The Israel/Palestine Conflict Mk. IV

2. That love that Jesus taught was delayed so that people could be civilized enough. That your opinion why violence was used to solve conflicts in the past was because people was not evolved to understand love. I don't know if you believe that there are barbarians of that type after Jesus like Hitler?

3.That people like you are ignorant in their support of Israel who are Jews that believe in a scripture that allows genocide.

That the Koran is better, much much better.

4. That Christians are hypocrites. Sorry, but that should be said. Something I reconfirmed.

In the last 25 years, tell me of a protest (with or without love) which has actually achieved something?
Refer to the question above.

You said "Rockets kill". I'm telling you that they have 0.07722% of killing you.

You are more at risk from cancer than a rocket.
You are more at risk from a stroke than a rocker.

Accusations of war crimes are easy to come by, but prosecutions of them are not. While the UN Human Rights Council conducted a war crimes inquiry into a three-week conflict in Gaza in 2008-9 that concluded there had been serious violations on both sides, it had no powers of enforcement. For prosecution to actually go ahead, the domestic country must first have investigated its own conduct.

Natas says that Israel’s analysis of its own actions during war has never been carried out with sufficient rigor or impartiality, and believes it will be much the same after Operation Protective Edge. So, he says, “two NGOs in Gaza – al-Mezan and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights – will be impartially collecting evidence of war crimes along with the U.N.”

Though Natas says the Gazan NGOs will also report on any crimes committed by Hamas, Bell says the militant group won’t carry out an internal investigation into its own conduct either. “A terrorist organization is not going to investigate its own war crimes,” he says.

A person commits the criminal offense of genocide when he or she commits any of the following acts with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such:
(a) killingmembersofthegroup

It is necessary to prove only that the perpetrator of genocide intended to destroy the group “in part.” The ICTY and the ICTR have interpreted this requirement by adding the adjective substantial, which indicates a quantitative dimension, or significant, which suggests a qualitative dimension. The ICTR has said “that ‘in part’ requires the intention to destroy a considerable number of individuals” (Prosecutor v. Kayishema et al., case no. ICTR*95*1*T, Judgment and Sentence, May 21, 1999, paragraph 97). An ICTY and ICTR trial chamber said that genocide must involve the intent to destroy a “substantial” part, although not necessarily a “very important part” (Prosecutor v. Jelisic ́, case no. IT*95*10*T, Judgment, October 19, 1999; Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, case no. ICTR*95*1A*T, Judgment, June 7, 2001, paragraphs 56–59). In another judgment, the ICTY referred to a “reasonably substantial” number relative to the group as a whole (Prosecutor v. Jelisic ́, case no. IT*95*10*T, Judgment, October 19, 1999; Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, case no. ICTR*95*1A*T, Judgment, June 7, 2001, paragraphs 56–59).

Hamas officials in Gaza have threatened to restart hostilities "the minute" after the 72-hour ceasefire agreed with Israel expires at 5am GMT on Friday if their demands are not met.