Amazing military journey of the Jewish State

[Roudy]

Classic example of hasbara operates. They describe Jewish terrorism as "an amazing military journey." LMAO!

Let's not forget that terrorism was a Jewish crime long before the narrative of today which limits the use of that word to Muslims.

...From the beginning of World War II through to the summer of 1947, there were virtually no Palestinian attacks, even though Zionist terror against Palestinians continued. A British explanation for the Palestinians’ failure to respond in kind was that they understood that the attacks were a trap, intended to elicit a response that the Zionists would frame as an attack against which they would have to ‘defend’ themselves. This was a Zionist tactic noted by the British as early as 1918, and it remains Israel’s default strategy today, most blatantly in Gaza, but also in East Jerusalem and the West Bank....

From an honest, Jewish source---> Terrorism: How the Israeli state was won

And for the historically challenged hasbara crew, let's pay tribute to the three most well known terrorist organizations of the time:

Lehi (group) - Wikipedia

Haganah - Wikipedia

List of Irgun attacks - Wikipedia

The peaceful Jews had no choice but to create militias to defend themselves from the Arab Muslim animals that were trying to commit a second holocaust on Jews in their own holy land.

Here's a Palestinian animal in her own words:

The peaceful Muslims and Christians had no choice but to defend themselves from the Zionist Jew animals who actually stated their intent to colonize Palestine.

The Zionist Jews intended to commit genocide and/or ethnic cleansing even before they started the invasion of Palestine.

Here are Zionist Jew animals in their own words:

LOL peaceful Muslims. Ya right. Ever tried comedy, Achmed?

 

[P F Tinmore]

"We left Gaza in 2005."

What a lying sack of shit.

 

[Indeependent]

In the real world it's Muslims that are persecuting and killing Christians, Jews, women, gays, and many other minorities. What planet do you live on?

In Palestine it is the Jews killing Christians and Muslims.

Israel tries to keep that quiet because it does not fit their terrorist propaganda.

Which is why every Arab has a smart phone.
You are such a dunce.

 

[Indeependent]

"We left Gaza in 2005."

What a lying sack of shit.

Israel left and the Arabs, true to character, lobbed rockets.
How does it feel to be part of such a "civilized" people?

 

[P F Tinmore]

"We left Gaza in 2005."

What a lying sack of shit.

Israel left and the Arabs, true to character, lobbed rockets.
How does it feel to be part of such a "civilized" people?

Typical Israeli bullshit.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

"We left Gaza in 2005."

What a lying sack of shit.

Israel left and the Arabs, true to character, lobbed rockets.
How does it feel to be part of such a "civilized" people?

Typical Israeli bullshit.

Why is the truth "bullshit"?

 

[Hollie]

"We left Gaza in 2005."

What a lying sack of shit.

Israel left and the Arabs, true to character, lobbed rockets.
How does it feel to be part of such a "civilized" people?

Typical Israeli bullshit.

Pretty typical for goofy converts. You can do your own web scouring. Let us know how long it took for your islamic terrorist heroes to begin firing rockets at Israel after their unilateral withdrawal.

How lucky for you goofy converts that islam's fascist ideology has a built-in requirement for Jew hatred.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"We left Gaza in 2005."

What a lying sack of shit.

Israel left and the Arabs, true to character, lobbed rockets.
How does it feel to be part of such a "civilized" people?

Typical Israeli bullshit.

Why is the truth "bullshit"?

Do you have some links to what you call the truth?

 

[P F Tinmore]

"We left Gaza in 2005."

What a lying sack of shit.

Israel left and the Arabs, true to character, lobbed rockets.
How does it feel to be part of such a "civilized" people?

Typical Israeli bullshit.

Pretty typical for goofy converts. You can do your own web scouring. Let us know how long it took for your islamic terrorist heroes to begin firing rockets at Israel after their unilateral withdrawal.

How lucky for you goofy converts that islam's fascist ideology has a built-in requirement for Jew hatred.

There was no withdrawal. They just moved the occupation to the fence.

 

[Hollie]

"We left Gaza in 2005."

What a lying sack of shit.

Israel left and the Arabs, true to character, lobbed rockets.
How does it feel to be part of such a "civilized" people?

Typical Israeli bullshit.

Pretty typical for goofy converts. You can do your own web scouring. Let us know how long it took for your islamic terrorist heroes to begin firing rockets at Israel after their unilateral withdrawal.

How lucky for you goofy converts that islam's fascist ideology has a built-in requirement for Jew hatred.

There was no withdrawal. They just moved the occupation to the fence.

Your usual retreat to conspiracy theories and excuses for Islamic terrorists behaving like islamic terrorists.

 

[Shusha]

There was no withdrawal. They just moved the occupation to the fence.

Typical Team Palestine re-defining of words. What do you think "withdrawal" means? Of course, Israel withdrew from Gaza. There are no more Israeli military forces in Gaza. There are no more Jews in Gaza. Israel no longer operates within that territory. Israel has withdrawn from that territory.

I think what you really mean is that its impossible for Israel to end the occupation. As long as Israel exists at all, she is "occupying" land.

I think the Gazans believe so as well. Which is exactly why not one more inch of territory should be ceded until they agree to recognize and live in peace with Israel.

 

[montelatici]

There was no withdrawal. They just moved the occupation to the fence.

Typical Team Palestine re-defining of words. What do you think "withdrawal" means? Of course, Israel withdrew from Gaza. There are no more Israeli military forces in Gaza. There are no more Jews in Gaza. Israel no longer operates within that territory. Israel has withdrawn from that territory.

I think what you really mean is that its impossible for Israel to end the occupation. As long as Israel exists at all, she is "occupying" land.

I think the Gazans believe so as well. Which is exactly why not one more inch of territory should be ceded until they agree to recognize and live in peace with Israel.

As per the Nuremburg Trials Hostages decision. An occupying power remains an occupying power if it controls the borders, air space and territorial sea. As the International Court of Justice explains:

"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. "

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

 

[Shusha]

As the International Court of Justice explains:

"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. "

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

Interesting what you removed from the snipped quote:

...the prevalent view within the international community is that Israel remains an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement...

The "prevalent view within the international community" is NOT law. Nor is this particular passage in anyway binding, international law.

Further, if we were to contrast the application of law concerning "occupation" to other international conflicts we would find wide discrepancies. For example, does Egypt also occupy Gaza? Why or why not? Her "geographical proximity to Gaza potentially facilitates her ability to exercise effective control over the territory, despite her lack of continued military presence". For that matter, does the US occupy Canada? Her "geographical proximity potentially facilitates her ability to exercise effective control over the territory, despite her lack of continued military presence". Perhaps, Gaza, in fact, occupies Israel. Or maybe Israel occupies Jordan. Or Syria. Certainly, she occupies Lebanon. Maybe she even occupies Egypt?

There has to be a meaningful distinction between hostilities or belligerent actions, self-defense and occupation. What do you propose it is?

Also, this.

 

[montelatici]

As the International Court of Justice explains:

"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. "

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

Interesting what you removed from the snipped quote:

...the prevalent view within the international community is that Israel remains an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement...

The "prevalent view within the international community" is NOT law. Nor is this particular passage in anyway binding, international law.

Further, if we were to contrast the application of law concerning "occupation" to other international conflicts we would find wide discrepancies. For example, does Egypt also occupy Gaza? Why or why not? Her "geographical proximity to Gaza potentially facilitates her ability to exercise effective control over the territory, despite her lack of continued military presence". For that matter, does the US occupy Canada? Her "geographical proximity potentially facilitates her ability to exercise effective control over the territory, despite her lack of continued military presence". Perhaps, Gaza, in fact, occupies Israel. Or maybe Israel occupies Jordan. Or Syria. Certainly, she occupies Lebanon. Maybe she even occupies Egypt?

There has to be a meaningful distinction between hostilities or belligerent actions, self-defense and occupation. What do you propose it is?

Also, this.

Shusha, you are being silly. It is a legal opinion, the law is based on the Nuremberg Trial precedent, the "Hostages" case.


Below explains why:


"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."

 

[Shusha]

None of those things, taken independently or together, meet the international legal standard for "occupation". It is literally unprecedented. Without precedent. Unheard of. In fact, contrary to other precedents of law.

And an opinion is not law.

 

[montelatici]

None of those things, taken independently or together, meet the international legal standard for "occupation". It is literally unprecedented. Without precedent. Unheard of. In fact, contrary to other precedents of law.

And an opinion is not law.

You are making things up. It is very visibly precedented by a case that every legal scholar is familiar with. You must know by now that I only state fact and that I have the source material that supports the facts at my disposal. Why do you make things up, when you know I can easily demonstrate that you are making things up.

Anyway the legal precedent for the International Court of Justice legal opinion is the Hostages case tried by the Nuremberg Tribunal. It's the legal standard. The Nuremberg Tribunal stated:

"The test for application of the legal regime of occupation is not whether the occupying power fails to exercise effective control over the territory, but whether it has the ability to exercise such power.”

and

"It is clear that the German armed forces were able to maintain control of Greece and Yugoslavia until they evacuated them in the fall of 1944. While it is true that the partisans were able to control sections of these countries at various times, it is established that the Germans could at any time they desired assume physical control of any part of the country. The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and not such as would deprive the German armed forces of its status of an occupant."

The Tribunal had to decide whether Germany’s occupation of Greece and Yugoslavia had ended when Germany had ceded de facto control to non-German forces of certain territories. Even though Germany did not actually control those areas, the Tribunal held that Germany indeed remained the “occupying power” both in Greece and Yugoslavia generally and in the Territories to which it had ceded control since it could have reentered and controlled those territories at will.

http://werle.rewi.hu-berlin.de/Hostage Case090901mit deckblatt.pdf

 

[Shusha]

There has never been a finding of remote effective control over a territory 12 years after physical evacuation and in the presence of a local government. The ability to conduct periodic military incursions does not in any way meet the standard necessary for occupation which is: Where a territory is actually placed under the control of a hostile army, where authority has been established and can be exercised. Where that army exercises effective control. Let's take a look at your Hostages ruling:

“Whether an invasion has developed into an occupation is a question of fact. The term invasion implies a military operation while occupation indicates the exercise of governmental authority to the exclusion of the established government. This presupposes the destruction of organized resistance and the establishment of an administration to preserve law and order. To the extent that the occupant’s control is maintained and that of the civil government eliminated, the area will be said to be occupied.”

The US Army Field Manual describes the difference between an invasion and an occupation:

“If resistance is offered, the state of invasion within any portion of a belligerent’s territory corresponds with the period of resistance. ...Occupation, on the other hand, is invasion plus taking firm possession of enemy territory for the purpose of holding it.”


Looking again at your quote from the Hostages ruling:

It is clear that the German armed forces were able to maintain control of Greece and Yugoslavia until they evacuated them in the fall of 1944. While it is true that the partisans were able to control sections of these countries at various times, it is established that the Germans could at any time they desired assume physical control of any part of the country. The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and not such as would deprive the German armed forces of its status of an occupant.

First, I note that it says that German armed forces were able to maintain control until they evacuated them. While not definitive, this does tend to indicate that actual evacuation of armed forces ends effective control and thus occupation. This is not to say that the rulings do not allow for a remote effective control, they clearly do, but the presence or absence of troops is not the definitive test.

Indeed it has been normative in other international cases that even the presence of armed forces does not necessarily constitute an occupation, let alone simply the ability to bring in armed forces in military incursions.

For example, in Uganda v. Congo Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo it was found that even when Ugandan troops were able to enter a Congolese province at will, and had put an allied militia in charge and were actively supporting that militia, it did not amount to an occupation. Uganda removed local officials and controlled local elections and even that wasn't enough to be considered an occupation. Nor was control of the airport.

It is similarly seen with respect to Morocco and Western Sahara, that the presence of armed forces alone does not constitute an occupation.

So what does? Looking at your Hostages paragraph again it notes: The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and that at any time German forces could retake physical control.

The necessary test, as laid out in Armed Activities is:

In order to reach a conclusion as to whether a State ... is an "occupying Power" ... the Court must examine whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that said authority was in fact established and exercised ... the Court will need to satisfy itself that (the Ugandan forces) had substituted their own authority for the Congolese government.

The occupying Power, in order to BE an occupying Power, must replace a local government with their own authority. Generally that is taken to mean to that the occupying Power administers all functions that would normally be administered by the local government such as the provision of services but at minimum must control the local police force and military.
(It is for this reason that control of air nor sea can not be considered "occupation".)

The acid test for Occupation is the elimination of the local government and its replacement with the Occupying Power's.

This is why the exercise of effective control works in the case of the German armed forces in Greece and Yugoslavia, even without continued "boots on the ground" -- Greece and Yugoslavia had no functioning government, it had been eliminated and replaced by German authorities. This does not apply to Gaza where there is a local government whose authority has never been removed and replaced.

Lastly, from the International Law of Belligerent Occupation: Belligerent occupation can not be fictitious and it can not be solely a matter of intent or notification. There can not be a 'paper occupation'.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"We left Gaza in 2005."

What a lying sack of shit.

Israel left and the Arabs, true to character, lobbed rockets.
How does it feel to be part of such a "civilized" people?

Israel still actively patrols Palestinian airspace and territorial waters. It still shoots and kills farmers working their land. Israel controls the movement of people, goods, and capital into and out of Gaza. It still controls the population registry. And Israel still enters at will to destroy private property.

That Israel left Gaza is just a lie.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There has never been a finding of remote effective control over a territory 12 years after physical evacuation and in the presence of a local government. The ability to conduct periodic military incursions does not in any way meet the standard necessary for occupation which is: Where a territory is actually placed under the control of a hostile army, where authority has been established and can be exercised. Where that army exercises effective control. Let's take a look at your Hostages ruling:

“Whether an invasion has developed into an occupation is a question of fact. The term invasion implies a military operation while occupation indicates the exercise of governmental authority to the exclusion of the established government. This presupposes the destruction of organized resistance and the establishment of an administration to preserve law and order. To the extent that the occupant’s control is maintained and that of the civil government eliminated, the area will be said to be occupied.”

The US Army Field Manual describes the difference between an invasion and an occupation:

“If resistance is offered, the state of invasion within any portion of a belligerent’s territory corresponds with the period of resistance. ...Occupation, on the other hand, is invasion plus taking firm possession of enemy territory for the purpose of holding it.”


Looking again at your quote from the Hostages ruling:

It is clear that the German armed forces were able to maintain control of Greece and Yugoslavia until they evacuated them in the fall of 1944. While it is true that the partisans were able to control sections of these countries at various times, it is established that the Germans could at any time they desired assume physical control of any part of the country. The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and not such as would deprive the German armed forces of its status of an occupant.

First, I note that it says that German armed forces were able to maintain control until they evacuated them. While not definitive, this does tend to indicate that actual evacuation of armed forces ends effective control and thus occupation. This is not to say that the rulings do not allow for a remote effective control, they clearly do, but the presence or absence of troops is not the definitive test.

Indeed it has been normative in other international cases that even the presence of armed forces does not necessarily constitute an occupation, let alone simply the ability to bring in armed forces in military incursions.

For example, in Uganda v. Congo Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo it was found that even when Ugandan troops were able to enter a Congolese province at will, and had put an allied militia in charge and were actively supporting that militia, it did not amount to an occupation. Uganda removed local officials and controlled local elections and even that wasn't enough to be considered an occupation. Nor was control of the airport.

It is similarly seen with respect to Morocco and Western Sahara, that the presence of armed forces alone does not constitute an occupation.

So what does? Looking at your Hostages paragraph again it notes: The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and that at any time German forces could retake physical control.

The necessary test, as laid out in Armed Activities is:

In order to reach a conclusion as to whether a State ... is an "occupying Power" ... the Court must examine whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that said authority was in fact established and exercised ... the Court will need to satisfy itself that (the Ugandan forces) had substituted their own authority for the Congolese government.

The occupying Power, in order to BE an occupying Power, must replace a local government with their own authority. Generally that is taken to mean to that the occupying Power administers all functions that would normally be administered by the local government such as the provision of services but at minimum must control the local police force and military.
(It is for this reason that control of air nor sea can not be considered "occupation".)

The acid test for Occupation is the elimination of the local government and its replacement with the Occupying Power's.

This is why the exercise of effective control works in the case of the German armed forces in Greece and Yugoslavia, even without continued "boots on the ground" -- Greece and Yugoslavia had no functioning government, it had been eliminated and replaced by German authorities. This does not apply to Gaza where there is a local government whose authority has never been removed and replaced.

Lastly, from the International Law of Belligerent Occupation: Belligerent occupation can not be fictitious and it can not be solely a matter of intent or notification. There can not be a 'paper occupation'.

Let's assume that you are correct and I agree with some of what you say. Then the conflict would be in the "invasion stage," that time before a proper occupation is established i.e. control of the local government.

Then the blockade, which has been in place under one form or another since Oslo would be an act of war against that territory. An act of war that precedes any rockets out of Gaza by about six years.

Israel has initiated that war (I hate that term since only one side has an army.) and has killed many civilians and has destroyed mass amounts of private civilian property. There are many war crimes here.

 

[Shusha]

There has never been a finding of remote effective control over a territory 12 years after physical evacuation and in the presence of a local government. The ability to conduct periodic military incursions does not in any way meet the standard necessary for occupation which is: Where a territory is actually placed under the control of a hostile army, where authority has been established and can be exercised. Where that army exercises effective control. Let's take a look at your Hostages ruling:

“Whether an invasion has developed into an occupation is a question of fact. The term invasion implies a military operation while occupation indicates the exercise of governmental authority to the exclusion of the established government. This presupposes the destruction of organized resistance and the establishment of an administration to preserve law and order. To the extent that the occupant’s control is maintained and that of the civil government eliminated, the area will be said to be occupied.”

The US Army Field Manual describes the difference between an invasion and an occupation:

“If resistance is offered, the state of invasion within any portion of a belligerent’s territory corresponds with the period of resistance. ...Occupation, on the other hand, is invasion plus taking firm possession of enemy territory for the purpose of holding it.”


Looking again at your quote from the Hostages ruling:

It is clear that the German armed forces were able to maintain control of Greece and Yugoslavia until they evacuated them in the fall of 1944. While it is true that the partisans were able to control sections of these countries at various times, it is established that the Germans could at any time they desired assume physical control of any part of the country. The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and not such as would deprive the German armed forces of its status of an occupant.

First, I note that it says that German armed forces were able to maintain control until they evacuated them. While not definitive, this does tend to indicate that actual evacuation of armed forces ends effective control and thus occupation. This is not to say that the rulings do not allow for a remote effective control, they clearly do, but the presence or absence of troops is not the definitive test.

Indeed it has been normative in other international cases that even the presence of armed forces does not necessarily constitute an occupation, let alone simply the ability to bring in armed forces in military incursions.

For example, in Uganda v. Congo Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo it was found that even when Ugandan troops were able to enter a Congolese province at will, and had put an allied militia in charge and were actively supporting that militia, it did not amount to an occupation. Uganda removed local officials and controlled local elections and even that wasn't enough to be considered an occupation. Nor was control of the airport.

It is similarly seen with respect to Morocco and Western Sahara, that the presence of armed forces alone does not constitute an occupation.

So what does? Looking at your Hostages paragraph again it notes: The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and that at any time German forces could retake physical control.

The necessary test, as laid out in Armed Activities is:

In order to reach a conclusion as to whether a State ... is an "occupying Power" ... the Court must examine whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that said authority was in fact established and exercised ... the Court will need to satisfy itself that (the Ugandan forces) had substituted their own authority for the Congolese government.

The occupying Power, in order to BE an occupying Power, must replace a local government with their own authority. Generally that is taken to mean to that the occupying Power administers all functions that would normally be administered by the local government such as the provision of services but at minimum must control the local police force and military.
(It is for this reason that control of air nor sea can not be considered "occupation".)

The acid test for Occupation is the elimination of the local government and its replacement with the Occupying Power's.

This is why the exercise of effective control works in the case of the German armed forces in Greece and Yugoslavia, even without continued "boots on the ground" -- Greece and Yugoslavia had no functioning government, it had been eliminated and replaced by German authorities. This does not apply to Gaza where there is a local government whose authority has never been removed and replaced.

Lastly, from the International Law of Belligerent Occupation: Belligerent occupation can not be fictitious and it can not be solely a matter of intent or notification. There can not be a 'paper occupation'.

Let's assume that you are correct and I agree with some of what you say. Then the conflict would be in the "invasion stage," that time before a proper occupation is established i.e. control of the local government.

Then the blockade, which has been in place under one form or another since Oslo would be an act of war against that territory. An act of war that precedes any rockets out of Gaza by about six years.

Israel has initiated that war (I hate that term since only one side has an army.) and has killed many civilians and has destroyed mass amounts of private civilian property. There are many war crimes here.

For clarification what year are you saying the blockade was introduced?