[W:3] Gaza Occupation or Not

[CJ 2.0]

As Evilroddy has already pointed out , you don't have to control an entire territory to be deemed as an occupier. That said , Israel does control ( militarily ) all of the territory that makes up the " buffer zone " which is Gazan territory. This zone contracts and expands as and when Israel decides .

Recall too that the IDF can and does kill Palestinians all over the territory with complete impunity. The drones and the Apaches etc etc are targeting individual people in cars and blowing up individual houses as and when the opportunity arises. Often striking just after a targeted strike so as to kill the people trying to help.

And you seriously believe that that level of control , that level of military freedom , doesn't constitute an effective control of a territory ?

That's the real joke being put out here imo

right.

As what is "pointed out" by Mr Justice Evilroddy clearly takes precedence over case law and legal opinions by international jurists.

I "seriously believe" that as per the decision posted earlier there is no occupation of Gaza, since the ratio in that case is directly applicable to this one and the facts here do not fit the requirements as set out in that case.

Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. In this case, the law clearly says you lost and at this point the arguments you are making are just flailing around while you continue to cling to your own artificially manufactured criteria which were invented out of whole cloth and appear to only apply to Israel.

Let's just agree that you and Mr Justice Evilroddy will cease from any further wrong claims that Israel is occupying Gaza and I will agree not to seek costs... Fair all around, me thinks.

 

[Apocalypse]

As Evilroddy has already pointed out , you don't have to control an entire territory to be deemed as an occupier. That said , Israel does control ( militarily ) all of the territory that makes up the " buffer zone " which is Gazan territory. This zone contracts and expands as and when Israel decides .

Recall too that the IDF can and does kill Palestinians all over the territory with complete impunity. The drones and the Apaches etc etc are targeting individual people in cars and blowing up individual houses as and when the opportunity arises. Often striking just after a targeted strike so as to kill the people trying to help.

And you seriously believe that that level of control , that level of military freedom , doesn't constitute an effective control of a territory ?

That's the real joke being put out here imo

You're merely repeating yourself.
That a buffer zone exists and that Israel can target terrorists in Gaza is well known, that it constitutes an effective control of the territory thus a military occuaption of the land is your injection and completely false and entirely lacking of any given logical basis.

That you merely repeat this nonsense time after time didn't change anything so far and isn't going to change anything in the future.
Only showing a refusal to accept that the attempt to claim the world is flat and Israel had flattened it has failed.

 

[Evilroddy]

lol. yes and if the US didn't like Canada's foreign policy it could just move the physically occupy all of our population centres. Nothing we could do about it and no one would come and rescue us.

I guess Canada is occupied by the United States then?

Incidentally, post 72 was a link dump...

So here's a better one, which involves actual legal analysis:

Israel, Gaza, and the End of ?Effective Control? - Opinio Juris

which draws on the analysis published in The American University International Law Review at

https://digitalcommons.wcl.american....com/&httpsredir=1&article=1689&context=auilr

CJ 2.0:

My apologies for not getting back to you earlier but life has been getting in the way of debate, and unfortunately will continue to do so for the next two to three weeks.

As to the issue of Israeli military occupation of Gaza, the following legal opinions are offered to rebut your sources from post #131.

First from the OTP and ICC:

The OTP Concludes Israel Is Still Occupying Gaza - Opinio Juris

28. Although it no longer maintains a military presence in Gaza, Israel has not only shown the ability to conduct incursions into Gaza at will, but also expressly reserved the right to do so as required by military necessity. This consideration is potentially significant considering that there is support in international case law for the conclusion that it is not a prerequisite that a State maintain continuous presence in a territory in order to qualify as an occupying power. In particular, the ICTY has held that the law of occupation would also apply to areas where a state possesses “the capacity to send troops within a reasonable time to make the authority of the occupying power felt.” In this respect, it is also noted that the geographic proximity of the Gaza Strip to Israel potentially facilitates the ability of Israel to exercise effective control over the territory, despite the lack of a continuous military presence.

29. Overall, there is a reasonable basis upon which to conclude that Israel continues to be an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. The Office has therefore proceeded on the basis that the situation in Gaza can be considered within the framework of an international armed conflict in view of the continuing military occupation by Israel.

Presence, especially continuous presence is not needed for a state to exert effective control over a smallish territory like Gaza and the fact that Israel reserves the right to enter Gaza by ground, air and sea for military purposes is seen as a caveat that negates the disengagement policy's goal of getting Israel off the hook for the legal responsibility to the Gazan population as an occupying power.

More to come in future posts but it could be a while as the week is going to be very busy.

Cheers.
Evilroddy. (Not Justice Evilroddy I might add.)

 

[CJ 2.0]

CJ 2.0:

My apologies for not getting back to you earlier but life has been getting in the way of debate, and unfortunately will continue to do so for the next two to three weeks.

As to the issue of Israeli military occupation of Gaza, the following legal opinions are offered to rebut your sources from post #131.

First from the OTP and ICC:

The OTP Concludes Israel Is Still Occupying Gaza - Opinio Juris





Presence, especially continuous presence is not needed for a state to exert effective control over a smallish territory like Gaza and the fact that Israel reserves the right to enter Gaza by ground, air and sea for military purposes is seen as a caveat that negates the disengagement policy's goal of getting Israel off the hook for the legal responsibility to the Gazan population as an occupying power.

More to come in future posts but it could be a while as the week is going to be very busy.

Cheers.
Evilroddy. (Not Justice Evilroddy I might add.)

Sorry OTP is not a court. I understand being busy so no worries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Evilroddy]

Sorry OTP is not a court. I understand being busy so no worries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CJ 2.0:

The ICC is a court and it was their legal reasoning being reported on in the cited quotes.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[CJ 2.0]

CJ 2.0:

The ICC is a court and it was their legal reasoning being reported on in the cited quotes.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

But this seems to be about the OTP?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk