In Support Of A Palestinian State

[montelatici]

Israel never withdrew from Gaza, as it is still under occupation, and the people never had the opportunity to become a sovereign state. Israel created a large prison complex under complete Israeli control. Gaza's land borders, air space and territorial sea are controlled by Israel and taxes are collected by Israel.

The International Criminal Court has ruled that Gaza is occupied by Israel.

"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."

https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/OTP-COM-Article_53(1)-Report-06Nov2014Eng.pdf

 

[Hollie]

Lets not.

Lets join together against terrorism rather than rewarding terrorism.

No third state in the mandate area.

Jordan and Israel are the two state solution

I think that if the Palestinians had the pleasure and responsibility of running their own independent, sovereign nation-state, and were therefore in the position to control their own destiny, they might not think of lobbing rockets or whatever into Israel.

Also, the State of Israel would benefit by withdrawing from West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem and allowing the Palestinians to create their own independent, sovereign nation-state for several reasons:

A) While there's no absolute guarantee that there wouldn't be any more conflagrations between Israelis and Palestinians, Israel would be better able to protect a smaller area of land (her own country) and her people in the event of any more conflagrations.

B) Israel would regain much of the international sympathy and support that she lost, by giving West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem back to the Palestinians.

C) Israel would be relieved of the burden of having to rule over another group of people and to occupy a foreign territory.

D) The Palestinians would benefit by having their own state, and therefore, self-determination, which both peoples have the right to.

"I think that if the Palestinians had the pleasure and responsibility of running their own independent, sovereign nation-state, and were therefore in the position to control their own destiny, they might not think of lobbing rockets or whatever into Israel."



If you review your islamo-history, you will discover that the Arabs-Moslems occupying the disputed territories had precisely the opportunity you describe. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 was an opportunity for the Arabs-Moslems to make an attempt at building a working society. However, as one would expect from Islamic terrorists, Israel's withdrawal during August of 2005 was met with rocket fire in September.

What else would one expect from Islamic terrorists?

Israel did withdraw her settlers from Gaza Strip back in 2005, but Israel still controls Gaza Strip's air space and water, which they should give up...now, and withdraw its troops, as well.

As it was pointed out, Israel had not completed its withdrawal in September of 2005 when the Arab-Moslem terrorists began waging acts of war a month later. Why would any responsible government put its citizens at risk from islamic terrorist attacks?

 

[Hollie]

Israel never withdrew from Gaza, as it is still under occupation, and the people never had the opportunity to become a sovereign state. Israel created a large prison complex under complete Israeli control. Gaza's land borders, air space and territorial sea are controlled by Israel and taxes are collected by Israel.

The International Criminal Court has ruled that Gaza is occupied by Israel.

"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."

https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/OTP-COM-Article_53(1)-Report-06Nov2014Eng.pdf

Yes, yes. The above is another cut and paste you cut and paste across multiple threads, multiple times.

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills rather than dumping your usual cutting and pasting.

 

[montelatici]

You continue make the false claim that Gaza is not under occupation, while a decision of the ICC has determined that you are making things up. Don't lie and I won't provide evidence that you are a liar. It's that simple Hollow Hollie.

 

[Hollie]

You continue make the false claim that Gaza is not under occupation, while a decision of the ICC has determined that you are making things up. Don't lie and I won't provide evidence that you are a liar. It's that simple Hollow Hollie.

My comment addressed the circumstances in 2005.

Your juvenile name-calling is not an excuse for your failed argument.

 

[montelatici]

Pointing out the fact that Gaza is occupied pursuant to an ICC decision is not a failed argument, it just contradicts your assertion that Israel "left" Gaza at anytime. In 2005, Israel never intended to relinquish control of Gaza. It just removed settlers that were too costly to protect.

 

[Hollie]

Pointing out the fact that Gaza is occupied pursuant to an ICC decision is not a failed argument, it just contradicts your assertion that Israel "left" Gaza at anytime. In 2005, Israel never intended to relinquish control of Gaza. It just removed settlers that were too costly to protect.

This is the first I've heard that you were establishing Israeli policy in 2005. Ravaging wiki again?

 

[montelatici]

Pointing out the fact that Gaza is occupied pursuant to an ICC decision is not a failed argument, it just contradicts your assertion that Israel "left" Gaza at anytime. In 2005, Israel never intended to relinquish control of Gaza. It just removed settlers that were too costly to protect.

This is the first I've heard that you were establishing Israeli policy in 2005. Ravaging wiki again?

Israel stated that they would maintain control in the terms of disengagement plan. This was reported to Congress in 2005. The source documents are available to you as well. Why not do some research before you make stupid assertions?

"CRS Report for Congress

"The official Israeli government document states that areas of the West Bank will become part of Israel, including Israeli population centers, towns, villages, security areas, and places of special interest. The last presumably could include Jewish religious and historical sites, such as Joseph’s tomb in Nablus. The official version also states that Israel will retain control over the air space over Gaza, control over the Gaza sea coast, and control over the boundary between Gaza and Egypt (the so-called Philadelphi road).

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22000.pdf

 

[Hollie]

Pointing out the fact that Gaza is occupied pursuant to an ICC decision is not a failed argument, it just contradicts your assertion that Israel "left" Gaza at anytime. In 2005, Israel never intended to relinquish control of Gaza. It just removed settlers that were too costly to protect.

This is the first I've heard that you were establishing Israeli policy in 2005. Ravaging wiki again?

Israel stated that they would maintain control in the terms of disengagement plan. This was reported to Congress in 2005. The source documents are available to you as well. Why not do some research before you make stupid assertions?

"CRS Report for Congress

"The official Israeli government document states that areas of the West Bank will become part of Israel, including Israeli population centers, towns, villages, security areas, and places of special interest. The last presumably could include Jewish religious and historical sites, such as Joseph’s tomb in Nablus. The official version also states that Israel will retain control over the air space over Gaza, control over the Gaza sea coast, and control over the boundary between Gaza and Egypt (the so-called Philadelphi road).

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22000.pdf

Try paying attention when you're scouring the web for your cutting and pasting.

Your cutting and pasting references the West Bank. Did you happen to notice that?

Lastly, control of the airspace would be a requirement as a preventative to Islamic terrorist attacks. If the Islamic terrorists had chosen not to wage acts of war, there would be no need to control them.

 

[montelatici]

Pointing out the fact that Gaza is occupied pursuant to an ICC decision is not a failed argument, it just contradicts your assertion that Israel "left" Gaza at anytime. In 2005, Israel never intended to relinquish control of Gaza. It just removed settlers that were too costly to protect.

This is the first I've heard that you were establishing Israeli policy in 2005. Ravaging wiki again?

Israel stated that they would maintain control in the terms of disengagement plan. This was reported to Congress in 2005. The source documents are available to you as well. Why not do some research before you make stupid assertions?

"CRS Report for Congress

"The official Israeli government document states that areas of the West Bank will become part of Israel, including Israeli population centers, towns, villages, security areas, and places of special interest. The last presumably could include Jewish religious and historical sites, such as Joseph’s tomb in Nablus. The official version also states that Israel will retain control over the air space over Gaza, control over the Gaza sea coast, and control over the boundary between Gaza and Egypt (the so-called Philadelphi road).

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22000.pdf

Try paying attention when you're scouring the web for your cutting and pasting.

Your cutting and pasting references the West Bank. Did you happen to notice that?

Lastly, control of the airspace would be a requirement as a preventative to Islamic terrorist attacks. If the Islamic terrorists had chosen not to wage acts of war, there would be no need to control them.

Yes, and I highlighted the section regarding Gaza in bold, for your benefit. I don't like to break up paragraphs as it often results in accusations of withholding information.

The continuance of the blockade and control of air sea and land borders was the act of war, the resistance by the Palestinians was to be expected. If there were no blockade, an act of war, there would be no need for resistance.

 

[Hollie]

Pointing out the fact that Gaza is occupied pursuant to an ICC decision is not a failed argument, it just contradicts your assertion that Israel "left" Gaza at anytime. In 2005, Israel never intended to relinquish control of Gaza. It just removed settlers that were too costly to protect.

This is the first I've heard that you were establishing Israeli policy in 2005. Ravaging wiki again?

Israel stated that they would maintain control in the terms of disengagement plan. This was reported to Congress in 2005. The source documents are available to you as well. Why not do some research before you make stupid assertions?

"CRS Report for Congress

"The official Israeli government document states that areas of the West Bank will become part of Israel, including Israeli population centers, towns, villages, security areas, and places of special interest. The last presumably could include Jewish religious and historical sites, such as Joseph’s tomb in Nablus. The official version also states that Israel will retain control over the air space over Gaza, control over the Gaza sea coast, and control over the boundary between Gaza and Egypt (the so-called Philadelphi road).

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22000.pdf

Try paying attention when you're scouring the web for your cutting and pasting.

Your cutting and pasting references the West Bank. Did you happen to notice that?

Lastly, control of the airspace would be a requirement as a preventative to Islamic terrorist attacks. If the Islamic terrorists had chosen not to wage acts of war, there would be no need to control them.

Yes, and I highlighted the section regarding Gaza in bold, for your benefit. I don't like to break up paragraphs as it often results in accusations of withholding information.

The continuance of the blockade and control of air sea and land borders was the act of war, the resistance by the Palestinians was to be expected. If there were no blockade, an act of war, there would be no need for resistance.

It's truly silly to use slogans and cliches about "resistance" when applied to Islamic terrorists.

You should read the Hamas Charter. The requirement to obliterate Israel as a part of offensive gee-had is not "resistance".

 

[montelatici]

Pointing out the fact that Gaza is occupied pursuant to an ICC decision is not a failed argument, it just contradicts your assertion that Israel "left" Gaza at anytime. In 2005, Israel never intended to relinquish control of Gaza. It just removed settlers that were too costly to protect.

This is the first I've heard that you were establishing Israeli policy in 2005. Ravaging wiki again?

Israel stated that they would maintain control in the terms of disengagement plan. This was reported to Congress in 2005. The source documents are available to you as well. Why not do some research before you make stupid assertions?

"CRS Report for Congress

"The official Israeli government document states that areas of the West Bank will become part of Israel, including Israeli population centers, towns, villages, security areas, and places of special interest. The last presumably could include Jewish religious and historical sites, such as Joseph’s tomb in Nablus. The official version also states that Israel will retain control over the air space over Gaza, control over the Gaza sea coast, and control over the boundary between Gaza and Egypt (the so-called Philadelphi road).

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22000.pdf

Try paying attention when you're scouring the web for your cutting and pasting.

Your cutting and pasting references the West Bank. Did you happen to notice that?

Lastly, control of the airspace would be a requirement as a preventative to Islamic terrorist attacks. If the Islamic terrorists had chosen not to wage acts of war, there would be no need to control them.

Yes, and I highlighted the section regarding Gaza in bold, for your benefit. I don't like to break up paragraphs as it often results in accusations of withholding information.

The continuance of the blockade and control of air sea and land borders was the act of war, the resistance by the Palestinians was to be expected. If there were no blockade, an act of war, there would be no need for resistance.

It's truly silly to use slogans and cliches about "resistance" when applied to Islamic terrorists.

You should read the Hamas Charter. The requirement to obliterate Israel as a part of offensive gee-had is not "resistance".

Resistance against occupation is what it is called by the occupied. Terrorism is what the occupier/oppressor calls resistance to its rule. The Nazis, for example, called the French Resistance terrorists. The Apartheid regime called the ANC terrorists. When the Algerian FLN bombed movie theaters and restaurants in Algiers, the French called the FLN terrorists. When the IRA were called terrorists by the British when they set of bombs in shopping centers in England, yet many Americans called them freedom fighters and supported them financially.

It is just historical fact. Why do you think the I/P conflict is any different than those others. It isn't.

 

[Hollie]

This is the first I've heard that you were establishing Israeli policy in 2005. Ravaging wiki again?

Israel stated that they would maintain control in the terms of disengagement plan. This was reported to Congress in 2005. The source documents are available to you as well. Why not do some research before you make stupid assertions?

"CRS Report for Congress

"The official Israeli government document states that areas of the West Bank will become part of Israel, including Israeli population centers, towns, villages, security areas, and places of special interest. The last presumably could include Jewish religious and historical sites, such as Joseph’s tomb in Nablus. The official version also states that Israel will retain control over the air space over Gaza, control over the Gaza sea coast, and control over the boundary between Gaza and Egypt (the so-called Philadelphi road).

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22000.pdf

Try paying attention when you're scouring the web for your cutting and pasting.

Your cutting and pasting references the West Bank. Did you happen to notice that?

Lastly, control of the airspace would be a requirement as a preventative to Islamic terrorist attacks. If the Islamic terrorists had chosen not to wage acts of war, there would be no need to control them.

Yes, and I highlighted the section regarding Gaza in bold, for your benefit. I don't like to break up paragraphs as it often results in accusations of withholding information.

The continuance of the blockade and control of air sea and land borders was the act of war, the resistance by the Palestinians was to be expected. If there were no blockade, an act of war, there would be no need for resistance.

It's truly silly to use slogans and cliches about "resistance" when applied to Islamic terrorists.

You should read the Hamas Charter. The requirement to obliterate Israel as a part of offensive gee-had is not "resistance".

Resistance against occupation is what it is called by the occupied. Terrorism is what the occupier/oppressor calls resistance to its rule. The Nazis, for example, called the French Resistance terrorists. The Apartheid regime called the ANC terrorists. When the Algerian FLN bombed movie theaters and restaurants in Algiers, the French called the FLN terrorists. When the IRA were called terrorists by the British when they set of bombs in shopping centers in England, yet many Americans called them freedom fighters and supported them financially.

It is just historical fact. Why do you think the I/P conflict is any different than those others. It isn't.

The Hamas Charter is little more than a re-statement of the hate and war manual inspired by muhammud (swish).

The Hamas Charter explicitly states the obliteration of Israel with gee-had as the mechanism.

As we have seen repeatedly, Israel has the weapons, tactics and know-how to put the had in gee-had.

 

[montelatici]

Israel stated that they would maintain control in the terms of disengagement plan. This was reported to Congress in 2005. The source documents are available to you as well. Why not do some research before you make stupid assertions?

"CRS Report for Congress

"The official Israeli government document states that areas of the West Bank will become part of Israel, including Israeli population centers, towns, villages, security areas, and places of special interest. The last presumably could include Jewish religious and historical sites, such as Joseph’s tomb in Nablus. The official version also states that Israel will retain control over the air space over Gaza, control over the Gaza sea coast, and control over the boundary between Gaza and Egypt (the so-called Philadelphi road).

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22000.pdf

Try paying attention when you're scouring the web for your cutting and pasting.

Your cutting and pasting references the West Bank. Did you happen to notice that?

Lastly, control of the airspace would be a requirement as a preventative to Islamic terrorist attacks. If the Islamic terrorists had chosen not to wage acts of war, there would be no need to control them.

Yes, and I highlighted the section regarding Gaza in bold, for your benefit. I don't like to break up paragraphs as it often results in accusations of withholding information.

The continuance of the blockade and control of air sea and land borders was the act of war, the resistance by the Palestinians was to be expected. If there were no blockade, an act of war, there would be no need for resistance.

It's truly silly to use slogans and cliches about "resistance" when applied to Islamic terrorists.

You should read the Hamas Charter. The requirement to obliterate Israel as a part of offensive gee-had is not "resistance".

Resistance against occupation is what it is called by the occupied. Terrorism is what the occupier/oppressor calls resistance to its rule. The Nazis, for example, called the French Resistance terrorists. The Apartheid regime called the ANC terrorists. When the Algerian FLN bombed movie theaters and restaurants in Algiers, the French called the FLN terrorists. When the IRA were called terrorists by the British when they set of bombs in shopping centers in England, yet many Americans called them freedom fighters and supported them financially.

It is just historical fact. Why do you think the I/P conflict is any different than those others. It isn't.

The Hamas Charter is little more than a re-statement of the hate and war manual inspired by muhammud (swish).

The Hamas Charter explicitly states the obliteration of Israel with gee-had as the mechanism.

As we have seen repeatedly, Israel has the weapons, tactics and know-how to put the had in gee-had.

There is no such thing as a Hamas Charter.

There is however, a Likud Charter which makes much the same declarations vis-a-vis the Palestinians with respect to their presence in what they call Eretz Israel.

 

[MJB12741]

Try paying attention when you're scouring the web for your cutting and pasting.

Your cutting and pasting references the West Bank. Did you happen to notice that?

Lastly, control of the airspace would be a requirement as a preventative to Islamic terrorist attacks. If the Islamic terrorists had chosen not to wage acts of war, there would be no need to control them.

Yes, and I highlighted the section regarding Gaza in bold, for your benefit. I don't like to break up paragraphs as it often results in accusations of withholding information.

The continuance of the blockade and control of air sea and land borders was the act of war, the resistance by the Palestinians was to be expected. If there were no blockade, an act of war, there would be no need for resistance.

It's truly silly to use slogans and cliches about "resistance" when applied to Islamic terrorists.

You should read the Hamas Charter. The requirement to obliterate Israel as a part of offensive gee-had is not "resistance".

Resistance against occupation is what it is called by the occupied. Terrorism is what the occupier/oppressor calls resistance to its rule. The Nazis, for example, called the French Resistance terrorists. The Apartheid regime called the ANC terrorists. When the Algerian FLN bombed movie theaters and restaurants in Algiers, the French called the FLN terrorists. When the IRA were called terrorists by the British when they set of bombs in shopping centers in England, yet many Americans called them freedom fighters and supported them financially.

It is just historical fact. Why do you think the I/P conflict is any different than those others. It isn't.

The Hamas Charter is little more than a re-statement of the hate and war manual inspired by muhammud (swish).

The Hamas Charter explicitly states the obliteration of Israel with gee-had as the mechanism.

As we have seen repeatedly, Israel has the weapons, tactics and know-how to put the had in gee-had.

There is no such thing as a Hamas Charter.

There is however, a Likud Charter which makes much the same declarations vis-a-vis the Palestinians with respect to their presence in what they call Eretz Israel.

How do ya like that? "There is no such thing as a Hamas Charter." Amazing what we can learn from the highly intellectual, unbiased mind of Monte. Ya gotta love him for all the laughs he gives us. Heh Heh!

http://www.hamascharter.com/assets/hamas-covenant-1988-source.pdf

 

[Shusha]

This:

"You Zionists are dirty in thought, word and deed."

is about as hate-filled and nasty as one can get.

Oh, I assure you this is just the tip of the iceberg with Penny. It gets much worse.

 

[montelatici]

Yes, and I highlighted the section regarding Gaza in bold, for your benefit. I don't like to break up paragraphs as it often results in accusations of withholding information.

The continuance of the blockade and control of air sea and land borders was the act of war, the resistance by the Palestinians was to be expected. If there were no blockade, an act of war, there would be no need for resistance.

It's truly silly to use slogans and cliches about "resistance" when applied to Islamic terrorists.

You should read the Hamas Charter. The requirement to obliterate Israel as a part of offensive gee-had is not "resistance".

Resistance against occupation is what it is called by the occupied. Terrorism is what the occupier/oppressor calls resistance to its rule. The Nazis, for example, called the French Resistance terrorists. The Apartheid regime called the ANC terrorists. When the Algerian FLN bombed movie theaters and restaurants in Algiers, the French called the FLN terrorists. When the IRA were called terrorists by the British when they set of bombs in shopping centers in England, yet many Americans called them freedom fighters and supported them financially.

It is just historical fact. Why do you think the I/P conflict is any different than those others. It isn't.

The Hamas Charter is little more than a re-statement of the hate and war manual inspired by muhammud (swish).

The Hamas Charter explicitly states the obliteration of Israel with gee-had as the mechanism.

As we have seen repeatedly, Israel has the weapons, tactics and know-how to put the had in gee-had.

There is no such thing as a Hamas Charter.

There is however, a Likud Charter which makes much the same declarations vis-a-vis the Palestinians with respect to their presence in what they call Eretz Israel.

How do ya like that? "There is no such thing as a Hamas Charter." Amazing what we can learn from the highly intellectual, unbiased mind of Monte. Ya gotta love him for all the laughs he gives us. Heh Heh!

http://www.hamascharter.com/assets/hamas-covenant-1988-source.pdf

Where does it say Hamas Charter?

 

[Shusha]

Israel did withdraw her settlers from Gaza Strip back in 2005, but Israel still controls Gaza Strip's air space and water, which they should give up...now, and withdraw its troops, as well.

What do you think will happen if Israel allows Gaza free and full access to her waters and air space?

Do you really think that Hamas will suddenly use concrete to build schools and water treatment plants and houses, rather than tunnels? Why aren't they doing that now?

Do you really think Hamas will suddenly negotiate peaceful economic arrangements and trade agreements with Israel? Why aren't they doing that now?

 

[montelatici]

Yes, if Gazans had a port they controlled, territorial sea they controlled, air space they controlled and borders they controlled with Egypt, they could trade with Egypt and Europe directly without needing to deal with Israel. They could give ENI (which is now exploiting gas reserves for Egypt a few miles away) a deal to exploit reserves off Gaza.

It is not probable that the Palestinians will want to deal with the Israelis after the way they have been treated by them, and I don't blame them. But they would have options if Israel relinquished control over Gaza. But, Israel does not plan to relinquish control of any land they now have control over.

 

[montelatici]

Yes, and I highlighted the section regarding Gaza in bold, for your benefit. I don't like to break up paragraphs as it often results in accusations of withholding information.

The continuance of the blockade and control of air sea and land borders was the act of war, the resistance by the Palestinians was to be expected. If there were no blockade, an act of war, there would be no need for resistance.

It's truly silly to use slogans and cliches about "resistance" when applied to Islamic terrorists.

You should read the Hamas Charter. The requirement to obliterate Israel as a part of offensive gee-had is not "resistance".

Resistance against occupation is what it is called by the occupied. Terrorism is what the occupier/oppressor calls resistance to its rule. The Nazis, for example, called the French Resistance terrorists. The Apartheid regime called the ANC terrorists. When the Algerian FLN bombed movie theaters and restaurants in Algiers, the French called the FLN terrorists. When the IRA were called terrorists by the British when they set of bombs in shopping centers in England, yet many Americans called them freedom fighters and supported them financially.

It is just historical fact. Why do you think the I/P conflict is any different than those others. It isn't.

The Hamas Charter is little more than a re-statement of the hate and war manual inspired by muhammud (swish).

The Hamas Charter explicitly states the obliteration of Israel with gee-had as the mechanism.

As we have seen repeatedly, Israel has the weapons, tactics and know-how to put the had in gee-had.

There is no such thing as a Hamas Charter.

There is however, a Likud Charter which makes much the same declarations vis-a-vis the Palestinians with respect to their presence in what they call Eretz Israel.

How do ya like that? "There is no such thing as a Hamas Charter." Amazing what we can learn from the highly intellectual, unbiased mind of Monte. Ya gotta love him for all the laughs he gives us. Heh Heh!

http://www.hamascharter.com/assets/hamas-covenant-1988-source.pdf

Cat's got your tongue? Where does it say Hamas Charter on/in the document? Amazing how stupid you are. You fell for it before Hollow Hollie did.

Now for a little lesson for dummies like you. A charter is a document that sets forth the rules and regulations of an organization that members will have to adhere to if they want to join. A Covenant is a fancy word for "contract" between two or more parties.