Palestinian stabs U.S.-Israeli citizen to death at West Bank mall

[Morch]

10 hours ago, dexterm said:

$1.7 million is cheap compensation for a lifetime of homelessness for the parents.

 

Perhaps if Israel did not impose illegal collective punishment on the parents who were trying to do the right thing to prevent the tragedy, then there would be no need for funds to help them.

 

That would be your brand of misleading nonsense again. The payments to families of Palestinian terrorists and prisoners are not conditional on whether their houses get demolished or not.

 

Yet another instance in which you support rewarding violence, as long as it applies to one side.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and the replies have been removed. 

[Thorgal]

11 hours ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

How does international law classify illegal settlers?

Are they considered as enemy combatants vis-à-vis the people whose land they have occupied?

 

If Israeli settlers clash with Palestinian civilians they still fall under Israeli civil law. While the Palestinians will be treated by Israeli military law.

 

If you defend your civilians by imposing your military law in foreign occupied territory you will ALL be classified as military colonial occupiers. 

 

Military occupied territory is recognised by international law. Not if you bring in your civilians...

[BestB]

13 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

Not sure if Palestinians would starve to death if Big powers didn’t gave Palestine away a century ago.

 

https://english.palinfo.com/news/2017/10/21/Palestinian-oil-and-gas-wealth-under-Israel-s-control

You going to quote some nonsense Arab media and expect for me to accept it as a fact????

 

over 70 years and they have built nothing , achieved nothing and it is your assertion they could have done something with resources which mind you have not fully been found or confirmed ?

 

??? is all I can say

[Morch]

 

@Thorgal

 

Your legal "expertise" notwithstanding, there is no "military colonial occupier" legal/official classification other than in your mind. I doubt you're on solid legal ground with the attempt to justify the attack.

 

 

[Thorgal]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@Thorgal

 

Your legal "expertise" notwithstanding, there is no "military colonial occupier" legal/official classification other than in your mind. I doubt you're on solid legal ground with the attempt to justify the attack.

 

 

I didn't justify the attack. Don't twist my words.

 

My legal expertise form Israeli occupied territories tells me that in the worst case the attacker of OP should be 6 month in jail for "attempted murder" like in the case of Elor Azaria.

 

He can also contest the 6 months imprisonment because his parents went to the Israeli authorities with a "warning-before-the-crime-act" clause.  

 

Quote from source:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation

 

"The world's longest ongoing military occupation, and the longest in modern times by one single occupying power, is Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem (1967–present).^[13]

[swanny321]

On 9/17/2018 at 2:58 AM, attrayant said:

That's what this discussion is doing - stirring the pot.

Would that be the 'Great big melting pot'?

[Morch]

 

@Thorgal

 

I didn't twist your words. You provided a pseudo-legal explanation, which regardless of being bogus amounts to a justification of the attack. Spin away.

 

As for "legal expertise" - you do not actually posses such. Not in this context, nor in others. And you don't even deflect that well - the OP isn't about an attack by an Israeli, but rather by a Palestinian. That you wish to address anything but is expected.

 

All of your waffle still doesn't turn the pseudo-legal term previously used into a real one. Keep faking it, it's all you've got.

[Thorgal]

55 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@Thorgal

 

I didn't twist your words. You provided a pseudo-legal explanation, which regardless of being bogus amounts to a justification of the attack. Spin away.

 

As for "legal expertise" - you do not actually posses such. Not in this context, nor in others. And you don't even deflect that well - the OP isn't about an attack by an Israeli, but rather by a Palestinian. That you wish to address anything but is expected.

 

All of your waffle still doesn't turn the pseudo-legal term previously used into a real one. Keep faking it, it's all you've got.

 

You should have a closer look to the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

 

You should than understand that agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).

 

One of the main rules of the law applicable in case of occupation state that : "Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited."

 

Once they're transferred into Occupied Territory like in OP, they have to be classified as "occupiers"...and jus ad bellum - right to war- is on the side of the occupied Palestinians...

 

[Morch]

 

@Thorgal

 

More of your nonsense, why not. But would do well to keep your day job. The key word would be "civilians". There is no legal point of view advocating or condoning wholesale, carte blanche violence against civilians. Your "learned" personal interpretation notwithstanding. Worth mentioning that, as per the usual hypocrisy, similar lines of argument running to the opposite direction are often rejected by both yourself and the "like" clicking poster. Also, an in line with the ongoing deflections, none of the references provided so far actually conforms to the original nonsense pseudo-legal term used. Troll on.

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

@Thorgal

 

More of your nonsense, why not. But would do well to keep your day job. The key word would be "civilians". There is no legal point of view advocating or condoning wholesale, carte blanche violence against civilians. Your "learned" personal interpretation notwithstanding. Worth mentioning that, as per the usual hypocrisy, similar lines of argument running to the opposite direction are often rejected by both yourself and the "like" clicking poster. Also, an in line with the ongoing deflections, none of the references provided so far actually conforms to the original nonsense pseudo-legal term used. Troll on.

You don't appear to be offering any links  supporting an alternative legal POV vis a vis illegal occupying civilians as being part of the illegal occupying force.

Your post is simply an ad hominem attack heavily laced with inflammatory sarcasm.

 

I am genuinely curious to know what international law has to say about the [non] combatant status of illegally occupying civilians.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

You don't appear to be offering any links  supporting an alternative legal POV vis a vis illegal occupying civilians as being part of the illegal occupying force.

Your post is simply an ad hominem attack heavily laced with inflammatory sarcasm.

 

I am genuinely curious to know what international law has to say about the [non] combatant status of illegally occupying civilians.

 

More nonsense, with the usual misleading and dishonest twists.

 

The other poster's musing do not constitute a "legal point of view", and the links provided do not support his contrived interpretation.

 

The faux expectation that other posters provide "links" to disprove obvious nonsense has nothing to do with "genuine".  The topic isn't even about the pseudo-legal nonsense you two go on about. Rather, it deals with a stabbing attack by a Palestinian. Obviously, you'll do your  best to discuss anything but.

 

There is no prevalent legal point of view which advocates murder of civilians, although you and the other poster seem to wish it was otherwise.

 

[Ron19]

Off topic post removed.

[dexterm]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

More nonsense, with the usual misleading and dishonest twists.

 

The other poster's musing do not constitute a "legal point of view", and the links provided do not support his contrived interpretation.

 

The faux expectation that other posters provide "links" to disprove obvious nonsense has nothing to do with "genuine".  The topic isn't even about the pseudo-legal nonsense you two go on about. Rather, it deals with a stabbing attack by a Palestinian. Obviously, you'll do your  best to discuss anything but.

 

There is no prevalent legal point of view which advocates murder of civilians, although you and the other poster seem to wish it was otherwise.

 

>>The topic isn't even about the pseudo-legal nonsense you two go on about. Rather, it deals with a stabbing attack by a Palestinian.

 

On the contrary, yes it is....the legal circumstances are the very essence of the matter.

Without the law we will have the circular argument of one side calling the young man a martyr and the other calling him a terrorist.

 

Palestinians , like any other occupied people in history, have the legal right to violently resist the violent occupying forces. The question is do they also have the legal right to violently resist settlers who know exactly what they are doing, being complicit in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by taking their land.

 

At the moment all we have is a young Palestinian stabbing an armed Israeli settler. On a human level that is extremely tragic for all concerned.

 

I want to know whether the Palestinian has the international legal right to resist illegal settlers even by violent means or not? 

 

You don't seem to be able to offer a legal opinion on the matter, which from your history of posting and intelligence implies there is not one.

 

I have many times recommended Palestinian non violent passive resistance armed solely with cameras to shame Israel as a far more efficacious course of action.

 

The OP type incident will inevitably happen again.  Israeli supporters will cry foul; Palestinian supporters will cry justifiable resistance to illegal occupation. So where's the truth?  Still curious how international law views the matter. Because of course without law we simply have arbitrary hearsay, of which I may be just as guilty as you...until one knows what the law says.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and the replies attempting to hijack the topic to other discussions have been removed. 

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

 

More of your contrived waffling. The topic isn't about legalities, spin it as much as you like. That you wish to make it about legalities doesn't alter things. Same elements apply with the pretense that the issue wasn't raised and discussed on past topics.

 

And indeed, nothing in your posting history indicates much interest in related "laws", other than in instances which they support your point of view, or can be spun as such. Basically, you do not really accept anything whatsoever which reflects negatively on the Palestinian side. Laws included. So regardless of legal interpretations and view presented it is doubtful that anything fundamental would change with regard to your extreme positions

 

The faux position that there are fully agreed upon laws (regardless of whether you actually accept them as such) is bogus. Laws related to such issues are often open to interpretation, rather than being carved in stone. There are basic principles, though, one of them relating to civilians being off limits. That you, and the other poster insist on your take being "the law", or even a widely accepted interpretation, doesn't make it so. You seem to hold that the Palestinian's "right" to resist covers any vile thing whatsoever. Other than in your extreme point of view, this is neither a legally or morally acceptable proposition. The funny bit is that even Palestinian views on this aren't necessarily as extreme as expressed on here. Nothing new.

 

As with many cases, it appears what you're looking for is magic. Some legal argument that would "win" the issue. That's neither a realistic expectation, nor a constructive one. It does, however, conform to the black-and-white world view prevalent in your tirades.

 

And no, my posts and views are not "the same" as yours. I'm not a fanatic, an arm-chair wannabee revolutionary or someone claiming to be a great "humanist" while engaging in one-sided excuses and justifications of actions to the opposite. Nor do I pretend to believe that supposedly existent "laws", or "objective" interpretations of, would decide the conflict.

 

[metisdead]

On 9/21/2018 at 6:09 PM, metisdead said:

Off topic posts and the replies attempting to hijack the topic to other discussions have been removed. 

 

Some more off topic posts and attempting to hijack the topic to discussion of citizenship legalities. 

 

This topic is now closed.