LOOK! Mossad just launched another rocket into an empty lot and now they're bonbing Gaza again...

[ForeverYoung436]

Israel continues to occupy Gaza.

There is no good legal argument that this is true. And plenty of arguments against it. The only way to make it true is to change the definition of "occupation". No other nation has every been held to a claim of "occupation" simply for a blockade.

But, that aside, Juicin is calling for Israel to exert MORE control over Gaza. Do you agree or disagree with that? Should Israel remove the authority of the Hamas or the PA governments and exert more control over Gaza with military force?

I'm calling for the Israelis to just suck it up

If they don't I as an American can call them animals

If they don't like it they can get out of the land they don't belong

I don't give a fuck if they burn 10 schools filled with little jew nazis. Still don't ahve a right to bomb what are in effect your captives.

Surprise the jailed kill the jailers.

So Israel shouldn't respond to rocket attacks from Gaza, Mr. Arnold? Is that what you're saying?

They're their jailors

you send in your cops

YOu don't fucking bomb them you asshole

GOd damn you are a terrible person

Do not take the Lord's name in vain like that. The comment does not depict a terrible person. It depicts a person with common sense who is merely stating the obvious.

Here is my 2 cents: If the terrorist group Hamas launches rocket attacks against Israeli citizens and the Arab civilians (who call themselves Palestinians and are not) permit them to use their neighborhoods as launching pads, you cannot request a response from the police. It is a terrorist attack and must be dealt with by the military. If you don't like that or if they don't like that they can always move back to their original homelands namely Egyptian or Saudi Arabia.

The only people keeping them there and acting as Jailers are the Arab nations who keep them there (by refusing to permit them to return) and the Arab terrorists who are using them as political pawns in order to perpetuate the myth that Arabs have a claim to Israeli land.

Fior the reasons I stated it's immoral

If Israel didn't have control of the air/sea/ground borders of the place you would have an easier time with that argument.

But that's not the situation we're talking about

Anyone who thinks what Israel did in this context was justified is a terrible person. No one even got hurt from the rocket attack.

Let me explain this to you. It isn't a matter of whether someone is injured in a rocket attack launched by Hamas (with Arabs providing the launching pad from their own neighborhood, house, school, etc). When Hamas launches a rocket into Israeli territory? They can expect one (maybe more) launched back (return fire). The Arabs (calling themselves Palestinians) are living on Israeli territory. They get to live there but they don't own that land. Israel does. That is why Israel has control of the land, the sea and the air in Israel. BECAUSE IT IS THEIR LAND. Israel is a sovereign nation and a Jewish State.

To be clear, no Mosque / Cathedral /Church building belongs on that land. No claim to Israeli land by any church (Yes, that includes Roman Catholic Vatican) Mosque, or group is valid and should be immediately declared invalid. THROW THEM ALL OUT.

That land belongs to the Jews. Acknowledge it, respect it or get out.

You sure love those BS Israeli talking points.

Where did you get that script?

This is religious talk, not an "Israeli talking point." When have you heard an Israeli ever say that all churches and mosques should be removed from Israel?

 

[montelatici]

Israel continues to occupy Gaza.

There is no good legal argument that this is true. And plenty of arguments against it. The only way to make it true is to change the definition of "occupation". No other nation has every been held to a claim of "occupation" simply for a blockade.

But, that aside, Juicin is calling for Israel to exert MORE control over Gaza. Do you agree or disagree with that? Should Israel remove the authority of the Hamas or the PA governments and exert more control over Gaza with military force?

I'm calling for the Israelis to just suck it up

If they don't I as an American can call them animals

If they don't like it they can get out of the land they don't belong

I don't give a fuck if they burn 10 schools filled with little jew nazis. Still don't ahve a right to bomb what are in effect your captives.

Surprise the jailed kill the jailers.

They're their jailors

you send in your cops

YOu don't fucking bomb them you asshole

GOd damn you are a terrible person

Do not take the Lord's name in vain like that. The comment does not depict a terrible person. It depicts a person with common sense who is merely stating the obvious.

Here is my 2 cents: If the terrorist group Hamas launches rocket attacks against Israeli citizens and the Arab civilians (who call themselves Palestinians and are not) permit them to use their neighborhoods as launching pads, you cannot request a response from the police. It is a terrorist attack and must be dealt with by the military. If you don't like that or if they don't like that they can always move back to their original homelands namely Egyptian or Saudi Arabia.

The only people keeping them there and acting as Jailers are the Arab nations who keep them there (by refusing to permit them to return) and the Arab terrorists who are using them as political pawns in order to perpetuate the myth that Arabs have a claim to Israeli land.

Fior the reasons I stated it's immoral

If Israel didn't have control of the air/sea/ground borders of the place you would have an easier time with that argument.

But that's not the situation we're talking about

Anyone who thinks what Israel did in this context was justified is a terrible person. No one even got hurt from the rocket attack.

Let me explain this to you. It isn't a matter of whether someone is injured in a rocket attack launched by Hamas (with Arabs providing the launching pad from their own neighborhood, house, school, etc). When Hamas launches a rocket into Israeli territory? They can expect one (maybe more) launched back (return fire). The Arabs (calling themselves Palestinians) are living on Israeli territory. They get to live there but they don't own that land. Israel does. That is why Israel has control of the land, the sea and the air in Israel. BECAUSE IT IS THEIR LAND. Israel is a sovereign nation and a Jewish State.

To be clear, no Mosque / Cathedral /Church building belongs on that land. No claim to Israeli land by any church (Yes, that includes Roman Catholic Vatican) Mosque, or group is valid and should be immediately declared invalid. THROW THEM ALL OUT.

That land belongs to the Jews. Acknowledge it, respect it or get out.

You sure love those BS Israeli talking points.

Where did you get that script?

This is religious talk, not an "Israeli talking point." When have you heard an Israeli ever say that all churches and mosques should be removed from Israel?

"Asked if the government should set fire to churches - as hard-line Jewish extremists have done in recent times - he replied: "Not burn. They need to take them out. We don't have a place for churches here.... It's Jewish law. This is what God told us."

Israeli government should remove Christian churches, radical Jewish leader says

 

[P F Tinmore]

You just lost all credibility in that post.

Irony

Hopefully it will be moved to the conspiracy forum or locked because it's so intensly stupid.

Get over yourself and join the real world.

--False flag terror exists

--Israel has been caught multiple times attempting this form of terrorism

--Every time some rocket hits an empty lot, these assholes bomb Gaza

Ah, the false flag™ meme. A crucial part of the lexicon for conspiracy theorists.

Conspiracy theory is a CIA propaganda tool.

 

[Shusha]

I'm calling for the Israelis to just suck it up

I don't give a fuck if they burn 10 schools filled with little jew nazis.

Still don't ahve a right to bomb what are in effect your captives.

Surprise the jailed kill the jailers.

So, you don't support the principle of international law to be applied objectively and fairly to all parties?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I would like any of Team Palestine participating on this thread to tell me what they think the correct response to rocket fire is and defend why they think that.

Did Israel ever think of ending the occupation?

I didn't think so.

 

[Shusha]

You neglected to quote my link which explains why we consider Gaza to be occupied:

I didn't quote your link because Amnesty International does not create, define or police international law. If you want me to respect your links, quote something relevant and useful -- like, you know, actual international law. Further, I am well aware of all of the arguments people use to support the re-defining of international law as it applies (differently) to Jews. I don't need to look it up.

under Article 42 of the Hague Regulations which defines occupation: “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. "The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

Yes, this is the actual law. The territory has to be under the authority of the hostile army and said army must be established and able to be exercised.

So here's the test: Is Israel able to exercise authority over the people of Gaza? Yes or no? Can Israel, with the institutions it has in place now, control the ability of the Gazan people or the Hamas government, or the rogue groups in Gaza to build tunnels, import weapons, attack Israel? Clearly not. Does Israel control the ability of the Gazan government to build homes and hospitals instead of tunnels? Clearly not. Does Israel control the military spending of the Gazan government? Clearly not.

Responding to attacks with air strikes and occasional invading forces (subsequently withdrawn) is standard, normal warfare. Not occupation.

Israel, then, has a duty to guard the welfare of Palestinians in Gaza no less than the residents of Israel. If this means taking-up the slack in policing Gaza, it should do so.

Interesting. So you would REMOVE the self-determination and the self-government of the Palestinian people and give it to Israel? You think Israel should exercise sovereignty over Gaza? Do you think the Palestinians in Gaza are incapable of self-government at this time?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I would like any of Team Palestine participating on this thread to tell me what they think the correct response to rocket fire is and defend why.

If you're going to occupy the place

It's no longer a warzone, you have an obligation to carry out police action

Not summary execution

So, explain what that means. That Israel should enter Gaza and arrest people instead of using military strikes? In other words, you think Israel should exert more control?

Rocco has posted that a thousand times. Article 68 refers to police action (not military action) in an occupied territory.

 

[Hollie]

You just lost all credibility in that post.

Irony

Hopefully it will be moved to the conspiracy forum or locked because it's so intensly stupid.

Get over yourself and join the real world.

--False flag terror exists

--Israel has been caught multiple times attempting this form of terrorism

--Every time some rocket hits an empty lot, these assholes bomb Gaza

Ah, the false flag™ meme. A crucial part of the lexicon for conspiracy theorists.

Conspiracy theory is a CIA propaganda tool.

Of course it is, dear.

 

[Shusha]

I would like any of Team Palestine participating on this thread to tell me what they think the correct response to rocket fire is and defend why they think that.

Did Israel ever think of ending the occupation?

I didn't think so.

So you think the correct response to belligerent attacks on innocent citizens (war crimes) is to give the attacking party whatever they ask for?

What does it mean to end the occupation? Does it mean Israeli sovereignty over Gaza? Or does it mean self-government for Gaza?

 

[Shusha]

Rocco has posted that a thousand times. Article 68 refers to police action (not military action) in an occupied territory.

So, is that a yes? You think Israel should exert more control?

 

[montelatici]

You neglected to quote my link which explains why we consider Gaza to be occupied:

I didn't quote your link because Amnesty International does not create, define or police international law. If you want me to respect your links, quote something relevant and useful -- like, you know, actual international law. Further, I am well aware of all of the arguments people use to support the re-defining of international law as it applies (differently) to Jews. I don't need to look it up.

under Article 42 of the Hague Regulations which defines occupation: “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. "The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

Yes, this is the actual law. The territory has to be under the authority of the hostile army and said army must be established and able to be exercised.

So here's the test: Is Israel able to exercise authority over the people of Gaza? Yes or no? Can Israel, with the institutions it has in place now, control the ability of the Gazan people or the Hamas government, or the rogue groups in Gaza to build tunnels, import weapons, attack Israel? Clearly not. Does Israel control the ability of the Gazan government to build homes and hospitals instead of tunnels? Clearly not. Does Israel control the military spending of the Gazan government? Clearly not.

Responding to attacks with air strikes and occasional invading forces (subsequently withdrawn) is standard, normal warfare. Not occupation.

Israel, then, has a duty to guard the welfare of Palestinians in Gaza no less than the residents of Israel. If this means taking-up the slack in policing Gaza, it should do so.

Interesting. So you would REMOVE the self-determination and the self-government of the Palestinian people and give it to Israel? You think Israel should exercise sovereignty over Gaza? Do you think the Palestinians in Gaza are incapable of self-government at this time?

"International Court of Justice

26. Israel maintains that following the 2005 disengagement, it is no longer an occupying power in Gaza as it does not exercise effective control over the area.

27. However, the prevalent view within the international community is that Israel remains an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. In general, this view is based on the scope and degree of control that Israel has retained over the territory of Gaza following the 2005 disengagement – including, inter alia, Israel’s exercise of control over border crossings, the territorial sea adjacent to the Gaza Strip, and the airspace of Gaza; its periodic military incursions within Gaza; its enforcement of no-go areas within Gaza near the border where Israeli settlements used to be; and its regulation of the local monetary market based on the Israeli currency and control of taxes and customs duties. The retention of such competences by Israel over the territory of Gaza even after the 2005 disengagement overall supports the conclusion that the authority retained by Israel amounts to effective control.

28. Although it no longer maintains a military presence in Gaza, Israel has not only shown the ability to conduct incursions into Gaza at will, but also expressly reserved the right to do so as required by military necessity. This consideration is potentially significant considering that there is support in international case law for the conclusion that it is not a prerequisite that a State maintain continuous presence in a territory in order to qualify as an occupying power. In particular, the ICTY has held that the law of occupation would also apply to areas where a state possesses “the capacity to send troops within a reasonable time to make the authority of the occupying power felt.” In this respect, it is also noted that the geographic proximity of the Gaza Strip to Israel potentially facilitates the ability of Israel to exercise effective control over the territory, despite the lack of a continuous military presence.

29. Overall, there is a reasonable basis upon which to conclude that Israel continues to be an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. The Office has therefore proceeded on the basis that the situation in Gaza can be considered within the framework of an international armed conflict in view of the continuing military occupation by Israel."

Opinio Juris » Blog Archive The OTP Concludes Israel Is Still Occupying Gaza - Opinio Juris

 

[P F Tinmore]

You neglected to quote my link which explains why we consider Gaza to be occupied:

I didn't quote your link because Amnesty International does not create, define or police international law. If you want me to respect your links, quote something relevant and useful -- like, you know, actual international law. Further, I am well aware of all of the arguments people use to support the re-defining of international law as it applies (differently) to Jews. I don't need to look it up.

under Article 42 of the Hague Regulations which defines occupation: “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. "The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

Yes, this is the actual law. The territory has to be under the authority of the hostile army and said army must be established and able to be exercised.

So here's the test: Is Israel able to exercise authority over the people of Gaza? Yes or no? Can Israel, with the institutions it has in place now, control the ability of the Gazan people or the Hamas government, or the rogue groups in Gaza to build tunnels, import weapons, attack Israel? Clearly not. Does Israel control the ability of the Gazan government to build homes and hospitals instead of tunnels? Clearly not. Does Israel control the military spending of the Gazan government? Clearly not.

Responding to attacks with air strikes and occasional invading forces (subsequently withdrawn) is standard, normal warfare. Not occupation.

Israel, then, has a duty to guard the welfare of Palestinians in Gaza no less than the residents of Israel. If this means taking-up the slack in policing Gaza, it should do so.

Interesting. So you would REMOVE the self-determination and the self-government of the Palestinian people and give it to Israel? You think Israel should exercise sovereignty over Gaza? Do you think the Palestinians in Gaza are incapable of self-government at this time?

 

[Shusha]

As I said, I am fully aware of the opinions which stretch the definition of occupation to its breaking point and are applied to no other country. And we can argue that if you want on another thread.

I am conceding, for the purpose of this thread, to not discuss the legality/non-legality of the occupation (while maintaining my position on the subject).

Now, the question is -- given that Israel patently, clearly, unequivocally can NOT prevent attacks on her innocent citizens (war crime) through the current status quo -- should she increase her control over Gaza? Yes or no?

The buck stops here, folks. Do we give the Palestinian people of Gaza self-determination and self-government (including all its consequences) or does Israel re-assert her complete control and sovereignty over the territory. What say you?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Rocco has posted that a thousand times. Article 68 refers to police action (not military action) in an occupied territory.

So, is that a yes? You think Israel should exert more control?

Israel has the authority of police actions not military actions in Gaza.

BTW, an occupying power cannot claim self defense in relation to occupied territory.

 

[Shusha]

The UN does not create international law by speaking.

Answer the question. Should Israel exert more control and sovereignty over the Palestinians of Gaza or should Israel permit them self-government?

 

[Shusha]

BTW, an occupying power cannot claim self defense in relation to occupied territory.

Link?

 

[montelatici]

As I said, I am fully aware of the opinions which stretch the definition of occupation to its breaking point and are applied to no other country. And we can argue that if you want on another thread.

I am conceding, for the purpose of this thread, to not discuss the legality/non-legality of the occupation (while maintaining my position on the subject).

Now, the question is -- given that Israel patently, clearly, unequivocally can NOT prevent attacks on her innocent citizens (war crime) through the current status quo -- should she increase her control over Gaza? Yes or no?

The buck stops here, folks. Do we give the Palestinian people of Gaza self-determination and self-government (including all its consequences) or does Israel re-assert her complete control and sovereignty over the territory. What say you?

"As I said, I am fully aware of the opinions which stretch the definition of occupation to its breaking point and are applied to no other country."

You are truly a know nothing.

The law was applied to another country, and it is not an opinion, the decision is based on precedent from the Nuremburg Trials "Hostages" case where the German officers on trial claimed that massacres that occurred in certain Balkan nations were not their responsibility because the Germans had physically left the Balkan territory in question. The decision determined that the Germans still controlled and occupied the territory, even if they were not present and had removed their forces, because they were able to easily return to the territories whenever they wanted to.

 

[P F Tinmore]

BTW, an occupying power cannot claim self defense in relation to occupied territory.

Link?

Once armed conflict is initiated, and irrespective of the reason or legitimacy of such conflict, the jus in bello legal framework is triggered. Therefore, where an occupation already is in place, the right to initiate militarized force in response to an armed attack, as opposed to police force to restore order, is not a remedy available to the occupying state. The beginning of a military occupation marks the triumph of one belligerent over another. In the case of Israel, its occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai in 1967 marked a military victory against Arab belligerents.

Occupation Law prohibits an occupying power from initiating armed force against its occupied territory. By mere virtue of the existence of military occupation, an armed attack, including one consistent with the UN Charter, has already occurred and been concluded. Therefore the right of self-defense in international law is, by definition since 1967, not available to Israel with respect to its dealings with real or perceived threats emanating from the West Bank and Gaza Strip population. To achieve its security goals, Israel can resort to no more than the police powers, or the exceptional use of militarized force, vested in it by IHL. This is not to say that Israel cannot defend itself—but those defensive measures can neither take the form of warfare nor be justified as self-defense in international law.

No, Israel Does Not Have the Right to Self-Defense In International Law Against Occupied Palestinian Territory

 

[Hollie]

You neglected to quote my link which explains why we consider Gaza to be occupied:

I didn't quote your link because Amnesty International does not create, define or police international law. If you want me to respect your links, quote something relevant and useful -- like, you know, actual international law. Further, I am well aware of all of the arguments people use to support the re-defining of international law as it applies (differently) to Jews. I don't need to look it up.

under Article 42 of the Hague Regulations which defines occupation: “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. "The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

Yes, this is the actual law. The territory has to be under the authority of the hostile army and said army must be established and able to be exercised.

So here's the test: Is Israel able to exercise authority over the people of Gaza? Yes or no? Can Israel, with the institutions it has in place now, control the ability of the Gazan people or the Hamas government, or the rogue groups in Gaza to build tunnels, import weapons, attack Israel? Clearly not. Does Israel control the ability of the Gazan government to build homes and hospitals instead of tunnels? Clearly not. Does Israel control the military spending of the Gazan government? Clearly not.

Responding to attacks with air strikes and occasional invading forces (subsequently withdrawn) is standard, normal warfare. Not occupation.

Israel, then, has a duty to guard the welfare of Palestinians in Gaza no less than the residents of Israel. If this means taking-up the slack in policing Gaza, it should do so.

Interesting. So you would REMOVE the self-determination and the self-government of the Palestinian people and give it to Israel? You think Israel should exercise sovereignty over Gaza? Do you think the Palestinians in Gaza are incapable of self-government at this time?

"International Court of Justice

26. Israel maintains that following the 2005 disengagement, it is no longer an occupying power in Gaza as it does not exercise effective control over the area.

27. However, the prevalent view within the international community is that Israel remains an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. In general, this view is based on the scope and degree of control that Israel has retained over the territory of Gaza following the 2005 disengagement – including, inter alia, Israel’s exercise of control over border crossings, the territorial sea adjacent to the Gaza Strip, and the airspace of Gaza; its periodic military incursions within Gaza; its enforcement of no-go areas within Gaza near the border where Israeli settlements used to be; and its regulation of the local monetary market based on the Israeli currency and control of taxes and customs duties. The retention of such competences by Israel over the territory of Gaza even after the 2005 disengagement overall supports the conclusion that the authority retained by Israel amounts to effective control.

28. Although it no longer maintains a military presence in Gaza, Israel has not only shown the ability to conduct incursions into Gaza at will, but also expressly reserved the right to do so as required by military necessity. This consideration is potentially significant considering that there is support in international case law for the conclusion that it is not a prerequisite that a State maintain continuous presence in a territory in order to qualify as an occupying power. In particular, the ICTY has held that the law of occupation would also apply to areas where a state possesses “the capacity to send troops within a reasonable time to make the authority of the occupying power felt.” In this respect, it is also noted that the geographic proximity of the Gaza Strip to Israel potentially facilitates the ability of Israel to exercise effective control over the territory, despite the lack of a continuous military presence.

29. Overall, there is a reasonable basis upon which to conclude that Israel continues to be an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. The Office has therefore proceeded on the basis that the situation in Gaza can be considered within the framework of an international armed conflict in view of the continuing military occupation by Israel."

Opinio Juris » Blog Archive The OTP Concludes Israel Is Still Occupying Gaza - Opinio Juris

Speaking of know nothings, an opinion piece is hardly meaningful without ability to adjudicate or enforce.

 

[Hollie]

BTW, an occupying power cannot claim self defense in relation to occupied territory.

Link?

Once armed conflict is initiated, and irrespective of the reason or legitimacy of such conflict, the jus in bello legal framework is triggered. Therefore, where an occupation already is in place, the right to initiate militarized force in response to an armed attack, as opposed to police force to restore order, is not a remedy available to the occupying state. The beginning of a military occupation marks the triumph of one belligerent over another. In the case of Israel, its occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai in 1967 marked a military victory against Arab belligerents.

Occupation Law prohibits an occupying power from initiating armed force against its occupied territory. By mere virtue of the existence of military occupation, an armed attack, including one consistent with the UN Charter, has already occurred and been concluded. Therefore the right of self-defense in international law is, by definition since 1967, not available to Israel with respect to its dealings with real or perceived threats emanating from the West Bank and Gaza Strip population. To achieve its security goals, Israel can resort to no more than the police powers, or the exceptional use of militarized force, vested in it by IHL. This is not to say that Israel cannot defend itself—but those defensive measures can neither take the form of warfare nor be justified as self-defense in international law.

No, Israel Does Not Have the Right to Self-Defense In International Law Against Occupied Palestinian Territory

You should run that by the prayer leader at your madrassah. Or, better yet, both you and he can charge the israeli border with a weapon and Allah as your inspiration. Call us. Let us know how that works out. I'm sure if you bring a copy of the cut and paste article, it will all be alright.