UN vows inquiry into weapons found at UN sites in Gaza

[docmauser1]

Do they have an occupation there, too?

No, they have Title 24.

A title to their occupation?

 

[Billo_Really]

A title to their occupation?

No. A title to your light bulbs.

 

[docmauser1]

1967, when they held onto land they seized during the 6-day war.

Indeed, wars have consequences.

 

[docmauser1]

That's like saying, "It's the woman's fault she was raped; she was wearing a red dress!"

With slight variations, it is, actually, a typical excuse the EU muslims use.

 

[docmauser1]

"There is no legal precedence for proportionality in war" ? What's this then? Customary IHL - Rule 14. Proportionality in Attack

Do they approve of shooting the same number of dumb rockets in the general direction of gazabad?

 

[docmauser1]

A title to their occupation?

No. A title to your light bulbs.

That's thieving, of course.

 

[SAYIT]

Were does it say that then dildo, as I cant see those words in UN res 242.

I highlighted it in red below, since you have the comprehension of a shrub.

What it does say is this

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;



So until the Palestinians terminate all states of belligerence and negotiate secure and recognized boundaries then Israel stays as an occupying power.

The "termination of all claims or states of belligerency", is in reference to Israel, not the Palestinian's, you dumbass!

Your claim is patently false

Were does it say that then dildo, as I cant see those words in UN res 242.

I highlighted it in red below, since you have the comprehension of a shrub.

What it does say is this

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;


So until the Palestinians terminate all states of belligerence and negotiate secure and recognized boundaries then Israel stays as an occupying power.

The "termination of all claims or states of belligerency", is in reference to Israel, not the Palestinian's, you dumbass! The "occupation" is classified as a "belligerent occupation", meaning against the will of the population. So when the UN say's, "terminate all claims of belligerency", they're telling Israel to end the occupation.

Both your first and last comments are patently false and the term "withdrawal from ALL territories" was intentionally and purposefully not used in 242:

There was much bickering over whether that resolution should say from "the" territories or from "all" territories. In the French version, which is equally authentic, it says withdrawal de territory, with de meaning "the." We wanted that to be left a little vague and subject to future negotiation because we thought the Israeli border along the West Bank could be "rationalized"; certain anomalies could easily be straightened out with some exchanges of territory, making a more sensible border for all parties. - Sec of State Dean Rusk

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

What they are talking about is case law. There is no previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal that can be used as an example when considering cases concerning the Israel-Palestinian engagements.

"There is no legal precedence for proportionality in war" ? What's this then? Customary IHL - Rule 14. Proportionality in Attack

(COMMENT)

In the case of Customary IHL - Rule 14, which is: Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited; the claimant has to show that the each attack could not have been reasonable expected to achieve a "concrete and direct military advantage."

There are a couple of different ways of looking at these allegations:

First: The objective of Operation Protective Edge:

• Restoring sustained peace and quiet to the citizens of Israel,
• Damage Hamas's capabilities and to destroy the terror infrastructures directed against Israel and its citizens.

Second: Prior to the commencement of operations, there was a series of events sufficiently related to the outbreak of hostilities to be held as the cause of the defensive actions taken by Israel. There were two types of causation to the defense action:

• Cause-in-Fact:
  • The direct actions taken by HAMAS, without which the launch of Operation Protective Edge would not have happened.
    • Kidnapping and Murder by HAMAS operatives.
    • The violation of sovereignty through building tunnels from Gaza into Israel.
    • In the 26 days from 12 June to 7 July, about 300 rockets were fired at Israel from the Gaza Strip.
• Proximate Cause:
  • It is the determination that the harm resulting from HAMAS Policy could reasonably have been predicted a response from the Israelis.
    • There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
    • Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights.
    • Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem.
    • It is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.
    • Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.
    • HAMAS is openly involved in the organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating hostile activities and acts intended to be committed against Israel and its citizens.

This outcome of Operation Protective Edge resulted in the HAMAS, unable to sustain or endure further combat engagements, accepting a cease fire arrangement.

(COMBAT OUTCOMES --- Concrete and Direct Military Advantage)

• 32 HAMAS Tunnels Destroyed
• Approximately 60%-70% of HAMAS Rocket Arsenal destroyed or exhausted: 4,562 rockets were fired at Israel from Gaza - 1,042 since the violation of the ceasefire on 19 August. This represents a reduction of hostile fire by 75%.
• Over 1000 Hostile Arab Palestinians eliminated or neutralize.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

Man literally the entire planet and half of America seem to be in a conspiracy against Israel! Isn't that something...

Nahhhhh... just the domains of Islam, those nations obliged to kiss Muslim ass in order to keep the oil flowing, and your occasional Jew-Hater and Hyper-Leftist.