Holocaust Survivor: Zionism = Nazism

[montelatici]

 

[Phoenall]

Don't care what the anti semitic Jew hating UN says, the arab muslims say that it isn't and they are best qualified to make the distinction.

 

[montelatici]

Of course you don't care about the facts, you have made that abundantly clear that you only deal in propaganda.

 

[Hossfly]

Phoenall makes a lot of sense to many of us. I am curious though. What kept you back from attending this meeting? This would have been right up your alley since you are a Holocaust denier. It is obvious that you didn't go because you spend most of your days on these forums.


Nazi sympathisers, Holocaust deniers and their supporters from across the world have held a sickening secret rally in Britain at which speakers unleashed anti-Semitic rants, referring to Jews as ‘the enemy’ and ‘children of darkness’.

The meeting of the shadowy organisation will fuel fears of a growing resurgence in hatred towards Jews across Europe. The vile event was observed by a Mail on Sunday undercover team.

Held in London’s Victoria, the meeting was, said experts, the most significant gathering of Holocaust deniers Britain has ever seen, with speakers invited from Spain, Canada and the United States.



Read more: Nazi sympathisers and Holocaust deniers filmed at Grosvenor Hotel for secret race hate rally Daily Mail Online

Hey asshole, this threads' about a Holocaust survivor, not Holocaust denier. Go start your own god-damn thread, if you want to talk about that shit.

Looks like Billo is disappointed that he wasn't invited because he would fit right in with those guys. Have you forgotten that Sunni keeps on saying that the Holocaust was a hoax?

 

[Humanity]

Trying to be clever hand having a 'go' at me for agreeing with you is priceless!

The occupation continues through the control of air and sea of Gaza by a foreign power...

Phoney poops and phails again!

NOPE the leaders of gaza say you are wrong, so take it up with them

Hamas demands end of Israeli occupation of Gaza and West Bank The National

And a hamas leader is on record as saying that gaza has not been occupied since August 2005


Advertisement

"Gaza is not occupied, so why should Israel have any role [at the Gaza-Egypt border crossing] when it has no presence on the border between Egypt and Gaza?" argued Mohammed Nuseir, a member of Hamas' political bureau, on Saturday.


Gaza Not Occupied Says Hamas So Where Is The UN



GAZA NOT OCCUPIED, SAYS HAMAS, SO WHERE IS THE UN?

In a stunning about-face, and after decades of violence justified by excuses of being under occupation, Hamas recently admitted that Gaza is not occupied by Israel. And yet, the United Nations, which has long been reluctant to acknowledge Gaza’s change in status, is still silent on the issue.
In response to a statement by Hamas Politburo Chief Khaled Mashaal that Hamas will hold mass demonstrations against Israel inside Gaza to parallel those organized by the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, Hamas Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar declared such a protest to be irrelevant. Al-Zahar stated that while the West Bank is “still under occupation” and that all forms of resistance, including armed resistance, should be used in that territory, “popular resistance is inappropriate for the Gaza Strip.”
“Against whom could we demonstrate in the Gaza Strip?” al-Zahar asked. “When Gaza was occupied, that model was applicable.”





The Hague Conventions definition of 1907 is the only legal definition of occupation. That's it. The Fourth Geneva Conventions does not define it at all.

And here it is:

Art. 42. 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.
Amnesty International expanded on this definition when the US invaded Iraq:
The sole criterion for deciding the applicability of the law on belligerent occupation is drawn from facts: the de facto effective control of territory by foreign armed forces coupled with the possibility to enforce their decisions, and the de facto absence of a national governmental authority in effective control. If these conditions are met for a given area, the law on belligerent occupation applies. Even though the objective of the military campaign may not be to control territory, the sole presence of such forces in a controlling position renders applicable the law protecting the inhabitants. The occupying power cannot avoid its responsibilities as long as a national government is not in a position to carry out its normal tasks.

The international legal regime on belligerent occupation takes effect as soon as the armed forces of a foreign power have secured effective control over a territory that is not its own.It ends when the occupying forces have relinquished their control over that territory.

Old links Phoney!

Irrelevant today!

WRONG still relevant today if you look at who has made the statements and why.

WRONG... You see that Hamas leaders now say the opposite as per my recent link!

 

[Phoenall]

NOPE the leaders of gaza say you are wrong, so take it up with them

Hamas demands end of Israeli occupation of Gaza and West Bank The National

And a hamas leader is on record as saying that gaza has not been occupied since August 2005


Advertisement

"Gaza is not occupied, so why should Israel have any role [at the Gaza-Egypt border crossing] when it has no presence on the border between Egypt and Gaza?" argued Mohammed Nuseir, a member of Hamas' political bureau, on Saturday.


Gaza Not Occupied Says Hamas So Where Is The UN



GAZA NOT OCCUPIED, SAYS HAMAS, SO WHERE IS THE UN?

In a stunning about-face, and after decades of violence justified by excuses of being under occupation, Hamas recently admitted that Gaza is not occupied by Israel. And yet, the United Nations, which has long been reluctant to acknowledge Gaza’s change in status, is still silent on the issue.
In response to a statement by Hamas Politburo Chief Khaled Mashaal that Hamas will hold mass demonstrations against Israel inside Gaza to parallel those organized by the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, Hamas Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar declared such a protest to be irrelevant. Al-Zahar stated that while the West Bank is “still under occupation” and that all forms of resistance, including armed resistance, should be used in that territory, “popular resistance is inappropriate for the Gaza Strip.”
“Against whom could we demonstrate in the Gaza Strip?” al-Zahar asked. “When Gaza was occupied, that model was applicable.”





The Hague Conventions definition of 1907 is the only legal definition of occupation. That's it. The Fourth Geneva Conventions does not define it at all.

And here it is:

Art. 42. 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.
Amnesty International expanded on this definition when the US invaded Iraq:
The sole criterion for deciding the applicability of the law on belligerent occupation is drawn from facts: the de facto effective control of territory by foreign armed forces coupled with the possibility to enforce their decisions, and the de facto absence of a national governmental authority in effective control. If these conditions are met for a given area, the law on belligerent occupation applies. Even though the objective of the military campaign may not be to control territory, the sole presence of such forces in a controlling position renders applicable the law protecting the inhabitants. The occupying power cannot avoid its responsibilities as long as a national government is not in a position to carry out its normal tasks.

The international legal regime on belligerent occupation takes effect as soon as the armed forces of a foreign power have secured effective control over a territory that is not its own.It ends when the occupying forces have relinquished their control over that territory.

Old links Phoney!

Irrelevant today!

WRONG still relevant today if you look at who has made the statements and why.

WRONG... You see that Hamas leaders now say the opposite as per my recent link!

Just as they say DEATH TO THE JEWS and then deny it the same day ?

 

[Humanity]

Hamas demands end of Israeli occupation of Gaza and West Bank The National

And a hamas leader is on record as saying that gaza has not been occupied since August 2005


Advertisement

"Gaza is not occupied, so why should Israel have any role [at the Gaza-Egypt border crossing] when it has no presence on the border between Egypt and Gaza?" argued Mohammed Nuseir, a member of Hamas' political bureau, on Saturday.


Gaza Not Occupied Says Hamas So Where Is The UN



GAZA NOT OCCUPIED, SAYS HAMAS, SO WHERE IS THE UN?

In a stunning about-face, and after decades of violence justified by excuses of being under occupation, Hamas recently admitted that Gaza is not occupied by Israel. And yet, the United Nations, which has long been reluctant to acknowledge Gaza’s change in status, is still silent on the issue.
In response to a statement by Hamas Politburo Chief Khaled Mashaal that Hamas will hold mass demonstrations against Israel inside Gaza to parallel those organized by the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, Hamas Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar declared such a protest to be irrelevant. Al-Zahar stated that while the West Bank is “still under occupation” and that all forms of resistance, including armed resistance, should be used in that territory, “popular resistance is inappropriate for the Gaza Strip.”
“Against whom could we demonstrate in the Gaza Strip?” al-Zahar asked. “When Gaza was occupied, that model was applicable.”





The Hague Conventions definition of 1907 is the only legal definition of occupation. That's it. The Fourth Geneva Conventions does not define it at all.

And here it is:

Art. 42. 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.
Amnesty International expanded on this definition when the US invaded Iraq:
The sole criterion for deciding the applicability of the law on belligerent occupation is drawn from facts: the de facto effective control of territory by foreign armed forces coupled with the possibility to enforce their decisions, and the de facto absence of a national governmental authority in effective control. If these conditions are met for a given area, the law on belligerent occupation applies. Even though the objective of the military campaign may not be to control territory, the sole presence of such forces in a controlling position renders applicable the law protecting the inhabitants. The occupying power cannot avoid its responsibilities as long as a national government is not in a position to carry out its normal tasks.

The international legal regime on belligerent occupation takes effect as soon as the armed forces of a foreign power have secured effective control over a territory that is not its own.It ends when the occupying forces have relinquished their control over that territory.

Old links Phoney!

Irrelevant today!

WRONG still relevant today if you look at who has made the statements and why.

WRONG... You see that Hamas leaders now say the opposite as per my recent link!

Just as they say DEATH TO THE JEWS and then deny it the same day ?

 

[Billo_Really]

The Hague Conventions definition of 1907 is the only legal definition of occupation. That's it. The Fourth Geneva Conventions does not define it at all.

And here it is:

Art. 42. 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.
Amnesty International expanded on this definition when the US invaded Iraq:
The sole criterion for deciding the applicability of the law on belligerent occupation is drawn from facts: the de facto effective control of territory by foreign armed forces coupled with the possibility to enforce their decisions, and the de facto absence of a national governmental authority in effective control. If these conditions are met for a given area, the law on belligerent occupation applies. Even though the objective of the military campaign may not be to control territory, the sole presence of such forces in a controlling position renders applicable the law protecting the inhabitants. The occupying power cannot avoid its responsibilities as long as a national government is not in a position to carry out its normal tasks.

The international legal regime on belligerent occupation takes effect as soon as the armed forces of a foreign power have secured effective control over a territory that is not its own.It ends when the occupying forces have relinquished their control over that territory.

And just like clockwork, any time you attempt to post an "international law", it proves the opposite of what you claim.

As stated in your post...

"...belligerent occupation takes effect as soon as the armed forces of a foreign power have secured effective control over a territory..."​

Since Israel controls everything going in to (and out of) Gaza, that satisfies the definition of "effective control".

Despite the declared end of military rule, Israel still controls many aspects of life in Gaza. In particular, Israel has full control crossings on the Israel-Gaza border as well as control of air- and sea-space and does not allow Palestinians to establishing an airport or seaport. Although the opening of Rafah Crossing depends on Egypt, not on Israel, ever since the Disengagement Plan was implemented in 2005, the crossing has been closed for long periods of time. Regardless, there is no regular transport of goods through the crossing. Consequently, Israel has virtually complete control of all movement of people and goods in and out of Gaza and administers it in consideration of Israeli interests. This is true also in cases when residents of Gaza request entry to Israel only as a throughway to the West Bank or to other countries.

Your post of international law, does not say the foreign force must be present in the territory for "effective control" to take place, it merely states "effective control" must be present over the territory, for it to take place.

So Gaza is still occupied.

 

[Phoenall]

The Hague Conventions definition of 1907 is the only legal definition of occupation. That's it. The Fourth Geneva Conventions does not define it at all.

And here it is:

Art. 42. 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.
Amnesty International expanded on this definition when the US invaded Iraq:
The sole criterion for deciding the applicability of the law on belligerent occupation is drawn from facts: the de facto effective control of territory by foreign armed forces coupled with the possibility to enforce their decisions, and the de facto absence of a national governmental authority in effective control. If these conditions are met for a given area, the law on belligerent occupation applies. Even though the objective of the military campaign may not be to control territory, the sole presence of such forces in a controlling position renders applicable the law protecting the inhabitants. The occupying power cannot avoid its responsibilities as long as a national government is not in a position to carry out its normal tasks.

The international legal regime on belligerent occupation takes effect as soon as the armed forces of a foreign power have secured effective control over a territory that is not its own.It ends when the occupying forces have relinquished their control over that territory.

And just like clockwork, any time you attempt to post an "international law", it proves the opposite of what you claim.

As stated in your post...

"...belligerent occupation takes effect as soon as the armed forces of a foreign power have secured effective control over a territory..."​

Since Israel controls everything going in to (and out of) Gaza, that satisfies the definition of "effective control".

Despite the declared end of military rule, Israel still controls many aspects of life in Gaza. In particular, Israel has full control crossings on the Israel-Gaza border as well as control of air- and sea-space and does not allow Palestinians to establishing an airport or seaport. Although the opening of Rafah Crossing depends on Egypt, not on Israel, ever since the Disengagement Plan was implemented in 2005, the crossing has been closed for long periods of time. Regardless, there is no regular transport of goods through the crossing. Consequently, Israel has virtually complete control of all movement of people and goods in and out of Gaza and administers it in consideration of Israeli interests. This is true also in cases when residents of Gaza request entry to Israel only as a throughway to the West Bank or to other countries.

Your post of international law, does not say the foreign force must be present in the territory for "effective control" to take place, it merely states "effective control" must be present over the territory, for it to take place.

So Gaza is still occupied.

Try again only this time post the full passage and not the cherry picked part that agrees with your NAZI POV


Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. This says it all and gaza is not under the authority of the IDF

 

[montelatici]

Gaza is under the effective control of the Israeli military, hence occupied.

 

[Phoenall]

Gaza is under the effective control of the Israeli military, hence occupied.

No the only definition says that the land must be under military control, as in the west bank, for it to be occupied. There is no Israeli military control of the land

 

[Billo_Really]

Try again only this time post the full passage and not the cherry picked part that agrees with your NAZI POV


Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. This says it all and gaza is not under the authority of the IDF

If that was true, Gazans would be able to fish and farm without getting shot at. They would be able to have an airport and a seaport. But they can't. Why can't they?

Because the IDF won't let them!

Fuck you, asshole, Gaza is occupied.

 

[Phoenall]

Try again only this time post the full passage and not the cherry picked part that agrees with your NAZI POV


Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. This says it all and gaza is not under the authority of the IDF

If that was true, Gazans would be able to fish and farm without getting shot at. They would be able to have an airport and a seaport. But they can't. Why can't they?

Because the IDF won't let them!

Fuck you, asshole, Gaza is occupied.

Because they are terrorists and would mass murder Israeli children given the chance. They have it in their power to bring the blockade to a halt but prefer killing their own people for the propaganda value than living in peace and working at it

 

[Billo_Really]

Because they are terrorists and would mass murder Israeli children given the chance. They have it in their power to bring the blockade to a halt but prefer killing their own people for the propaganda value than living in peace and working at it

It doesn't matter "why" the IDF has "effective control" over the area, it just matters that they do, to satisfy the definition of an "occupation". And since you just admitted they do, knock off this bullshit about no occupation.

BTW, 1.5 million people are not terrorists.

 

[Phoenall]

Because they are terrorists and would mass murder Israeli children given the chance. They have it in their power to bring the blockade to a halt but prefer killing their own people for the propaganda value than living in peace and working at it

It doesn't matter "why" the IDF has "effective control" over the area, it just matters that they do, to satisfy the definition of an "occupation". And since you just admitted they do, knock off this bullshit about no occupation.

BTW, 1.5 million people are not terrorists.

Here you go again using "WHY" in the wrong context, the word you mean is "HOW".

Read my link again the only definitive description of Occupation and you see that the armed forced have to be on the land itself for it to be an occupation. Controlling their borders and travel is no occupation but a blockade.

https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl...6739003e636d/1d1726425f6955aec125641e0038bfd6

SECTION III MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY OF THE HOSTILE STATE Art. 42. 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.
Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.



BTW they are when they assist the terrorists by acting as human shields, all in the Geneva conventions