How Hamas Uses Brutality to Maintain Power

[Uwauwa]

You are ignorant.

Statement by the UN Rapporteur on Israel and Palestine.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1788472810106413524

The tweet you quoted is from May this year and does not address my question. The re-occupation of Gaza did take place, following the October 7 massacre in Israel.
However, the question is about the lengthy period of time preceding October 7 2023, during which Israel was not present in Gaza. How that is an occupation? And both Egypt and Israel have implemented travel and import restrictions on Gaza, not just Israel - why Egypt’s actions don’t count?

Besides, just because a UN person proclaimed something does not make it reasonable and credible.

 

[Frankfooter]

The tweet you quoted is from May this year and does not address my question. The re-occupation of Gaza did take place, following the October 7 massacre in Israel.
However, the question is about the lengthy period of time preceding October 7 2023, during which Israel was not present in Gaza. How that is an occupation? And both Egypt and Israel have implemented travel and import restrictions on Gaza, not just Israel - why Egypt’s actions don’t count?

Besides, just because a UN person proclaimed something does not make it reasonable and credible.

Are you really trying to declare that Gaza was its own independent country before Oct 7?
That's idiotic.

The UN has clearly stated that all of Palestine, which includes Gaza, is under military occupation.
The ICJ just ruled that the occupation of Palestine, including Gaza, is illegal. Those charges were started before Oct 7.

Israel occupied Gaza by controlling its borders and running it like a giant concentration camp.
They've now turned it into a death camp.

Read the ruling and stop posting from ignorance.

Loading…

www.icj-cij.org

 

[Frankfooter]

Besides, just because a UN person proclaimed something does not make it reasonable and credible.

Yes, the UN and ICJ represent the highest rulings on international law and human rights on this planet.

Do you really think 124 countries ordering Israel to end the occupation of Palestine doesn't include Gaza?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1836426106896785428

 

[Uwauwa]

Are you really trying to declare that Gaza was its own independent country before Oct 7?

No. I am just asking:
why you believe that Gaza was occupied by Israel at all times, while in reality Israel withdrew forces and settlers from Gaza in 2005.
And why you ignore the fact that Egypt too borders with Gaza and they too implemented travel and customs restrictions, not just Israel.

Read the ruling and stop posting from ignorance.

Loading…

www.icj-cij.org

Thank you for the link. Per page 8, "the Court considers that Israel remained capable of exercising, and continued to exercise, certain key elements of authority over the Gaza Strip, including control of the land, sea and air borders, restrictions on movement of people and goods, collection of import and export taxes, and military control over the buffer zone".
"In light of the above, the Court is of the view that Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip has not entirely released it of its obligations under the law of occupation. Israel’s obligations have remained commensurate with the degree of its effective control over the Gaza Strip."

I.e. they are saying that although Gaza was not physically occupied, since Israel imposed restrictions on cross--border movement etc. and Israel had the potential to exercise authority they should still bear some obligations, commensurate with the extent of their control. ok.

Note that they entirely omitted the fact that Egypt too controls part of the Gaza border, and Egypt too implemented restrictions on movement of people and goods just as much as Israel. That omission is an obvious flaw in their ruling. IJC ruling is flawed and their definitions and conclusions are questionable.

But at least that clarifies what they mean regarding Israel's continued responsibilities for Gaza under "international law" even though they withdrew, and that also clarifies why you keep saying Gaza was occupied even when it wasn't.

IJC seems to be is a joke of a court and its decisions are not enforceable. It has lost its credibility and relevance a while ago just as the corrupt UN organization itself.

Generally speaking, border controls is not an inherently bad thing, and even an occupation is sometimes a necessary measure. Granted, it comes with certain responsibilities toward the occupied territory but nevertheless may be necessary and justified.

 

[Frankfooter]

No. I am just asking:
why you believe that Gaza was occupied by Israel at all times, while in reality Israel withdrew forces and settlers from Gaza in 2005.
And why you ignore the fact that Egypt too borders with Gaza and they too implemented travel and customs restrictions, not just Israel.



Thank you for the link. Per page 8, "the Court considers that Israel remained capable of exercising, and continued to exercise, certain key elements of authority over the Gaza Strip, including control of the land, sea and air borders, restrictions on movement of people and goods, collection of import and export taxes, and military control over the buffer zone".
"In light of the above, the Court is of the view that Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip has not entirely released it of its obligations under the law of occupation. Israel’s obligations have remained commensurate with the degree of its effective control over the Gaza Strip."

I.e. they are saying that although Gaza was not physically occupied, since Israel imposed restrictions on cross--border movement etc. and Israel had the potential to exercise authority they should still bear some obligations, commensurate with the extent of their control. ok.

Note that they entirely omitted the fact that Egypt too controls part of the Gaza border, and Egypt too implemented restrictions on movement of people and goods just as much as Israel. That omission is an obvious flaw in their ruling. IJC ruling is flawed and their definitions and conclusions are questionable.

But at least that clarifies what they mean regarding Israel's continued responsibilities for Gaza under "international law" even though they withdrew, and that also clarifies why you keep saying Gaza was occupied even when it wasn't.

IJC seems to be is a joke of a court and its decisions are not enforceable. It has lost its credibility and relevance a while ago just as the corrupt UN organization itself.

Generally speaking, border controls is not an inherently bad thing, and even an occupation is sometimes a necessary measure. Granted, it comes with certain responsibilities toward the occupied territory but nevertheless may be necessary and justified.

So you read the ICJ ruling and then declared they were wrong without any rationale, evidence or anything but your feelings?
Even after 124 countries voted to support and implement this ruling?
What legal source to you use for the basis of your argument? The IDF? Biden?

 

[Uwauwa]

So you read the ICJ ruling and then declared they were wrong without any rationale, evidence or anything but your feelings?

No. I actually said that I understand that in their view, although Gaza was not physically occupied, since Israel imposed restrictions on cross--border movement etc. and Israel had the potential to exercise authority they should still bear some obligations, commensurate with the extent of their control.

And I said that that IJC ruling is flawed and their definitions and conclusions are questionable. As an evidence, one such flaw is that they entirely omitted the fact that Egypt too controls part of the Gaza border, and Egypt too implemented restrictions on movement of people and goods just as much as Israel.

Even after 124 countries voted to support and implement this ruling?

as far as I am concerned,
Canada abstained.
It is not a reasonable and credible forum anyway. Most of the participating countries are third-world and/or dictatorships, and everyone is serving their political and ideological interests first, or are just, as you like to point out, being ignorant.

 

[Frankfooter]

No. I actually said that I understand that in their view, although Gaza was not physically occupied, since Israel imposed restrictions on cross--border movement etc. and Israel had the potential to exercise authority they should still bear some obligations, commensurate with the extent of their control.

And I said that that IJC ruling is flawed and their definitions and conclusions are questionable. As an evidence, one such flaw is that they entirely omitted the fact that Egypt too controls part of the Gaza border, and Egypt too implemented restrictions on movement of people and goods just as much as Israel.

By what credentials should anyone take your personal opinion over the rulings of the ICJ?
What legal body do you think is more credible that has ruled on this issue?

as far as I am concerned,
Canada abstained.
It is not a reasonable and credible forum anyway. Most of the participating countries are third-world and/or dictatorships, and everyone is serving their political and ideological interests first, or are just, as you like to point out, being ignorant.

Nothing like a little western supremacy to say that the opinions of the rest of the world don't matter to you.

 

[basketcase]

Do you back the two state solution or not?
...

Would it be rude to say it's retarded that after a decade and 3 handles of you rejecting a Two State peace and calling me stupid for supporting it, you're now arguing against what you established as your core identity?

And yes, I have always thought Two States is the most achievable path towards peace while up until last week, you've been demanding Palestinians be forced into One State.

 

[basketcase]

Support the law.
End the occupation of Palestine.
That's the only road to peace.
...

With your new found support for it, are you willing to condemn any group that rejects a Two State peace?

 

[Frankfooter]

Would it be rude to say it's retarded that after a decade and 3 handles of you rejecting a Two State peace and calling me stupid for supporting it, you're now arguing against what you established as your core identity?

And yes, I have always thought Two States is the most achievable path towards peace while up until last week, you've been demanding Palestinians be forced into One State.

You back the two state solution like Biden supports a ceasefire.
You have declared the settlements aren't the problem, that Israel is above the law, that Israel can keep whatever land they want and that international law doesn't matter.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843022006851428451

 

[Frankfooter]

With your new found support for it, are you willing to condemn any group that rejects a Two State peace?

I back the UN and ICJ rulings.
You won't, not ever.
You won't support peace and you won't support equal rights.

 

[basketcase]

You back the two state solution ...

My posting history is 100% clear. I've got almost 2 decades of posts proving my backing of a Two State peace. The only other comments I've made is the realization that I don't get a vote so if Israelis and Palestinians want some other form of peace, I'd back it.

You on the other hand have spent all that time (Hi groggy, hi flub) demanding Palestinians be forced into becoming Israelis against their will.

 

[basketcase]

I back the UN and ICJ rulings.
...

So why have you kept arguing that Hamas needs to hold on to their hostages? Why have you endlessly denied UN reports condemning Hamas and continue to deny Hamas' use of sexual violence?

 

[Frankfooter]

My posting history is 100% clear. I've got almost 2 decades of posts proving my backing of a Two State peace. The only other comments I've made is the realization that I don't get a vote so if Israelis and Palestinians want some other form of peace, I'd back it.

You on the other hand have spent all that time (Hi groggy, hi flub) demanding Palestinians be forced into becoming Israelis against their will.

You support the two state solution like Biden supports a ceasefire.
You claim to support but instead support apartheid, the illegal occupation and genocide.
When the UN gave you the perfect opportunity for the last path towards the two state solution you decided you prefer genocide and apartheid.

Not one hour ago you posted claiming Palestinians don't support it to justify your own views.

Its all here in these threads, basketcase.

 

[Frankfooter]

So why have you kept arguing that Hamas needs to hold on to their hostages? Why have you endlessly denied UN reports condemning Hamas and continue to deny Hamas' use of sexual violence?

Why do you keep lying so poorly?
I back a ceasefire and both sides returning their hostages.
Followed by both sides being held to the law, the end of the occupation, apartheid and genocide.