LOOK! Mossad just launched another rocket into an empty lot and now they're bonbing Gaza again...

[Book of Jeremiah]

Israel continues to occupy Gaza.

There is no good legal argument that this is true. And plenty of arguments against it. The only way to make it true is to change the definition of "occupation". No other nation has every been held to a claim of "occupation" simply for a blockade.

But, that aside, Juicin is calling for Israel to exert MORE control over Gaza. Do you agree or disagree with that? Should Israel remove the authority of the Hamas or the PA governments and exert more control over Gaza with military force?

I'm calling for the Israelis to just suck it up

If they don't I as an American can call them animals

If they don't like it they can get out of the land they don't belong

I don't give a **** if they burn 10 schools filled with little jew nazis. Still don't ahve a right to bomb what are in effect your captives.

Surprise the jailed kill the jailers.

They're their jailors

you send in your cops

YOu don't ******* bomb them you asshole

GOd damn you are a terrible person

Do not take the Lord's name in vain like that. The comment does not depict a terrible person. It depicts a person with common sense who is merely stating the obvious.

Here is my 2 cents: If the terrorist group Hamas launches rocket attacks against Israeli citizens and the Arab civilians (who call themselves Palestinians and are not) permit them to use their neighborhoods as launching pads, you cannot request a response from the police. It is a terrorist attack and must be dealt with by the military. If you don't like that or if they don't like that they can always move back to their original homelands namely Egyptian or Saudi Arabia.

The only people keeping them there and acting as Jailers are the Arab nations who keep them there (by refusing to permit them to return) and the Arab terrorists who are using them as political pawns in order to perpetuate the myth that Arabs have a claim to Israeli land.

Fior the reasons I stated it's immoral

If Israel didn't have control of the air/sea/ground borders of the place you would have an easier time with that argument.

But that's not the situation we're talking about

Anyone who thinks what Israel did in this context was justified is a terrible person. No one even got hurt from the rocket attack.

Let me explain this to you. It isn't a matter of whether someone is injured in a rocket attack launched by Hamas (with Arabs providing the launching pad from their own neighborhood, house, school, etc). When Hamas launches a rocket into Israeli territory? They can expect one (maybe more) launched back (return fire). The Arabs (calling themselves Palestinians) are living on Israeli territory. They get to live there but they don't own that land. Israel does. That is why Israel has control of the land, the sea and the air in Israel. BECAUSE IT IS THEIR LAND. Israel is a sovereign nation and a Jewish State.

To be clear, no Mosque / Cathedral /Church building belongs on that land. No claim to Israeli land by any church (Yes, that includes Roman Catholic Vatican) Mosque, or group is valid and should be immediately declared invalid. THROW THEM ALL OUT.

That land belongs to the Jews. Acknowledge it, respect it or get out.

You sure love those BS Israeli talking points.

Where did you get that script?

This is religious talk, not an "Israeli talking point." When have you heard an Israeli ever say that all churches and mosques should be removed from Israel?

Let me correct myself in how I worded that, ForeverYoung. If they are using their religious Institution / Church to stake a claim on Israeli land as the Vatican has done consistently, they should be confronted, stopped, and sent packing. No one should be telling Israel what to do with their own land. The Vatican has a very long history of inserting themselves politically in Israel while using "religion" as the excuse to do whatever they please. This should not be.

Examples:

The Vatican Wants the Temple Mount Taken From the Jews
The Vatican Wants the Temple Mount Taken From the Jews
U.S. plan gives Jerusalem holy sites to Vatican
WND EXCLUSIVE
U.S. PLAN GIVES JERUSALEM HOLY SITES TO VATICAN
International mandate to control sections of Israel's capital

Report: Vatican Presses for Control of Mount Zion

Netanyahu 'Asked Rabbi to Allow Giving David's Tomb to Vatican'

MainAll NewsJewish WorldNetanyahu 'Asked Rabbi to Allow Giving David's Tomb to Vatican'

R to L: MKs Feiglin, Chetboun, Ze'ev.
PR photo

A Knesset Member said Thursday that Chief Sephardic Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef told him that the Prime Minister's bureau contacted him and asked to grant halakhic permission for Israel to hand over the Tomb of David to the Vatican.

The startling news was revealed by the Knesset Member during a tour of the Tomb of David by four MKs – Yoni Chetboun of the Jewish Home, who initiated the tour, Moshe Feiglin (Likud-Beytenu), Nissim Ze'ev (Shas), and Meir Porush (United Torah Judaism – UTJ).

The MKs were unanimous in declaring that they intend to do everything within their power to forestall any attempt to hand over the Tomb to the Vatican. There are also reports that not just the Tomb, but the entire Mount Zion compound is up for transfer. The MKs made clear that the zone is under Israeli sovereignty and will remain so.

There have been reports, recently, of a secret negotiation channel between the Vatican and the Israeli government, regarding the Tomb – and especially its second floor, which the Vatican calls the “Room of the Last Supper” – and the Mount Zion compound.

Officially, this report was denied by the government, with Deputy Minister Ze'ev Elkin taking to the Knesset podium to state that it was untrue.

However, the government has decided to place the exclusive authority regarding the holy sites in the hands of the prime minister – fueling speculation that a secret deal is indeed in the works.

The Vatican's attempts to gain a sovereign foothold on Mount Zion have been going on for year, but thus far unsuccessfully.

"For many years, the Vatican has been investing large sums in purchasing assets in Jerusalem, with the purpose of blurring the city's Jewish character,” said Chetboun. “This trend must be blocked, and the Basic Law on Jerusalem, which forbids handing over sovereignty on parts of the city to foreign entities, must be enforced. Today's tour is only the beginning of the struggle, and we will bring more MKs here. The Tomb of David is a cornerstone of the city's Jewish history, we must safeguard it.”

MK Feiglin said after the tour, “The attempts to transfer sovereignty over the Tomb of David to the Vatican are a direct continuation of the transfer of sovereignty in the Temple Mount to the Jordanians. The government of Israel is buying a false calm at the price of forfeiting our most sacred sites, under cover of darkness and against the law.”
____________
The Vatican needs to keep their hands off of Israeli land, holy sites, and stay out of Israeli politics. They have no right to that land and should be told to mind their own business and get out. The Israeli government is making a huge mistake trusting the Vatican. They will live to regret it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

BTW, an occupying power cannot claim self defense in relation to occupied territory.

Link?

Once armed conflict is initiated, and irrespective of the reason or legitimacy of such conflict, the jus in bello legal framework is triggered. Therefore, where an occupation already is in place, the right to initiate militarized force in response to an armed attack, as opposed to police force to restore order, is not a remedy available to the occupying state. The beginning of a military occupation marks the triumph of one belligerent over another. In the case of Israel, its occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai in 1967 marked a military victory against Arab belligerents.

Occupation Law prohibits an occupying power from initiating armed force against its occupied territory. By mere virtue of the existence of military occupation, an armed attack, including one consistent with the UN Charter, has already occurred and been concluded. Therefore the right of self-defense in international law is, by definition since 1967, not available to Israel with respect to its dealings with real or perceived threats emanating from the West Bank and Gaza Strip population. To achieve its security goals, Israel can resort to no more than the police powers, or the exceptional use of militarized force, vested in it by IHL. This is not to say that Israel cannot defend itself—but those defensive measures can neither take the form of warfare nor be justified as self-defense in international law.

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

You should run that by the prayer leader at your madrassah. Or, better yet, both you and he can charge the israeli border with a weapon and Allah as your inspiration. Call us. Let us know how that works out. I'm sure if you bring a copy of the cut and paste article, it will all be alright.

Israel has no border there. Merely an armistice line.

BTW, that armistice line only applied to Israeli and Egyptian forces. The Palestinians were not party to that agreement and are not bound by them..

 

[Hollie]

BTW, an occupying power cannot claim self defense in relation to occupied territory.

Link?

Once armed conflict is initiated, and irrespective of the reason or legitimacy of such conflict, the jus in bello legal framework is triggered. Therefore, where an occupation already is in place, the right to initiate militarized force in response to an armed attack, as opposed to police force to restore order, is not a remedy available to the occupying state. The beginning of a military occupation marks the triumph of one belligerent over another. In the case of Israel, its occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai in 1967 marked a military victory against Arab belligerents.

Occupation Law prohibits an occupying power from initiating armed force against its occupied territory. By mere virtue of the existence of military occupation, an armed attack, including one consistent with the UN Charter, has already occurred and been concluded. Therefore the right of self-defense in international law is, by definition since 1967, not available to Israel with respect to its dealings with real or perceived threats emanating from the West Bank and Gaza Strip population. To achieve its security goals, Israel can resort to no more than the police powers, or the exceptional use of militarized force, vested in it by IHL. This is not to say that Israel cannot defend itself—but those defensive measures can neither take the form of warfare nor be justified as self-defense in international law.

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

You should run that by the prayer leader at your madrassah. Or, better yet, both you and he can charge the israeli border with a weapon and Allah as your inspiration. Call us. Let us know how that works out. I'm sure if you bring a copy of the cut and paste article, it will all be alright.

Israel has no border there. Merely an armistice line.

BTW, that armistice line only applied to Israeli and Egyptian forces. The Palestinians were not party to that agreement and are not bound by them..

So... I guess this means you will flailing your Pom Poms for others to charge the border while you wait for the islamo-body count to use for propaganda purposes.

 

[P F Tinmore]

BTW, an occupying power cannot claim self defense in relation to occupied territory.

Link?

Once armed conflict is initiated, and irrespective of the reason or legitimacy of such conflict, the jus in bello legal framework is triggered. Therefore, where an occupation already is in place, the right to initiate militarized force in response to an armed attack, as opposed to police force to restore order, is not a remedy available to the occupying state. The beginning of a military occupation marks the triumph of one belligerent over another. In the case of Israel, its occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai in 1967 marked a military victory against Arab belligerents.

Occupation Law prohibits an occupying power from initiating armed force against its occupied territory. By mere virtue of the existence of military occupation, an armed attack, including one consistent with the UN Charter, has already occurred and been concluded. Therefore the right of self-defense in international law is, by definition since 1967, not available to Israel with respect to its dealings with real or perceived threats emanating from the West Bank and Gaza Strip population. To achieve its security goals, Israel can resort to no more than the police powers, or the exceptional use of militarized force, vested in it by IHL. This is not to say that Israel cannot defend itself—but those defensive measures can neither take the form of warfare nor be justified as self-defense in international law.

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

You should run that by the prayer leader at your madrassah. Or, better yet, both you and he can charge the israeli border with a weapon and Allah as your inspiration. Call us. Let us know how that works out. I'm sure if you bring a copy of the cut and paste article, it will all be alright.

Israel has no border there. Merely an armistice line.

BTW, that armistice line only applied to Israeli and Egyptian forces. The Palestinians were not party to that agreement and are not bound by them..

So... I guess this means you will flailing your Pom Poms for others to charge the border while you wait for the islamo-body count to use for propaganda purposes.

Have you ever considered writing fiction novels?

 

[Hollie]

Link?

Once armed conflict is initiated, and irrespective of the reason or legitimacy of such conflict, the jus in bello legal framework is triggered. Therefore, where an occupation already is in place, the right to initiate militarized force in response to an armed attack, as opposed to police force to restore order, is not a remedy available to the occupying state. The beginning of a military occupation marks the triumph of one belligerent over another. In the case of Israel, its occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai in 1967 marked a military victory against Arab belligerents.

Occupation Law prohibits an occupying power from initiating armed force against its occupied territory. By mere virtue of the existence of military occupation, an armed attack, including one consistent with the UN Charter, has already occurred and been concluded. Therefore the right of self-defense in international law is, by definition since 1967, not available to Israel with respect to its dealings with real or perceived threats emanating from the West Bank and Gaza Strip population. To achieve its security goals, Israel can resort to no more than the police powers, or the exceptional use of militarized force, vested in it by IHL. This is not to say that Israel cannot defend itself—but those defensive measures can neither take the form of warfare nor be justified as self-defense in international law.

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

You should run that by the prayer leader at your madrassah. Or, better yet, both you and he can charge the israeli border with a weapon and Allah as your inspiration. Call us. Let us know how that works out. I'm sure if you bring a copy of the cut and paste article, it will all be alright.

Israel has no border there. Merely an armistice line.

BTW, that armistice line only applied to Israeli and Egyptian forces. The Palestinians were not party to that agreement and are not bound by them..

So... I guess this means you will flailing your Pom Poms for others to charge the border while you wait for the islamo-body count to use for propaganda purposes.

Have you ever considered writing fiction novels?

Yes.

Otherwise, we can agree that your pompous blustering is just that.

 

[Shusha]

BTW, an occupying power cannot claim self defense in relation to occupied territory.

Link?

Once armed conflict is initiated, and irrespective of the reason or legitimacy of such conflict, the jus in bello legal framework is triggered. Therefore, where an occupation already is in place, the right to initiate militarized force in response to an armed attack, as opposed to police force to restore order, is not a remedy available to the occupying state. The beginning of a military occupation marks the triumph of one belligerent over another. In the case of Israel, its occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai in 1967 marked a military victory against Arab belligerents.

Occupation Law prohibits an occupying power from initiating armed force against its occupied territory. By mere virtue of the existence of military occupation, an armed attack, including one consistent with the UN Charter, has already occurred and been concluded. Therefore the right of self-defense in international law is, by definition since 1967, not available to Israel with respect to its dealings with real or perceived threats emanating from the West Bank and Gaza Strip population. To achieve its security goals, Israel can resort to no more than the police powers, or the exceptional use of militarized force, vested in it by IHL. This is not to say that Israel cannot defend itself—but those defensive measures can neither take the form of warfare nor be justified as self-defense in international law.

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

Thank you. I read your link with interest.

So you are, in effect, arguing that Israel was in error when it disengaged from Gaza and that Israel is obligated, under international law, to restrict the self-government of the Palestinian people and maintain a police force and effective control over "occupied territory".



(Note: I'm still disagreeing that Israel occupies Gaza in the legal sense)

 

[Shusha]

... The Palestinians were not party to that agreement and are not bound by them..

Bingo! Thank you! Its because "Palestine" doesn't exist in legal terms. (Not saying the Palestinians don't exist, just saying Palestine has no legal standing as yet).

 

[MJB12741]

So typical of these assholes.

Israeli jets hit Gaza after overnight rocket attack

I have no idea how many times the world will sit back and watch this same story play out over and over and over again. And before hasbara jumps in claiming that false flag attacks do not exist, let's be clear. Israel and the zionist regime has a long and sorted history of false flag terrorism being exposed. And to be even more clear, keep in mind further that these attacks have come against America and her allies. Don't make me list them, try researching for yourself.

Do you have any idea how funny you are? I thinkI love you.

 

[montelatici]

BTW, an occupying power cannot claim self defense in relation to occupied territory.

Link?

Once armed conflict is initiated, and irrespective of the reason or legitimacy of such conflict, the jus in bello legal framework is triggered. Therefore, where an occupation already is in place, the right to initiate militarized force in response to an armed attack, as opposed to police force to restore order, is not a remedy available to the occupying state. The beginning of a military occupation marks the triumph of one belligerent over another. In the case of Israel, its occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai in 1967 marked a military victory against Arab belligerents.

Occupation Law prohibits an occupying power from initiating armed force against its occupied territory. By mere virtue of the existence of military occupation, an armed attack, including one consistent with the UN Charter, has already occurred and been concluded. Therefore the right of self-defense in international law is, by definition since 1967, not available to Israel with respect to its dealings with real or perceived threats emanating from the West Bank and Gaza Strip population. To achieve its security goals, Israel can resort to no more than the police powers, or the exceptional use of militarized force, vested in it by IHL. This is not to say that Israel cannot defend itself—but those defensive measures can neither take the form of warfare nor be justified as self-defense in international law.

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

Thank you. I read your link with interest.

So you are, in effect, arguing that Israel was in error when it disengaged from Gaza and that Israel is obligated, under international law, to restrict the self-government of the Palestinian people and maintain a police force and effective control over "occupied territory".



(Note: I'm still disagreeing that Israel occupies Gaza in the legal sense)

But it does occupy Gaza in the legal sense, as determined by the ICJ.

 

[montelatici]

So typical of these assholes.

Israeli jets hit Gaza after overnight rocket attack

I have no idea how many times the world will sit back and watch this same story play out over and over and over again. And before hasbara jumps in claiming that false flag attacks do not exist, let's be clear. Israel and the zionist regime has a long and sorted history of false flag terrorism being exposed. And to be even more clear, keep in mind further that these attacks have come against America and her allies. Don't make me list them, try researching for yourself.

Do you have any idea how funny you are? I thinkI love you.

What's hilarious is your clown dancing response, in the "the lady doth protest too much" vein. I love it when you do that!

 

[Eloy]

SHUSHA
So here's the test: Is Israel able to exercise authority over the people of Gaza? Yes or no?
Israel is exercising authority over the people of Gaza in a manner that has been made clear in other posts here. Simply put, the people and government do not enjoy sovereignty because of Israel.

Can Israel, with the institutions it has in place now, control the ability of the Gazan people or the Hamas government, or the rogue groups in Gaza to build tunnels, import weapons, attack Israel?
Israel is already attempting to control the people of Gaza and has inflicted massacres on them periodically and disproportionate military responses which punish innocent civilians for a few harmless fireworks launched by rogues.

Does Israel control the ability of the Gazan government to build homes and hospitals instead of tunnels?
Israel is more interested in destroying homes, hospitals, and schools rather than building them.

Does Israel control the military spending of the Gazan government?
Gaza has no army, air force, or navy.

Responding to attacks with air strikes and occasional invading forces (subsequently withdrawn) is standard, normal warfare. Not occupation.
Israelis are attempting to write the new handbook on occupation.

So you would REMOVE the self-determination and the self-government of the Palestinian people and give it to Israel? You think Israel should exercise sovereignty over Gaza? Do you think the Palestinians in Gaza are incapable of self-government at this time?
The Palestinian people are prevented by the Israelis from determining their own future or efficiently governing their own state.

 

[Shusha]

But it does occupy Gaza in the legal sense, as determined by the ICJ.

Only because the definition was stretched (re-defined).

You go to great lengths to avoid the question I posed.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Israel continues to occupy Gaza.

There is no good legal argument that this is true. And plenty of arguments against it. The only way to make it true is to change the definition of "occupation". No other nation has every been held to a claim of "occupation" simply for a blockade.

But, that aside, Juicin is calling for Israel to exert MORE control over Gaza. Do you agree or disagree with that? Should Israel remove the authority of the Hamas or the PA governments and exert more control over Gaza with military force?

I'm calling for the Israelis to just suck it up

If they don't I as an American can call them animals

If they don't like it they can get out of the land they don't belong

I don't give a **** if they burn 10 schools filled with little jew nazis. Still don't ahve a right to bomb what are in effect your captives.

Surprise the jailed kill the jailers.

Do not take the Lord's name in vain like that. The comment does not depict a terrible person. It depicts a person with common sense who is merely stating the obvious.

Here is my 2 cents: If the terrorist group Hamas launches rocket attacks against Israeli citizens and the Arab civilians (who call themselves Palestinians and are not) permit them to use their neighborhoods as launching pads, you cannot request a response from the police. It is a terrorist attack and must be dealt with by the military. If you don't like that or if they don't like that they can always move back to their original homelands namely Egyptian or Saudi Arabia.

The only people keeping them there and acting as Jailers are the Arab nations who keep them there (by refusing to permit them to return) and the Arab terrorists who are using them as political pawns in order to perpetuate the myth that Arabs have a claim to Israeli land.

Fior the reasons I stated it's immoral

If Israel didn't have control of the air/sea/ground borders of the place you would have an easier time with that argument.

But that's not the situation we're talking about

Anyone who thinks what Israel did in this context was justified is a terrible person. No one even got hurt from the rocket attack.

Let me explain this to you. It isn't a matter of whether someone is injured in a rocket attack launched by Hamas (with Arabs providing the launching pad from their own neighborhood, house, school, etc). When Hamas launches a rocket into Israeli territory? They can expect one (maybe more) launched back (return fire). The Arabs (calling themselves Palestinians) are living on Israeli territory. They get to live there but they don't own that land. Israel does. That is why Israel has control of the land, the sea and the air in Israel. BECAUSE IT IS THEIR LAND. Israel is a sovereign nation and a Jewish State.

To be clear, no Mosque / Cathedral /Church building belongs on that land. No claim to Israeli land by any church (Yes, that includes Roman Catholic Vatican) Mosque, or group is valid and should be immediately declared invalid. THROW THEM ALL OUT.

That land belongs to the Jews. Acknowledge it, respect it or get out.

You sure love those BS Israeli talking points.

Where did you get that script?

This is religious talk, not an "Israeli talking point." When have you heard an Israeli ever say that all churches and mosques should be removed from Israel?

Let me correct myself in how I worded that, ForeverYoung. If they are using their religious Institution / Church to stake a claim on Israeli land as the Vatican has done consistently, they should be confronted, stopped, and sent packing. No one should be telling Israel what to do with their own land. The Vatican has a very long history of inserting themselves politically in Israel while using "religion" as the excuse to do whatever they please. This should not be.

Examples:

The Vatican Wants the Temple Mount Taken From the Jews
The Vatican Wants the Temple Mount Taken From the Jews
U.S. plan gives Jerusalem holy sites to Vatican
WND EXCLUSIVE
U.S. PLAN GIVES JERUSALEM HOLY SITES TO VATICAN
International mandate to control sections of Israel's capital

Report: Vatican Presses for Control of Mount Zion

Netanyahu 'Asked Rabbi to Allow Giving David's Tomb to Vatican'

MainAll NewsJewish WorldNetanyahu 'Asked Rabbi to Allow Giving David's Tomb to Vatican'

R to L: MKs Feiglin, Chetboun, Ze'ev.
PR photo

A Knesset Member said Thursday that Chief Sephardic Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef told him that the Prime Minister's bureau contacted him and asked to grant halakhic permission for Israel to hand over the Tomb of David to the Vatican.

The startling news was revealed by the Knesset Member during a tour of the Tomb of David by four MKs – Yoni Chetboun of the Jewish Home, who initiated the tour, Moshe Feiglin (Likud-Beytenu), Nissim Ze'ev (Shas), and Meir Porush (United Torah Judaism – UTJ).

The MKs were unanimous in declaring that they intend to do everything within their power to forestall any attempt to hand over the Tomb to the Vatican. There are also reports that not just the Tomb, but the entire Mount Zion compound is up for transfer. The MKs made clear that the zone is under Israeli sovereignty and will remain so.

There have been reports, recently, of a secret negotiation channel between the Vatican and the Israeli government, regarding the Tomb – and especially its second floor, which the Vatican calls the “Room of the Last Supper” – and the Mount Zion compound.

Officially, this report was denied by the government, with Deputy Minister Ze'ev Elkin taking to the Knesset podium to state that it was untrue.

However, the government has decided to place the exclusive authority regarding the holy sites in the hands of the prime minister – fueling speculation that a secret deal is indeed in the works.

The Vatican's attempts to gain a sovereign foothold on Mount Zion have been going on for year, but thus far unsuccessfully.

"For many years, the Vatican has been investing large sums in purchasing assets in Jerusalem, with the purpose of blurring the city's Jewish character,” said Chetboun. “This trend must be blocked, and the Basic Law on Jerusalem, which forbids handing over sovereignty on parts of the city to foreign entities, must be enforced. Today's tour is only the beginning of the struggle, and we will bring more MKs here. The Tomb of David is a cornerstone of the city's Jewish history, we must safeguard it.”

MK Feiglin said after the tour, “The attempts to transfer sovereignty over the Tomb of David to the Vatican are a direct continuation of the transfer of sovereignty in the Temple Mount to the Jordanians. The government of Israel is buying a false calm at the price of forfeiting our most sacred sites, under cover of darkness and against the law.”
____________
The Vatican needs to keep their hands off of Israeli land, holy sites, and stay out of Israeli politics. They have no right to that land and should be told to mind their own business and get out. The Israeli government is making a huge mistake trusting the Vatican. They will live to regret it.

I remember when I visited Mount Zion in 1982. There are 3 points of interest on Mount Zion--King David's Tomb, The Room of The Last Supper and a small memorial to the Holocaust. I found it hard to find the Room of the Last Supper because I was expecting to see some kind of relic or a sign, at least. But it was just an empty room. I wonder if something was put up there since then.

 

[Shusha]

Can Israel, with the institutions it has in place now, control the ability of the Gazan people or the Hamas government, or the rogue groups in Gaza to build tunnels, import weapons, attack Israel?
Israel is already attempting to control the people of Gaza and has inflicted massacres on them periodically and disproportionate military responses which punish innocent civilians for a few harmless fireworks launched by rogues.

You didn't answer the question. Does Israel, with the institutions it currently has in place, have the ability to control whether or not the Gazan people, the Hamas government or the rogue groups in Gaza built tunnels, import weapons and attack Israel.

Does Israel control the ability of the Gazan government to build homes and hospitals instead of tunnels?

Israel is more interested in destroying homes, hospitals, and schools rather than building them.

You didn't answer the question. Does Israel have the ability to control whether homes or tunnels are built? Whether hospitals or tunnels are built? Whether schools or tunnels are built?

Does Israel control the military spending of the Gazan government?

Gaza has no army, air force, or navy.

Gaza most certainly has a military budget. You didn't answer the question. Does Israel control the military spending of Gaza?

Responding to attacks with air strikes and occasional invading forces (subsequently withdrawn) is standard, normal warfare. Not occupation.

Israelis are attempting to write the new handbook on occupation.

Objectively define occupation vs. standard warfare.

So you would REMOVE the self-determination and the self-government of the Palestinian people and give it to Israel? You think Israel should exercise sovereignty over Gaza? Do you think the Palestinians in Gaza are incapable of self-government at this time?

The Palestinian people are prevented by the Israelis from determining their own future or efficiently governing their own state.

Well, you can't have it both ways. Should Israel exert more control or less control over Gaza? That is the BURNING question of the day. A question which you, monte, Tinman, Eloy, Juicin and louie have utterly failed to address.

You all can't have it both ways. Either Israel is responsible for the welfare of the Palestinian people or their own self-governing institutions are responsible for the welfare of the Palestinian people in Gaza.. They are either capable of self-governing or they are incapable of self-government and need to be policed and governed. Which is it?

 

[montelatici]

But it does occupy Gaza in the legal sense, as determined by the ICJ.

Only because the definition was stretched (re-defined).

You go to great lengths to avoid the question I posed.

No, the definition is precisely the same as that defined during the Nuremburg trials, as I explained. The definition was not "stretched" at all. Legal precedent decided the case. Gaza is legally occupied.

 

[Eloy]

Your questions ha

But it does occupy Gaza in the legal sense, as determined by the ICJ.

Only because the definition was stretched (re-defined).

You go to great lengths to avoid the question I posed.

Can Israel, with the institutions it has in place now, control the ability of the Gazan people or the Hamas government, or the rogue groups in Gaza to build tunnels, import weapons, attack Israel?
Israel is already attempting to control the people of Gaza and has inflicted massacres on them periodically and disproportionate military responses which punish innocent civilians for a few harmless fireworks launched by rogues.

You didn't answer the question. Does Israel, with the institutions it currently has in place, have the ability to control whether or not the Gazan people, the Hamas government or the rogue groups in Gaza built tunnels, import weapons and attack Israel.

Does Israel control the ability of the Gazan government to build homes and hospitals instead of tunnels?

Israel is more interested in destroying homes, hospitals, and schools rather than building them.

You didn't answer the question. Does Israel have the ability to control whether homes or tunnels are built? Whether hospitals or tunnels are built? Whether schools or tunnels are built?

Does Israel control the military spending of the Gazan government?

Gaza has no army, air force, or navy.

Gaza most certainly has a military budget. You didn't answer the question. Does Israel control the military spending of Gaza?

Responding to attacks with air strikes and occasional invading forces (subsequently withdrawn) is standard, normal warfare. Not occupation.

Israelis are attempting to write the new handbook on occupation.

Objectively define occupation vs. standard warfare.

So you would REMOVE the self-determination and the self-government of the Palestinian people and give it to Israel? You think Israel should exercise sovereignty over Gaza? Do you think the Palestinians in Gaza are incapable of self-government at this time?

The Palestinian people are prevented by the Israelis from determining their own future or efficiently governing their own state.

Well, you can't have it both ways. Should Israel exert more control or less control over Gaza? That is the BURNING question of the day. A question which you, monte, Tinman, Eloy, Juicin and louie have utterly failed to address.

You all can't have it both ways. Either Israel is responsible for the welfare of the Palestinian people or their own self-governing institutions are responsible for the welfare of the Palestinian people in Gaza.. They are either capable of self-governing or they are incapable of self-government and need to be policed and governed. Which is it?

I do believe you have asked and had answered enough questions on this topic.

 

[Hollie]

But it does occupy Gaza in the legal sense, as determined by the ICJ.

Only because the definition was stretched (re-defined).

You go to great lengths to avoid the question I posed.

No, the definition is precisely the same as that defined during the Nuremburg trials, as I explained. The definition was not "stretched" at all. Legal precedent decided the case. Gaza is legally occupied.

There are many reasons why one would not seek your opinions on legal matters.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Israel continues to occupy Gaza.

There is no good legal argument that this is true. And plenty of arguments against it. The only way to make it true is to change the definition of "occupation". No other nation has every been held to a claim of "occupation" simply for a blockade.

But, that aside, Juicin is calling for Israel to exert MORE control over Gaza. Do you agree or disagree with that? Should Israel remove the authority of the Hamas or the PA governments and exert more control over Gaza with military force?

I'm calling for the Israelis to just suck it up

If they don't I as an American can call them animals

If they don't like it they can get out of the land they don't belong

I don't give a **** if they burn 10 schools filled with little jew nazis. Still don't ahve a right to bomb what are in effect your captives.

Surprise the jailed kill the jailers.

Fior the reasons I stated it's immoral

If Israel didn't have control of the air/sea/ground borders of the place you would have an easier time with that argument.

But that's not the situation we're talking about

Anyone who thinks what Israel did in this context was justified is a terrible person. No one even got hurt from the rocket attack.

Let me explain this to you. It isn't a matter of whether someone is injured in a rocket attack launched by Hamas (with Arabs providing the launching pad from their own neighborhood, house, school, etc). When Hamas launches a rocket into Israeli territory? They can expect one (maybe more) launched back (return fire). The Arabs (calling themselves Palestinians) are living on Israeli territory. They get to live there but they don't own that land. Israel does. That is why Israel has control of the land, the sea and the air in Israel. BECAUSE IT IS THEIR LAND. Israel is a sovereign nation and a Jewish State.

To be clear, no Mosque / Cathedral /Church building belongs on that land. No claim to Israeli land by any church (Yes, that includes Roman Catholic Vatican) Mosque, or group is valid and should be immediately declared invalid. THROW THEM ALL OUT.

That land belongs to the Jews. Acknowledge it, respect it or get out.

You sure love those BS Israeli talking points.

Where did you get that script?

This is religious talk, not an "Israeli talking point." When have you heard an Israeli ever say that all churches and mosques should be removed from Israel?

Let me correct myself in how I worded that, ForeverYoung. If they are using their religious Institution / Church to stake a claim on Israeli land as the Vatican has done consistently, they should be confronted, stopped, and sent packing. No one should be telling Israel what to do with their own land. The Vatican has a very long history of inserting themselves politically in Israel while using "religion" as the excuse to do whatever they please. This should not be.

Examples:

The Vatican Wants the Temple Mount Taken From the Jews
The Vatican Wants the Temple Mount Taken From the Jews
U.S. plan gives Jerusalem holy sites to Vatican
WND EXCLUSIVE
U.S. PLAN GIVES JERUSALEM HOLY SITES TO VATICAN
International mandate to control sections of Israel's capital

Report: Vatican Presses for Control of Mount Zion

Netanyahu 'Asked Rabbi to Allow Giving David's Tomb to Vatican'

MainAll NewsJewish WorldNetanyahu 'Asked Rabbi to Allow Giving David's Tomb to Vatican'

R to L: MKs Feiglin, Chetboun, Ze'ev.
PR photo

A Knesset Member said Thursday that Chief Sephardic Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef told him that the Prime Minister's bureau contacted him and asked to grant halakhic permission for Israel to hand over the Tomb of David to the Vatican.

The startling news was revealed by the Knesset Member during a tour of the Tomb of David by four MKs – Yoni Chetboun of the Jewish Home, who initiated the tour, Moshe Feiglin (Likud-Beytenu), Nissim Ze'ev (Shas), and Meir Porush (United Torah Judaism – UTJ).

The MKs were unanimous in declaring that they intend to do everything within their power to forestall any attempt to hand over the Tomb to the Vatican. There are also reports that not just the Tomb, but the entire Mount Zion compound is up for transfer. The MKs made clear that the zone is under Israeli sovereignty and will remain so.

There have been reports, recently, of a secret negotiation channel between the Vatican and the Israeli government, regarding the Tomb – and especially its second floor, which the Vatican calls the “Room of the Last Supper” – and the Mount Zion compound.

Officially, this report was denied by the government, with Deputy Minister Ze'ev Elkin taking to the Knesset podium to state that it was untrue.

However, the government has decided to place the exclusive authority regarding the holy sites in the hands of the prime minister – fueling speculation that a secret deal is indeed in the works.

The Vatican's attempts to gain a sovereign foothold on Mount Zion have been going on for year, but thus far unsuccessfully.

"For many years, the Vatican has been investing large sums in purchasing assets in Jerusalem, with the purpose of blurring the city's Jewish character,” said Chetboun. “This trend must be blocked, and the Basic Law on Jerusalem, which forbids handing over sovereignty on parts of the city to foreign entities, must be enforced. Today's tour is only the beginning of the struggle, and we will bring more MKs here. The Tomb of David is a cornerstone of the city's Jewish history, we must safeguard it.”

MK Feiglin said after the tour, “The attempts to transfer sovereignty over the Tomb of David to the Vatican are a direct continuation of the transfer of sovereignty in the Temple Mount to the Jordanians. The government of Israel is buying a false calm at the price of forfeiting our most sacred sites, under cover of darkness and against the law.”
____________
The Vatican needs to keep their hands off of Israeli land, holy sites, and stay out of Israeli politics. They have no right to that land and should be told to mind their own business and get out. The Israeli government is making a huge mistake trusting the Vatican. They will live to regret it.

I remember when I visited Mount Zion in 1982. There are 3 points of interest on Mount Zion--King David's Tomb, The Room of The Last Supper and a small memorial to the Holocaust. I found it hard to find the Room of the Last Supper because I was expecting to see some kind of relic or a sign, at least. But it was just an empty room. I wonder if something was put up there since then.

That is very interesting. I'm sure it must be quite an experience to be right there and see King David's Tomb, the room of the last supper and memorial to the Holocaust too. I can't imagine it. I have never been to Israel although I have spent a good part of my life reading and writing about it. One of my relatives just returned from Israel having taken a tour there and they enjoyed it very much. They said there were thousands of tourists over there and that the weather was beautiful. It must be the high season for tourists they said. They mentioned I should try to make it over there at least once but I have too much going on at home right now. I have bulls, cows, chickens, a pony (newly acquired) cats..... there is just no possible way. I got a passport to Israel years ago just in case I ever had the time to go visit. I still have it. Maybe one day.

 

[Shusha]

I do believe you have asked and had answered enough questions on this topic.

Not one of you has answered the question. Seriously, sooner or later, Palestinians and Gazas have to decide which way they want it. Are they going to insist Israel be responsible for them? OR are they going to be responsible for themselves?

 

[Eloy]

I do believe you have asked and had answered enough questions on this topic.

Not one of you has answered the question. Seriously, sooner or later, Palestinians and Gazas have to decide which way they want it. Are they going to insist Israel be responsible for them? OR are they going to be responsible for themselves?

Time is running-out.
The Israelis and the PLO will agree to live as neighbors in peace when there is a willingness to end the occupation of the Palestinian Territories, accept the 1967 borders and recognize the right of return to Israel of refugees and their descendants.
Even I know this so you should too.
If this is unacceptable to the Israelis, then there will be an apartheid state. We see this in its development stages already. This will be doomed.