Most people have no concept of International Law, but can only spout back what they hear or read, without critical thinking about what is actually being said. I noticed that the poster known as Catsy didn't or COULD NOT refute you after you posted my article on UN Security Council Resolutions, since it's pretty clear once one actually does the research how and why UN Resolutions are formulated, it deflates all these bogus charges. A little knowledge goes a long way.

Good job on pointing this out.

However, I am REALLY miffed in regards to your failure to address the usual blatantly biased charges that Israel is in violation of Article 4 of the Geneva Protocols, usually in terms of how the IDF goes into terrorist areas populated areas to roust them out, and civilians are hurt.

The relevent point of this is the following, which I will post in its entirety. regardig why the IDF is TOTALLY protected from such accusations of war crimes. Note that given the political atmosphere in the world, you can bet your bottom dollar that if there WAS a legal way to charge any and all IDF soldiers with war crimes, it would have happened already. Given the fact that there IS no legal basis, the looney left defenders of PALI terrorism can only make POLITICAL accusations of War Crimes, and that amounts to about as much moral authority as a resolution (non-binding, of course) coming from the UN General Assembly:

What the Geneva Protocols Really Say
by Scott Schneider
November 28, 2003

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20031128.asp

There have been many accusations that Israel has committed war crimes and massacres in fighting the Palestinians, up to and including charges of ethnic cleansing and genocide. But these accusations do not hold up according to the Geneva Protocols, even with regard to the operations in Jenin, and the targeted killings.

The "Geneva Protocol" in question is the "Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War." This lays down the "law" for situations where an army finds itself fighting non-conventional forces that themselves operate from within civilian areas: The Fourth Geneva Convention goes into great and elaborate detail about how to assign fault when military activities take place in civilian areas. Those who are actually fighting the war are not considered "protected persons." Only civilians are granted the status of "protected persons" whose rights cannot be violated with impunity.

The Fourth Geneva Convention convicts Hamas, the Jenin terrorists, Al Aqsa, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah, and all of the other terrorist groups that hide among civilian populations, in one sentence: This sentence makes up the entirety of Part 3, Article 1, Section 28.

It reads: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."

This sentence appears in the Fourth Geneva Convention precisely to deal with situations like the ones the Israelis faced.

Here's how: Israel is at war with Hamas and Palestinian militant organizations wreaking terrorist havoc. Hamas and al-Aqksa, et al are at war with Israel. But instead of separating themselves from the general population in military camps and wearing uniforms, as required by international law, Hamas members and other Palestinian terrorists try to use civilians - the "protected persons" mentioned in 3:1:28 - as living camouflage. To prevent such a thing from happening, international law explicitly gives Israel the right to conduct military operations against military targets under these circumstances.

Again, let's check out that 3:1:28 sentence: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." There were plenty of "protected persons" in Jenin (and applicable to other areas). The Palestinian terrorists wanted it that way: they choose to live in their camps with their families and hundreds of others around them so that they would serve as human shields, knowing that the Israeli army is reluctant to attack those areas like the Russians did in Grozny.

And because the terrorists do set up in civilian areas, they are wholly responsible for what happens to their "protected persons" - that is, the civilian population where they hide out.

That's what the very next sentence of the Fourth Geneva Convention says: "the party to the conflict in whose hand protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents."

Let's translate: The "party to the conflict" here is Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqska, etc. Because they choose to live in and fight from a civilian setting, the "protected

swhitebull

International law in that area is demonstrated to be worth less than the paper it's written on.

Thank you swhitebull U saved me the trouble in having to once again counter the prevalent Arab anti-israel deligitimizing propoganda campaign. The attempt to defame Israel based on revised history and skewed definitions is so common it almost makes you want to throw in the towel. BUT I say "almost", the big lie once infused within a dialectic becomes so time consuming in countering that we begin to lose sight of the real conversations and arguments that are enriching and advancing to us all. Instead we tread  water and often enough retreat, when the pop opinions and general ignorance  overtakes truth and intellectual integrity.

I don't know why you guys bother answering this garbage.
Such threads should be ignored.
Thanx anyway for your effort.