power (political entropy → order to disorder).

While it may have sounded like the Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas was endorsing free-elections, this was only a mask to hide the opposite intention. President Abbas wants to appear to be a forward thinking source of democratic change, the intention was always to find a political reason to postpone the election at the expense of some entity (shifting the blame).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
SUBTOPIC: 1960's and 1970's Revolution Preaching Style
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: This is old fashion talk in support of revolution and generalized conflict.

Kanafani Biography

Reminder: Ghasssan Kanafani was a Jimmy Hendrix - Woodstock Era rabble-rouser and has been dead for a half century.
(COMMENT)

Every now and then, for historical purposes, it is good to hear what the "old timers" have to say and put it up to the light for comparison against the light of today. First thing you should notice is the al-Jazeera narrator said that: "he was born in Palestine but 'fled' in 1948 from Zionist Terror." Interesting word, "Fled." It implies that it was not a forced displacement, but rather a deliberate choice to run away (flee), from a perceived danger or pursuers (of course as seen by a 10 year-old boy). The entire bio-newsreel (a very good presentation) was done in the near same fashion as those presentations by "the most trusted man in America" → Walter Cronkite (1916-2009).

Kanafani was a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)(a radical Marxist–Leninist movement from the very beginning). Kanafani was just one of the many around the world that were idealist and were disillusioned with the politics of the time. And like many of the time, Kanafani found himself imitating people like Che Guevara (1928 – 1967) and Malcolm X (1925-1965) - famous revolutionaries of the day.

Todays factions within the Arab Palestinian movements have not advanced much in their ideology, political theory and cultural dynamics in the interval between Kanafani and today. They still claim they are fighting invaders over their (Arab Palestinian Land) and against a foreign Army. Kanafani opposes the view that the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict was ever a civil war - and considered the Jewish settlers to be equivalent to illegal immigrants trying to takeover the territory. The idea that the Arab Palestinian (formerly Ottoman Citizens of the Enemy Occupied Territory) have never abandon the idea that they had an inherent post-War claim to the entirety of the territory formerly under the Administration of the Mandate (West of the Jordan River).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Todays factions within the Arab Palestinian movements have not advanced much in their ideology, political theory and cultural dynamics in the interval between Kanafani and today.

Yep, still occupied.

 

[P F Tinmore]

They still claim they are fighting invaders over their (Arab Palestinian Land) and against a foreign Army. Kanafani opposes the view that the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict was ever a civil war

I came to that same conclusion years ago and have posted as much on this board.

 

[P F Tinmore]

and considered the Jewish settlers to be equivalent to illegal immigrants trying to takeover the territory.

Oh, like that didn't happen.

 

[P F Tinmore]

have never abandon the idea that they had an inherent post-War claim to the entirety of the territory

Do you mean like the territory inside their international borders?

 

[P F Tinmore]

And like many of the time, Kanafani found himself imitating people like Che Guevara (1928 – 1967)

However, he never picked up a gun but Israel killed him anyway. Like
Khalida Jarrar who has never even picked up a rock but has spent years in Israeli jails.

 

[Hollie]

And like many of the time, Kanafani found himself imitating people like Che Guevara (1928 – 1967)

However, he never picked up a gun but Israel killed him anyway. Like
Khalida Jarrar who has never even picked up a rock but has spent years in Israeli jails.

Incitement does not necessarily involve picking up a rock. Yes, you want to excuse criminality when those excuses calm an emotional requirement for Jew hating.

 

[Hollie]

have never abandon the idea that they had an inherent post-War claim to the entirety of the territory

Do you mean like the territory inside their international borders?

You’re back to your silly “new states” conspiracy theory.