Israel VS Gaza?

there is a right to self defence (Article 51 of the UN Charter) but this is not an unqualified right and can only be invoked under certain circumstances (ergo not in many of the cases where Israel argues it does).

Article 51 does not apply to a situation that involves an Occupying Power (the State of Israel) acting within occupied territories under its own authority and responsibility. In legal terms, Israel cannot invoke the right to self-defence under Article 51 to justify the use of military force in territories on which Israel itself exercises effective control, at least since 1967. (Although Israel withdrew its troops from Gaza under the "disengagement plan" in 2005, Israel's relocation of its troops from the occupied land does not end its status as the "Occupying power". Israel continuously maintained control over Gaza's borders, air and sea space, water, electricity, sewage and telecommunication systems and because of that, Gaza remains an occupied territory as defined in international law. In fact, UN Security Council resolution 1860 (pdf) issued on January 8, 2009 clearly notes that: "the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967".)

Indeed, it would be inconceivable for most of us to imagine any other country barricading a city or a district within a territory under its own watch, then use F-16 fire jets, high-tech Cobra helicopters, ground troops, cluster bombs, white phosphorus and depleted uranium ammunition, killing thousands of its inhabitants under the pretext of combating, for instance, street gang criminality. It would be even more absurd if that country justified all that by invoking an extraneous right under the UN Charter. Yet, this is exactly what Israel has done in Gaza.

Palestine (Gaza strip and the West Bank) is not yet considered an independent sovereign State - especially not by Israel. The swath of land known as "Palestine" (which encompasses Gaza) is an inhabited territory under Israeli mandate and occupation since 1967. For Israel to become entitled to invoke Article 51 of the UN Charter (which is a multilateral inter-state treaty) and benefit from its relevant rules of self-defence, Israel needs at least to recognize that it is dealing with another "State" (be it a State that directly commits armed attacks against Israel or a State whose territory is being used by an autonomous hostile group to mount attacks against Israel).
But Israel cannot persistently rebuff Palestine's Statehood on one hand, and, on the other hand, treat Palestine as a State whenever it needs to utilise the Charter to legitimise its use of force against.

In other words, Israel's self-defence argument entails the precondition of recognising Palestinian Statehood; while not doing so entails setting the Charter's legal subterfuges aside and solely complying with the strictures of Humanitarian law (especially the Geneva Conventions) regarding occupation.

Ha! Did you even read what I wrote?

Nothing of the sort. Any nation can have diplomatic interactions with any organisation without having to recognise it as a legitimate government. Israel interacts with Hamas as an organisation that rules over Gaza. It is not a legitimate government, being a terrorist organisation, yet nevertheless has de facto control over the Gazan people. Claiming that expecting Hamas to abide by and enforce a ceasefire is tantamount to recognising the group as 'legitimate' is a ridiculous notion.

What I do find interesting is how these anti-semites become quite rankled when you point out their anti-semitism.

They tell you they support "armed resistance" against Israel. You ask them, "Would you support a suicide bombing of a bus carrying only Israeli Arabs?". They would say of course not. But they would support bombing a bus carrying Israeli Jews.

This indicates the relevant factor here is whether the victim is Jewish. Thus, they support killing people for their Jewish identity. But then they complain when others point this out

They tell you they support "armed resistance" against Israel. You ask them, "Would you support a suicide bombing of a bus carrying only Israeli Arabs?". They would say of course not. But they would support bombing a bus carrying Israeli Jews.

and your source is 'Opinion' and nothing more.

Then can you tell me which International law Israel are breaking by defending themselves from such attacks.

That is as you have studied international law.

You really ought to substantiate that

You failed the class. A shame, but not surprising.

You get the same thing when you ask, "Why do you fixate on Israel to the exclusion of other state?" and they will tell you it's because Israel must be held to a higher standard as a democracy. The words are barely out of their mouth before they start screeching that Israel is an apartheid state and no democracy.

You deny that there are people who support Hamas "right of armed resistance"?

If you agree that you denounce Hamas terrorism and deny they have a "right of armed resistance", I will agree that characterisation does not apply to you

You ask them, "Would you support a suicide bombing of a bus carrying only Israeli Arabs?". They would say of course not. But they would support bombing a bus carrying Israeli Jews.

You have changed your premise entirely. Can you substantiate your original claim, or not?

I certainly won't.

Perhaps if Hamas didn't keep building tunnels Israel wouldn't have this reason to defend themselves.

Article 51Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 51 of the Charter, the Court notes, recognizes the existence of an inherent right of self-defence in the case of armed attack by one State against another State.

Israel cannot invoke Article 51 in its actions in Gaza because it is the occupying power

It is perfectly tenable to argue that Israel should be held to a higher standard because of its own claims

From their perspective, when they want to claim Palestine is an independent state, they will claim that. When they suddenly want to claim it's not, they will claim the opposite.

You get the same thing when you ask, "Why do you fixate on Israel to the exclusion of other state?" and they will tell you it's because Israel must be held to a higher standard as a democracy. The words are barely out of their mouth before they start screeching that Israel is an apartheid state and no democracy.

Israel has repeatedly tried to give back land for peace; South Lebanon and Gaza being but two recent examples. What do they get in return? Rockets, suicide bombings, death and destruction. I can understand why they would be circumspect about withdrawing from West Bank as welll

What I do find interesting is how these anti-semites become quite rankled when you point out their anti-semitism.

Israel cannot invoke Article 51 in its actions in Gaza because it is the occupying power

you called out a person for "smearing" you but then you here you are, smearing people with the anti-Semitic brush.

If you call targeting children defending yourselves lol

Isreal will drive tanks over people's homes regardless of what Palestinian terrorists do. They see smuggling medicine and food as an act of aggression.

I'm sure you would maim one of them yourself if you could.

Your solution to Northern Ireland and the IRA would have been to drive British Army tanks over houses...

What I find most interesting, @MostUncivilised

If you call targeting children defending yourselves lol