Israeli blockade of Gaza caused Oct 7th

[Deadstick]

WHO NEEDS "GAS CHAMBERS" WHEN YOU'VE GOT FREE AMERICAN BOMBS?




Since we have no idea how many of Gaza's native residents have been systematically exterminated, mutilated and buried under the rubble of Gaza, you have no idea how many Palestinians remain alive.

Technically, the Holocaust does not fit the definition of a "Genocide" because there were 150,000 Jews who fought in Germany's military(1) with 25 of them who rose through the ranks to become Generals.

Additionally, there were several high ranking Nazi party members who were Jewish.(2)
Since these and other Jews /Zionists served Germany's WW 2 government with the full knowledge of Hitler and the German High Command.

However, the Holocaust is still mistakenly called a genocide even though millions of Jews were among those who persecuted other Jews.

Meanwhile, the Holocaust Industry is still extorting money for reparations from governments and industries around the world 80 years after the war.

How many $ Billions have Nakba survivors received in reparations after decades of enduring a true Zionist genocide?

Instead of $ Billions in reparations, Nakba survivors are lucky to get a clean glass of water after losing everything they owned to foreign Zionist terrorist gangs who were armed and trained by the SS (3).




(1). “Hitler’s Jewish Army”
http://counterpsyops.com/2013/02/14/...-hitlers-army/

EXCERPT “Thousands of men of Jewish descent and hundreds of what the Nazis called ‘full Jews’ served in the German military with Adolf Hitler’s knowledge and approval.

In approximately 20 cases, Jewish soldiers in the Nazi army were awarded(*)Germany’s highest military honor, the Knight’s Cross.

Jews also served in the Nazi police and security forces as ghetto police(Ordnungdienst)()and concentration camp guards()(kapos).

So what happens to the claim that Hitler sought to exterminate all Jews, when he allowed some of them to join in his struggle against Bolshevism and International finance capitalism?

“If the Jews were permitted to serve in Hitler’s armed forces then there could not have been a Holocaust.”CONTINUED


(2) “List of Nazis of non-Germanic descent”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nazis_of_non-Germanic_descent

EXCERPT “Notably, there were several high-ranking Nazis of full and partial Jewish descent. “ CONTINUED


(3). “Zionism and the Third Reich”
Zionism and the Third Reich

EXCERPT “In cooperation with the German authorities, Zionist groups organized a network of some forty camps and agricultural centers throughout Germany where prospective settlers were trained for their new lives in Palestine. Although the Nuremberg Laws forbid Jews from displaying the German flag, Jews were specifically guaranteed the right to display the blue and white Jewish national banner. The flag that would one day be adopted by Israel was flown at the Zionist camps and centers in Hitler's Germany. /19

Himmler's security service cooperated with the Haganah, the Zionist underground military organization in Palestine. The SS agency paid Haganah official Feivel Polkes for information about the situation in Palestine and for help in directing Jewish emigration to that country. Meanwhile, the Haganah was kept well informed about German plans by a spy it managed to plant in the Berlin headquarters of the SS. /20 Haganah-SS collaboration even included secret deliveries of German weapons to Jewish settlers for use in clashes with Palestinian Arabs. /21

In the aftermath of the November 1938 "Kristallnacht" outburst of violence and destruction, the SS quickly helped the Zionist organization to get back on its feet and continue its work in Germany, although now under more restricted supervision. /22” CONTINUED

It's possible Heydrich the Butcher of Bohemia Moravia was part Jewish, he looks it.

 

[rosends]

It's possible Heydrich the Butcher of Bohemia Moravia was part Jewish, he looks it.
View attachment 1055583

funny...he doesn't LOOK Jewish

 

[Deadstick]

Seventeen year US veteran calls the Congressional Genociders out, it needs more brave people like her to stand up for what is right, it's probably finished her Military service.

 

[Billo_Really]

This is legally incoherent nonsense fabricated so that Israel can be denied her rights under international law. (Thanks, Francesca Albanese .)

The right to self-defense is inherent and is entrenched in both treaty and customary law. It is not a "sometimes" right, nor a right which can be removed, nor a right which applies to some States and not to others. This right is not contained solely in Article 51.

You are just repeating a soundbyte. You have absolutely no understanding of international law.

No, you do not have that right!

No, Israel Does Not Have the Right to Self-Defense In International Law Against Occupied Palestinian Territory

[In view of Israel`s assertions that its current attacks on the Gaza Strip are an exercise in legitimate self-defense, Jadaliyya re-posts an analysis of this claim by Co-Editor Noura Erakat initially published in 2012.] On the fourth day of Israel`s

www.jadaliyya.com

Your feeling of entitlement makes me want to vomit!

 

[SaxonJackson]

The 16 year immoral and illegal blockade of Gaza caused the Hamas attacks on October 7th.

I don't know what goes on inside an Israeli apologists head, but it's not normal thinking. You don't treat people like garbage for 16 years and expect nothing will happen?

The Hamas attacks was on act of terrorism, but that was the reaction to Israel's actions.

Israel must lift illegal and inhumane blockade on Gaza

Power plant shutdown will exacerbate an already desperate humanitarian crisis.

www.amnesty.org

If my family, friends, neighbors, and kindred had been treated the way the Palestinians have been treated since the mid 1940s, I'd be filled with pure anger and righteous indignation.

This fellow comes to mind:

Do I share the Palestinians religion or DNA? Nope. But I fully understand their willingness to fight for their existence. If I'd been kicked out of my own land ... I wouldn't feel very charitable.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

good thing they aren't doing that!

The Arabs Got Their Share, But They Want Sheer Sharia Instead

The Jews are occupying formerly Turkish land, which Turkey lost when it lost World War I. Despite not daring to document it, the British must have created the Jewish Homeland as a decoy to the next jihad.

Our ignorant histwhorians are incapable of calling the Turks "jihadis." They make us believe that is as incorrect as calling the British "Anglican imperialists."

 

[Lisa558]

The Arabs Got Their Share, But They Want Sheer Sharia Instead

The Jews are occupying formerly Turkish land, which Turkey lost when it lost World War I. Despite not daring to document it, the British must have created the Jewish Homeland as a decoy to the next jihad.

Our ignorant histwhorians are incapable of calling the Turks "jihadis." They make us believe that is as incorrect as calling the British "Anglican imperialists."

We have Muslims occupying all sorts of Jewish land and property throughout the Middle East. They chased out 850,000 Jews and stole everything they had - their land, their houses, their furniture, etc. - and yet the antisemites never mention that.

As just one example, Egypt expelled all Jews in their country - almost 100,000 - on 24 hours notice, and forced them to sign legal documents leaving all their property to the Muslims.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Wrong, asshole! Israelis have rights, but not when it comes to the occupation of Palestinian land.

If Israel has it, what makes it "Palestinian" land?

 

[eagle1462010]

It’s hard to have a civil conversation with immoral uneducated idiots supporting genocide.

What Genocide?

The purge of Christians in the Middle East?

 

[Shusha]

No, you do not have that right!

No, Israel Does Not Have the Right to Self-Defense In International Law Against Occupied Palestinian Territory

[In view of Israel`s assertions that its current attacks on the Gaza Strip are an exercise in legitimate self-defense, Jadaliyya re-posts an analysis of this claim by Co-Editor Noura Erakat initially published in 2012.] On the fourth day of Israel`s

www.jadaliyya.com

Your feeling of entitlement makes me want to vomit!

Did you even read the article you posted?! From the article:

...Israel has the right to protect itself and its citizens from attacks by Palestinians who reside in the occupied territories.

This is not an "entitlement", but an inherent right. And it is shameful that you would try to remove this inherent right from Israel.

Now, if you want to use the term "self-defense" in the legal sense, you really should actually read the article as it more-or-less demonstrates the point I am trying to make and perfectly demonstrates how Israel is held to a different standard in law.

Noura's argument (basically) is that the term "self-defense" in a legal sense can not be used in conjunction with occupation. Military occupation, by definition, is the result of war fought and concluded, with the victor becoming the occupier in control of the territory. A State can't claim "self-defense" when it already controls the territory. It would be akin to defending yourself from yourself. In occupied territory, the occupier is obligated to preserve order, punish crime, and protect lives and property. Israel, then, according to Noura, is not defending herself, but simply policing her occupation.

Here's my issue with Noura's argument: It demonstrates, quite clearly, that Israel is NOT an occupying power.

1. It inverts occupier and occupied. The war in question did not start in 1967. It started in 1948 when Egypt invaded non-Egyptian territory and occupied it. Egypt was the occupier. Israel was the sovereign.
2. With the disengagement from Gaza in 2005, Israel ceded her right to control and police that territory. Israel no longer had the capacity to be the controlling and policing force in Gaza. By definition, this means there is no occupation, regardless of any nonsense about "effective control".
3. Since 2005, Israel has treated Gaza as a separate sovereign.

 

[gipper]

Did you even read the article you posted?! From the article:

...Israel has the right to protect itself and its citizens from attacks by Palestinians who reside in the occupied territories.

This is not an "entitlement", but an inherent right. And it is shameful that you would try to remove this inherent right from Israel.

Now, if you want to use the term "self-defense" in the legal sense, you really should actually read the article as it more-or-less demonstrates the point I am trying to make and perfectly demonstrates how Israel is held to a different standard in law.

Noura's argument (basically) is that the term "self-defense" in a legal sense can not be used in conjunction with occupation. Military occupation, by definition, is the result of war fought and concluded, with the victor becoming the occupier in control of the territory. A State can't claim "self-defense" when it already controls the territory. It would be akin to defending yourself from yourself. In occupied territory, the occupier is obligated to preserve order, punish crime, and protect lives and property. Israel, then, according to Noura, is not defending herself, but simply policing her occupation.

Here's my issue with Noura's argument: It demonstrates, quite clearly, that Israel is NOT an occupying power.

1. It inverts occupier and occupied. The war in question did not start in 1967. It started in 1948 when Egypt invaded non-Egyptian territory and occupied it. Egypt was the occupier. Israel was the sovereign.
2. With the disengagement from Gaza in 2005, Israel ceded her right to control and police that territory. Israel no longer had the capacity to be the controlling and policing force in Gaza. By definition, this means there is no occupation, regardless of any nonsense about "effective control".
3. Since 2005, Israel has treated Gaza as a separate sovereign.

Does it also have the right to massacre defenseless civilians and destroy all of Gaza?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Does it also have the right to massacre defenseless civilians and destroy all of Gaza?

Israel has the right to do whatever is necessary to protect Israeli citizens.

 

[Ringo]

 

[gipper]

Israel has the right to do whatever is necessary to protect Israeli citizens.

The truth about the IDF’s war crimes will get out in time. Then, you’ll deny you supported the genocide.

Read the Israeli press. They are exposing it.

 

[Lisa558]

I have some questions about some of the claims here:

1) Why did the OP complain only about an Israeli “blockade” to keep the Gazans from moving East, when he said nothing about the blockade by Egypt? After all, the Gazans want to murder as many Jews as they can find, so Israel’s position makes sense, but why is Egypt blocking their fellow Arabs from entering Egypt?

2) Why is Gaza still referred to as “occupied territory” when the Israelis vacated that area 20 years ago?

3) Why are people moaning about Jews driving Arabs out (even though most of them were tenants, and the actual owners were paid) when they say nothing about the Arabs throughout the Middle East, which once had multiple thriving Jewish communities, driving out 850,000 Jews from THEIR own land, stealing all their property?

I have other questions, but this good for now.

 

[gipper]

If only we had more voices like this…

 

[Shusha]

Does it also have the right to massacre defenseless civilians and destroy all of Gaza?

Israel (and every State) has the right to use armed force to respond to and prevent attacks on her citizens and on her territorial integrity within the limits of proportionality and distinction. She certainly has the right to attack and destroy all military objectives, including the tunnels, weapons caches, intelligence, and infrastructure for manufacturing weapons. She also has the right to abandon or cede territory. Or not.

 

[Shusha]

I have some questions about some of the claims here:

1) Why did the OP complain only about an Israeli “blockade” to keep the Gazans from moving East, when he said nothing about the blockade by Egypt? After all, the Gazans want to murder as many Jews as they can find, so Israel’s position makes sense, but why is Egypt blocking their fellow Arabs from entering Egypt?

2) Why is Gaza still referred to as “occupied territory” when the Israelis vacated that area 20 years ago?

3) Why are people moaning about Jews driving Arabs out (even though most of them were tenants, and the actual owners were paid) when they say nothing about the Arabs throughout the Middle East, which once had multiple thriving Jewish communities, driving out 850,000 Jews from THEIR own land, stealing all their property?

I have other questions, but this good for now.

Alright if I take a stab at these?

1. Egypt does not recognize the Hamas government (unsurprising), and claims that accepting a new government in Gaza undermines the Palestinian Authority and the hope for a united Palestine. Israel and the PA have an agreement concerning the management of the flow of goods (suspended since 2007), and Egypt is not willing to undermine that agreement. Egypt prefers that the PA monitor the Egypt/Gaza border on the Gaza side, but will accept some sort of international security force. Obviously, neither Hamas nor Israel is keen on the former for obvious reasons and has reservations about the latter for obvious reasons (waves at UNFIL).

Egypt allows far fewer goods and persons to cross the border than Israel does (remember that every state has the right to control its own border, its crossings, and who and what enters their territory), but Egypt permits a greater variety of those items on the "dual-use" list which Israel restricts.

I think the main reason why the OP, and others, places a higher standard on Israel than Egypt is related to Israel's (so-called) occupation. IF (and that's a big IF) Israel is occupying Gaza, then she does indeed have different obligations than Egypt does.

2. The "international community" (largely meaning the UN) has expanded the definition of "occupation" so they can accuse Israel of it. The former meaning of the term included: effective military control, performance of government functions and administration, maintaining public order, and upholding local law. Occupation typically ended with the return of territory to the rightful sovereign or the exercise of self-determination alongside treaty agreements with the former sovereign.

The expanded definition includes providing services (such as electricity, water) and normal, universal border controls.

The air and sea blockade, and the limited land blockade are not relevant to occupation. They exist SOLELY because of belligerence from a self-governing territory (not occupied) on a sovereign state in that sovereign state's territory. Had the belligerence not occurred, there would be no blockade. (You know, peace, prosperity, economic growth). The blockade is a direct and legal response to armed attacks on sovereign Israel after the occupation ended.

All this is further complicated by the competition between Hamas and the PA over control and government, with neither of them holding proper elections and neither of them capable of bringing the people of Gaza and the West Bank to proper statehood. Sigh.

3. Again, its an expansion of legal definitions. The refugees ethnically cleansed from the Arab lands are no longer considered refugees because those refugees fall under the typical definition. Arabs living in the Mandate for Palestine in 1948, however, have special rules applied to them that exist for no other population. If the Palestinian rules were applied to the Jews, there would be ~4 million Jewish refugees today (compared to zero claimed under normal rules). If the normal rules that apply to everyone else were applied to Arab "Palestinians" there would be about 200,000 Arab refugees today (compared to the ~11 million claimed under the special rules).

That's my take. Happy to expand or discuss with anyone.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The truth about the IDF’s war crimes will get out in time. Then, you’ll deny you supported the genocide.

Read the Israeli press. They are exposing it.

This may be news to you, but to be a crime, an action would have to violate a law, and since the IDF has not struck any targets unless its lawyers have first certified it is in compliance with International Humanitarian Law no war crimes have been committed. Some people have such strong feelings about the fighting they try to alter the facts to fit their feelings, but these wild claims about war crimes or genocide to not stand up to a careful examination of the facts.

 

[gipper]

This may be news to you, but to be a crime, an action would have to violate a law, and since the IDF has not struck any targets unless its lawyers have first certified it is in compliance with International Humanitarian Law no war crimes have been committed. Some people have such strong feelings about the fighting they try to alter the facts to fit their feelings, but these wild claims about war crimes or genocide to not stand up to a careful examination of the facts.

Lol. Look up war crimes you Zionist doofus.

If you don’t know Israel has committed massive war crimes, you know nothing.