Israel rains airstrike on Gaza

Except of course these maps are a fabrication. The arabs did not own the entire green colored area on the left-most map, (the Negev is the best example, it did not belong to the Arabs, yet it's colored in green). They owned less than half of Palestine (see the 2nd link in my signature for Khalil's confirmation). And the Israelis don't own the entire area colored in white on the right-most map either, the land is occupied and yet is displayed as annexed (owned). Pretty lame actually.

PS and you failed to show even a shred of elevant law declaring the occupation illegal which makes it de-jure legal. Stating that occupation is illegal because annexation is illegal is an absurd legal claim, you'd be laughed out of any court even by a sympathetic judge.

 

No, they're a pretty good approximation of the past and the present day. I can understand why any neoZionist cheerleader would find them embarrassing.

A brazen falsehood- easily demonstrated. You were shown- virtually force-fed - Articles 47 and 49 of the Geneva Conventions, Articles which form the legal basis for the condemnation of the occupation as illegal by the United Nations and the International Courts of Justice.
I'll be pleased to repeat the Articles any time you attempt to trundle out your obvious deceit.

 

Except for the fact that the maps assign all unasigned and public land (50% of Mandate Palestine) to the arabs on map #1 (why do you think it is called unassigned) and treat occupied land as if it was annexed on map #4. LOL

That's just to bad that the Geneva Convention in general and the articles you mention in particular don't address the legality of an occupation.

In fact the International Committee of the Red Cross makes it perfectly clear what the authority on this matter is:
The legality of any particular occupation is regulated by the UN Charter and the law known as jus ad bellum. LOL see, not a word about the Geneva Convention's role in determining the legality of an occupation. Shocking, isn't it?

Moreover if the occupation was indeed illegal binding UNSC 242 resolution would have demanded immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Israeli troops. It does no such thing, it demands negotiations, mutual recognition and the end to hostilities before the withdrawal is to take place.

Case closed.

 

Israel has been paying for more and more land with the childrens' lives blown away in schoolbuses and the terrorism that has been unabated for 70 years, even though those PLO and Hamas peoples lost their war with Israel when the tried to grasp it all for themselves.

I think the time is now to issue the final Ultimatum, that Gaza accept the reality of Israel, stop teaching the kids in their schools to killkJews, and accept their own State or get out of the Holy Lands altogether.

As Iran becomes more dedicated to the destruction of Irael, these Gaza-nians can not be tolerated as an enemy already firing weapons into Israel.

If the Ultimatum is ignorwed, Israel must destroiy the towns and villages in Gaza and drive the people there ibto the arms of the Muslim Broitherhood awaitibg to organize and face down Israel asap.

Let Israel define a bordwr between Israel and these Jew haters at the boundary of Egypt, where a traditional military defense is possible.

 

You would like to think so but failed to even read your own link properly.

Here you go.

The main rules o f the law applicable in case of occupation state that:

The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.

Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.

Sure looks like 45 years is not temporary ???

and you missed this one as well..

Collective punishment is prohibited.

Gaza.

Ooops. Epic fail on your part yet again.

 

Your interpretation of the law is interesting of course (albeit amaterish beyond belief). The problem is there is no statute of limitation on temporary occupations, the Arab world said "no peace, no recognition and no negotiations with Israel" thus breaking international law, if they want to try to wait it out - it's their prerogative but temporary occupations have no expiration date and remain fully legal. Besides a violation of a rule of the occupation (alledged or real) does not make the whole occupation illegal any more than speeding would make car ownership illegal.

I understand you may not like it but we are discussing law, right? That's how it works and I am just trying to educate you.

 

Yes it is interesting because it is right. Temporary is not 45 years and collective punishment is not allowed which makes the occupation illegal. You can spout all the BS in your bumper book of zionist myths and you will still not be correct.

 

But I am correct. UN resolution 242 which happens to be legally binding mandates the end of the occupation in exchange for peace, secure negotiated borders and mutual recognition. The arab world has been in gross violation of this resolution and thus international law for 42 years now.

 

You think you are correct. There is a difference. All pro israeli supporters think they are correct because the zionist handbook of how to argue on the internet tells you that but back in the real world you are actually wrong as usual.

 

Yes, Articles 47 and 49 are quite clear in prohibiting the Zionist occupation as illegal. One forbids the permanent occupation by troops and the other forbids the transfer of populations. It's against the law, old chum. Sup up.

It has been ever since the Articles were posted.

 

You are repeating yourself again and ignoring the undeniable fact that the Geneva Convention, important as it may be has nothing to do with the legal issue at hand:
The legality of any particular occupation is regulated by the UN Charter and the law known as jus ad bellum.

 

Yes he is repeating the truth and you are denying reality again and again.

 

LOL if moon's lapdog thinks moon is right then Moon must be right. Never mind the ICRC's absolutely unambiguous statement assigning the legal authority to the UN charter (not the Geneva convention) and equally unambiguous UN resolution 242 not demanding an immediate and unconditional withdrawal as it would have is the occupation was indeed illegal.

 

Yes I know he is right,thanks for agreeing.

 

On the contrary, the Geneva Conventions underpin conventional wisdom on the matter and are responsible for universally accepted law. Of course, the fact that ' Borat ' doesn't accept them is cause for some mirth.



Perhaps you'd best concentrate upon launching petulant insults at members who are correct, Borat, instead of humiliating yourself by attempting to post misinformation regarding international law.

 

Me? LOL, I am just quoting the ICRC's crystal clear statement that the legality of an occupation is regulated by the UN charter and not the Geneva Convention. I am quoting legally binding UNSC resolution that is also crystal clear - no unilateral withdrawal until peace, secure borders and mutual recognition are achieved.

 

You clearly have no grasp on either the function of the UN Charteor the Geneva Conventions. Concentrate. The United Nations does not dispense law of itself. Its legal arm is the International Courts of Justice. Both bodies look to the Geneva Conventions and uphold the Articles therein. Chapter 1 of the Charter does indeed torpedo the notion of war and annexation of territory in general terms but the Conventions add flesh to that armature. Of course, Israel is signatory to both and in breach of both. That the occupation of Palestine is illegal is determined by both.

Any more in your troll box ?

 

Even Jonsa, the master of sophistry and apologist for Zionist fascism, put you straight on this. You are an embarrassment. You have been digging for so long you must of reached the earths core by now.

 

Nice try buddy. Jonsa with all my due respect to him is entitled to his opinion and it's not necessarily correct even if moon and his lapdogs like you happen to agree with him once in a blue moon (pun intended).

Facts unfortunately for you are stubborn things - the legality of an occupation is regulated by the UN charter and the law known as jus ad bellum. That's not my opinion, that's what the ICRC (International Committee for Red Cross) states. And there is not a word in these laws that would even hint at the possibility that the occupation is illegal. Legally binding USCS resolution 242 of 1967 not demanding immediate and unconditional withdrawal also confirms it beyond any doubt.

 

What's it like at the earth's core?

 

Interesting that when you can't respond with any kind legitimate rebuttal argument you claim I am a sophist.

I have NEVER apologized for zionist fascism as it does not exist. Its like apologizing for the smell of a muslim pig farm.

 

I have always wondered about UN242 when it is brought up by the pro-palestinian/arab crowd.

Israel went before the UNSC and announced its acceptance of 242 as the basis for a comprehensive peace negotiation.

Initially all the arabs countries and the PLO absolutely rejected 242. It wasn't until SIX years later that Syria said it would recognize 242. It was 8 years later that Egypt did. it was 27 years later that Jordan accept it and 28 years later that the PLO accepted it.

And yet for some reason, the pro palestinian crowd want to accuse Israel of rejecting/violating 242 from the get go. In reality such after the fact acceptance by the arab players is like bolting the barn door after the horses have fled.

Notwithstanding I happen to believe in the intent of 242 including that Israeli interpretation of the word "the".

 

Your sophistry is renowned and requires no furthur explanation. The fact that you deny the reality of Zionist fascism puts you on a similar footing to, say, Holocaust, AGW, moon landing denialists or anybody else who denies objective reality. Your denial of reality means you are de facto an apologist.

 

Horse-apples. You're even confusing yourself with your policy of remaining ignorant at all costs. Jus ad bellum is archaic, superseded by, amongst others, the Kellog-Briand Peace Pact, The Nuremberg Charter and The Charter of the United Nations- all of which proscribe war. Further , these basic principles are fleshed out by the jus in bello requirements of the Geneva Conventions which specifically outlaw those very activities upon which your ethnic-cleansing neoZionist filth are engaged. It's always a pleasure to remind you that......you are done.

Just add Beelzebub

 

You do realise that this can be said of both sides? In other words calling someone an apologist or denialist, means zilch.