« First « Previous Comments 143 - 182 of 229 Next » Last » Search these comments
[Gaza] "Wasn't neither seized nor controlled by Israeli military after 2005 withdrawal."
Eric Holder says
[Gaza] "Wasn't neither seized nor controlled by Israeli military after 2005 withdrawal."
You are spouting nonsense.
1. Gaza is not an independent state. If it is, why don't you say so? Hello?
2. Gaza is occupied and controlled by Israel.
Give it a rest. You are posting fake news and propaganda.
1. What is occupation?
Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a " 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. "
According to their common Article 2, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 apply to any territory occupied during international hostilities. They also apply in situations where the occupation of state territory meets with no armed resistance.
The legality of any particular occupation is regulated by the UN Charter and the law known as jus ad bellum. Once a situation exists which factually amounts to an occupation the law of occupation applies – whether or not the occupation is considered lawful.
Therefore, for the applicability of the law of occupation, it makes no difference whether an occupation has received Security Council approval, what its aim is, or indeed whether it is called an “invasion”, “liberation”, “administration” or “occupation”. As the law of occupation is primarily motivated by humanitarian considerations, it is solely the facts on the ground that determine its application.
2. When does the law of occupation start to apply?
The rules of international humanitarian law relevant to occupied territori es become applicable whenever territory comes under the effective control of hostile foreign armed forces, even if the occupation meets no armed resistance and there is no fighting.
The question of " control " calls up at least two different interpretations. It could be taken to mean that a situation of occupation exists whenever a party to a conflict exercises some level of authority or control within foreign territory. So, for example, advancing troops could be considered bound by the law of occupation already during the invasion phase of hostilities. This is the approach suggested in the ICRC's Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention (1958).
An alternative and more restrictive approach would be to say that a situation of occupation exists only once a party to a conflict is in a position to exercise sufficient authority over enemy territory to enable it to discharge all of the duties imposed by the law of occupation. This approach is adopted by a number of military manuals.
"Dude, lay off thr personal crap."
RWSGFY says
"Dude, lay off thr personal crap."
Stop changing the subject and answer the question!
If Gaza is an independent state then why don't you say so? Changing the subject is not an answer
The fact remains that Gaza is not an independent state and it is occupied by Israel.
PS. Words have meanings. I'm sick and tired of fucking libs constantly trying to redefine fucking words!
Occupied by which definition?
Wasn't neither seized nor controlled by Israeli military after 2005 withdrawal.
If you control the electricity, water, and entry and exit for a region, you control the region. Gaza has more in common with a prison than a country.
Gaza has more in common with a prison than a country.
"I've answered the question many times: Gaza is not independent state..."
"Even citing George fucking Galloway!"
2. Netanyahu was facing riots against his rule. That ended with the attack.
3. Israel needed an excuse to go in to the Gaza Strip because natural gas has been found just offshore.
It is inconceivable that Israeli gubbermint did not know. What is not clear to me is why the intelligence was ignored.
Pretty amazing prediction. Alex says he did it by reading various political reports.
« First « Previous Comments 143 - 182 of 229 Next » Last » Search these comments
I expect it was allowed to happen to distract everyone from other issues (like the death of 8 year old Israeli toxxine poster boy Yonatan Erlichman from a heart attack) and to provide justification for stomping on Gaza.
Not that Hamas isn't guilty. The murder of random civilians for political reasons is the very definition of terrorism. Hamas must be wiped out.