Hamas says Gaza no longer occupied, UN still says it is.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43654

So who are we going to beleive? Hamas seems to have sided w/ Israeli Supreme Courts ruling. The question is why does the UN continue to label Gaza "occupied"? Very confu$$$$ing.

 

I would say the UN is right even if Hamas don't like it.

Israel controls Gaza's borders, territorial waters and airspace, they control the economy, they send troops in to arrest or kill people. Even though Israel doesn't have a permanent presence in Gaza they effectively control it so they effectively are occupiers.

 

Why would the OP take the word of a terrorist organization he despises/doesn't trust over the UN ?

 

The OP is technically correct; the Israelis don't have a presence as occupiers but they effectively control everything within the walled ghetto.http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=Ga...tart=8&ndsp=8&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:8&tx=116&ty=93

 

Because amazing as it seems, as I stated, its in line with the 2008 Israeli Supreme Court ruling...see?

Im actually inclined to trust Hamas more than the UN b/c at least you know here you stand with them. I despise them both.

 

Ghetto...lol.

 

Yes, a ghetto; what else would you call an area surrounded by 30-foot walls with armed watch-towers, where your every move is controlled. Where you cannot trade, travel abroad. Where your power and water supplies are controlled, any imports are scrutinised for dangerous substances like children's crayons and jam.

 

Id call it a territory run by terrorists.

 

Actually, the Untied Nations position is correct. Let's just take Hamas' position for a moment though, there is still a blockade and very much trouble there: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVPejbXc1P8"]Gaza after disengagement if americans knew - YouTube[/ame]



First off I think Gaza is occupied because the Oslo accords affirmed that the Palestinian Territories would remain under Israeli occupation until the implementation of the final peace treaty. Both West Bank and Gaza Strip were to be considered one territorial unit, and withdrawal from Palestinian population centers will do nothing to 'change the status' of the West Bank and Gaza Strip for the duration of the accords.

Also, don't you guys forget! Israeli soldiers are still able to enter the Gaza Strip at will! Gazans are still under control of the Israeli military forces whom retain the ability and right to enter the Gaza Strip whenever they please - and quite honestly do very often. Israel even announced that they have the 'right' to "reoccupy" Gaza as they see fits. Israel doesn't only have the power to enter with military force, but Israel controls all of Gaza's public utilities, airspace, sea shore, and borders. Israel even sets and collects Gaza's taxes and customs and controls its population registry. All international relations are controlled by Israel too, whether or not they can open a seaport or an airport, etc. The grip of Israel's power on the Gaza Strip is amazing.

Most experts of the law though, agreed that once Israel moved its troops along the periphery of Gaza, the occupation remained. And Israel still continues its military presence along the coastlines.

This all ultimately means that Israel has control of all goods, services and people entering/leaving Gaza - meaning all subjects to Israeli control.

Not to mention the conditions which constitute the end of an occupation have been defined under international law. For Gaza, the condition has not been met. The end of occupation was defined by the post-WWII Nuremburg Tribunal, which clarified upon The Hague Regulations definition of occupation in order to ascertain when occupation ends. It held that "the test for application of the legal regime of occupation is not whether the occupying power fails to exercise effective control over the territory, but whether it has the ability to exercise such power."

Israel stated their plan would "invalidate the claims against Israel regarding its responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip." This is evidently and seriously not the case.

Also, not necessarily do the IDF need a presence in the territory. The laws of occupation apply if a state holds 'effective control' over the territory in question. The High Court has even held contrary to Israel's claim, stating that the creation and continuation of an occupation is not dependent upon the existence of an institution administering the lives of the local population, but only on the extent of its military control in the area. Certain areas also could be occupied even if the army does not have a presence throughout the whole area. Experts in the law interpret that effective control may also exist when the army controls key points in a particular area, and reflecting its power over the entire area - in effect preventing the central government from carrying out its powers.

 

Youre confusing a siege with an occupation. There are specific definitions to take into account. Given these definitions and historical precedents....Hamas is in fact correct.

 

Prove it, refute my information - ALL OF IT (from my previous post)

"First off I think Gaza is occupied because the Oslo accords affirmed that the Palestinian Territories would remain under Israeli occupation until the implementation of the final peace treaty. Both West Bank and Gaza Strip were to be considered one territorial unit, and withdrawal from Palestinian population centers will do nothing to 'change the status' of the West Bank and Gaza Strip for the duration of the accords.

"Also, don't you guys forget! Israeli soldiers are still able to enter the Gaza Strip at will! Gazans are still under control of the Israeli military forces whom retain the ability and right to enter the Gaza Strip whenever they please - and quite honestly do very often. Israel even announced that they have the 'right' to "reoccupy" Gaza as they see fits. Israel doesn't only have the power to enter with military force, but Israel controls all of Gaza's public utilities, airspace, sea shore, and borders. Israel even sets and collects Gaza's taxes and customs and controls its population registry. All international relations are controlled by Israel too, whether or not they can open a seaport or an airport, etc. The grip of Israel's power on the Gaza Strip is amazing.

Most experts of the law though, agreed that once Israel moved its troops along the periphery of Gaza, the occupation remained. And Israel still continues its military presence along the coastlines.

This all ultimately means that Israel has control of all goods, services and people entering/leaving Gaza - meaning all subjects to Israeli control.

Not to mention the conditions which constitute the end of an occupation have been defined under international law. For Gaza, the condition has not been met. The end of occupation was defined by the post-WWII Nuremburg Tribunal, which clarified upon The Hague Regulations definition of occupation in order to ascertain when occupation ends. It held that "the test for application of the legal regime of occupation is not whether the occupying power fails to exercise effective control over the territory, but whether it has the ability to exercise such power."

Israel stated their plan would "invalidate the claims against Israel regarding its responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip." This is evidently and seriously not the case.

Also, not necessarily do the IDF need a presence in the territory. The laws of occupation apply if a state holds 'effective control' over the territory in question. The High Court has even held contrary to Israel's claim, stating that the creation and continuation of an occupation is not dependent upon the existence of an institution administering the lives of the local population, but only on the extent of its military control in the area. Certain areas also could be occupied even if the army does not have a presence throughout the whole area. Experts in the law interpret that effective control may also exist when the army controls key points in a particular area, and reflecting its power over the entire area - in effect preventing the central government from carrying out its powers."

 

So Hamas have control over their borders, their airspace, their imports and all the other controls a sovereign nation would have ?

It seems to me this thread is merely an argument over semantics, so fine, if you like, Israel has no physical presence inside Gaza and it's not an occupation. They are however holding the region hostage.

 

If Mr Relevant supports the Hamas position, then Israel's attempted blockade of the access between Egypt and Gaza is illegal under international law and its naval blockade is probably illegal without a declaration of war. The truth is that the United Nations position is that accepted legal framework and Israel should put up with it - Gaza can't be BOTH chalk and cheese.

 

If Mr Relevant supports the Hamas position, then Israel's attempted blockade of the access between Egypt and Gaza is illegal under international law and its naval blockade is probably illegal without a declaration of war. The truth is that the United Nations position is that accepted legal framework and Israel should put up with it - Gaza can't be BOTH chalk and cheese.

 

Mr R will support anyone who says something he wants to hear..haven't you noticed?

Funny how Hamas isn't believed when they talk about being prepared to accept the Arab League peace framework proposal ignored by Israel..or offers ceasefires......but are if they say something that suits Israel and lets them carry on as if what they do is acceptable to decent people.

 

Israel left gaza and the palestinians show they have no desire for peace. its good to note Israel should never make the first concession ever again.

 

I actually support the Israeli position which Hamas seems to accede to.

The accepted legal framework is the Hague.

This mean boots on the ground. If you can find a precedent where a country is considered officially occupied w/o a standing belligerent force in country Id be interested in seeing it.

The siege is legal because Israel has been in a permanent state of war with Hamas,well before they attained control of Gaza.

You are also confusing siege w/ occupation.

 

Its not semantics, its being specific.

 

lol...once again it is Hamas who is supporting Israels stance on the matter.

I dont think its a surprise Im supporting Israel is it?

 

Did you even bother to attempt responding to my post? Nonetheless read it?

It refutes some of the stuff you just said here...


"First off I think Gaza is occupied because the Oslo accords affirmed that the Palestinian Territories would remain under Israeli occupation until the implementation of the final peace treaty. Both West Bank and Gaza Strip were to be considered one territorial unit, and withdrawal from Palestinian population centers will do nothing to 'change the status' of the West Bank and Gaza Strip for the duration of the accords.

Also, don't you guys forget! Israeli soldiers are still able to enter the Gaza Strip at will! Gazans are still under control of the Israeli military forces whom retain the ability and right to enter the Gaza Strip whenever they please - and quite honestly do very often. Israel even announced that they have the 'right' to "reoccupy" Gaza as they see fits. Israel doesn't only have the power to enter with military force, but Israel controls all of Gaza's public utilities, airspace, sea shore, and borders. Israel even sets and collects Gaza's taxes and customs and controls its population registry. All international relations are controlled by Israel too, whether or not they can open a seaport or an airport, etc. The grip of Israel's power on the Gaza Strip is amazing.

Most experts of the law though, agreed that once Israel moved its troops along the periphery of Gaza, the occupation remained. And Israel still continues its military presence along the coastlines.

This all ultimately means that Israel has control of all goods, services and people entering/leaving Gaza - meaning all subjects to Israeli control.

Not to mention the conditions which constitute the end of an occupation have been defined under international law. For Gaza, the condition has not been met. The end of occupation was defined by the post-WWII Nuremburg Tribunal, which clarified upon The Hague Regulations definition of occupation in order to ascertain when occupation ends. It held that "the test for application of the legal regime of occupation is not whether the occupying power fails to exercise effective control over the territory, but whether it has the ability to exercise such power."

Israel stated their plan would "invalidate the claims against Israel regarding its responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip." This is evidently and seriously not the case.

Also, not necessarily do the IDF need a presence in the territory. The laws of occupation apply if a state holds 'effective control' over the territory in question. The High Court has even held contrary to Israel's claim, stating that the creation and continuation of an occupation is not dependent upon the existence of an institution administering the lives of the local population, but only on the extent of its military control in the area. Certain areas also could be occupied even if the army does not have a presence throughout the whole area. Experts in the law interpret that effective control may also exist when the army controls key points in a particular area, and reflecting its power over the entire area - in effect preventing the central government from carrying out its powers."

 

If the overall affect is the same (no border control, no import control, no sovereignty) but the name is different then it is semantics.

Enjoy your new terminology.

 

Did you even read what I posted here? Quit ignoring the facts.

This is what I said:
"First off I think Gaza is occupied because the Oslo accords affirmed that the Palestinian Territories would remain under Israeli occupation until the implementation of the final peace treaty. Both West Bank and Gaza Strip were to be considered one territorial unit, and withdrawal from Palestinian population centers will do nothing to 'change the status' of the West Bank and Gaza Strip for the duration of the accords.

"Also, don't you guys forget! Israeli soldiers are still able to enter the Gaza Strip at will! Gazans are still under control of the Israeli military forces whom retain the ability and right to enter the Gaza Strip whenever they please - and quite honestly do very often. Israel even announced that they have the 'right' to "reoccupy" Gaza as they see fits. Israel doesn't only have the power to enter with military force, but Israel controls all of Gaza's public utilities, airspace, sea shore, and borders. Israel even sets and collects Gaza's taxes and customs and controls its population registry. All international relations are controlled by Israel too, whether or not they can open a seaport or an airport, etc. The grip of Israel's power on the Gaza Strip is amazing.

Most experts of the law though, agreed that once Israel moved its troops along the periphery of Gaza, the occupation remained. And Israel still continues its military presence along the coastlines.

This all ultimately means that Israel has control of all goods, services and people entering/leaving Gaza - meaning all subjects to Israeli control.

Not to mention the conditions which constitute the end of an occupation have been defined under international law. For Gaza, the condition has not been met. The end of occupation was defined by the post-WWII Nuremburg Tribunal, which clarified upon The Hague Regulations definition of occupation in order to ascertain when occupation ends. It held that "the test for application of the legal regime of occupation is not whether the occupying power fails to exercise effective control over the territory, but whether it has the ability to exercise such power."

Israel stated their plan would "invalidate the claims against Israel regarding its responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip." This is evidently and seriously not the case.

Also, not necessarily do the IDF need a presence in the territory. The laws of occupation apply if a state holds 'effective control' over the territory in question. The High Court has even held contrary to Israel's claim, stating that the creation and continuation of an occupation is not dependent upon the existence of an institution administering the lives of the local population, but only on the extent of its military control in the area. Certain areas also could be occupied even if the army does not have a presence throughout the whole area. Experts in the law interpret that effective control may also exist when the army controls key points in a particular area, and reflecting its power over the entire area - in effect preventing the central government from carrying out its powers."



Plus much of the other stuff which you ignored to read.

 

Whats to prove?

What youre complaining about is a siege against a declared enemy, not an occupation-which is control of a territory from the inside by military means.

You cited the Hague. Gaza is no longer under the authority of the IDF.

The siege/blockade is legal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/world/middleeast/02flotilla.html?pagewanted=all

 

Attention to detail is an important thing....you should embrace it.

 

Did you read what I had said in bold? The end of occupation was defined by the post-WWII Nuremburg Tribunal, which clarified upon The Hague Regulations definition of occupation in order to ascertain when occupation ends. It held that "the test for application of the legal regime of occupation is not whether the occupying power fails to exercise effective control over the territory, but whether it has the ability to exercise such power." I have described Israel's grip of power on the Gaza Strip in my post above too - just so there are no confusions.

Another argument which you still haven't refuted:

"Also, not necessarily do the IDF need a presence in the territory. The laws of occupation apply if a state holds 'effective control' over the territory in question. The High Court has even held contrary to Israel's claim, stating that the creation and continuation of an occupation is not dependent upon the existence of an institution administering the lives of the local population, but only on the extent of its military control in the area. Certain areas also could be occupied even if the army does not have a presence throughout the whole area. Experts in the law interpret that effective control may also exist when the army controls key points in a particular area, and reflecting its power over the entire area - in effect preventing the central government from carrying out its powers."

The rules of international humanitarian law relevant to occupied territories 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' comes up in different type of ways. One would be whenever a party to a conflict exercises some level of authority or control within foreign territory. This is even suggested in ICRC's Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention.


You still continue to ignore all my arguments - you still have not refuted a single one. You continue to ignore this post...




EDIT: Didn't notice what you said about the blockade...

First of all the Palmer report only said that the NAVAL blockade on Gaza is legal. Secondly, it was not an official statement on the issue and was not binding in any legal sense. We already had an official statement on the issue by the UN Human Rights Council which concluded that Israel’s interception of the flotilla was illegal because the blockade was unjustified stating: "the Mission is satisfied that the blockade was inflicting disproportionate damage upon the civilian population in the Gaza strip and that as such the interception could not be justified and therefore has to be considered illegal."