Jewish settlers threaten life of Palestinian who shot video of execution

Israel/Palestine

Ma’an reports that the man who shot the video documenting the execution of an incapacitated Palestinian suspect two days ago in Hebron has received death threats from Jewish settlers who occupy the city. 

Israeli settlers on Friday gathered outside the home of a human rights worker in Hebron to hurl abuse at him, a day after he captured on camera an Israeli soldier’s killing of a wounded Palestinian that has sparked international outcry.

Ma’an states that the videographer, Imad Abu Shamsiya, said, “I now fear for my life and the life of my family. I’m afraid they might attack my house and do me harm.”

Human Rights Watch confirms the threats on Shamsiya, conveyed from settlers by soldiers to the photographer:

Imad Abu Shamsiyyeh.. told Human Rights Watch in a phone interview that Israeli forces had threatened him both at the scene and later, when he went to give a statement to the military. A few minutes after he filmed the shooting from the roof of a nearby building, he said, “more journalists gathered on the roof, and the Israeli soldiers noticed us. They pointed their guns at us and screamed at us to get down. Soldiers came into the building and told the [owner] not to allow people there or the family would pay the price.”

Abu Shamsiyyeh said that after B’Tselem shared the video with military investigators, the military asked him to give a statement. During questioning at a military office in Hebron, Abu Shamsiyyeh said he felt the interrogator was trying to intimidate him to make him say that he had not filmed the video:

“He told me, ‘How will you benefit from this video? It got a lot of publicity. Your name is known to everyone. Who is going to protect you and your family from right-wing Israelis? Remember you live in [Tel Rumeida], surrounded by Israeli settlers, who will be able to protect you there?’ I felt that I was being threatened. They took the original footage from me.”

Abu Shamsiyyeh said he had received two phone calls on March 24 from a Hebrew-speaker, calling from a private number, but did not understand what was said. “I feel in danger and my children are afraid,” Abu Shamsiyyeh told Human Rights Watch. “I’m not letting them out of the house. I’m afraid of walking in the street.”

Badia Dwaik of Human Rights Defenders in Hebron also confirms the report of threats to Shamsiya since the video was posted. He writes that Shamsiya is a volunteer with his organization. Dwaik relates his conversation with Shamsiya after the video was published.

Imad recounts the execution incident:
“On Thursday morning at 8:30, I was having coffee with my wife Faiza as usual when I heard several bullet shots near my house in Tel-Rumeida. I left the house quickly with my video camera towards the location of shooting.The first thing I saw was an Israeli soldier on the side of the street pointing his rifle at a young man on the ground who was wearing a black jacket and black trousers. While filming I heard noises from other soldiers so I pointed the camera towards the noise where I saw another young man covered in his blood, with blood coming out of his face. This man was wearing a grey jacket, while the first guy in black seemed to be still alive as I was filming. In less than a minute, a large group of soldiers and settlers gathered in the location and an Israeli ambulance arrived and gave aid to an Israeli soldier without attending to either Palestinian men. The man in the grey jacket didn’t move while the man in black was moving his arms and legs while on the ground. After the solider was put in the ambulance, I heard the soldiers getting ready to shoot while I was still filming, and a soldier stepped towards the man wearing a black jacket, shooting him in the head directly from a very close distance even though he didn’t form any threat to the soldiers or settlers as he was on the ground. The man immediately died and his head was blown up to pieces visible on the ground. This is what I documented with my camera from the Human Rights Defenders Group and what I saw with my eye, and my wife Faiza was with me all the time helping me record.”
Dwaik says the execution is part of a pattern of control of the Palestinian population near the Hebron settlements.
Since the start of Intifada in October, occupation forces have carried out several tactics to make life even harder for Palestinians by rebuilding and expanding the military checkpoint on Al-Shuhada street [in Hebron]; the checkpoint consists of two lanes now for entry and exit, where a thorough inspection inside the ‘container ‘is carried out through a glass barrier with CCTV and recording devices, and the residents are required to show their ID and a number that identifies the place of their residence. Each person is required to carry such a number, in what is a new strategy to displace the residents by making life impossible.
Killing of Hadeel al-Hashlamoun, 18, in occupied territory goes unmentioned in J Street statement lamenting violence

Killing of Hadeel Hashlamon, 18, in occupied territory last September

Hadeel Hashlamon: a beginning for the executions

The series of executions started with the murder of martyr Hadeel Hashlamon, which was documented by a volunteer from Brazil working with Eappi program. The photos were distributed to international media agencies, and the volunteer recounted the story on his own blog. Since then,the area witnessed more execution-style murders from Tel-Rumeida through Al-Salemeh neighbourhood, to the illegal settlement of Kiryat Arba, forming an Israeli settlement belt known as the Jewish neighbourhood that came to exist after expelling Palestinians through a number of policies.

 

The map of executions is not random
The locations of these execution-style murders is seen to be in areas around settlers, especially in Hebron; Imad says that 13 murders in cold blood were carried out in Tel-Rumeida and Al-Shuhada street, as well as executions near Al-Ibrahimi mosque and Kiryat Arba.This is in addition to Palestinians murdered in what is known as Gush Etzion north of Hebron, and  Beit Enon [east of Hebron]. This makes it clear that there is a plan to cement the settler reality and escalate strategies against the residents of the land, particularly in the heart of Hebron to link all settlements through the Jewish neighbourhood, using all policies possible of ethnic cleansing and silent displacement, making Hebron a living example of apartheid in the world today.
Thanks to James North.

66 Responses

  1. charlesfrith
    March 26, 2016, 10:51 am

    A bucketful of Zionism http;//j.mp/bucketful

  2. Kathleen
    March 26, 2016, 11:15 am

    The photos, video’s of these executions, humiliation, abuse, theft of Palestinians land, homes, etc cannot be swept under the rug as they were for decades. This is not new behavior by the land thieves (so tired of the word settler sounds so non threatening)…now being documented.

    Now going after the individual who documented the murder…..The land thieves and the Israeli soldiers who protect the theft have no shame at all!

  3. oldgeezer
    March 26, 2016, 11:48 am

    The illegal Jewish squatters in Hebron have always been a particularly vile, violent and nasty bunch of criminals. That they would threaten to murder someone for revealing the truth comes as no surprise whatsoever. I’m sure they would kill for a lot less and probably have. And the idf has always been a terrorist outfit.

    One thing related to this story is that no evidence has been presented that the Palestinian victims did anything to begin with. While an Israeli soldier may have been injured we don’t know by whom and we don’t know if the wounds were inflicted as the Palestinians tried to defend themselves from the thugs.

    And yet again we see Israeli medical personnel behaving inappropriately. They need to be ejected from association with the ICRC and should be considered combatants.

  4. just
    March 26, 2016, 12:39 pm

    The multiple, myriad, and loathesome masks of Purim have been removed yet again.

    Ascertain to whom and where your tax $$$ and vote goes and NEVER forget who is supporting this with your tacit and/or vocal support. Palestinians have been endlessly robbed, incarcerated, murdered, and tortured with the full support of the West and the Gulfies and Egypt and others…

    Bless this videographer, Imad Abu Shamsiyyeh, and his wife and family. Bless this executed man and his brethren- his sisters and brothers and mothers and fathers and children who only struggle to be free in THEIR land.

  5. edwards
    March 26, 2016, 7:55 pm

    I showed my Dad (89 year-old Reform Jew) the picture of Hadeel Hashlamon when I happened to be staying in his house last fall. He said “You don’t think I approve of that, do you?”. Well, if he *does* disapprove, you would certainly never guess it. If there any possible occurrence that would affect his positive view of Israel, I have no idea what it might be. All is forgiven without a moment’s hesitation. It doesn’t strike me as completely human.

    • Rooster
      March 27, 2016, 1:03 am

      Doesn’t approve, yet supports it fully.
      The logical acrobatics of the Zionist. Especially impressive in a liberal Zionist.

  6. Herchel
    March 27, 2016, 4:23 am

    The map of executions is not random
    —-

    No, it certainly is not. It’s a perfect match with the map of where murderous palestinians killed or tried to kill Jews.

    Typical illogical propaganda about evil Jewish conspiracies.

    • eljay
      March 27, 2016, 10:30 am

      || Herchel: Typical illogical propaganda about evil Jewish conspiracies. ||

      Typical Zio-supremacist apologetics about evil Zio-supremacist actions.

    • Mooser
      March 27, 2016, 11:35 am

      “Herchel” for heaven’s sake, who told you that being Jewish provides legal immunity for criminal actions?

      Why do you always insist that Jews can get away with anything? Who told you that? It’s not true.

    • Sycamores
      March 27, 2016, 12:24 pm

      the map of executions are in the occupied Palestinian territories. the map of executions are of Palestinians on their own land that are murdered by illegal settlers and invading armed forces.

      however to you the aggressor is the victim, good luck with selling that baloney.

      but if you genuinely care about the lifes of the Jews who are illegally in the occupied Palestinian territories tell them to follow international law and leave. problem solved.

      • Mooser
        March 29, 2016, 12:26 am

        Under International Law Civilians of the Occupying Power are NOT even permitted to be in Occupied Territories. See more at: link to mondoweiss.net.

        “Do you have a source for this claim?”
        Rotflmsjao! “Jon 6s6”
        “Jon s66” (or whatever) thinks the settlers are “protected persons” under the GC!! It can’t be illegal for them to be there! Aren’t all Jews “protected persons” you know, cause of the persecution and stuff? Okay, hows about, uh, an “endangered species”?

        Did I hear a SQUELCH? The sound of a soul as it skids in a big steaming pile?

    • talknic
      March 27, 2016, 12:28 pm

      Herchel ” It’s a perfect match with the map of where murderous palestinians killed or tried to kill Jews”

      Those Jews, being Israelis were not supposed to be there and if armed, even with a pen knife or considered to be a part of Israeli defense by the Israeli Government, were legitimate military targets

      Go whine to the stupid Zionist Federation and the ridiculous Israeli Government for encouraging Israeli Jews to endanger themselves.

      • Jon66
        March 27, 2016, 2:15 pm

        Talknic,

        That is incorrect.
        From Human Right Watch, “International humanitarian law makes clear, however, that reserve or off-duty soldiers who are not at that moment subject to the integrated disciplinary command of the armed forces are considered civilians until the time that they become subject to military command-meaning, until they are effectively incorporated into the armed forces. Their incorporation into the regular armed forces is most frequently signified by wearing a uniform or other identifiable insignia.”
        Do you have a source that specifies that Israeli settlers specifically are considered legitimate targets?

      • talknic
        March 27, 2016, 9:20 pm

        @ Jon66

        talknic – “Those Jews, being Israelis were not supposed to be there and if armed … ” – link to mondoweiss.net

        “From Human Right Watch, “International humanitarian law makes clear, however, that reserve or off-duty soldiers who are not at that moment subject to the integrated disciplinary command of the armed forces are considered civilians until the time that they become subject to military command-meaning, until they are effectively incorporated into the armed forces. Their incorporation into the regular armed forces is most frequently signified by wearing a uniform or other identifiable insignia.” “

        Try something else Jon66. I didn’t mention reservists or off duty soldiers. Anyone carrying arms is a valid military target. We can see this by who is not allowed to be targeted. Equally applicable to the un-armed and obviously neutralized Palestinian who was murdered BTW

        SECTION II
        HOSTILITIES
        CHAPTER I
        Means of Injuring the Enemy,
        Sieges, and bombardments
        Art. 22.

        The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.

        Art. 23.

        To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion; link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        “Israeli civilians living in the settlements, so long as they do not take up arms and take an active part in hostilities, are noncombatants.
        Do you have a source that specifies that Israeli settlers specifically are considered legitimate targets?”

        You poor poor utterly stupid person, why would I have a source for something I didn’t claim?

        My claim is still there. It still says “if armed”. You needed to change what was said to try to make a point Jon66. Why?

        All you’ve done is show folk how despicable and deceitful you are!

        —————-

        Why is it that illegal Israeli expansionism attracts people who seem to despise the basic common sense tenets of Judaism?

      • Jon66
        March 27, 2016, 9:59 pm

        Talknic,
        “Those Jews, being Israelis were not supposed to be there and if armed, even with a pen knife or considered to be a part of Israeli defense by the Israeli Government, were legitimate military targets – See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

        Possessing a pen knife does make you an armed combatant and a legitimate target if you are not taking part of hostilities.

        Also from HRW, “Eitam Henkin was a reserve officer in the Israeli army but not on active duty, an Israeli army spokesman said. Army reservists who are not on active duty are civilians and entitled to the protections that civilians enjoy under the laws of war, which are applicable in the occupied West Bank, Human Rights Watch said.Eitam Henkin was a reserve officer in the Israeli army but not on active duty, an Israeli army spokesman said. Army reservists who are not on active duty are civilians and entitled to the protections that civilians enjoy under the laws of war, which are applicable in the occupied West Bank, Human Rights Watch said.”
        If a reservist is not on active duty and not directly involved in hostilities they are not a legitimate target armed if not. Civilians if allowed by law, can carry weapons in many locations.

      • echinococcus
        March 27, 2016, 11:00 pm

        Jon66,
        Relentless whingeing is not likely to change the consensus that illegal civilians supporting military occupation are part of the occupying army. That is what German civilian personnel and settlers were for the resistance during WWII Nazi occupation and that determination is more than good enough for all the world. Also, the more you quote from the US puppet organization HRW, the more you make it appear suspect.

      • talknic
        March 28, 2016, 2:59 am

        @ Jon66 digs a deeper hole …

        “Possessing a pen knife does make you an armed combatant and a legitimate target if you are not taking part of hostilities”

        Care to rewrite that

        “Army reservists who are not on active duty are civilians and entitled to the protections that civilians enjoy under the laws of war, which are applicable in the occupied West Bank, Human Rights Watch said.”

        What I’ve written is still there. It refers to people who ARE carrying arms and who ARE part of Israel’s defense.

        ” Civilians if allowed by law, can carry weapons in many locations “

        Under International Law Civilians of the Occupying Power are NOT even permitted to be in Occupied Territories. If they are and they’re carrying arms, they’re a valid military target

      • echinococcus
        March 28, 2016, 5:15 am

        Under International Law Civilians of the Occupying Power are NOT even permitted to be in Occupied Territories. If they are and they’re carrying arms, they’re a valid military target

        Enemy personnel does not have to be carrying arms to support invasion and murder. Any enemy person on occupied territory may be performing such functions and is a valid target –the occupied cannot afford to take a chance on that. Just as (but more urgently than) the invading murderers do not take a chance on an almost-dead teen-age girl on whom a knife was planted or the latest murder of a severely wounded boy that we are visioning here.

      • Talkback
        March 28, 2016, 8:22 am

        The question is not, if a civilian is carrying arms. The question is, if he’s taking an ACTIVE part in hostilities. If he doesn’t, he’s NOT a legitimate target.

        Nonetheless, the occupying state has to remove its civilians from all settlements in occupied territories and has to dismantle the settlements.

      • talknic
        March 28, 2016, 8:36 am

        @ Talkback “The question is not, if a civilian is carrying arms. The question is, if he’s taking an ACTIVE part in hostilities. If he doesn’t, he’s NOT a legitimate target”

        Carrying arms is a threat to use them, AKA taking part in hostilities, because there’s no point in carrying arms unless you ARE gonna use ’em

      • Jon66
        March 28, 2016, 8:38 am

        Echi, Talknic,

        Talkback is correct. Unless a civilian is actively taking part of hostilities they are not a legitimate target.
        Secondly, nothing bars citizens from the Occupying army from entering territory.

        Do you have a source that specifies that Israeli settlers not actively engaged in hostilities are legitimate targets?
        Do you have a source that specifies that NO Israelis are not allowed to be present in the occupied territories?

      • talknic
        March 28, 2016, 9:34 am

        @ Jon66 “Unless a civilian is actively taking part of hostilities they are not a legitimate target”

        Why carry arms if not engaged in hostilities? To look pretty?

        “Secondly, nothing bars citizens from the Occupying army from entering territory.”

        GC IV tells us you’re full of Ziopoop link to unispal.un.org

        “Do you have a source that specifies that Israeli settlers not actively engaged in hostilities are legitimate targets?”

        I should supply a source for something I didn’t claim?

        Why are you so dishonest?

        Do you have a source that specifies that NO Israelis are not allowed to be present in the occupied territories?

        Again, why should I provide a source for your deceitfully written questions?

        All you’re showing is that YOU cannot be trusted

      • Talkback
        March 28, 2016, 9:50 am

        Talknic: “Carrying arms is a threat to use them, AKA taking part in hostilities, because there’s no point in carrying arms unless you ARE gonna use ’em.”

        Civilians also carry weapons purely for self defense. Simply carrying a weapon doesn’t make one a legitimate (military) “target”.

        Jon66: “Secondly, nothing bars citizens from the Occupying army from entering territory.”

        That is only true in the sense that illegal entry or illegal settling can be ensured by the occupying army, but only in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. The occupying force has to protect the occupied people and bar citizens from the occupying state from entering and especially settling in occupied territories.

      • Jon66
        March 28, 2016, 10:50 am

        Talknic,
        Your link says nothing about Occupying civilians entering Occupied territories. In fact, it is the duty of the Occupying power according to Article 43, “to re-establish and insure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.” It would be impossible to do this without a physical presence of the occupying forces.

        Echi,
        “Any enemy person on occupied territory may be performing such functions and is a valid target –the occupied cannot afford to take a chance on that. Just as – See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

        Actually, according to GC protocol I, article 50,” In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian. “

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        March 28, 2016, 2:10 pm

        “Army reservists who are not on active duty are civilians and entitled to the protections that civilians enjoy under the laws of war, which are applicable in the occupied West Bank, Human Rights Watch said”

        And, as HRW well knows, citizens of the occupying power are not considered ‘protected persons’ under international law.

        And isn’t it hilarious, in a sick sort of way, how the defenders of a state which considers kids playing football to be legitimate targets, still manage to get so hung up on the precise definition of same? If Israelis don’t want to be targets, why don’t they live within the legally recognised borders of Israel? What kind of person activiely chooses to live in a zone of belligerent occupation, much less raise their children there?

      • Jon66
        March 28, 2016, 2:50 pm

        MDM,

        If you don’t like HRW, how about B-Tselem.
        “Palestinian spokespersons distinguish between attacks inside Israel and attacks directed at settlers in the Occupied Territories. They argue that, because the settlements are illegal and many settlers belong to Israel’s security forces, settlers are not entitled to the protections granted to civilians by international law.
        This argument is readily refuted. The illegality of the settlements has no effect at all on the status of their civilian residents. The settlers constitute a distinctly civilian population, which is entitled to all the protections granted civilians by international law. The Israeli security forces’ use of land in the settlements or the membership of some settlers in the Israeli security forces does not affect the status of the other residents living among them, and certainly does not make them proper targets of attack.
        B’Tselem strongly opposes the attempts to justify attacks against Israeli civilians by using distorted interpretations of international law. Furthermore, B’Tselem demands that the Palestinian Authority do everything within its power to prevent future attacks and to prosecute the individuals involved in past attacks.”

        Do you have a source that specifies that Israeli settlers are not civilians and are not afforded the protection of civilians?

      • oldgeezer
        March 28, 2016, 4:21 pm

        @jon66
        “This argument is readily refuted.”

        I don’t think it is and I don’t think either of the citations you have provided refute it.

        I don’t know the answer. I don’t claim to. While the opinions of these groups is important it is not something that has been settled with competing arguments having been weight. While I’ve seen their opinions I’ve never seen the considered analysis leading to those judges.

        1. I oppose all attacks on civilians by either side. No equivocation.

        2. The illegal squatters clearly do not meet the definition of protected persons under GC IV. That does not mean that they are not civilians and not entitled to certain protections. Just not the protections offered to ‘protected persons’. Those rights are for those who are occupied.

        3. The squatters are criminals and engaged in war crimes but I don’t feel that makes them valid targets or liable for the death penalty. It makes them valid targets for arrest, trial and suitable punishment.

        4. The various opinions gives no recognition or consideration of the rights of the victims of these war crimes to resist with any means at their disposal and there is such a right.

        5. I have not seen any analysis of the impact on Israeli civilian rights by the issuance of automatic weapons, grenades and idf training by the GoI.

        6. In terms of the Israeli idf reservist who was killed I think it’s relevant as to whether this was a random or specifically targetted attack. If the latter then the defense that this criminal gets to rampage around the occupied territory killing Palestinians then clock off work and claim civilian status us ludicrous. He is part of the management and implementation of the war crime project. If it was the former I would view the incident in a different light.

        I could go on but my point is primarily that they aren’t protected persons. The rights of the colonized is implemented in international law. The rights of the colonizers is not.

        It would make an interesting court case and argument.

      • talknic
        March 28, 2016, 9:30 pm

        Jon66 “Your link says nothing about Occupying civilians entering Occupied territories”

        I know your job here is to waste everyone’s time. But all you actually do is afford opportunity after opportunity to inform interested readers with links to irrefutable documents showing that you’re gushing putrid Ziosh*t

        Read the documents referred to in UNSC res 476. One of which is UNSC res 465 etc. Res 465 tells us

        5. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

        6. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

        7. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connexion with settlements in the occupied territories; link to unispal.un.org

        “In fact, it is the duty of the Occupying power according to Article 43, “to re-establish and insure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.” It would be impossible to do this without a physical presence of the occupying forces”

        Did you have a point other than wasting time? Because you haven’t contradicted anything I’ve ever written

        “Actually, according to GC protocol I, article 50,” In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian. “”

        A) Israel ISN’T a signatory to GC protocol I.
        B) If they’re an armed citizen of the Occupying Power in Occupied Territories, they are by definition of the Laws of War, a belligerent

      • Jon66
        March 28, 2016, 10:25 pm

        OG,

        “4. The various opinions gives no recognition or consideration of the rights of the victims of these war crimes to resist with any means at their disposal and there is such a right. – See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

        The right to resistance is not without limit. From GC,”Article 22

        The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.

        As to the issue of the reservist. It may not seem fair, but a person who is not fully engaged in hostilities is only a valid target when they are engaged. A reservist is not a valid target when they are not engaged.
        If your positions are correct, can you find any organization which supports them? If I said, “The Israelis have a right to own Ohio”, I would be met with chapter and verse of international law explaining the contrary. Where is the source for your opinions other than your opinions?

      • oldgeezer
        March 28, 2016, 10:35 pm

        @jon66

        Are you that slow.

        I said I have no opinion but would like to see it argued in court with both sides represented.

        I would say stupid zionist but then I would be repeating myself.

      • Jon66
        March 28, 2016, 10:37 pm

        Talknic,


        Under International Law Civilians of the Occupying Power are NOT even permitted to be in Occupied Territories. See more at: link to mondoweiss.net.

        Do you have a source for this claim? You perpetually refer to UN resolutions about the violations of the Occupying forces such as settlements, etc. However, do you have a source that says an occupying power cannot have civilians be present in occupied territory?

        “B) If they’re an armed citizen of the Occupying Power in Occupied Territories, they are by definition of the Laws of War, a belligerent – See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

        Other than your own opinion/interpretation do you have a source to back this up? Everything I have read/presented disagrees with you.

      • talknic
        March 29, 2016, 9:24 am

        @ Jon66

        Under International Law Civilians of the Occupying Power are NOT even permitted to be in Occupied Territories.

        “Do you have a source for this claim? You perpetually refer to UN resolutions about the violations of the Occupying forces such as settlements, etc. However, do you have a source that says an occupying power cannot have civilians be present in occupied territory

        Thanks again for yet another opportunity to show earnest readers just how stupid and pathetic you and your kind are.

        The Armistice Agreements. I know it’s foreign to time wasting nonsense posting Zionist propagandists, but they’re called agreements because all the parties agreed

        Article IV

        3. Rules and regulations of the armed forces of the Parties, which prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement with application to the Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI. link to unispal.un.org

        The International Red Cross

        Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited

        link to icrc.org

        UNSC resolutions reminding Israel of its legal obligations under the binding International Laws, the UN Charter (binding in its entirety) and binding Geneva Conventions reaffirmed and emphasized in those resolutions

        465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 June 30 1980 and 478 August 20 1980.

        None of which have anything to do with race or religion. They’re based on the UN Charter, International Law and the GC’s, all of which Israel obliged itself to uphold. Alas it hasn’t

        B) If they’re an armed citizen of the Occupying Power in Occupied Territories, they are by definition of the Laws of War, a belligerent

        “Other than your own opinion/interpretation do you have a source to back this up?

        The Laws of War

        Annex to the Convention
        REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS
        OF WAR ON LAND
        SECTION I
        ON BELLIGERENTS
        CHAPTER I
        The Qualifications of Belligerents
        Article 1.

        The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:

        To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

        To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

        To carry arms openly; and

        To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

        In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination “army.”
        Art. 2.

        The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war. link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        ” Everything I have read/presented disagrees with you”

        Twaddle. You keep altering what I’ve said in order to try to make a point. IOW you are a blatant liar!

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        March 29, 2016, 9:44 am

        Jon

        “Do you have a source that specifies that Israeli settlers are not civilians and are not afforded the protection of civilians?”

        Don’t misquote me. I specifically said that citizens of the occupying power are not considered ‘protected persons’ under international law. If you want a source, look up the Geneva Conventions.

      • Jon66
        March 29, 2016, 10:50 am

        MDM,

        The GC does not specify that civilians in Occupied territory are not protected persons. GC article 3 protects ‘persons taking no active part in the hostilities’. Protocol I affords protection to civilians who do not take a direct role in hostilities.

        Do you have a reference that specifically states that Israeli settlers are not ‘protected persons’ other than your interpretation of the GC? The ICRC distinguishes between combatants, civilians who directly participate in hostilities, and civilians who do not participate. Civilians are presumed to be given “protection against the dangers of arising from military operations” unless they become combatants it directly engaged.

      • Jon66
        March 29, 2016, 12:38 pm

        Talknic,

        The Armistice agreement has been supplanted by the Oslo Accords. The Armistice is no longer in effect.

        The prohibition of transferring population does not mean that no civilians of the Occupying power may enter the occupied territory.

        The definition of belligerents defines who is a lawful combatant. It does not mean nor does it say that anyone who owns a weapon is a combatant. If you fulfill the conditions that you are a lawful combatant. If you don’t then you are not. Other than your particular take on the interpretation of these documents does anyone else support your claims?

      • echinococcus
        March 29, 2016, 6:20 pm

        John66

        can’t read but can screech, and how.
        Now he pretends that 49.6 is written 50

      • talknic
        March 29, 2016, 7:42 pm

        @ Jon66

        “The Armistice agreement has been supplanted by the Oslo Accords. The Armistice is no longer in effect.”

        Strange. So the Green Line doesn’t exist. Interesting theory

        The Oslo accords meanwhile had a limited lifetime, long gone

        UN resolutions since still reference the ‘Green Line’. Maybe you should take your pathetic theories to the Israeli Government who itself cites the Green Line

        “The prohibition of transferring population does not mean that no civilians of the Occupying power may enter the occupied territory.”

        Please read the documents cited and stop making a fool of yourself

        “Other than your particular take on the interpretation of these documents does anyone else support your claims?”

        The UNSC. The ICJ. International Red Cross and every UN resolution re-affirming and emphasizing relevant International Law (all law is binding), the UN Charter (binding on all members in its entirety) and and relevant GC’s (having passed into Customary International Law binding on all UN Members )

        “The definition of belligerents defines who is a lawful combatant. It does not mean nor does it say that anyone who owns a weapon is a combatant.”

        Weasel worded bullsh*t is still bullsh*t pal. Ownership of a weapon isn’t in question. Being armed is. IDF soldiers do not own the weapons they use.

        Keep weaseling your credibility away

      • Jon66
        March 29, 2016, 9:25 pm

        Talknic,

        OK I’ll use the term armed. A reservist who is armed or a settler who is armed but who is not directly involved in hostilities ais not a legitimate target.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 29, 2016, 9:36 pm

        jon, i go away for a week and you’re still hammering away on this same topic. and it was an old argument then. can you give it a rest? obviously people have different opinions on legitimate targets.

      • Jon66
        March 29, 2016, 10:03 pm

        Annie,
        Yes.
        How was vacation?

      • talknic
        March 30, 2016, 12:40 am

        @ Jon66 ” A reservist who is armed or a settler who is armed but who is not directly involved in hostilities ais not a legitimate target”

        Try something else Jon66. Do you carry a scalpel with you without intention to use it

        A requirement of the Laws of War is to lay down ones arms

        SECTION II
        HOSTILITIES
        CHAPTER I
        Means of Injuring the Enemy,
        Sieges, and bombardments
        Art. 22.

        The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.
        Art. 23.

        In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden –

        To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms … link to avalon.law.yale.edu

    • Mayhem
      March 27, 2016, 6:20 pm

      According to a civilian paramedic who was at the scene, those responding to the stabbing incident feared the terrorist was wearing an explosive vest and he was about to detonate it, which is when the IDF officer shot him.

      This paramedic said that the soldiers and emergency personnel began to yell that the terrorist is still moving, and they think he has a bomb on him.

      The eye- and earwitness said he heard it with his own ears, and that if the B’tselem video had an audio recording (conveniently for propagandists never interested in the facts it did not) it would confirm that this is what happened.

      Stepping back from the incident, notice how all blame and responsibility for a terrorist action that was perpetrated by the Palestinian attacker is overlooked. The Palestinian who intended to murder is portrayed as victim. These images are used as propaganda vehicles, the truth not being important, rather the capturing of the media’s attention with a slanted propaganda message.

      • eljay
        March 27, 2016, 9:55 pm

        || Mayhem: According to a civilian paramedic who was at the scene, those responding to the stabbing incident feared the terrorist was wearing an explosive vest and he was about to detonate it, which is when the IDF officer shot him. … ||

        Yup, they feared him and his explosive vest so much that for several minutes they completely ignored him and occupied themselves with other business. And then the intentionally executed him.

        I’m baffled that you Zio-supremacists insist on setting such dangerous precedents for how non-Jews should treat Jews – in this case, severely-wounded Jewish civilians. Why do you hate Jews so much?!

      • talknic
        March 28, 2016, 3:13 am

        @ Mayhem “This paramedic said that the soldiers and emergency personnel began to yell that the terrorist is still moving, and they think he has a bomb on him”

        At which point on the video did he move and at which point on the video did they yell?

        “The eye- and earwitness said he heard it with his own ears, and that if the B’tselem video had an audio recording (conveniently for propagandists never interested in the facts it did not) it would confirm that this is what happened

        Oh you poor poor chap. You’re so f*cking stupid you can’t turn on the sound on a Youtube video. How embarrassing for you

      • talknic
        March 28, 2016, 8:38 am

        Mayhem? You there?

        At which point on the video did he move and at which point on the video did they yell?

      • amigo
        March 28, 2016, 11:30 am

        “Stepping back from the incident, notice how all blame and responsibility for a terrorist action that was perpetrated by the Palestinian attacker is overlooked”mayhem

        Correction—The attempted killing or killing of a member of an occupying force is allowed under International Law.The Palestinian victim of the criminal member of the so called “most moral army ” was within his rights to stab , shoot, blow up or sever the head off his oppressor.Too bad he didn,t succeed.That would be one less Zionist criminal to deal with.

        May God be with the Palestinian resistance fighter and his family.

      • eljay
        March 28, 2016, 12:18 pm

        || Mayhem: … Stepping back from the incident, notice how all blame and responsibility for a terrorist action that was perpetrated by the Palestinian attacker is overlooked. … ||

        It’s not overlooked. The Palestinian attacker is guilty of his crime. He should be arrested, tried and held accountable for his actions.

        Too late! A Zio-supremacist goon executed him.

        || … The Palestinian who intended to murder is portrayed as victim. … ||

        A Palestinian who intended to commit murder was actually murdered – he was deliberately executed – by a Zio-supremacist goon. Yes, he is a victim.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        March 28, 2016, 2:13 pm

        eljay

        “The Palestinian attacker is guilty of his crime. ”

        What crime?

        Occupation soldiers are legitimate targets under international law.

        “He should be arrested, tried and held accountable for his actions.”

        By whom? Occupation forces have no right to impose their jurisdiction in occupied territory.

      • eljay
        March 28, 2016, 6:29 pm

        || Maximus Decimus Meridius @ March 28, 2016, 2:13 pm ||

        A man was seriously injured while trying to harm an Israeli Occupation Forces soldier. IMO what must happen is justice for all the people involved in the situation:
        – the man with the knife must be held accountable for what he has done; and
        – the Occupation Forces soldiers and the “Jewish State” for which they do their dirty work must be held accountable for what they have done.

        What must not happen is the summary execution of a civilian by an immoral member of the immoral Occupation Army of an immoral colonialist and supremacist state.

        How justice happens, I don’t know.

      • talknic
        March 28, 2016, 9:33 pm

        Hey! Mayhem? You there?

        At which point on the video did he move and at which point on the video did they yell?

        —–

        Mayhem demonstrates again the dishonesty one can expect of an apologist for Israel’s illegal expansionist policies

      • Mayhem
        March 29, 2016, 4:22 am

        @talknic, I am here all right. In typical fashion you blurt out abuse – the only language you know. If you had bothered to follow the previous article through you would have read about evidence that suggests the soldier’s action was justified

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        March 29, 2016, 9:38 am

        eljay

        “the man with the knife must be held accountable for what he has done”

        Again, what exactly has he done wrong according to international law?

        And by whom should he be ‘held accountable’? To repeat, Israel has no right to impose its jurisdiction in occupied territory.

      • eljay
        March 29, 2016, 10:26 am

        || Maximus Decimus Meridius @ March 29, 2016, 9:38 am ||

        I’m not sure what you want me to say.

        Israel is a (war) criminal state. A civilian harmed one of that state’s enforcers. I believe that justice must be applied to the situation. Let the civilian, the enforcer and the (war) criminal state be given fair trials for their respective crimes (or, if you prefer, actions) and held accountable as required by the laws under which they are tried.

        That’s what I would like to see happen. I have no power to make any of it happen.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        March 29, 2016, 10:52 am

        eljay

        I want you to say

        a) what crime the man committed
        b) who is competent to try him.

        Fairly straightforward questions.

        You seem to be saying that, in attempting to harm or kill a uniformed, on-duty member of the occupation forces, the dead man was committing a crime. Otherwise, why ‘hold him to account’? However, international law disagrees with you. Under such laws – the only relevant ones in occupied territory – the man is not guilty of any crime. The obvious conclusion then, is that you want this man to be tried for a non-existent crime by the Israeli ‘authorities’ who as I said have no legal jurisdiction in occupied territories.

        I know you don’t intend it as such, but your position here is identical to that of the hasbarists, who view legitimate resistance to occupation as a crime.

      • Mooser
        March 29, 2016, 11:33 am

        Thanks MDM.

      • eljay
        March 29, 2016, 11:37 am

        || Maximus Decimus Meridius: eljay

        I want you to say

        a) what crime the man committed
        b) who is competent to try him.

        Fairly straightforward questions. … ||

        a) He attacked and injured an Israeli soldier. If that’s not a crime, I stand corrected.
        b) I don’t know who would have been competent to try him. But justice suggests that he should have received a fair trial instead of an execution.

        Those are my fairly straightforward answers.

        My point is that Zio-supremacists scream about injustices committed against them even as they deliberately commit more and greater injustices against others. I say: Fine. Put your money where your foul mouths are. Let’s fairly apply justice to ALL (real or perceived) injustices and hold accountable ALL people found guilty of actual crimes.

      • Jon66
        March 29, 2016, 12:43 pm

        MDM,
        They man may or may not be guilty of a crime. If he is a legal combatant than he can’t be held guilty for anything other than war crimes. If he is a civilian or an unlawful combatant than he may be guilty of attempted murder, etc.

        The point is that once he was disarmed the matter should be settled by a trial, not an execution.

      • echinococcus
        March 29, 2016, 2:00 pm

        Jon66 andEljay,

        “Trial” my eye. And foot. No invader court has any legitimacy there.

      • eljay
        March 29, 2016, 2:40 pm

        || echinococcus: Jon66 andEljay, “Trial” my eye. And foot. No invader court has any legitimacy there. ||

        Okay.

      • talknic
        March 30, 2016, 1:40 am

        @ Mayhem March 29, 2016, 4:22 am

        = NOT answering a reasonably put question

        ” In typical fashion you blurt out abuse “

        There’s nothing abusive in pointing out your refusal to answer a question.

    • Talkback
      March 28, 2016, 8:24 am

      Supremacist “Herchel” will never argue that Jews who killed or tried to kill Palestinians can be legally killed.

      • eljay
        March 29, 2016, 1:37 pm

        || Talkback: Supremacist “Herchel” will never argue that Jews who killed or tried to kill Palestinians can be legally killed. ||

        His assertion – a claim of “intent to kill” justifies the execution of an incapacitated attacker – is a dangerous one.

        Example: A non-Jew is attacked by a Jew but manages to knock the guy unconscious. After catching his breath, the non-Jew pulls out a gun and shoots the Jew dead. His defence: The man attacked me, he had “intent to kill” and although he lying on the ground he moved a bit and I was sure he was reaching for a gun or some explosive device with which to finish me off.

        I say: That’s a crime for which the non-Jew should be tried and held accountable.
        Herchel says: The non-Jew was right to execute the Jew, and he’s a hero in my book!

        I don’t understand why Zio-supremacists hate Jews so much.

    • Rooster
      March 28, 2016, 1:14 pm

      Israeli conspiracy? Sure, I guess.

      JEWISH conspiracy? I don’t see what is so Jewish about this whole Israel thing, let alone shooting an unarmed man, prone, in the head.

      Don’t you just hate these antisemites, constantly trying to conflate the two?

      • Mooser
        March 29, 2016, 1:19 am

        “Don’t you just hate these antisemites, constantly trying to conflate the two?”

        Somebody gave them a whole lot of mis-information about the fringe-benefits package which comes with being Jewish. They seem to have embraced a crude form of Jewish antinomianism.

  7. amigo
    March 28, 2016, 4:11 pm

    All this discussion on the protection of civilians in Occupied territory reminds me of the usual excuse given by the apologists for the King David Hotel bombing.They usually tell us that anyone in the hotel was working for the British occupying forces –ergo , were legitimate targets.

    Defending the indefensible is a tough road to hoe.

  8. Kay24
    March 28, 2016, 7:29 pm

    The nazios want their crimes hidden from the outside world. Israel is an apartheid nation, where international laws are not adhered to when it comes to crimes against Palestinians. They murder and hope no one has caught in on camera, so that they can justify the killings with their zionist lies.
    These illegal squatters are a disgraceful lot, and their viciousness is unbelievable. That video showing the scumbags stabbing a picture of an already murdered baby, shows just how evil these squatters are. This brave man should fear for his life, because he is facing the wrath of these mean people. Those illegal settlements are a cursed place, it seems to be the breeding grounds for some dangerous creatures.

Leave a Reply