Palestinian Corruption and Humanitarian Aid (HQ)

[Nisrien1]

Zionist propaganda

[abbienetvision]

@Nisrien1

Don't like to hear the truth, when you are living a life of Muslim lies, so rather than learn or research you call it propaganda..typical Muslim attitude..don't learn, just deny the truth!

[proengelsrael]

NO MORE DONATIONS for hamaSScum WAR - games!

[finitube]

@meshzzizk "Anyone who simultaneously claims that Israel was justified in launching a preemptive war against Egypt in retaliation for the relatively benign closing of the Straits of Tiran, and that Hamas is *not* justified in firing on Israel in response to the complete strangulation of all of its borders and ports is arguing in bad faith."

How's this for bad faith? Ignoring the fact that there was no blockade until the great increase in rocket attacks from Gaza in 2007.

That's bad faith.

[finitube]

@meshzzizk - you have the order of events reversed. Israel imposed the blockade on Gaza AFTER the great increase in the number of rockets fired into southern Israel from Gaza.

[finitube]

@meshzzizk

Let's talk about bad faith. Blockading the Straits of Tiran was far from the only indication that Egypt and Syria intended to go to war against Israel.

Egypt expelled the UN peacekeeping force from, moved one of its air force divisions to position it for strikes on the south/Dimona, both Syria and Egypt amassed numerous infantry and armored divisions on the armistice lines with Israel, and both started whipping up public opinion in their local media to ready them for war.

[finitube]

Great video. I had no idea we are paying Arafat's widow 22 million a year on top of the billions Arafat 'skimmed' during his 'leadership' of the PA.

It's worse than insane.

[citizenintime]

Dead terrorists make me smile.

[shipmaker14]

I couldn't help but see that "Hamas won in a landslide victory"?

so they were democratically elected? But I thought they were terrorists?

For shame!

Turn down your fucking violin music. The fact that you are trying to deny that rampant corruption/the BILLIONS in funding Israel receives from the Americans,(more than every other country per combined): Where's the Israeli version of this add?

[abbienetvision]

@shipmaker14

Terrorists were democratically elected, that is true. What is your question? Don't know that terror gov'ts can be democratically elected?

[meshzzizk]

In conclusion, this is offensive and callous propaganda. Next time make a video asking why so much aid money is wasted sending Israel weapons when it is their military that is responsible for the suffering of the Palestinians in the first place.

[meshzzizk]

It also doesn’t mention that Israel gets 3 billion dollars a year in military aid from the US government, much of which is spent on maintaining an illegal occupation that hamstrings the Palestinian economy and thus keeps the Palestinians dependent on foreign humanitarian aid for survival.

The Middle East Quarterly is a questionable publication run by the Islamophobic lightweight Daniel Pipes; the video omits that the source on international aid and "terrorist elements" was written by the IDF.

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

There is no illegal occupation, and rather than blame Israel, as usual, check how the Palis live in Lebanon and neighboring countries.

The Palis have had so many chances to build a state, but don't want to, they prefer their goal to be murdering innocent Israelis.

If the palis desire to die as martyrs, more than to live a good life, they reap what they sow.

Look at Gaza prior to the Jewish pullout and now.

UN242 has been followed by Israel, but not by the palis (incite terror)

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision Dude, what planet do you live on? This is not in dispute. Read the International Court of Justice ruling on the separation wall, which also treats settlements, refugees, and Jerusalem. In each advisory opinion Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem are all consistently referred to by the ICJ -- that is, the highest legal body in the world -- as "Occupied Palestinian Territory". If you don't know about these things, I don't know where to begin responding to the rest of what you said.

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

There is no dispute, you would need to learn history and law, to know the legality. The land refer to as occupied, is not!

The land was acquired in 1967 under a defensive war.

UN242 says for Israel to return land acquired (not all the land, since Israel was attacked and the border of '67 was not a secure border)

Israel has given the entire Sinai back to Egypt and Gaza to Palis (Egypt doesn't want to take their land back)

Every resolution calls for an end to incitement, suicide bomb

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision Are you being intentionally thick or what? It is inadmissible under international law to acquire territory through war. This is the cornerstone of 242, which you would know, if you had read it. Israel has no legal claim whatsoever to the West Bank or (East) Jerusalem.

Israel fired first in the June war and most serious Israeli historians now agree that Israel used the war as a pretext to seize the territories they finally occupied in 1967 (cf. Sternhell, Shlaim, etc.).

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

International law is directly in opposition to your txt.

International Law makes a clear distinction between land "occupied" during a war of aggrsion&taken as a result of a defensive war.Advisor Stephen Schwebel,headed the IntnCourt of Justice in the Hague,wrote in '70 re Israel:"Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully,the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder,better title."

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision No it doesn't, and Schwebel's comments are 1. not authoritative and were not rendered in an official court ruling, 2. do not apply in light of scholarship and diplomatic testimony calling into question whether Israel fought a defensive war in 1967, 3. do not apply given that the World Court has ruled authoritatively on this, 4. do not apply given that 242 establishes those territories as Palestinian. Good grief.

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

Good grief to your copy/paste which seems to come from a 5th grader.

If you want to copy/paste, at least find a reliable site, with actual high school level English grammar, at least.

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision Sorry, I actually have a research background on these matters. Either show me the source you think I'm copying or retract your statement and apologize. Also, with the possible exception of a missing conjunction ("and") there's nothing grammatically wrong with what I wrote. You're getting desperate and it shows.

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision Also, the irony of this sentence,

"If you want to copy/paste, at least find a reliable site, with actual high school level English grammar, at least."

would make any 5th grade English teacher's head explode.

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision You're also the author of these doozies,

"This is one of the many cases similar..."

"Every resolution calls for an end to incitement, suicide bomb"

"The palis prefer to live and teach hatred, while complaining they have nothing, while there are many places in the world that actually needs help, as shown on this vid."

"By changing the subject, to another defensive war[...]shows..."

I think you should look up the word "projection" in the dictionary.

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

If you didn't notice, I keep saying the SAME THING...the Palis prefer terror and hatred, incitement and suicide bombers, intolerance and ethnic cleansing to any type of peace.

You quote me, and still can't work that simple point out?

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk, the crap you post is really amazing. "do not apply given that the World Court has ruled authoritatively on this" Where did you read or learn that? UN 242 definitely does not "establishes those territories as Palestinian."

Your writing is grammatically incorrect in almost every way it could be, number 2 is incomprehensible, and the idea it was a defensive war is not debatable.

Israel was attacked first: Syria shelled Israeli farms and villages attacks grew more frequent in 65 -66

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision You plagiarized this as well,

"Syria...shell[ed] Israeli farms and villages. Syria’s attacks grew more frequent in 1965 and 1966,"

(Jewish Virtual Library)

"Syria shelled Israeli farms and villages attacks grew more frequent in 65 -66"

(Your sloppy rendering)

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

Since your writing alone is incomprehensible, I suggest that you find wording that will prove something from the web. That is exactly why sometimes I look for sites to word things better than I would have.

I am not writing a book or taking credit, writing a paper for school or even selling anything here, so your idea of plagiarism is silly and childish.

Clearly you are just a hater, with no facts, thanks for playing, and know...YOU ARE THE WEAKEST LINK!

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision Oh, I can't help myself...You wrote, "Your writing is grammatically incorrect in almost every way it could be...the idea it was a defensive war is not debatable."

You need a relative pronoun between "idea" and "it" (viz. "that“) to complete the adjective clause. Also, given that the subject of the sentence is "your writing," "it" does not stand for "Six Day War."

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision Laaastly, Israeli historians like Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe, Zeev Sternhell, and Benny Morris have called into question whether Israel fought a defensive war in ‘67. You would know this if you had ever read anything about Israeli history prior to getting humiliated in the comments thread of this idiotic propaganda video. Okay, now I'm done.

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

Trying to get out of the subject at hand...what does UN242 say? That is the issue!

Stop going off on your stupid tangents, and try to write legible. I sometimes have to leave out words, to make the comments in 500 characters, but that is not similar to your incomprehensible blubbering (4 numbers with periods and no capital letters, showing characters were not the problem.)

There is no occupied land...telling you again!

You were done long ago! Just saying it now, ty for that!

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision I think you mean "blathering." "Blubbering" refers to uncontrollable weeping, so even if you find my tone maudlin (which it really isn't), “blubbering” doesn‘t make any sense here. But then, my arguments are perfectly coherent and concise, so “blathering" doesn’t really work either.

It looks like one of us has a tendency to be incomprehensible, but it sure ain't me.

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision You mean "try to write legibly." "Legible" is an adjective, "legibly" is an adverb. And I don't understand why you'd say that about my youtube comments -- they're all perfectly legible insofar as they're computer generated characters. Legibility refers to the decipherability of script, not the intelligibility of the ideas it conveys.

This all suggests to me that if you can't understand my writing, it's probably because you're too fucking stupid.

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

Every name that you have written has been debunked hundreds of times. Is that where you got your history lessons? From these idiots? Good job showing that you are quite uneducated, self-education and schooling clearly is not your forte!

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision Shlaim is a professor of international relations at Oxford; he holds a history degree from Cambridge. Pappe is a professor of history at Exeter, his D.Phil is from Oxford. Zeev Sternhell was head of the politics department at Hebrew University & is widely regarded as one of the world’s leading historians of Zionism. Sternhell’s book on Israel’s founding is published by Princeton University Press. And everyone from Chomsky to Dershowitz respects Morris.

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

Zeev Sternhell on 1967 war:

"The war that broke out between Israel and her Arab neighbours in June 1967 followed a period of escalating conflict between Israel and Syria. But it was precipitated by Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser's expulsion of UN forces from the Gaza Strip, which Egypt then controlled, and Sharm el Sheikh, where they were guarding the Straits of Tiran, and the closing of the Straits to Israeli shipping."

He agrees that it was defensive!

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision Insofar as, according to you, he is an idiot who has been debunked hundreds of times, it is clear that it was not a defensive war. Or have you changed your mind?

I cited Sternhell on the following points 1. Israel had been waiting for a pretext to seize the occupied territories 2. Israeli historians have called into question whether the Six Day War was defensive. He has done this, regardless of his conclusion. You said this point was not debatable. I'm right, you're wrong.

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

I am not going to get personal with you, it is not worth my time and I am an adult.

Sternhell is only one of many historians, and I can site just as many that will say the opposite. The facts are that UN242 calls for defensible borders, especially since prior to 1967 Syria was firing on Israeli civilians in the North of the Sea of Galili (I have been there with those that lived through the terror there.)

Israelis could not even drive around the small lake due to the shootings.

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision Lastly, on that Sternhell quote --

I didn't read it when you posted it because you were trying to prove something that had nothing to do with my citation of Sternhell's work as a source. But the violence between Syria and Israel was mutually antagonistic and not part of the war. Nasser's closing of the Straits of Tiran was not an act of violence and no serious historian claims that it put Israel's security in jeopardy. Nowhere in that quote does he agree it was defensive.

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

The violence between Syria and Israel was NOT mutually antagonistic, in any way. The Golan is high and overlooking Israeli towns and villages, so it is easy to shoot from there into Tiberias or the surrounding area,which Syria did routinely.

Have you been there? I have, I even lived in Tiberias;& in the north where the Golan is makes it indefensible against aggression.

Look at a map to see, if you don't know.

[finitube]

@meshzzizk "Nasser's closing of the Straits of Tiran was not an act of violence"

Excuse me? It was an act of war. The issue is not whether it put Israel's security in immediate jeopardy, but it closed off Israel's only port to the Indian and Pacific oceans.

[meshzzizk]

@finitube I don’t understand why you think cutting off that port -- which received only 5% of Israel’s trade and hadn’t been used by an Israeli-flagged ship for nearly 3 years prior -- constituted an act of war. It also isn't clear to me, just as it wasn't clear to a great many authorities at the time, what legal pretext could be provided for such an interpretation.

[meshzzizk]

@finitube And, not to put words in your mouth, I’m also puzzled by the strange cognitive dissonance that pervades hawkish pro-Israel opinion around this blockade issue. Anyone who simultaneously claims that Israel was justified in launching a preemptive war against Egypt in retaliation for the relatively benign closing of the Straits of Tiran, and that Hamas is *not* justified in firing on Israel in response to the complete strangulation of all of its borders and ports is arguing in bad faith.

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

Hamas has a border on Egypt, so your claim that the "complete strangulation of all of its borders and ports" is by Israel is just silly.

[finitube]

@meshzzizk "Anyone who simultaneously claims that Israel was justified in launching a preemptive war against Egypt in retaliation for the relatively benign closing of the Straits of Tiran, and that Hamas is *not* justified in firing on Israel in response to the complete strangulation of all of its borders"

Let's talk about bad faith. Blockading the Straits of Tiran was far from the only indication that Egypt and Syria intended to go to war against Israel.

[finitube]

@meshzzizk "Anyone who simultaneously claims that Israel was justified in launching a preemptive war against Egypt in retaliation for the relatively benign closing of the Straits of Tiran, and that Hamas is *not* justified in firing on Israel in response"

You've got the sequence backwards - Israel imposed the blockade AFTER the frequency with which rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel increased markedly.

[finitube]

@meshzzizk "Anyone who simultaneously claims that Israel was justified in launching a preemptive war against Egypt in retaliation for the relatively benign closing of the Straits of Tiran"

Not to mention the expulsion of UN forces from the Egypt-Israeli border, the mobilization of armored and infantry divisions and relocation to nearer the border, the relocation of a squadron to position it for a strike perhaps on Dimona, and whipping up the public with war rhetoric. And Syria's mobilization.

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision But yeah, they’re the idiots. Whereas you, author of fine prose like “self-education and schooling clearly is,” are clearly endowed with a superior intellect.

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

Let me just show everyone your level of education on the matter. You wrote, "It is inadmissible under international law to acquire territory through war."

FALSE!!!

Do you really think that any country or body can attack another and have no repercussion? If that were so, there would be a million wars a day, and everyone would just need to return to start and do it all over the next day.

What would be the reason for not attacking others, if land is not an issue?

THINK a bit!!!

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision Capitalization is a stylistic issue, not a grammatical one. I find it hard to believe that even someone as dense as you would so bewildered by lower case letters at the start of numbered clauses.

Anyway, I would be absolutely delighted to go back to UN242. Please, Mr. Erudite Scholar, tell us all what the second preambular paragraph says. It starts with “Emphasizing…”

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

Capitalization is grammar, and as usually you write with no brains involved. You ramble and if anyone here is dense, it is you!

As for UN242, Israel is to return land, but not "all" the land. The word "all" was left out after much scrutiny and is not found deliberately.

You chose not to read the entire resolution to understand it, it calls for " ... every State in the area [to] live in security free from threats or acts of force"

The incitement of the palis is a violation of UN242

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision Consult the NASA LRC technical writing manual. You'll find that capitalization is treated separately from grammar. I’ll trust them and not the moron who confuses “usual” with “usually.”

Still waiting for you to quote that second preambular paragraph…what does it say? Or do you not know because you’ve never read it?

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

Right...NASA is the authority on the English language ...lol..moron!

You seem to be under the impression that I work for you...lol again!

Learn to read more than a sentence, study history, and learn meaning, then maybe we can talk, but I think a cat debates better than you do anyway.

EVERY RESOLUTION HAS CALLED FOR AN END TO INCITEMENT AND TERROR WHICH YOU IGNORE DUE TO BLIND JEALOUSY AND HATRED.

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision Wrong NASA, abbie. Nice try, though. XD

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision I’ve demonstrated that I’ve been right about everything and that I’m clearly smarter, more erudite, and in all likelihood better looking than you. The only way I'm reading anything else you write is if it starts with, "I apologize for falsely accusing you of plagiarism, admit that I've been wrong about everything, and I will donate all my savings to Palestine." Otherwise, I will happily ignore it. Have a nice day. : )

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

You need to apologize to me for saying I use Wikipedia, which I don't, however I am not 5 yrs old, and could care less for your apology. I am glad you didn't copy, since your own writing had no meaning...let me copy it here:

"2. do not apply in light of scholarship and diplomatic testimony calling into question whether Israel fought a defensive war in 1967" Scholarship? It is not relevant?

BTW Dershowitz calls Sternhell antisemitic, no respect there.

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

Loads of falsehoods, the idea of UN242 is for Israel to have secure and defensible borders, which was not the fact prior to 1967. This is clear to everyone, even your anti-Israeli writers.

As for your 4 point comment, still trying to figure out what it said, where the word scholarship is at all relevant to anything, for example.

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision Also, Gaza remains under occupation so long as Israel controls its borders, ports, airspace, and water resources. And nothing incites violence like slaughtering 1200 innocent people, blowing up mosques and hospitals, and incinerating little kids with white phosphorous, as the IDF did in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead. Jewish terrorists killed occupying British soldiers for far less.

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

Are you trying to change the subject? How typically pathetic.

If we are debating the legality of the land that you want to call "occupied" even though it isn't, then let's do it.

By changing the subject, to another defensive war (Israel only entered Gaza after over 10,000 rockets were fired into Israel putting over 1 million Israelis within rocket range,) shows everyone that I have proven that there is no illegal occupation re:Israel.

While EVERY treaty calls for an end to incitemtn

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision I'm not changing the subject, I'm responding to your claim that Gaza is not occupied and implications that only the Palestinians are guilty of terrorist violence.

Israel did not fight a war in Gaza, much less a defensive one. The Egypt-brokered ceasefire was broken by Israel on November 4th 2008. Israel, incidentally, never honored its end of the ceasefire by easing the blockade. Prior to Nov. 4th Hamas upheld the truce & arrested rogue militants who continued to fire rockets.

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

AP lead paragraphs:

"Palestinian militants fired three homemade rockets into southern Israel yesterday, threatening to unravel a cease-fire days after it began, &Israel responded by closing vital border crossings into Gaza.

Despite what it called a "gross violation" of the truce, Israel refrained from military action.."

This was the first of many violations of the cease-fire! Not enough room to write them all, even with 5 comment boxes

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision JESUS FUCKING CHRIST YOU DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO READ THE ARTICLE YOU'RE LIFTING OFF WIKIPEDIA. HAMAS WAS OPPOSED TO THAT ATTACK AND SUBSEQUENTLY ARRESTED THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE.

And Israel never followed through on easing the blockade, which, ipso facto, amounts to a general abrogation of the ceasefire which Hamas upheld.

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

BTW, none of my text is from Wikipedia, think you need to check your facts prior to writing total bullshit. Find my text, any of it, in Wikipedia. Good luck finding something that doesn't exist!

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

Since there is NOT A JEW IN GAZA AND NO ISRAELIS ARE ALLOWED IN, HOW CAN GAZA BE OCCUPIED?

Israel pulled out her towns in Gaza which were beautiful and economically well off, as a chance at peace, but the result is more terrorism, like every time Israel talks peace (hear about the 5 rockets that hit Eilat two days ago and the one that hit Jordan)? Again, peace talks always result in Muslim violence.

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision I already told you more than once. Let's do this again. If Israel controls Gaza's airspace, ports, borders, water resources, and right of entry/exit, and militarily surveils the territory, then it is occupied.

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

"occupied territory" The Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S. Military:  under the authority and effective control of a belligerent armed force. The term is not applicable to territory being administered pursuant to peace terms, treaty, or other agreement, express or implied, with the civil authority of the territory.

This cannot be Gaza, since it is not "authority and effective control of a belligerent armed force" and therefore NO OCCUPIED. Which dictionary did you use?

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision Israel controls Gaza's air, borders, ports, right of entry, and water supplies. Israel keeps Gaza under constant video surveillance and repeatedly enters without permission or warning to obstruct construction, tunnel digging, and militant operations. That's "effective control." The dictionary you consulted vindicates my position, as does B'Tselem, Israel's main human rights organization.

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

B'Tselem is your source now. A group dedicated to the end of Israel. I need to see only one time that B'Tselem has even called a suicide bomber a terrorist or at all condemned the actions of the terrorists in Gaza. Can't find any sources without bias, so you go to the biggest haters that exist and think that they are viable, either pure haters or those with terror ties. Good job on your sources and your clear bias.

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision You wrote, “If we are debating the legality of the land that you want to call "occupied" even though it isn't, then let's do it.” From the 2004 International Court of Justice advisory opinion, “No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal” ; “the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian...territories occupied since 1967 [have] no legal validity.”; ...

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

You wrote:

"..the 2004 International Court of Justice advisory opinion.." ADVISORY OPINION...THAT IS NOT LAW, it is only as you have written advisory opinion!

Don't understand law vs opinion? Shame...I will explain it.

Opinion is like "Palestinians want peace" while law is "UN242 doesn't say to return all the territory, since it would leave Israel with indefensible borders" which is against UN242.

If the Arabs had won the war, any war, they would have killed all Jews! FACT

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision And here's how the 2004 International Court of Justice advisory opinion concludes its judgment,

"The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law."

I win. You lose. Oh, it feels so good to be right…

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

You are not a winner, in any way...a loser, a terrorist supporter, a Muslim...YES, but that is about it.

The International Court is part of the UN, which is a proxy for Muslims today, and terror. The Arab countries, which everyone knows have the worse human rights record in the world, have not gotten any resolutions, while Israel has in the hundreds, including when she is acting in self-defense.

Not one resolution even against Darfur genocide, while 22 against Israel.

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

"Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties..When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces 'from territories' it occupied during the Six-Day War--not from 'the' territories nor from 'all' the territories, but from some of the territories.."

Eugene W. Rostow, JD, former US Undersecretary of State for political affairs

[finitube]

@abbienetvision "The Palis have had so many chances to build a state, but don't want to, they prefer their goal to be murdering innocent Israelis."

Not to mention that before 1967, the Palestinians had no interest in forming a state at all. Their explicit goal then was to destroy Israel. When they were occupied by Egypt and Jordan they didn't give a flying fig about Palestinian autonomy.

[abbienetvision]

@finitube

Absolutely right. Thanks for coming here and trying to get the Islamic hater, meshzzizk to see facts, rather than just his worthless opinion, which he considers legal law.

[meshzzizk]

This video erroneously assumes that the corrupt regimes which preside over other poor countries don't squander and embezzle aid money. It also seems to suggest that the alternative to donating to the PA is to forget Palestine and give more money to sub-Saharan Africa. It doesn't mention the sanctions leveled against the PA, the blockade of Gaza, or that Gaza's Hamas regime has garnered popular support precisely because it has resisted the venality and corruption which have discredited the PA.

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

Gaza was not blockaded in 2005, but it was ethnically cleansed of Jews. The palis there decided to vote into power a terrorist group (Hamas) who fired thousands of rockets into Israel, rather than build a society.

The palis prefer to live and teach hatred, while complaining they have nothing, while there are many places in the world that actually needs help, as shown on this vid.

The blockade is totally legal and any country with terror attacks would do the same.  Learn legality!

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision The only condition under which the blockade could be legal is if Israel and Hamas are in a state of International Armed Conflict. In order for the situation to count as IAC, 1. Hamas has to be state (which it isn't) 2. Israel has to recognize Hamas's right to attack Israeli soldiers, and 3. Israel has to treat captured Hamas militants as POWs (which is obviously isn't going to do).

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

Precedence is what is used here:

So Israel's legal position is reasonable, and it has precedent. During the U.S. Civil War, the Union claimed to blockade the Confederacy while at the same time maintaining that the Confederacy was not a sovereign state but an agent of insurrection.

This is one of the many cases similar, a state is not needed to create a legal blockade.

Better polish your reading to become educated on the law, as it is, not as you see it.

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision Polish my reading? You just googled then copied and pasted. If you were actually familiar with international law, you would realize that I've already alluded to this argument and dismissed it in the post you're responding to.

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

I only copied and pasted to get the right words. International law is clear on the facts, unlike your posts, which have yet to deal with anything close to facts or international law.

[meshzzizk]

@abbienetvision Really? Because according to International Law, YOU think Hamas has a right to fire on Israeli soldiers. That's part-and-parcel of what you get if you establish a blockade on the US Civil War precedent. Wikipedia will not avail you if you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

[abbienetvision]

@meshzzizk

International law does not give Hamas the right to fire rockets, at all.

There is no illegal occupation, I repeat it again!

Israel's seizing the land in '67 was the only legal acquisition of the territory this century: Jordanian occupation of the West Bank from 1947-67, by contrast, had been the result of an offensive war in 1948 &was never recognized by the international community, including the Arab states, with the exception of UK& Pakistan.

[Iceberg6606]

Well done! This was amazing!

[EmiNemfan0il]

Great video thanks ! thanks thanks

hope more people will see this video,

GJ

[drbable1]

@IamaZionistGoy

i agree

[abbienetvision]

@drbable1

Thanks for viewing and commenting.

For you and IamaZionistGoy!

Be Well and keep watching the vids.