Israelis celebrate child slaughter outside hunger striker’s hospital

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Lol!

Sassy never blamed all Israelis.

Stop having an emotional outburst.

sassy wrote:You show up no-one expect yourself as a bigotted Zionist and racist.

Cuchulain wrote:No I have made it clear of speak of the Iranian regeme, those in charge as I do not hold all Iranians culpable.
Do you notice the difference and it is the not the first time I have had to clarify this.
But as seen you support such nations in the Arab world that have the worst human rights going against their populations, where Muslims, Christians, women, homosexuals etc suffer. So many human rights abuses which you down grade in favour of ostracizing the only democracy in the region, where you also ignore the plight of Palestinians that suffer under Arab corrupt regemes.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:No I have made it clear of speak of the Iranian regeme, those in charge as I do not hold all Iranians culpable.
Do you notice the difference and it is the not the first time I have had to clarify this.
But as seen you support such nations in the Arab world that have the worst human rights going against their populations, where Muslims, Christians, women, homosexuals etc suffer. So many human rights abuses which you down grade in favour of ostracizing the only democracy in the region, where you also ignore the plight of Palestinians that suffer under Arab corrupt regemes.

HA HA! You just got busted. ;-)

Sassy has made it clear she is against the Israeli government and whoever supports Israeli Apartheid.

Stop being a hypocrite.

sassy wrote:You show me where I have ever said Israel should not exist.  Put up or shut up.

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

HA HA! You just got busted. ;-)

Sassy has made it clear she is against the Israeli government and whoever supports Israeli Apartheid.

Stop being a hypocrite.

Oh dear how lame again, whena  poster places up maps about the right of existance about a nation, they do not believe that nation should exist.

She is very much against Israel boy.

She has stated the right of armed ressistance under occupation even though Gaza is not occupied which means she backs terrorism against Israel.

So do pipe down before you fall down with over excitement

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Oh dear how lame again, whena  poster places up maps about the right of existance about a nation, they do not believe that nation should exist.

She is very much against Israel boy.

She has stated the right of armed ressistance under occupation even though Gaza is not occupied which means she backs terrorism against Israel.

So do pipe down before you fall down with over excitement

Gaza is occupied, you ignorance is astounding.

Israel has blocked all its borders and made it into an open air prison. Easier to kill them (Palestinians).

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Gaza is occupied, you ignorance is astounding.

Israel has blocked all its borders and made it into an open air prison. Easier to kill them (Palestinians).

So blocking borders not all of them is Israel occupying?

I do not think so, that is just plain gibberish so you also this by that daft belief back terrorism it seems with the excuse of armed resistance.
Also when Israel withdrew from Gaza, was there any blockade?
No,and its also Eygpt that blackades gaza, are you claiming they also occupy gaza.
You neglect it was suicide attacks in Israel that brought about the need to protect people.
Your ignorance has no limits and you are just an extremist low life.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


So blocking borders not all of them is Israel occupying?

I do not think so, that is just plain gibberish so you also this by that daft belief back terrorism it seems with the excuse of armed resistance.
Also when Israel withdrew from Gaza, was there any blockade?
No,and its also Eygpt that blackades gaza, are you claiming they also occupy gaza.
You neglect it was suicide attacks in Israel that brought about the need to protect people.
Your ignorance has no limits and you are just an extremist low life.

Your first sentence is pure gibberish - so let's not be a hypocrite. Lol!

Why do you think the U.S. help install General sissi in Egypt. Are you that ignorant?

sassy wrote:'The measures' were put in place because Gazans elected a government that the Israeli's didn't like, no more, no less.

Absolutely right Zack, the reason for the US support of Sisi who is a total tyrant, turning out to be worse than Murbak, which we all kinda knew was going to happen.

Cuchulain wrote:

sassy wrote:You show me where I have ever said Israel should not exist.  Put up or shut up.

Easy, how many times have you presented this incorrect map?

Do you understand how and why presenting such a map is arguing against the existance of Israel?

sassy wrote:The ignorance is astounding.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

sassy wrote:The ignorance is astounding.

But it's not ignorance Sassy. It's complicity.

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

But it's not ignorance Sassy. It's complicity.

And zack runs away from the debate as he knows he is wrong.

Oh well.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

And zack runs away from the debate as he knows he is wrong.

Oh well.

Lol! Sounds like you still have ants in your pants. Calm down.
I would not know, maybe you speak from experince of this?

It's already been demonstrated to anyone rational that Gaza can not govern itself because of blockades imposed on it by Israel and the U.S. (Via its regional puppets).
You have demonstrated nothing, gaza Governs itself and is blockaded by two nations because of terrorism, which any person can see except those who are hypocrictical it seems

You should have learned something after your 48 hour hissy fit.

The Republic of Azerbaijan declares that it is unable to guarantee the application of the provisions of the Convention in the territories occupied by the Republic of Armenia until these territories are liberated from that occupation.

Article 42 of the Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (hereafter “the 1907 Hague Regulations”) defines belligerent occupation as follows:

“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.”

Accordingly, occupation within the meaning of the 1907 Hague Regulations exists when a state exercises actual authority over the territory, or part of the territory, of an enemy state(1) . The requirement of actual authority is widely considered to be synonymous to that of effective control.

Military occupation is considered to exist in a territory, or part of a territory, if the following elements can be demonstrated: the presence of foreign troops, which are in a position to exercise effective control without the consent of the sovereign. According to widespread expert opinion physical presence of foreign troops is a sine qua non requirement of occupation(2) , i.e. occupation is not conceivable without “boots on the ground” therefore forces exercising naval or air control through a naval or air blockade do not suffice(3) .

[1].  See, for example, E. Benvenisti, The International Law of Occupation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) at p. 43; Y. Arai-Takahashi, The law of occupation: continuity and change of international humanitarian law, and its interaction with international human rights law (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009), at p. 5-8; Y. Dinstein, The International Law of Belligerent Occupation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) at 42-45, §§ 96-102; and A. Roberts, ‘Transformative Military Occupation; Applying the Laws of War and Human Rights’, 100 American Journal of International Law 580 (2006) 585-586.

[2].  Most experts consulted by the ICRC in the context of the project on occupation and other forms of administration of foreign territory agreed that ‘boots on the ground’ are needed for the establishment of occupation – see T. Ferraro, Occupation and other Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory (Geneva, ICRC, 2012), at 10, 17 and 33; see also E. Benvenisti, cited avove, at p. 43ff; V. Koutroulis, Le debut et la fin de l’application du droit de l’occupation (Paris: Editions Pedone, 2010) at pp. 35-41.

[3].  T. Ferraro, cited above, at pp. 17 and 137; Y. Dinstein, cited above, at p. 44, § 100.

143. At this point the Court considers it useful to reiterate that Azerbaijan has deposited a declaration with its instrument of ratification expressing that it was “unable to guarantee the application of the provisions of the Convention in the territories occupied by the Republic of Armenia” (see paragraph 93 above). In its decision on the admissibility of the present case, the Court has held that the declaration was not capable of restricting the territorial application of the Convention to certain parts of the internationally recognised territory of Azerbaijan (Sargsyan (dec.), cited above, §§ 63-65) nor did it fulfil the requirements of a valid reservation (ibid., §§ 66-70).

144. The Court notes that under international law (in particular Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations) a territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of a hostile army, “actual authority” being widely considered as translating to effective control and requiring such elements as presence of foreign troops, which are in a position to exercise effective control without the consent of the sovereign (see paragraph 94 above). On the basis of all the material before it and having regard to the above establishment of facts, the Court finds that Gulistan is not occupied by or under the effective control of foreign forces as this would require a presence of foreign troops in Gulistan.