Palestinian animals blow up civilian bus in Jerusalem

[Hollie]

There has to be the existence of a sovereign state for it to be occupied.

It makes no difference if there was or was not a sovereign state prior to occupation. Just inhabitants matter.

For example, there was no sovereign multi-cultural ruled state of South Africa and the Algerians were ruled by the Ottomans prior to the French.

Empire is a different matter.

You should inform yourself of historical facts

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4 of the Mandate, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use.

Who is occupying Gaza, btw? The inhabitants that matter?

What is your point? The British declared about the same thing about the settlement of Ireland by the British. That the Jews were settled on the land by the British and established a colony in Palestine is not in doubt.

My question is, why would people that support Israel expect that the Palestinians would behave any differently than other people placed under similar conditions and I used as an example the Irish Catholics under the British, the Algerians under the French, the non-whites under the Boers in South Africa. We could add the Tamils of Sri Lanka as another example.

While it has nothing to do with my question, as far as Gaza is concerned, the Hostages Case at the Nuremberg Trials is precedent for the determination that the blockade, control of borders, air space and territorial sea combined with Israel's ability to re-enter Gaza at will, makes Gaza occupied.

Here is the pertinent part of the ICJ's (International Court of Justice) decision for your reference:

"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.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

Your serial cutting and pasting has been addressed both repeatedly and tediously.

You mean presenting the facts with sources. Something you know little about.

Facts are something you should familiarize yourself with.

Attempting to present Islamo-fascists / terrorists such as Hamas as a "resistance" group is laughable. The Hamas Charter speaks to gee-had (offensive war), as the means to drive the Jews into the sea and reconquer those areas muhammud (swish) claimed as an islamo-waqf

 

[Mindful]

There has to be the existence of a sovereign state for it to be occupied.

Good point. What state did Egypt and Jordan occupy between '48 and '67?

Why are the West Bank and Gaza universally called the Occupied Palestinian Territories?

It wasn't the Palestinian state, there never was one, dufus. But interesting you bring that up since the all the attacks on Israel by the Arabs were never to create this fictional Palestine. It was to destroy the Jewish state and divide the proceeds among the Arabs. And no time during these 20 years that Egyptians and Jordanians occupied the West Bank and Gaza did anybody including the so called Palestinians, mention or bring up this false "Palestine". Now why is that? It's an invented name for an invented people.

• Some Jewish settlements, such as in Hebron, existed throughout the centuries of Ottoman rule, while settlements such as Neve Ya'acov, north of Jerusalem, the Gush Etzion bloc in Judea and Samaria, the communities north of the Dead Sea and Kfar Darom in the Gaza region, were established under British Mandatory administration prior to the establishment of the State of Israel. To be sure, many Israeli settlements have been established on sites which were home to Jewish communities in previous generations, in an expression of the Jewish people's deep historic and religious connection with the land.
  
  
• For more than a thousand years, the only administration which has prohibited Jewish settlement was the Jordanian occupation administration, which during the nineteen years of its rule (1948-1967) declared the sale of land to Jews a capital offense. The right of Jews to establish homes in these areas, and the legal titles to the land which had been acquired, could not be legally invalidated by the Jordanian or Egyptian occupation which resulted from their armed invasion of Israel in 1948, and such rights and titles remain valid to this day.

From the JVR.

 

[montelatici]

I could also ask what is your point? With all these false analogies, and invented mythologies.

Could you explain how the situation of the Catholics in Ireland vis-a-vis the Protestant rulers differed materially from the situation of the Christians and Muslims in Palestine vis-a-vis the Jewish rulers?

What has been invented?

My point, rather my question was why supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians to behave differently, in terms of violence, than other people that have been in similar situations. I used the various examples of the Irish Catholics, the Algerians, the non-whites of South Africa, the Tamils and we can add the natives of Rhodesia, the Mau Mau in Kenya, etc. etc.

Nobody has answered the question. All I have gotten as an answer is that somehow, the Palestinians are not in the same situation as all those other people, yet no one can tell me why their situation is different.

There is nothing to explain. And you know it.

No comparisons, straw men, logical fallacies, and the rest of your flimsy propaganda.

Name a straw man and any logical fallacy.

What part of the question is propaganda?

It is a very simple question. Why do supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians not to behave in the same manner as other people that have been in the same situation.

 

[Roudy]

Actually, you are discussing the Israelis. Why would you expect the Israelis not to respond with force to acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists?

The Israelis have every right to respond to acts of violent resistance to their rule. That's not my question or point.

My question is why would anyone expect the Palestinians to behave any differently than the Irish Catholics via-a-vis the British, the Algerians vis-a-vis the French, the non-white South Africans vis-a-vis the Boers etc.

False analogy.

How can the analogy be false? Just saying so doesn't make it so. They are perfect analogies.

The analogy is false because the US and Western nations have designated Hamas and many other Palestinian groups who carry out such actions as terrorist.

Yet he keeps asking "why should anyone behave any differently" when a Palestinian animal commits an unconscionable act of blowing up a bus load of people. Of course it's quite strange to an antisemite, so he keeps asking, "why shouldn't Arab Muslims have the right to slaughter Jews?" Ha ha ha.

The IRA, the ANC, the FLN and the Tamil Tigers were designated as terrorist groups. Mandela was deemed a terrorist by the U.S. until recently.

Again, my question is:

Why would supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians to behave any differently than these other groups?

It has nothing to do with the slaughter of anyone, it is a simple question that no one is able to answer.

Asked and answered. Palestinians do not have a right to slaughter Jews and the Jews have the right to defend their people and their country.

Only a mentally ill antisemitic nutcase would need to be told that intentionally blowing up a busload of people is wrong on every level.

 

[Roudy]

I could also ask what is your point? With all these false analogies, and invented mythologies.

Could you explain how the situation of the Catholics in Ireland vis-a-vis the Protestant rulers differed materially from the situation of the Christians and Muslims in Palestine vis-a-vis the Jewish rulers?

What has been invented?

My point, rather my question was why supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians to behave differently, in terms of violence, than other people that have been in similar situations. I used the various examples of the Irish Catholics, the Algerians, the non-whites of South Africa, the Tamils and we can add the natives of Rhodesia, the Mau Mau in Kenya, etc. etc.

Nobody has answered the question. All I have gotten as an answer is that somehow, the Palestinians are not in the same situation as all those other people, yet no one can tell me why their situation is different.

There is nothing to explain. And you know it.

No comparisons, straw men, logical fallacies, and the rest of your flimsy propaganda.

Name a straw man and any logical fallacy.

What part of the question is propaganda?

It is a very simple question. Why do supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians not to behave in the same manner as other people that have been in the same situation.

It isn't a question. Instead of condemning an act of barbaric terror by Palestinians, you would like to call it freedom fighting. That's what all terrorist supporters do. Why should we be surprised that instead of condemning, you are very busy once again justifying the intentional murder of innocent Jewish civilians.

 

[Mindful]

I could also ask what is your point? With all these false analogies, and invented mythologies.

Could you explain how the situation of the Catholics in Ireland vis-a-vis the Protestant rulers differed materially from the situation of the Christians and Muslims in Palestine vis-a-vis the Jewish rulers?

What has been invented?

My point, rather my question was why supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians to behave differently, in terms of violence, than other people that have been in similar situations. I used the various examples of the Irish Catholics, the Algerians, the non-whites of South Africa, the Tamils and we can add the natives of Rhodesia, the Mau Mau in Kenya, etc. etc.

Nobody has answered the question. All I have gotten as an answer is that somehow, the Palestinians are not in the same situation as all those other people, yet no one can tell me why their situation is different.

There is nothing to explain. And you know it.

No comparisons, straw men, logical fallacies, and the rest of your flimsy propaganda.

Name a straw man and any logical fallacy.

What part of the question is propaganda?

It is a very simple question. Why do supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians not to behave in the same manner as other people that have been in the same situation.

You keep repeating the same non question ad nauseum. I'm not going down the rabbit hole with you.

 

[Roudy]

I could also ask what is your point? With all these false analogies, and invented mythologies.

Could you explain how the situation of the Catholics in Ireland vis-a-vis the Protestant rulers differed materially from the situation of the Christians and Muslims in Palestine vis-a-vis the Jewish rulers?

What has been invented?

My point, rather my question was why supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians to behave differently, in terms of violence, than other people that have been in similar situations. I used the various examples of the Irish Catholics, the Algerians, the non-whites of South Africa, the Tamils and we can add the natives of Rhodesia, the Mau Mau in Kenya, etc. etc.

Nobody has answered the question. All I have gotten as an answer is that somehow, the Palestinians are not in the same situation as all those other people, yet no one can tell me why their situation is different.

We understand your point, the Palestinian animals have a right to kill Jews and nobody should be surprised and be upset, because you enjoy it when Jews are killed.

 

[Hollie]

I could also ask what is your point? With all these false analogies, and invented mythologies.

Could you explain how the situation of the Catholics in Ireland vis-a-vis the Protestant rulers differed materially from the situation of the Christians and Muslims in Palestine vis-a-vis the Jewish rulers?

What has been invented?

My point, rather my question was why supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians to behave differently, in terms of violence, than other people that have been in similar situations. I used the various examples of the Irish Catholics, the Algerians, the non-whites of South Africa, the Tamils and we can add the natives of Rhodesia, the Mau Mau in Kenya, etc. etc.

Nobody has answered the question. All I have gotten as an answer is that somehow, the Palestinians are not in the same situation as all those other people, yet no one can tell me why their situation is different.

There is nothing to explain. And you know it.

No comparisons, straw men, logical fallacies, and the rest of your flimsy propaganda.

Name a straw man and any logical fallacy.

What part of the question is propaganda?

It is a very simple question. Why do supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians not to behave in the same manner as other people that have been in the same situation.

The "same situation" you falsely attempt to portray is not at all the "same situation".

It's a very simple issue that you cannot resolve.

 

[montelatici]

There has to be the existence of a sovereign state for it to be occupied.

Good point. What state did Egypt and Jordan occupy between '48 and '67?

Why are the West Bank and Gaza universally called the Occupied Palestinian Territories?

It wasn't the Palestinian state, there never was one, dufus. But interesting you bring that up since the all the attacks on Israel by the Arabs were never to create this fictional Palestine. It was to destroy the Jewish state and divide the proceeds among the Arabs. And no time during these 20 years that Egyptians and Jordanians occupied the West Bank and Gaza did anybody including the so called Palestinians, mention or bring up this false "Palestine". Now why is that? It's an invented name for an invented people.

• Some Jewish settlements, such as in Hebron, existed throughout the centuries of Ottoman rule, while settlements such as Neve Ya'acov, north of Jerusalem, the Gush Etzion bloc in Judea and Samaria, the communities north of the Dead Sea and Kfar Darom in the Gaza region, were established under British Mandatory administration prior to the establishment of the State of Israel. To be sure, many Israeli settlements have been established on sites which were home to Jewish communities in previous generations, in an expression of the Jewish people's deep historic and religious connection with the land.
  
  
• For more than a thousand years, the only administration which has prohibited Jewish settlement was the Jordanian occupation administration, which during the nineteen years of its rule (1948-1967) declared the sale of land to Jews a capital offense. The right of Jews to establish homes in these areas, and the legal titles to the land which had been acquired, could not be legally invalidated by the Jordanian or Egyptian occupation which resulted from their armed invasion of Israel in 1948, and such rights and titles remain valid to this day.

From the JVR.

What's the JVR? A neutral site? Or are you trying to hide the fact that it is the Jewish Virtual Library, which would be JVL.

In any case, it is such a bunch of propaganda it is humorous. The Latin Kingdom not only prohibited the sale of land to Jews, it prohibited Jews from entering the Kingdom, and the kingdom was only finally defeated by the Muslims 725 years ago in 1291.

 

[Roudy]

I could also ask what is your point? With all these false analogies, and invented mythologies.

Could you explain how the situation of the Catholics in Ireland vis-a-vis the Protestant rulers differed materially from the situation of the Christians and Muslims in Palestine vis-a-vis the Jewish rulers?

What has been invented?

My point, rather my question was why supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians to behave differently, in terms of violence, than other people that have been in similar situations. I used the various examples of the Irish Catholics, the Algerians, the non-whites of South Africa, the Tamils and we can add the natives of Rhodesia, the Mau Mau in Kenya, etc. etc.

Nobody has answered the question. All I have gotten as an answer is that somehow, the Palestinians are not in the same situation as all those other people, yet no one can tell me why their situation is different.

There is nothing to explain. And you know it.

No comparisons, straw men, logical fallacies, and the rest of your flimsy propaganda.

Name a straw man and any logical fallacy.

What part of the question is propaganda?

It is a very simple question. Why do supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians not to behave in the same manner as other people that have been in the same situation.

The "same situation" you falsely attempt to portray is not at all the "same situation".

It's a very simple issue that you cannot resolve.

Notice, since he's entered this thread, there hasn't been a single comment condemning this barbaric act, instead he's posted dozens of posts justifying Palestinian terrorism and falsely comparing them to heroic resistance fighters. It seems like he gets upset when anything negative is said about his terrorist heroes who go around blowing up civilian buses.

 

[montelatici]

I could also ask what is your point? With all these false analogies, and invented mythologies.

Could you explain how the situation of the Catholics in Ireland vis-a-vis the Protestant rulers differed materially from the situation of the Christians and Muslims in Palestine vis-a-vis the Jewish rulers?

What has been invented?

My point, rather my question was why supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians to behave differently, in terms of violence, than other people that have been in similar situations. I used the various examples of the Irish Catholics, the Algerians, the non-whites of South Africa, the Tamils and we can add the natives of Rhodesia, the Mau Mau in Kenya, etc. etc.

Nobody has answered the question. All I have gotten as an answer is that somehow, the Palestinians are not in the same situation as all those other people, yet no one can tell me why their situation is different.

We understand your point, the Palestinian animals have a right to kill Jews and nobody should be surprised and be upset, because you enjoy it when Jews are killed.

Have I said the Palestinians have a right to kill Jews, or the Irish Catholics the right to kill Protestants or the Algerians to kill French civilians or the non-whites to kill white civilians in South Africa? I have said that it is wrong to kill civilians.

My question does not represent a value judgement. it is a straightforward question. Why would supporters of Israel expect that the Palestinians would behave any differently than other groups that have been in similar situations.

Still, no one wants to take a stab at an answer. I don't get it.

 

[Mindful]

I could also ask what is your point? With all these false analogies, and invented mythologies.

Could you explain how the situation of the Catholics in Ireland vis-a-vis the Protestant rulers differed materially from the situation of the Christians and Muslims in Palestine vis-a-vis the Jewish rulers?

What has been invented?

My point, rather my question was why supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians to behave differently, in terms of violence, than other people that have been in similar situations. I used the various examples of the Irish Catholics, the Algerians, the non-whites of South Africa, the Tamils and we can add the natives of Rhodesia, the Mau Mau in Kenya, etc. etc.

Nobody has answered the question. All I have gotten as an answer is that somehow, the Palestinians are not in the same situation as all those other people, yet no one can tell me why their situation is different.

We understand your point, the Palestinian animals have a right to kill Jews and nobody should be surprised and be upset, because you enjoy it when Jews are killed.

Have I said the Palestinians have a right to kill Jews, or the Irish Catholics the right to kill Protestants or the Algerians to kill French civilians or the non-whites to kill white civilians in South Africa? It is wrong to do so.

My question

Empire is a different matter.

You should inform yourself of historical facts

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4 of the Mandate, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use.

Who is occupying Gaza, btw? The inhabitants that matter?

What is your point? The British declared about the same thing about the settlement of Ireland by the British. That the Jews were settled on the land by the British and established a colony in Palestine is not in doubt.

My question is, why would people that support Israel expect that the Palestinians would behave any differently than other people placed under similar conditions and I used as an example the Irish Catholics under the British, the Algerians under the French, the non-whites under the Boers in South Africa. We could add the Tamils of Sri Lanka as another example.

While it has nothing to do with my question, as far as Gaza is concerned, the Hostages Case at the Nuremberg Trials is precedent for the determination that the blockade, control of borders, air space and territorial sea combined with Israel's ability to re-enter Gaza at will, makes Gaza occupied.

Here is the pertinent part of the ICJ's (International Court of Justice) decision for your reference:

"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.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

Your serial cutting and pasting has been addressed both repeatedly and tediously.

You mean presenting the facts with sources. Something you know little about.

Facts are something you should familiarize yourself with.

Attempting to present Islamo-fascists / terrorists such as Hamas as a "resistance" group is laughable. The Hamas Charter speaks to gee-had (offensive war), as the means to drive the Jews into the sea and reconquer those areas muhammud (swish) claimed as an islamo-waqf

How are Hamas different from the IRA?

 

[Mindful]

I’ve thought often of that seminar over the years and applied what I had suddenly understood to other areas. Mahmoud Abbas is now telling the world that “we are against all forms of terrorist activity.” And so, hearing this, the left shakes their head at this amazing breakthrough; Joe Biden kisses Barack Obama and the two join John Kerry in a quick dance around the Oval Office.

Only this is not a breakthrough. There’s a fundamental flaw in this. Of course the Palestinians are against terrorism. There isn’t a person on earth who is pro-terrorism. The problem is that they do not define terrorism as we do. Even when Abbas condemns terrorism “that affect Israeli and Palestinian civilians” we aren’t speaking the same language, and this is not a reference to English versus Arabic (a whole other issue for pro-Israel activists involves simply the difference in what Abbas says in English versus Arabic).

A bus that is exploded, a family that is murdered, a rocket fired at a city – all these things are simply not terrorism in the eyes of the Palestinians when directed at Israelis. As an aside is a separate issue of the Israelis…like Christians…are just infidels, so really, everything is cool and the Koran doesn’t have a problem with them being killed off. Use any excuse you want – we’re infidels, our children grow up to be soldiers, we are “occupying” their land and so we aren’t innocent. It doesn’t make a difference – any and all excuses apply.

Until the Palestinians define terrorism as we do – targeting innocent people, unarmed people – regardless of whether they are male or female, old or young, even if they are wearing a green uniform – if you attack them on a civilian bus as they sleep, if you ram them at a bus stop…this is terrorism.

Terrorism has no justification. It isn’t about the occupation. It isn’t about economics. It is not fighting for freedom or rights. It is, pure and simple, an act intended to harm, kill, or cause terror. Abbas condemns terrorism – but does he define blowing up the US army barracks in Lebanon as terrorism? What about the attack on Israeli athletes in Munich? Was that terrorism? They were civilians…and yet Mahmoud Abbas helped plan and finance that attack.

All Palestinians Are Against Terrorism

 

[Hollie]

I could also ask what is your point? With all these false analogies, and invented mythologies.

Could you explain how the situation of the Catholics in Ireland vis-a-vis the Protestant rulers differed materially from the situation of the Christians and Muslims in Palestine vis-a-vis the Jewish rulers?

What has been invented?

My point, rather my question was why supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians to behave differently, in terms of violence, than other people that have been in similar situations. I used the various examples of the Irish Catholics, the Algerians, the non-whites of South Africa, the Tamils and we can add the natives of Rhodesia, the Mau Mau in Kenya, etc. etc.

Nobody has answered the question. All I have gotten as an answer is that somehow, the Palestinians are not in the same situation as all those other people, yet no one can tell me why their situation is different.

We understand your point, the Palestinian animals have a right to kill Jews and nobody should be surprised and be upset, because you enjoy it when Jews are killed.

Have I said the Palestinians have a right to kill Jews, or the Irish Catholics the right to kill Protestants or the Algerians to kill French civilians or the non-whites to kill white civilians in South Africa? It is wrong to do so.

My question

Empire is a different matter.

You should inform yourself of historical facts

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4 of the Mandate, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use.

Who is occupying Gaza, btw? The inhabitants that matter?

What is your point? The British declared about the same thing about the settlement of Ireland by the British. That the Jews were settled on the land by the British and established a colony in Palestine is not in doubt.

My question is, why would people that support Israel expect that the Palestinians would behave any differently than other people placed under similar conditions and I used as an example the Irish Catholics under the British, the Algerians under the French, the non-whites under the Boers in South Africa. We could add the Tamils of Sri Lanka as another example.

While it has nothing to do with my question, as far as Gaza is concerned, the Hostages Case at the Nuremberg Trials is precedent for the determination that the blockade, control of borders, air space and territorial sea combined with Israel's ability to re-enter Gaza at will, makes Gaza occupied.

Here is the pertinent part of the ICJ's (International Court of Justice) decision for your reference:

"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.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

Your serial cutting and pasting has been addressed both repeatedly and tediously.

You mean presenting the facts with sources. Something you know little about.

Facts are something you should familiarize yourself with.

Attempting to present Islamo-fascists / terrorists such as Hamas as a "resistance" group is laughable. The Hamas Charter speaks to gee-had (offensive war), as the means to drive the Jews into the sea and reconquer those areas muhammud (swish) claimed as an islamo-waqf

How are Hamas different from the IRA?

Read the Hamas Charter for that ideological perspective.

 

[montelatici]

I could also ask what is your point? With all these false analogies, and invented mythologies.

Could you explain how the situation of the Catholics in Ireland vis-a-vis the Protestant rulers differed materially from the situation of the Christians and Muslims in Palestine vis-a-vis the Jewish rulers?

What has been invented?

My point, rather my question was why supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians to behave differently, in terms of violence, than other people that have been in similar situations. I used the various examples of the Irish Catholics, the Algerians, the non-whites of South Africa, the Tamils and we can add the natives of Rhodesia, the Mau Mau in Kenya, etc. etc.

Nobody has answered the question. All I have gotten as an answer is that somehow, the Palestinians are not in the same situation as all those other people, yet no one can tell me why their situation is different.

There is nothing to explain. And you know it.

No comparisons, straw men, logical fallacies, and the rest of your flimsy propaganda.

Name a straw man and any logical fallacy.

What part of the question is propaganda?

It is a very simple question. Why do supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians not to behave in the same manner as other people that have been in the same situation.

The "same situation" you falsely attempt to portray is not at all the "same situation".

It's a very simple issue that you cannot resolve.

Notice, since he's entered this thread, there hasn't been a single comment condemning this barbaric act, instead he's posted dozens of posts justifying Palestinian terrorism and falsely comparing them to heroic resistance fighters. It seems like he gets upset when anything negative is said about his terrorist heroes who go around blowing up civilian buses.

It is barbarous act to put a bomb on a bus carrying civilians. But, that's not the point with respect to my question. The IRA, the FLN, the ANC and the Tamils did as much and worse, so it is not unusual.

My question is why would supporters of Israel expect that the Palestinians would not mimic the behavior of those other groups.

 

[Roudy]

I could also ask what is your point? With all these false analogies, and invented mythologies.

Could you explain how the situation of the Catholics in Ireland vis-a-vis the Protestant rulers differed materially from the situation of the Christians and Muslims in Palestine vis-a-vis the Jewish rulers?

What has been invented?

My point, rather my question was why supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians to behave differently, in terms of violence, than other people that have been in similar situations. I used the various examples of the Irish Catholics, the Algerians, the non-whites of South Africa, the Tamils and we can add the natives of Rhodesia, the Mau Mau in Kenya, etc. etc.

Nobody has answered the question. All I have gotten as an answer is that somehow, the Palestinians are not in the same situation as all those other people, yet no one can tell me why their situation is different.

We understand your point, the Palestinian animals have a right to kill Jews and nobody should be surprised and be upset, because you enjoy it when Jews are killed.

Have I said the Palestinians have a right to kill Jews, or the Irish Catholics the right to kill Protestants or the Algerians to kill French civilians or the non-whites to kill white civilians in South Africa? It is wrong to do so.

My question

Empire is a different matter.

You should inform yourself of historical facts

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4 of the Mandate, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use.

Who is occupying Gaza, btw? The inhabitants that matter?

What is your point? The British declared about the same thing about the settlement of Ireland by the British. That the Jews were settled on the land by the British and established a colony in Palestine is not in doubt.

My question is, why would people that support Israel expect that the Palestinians would behave any differently than other people placed under similar conditions and I used as an example the Irish Catholics under the British, the Algerians under the French, the non-whites under the Boers in South Africa. We could add the Tamils of Sri Lanka as another example.

While it has nothing to do with my question, as far as Gaza is concerned, the Hostages Case at the Nuremberg Trials is precedent for the determination that the blockade, control of borders, air space and territorial sea combined with Israel's ability to re-enter Gaza at will, makes Gaza occupied.

Here is the pertinent part of the ICJ's (International Court of Justice) decision for your reference:

"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.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

Your serial cutting and pasting has been addressed both repeatedly and tediously.

You mean presenting the facts with sources. Something you know little about.

Facts are something you should familiarize yourself with.

Attempting to present Islamo-fascists / terrorists such as Hamas as a "resistance" group is laughable. The Hamas Charter speaks to gee-had (offensive war), as the means to drive the Jews into the sea and reconquer those areas muhammud (swish) claimed as an islamo-waqf

How are Hamas different from the IRA?

Hamas and ISIS are exactly the same Islamic movement by Arab Muslim savages who want to establish an Islamic Caliphate in the geographical area they are on. They go around committing these kinds of barbaric acts in achieving their goal.

 

[Roudy]

Could you explain how the situation of the Catholics in Ireland vis-a-vis the Protestant rulers differed materially from the situation of the Christians and Muslims in Palestine vis-a-vis the Jewish rulers?

What has been invented?

My point, rather my question was why supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians to behave differently, in terms of violence, than other people that have been in similar situations. I used the various examples of the Irish Catholics, the Algerians, the non-whites of South Africa, the Tamils and we can add the natives of Rhodesia, the Mau Mau in Kenya, etc. etc.

Nobody has answered the question. All I have gotten as an answer is that somehow, the Palestinians are not in the same situation as all those other people, yet no one can tell me why their situation is different.

There is nothing to explain. And you know it.

No comparisons, straw men, logical fallacies, and the rest of your flimsy propaganda.

Name a straw man and any logical fallacy.

What part of the question is propaganda?

It is a very simple question. Why do supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians not to behave in the same manner as other people that have been in the same situation.

The "same situation" you falsely attempt to portray is not at all the "same situation".

It's a very simple issue that you cannot resolve.

Notice, since he's entered this thread, there hasn't been a single comment condemning this barbaric act, instead he's posted dozens of posts justifying Palestinian terrorism and falsely comparing them to heroic resistance fighters. It seems like he gets upset when anything negative is said about his terrorist heroes who go around blowing up civilian buses.

It is barbarous act to put a bomb on a bus carrying civilians. But, that's not the point with respect to my question. The IRA, the FLN, the ANC and the Tamils did as much and worse, so it is not unusual.

My question is why would supporters of Israel expect that the Palestinians would not mimic the behavior of those other groups.

Barbaric acts are barbarous acts and you are rooting for the side that likes to slaughter Jews, portraying them as heros and resistance fighters. Which isn't unusual for an antisemite.

Why do you expect Israel to behave any differently than the US or any other country that is charged with protecting and defending its people?

 

[Mindful]

Could you explain how the situation of the Catholics in Ireland vis-a-vis the Protestant rulers differed materially from the situation of the Christians and Muslims in Palestine vis-a-vis the Jewish rulers?

What has been invented?

My point, rather my question was why supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians to behave differently, in terms of violence, than other people that have been in similar situations. I used the various examples of the Irish Catholics, the Algerians, the non-whites of South Africa, the Tamils and we can add the natives of Rhodesia, the Mau Mau in Kenya, etc. etc.

Nobody has answered the question. All I have gotten as an answer is that somehow, the Palestinians are not in the same situation as all those other people, yet no one can tell me why their situation is different.

There is nothing to explain. And you know it.

No comparisons, straw men, logical fallacies, and the rest of your flimsy propaganda.

Name a straw man and any logical fallacy.

What part of the question is propaganda?

It is a very simple question. Why do supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians not to behave in the same manner as other people that have been in the same situation.

The "same situation" you falsely attempt to portray is not at all the "same situation".

It's a very simple issue that you cannot resolve.

Notice, since he's entered this thread, there hasn't been a single comment condemning this barbaric act, instead he's posted dozens of posts justifying Palestinian terrorism and falsely comparing them to heroic resistance fighters. It seems like he gets upset when anything negative is said about his terrorist heroes who go around blowing up civilian buses.

It is barbarous act to put a bomb on a bus carrying civilians. But, that's not the point with respect to my question. The IRA, the FLN, the ANC and the Tamils did as much and worse, so it is not unusual.

My question is why would supporters of Israel expect that the Palestinians would not mimic the behavior of those other groups.

No one expects anything from the Palestinians.

And the IRA have nothing to do with this issue.


Is there an issue?

 

[Hollie]

I could also ask what is your point? With all these false analogies, and invented mythologies.

Could you explain how the situation of the Catholics in Ireland vis-a-vis the Protestant rulers differed materially from the situation of the Christians and Muslims in Palestine vis-a-vis the Jewish rulers?

What has been invented?

My point, rather my question was why supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians to behave differently, in terms of violence, than other people that have been in similar situations. I used the various examples of the Irish Catholics, the Algerians, the non-whites of South Africa, the Tamils and we can add the natives of Rhodesia, the Mau Mau in Kenya, etc. etc.

Nobody has answered the question. All I have gotten as an answer is that somehow, the Palestinians are not in the same situation as all those other people, yet no one can tell me why their situation is different.

We understand your point, the Palestinian animals have a right to kill Jews and nobody should be surprised and be upset, because you enjoy it when Jews are killed.

Have I said the Palestinians have a right to kill Jews, or the Irish Catholics the right to kill Protestants or the Algerians to kill French civilians or the non-whites to kill white civilians in South Africa? I have said that it is wrong to kill civilians.

My question does not represent a value judgement. it is a straightforward question. Why would supporters of Israel expect that the Palestinians would behave any differently than other groups that have been in similar situations.

Still, no one wants to take a stab at an answer. I don't get it.

Correct. You don't get it.

You choose to ignore the many responses you have been given because cutting and pasting the same nonsense over and over relieves you of the burdensome task of actually addressing those responses.

 

[montelatici]

I could also ask what is your point? With all these false analogies, and invented mythologies.

Could you explain how the situation of the Catholics in Ireland vis-a-vis the Protestant rulers differed materially from the situation of the Christians and Muslims in Palestine vis-a-vis the Jewish rulers?

What has been invented?

My point, rather my question was why supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians to behave differently, in terms of violence, than other people that have been in similar situations. I used the various examples of the Irish Catholics, the Algerians, the non-whites of South Africa, the Tamils and we can add the natives of Rhodesia, the Mau Mau in Kenya, etc. etc.

Nobody has answered the question. All I have gotten as an answer is that somehow, the Palestinians are not in the same situation as all those other people, yet no one can tell me why their situation is different.

We understand your point, the Palestinian animals have a right to kill Jews and nobody should be surprised and be upset, because you enjoy it when Jews are killed.

Have I said the Palestinians have a right to kill Jews, or the Irish Catholics the right to kill Protestants or the Algerians to kill French civilians or the non-whites to kill white civilians in South Africa? It is wrong to do so.

My question

What is your point? The British declared about the same thing about the settlement of Ireland by the British. That the Jews were settled on the land by the British and established a colony in Palestine is not in doubt.

My question is, why would people that support Israel expect that the Palestinians would behave any differently than other people placed under similar conditions and I used as an example the Irish Catholics under the British, the Algerians under the French, the non-whites under the Boers in South Africa. We could add the Tamils of Sri Lanka as another example.

While it has nothing to do with my question, as far as Gaza is concerned, the Hostages Case at the Nuremberg Trials is precedent for the determination that the blockade, control of borders, air space and territorial sea combined with Israel's ability to re-enter Gaza at will, makes Gaza occupied.

Here is the pertinent part of the ICJ's (International Court of Justice) decision for your reference:

"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.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

Your serial cutting and pasting has been addressed both repeatedly and tediously.

You mean presenting the facts with sources. Something you know little about.

Facts are something you should familiarize yourself with.

Attempting to present Islamo-fascists / terrorists such as Hamas as a "resistance" group is laughable. The Hamas Charter speaks to gee-had (offensive war), as the means to drive the Jews into the sea and reconquer those areas muhammud (swish) claimed as an islamo-waqf

How are Hamas different from the IRA?

Read the Hamas Charter for that ideological perspective.

I don't see much difference between the IRA, the FLN, the Tamils or the ANC and the Palestinian resistance. What would be the difference in your mind?

There is no such thing as the Hamas Charter, it is a Hasbara invention. There is a Hamas Covenant which was issued in 1988 here is a link to the Yale Law library which has the document in its archives. What part of the Covenant are you referring to? I have read it all, but something tells me you haven't.

In any case it is not much different than the Likud, Tehiya and other right-wing Israeli party platforms which call for collective punishment, the "Jewishfication" of all of Palestine, etc.