Accepting the Consequences For Ones Actions Doesn't Even Occur to the Pali Mindset.

[Coyote]

Regardless of all the bluff and bluster the pali mindset in Gaza is "where's my hand out"

VS
The pali mindset in Israel which is more like, "thank all the gods I don't live anywhere else".

See
For Palestinian citizens of Israel, this place is home

The Palestinians have rebuilt themselves and rebuilt their economy multiple times - despite Israel's attacks, sanctions and blockades, despite the corruption and incompetence of of their own leadership. Many have become so frustrated they are attempting to escape Gaza by sea - illegal, dangerous, horribly expensive and with a high mortality rate. That's how desperate they are. Those are not people with their hands out.

Israel receives a great deal of international aid and donator money. Unlike Gaza they have full control of their borders, trade, power, water and can leave and enter at will. Who's hand is out? Glass houses.

 

[Billo_Really]

Your funny. Gaza is free to chose its own path. And this is the path they chose.

This is a perfect example of a pro terrorist refusing to take responsibility.

The facts are extremely clear. Even if you don't want to admit them. Terrorists brought this all on themselves.

The restrictions and embargo are 100% a response to the years of terrorist activities and whatever condition the terrorists find themselves in its 100% because of their refusal act like civilized people.

It's not very civilized to blame others for the shit you do.

The blockade is due to the election results, because the Israeli's are assholes.

There are video's of Palestinian's being stopped at checkpoints and after it was determined they were carrying no weapons, they were still denied passage through the checkpoint. That right there, shows your full of shit about stopping weapons.

BTW, resisting occupation is not terrorism, *****-boy.

 

[Billo_Really]

Blatant lie.

Some 15,900 Israelis left Israel for over a year in 2012, but about 13,500 Israeli expats returned — for a net loss of 2,400 citizens, compared to an average of nearly 10,000 per year between 1986 and 2008. In fact, according to border control officials, approximately a quarter of those who emigrated in 2012 and remained abroad for over a year have since returned as well.
This net loss of 2,400 Israeli citizens in 2012 does not include figures for aliya, or Jewish immigration and naturalization, which contributed another 18,000 new citizens in 2012. In other words, through migration alone, Israel gained over 15,000 citizen-residents that year.

"...37 percent of Israelis are considering a move to a different country..."

For Every Two Britons Making Aliyah to Israel, Three Israelis Immigrate to the U.K.​

You owe me an apology!

 

[Shusha]

"...37 percent of Israelis are considering a move to a different country..."

For Every Two Britons Making Aliyah to Israel, Three Israelis Immigrate to the U.K.​

You owe me an apology!

The original claim was that more Jews are moving out of Israel than are moving in to Israel. A blatant lie. A changing of the goal posts on your side does not constitute a failure to score on mine.

 

[Billo_Really]

"...37 percent of Israelis are considering a move to a different country..."

For Every Two Britons Making Aliyah to Israel, Three Israelis Immigrate to the U.K.​

You owe me an apology!

The original claim was that more Jews are moving out of Israel than are moving in to Israel. A blatant lie. A changing of the goal posts on your side does not constitute a failure to score on mine.

First thing, MJB didn't say that, I did.

And second, this is what I said before...

Billo_Really said: ↑
For every 2 Jews coming to Israel, there are 3 Jews going to live somewhere else.

And that is definitely the consequence of Israel's actions.

So no, it was not...

"...more Jews are moving out of Israel than are moving in to Israel."​

Now where's that apology?

 

[RoccoR]

Shusha, montelatici, et al,

I understand that the Palestinians like to claim the Gaza Strip" as under occupation. BUT "Shusha" has a point. Israel is not permitted to establish "effective control" that would prevent infiltration tunnel construction or rocket fire that the international community does not complain about. Thus, without effective control, Israel cannot be said to "occupy" the Gaza Strip. The international community has stopped Israel from effectively establishing such control.

Gaza is an occupied territory, full stop. It is not a state at war with Israel. Israel controls its borders, air space and territorial sea, and collects its taxes.

RoccoR ,
Would you think that the ability to commit an attack on the sovereign soil of Israel would indicate that Gaza is not actually under "effective control" and therefore there is no occupation of Gaza?

(COMMENT)

Hollywood should recognize the Arab Palestinian with an award for best portrayal of a perpetual victim. Israel cannot establish "effective control" with law and order over Gaza without a "extraterritorial military intervention." And as soon as Israel moves in, the international community calls for a withdrawal.

Our friend "montelactic" is utilizing the basic description of a non-consensual belligerent occupation; with the non-consensual and belligerent aspects as key the definition of occupation. Then "montelactic" throws in the concept of “indirect effective control” (AKA: “long-arm occupation”). However, this legally undefined “indirect effective control” becomes rather problematic; not just in the Middle East, but in other regions of the world. But specifically focusing on the Gaza Strip, having an estranged political relationship with the West Bank, cannot use the concept unchallenged.

• If Israel uses extraterritorial military intervention to enforce its “indirect effective control” --- then upon entry, there is a foreign military presence. In the case of the Gaza Strip, that extraterritorial military intervention triggers such intensity in urban conflict on entry, that the Arab Palestinians cry foul - claim excessive use of force and targeting civilians and civilian objects. This prevents Israel from establishing "effective control." So, the potential of "extraterritorial military intervention" is insufficient to establish "effective control;" and becomes invalid as a necessary and sufficient condition for that "occupation."

• Israel does not control Gaza Strip borders. It does (however) enforce its own border control measures, just the same as the borders of Mexico and Canada have controls at the border with the US. This is not unusual, nearly all countries have this in place. It is not against international law for Israel to control the passage through its borders. Even the Egyptian-Gaza Border at Rafah is the same. This has no impact on the status of the "occupation."

• The issue of airspace control is that it represent an unnecessary risk to the region by allowing a government (designated terrorist) with close association with other designated terrorists, to have such access and control.

• Again, tax collection is not a debilitating factor, or by itself, have the ability to create the conditions of "effective control." The Arab Palestinians cry foul and the international community again brings such diplomatic efforts into play that eventually convince Israel to release the funds.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

The Hostages Case at the Nuremberg Trials settled the question of "effective control"

In The Hostages Case, the Nuremburg Tribunal used The Hague Regulations’ basic definition of occupation in order to determine when occupation ends. It held that “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.” In that case, the Tribunal had to determine whether Germany’s occupation of Greece and Yugoslavia had ended when Germany had ceded de facto control. Even though Germany did not actually control those areas, the Tribunal held that Germany remained the belligerent occupying power both in Greece and Yugoslavia and in other Territories to which it had ceded control, since it could have reentered and controlled those territories at will. And, the Germans did not have control of the air space and territorial sea as Israel has.

The key determining factor is clear from the verbatim trial transcript "it is established that the Germans could at any time they desired assume physical control of any part of the country."

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