Gaza should pay the bill or they can stay in the dark
why should we give them free electricity?
they should ask some from Egypt maybe
and those women being searched for obvious reasons
we all know that Muslims cant be trusted
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods
Curious now if you're a hasbara troll, since you react to all my posts in a manner that's highly suggestive of you being paid to. If you're not getting paid, well, I recommend you sign up, there's a lot of money in it.
You steal land and then complain about giving your prisoners electricity, even if International Law as well as your own state's laws dictate you must.
Zionist Nationalist wrote:fuck them if they want free electricity ...
Gaza is under Hamas controll no settlers there anymore.
and the west bank have electricity
ArtAllm wrote:Was Warsow Ghetto under Jewish control?
What about electricity there?
Zionist Nationalist wrote:Warsaw ghetto didn't had a terrorist government shooting rockets on German towns
ArtAllm wrote:You have ignored my questions and I am reluctant to talk about the uprising in the mentioned Ghetto.
Israeli settlers assaulted a 68-year-old Palestinian woman until she lost consciousness . They also assaulted other members of her family. Israeli security forces who arrived at the scene did not arrest any of the assailants.
https://www.facebook.com/btselem/posts/ ... 77246570:0
http://www.btselem.org/settler_violence ... in_huwarah
Zionist Nationalist wrote:Warsaw ghetto was not really under Jewish controlAs someone who is ~75% descended from around that location, I can say that it was pretty strong when it needed to be.
skinster wrote:You steal land and then complain about giving your prisoners electricity, even if International Law as well as your own state's laws dictate you must.
redcarpet wrote:Where does it say Israel is obligated to supply electricity to Gaza?
noir wrote:No, it's not. It ended its occupation. 10 years for Hamas rule of Gaza.
Deliberations
11. The question confronting us is whether the various restrictions upon the supply of fuel and electricity to the Gaza Strip harm the essential humanitarian needs of the residents of the Gaza Strip. As we said in our decision of 29 November 2007, the State of Israel is under no obligation to allow an unlimited amount of electricity and fuel to enter the Gaza Strip in circumstances in which some of these commodities are in practice being used by the terrorist organisations in order to attack Israeli civilians. The duty of the State of Israel derives from the essential humanitarian needs of the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip. The respondents are required to discharge their obligations under international humanitarian law, which requires them to allow the Gaza Strip to receive only what is needed in order to provide the essential humanitarian needs of the civilian population.
12. The State argued before us that it acts in accordance with the rules of international law and fulfils its humanitarian obligations under the laws of war. Counsel for the state argues that these obligations are limited, and they are derived from the state of armed conflict that exists between the State of Israel and the Hamas organisation that controls the Gaza Strip, and from the need to avoid harm to the civilian population that finds itself in the combat zone. We should point out in this context that since September 2005 Israel no longer has effective control over what happens in the Gaza Strip. Military rule that applied in the past in this territory came to an end by a decision of the government, and Israeli soldiers are no longer stationed in the territory on a permanent basis, nor are they in charge of what happens there. In these circumstances, the State of Israel does not have a general duty to ensure the welfare of the residents of the Gaza Strip or to maintain public order in the Gaza Strip according to the laws of belligerent occupation in international law. Neither does Israel have any effective capability, in its present position, of enforcing order and managing civilian life in the Gaza Strip. In the prevailing circumstances, the main obligations of the State of Israel relating to the residents of the Gaza Strip derive from the state of armed conflict that exists between it and the Hamas organisation that controls the Gaza Strip; these obligations also derive from the degree of control exercised by the State of Israel over the border crossings between it and the Gaza Strip, as well as from the relationship that was created between Israel and the territory of the Gaza Strip after the years of Israeli military rule in the territory, as a result of which the Gaza Strip is currently almost completely dependent upon the supply of electricity from Israel.
13. In this context, the respondents referred in their pleadings to various provisions of international humanitarian law that apply to this case. Inter alia, the respondents referred to art. 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949 (hereinafter: "the Fourth Geneva Convention"), which requires a party to a conflict to allow the free passage of consignments intended for the civilians of the other party. They said, however, that this is a very limited obligation, since it only requires a party to a conflict to allow the unlimited passage of medical equipment, and to allow the passage of foodstuffs, clothing and medicine intended for children under the age of fifteen and pregnant women. The respondents also referred to art. 70 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 1977 (hereinafter: ''the First Protocol"), which in their opinion constitutes customary international law, and which imposes a general and broader obligation whereby parties to a conflict are required to allow the rapid and unimpeded passage of essential goods for the civilian population. Finally, the respondents also referred in their pleadings to art. 54 of the First Protocol, which prohibits the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, as well as any attack, destruction, removal or rendering useless of installations required by the civilian population, including foodstuffs, agricultural areas and drinking water installations.
14. The state's pleadings in this regard are based upon norms that are part of customary international law, which set out basic obligations that govern combatants engaged armed conflict, and require them to ensure the welfare of the civilian population and respect its dignity and basic rights. It should also be noted that under the rules of customary international humanitarian law, each party to a conflict is obliged to refrain from disrupting the passage of basic humanitarian relief to populations in need of such relief in areas under its control (J. Henckaerts & L. Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law (ICRC, vol. 1, 2005), at pp. 197, 199). In the commentary to art. 70 of the First Protocol, too, it is stated that arts. 54 and 70 of the First Protocol should be read together, to the effect that a party to a conflict may not refuse to allow the passage of foodstuffs and basic humanitarian equipment necessary for the survival of the civilian population (Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Y. Sandoz, C. Swinarski, B. Zimmermann, eds., (ICRC, Geneva, 1987), at p. 820).
15. It transpires from the aforesaid that the respondents do not in any way deny the existence of their humanitarian obligations, which require the State of Israel to allow the passage of essential humanitarian goods to the Gaza Strip, and to refrain from deliberately inflicting damage on humanitarian facilities. According to the respondents' arguments, which they supported with affidavits and statements of the responsible authorities, not only are the respondents allowing the transfer essential goods to the civilian population in the Gaza Strip, but they also regard this as a humanitarian obligation for which they are liable pursuant to international law and to a cabinet decision. The respondents emphasised, however, that this does not require them to allow the passage of non-essential goods or of goods in amounts that exceed what is required for basic humanitarian needs
redcarpet wrote:Where does it say Israel is obligated to supply electricity to Gaza?
Gaza's only power plant destroyed in Israel's most intense air strike yet
Flames and clouds of black smoke billowed over Gaza's only power plant on after it was destroyed during the most relentless and widespread Israeli bombardment of the current conflict. At least 100 people were killed on Tuesday, according to Gaza health officials.
"The power plant is finished," said its director, Mohammed al-Sharif, signalling a new crisis for Gaza's 1.8 million people, who were already enduring power cuts of more than 20 hours a day.
Amnesty International said the crippling of the power station amounted to "collective punishment of Palestinians". The strike on the plant will worsen already severe problems with Gaza's water supply, sewage treatment and power supplies to medical facilities.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ ... nians-dead
- By Rugoz
Supposedly Iran sent information on their attack […]
- By FiveofSwords
News to me.. "The analysis shows that dissi[…]
- By Rugoz
No, just America. And I am not alone . Althoug[…]
- By QatzelOk
This reminds me of a Soviet diplomat who was once[…]
