Everyone needs to watch this video

soulsinging

polaris_x wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

Say they keep shooting and Israel uses it as an excuse to move in and sweep them out even further?

I don't have an answer on where to draw the line, but the fact of the matter is that as long as Israel has the US in its court without question, they will continue to act with impunity. And as long as Israel and the US can hang their hat on a school bombing as a justification, there will be no change in policy. Even you and Byrnzie arguing that it is ok for them to kill the unarmed, women, and children is enough to make Americans go "see, look what cruel fucking bastards they are?" Even the Israelis have the good fucking sense to at least lie and say "sorry, we were trying to hit a terrorist group... our bad!"

well ... i think the palestinians have waited long enough ...

Indeed they have. I just suspect that they will be waiting even longer if they try to tell the world that they are justified in targeting children and other innocents in their attacks while saying Israel is evil for targeting children and other innocents in their attacks. It doesn't give you much credibility.

jlew24asu

polaris_x wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

me:
By shooting the guy kicking you off, then turning your gun on his wife, his children, and his parents for going along with his nonsense and to serve as an example to others?

if you a family comes to steal my land and no authority will help .. i will fight back ... although i wouldn't target the children - if they and the wife and grandparents fight back - and they die - so be it ...

but just a few posts ago, you said any settlers living on occupied land are valid targets. children live there too. but I guess if they get hit with some homemade rockets, thats life.

although it does make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside that you wouldnt specifically target children. even though you call them "valid targets"

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

By shooting the guy kicking you off, then turning your gun on his wife, his children, and his parents for going along with his nonsense and to serve as an example to others?

I agree, Israel needs to stop doing this.

yes they do. how about Hamas? should they stop? or its ok for them to continue until both sides have equal dead. then we can start over or something.

jlew24asu

ok so after all this, we agree children should not be targeted. even though they are still considered valid targets for living in occupied land. got it, great. lets move on.

when Israel goes on one of its insane killing sprees, do you notice they always have an excuse? like the last incursion into Gaza. Hamas fired a few (nearly worthless) rockits into a few Israeli towns. Israel, in typical fashion, smacked the fuck out of them, killing a shitload of civilians and committed countless atrocities in the name of defense.

was it really in Hamas's and the Palestinians best interest to fire those rockets in the first place? is this the so called "resistance" that so many support around here? all that did was give Israel an excuse to drop bombs all over Gaza as well as shut off Gaza from the rest of the world.

or maybe, they could have tried one of the sit ins I keep hearing about. or maybe Hamas will say they will put down their arms and punish any militant who fires on Israel provided Israel open up the border in Gaza, provide aid, and sit at the negotiating table and talk about getting their land back. now, more then ever, is the perfect time to do that. you have a Liberal president and congress.

If Israel refuses to do that, fire more rocks I guess. that should probably help?

the mainstream media in the US, and the world, would be ALL over that type of rhetoric. Hamas would be praised left and right. I know I would certainly throw my support behind them.

but no no. a better idea is to fire some homemade rockits, they do very little to no damage to Israel.

maybe its just me, but I dont see that as helpful.



Disclaimer: I do not and have not supported Israel's incursion into Gaza. I hope the UN's investigation exposes war crimes and people responsible are punished.

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

ok so after all this, we agree children should not be targeted. even though they are still considered valid targets for living in occupied land. got it, great. lets move on.

when Israel goes on one of its insane killing sprees, do you notice they always have an excuse? like the last incursion into Gaza. Hamas fired a few (nearly worthless) rockits into a few Israeli towns. Israel, in typical fashion, smacked the fuck out of them, killing a shitload of civilians and committed countless atrocities in the name of defense.

was it really in Hamas's and the Palestinians best interest to fire those rockets in the first place? is this the so called "resistance" that so many support around here? all that did was give Israel an excuse to drop bombs all over Gaza as well as shut off Gaza from the rest of the world.

or maybe, they could have tried one of the sit ins I keep hearing about. or maybe Hamas will say they will put down their arms and punish any militant who fires on Israel provided Israel open up the border in Gaza, provide aid, and sit at the negotiating table and talk about getting their land back. now, more then ever, is the perfect time to do that. you have a Liberal president and congress.

If Israel refuses to do that, fire more rocks I guess. that should probably help?

the mainstream media in the US, and the world, would be ALL over that type of rhetoric. Hamas would be praised left and right. I know I would certainly throw my support behind them.

but no no. a better idea is to fire some homemade rockits, they do very little to no damage to Israel.

maybe its just me, but I dont see that as helpful.



Disclaimer: I do not and have not supported Israel's incursion into Gaza. I hope the UN's investigation exposes war crimes and people responsible are punished.

the timeline is wrong. CNN had a report about Israeli special forces taking out some of Hamas guards in a tunnel system. THAT broke the ceasefire, que rockets retaliations and mass sluaghter.

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

the timeline is wrong. CNN had a report about Israeli special forces taking out some of Hamas guards in a tunnel system. THAT broke the ceasefire, que rockets retaliations and mass sluaghter.

ok, so what? Israel decided to act against some militants digging an illegal tunnel. they killed some guys and Hamas responded with some worthless rockit attacks. your telling me those rockit attacks were still a good idea? what did they accomplish?

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

Commy wrote:

the timeline is wrong. CNN had a report about Israeli special forces taking out some of Hamas guards in a tunnel system. THAT broke the ceasefire, que rockets retaliations and mass sluaghter.

ok, so what? Israel decided to act against some militants digging an illegal tunnel. they killed some guys and Hamas responded with some worthless rockit attacks. your telling me those rockit attacks were still a good idea? what did they accomplish?

No, I'm providing context.


They were in the midst of a 6month ceasefire (we can ignore Israeli navy assaults on local fishermen which happened throughout the ceasefire). but that was the event that officially broke the ceasefire.


personally i dint' think violence is justified on either end. its counterproductive. you kill 10 or destroy a village, you get 100 people or hundred villages that much more willing to retaliate.


Palestinians don't have too many ways to get to israel, in terms of force. its why we are seeing these worthless rocket attacks that are doing more harm than good-desperate people you know, acting out any way they can.. and the same with the suicide bombings, which aren't all that common.

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

Commy wrote:

the timeline is wrong. CNN had a report about Israeli special forces taking out some of Hamas guards in a tunnel system. THAT broke the ceasefire, que rockets retaliations and mass sluaghter.

ok, so what? Israel decided to act against some militants digging an illegal tunnel. they killed some guys and Hamas responded with some worthless rockit attacks. your telling me those rockit attacks were still a good idea? what did they accomplish?

No, I'm providing context.


They were in the midst of a 6month ceasefire (we can ignore Israeli navy assaults on local fishermen which happened throughout the ceasefire). but that was the event that officially broke the ceasefire.


personally i dint' think violence is justified on either end. its counterproductive. you kill 10 or destroy a village, you get 100 people or hundred villages that much more willing to retaliate.


Palestinians don't have too many ways to get to israel, in terms of force. its why we are seeing these worthless rocket attacks that are doing more harm than good-desperate people you know, acting out any way they can.. and the same with the suicide bombings, which aren't all that common.

context to what? some might consider digging an illegal tunnel into another country an act of breaking a cease fire. but, probably not from anyone here I suppose.

and they aren't "acting out anyway they can" they could simply not have fired worthless rockets and pointed the finger at Israel. but no, all they did was give Israel a reason*** to smack them down.


*** disclaimer: I do not support this reason or Israel's retaliation against rocket attacks.

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

Commy wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

ok, so what? Israel decided to act against some militants digging an illegal tunnel. they killed some guys and Hamas responded with some worthless rockit attacks. your telling me those rockit attacks were still a good idea? what did they accomplish?

No, I'm providing context.


They were in the midst of a 6month ceasefire (we can ignore Israeli navy assaults on local fishermen which happened throughout the ceasefire). but that was the event that officially broke the ceasefire.


personally i dint' think violence is justified on either end. its counterproductive. you kill 10 or destroy a village, you get 100 people or hundred villages that much more willing to retaliate.


Palestinians don't have too many ways to get to israel, in terms of force. its why we are seeing these worthless rocket attacks that are doing more harm than good-desperate people you know, acting out any way they can.. and the same with the suicide bombings, which aren't all that common.

context to what? some might consider digging an illegal tunnel into another country an act of breaking a cease fire. but, probably not from anyone here I suppose.

and they aren't "acting out anyway they can" they could simply not have fired worthless rockets and pointed the finger at Israel. but no, all they did was give Israel a reason*** to smack them down.


*** disclaimer: I do not support this reason or Israel's retaliation against rocket attacks.

the tunnels are something else. Gaza is under siege. literally they are prevented from importing some very essential items. tunnels are the main form of transportation for bringing in supplies....and some of the tunnels are used to smuggle in arms....but again....if a guy has your house surrounded by guys with guns and is keeping you from leaving, and wont let food in...i'd be digging to. and if they started shooting at my house i might think about smuggling in some guns.



Gaza is a concentration camp, complete with fences surrounding it. IT is under a police state, thanks to Israel. Palestinians are treated like second class citizens, they have few rights. meanwhile ISrael is sending military attacks into refugee camps and shit, it not a good situation for gazans. gaza is one of the most densely population places on the planet, under siege by and enemy armed by the most powerful military in the world.


edit" in this latest assult on Gaza, rockets started AFTER Israel broke the ceasefire. (I agree they are uselsess, and only give Israel jutification -in its mind-to kill 400 little kids and destroy much o fhte city, but gazana will no go down quietly. they will do what tehy can to resist their violent neighbor, that keeps redrawing borders.

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

the tunnels are something else. Gaza is under siege. literally they are prevented from importing some very essential items. tunnels are the main form of transportation for bringing in supplies....and some of the tunnels are used to smuggle in arms....but again....if a guy has your house surrounded by guys with guns and is keeping you from leaving, and wont let food in...i'd be digging to. and if they started shooting at my house i might think about smuggling in some guns.

ok great. If thats what that particular tunnel was used for, fine. I totally support that. but I'm also not surprised Israel prevented a tunnel being dug into their country. are you?

It makes no difference who broke the ceasefire. my point is that those 200+ rockets Hamas fired in retaliation did way more harm then good.

Commy wrote:

Gaza is a concentration camp, complete with fences surrounding it. IT is under a police state, thanks to Israel. Palestinians are treated like second class citizens, they have few rights. meanwhile ISrael is sending military attacks into refugee camps and shit, it not a good situation for gazans. gaza is one of the most densely population places on the planet, under siege by and enemy armed by the most powerful military in the world.

thats true. and its mostly shut off from the outside world because of Hamas. Hamas's actions and policies gives Israel an excuse to shut them off. its wrong but thats the way it is. at some point, Hamas must realize they need to try something different. One of Israel's biggest demands is to stop rocket attacks and renounce violence. why not give in to that demand? just for the sake of trying something new. because what they are doing, isn't working.

and lets not forget..the civil war that Hamas fought against the PA probably didnt help much either. thats something not even you can blame on Israel.

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

Commy wrote:

the tunnels are something else. Gaza is under siege. literally they are prevented from importing some very essential items. tunnels are the main form of transportation for bringing in supplies....and some of the tunnels are used to smuggle in arms....but again....if a guy has your house surrounded by guys with guns and is keeping you from leaving, and wont let food in...i'd be digging to. and if they started shooting at my house i might think about smuggling in some guns.

ok great. If thats what that particular tunnel was used for, fine. I totally support that. but I'm also not surprised Israel prevented a tunnel being dug into their country. are you?

It makes no difference who broke the ceasefire. my point is that those 200+ rockets Hamas fired in retaliation did way more harm then good.

i agree -rocket attacks, bad idea.

Commy wrote:

Gaza is a concentration camp, complete with fences surrounding it. IT is under a police state, thanks to Israel. Palestinians are treated like second class citizens, they have few rights. meanwhile ISrael is sending military attacks into refugee camps and shit, it not a good situation for gazans. gaza is one of the most densely population places on the planet, under siege by and enemy armed by the most powerful military in the world.

thats true. and its mostly shut off from the outside world because of Hamas. Hamas's actions and policies gives Israel an excuse to shut them off. its wrong but thats the way it is. at some point, Hamas must realize they need to try something different. One of Israel's biggest demands is to stop rocket attacks and renounce violence. why not give in to that demand? just for the sake of trying something new. because what they are doing, isn't working.

and lets not forget..the civil war that Hamas fought against the PA probably didnt help much either. thats something not even you can blame on Israel.

when under military siege....you can't renounce violence. that's absurd.


If Hamas must renounces violence, then so must Israel. I agree with that.

People see this is a war between 2 sides and that's not really accurate. Israel is expanding its borders with force, and Hamas is being blamed, and can do little to stop them. there is no confrontation...its a slaughter. Israel could flatten gaza if they wanted to , and they certainly accomplished some of that goal.

Hamas is a symptom of Israeli aggression. there was almost no terorism in the area until Israel started its polices of targeting villages and civliians to "break the back" of the Palestinians. these armed group-hamas-hezbollah- in palestinian territories are springing up in reponse to ISraeli agressoin. If anyone should ley down their arms Its hould be ISrael.

ideally both sides agree to it, but the aggressor should be the first to call off hostilities.

g under p

Commy wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

Commy wrote:

the tunnels are something else. Gaza is under siege. literally they are prevented from importing some very essential items. tunnels are the main form of transportation for bringing in supplies....and some of the tunnels are used to smuggle in arms....but again....if a guy has your house surrounded by guys with guns and is keeping you from leaving, and wont let food in...i'd be digging to. and if they started shooting at my house i might think about smuggling in some guns.

ok great. If thats what that particular tunnel was used for, fine. I totally support that. but I'm also not surprised Israel prevented a tunnel being dug into their country. are you?

It makes no difference who broke the ceasefire. my point is that those 200+ rockets Hamas fired in retaliation did way more harm then good.

i agree -rocket attacks, bad idea.

Commy wrote:

Gaza is a concentration camp, complete with fences surrounding it. IT is under a police state, thanks to Israel. Palestinians are treated like second class citizens, they have few rights. meanwhile ISrael is sending military attacks into refugee camps and shit, it not a good situation for gazans. gaza is one of the most densely population places on the planet, under siege by and enemy armed by the most powerful military in the world.

thats true. and its mostly shut off from the outside world because of Hamas. Hamas's actions and policies gives Israel an excuse to shut them off. its wrong but thats the way it is. at some point, Hamas must realize they need to try something different. One of Israel's biggest demands is to stop rocket attacks and renounce violence. why not give in to that demand? just for the sake of trying something new. because what they are doing, isn't working.

and lets not forget..the civil war that Hamas fought against the PA probably didnt help much either. thats something not even you can blame on Israel.

when under military siege....you can't renounce violence. that's absurd.


If Hamas must renounces violence, then so must Israel. I agree with that.

People see this is a war between 2 sides and that's not really accurate. Israel is expanding its borders with force, and Hamas is being blamed, and can do little to stop them. there is no confrontation...its a slaughter. Israel could flatten gaza if they wanted to , and they certainly accomplished some of that goal.

Hamas is a symptom of Israeli aggression. there was almost no terorism in the area until Israel started its polices of targeting villages and civliians to "break the back" of the Palestinians. these armed group-hamas-hezbollah- in palestinian territories are springing up in reponse to ISraeli agressoin. If anyone should ley down their arms Its hould be ISrael.

ideally both sides agree to it, but the aggressor should be the first to call off hostilities.

Like my buddy/friend and musician Michael Franti would say this is ALL CRAZY CRAZY CRAZY from the album Everyone Deserves Music

Shine on
All my people, who been broken hearted
Shine on
From the place where all life has been started
When you need fresh air
Go beyond horizons, to your place in the sun
Shine on
Let your heart be boundless like your faith in the one

(chorus)
It's crazy, crazy, crazy
No stoppin' to this warfare
It's crazy, crazy
We're breathing in the same air
It's crazy, crazy, crazy
Don't tell me that you don't care....

Sing on
From the language of your ancestors and
Sing on
Be playful in your innocence and
Lift your head up high
And rejoice for all you see without your eyes
Sing on
Like a bird that's makin' love in sunset skies

(chorus)

(bridge)
No life's worth more than any other
No sister worth less than any brother

(chorus)

...somebody please send us a prayer!

Peace everybody

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

i agree -rocket attacks, bad idea.

fantasic

Commy wrote:

when under military siege....you can't renounce violence. that's absurd.

Hamas can renounce violence today. they can hold a press conference one hour for now and renounce violence and promise no rocket attacks into Israel. they can announce they will lay down their arms in return for the opening of the border and recieve aid. (among other things but thats a start)

Commy wrote:

If Hamas must renounces violence, then so must Israel. I agree with that.

good, me too.

Commy wrote:

People see this is a war between 2 sides and that's not really accurate. Israel is expanding its borders with force, and Hamas is being blamed, and can do little to stop them. there is no confrontation...its a slaughter. Israel could flatten gaza if they wanted to , and they certainly accomplished some of that goal.

Hamas is a symptom of Israeli aggression. there was almost no terorism in the area until Israel started its polices of targeting villages and civliians to "break the back" of the Palestinians. these armed group-hamas-hezbollah- in palestinian territories are springing up in reponse to ISraeli agressoin. If anyone should ley down their arms Its hould be ISrael.

ideally both sides agree to it, but the aggressor should be the first to call off hostilities.

ever play a game call mercy when you were a kid? someone see how long u can go when pushing your arm behind your back and the person would yell mercy when they couldnt go anymore. something along those lines.

anyway, its the aggressor who usually forces the weaker person into calling mercy.

what you say above is true. Israel should be the first to call off hostilities. I 110% agree with that. but it doesnt exactly appear that is the case does it? Israel is stronger. as much as you or I dont like that fact, they call some of the shots. and what are Israel's demands? that Hamas lay down its arms and renounce violence. Hamas has to understand that they can not win a military war against Israel...so why not give that a try?

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

what you say above is true. Israel should be the first to call off hostilities. I 110% agree with that. but it doesnt exactly appear that is the case does it? Israel is stronger. as much as you or I dont like that fact, they call some of the shots. and what are Israel's demands? that Hamas lay down its arms and renounce violence. Hamas has to understand that they can not win a military war against Israel...so why not give that a try?

you mean give up. something I gaurantee the palestinians will not do.


the international community needs to step in-which there has been some accounts of that happening-not talking about he bs camp david agreements,serious efforts have been made to achieve peace. in 2002 hamas agreed to peace if israel were to withdraw the 67 borders....and all arab countries involved signed the agreement. Obama even hinted he might support it. so there are moves being made for peace. its up to israel. And the US has ways of influencing Israel. cut off military support- that would be devastating to them. cut off political support, they could be sanctioned. lots of ways to influence israel.


thats a real solution for peace. start with a 2 state solution, move on from their to hopefully reach a one state system in the future.


its better than suggesting the palestinians just give up.




but that's a maybe. Palestinian violence may be the reason the US doesn't still have marines stationed in the area. that suicide bomb that killed 270+ americans sure as hell got us the fuck out., and it has got israel out of the westbank in the past. without resistance chances are palestinians will simply be overrun.


you can't expect a people under assault to give up resisting.

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

what you say above is true. Israel should be the first to call off hostilities. I 110% agree with that. but it doesnt exactly appear that is the case does it? Israel is stronger. as much as you or I dont like that fact, they call some of the shots. and what are Israel's demands? that Hamas lay down its arms and renounce violence. Hamas has to understand that they can not win a military war against Israel...so why not give that a try?

you mean give up. something I gaurantee the palestinians will not do.


the international community needs to step in-which there has been some accounts of that happening-not talking about he bs camp david agreements,serious efforts have been made to achieve peace. in 2002 hamas agreed to peace if israel were to withdraw the 67 borders....and all arab countries involved signed the agreement. Obama even hinted he might support it. so there are moves being made for peace. its up to israel. And the US has ways of influencing Israel. cut off military support- that would be devastating to them. cut off political support, they could be sanctioned. lots of ways to influence israel.


thats a real solution for peace. start with a 2 state solution, move on from their to hopefully reach a one state system in the future.


its better than suggesting the palestinians just give up.

again, none of the following will happen unless Hamas renounces violence. it just wont. then and only then, can the 1967 borders be discussed. (disclaimer: I'm NOT supporting that theory, just calling it like I see it)

you call it giving up, I call it being the bigger man.

Commy wrote:

but that's a maybe. Palestinian violence may be the reason the US doesn't still have marines stationed in the area. that suicide bomb that killed 270+ americans sure as hell got us the fuck out., and it has got israel out of the westbank in the past. without resistance chances are palestinians will simply be overrun.


you can't expect a people under assault to give up resisting.

I get that. but resisting hasnt work out so well has it?

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

Commy wrote:

you can't expect a people under assault to give up resisting.

I get that. but resisting hasnt work out so well has it?

they actually tried your way in the past. it din't work out so well for them.

Noam Chomsky wrote:

...this is thirty years ago, virtually no Palestinian terrorism in Israel, virtually. He(Israeli official) said, “Our policy has been to attack civilians.” And the reason was explained—you know, villages, towns, so on. And it was explained by Abba Eban, the distinguished statesman, who said, “Yes, that’s what we’ve done, and we did it for a good reason. There was a rational prospect that if we attack the civilian population and cause it enough pain, they will press for a,” what he called, “a cessation of hostilities.” That’s a euphemism meaning cessation of resistance against Israel’s takeover of the—moves which were going on at the time to take over the Occupied Territories. So, sure, if they—“We’ll kill enough of them, so that they’ll press for quiet to permit us to continue what we’re doing.”

there was virtually no no terrorism in the past-until Israel went hardline and starting taking out villages and civilians, deliberately, and here we are today.


Like I've been saying all along. Palestinian terrorism is a reaction to Israeli aggression. Deal with disease (Israeli aggression) chances are you get rid of the symptoms (Palestinians terrorism).

jlew24asu

you see what we're doing here? just going back and forth trying to get one each side to renounce violence. yes, ideally, Israel should first, but I think Hamas would gain respect and credibility if they did first. frankly, I dont care who does it, I just want it done.

TriumphantAngel

jlew24asu wrote:

Commy wrote:

Palestinian violence may be the reason the US doesn't still have marines stationed in the area. that suicide bomb that killed 270+ americans sure as hell got us the fuck out., and it has got israel out of the westbank in the past. without resistance chances are palestinians will simply be overrun.

you can't expect a people under assault to give up resisting.

I get that. but resisting hasnt work out so well has it?.

Neither has peaceful, non violent protesting. Just ask Rachel Corrie. Oh wait, that's right, she was murdered 6 years ago.

I can't believe it's been that long.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

the law. show me a law that states unarmed Israeli civilians living within post 1967 borders are committing war crimes.

http://www.btselem.org/English/Publicat ... d_Grab.asp

International Law

The establishment of settlements on the West Bank violates international humanitarian law, which establishes the principles applying during war and occupation. Moreover, the settlements lead to the infringement of international human rights law.

International humanitarian law prohibits the occupying power to transfer citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Fourth Geneva Convention, article 49). The Hague Regulations prohibit the occupying power to undertake permanent changes in the occupied area, unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population.

The establishment of the settlements leads to the violation of the rights of the Palestinians as enshrined in international human rights law. Among other violations, the settlements infringe the right to self-determination, equality, property, an adequate standard of living, and freedom of movement.

The illegality of the settlements under international humanitarian law does not affect the status of the settlers. The settlers constitute a civilian population by any standard, and include children, who are entitled to special protection. Although some of the settlers are part of the security forces, this fact has absolutely no bearing on the status of the other residents of the settlements.


Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm


Article 16

The wounded and sick, as well as the infirm, and expectant mothers, shall be the object of particular protection and respect.

As far as military considerations allow, each Party to the conflict shall facilitate the steps taken to search for the killed and wounded, to assist the shipwrecked and other persons exposed to grave danger, and to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment.

Article 17

The Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to conclude local agreements for the removal from besieged or encircled areas, of wounded, sick, infirm, and aged persons, children and maternity cases, and for the passage of ministers of all religions, medical personnel and medical equipment on their way to such areas.

Article 18

Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict....

Article 27

Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.

Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault.

Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion.

Article 39

Protected persons who, as a result of the war, have lost their gainful employment, shall be granted the opportunity to find paid employment. That opportunity shall, subject to security considerations and to the provisions of Article 40, be equal to that enjoyed by the nationals of the Power in whose territory they are.

Where a Party to the conflict applies to a protected person methods of control which result in his being unable to support himself, and especially if such a person is prevented for reasons of security from finding paid employment on reasonable conditions, the said Party shall ensure his support and that of his dependents.


SECTION 111

OCCUPIED TERRITORIES

Article 47

Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

Article 48

Protected persons who are not nationals of the Power whose territory is occupied may avail themselves of the right to leave the territory subject to the provisions of Article 35, and decisions thereon shall be taken according to the procedure which the Occupying Power shall establish in accordance with the said Article.

Article 49

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons do demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.

The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Article 50

The Occupying Power shall, with the cooperation of the national and local authorities, facilitate the proper working of all institutions devoted to the care and education of children.

The Occupying Power shall take all necessary steps to facilitate the identification of children and the registration of their parentage. It may not, in any case, change their personal status, nor enlist them in formations or organizations subordinate to it.

Should the local institutions be inadequate for the purpose, the Occupying Power shall make arrangements for the maintenance and education, if possible by persons of their own nationality, language and religion, of children who are orphaned or separated from their parents as a result of the war and who cannot be adequately cared for by a near relative or friend.

A special section of the Bureau set up in accordance with Article 136 shall be responsible for taking all necessary steps to identify children whose identity is in doubt. Particulars of their parents or other near relatives should always be recorded if available.

The Occupying Power shall not hinder the application of any preferential measures in regard to food, medical care and protection against the effects of war, which may have been adopted prior to the occupation in favour of children under fifteen years, expectant mothers, and mothers of children under seven years.


Article 53

Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.


Article 55

To the fullest extent of the means available to it the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.

The Occupying Power may not requisition foodstuffs, articles or medical supplies available in the occupied territory, except for use by the occupation forces and administration personnel, and then only if the requirements of the civilian population have been taken into account. Subject to the provisions of other international Conventions, the Occupying Power shall make arrangements to ensure that fair value is paid for any requisitioned goods.

The Protecting Power shall, at any time, be at liberty to verify the state of the food and medical supplies in occupied territories, except where temporary restrictions are made necessary by imperative military requirements.

Article 56

To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties.

If new hospitals are set up in occupied territory and if the competent organs of the occupied State are not operating there, the occupying authorities shall, if necessary, grant them the recognition provided for in Article 18. In similar circumstances, the occupying authorities shall also grant recognition to hospital personnel and transport vehicles under the provisions of Articles 20 and 21.

In adopting measures of health and hygiene and in their implementation, the Occupying Power shall take into consideration the moral and ethical susceptibilities of the population of the occupied territory.

Article 59

If the whole or part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal.

Such schemes, which may be undertaken either by States or by impartial humanitarian organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, shall consist, in particular, of the provision of consignments of foodstuffs, medical supplies and clothing.

All Contracting Parties shall permit the free passage of these consignments and shall guarantee their protection.

A Power granting free passage to consignments on their way to territory occupied by an adverse Party to the conflict shall, however, have the right to search the consignments, to regulate their passage according to prescribed times and routes, and to be reasonably satisfied through the Protecting Power that these consignments are to be used for the relief of the needy population and are not to be used for the benefit of the Occupying Power.


Article 63

Subject to temporary and exceptional measures imposed for urgent reasons of security by the Occupying Power:

(a) Recognized National Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) Societies shall be able to pursue their activities in accordance with Red Cross principles, as defined by the International Red Cross Conferences. Other relief societies shall be permitted to continue their humanitarian activities under similar conditions;

(b) The Occupying Power may not require any changes in the personnel or structure of these societies, which would prejudice the aforesaid activities.

The same principles shall apply to the activities and personnel of special organizations of a non-military character, which already exist or which may be established, for the purpose of ensuring the living conditions of the civilian population by the maintenance of the essential public utility services, by the distribution of relief and by the organization of rescues.

Article 72

Accused persons shall have the right to present evidence necessary to their defence and may, in particular, call witnesses. They shall have the right to be assisted by a qualified advocate or counsel of their own choice, who shall be able to visit them freely and shall enjoy the necessary facilities for preparing the defence.

Failing a choice by the accused, the Protecting Power may provide him with an advocate or counsel. When an accused person has to meet a serious charge and the Protecting Power is not functioning, the Occupying Power, subject to the consent of the accused, shall provide an advocate or counsel.

Accused persons shall, unless they freely waive such assistance, be aided by an interpreter, both during preliminary investigation and during the hearing in court. They shall have the right at any time to object to the interpreter and to ask for his replacement.

Byrnzie

soulsinging wrote:

Sorry, but one attack with 6 dead isn't going to catch America's eye. It would take time, and a consistent demonstration of Israel's brutality. Otherwise, it's like an alcoholic wanting a gold star for keeping clean a month and then falling off the wagon at the first sign of trouble. American sentiment won't change overnight.

So 60 years of Israeli brutality isn't enough?

I could post hundreds, thousands, of pictures of broken bodies, bulldozed homes, destroyed hospitals, people reduced to abject poverty, e.t.c. Instead, I'll just post the following picture, as I think It says all that needs to be said about how much time and support Israel has already been given by the American people:

http://moinansari.files.wordpress.com/2 ... ne_map.jpg