Netanyahu's response to UN's resulution.

[montelatici]

If anything, Israel has been nothing short of magnanimous with the contingent of pesky criminal Arab vagabonds called "Palestinians".

The Islamic monkeys should have been gassed with Zylon B as the corrective course of action.

So, that would your "final solution". I see that the Jewish Zionists learned well.

 

[TrueTT]

If anything, Israel has been nothing short of magnanimous with the contingent of pesky criminal Arab vagabonds called "Palestinians".

The Islamic monkeys should have been gassed with Zylon B as the corrective course of action.

So, that would your "final solution". I see that the Jewish Zionists learned well.

Not a Jew. Just a "Zionist". LOL.

 

[montelatici]

If anything, Israel has been nothing short of magnanimous with the contingent of pesky criminal Arab vagabonds called "Palestinians".

The Islamic monkeys should have been gassed with Zylon B as the corrective course of action.

So, that would your "final solution". I see that the Jewish Zionists learned well.

Not a Jew. Just a "Zionist". LOL.

Why would you want to exterminate Christians, then?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Normally, you're totally befuddled about international law. The islamic terrorist enclave of Gaza'istan is not occupied. Perhaps you can cite code from international law dealing with any requirement for the welfare of designated Islamic terrorist franchises.

1. Gaza is occupied under international law per the International Court of Justice.

"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."

Opinio Juris » Blog Archive The OTP Concludes Israel Is Still Occupying Gaza - Opinio Juris

2. The Occupying Power is responsible for the welfare of the people under occupation, per

"Under Article 43 of the Hague Regulations, an occupying power must restore and maintain public order and civil life, including public welfare, in an occupied territory.......... "

http://www.hpcrresearch.org/sites/default/files/publications/sassoli.pdf

Yes, the above is an opinion. One with no force of law or effective enforcement.

See, this is the problem faced by those like you who simply cut and paste articles they find on the web while you have no understanding of what it is you cut and paste.

Judicial decisions of higher courts are always opinions, as in "Opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States". I think we can all see who is a bit out of her depth.

Here look up some USSC Opinions. LOL

Opinions - Supreme Court of the United States

Yes, yes. As noted your cut and paste opinion has no force of law or enforcement. LOL.

Look up the definition of "opinion". We can all see your befuddlement.

Let me educate you. A judicial body renders an opinion, the enforcement of an opinion is not carried out by the judicial body, in the U.S. it is the executive branch who determines if there is to be enforcement of results of the opinion. With respect to an ICJ opinion it would be the equivalent body of the sovereign state(s) concerned or the UNSC if the state(s) do not proceed to enforcement.

You are out of your depth and frankly, you are making a fool of yourself.

Such nonsense. You have to learn that the fact you have strong feelings about something doesn't mean there are facts to back it up. There clearly is no rational basis in history, logic or law for calling Israel's communities in Judea and Samaria illegal.

 

[montelatici]

1. Gaza is occupied under international law per the International Court of Justice.

"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."

Opinio Juris » Blog Archive The OTP Concludes Israel Is Still Occupying Gaza - Opinio Juris

2. The Occupying Power is responsible for the welfare of the people under occupation, per

"Under Article 43 of the Hague Regulations, an occupying power must restore and maintain public order and civil life, including public welfare, in an occupied territory.......... "

http://www.hpcrresearch.org/sites/default/files/publications/sassoli.pdf

Yes, the above is an opinion. One with no force of law or effective enforcement.

See, this is the problem faced by those like you who simply cut and paste articles they find on the web while you have no understanding of what it is you cut and paste.

Judicial decisions of higher courts are always opinions, as in "Opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States". I think we can all see who is a bit out of her depth.

Here look up some USSC Opinions. LOL

Opinions - Supreme Court of the United States

Yes, yes. As noted your cut and paste opinion has no force of law or enforcement. LOL.

Look up the definition of "opinion". We can all see your befuddlement.

Let me educate you. A judicial body renders an opinion, the enforcement of an opinion is not carried out by the judicial body, in the U.S. it is the executive branch who determines if there is to be enforcement of results of the opinion. With respect to an ICJ opinion it would be the equivalent body of the sovereign state(s) concerned or the UNSC if the state(s) do not proceed to enforcement.

You are out of your depth and frankly, you are making a fool of yourself.

Such nonsense. You have to learn that the fact you have strong feelings about something doesn't mean there are facts to back it up. There clearly is no rational basis in history, logic or law for calling Israel's communities in Judea and Samaria illegal.

What, the law is nonsense. LOL

 

[toomuchtime_]

Yes, the above is an opinion. One with no force of law or effective enforcement.

See, this is the problem faced by those like you who simply cut and paste articles they find on the web while you have no understanding of what it is you cut and paste.

Judicial decisions of higher courts are always opinions, as in "Opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States". I think we can all see who is a bit out of her depth.

Here look up some USSC Opinions. LOL

Opinions - Supreme Court of the United States

Yes, yes. As noted your cut and paste opinion has no force of law or enforcement. LOL.

Look up the definition of "opinion". We can all see your befuddlement.

Let me educate you. A judicial body renders an opinion, the enforcement of an opinion is not carried out by the judicial body, in the U.S. it is the executive branch who determines if there is to be enforcement of results of the opinion. With respect to an ICJ opinion it would be the equivalent body of the sovereign state(s) concerned or the UNSC if the state(s) do not proceed to enforcement.

You are out of your depth and frankly, you are making a fool of yourself.

Such nonsense. You have to learn that the fact you have strong feelings about something doesn't mean there are facts to back it up. There clearly is no rational basis in history, logic or law for calling Israel's communities in Judea and Samaria illegal.

What, the law is nonsense. LOL

There us no relevant law except those that exist solely in your imagination.

 

[montelatici]

Judicial decisions of higher courts are always opinions, as in "Opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States". I think we can all see who is a bit out of her depth.

Here look up some USSC Opinions. LOL

Opinions - Supreme Court of the United States

Yes, yes. As noted your cut and paste opinion has no force of law or enforcement. LOL.

Look up the definition of "opinion". We can all see your befuddlement.

Let me educate you. A judicial body renders an opinion, the enforcement of an opinion is not carried out by the judicial body, in the U.S. it is the executive branch who determines if there is to be enforcement of results of the opinion. With respect to an ICJ opinion it would be the equivalent body of the sovereign state(s) concerned or the UNSC if the state(s) do not proceed to enforcement.

You are out of your depth and frankly, you are making a fool of yourself.

Such nonsense. You have to learn that the fact you have strong feelings about something doesn't mean there are facts to back it up. There clearly is no rational basis in history, logic or law for calling Israel's communities in Judea and Samaria illegal.

What, the law is nonsense. LOL

There us no relevant law except those that exist solely in your imagination.

You are too easy. Keep making a fool of yourself.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Yes, yes. As noted your cut and paste opinion has no force of law or enforcement. LOL.

Look up the definition of "opinion". We can all see your befuddlement.

Let me educate you. A judicial body renders an opinion, the enforcement of an opinion is not carried out by the judicial body, in the U.S. it is the executive branch who determines if there is to be enforcement of results of the opinion. With respect to an ICJ opinion it would be the equivalent body of the sovereign state(s) concerned or the UNSC if the state(s) do not proceed to enforcement.

You are out of your depth and frankly, you are making a fool of yourself.

Such nonsense. You have to learn that the fact you have strong feelings about something doesn't mean there are facts to back it up. There clearly is no rational basis in history, logic or law for calling Israel's communities in Judea and Samaria illegal.

What, the law is nonsense. LOL

There us no relevant law except those that exist solely in your imagination.

You are too easy. Keep making a fool of yourself.

In other words, you've got nothing.

 

[montelatici]

Just the law. I have put you Hasbara jerk offs to the sword before. Nothing new.

Practice Relating to Rule 130. Transfer of Own Civilian Population into Occupied Territory
Note: For practice relating to ethnic cleansing, see Rule 129, Section C.
Quick navigation
I. Treaties
Geneva Convention IV
Article 49, sixth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Additional Protocol I
Article 85(4)(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that “the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a grave breach of the Protocol.

ICC Statute
Under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

ICRC service

 

[Indeependent]

Just the law. I have put you Hasbara jerk offs to the sword before. Nothing new.

Practice Relating to Rule 130. Transfer of Own Civilian Population into Occupied Territory
Note: For practice relating to ethnic cleansing, see Rule 129, Section C.
Quick navigation
I. Treaties
Geneva Convention IV
Article 49, sixth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Additional Protocol I
Article 85(4)(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that “the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a grave breach of the Protocol.

ICC Statute
Under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

ICRC service

And let's not forget that the Zionists attacked Jordan! and Egypt! and Syria! and the US! and the UK!
Any other revisionist bull shit under your armpits.?

 

[montelatici]

Well they wanted to, but couldn't make it happen. In 1926 they thought they could invade the whole Middle East. Here it is, direct from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency archives.

July 25, 1926


London (Jul. 23)

(Jewish Telegraphic Agency)


Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committee

"“Due to the success of our colonization work in Palestine proper, it is possible that eventually our colonization work will be extended beyond the frontiers of Transjordania. It is true that the Palestine government has not taken a clear stand in regard to its economic policy, but well founded demands have every prospect of being agreed to. A great deal has been achieved during the last months,” Dr. Weizmann said.""

Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ

 

[toomuchtime_]

Just the law. I have put you Hasbara jerk offs to the sword before. Nothing new.

Practice Relating to Rule 130. Transfer of Own Civilian Population into Occupied Territory
Note: For practice relating to ethnic cleansing, see Rule 129, Section C.
Quick navigation
I. Treaties
Geneva Convention IV
Article 49, sixth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Additional Protocol I
Article 85(4)(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that “the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a grave breach of the Protocol.

ICC Statute
Under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

ICRC service

There was no transfer of population by the government. Some Israelis chose to move to area C, and there is no prohibition against that in any law.

The Rome Statute is worded differently from the Geneva Conventions, no doubt to make it apply to Israel since the Conventions do not, but neither the US nor Israel nor a third of the world's nations recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC and both countries have stated they will use whatever force is necessary to protect their citizens against any actions by the ICC, but again, there was no transfer of population by the government, and since the Rome Statute does not prohibit the movement of individuals to area C, it would be hard to argue that even the Rome Statute would apply.

 

[Indeependent]

The JEWISH response to the UN Resolution is all that's important...
A severe plunge in tourist dollars in those nations.
I gotta laugh at this one when Jew haters they come crawling on their knees.

 

[montelatici]

Just the law. I have put you Hasbara jerk offs to the sword before. Nothing new.

Practice Relating to Rule 130. Transfer of Own Civilian Population into Occupied Territory
Note: For practice relating to ethnic cleansing, see Rule 129, Section C.
Quick navigation
I. Treaties
Geneva Convention IV
Article 49, sixth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Additional Protocol I
Article 85(4)(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that “the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a grave breach of the Protocol.

ICC Statute
Under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

ICRC service

There was no transfer of population by the government. Some Israelis chose to move to area C, and there is no prohibition against that in any law.

The Rome Statute is worded differently from the Geneva Conventions, no doubt to make it apply to Israel since the Conventions do not, but neither the US nor Israel nor a third of the world's nations recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC and both countries have stated they will use whatever force is necessary to protect their citizens against any actions by the ICC, but again, there was no transfer of population by the government, and since the Rome Statute does not prohibit the movement of individuals to area C, it would be hard to argue that even the Rome Statute would apply.

You lose again. That's why it states "directly or indirectly" The Government need not be involved.

"“[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power"

Go home, you will always lose with me. LOL

 

[toomuchtime_]

Just the law. I have put you Hasbara jerk offs to the sword before. Nothing new.

Practice Relating to Rule 130. Transfer of Own Civilian Population into Occupied Territory
Note: For practice relating to ethnic cleansing, see Rule 129, Section C.
Quick navigation
I. Treaties
Geneva Convention IV
Article 49, sixth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Additional Protocol I
Article 85(4)(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that “the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” is a grave breach of the Protocol.

ICC Statute
Under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

ICRC service

There was no transfer of population by the government. Some Israelis chose to move to area C, and there is no prohibition against that in any law.

The Rome Statute is worded differently from the Geneva Conventions, no doubt to make it apply to Israel since the Conventions do not, but neither the US nor Israel nor a third of the world's nations recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC and both countries have stated they will use whatever force is necessary to protect their citizens against any actions by the ICC, but again, there was no transfer of population by the government, and since the Rome Statute does not prohibit the movement of individuals to area C, it would be hard to argue that even the Rome Statute would apply.

You lose again. That's why it states "directly or indirectly" The Government need not be involved.

"“[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power"

Go home, you will always lose with me. LOL

lol Since there is no prohibition against an individual Israeli moving to area C and since you say the government was not involved, then who committed a war crime? You would do well to stop thinking about who is winning or losing and put some effort into understanding the issues.

 

[TrueTT]

If anything, Israel has been nothing short of magnanimous with the contingent of pesky criminal Arab vagabonds called "Palestinians".

The Islamic monkeys should have been gassed with Zylon B as the corrective course of action.

So, that would your "final solution". I see that the Jewish Zionists learned well.

Not a Jew. Just a "Zionist". LOL.

Why would you want to exterminate Christians, then?

Where do I want to exterminate Christians, dipshit?

 

[cnm]

Obama's allied with ISIS, how is that working out

So is Israel.

 

[cnm]

That is exactly who was behind this resolution the neo Nazi's,

Right. Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal, Venezuela. Neo Nazis the lot of them, as well as the rest of the UNSC.

Would you like a hand with that last tricky nail as you hammer yourself to your cross?

 

[cnm]

The land of Judea is called after the Jews.

Hoho, then the land of the Palestinians must be called after them.

 

[cnm]

But there is no relevant law and the UN lacks jurisdiction in this matter, so the resolution can only be seen as anti Israeli propaganda.

Only by those determined to avoid honouring their commitments.

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law.[1][2][3][4][5] Israel maintains that they are consistent with international law[6] because it does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War.[7] The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply.[8][9]
International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia​