Third Intifada Simmering in Jerusalem: Who's to Blame?

[Phoenall]

It is actually Israel's move. Either they continue the occupation or withdraw from the occupied territories and remove the blockade. The Palestinians can do no more than resist the occupation.

SInce it appears that Israel has no intention of relinquishing control over the non-Jewish population under its control, there is nothing to do but wait until the demographic situation becomes such that even the U.S. cannot support the continuation of the occupation/oppression and will have to insist on the enfranchisement of all the people under Israeli control.

And in resisting they cant complain when they are killed for their war crimes and crimes against humanity. And you are in no position to talk being a violent invading coloniser yourself.

 

[Shusha]

It is actually Israel's move. Either they continue the occupation or withdraw from the occupied territories and remove the blockade. The Palestinians can do no more than resist the occupation.

There is no occupation of Gaza. Israel has withdrawn entirely from Gaza.

The cause of the blockade is the indiscriminate attacks on Israel's civilians. And the obvious solution is to stop attacking Israel's civilians. It is ridiculous to claim that the government of Gaza and the people of Gaza have no other choice but to commit crimes against innocent civilians.

If the people and the government of Gaza want peace and independance and sovereignty in Gaza all they have to do is stop attacking Israel. Start building their internal infrastructure. Make a peace treaty. Easy peasy.

 

[montelatici]

Gaza is under de facto and de juris occupation. It is an Israeli concentration camp. The Gazans have every right under international law to resist the occupation by all available means.

United Nations
A/RES/37/43

General Assembly
Distr. GENERAL

3 December 1982

ORIGINAL:
ENGLISH

A/RES/37/43
3 December 1982


"2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

 

[Hollie]

Gaza is under de facto and de juris occupation. It is an Israeli concentration camp. The Gazans have every right under international law to resist the occupation by all available means.

United Nations
A/RES/37/43

​

General Assembly
Distr. GENERAL

3 December 1982

ORIGINAL:
ENGLISH

A/RES/37/43
3 December 1982


"2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

The above little snippet has been cut and pasted by the Islamic terrorist huggers more times than I can recall. What you cut and pasters don't comprehend is that it does not give Islamic terrorists an open-ended allowance for murder.

https://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-04.htm

Importantly, it's more than just a little absurd to suggest that Islamic terrorists are at all concerned with any "realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights".

You should do a search for the text of the Hamas Charter and study the effects that the various Islamic terrorist franchises have had on Gaza. There's no case to be made for Islamic terrorists being in any way connected with "observance of human rights". Islamic terrorists are themselves the oppressors.

 

[Shusha]

Gaza is under de facto and de juris occupation. It is an Israeli concentration camp. The Gazans have every right under international law to resist the occupation by all available means.

...

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;

1. No. No. No. The Gazans do NOT have every right to "resist the occupation by all available means". Criminal acts such as indiscriminate attacks against civilian non-combatants are illegal under every circumstance.

2. A blockade and an occupation are two different things in law. A territory can be blockaded and not be under occupation.

A territory is considered under occupation when it is actually placed under the authority of a hostile army, when the occupying power has control within the territory and when the occupying power has control over the day to day governing of the territory (indeed an occupying power is obligated to do so).

The European Court of Human Rights concurs and explains:

Article 42 of the Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (hereafter “the 1907 Hague Regulations”) defines belligerent occupation as follows:

“Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

Accordingly, occupation within the meaning of the 1907 Hague Regulations exists when a state exercises actual authority over the territory, or part of the territory, of an enemy state(1) . The requirement of actual authority is widely considered to be synonymous to that of effective control.

Military occupation is considered to exist in a territory, or part of a territory, if the following elements can be demonstrated: the presence of foreign troops, which are in a position to exercise effective control without the consent of the sovereign. According to widespread expert opinion physical presence of foreign troops is a sine qua non requirement of occupation(2) , i.e. occupation is not conceivable without “boots on the ground” therefore forces exercising naval or air control through a naval or air blockade do not suffice(3) . (emphasis mine)

The patrol of borders, air-space, naval access do not create an occupation. None of the requirements for occupation exist in Gaza and thus, Israel can not be said to occupy Gaza.

3. I believe in the absolute, inherent, human right to independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation. I am the one supporting that. I am the one saying that BOTH the Jewish people and the Palestinian people have that right. You, on the other hand, are giving that right to only one side and are denying it to the other.

4. Gazans ALREADY have independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and occupation. Belligerent and illegal attacks do not serve to grant, improve or protect those rights. On the contrary, belligerent attacks against Israel serve only to create an entirely legitimate and legal obligation on Israel to protect its citizens. Cessation of belligerent and illegal attacks will ensure the continued ability of the Gazan people to self-govern and create an economically prosperous State.

5. Gazans are not fighting for their rights to the above-named things. They are fighting AGAINST the rights of the Jewish people to have those very same things.

 

[Billo_Really]

No; You Stupid ****. The Arabs INITIATED the 67 War and Israel isn't going to give in to ALL Demands. That puts the blame on the Palestinians !!

The '67 war started when Israel rolled their tanks into Egypt. Stop being such a *****! Embrace the horror. As far as demands go, there ain't any. Israel needs to end the occupation and obey international law. That is its only option. Israel either does that voluntarily, or it will eventually be forced to.

And as far as who's to blame for a 3rd intifada, of coarse its Israel. You can't treat an entire population like garbage for a half century and not have a major uprising. Israel has no right denying the Palestinian's their civil rights. That's what is causing all the violence.

 

[Billo_Really]

1. No. No. No. The Gazans do NOT have every right to "resist the occupation by all available means". Criminal acts such as indiscriminate attacks against civilian non-combatants are illegal under every circumstance.

2. A blockade and an occupation are two different things in law. A territory can be blockaded and not be under occupation.

A territory is considered under occupation when it is actually placed under the authority of a hostile army, when the occupying power has control within the territory and when the occupying power has control over the day to day governing of the territory (indeed an occupying power is obligated to do so).

The European Court of Human Rights concurs and explains:

Article 42 of the Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (hereafter “the 1907 Hague Regulations”) defines belligerent occupation as follows:

“Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

Accordingly, occupation within the meaning of the 1907 Hague Regulations exists when a state exercises actual authority over the territory, or part of the territory, of an enemy state(1) . The requirement of actual authority is widely considered to be synonymous to that of effective control.

Military occupation is considered to exist in a territory, or part of a territory, if the following elements can be demonstrated: the presence of foreign troops, which are in a position to exercise effective control without the consent of the sovereign. According to widespread expert opinion physical presence of foreign troops is a sine qua non requirement of occupation(2) , i.e. occupation is not conceivable without “boots on the ground” therefore forces exercising naval or air control through a naval or air blockade do not suffice(3) . (emphasis mine)

The patrol of borders, air-space, naval access do not create an occupation. None of the requirements for occupation exist in Gaza and thus, Israel can not be said to occupy Gaza.

3. I believe in the absolute, inherent, human right to independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation. I am the one supporting that. I am the one saying that BOTH the Jewish people and the Palestinian people have that right. You, on the other hand, are giving that right to only one side and are denying it to the other.

4. Gazans ALREADY have independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and occupation. Belligerent and illegal attacks do not serve to grant, improve or protect those rights. On the contrary, belligerent attacks against Israel serve only to create an entirely legitimate and legal obligation on Israel to protect its citizens. Cessation of belligerent and illegal attacks will ensure the continued ability of the Gazan people to self-govern and create an economically prosperous State.

5. Gazans are not fighting for their rights to the above-named things. They are fighting AGAINST the rights of the Jewish people to have those very same things.

If a State has "effective control" over an area, that satisfies the law of occupation.

Under IHL, there is occupation when a State exercises an unconsented-to effective control over a territory on which it has no sovereign title.​

 

[Shusha]

If a State has "effective control" over an area, that satisfies the law of occupation.

Under IHL, there is occupation when a State exercises an unconsented-to effective control over a territory on which it has no sovereign title.​

1. Israel has no effective control over the territory of Gaza (see previous post -- no army, no control, no governing ability).
2. Blockades do not fulfill the requirements for occupation.
3. Israel has sovereign title.


Ergo, Israel is not an occupying power in Gaza.

 

[Humanity]

If a State has "effective control" over an area, that satisfies the law of occupation.

Under IHL, there is occupation when a State exercises an unconsented-to effective control over a territory on which it has no sovereign title.​

1. Israel has no effective control over the territory of Gaza (see previous post -- no army, no control, no governing ability).
2. Blockades do not fulfill the requirements for occupation.
3. Israel has sovereign title.


Ergo, Israel is not an occupying power in Gaza.

The UNSC and UNGA consider Gaza as being occupied by Israel...

Israel controls Gazan sea and air, controls borders, makes regular incursions into Gaza...

Sounds like occupation to me!

 

[Billo_Really]

1. Israel has no effective control over the territory of Gaza (see previous post -- no army, no control, no governing ability).
2. Blockades do not fulfill the requirements for occupation.
3. Israel has sovereign title.


Ergo, Israel is not an occupying power in Gaza.

If Israel has no effective control over the area, then why can't Gazan's leave? Why can't they fish, without getting shot at? Why can't they farm, without getting shot at?

This is the kind of shit that causes an uprising. Or 3rd intifada.

 

[montelatici]

Gaza is under de facto and de juris occupation. It is an Israeli concentration camp. The Gazans have every right under international law to resist the occupation by all available means.

...

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;

1. No. No. No. The Gazans do NOT have every right to "resist the occupation by all available means". Criminal acts such as indiscriminate attacks against civilian non-combatants are illegal under every circumstance.

2. A blockade and an occupation are two different things in law. A territory can be blockaded and not be under occupation.

A territory is considered under occupation when it is actually placed under the authority of a hostile army, when the occupying power has control within the territory and when the occupying power has control over the day to day governing of the territory (indeed an occupying power is obligated to do so).

The European Court of Human Rights concurs and explains:

Article 42 of the Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (hereafter “the 1907 Hague Regulations”) defines belligerent occupation as follows:

“Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

Accordingly, occupation within the meaning of the 1907 Hague Regulations exists when a state exercises actual authority over the territory, or part of the territory, of an enemy state(1) . The requirement of actual authority is widely considered to be synonymous to that of effective control.

Military occupation is considered to exist in a territory, or part of a territory, if the following elements can be demonstrated: the presence of foreign troops, which are in a position to exercise effective control without the consent of the sovereign. According to widespread expert opinion physical presence of foreign troops is a sine qua non requirement of occupation(2) , i.e. occupation is not conceivable without “boots on the ground” therefore forces exercising naval or air control through a naval or air blockade do not suffice(3) . (emphasis mine)

The patrol of borders, air-space, naval access do not create an occupation. None of the requirements for occupation exist in Gaza and thus, Israel can not be said to occupy Gaza.

3. I believe in the absolute, inherent, human right to independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation. I am the one supporting that. I am the one saying that BOTH the Jewish people and the Palestinian people have that right. You, on the other hand, are giving that right to only one side and are denying it to the other.

4. Gazans ALREADY have independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and occupation. Belligerent and illegal attacks do not serve to grant, improve or protect those rights. On the contrary, belligerent attacks against Israel serve only to create an entirely legitimate and legal obligation on Israel to protect its citizens. Cessation of belligerent and illegal attacks will ensure the continued ability of the Gazan people to self-govern and create an economically prosperous State.

5. Gazans are not fighting for their rights to the above-named things. They are fighting AGAINST the rights of the Jewish people to have those very same things.

"All available means" is very clear. You can stamp your feet and wail, but the words are clear.

You can make things up and post from propaganda sites but the law is clear, Gaza is occupied. The ICJ has already ruled on that.

 

[Billo_Really]

Trapped in Gaza: The Faces Behind the Blockade of the Strip
From a U.S. resident who came for his father's funeral and isn't allowed home, to a rights activist unable to attend conferences, Haaretz speaks to five Gazans who can't leave.

Mohammed Naim Shahada, a resident of the Gaza Strip who lost his legs in last summer’s Operation Protective Edge, has been waiting since then to go to a Bethehem Hospital and get prosthetic legs. Israeli authorities won’t let the 27-year-old father of three make the trip, though, telling Haaretz this is due to unspecified security reasons.​

That's just fucked! "...unspecified security reasons", **** you Israel.

Samir Mustafa, 55 arrived from the United States for a funeral in January, and has not been able to leave since. Mustafa immigrated to the United States 35 years ago and has U.S. citizenship. He lives in Maryland with his wife and their five children. In January this year he traveled to Gaza through the Rafah crossing to attend a family member’s funeral, and has not been able to leave.​

It's the same bullshit in East Jerusalem and Palestinian youths are sick of this shit. This is mean. This is just plain mean.

Fida Argelawi, 32 Israel refuses to allow her to pursue a master’s degree in the West Bank.
​

If Gaza wasn't occupied, these people would be able to leave.

 

[Shusha]

"All available means" is very clear. You can stamp your feet and wail, but the words are clear.

Wait. So let me be sure I understand what you are saying here. Your claim is that it is impossible for Gazans to commit war crimes because they are permitted to use "all available means" up to and including things which are clearly in violation of IHL?

 

[Shusha]

If Gaza wasn't occupied, these people would be able to leave.

So your claim is that Egypt also occupies Gaza? Since it also controls a border with Gaza?

If I'm not allowed to leave Canada to enter the US, does that mean the US occupies Canada? There is no requirement in international law to allow entry of foreign nationals into your State. In fact, border control is a normal part of every nation in the world. No citizen of any country in the world has an inherent right to cross a border into another country.

Even so, the purpose of the strict control of entry into Israel at the border with Gaza is for security. The cause of the security concerns are the belligerent actions of the Gazans. No belligerent actions, no security issues. Easy peasy.

 

[Shusha]

Israel controls Gazan sea and air, controls borders, makes regular incursions into Gaza...

Sounds like occupation to me!

Only because you are not listening to the law. Air and naval blockades do not constitute an occupation. And EVERY country controls its borders.

 

[aris2chat]

"All available means" is very clear. You can stamp your feet and wail, but the words are clear.

Wait. So let me be sure I understand what you are saying here. Your claim is that it is impossible for Gazans to commit war crimes because they are permitted to use "all available means" up to and including things which are clearly in violation of IHL?

You will be surprised by the mentality of other posters.
Have fun trying to figure them out

 

[Shusha]

If Israel has no effective control over the area, then why can't Gazan's leave? Why can't they fish, without getting shot at? Why can't they farm, without getting shot at?

This is the kind of shit that causes an uprising. Or 3rd intifada.

No citizen has a right to cross a border into another country without the permission of that country. SOP for every country in the world.

They can fish. And farm. To say otherwise is just creating falsehoods in order to demonize Israel. What they can't do is approach "no-go" zones which serve to protect Israel from belligerent behavior.

And, again.... If the Gazans would just stop attacking Israel and make a peace treaty with Israel then all the problems which arise from the attacks will cease.

Why is it, do you think, that the Gazans don't just stop attacking Israel? What is their aim with these attacks? What are they hoping to accomplish?

 

[Hollie]

There's not going to be Intifada 3 - The Next Islamic Terrorist Beatdown. As the relevant first world continues to be concerned with the business of earning a living, Moslems worldwide will continue to keep themselves occupied by demonstrating angrily at whatever is their grievance of the day, spurring one another to violence, (usually against one-another), burning embassies, killing people over a set of cartoons, being beheaded, burned, tortured, shot and dismembered by the their fellow wingnuts.... whatever. The "elected" government of Iran has declared its intention to pursue nuclear weaponry with which to destroy Israel, and the "elected" government of the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip have declared that it will never recognize Israel -- further, those islamic terrorist franchises are encouraging and promoting the murders of Israeli citizens at an accelerated pace.

However, the Pal'istanian terrorists have once again been met with a determined Israeli resolve to deal with whatever form of retrograde islamist ideology that promotes murder and mayhem.

What's missing more and more is any association with Pal'istanian terrorists by neighboring Arab nations. None of them have any real interest in being associated with the serial welfare cheats who are nothing but a financial and political burden.

The islamic terrorist Pal'istanians continue to die as a result of their actions, their ravening hatred fueled by ceaseless streams of "teaching" in mosques and madrassas that girdle the globe. Such enemies cannot be appeased. There's no way to negotiate with someone whose unwavering aim is your enslavement or death.

 

[montelatici]

Israel controls Gazan sea and air, controls borders, makes regular incursions into Gaza...

Sounds like occupation to me!

Only because you are not listening to the law. Air and naval blockades do not constitute an occupation. And EVERY country controls its borders.

It is you that is not "listening to the law". The ICJ (International Court of Justice) has already determined that Gaza continues to be occupied. It is settled law. No sense beating a dead horse, sport.

ICJ determination:

"26. The Occupied Palestinian Territory is comprised of the West Bank, including East-Jerusalem and the Gaza strip. The Government of Israel adopts the position that since it withdrew its troops and settlers from Gaza in 2005 during the “disengagement,” it no longer has effective control over what happens in Gaza and thus can no longer be considered as an occupying power under international law. The commission agrees that the exercise of ‘effective control’ test is the correct standard to use in determining whether a State is the occupying power over a given territory, but notes that the continuous presence of soldiers on the ground is only one criterion to be used in determining effective control.

27. International law does not require the continuous presence of troops of the occupying forces in all areas of a territory, in order for it to be considered as being occupied. In the Naletelic case, the ICTY held that the law of occupation also applies in areas where a state possesses the “capacity to send troops within a reasonable time to make its power felt.” The size of Gaza and the fact that it is almost completely surrounded by Israel facilitates the ability for Israel to make its presence felt. This principle was confirmed by the United States Military Tribunal at Nuremberg which stated: "It is clear that the German Armed Forces were able to maintain control of Greece and Yugoslavia until they evacuated them in the fall of 1944. While it is true that the partisans were able to control sections of these countries at various times, it is established that the Germans could at any time they desired assume physical control of any part of the country. The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and not such as would deprive the German Armed Forces of its status of an occupant."

 

[Humanity]

Israel controls Gazan sea and air, controls borders, makes regular incursions into Gaza...

Sounds like occupation to me!

Only because you are not listening to the law. Air and naval blockades do not constitute an occupation. And EVERY country controls its borders.

A typical zionut retourt....

UNSC and UNGA PLUS humanitarian organisations and several countries consider Gaza still occupied...

Not every country controls it borders... Gaza for example!