'The Third Intifada has already begun'

[fuelair]

Maybe if he ignores enough of us we can discuss the topic rationally and stop reading the same claims and excuses for the murderers and terrorists that are Hamass (and it's butt buddies).................

 

[Jules Galen]

Pure BS - and did you miss the programs a couple years back explaining how and where school age kids were conscripted (some possibly volunteering, others just assigned) to dig parts of the tunnel system into Israel as well as in other parts of Gaza so militant ass****ers could hide and fight from them?

Well...it is a known fact that Israeli Soldiers Torture Palestinian Children and use them as Human Shields - we have credible evidence to back that up.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...95J0FR20130620

However, do you have any credible evidence to back up your claim?

 

[Aridas]

Maybe if he ignores enough of us we can discuss the topic rationally and stop reading the same claims and excuses for the murderers and terrorists that are Hamass (and it's butt buddies).................

Ehh... There isn't much discussion, then, generally, given that rationally, things tend to turn out fairly clearly, for the most part. Both Israelis and the Palestinians are far, far from saints, regardless of the exact reasons and relative "sins" of each, so arguments about which are better tend to not last all that long or be considered all that important in comparison to questions like what needs to actually happen to actually make things better and official positions and precedent related to that.

 

[Jules Galen]

Here's Jimmy Carter Talking about how Israel practices Apartheid in order to steal Palestinian Land:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvtC_qzHVM4

He also elucidates how Israel is breaking International Law and how Israel's occupation of Palestine is the root of the violence.

 

[uke2se]

Shouldn't a lot of this be in the general Israel and Palestine thread? That way, this thread could be focused on discussing current on goings. We really don't need billboard posters who are only interested in shouting slogans here.

 

[Jules Galen]

Here's a video of an ex-IDF Soldier and Israeli giving a Speech that elucidates how the Israeli occupation works - and how it is responsible for the violence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etXAm-OylQQ

After you watch it, you should get a better idea of how a thing such as the Intifada can happen.

BTW....I don't agree with what all this guys says, but he does answer a lot of questions.

 

[McHrozni]

This is a couple years old now, but should still be pretty close. Even without Israeli forces stationed inside the Gaza Strip, Gaza is generally given the status of occupied. It's certainly a weaker use of the term than normal, though, given that Israel has little direct sway on what actually happens within the Gaza Strip and that they're fully within their national rights to limit what passes through their borders into and out of Gaza, for the most part. This is different enough from a standard conception of "occupied" that Israel doesn't actually need to lie when they say that they're not occupying Gaza, though it's not necessarily a proper refutation of the reasons why other political powers categorize the Gaza Strip as occupied.

It's six years old, and about an incursion into the Gaza strip, as a direct response to a Hamas attack against Israeli civilians.

The article does explain why the Palestinians consider it an occupation. No, it doesn't fit any definition of occupation that doesn't directly involve Israel.

To Hamas, Israel's "occupation" is not limited to Gaza and the West Bank. Like many other Islamic militant groups, Hamas views Israel's presence as the de facto occupier of greater Palestine. Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel altogether.

McHrozni

 

[Aridas]

It's six years old, and about an incursion into the Gaza strip, as a direct response to a Hamas attack against Israeli civilians.

The article does explain why the Palestinians consider it an occupation. No, it doesn't fit any definition of occupation that doesn't directly involve Israel.

To Hamas, Israel's "occupation" is not limited to Gaza and the West Bank. Like many other Islamic militant groups, Hamas views Israel's presence as the de facto occupier of greater Palestine. Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel altogether.

McHrozni

I did note that it's years old. The actual reasons haven't changed much in that time, though, I think. Of more interest for reasonable discussion than the Arab views of Israel being inherently an occupation would be the US and UN stances that are referred to, for the "it's an occupation" side, both of which are notably weaker for their arguments than the more generic meaning of the word. Either way, it tends to feel like most of the people who choose to try to make a big deal out of the "occupation" point on these boards have tried to argue for it by invoking a number of rather questionable arguments. Depending on which version of occupied is being invoked, it may or may not actually qualify as such. I tend to think that it'd be better for them to just skip the "occupied" claim and move on to the more justifiable points, frankly.

 

[McHrozni]

I did note that it's years old. The actual reasons haven't changed much in that time, though, I think.

Unless the actual reasons are presence of IDF troops in Gaza then they have actually changed completely.

Of more interest for reasonable discussion than the Arab views of Israel being inherently an occupation would be the US and UN stances that are referred to, for the "it's an occupation" side, both of which are weaker for their arguments than the more generic actual meaning of the word.

FTFY.
Arab states have defined the very existence of Israel as "occupation". That supposedly allows them to decry anything Israel does, including existing, as an occupation.
Needless to say, it's plain stupid to pay their redefinition of occupation any respect whatsoever. They only deserve scorn and despise for their demonstrated absolute refusal to commit to peace.

Either way, it tends to feel like most of the people who choose to try to make a big deal out of the "occupation" point on these boards have tried to argue for it by invoking a number of rather questionable arguments. Depending on which version of occupied is being invoked, it may or may not actually qualify as such. I tend to think that it'd be better for them to just skip the "occupied" claim and move on to the more justifiable points, frankly.

Since Gaza is not, in fact, occupied we might as point it out to being a lie every time it's made.

McHrozni

 

[Aridas]

Unless the actual reasons are presence of IDF troops in Gaza then they have actually changed completely.

Given that the article was written years after the Israeli settlers and military forces were removed and such actually is referred to in the article? No, that does not, in fact, seem to be relevant.

FTFY.

Not really.

Arab states have defined the very existence of Israel as "occupation". That supposedly allows them to decry anything Israel does, including existing, as an occupation.
Needless to say, it's plain stupid to pay their redefinition of occupation any respect whatsoever. They only deserve scorn and despise for their demonstrated absolute refusal to commit to peace.

Sure. You'd need to demonstrate that the UN and US are also using this as what they're talking about when the word "occupied" or "occupation" are used by them, though, if you wanted this to actually support your attempt at FTFY. You did not, though, and I had already dismissed the Arab version as unreasonable, so this isn't actually making an argument regarding what I said.

Since Gaza is not, in fact, occupied we might as point it out to being a lie every time it's made.

More specifically, it's not occupied in a way that it would need to be for most of the arguments that they can base on that premise to be particularly meaningful, and they tend to ignore a number of also relevant points when they're arguing along those lines on top of that.

 

[McHrozni]

Given that the article was written years after the Israeli settlers and military forces were removed and such actually is referred to in the article? No, that does not, in fact, seem to be relevant.

For it to be relevant there need to be IDF presence in Gaza and in control of the strip. It is neither.

More specifically, it's not occupied in a way that it would need to be for most of the arguments that they can base on that premise to be particularly meaningful, and they tend to ignore a number of also relevant points when they're arguing along those lines on top of that.

Which relevant points are those? I haven't seen any yet. I've seen lots of irrelevant points, but I see no reason to heed them.

McHrozni

 

[Aridas]

For it to be relevant there need to be IDF presence in Gaza and in control of the strip. It is neither.

...Sounds like you're not following what's actually been said well enough to make a coherent argument, then. I pointed out that the reasons why Gaza's described as occupied probably haven't changed much since the article was written. You've brought up IDF troops in Gaza as a reason why they might have changed since then. I pointed out that that argument doesn't work because there weren't any IDF troops in Gaza when the article was written and the article specifically refers to that. Now you're trying to change what's in question entirely instead of addressing the point? That really isn't helping your argument.

Which relevant points are those? I haven't seen any yet. I've seen lots of irrelevant points, but I see no reason to heed them.

McHrozni

Yup, not following along very well at all, given I was pointing out that the relevant points being ignored by the "GAZA IS OCCUPIED!" people tend to weaken the actual arguments that they make quite significantly. For clarity's sake, do you think that I'm wrong about that?

 

[McHrozni]

...Sounds like you're not following what's actually been said well enough to make a coherent argument, then. I pointed out that the reasons why Gaza's described as occupied probably haven't changed much since the article was written. You've brought up IDF troops in Gaza as a reason why they might have changed since then. I pointed out that that argument doesn't work because there weren't any IDF troops in Gaza when the article was written and the article specifically refers to that. Now you're trying to change what's in question entirely instead of addressing the point? That really isn't helping your argument.

Unless I'm reading this part wrong:

Ambassador Reda Mansour, Israel's consul general to the Southeastern United States, decried "the same old story about 'occupation.'" He added, "We didn't have, until the last 48 hours, one soldier inside Gaza. We didn't have one settler there."

The article actually states there were IDF soldiers in Gaza.

Yup, not following along very well at all, given I was pointing out that the relevant points being ignored by the "GAZA IS OCCUPIED!" people tend to weaken the actual arguments that they make quite significantly. For clarity's sake, do you think that I'm wrong about that?

No, I think you're right about that.

McHrozni

 

[Agatha]

Please remain civil and polite. Whilst the subject is always one which can stir strong emotions on all sides, this does not release anyone of their obligation to follow their Membership Agreement.

For the avoidance of doubt, discussions of ignore lists will almost always be off-topic and uncivil.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Allen773]

Once again we see properly understood words given entirely different meanings when it comes to Israel, but there's no anti-Semitism involved in any of it no way!

Genocide, refugee, apartheid, occupation... all words with an extra definition that applies only to Israel.

Calling what Israel does a genocide is disgusting and an insult to the victims and survivors of actual historical genocides (like, say, the one that happened in Europe in living memory...who were the primary victims of that one again? ). And I'm not even a big-time supporter of Israel or have any personal attachment to it (them), but shameless hyperbole should be called out for what it is.

 

[Aridas]

Unless I'm reading this part wrong:

Ambassador Reda Mansour, Israel's consul general to the Southeastern United States, decried "the same old story about 'occupation.'" He added, "We didn't have, until the last 48 hours, one soldier inside Gaza. We didn't have one settler there."

The article actually states there were IDF soldiers in Gaza.

I accept that I worded things slightly improperly, then. My apologies. The pertinent point, though, is that Gaza's status, according to the UN and US, was shown in the article to remain as "occupied" in some way, even after the troops had been removed. In the UN and US parts of the article, neither of them were at all based on the then current incident, given that the UN statement made was recent and years after the removal of IDF troops and settlers, but nowhere close to within 48 hours and the US statement noted had somewhat different context.

 

[McHrozni]

I accept that I worded things slightly improperly, then. My apologies. The pertinent point, though, is that Gaza's status, according to the UN and US, was shown in the article to remain as "occupied" in some way, even after the troops had been removed. In the UN and US parts of the article, neither of them were at all based on the then current incident, given that the UN statement made was recent and years after the removal of IDF troops and settlers, but nowhere close to within 48 hours and the US statement noted had somewhat different context.

After UN resolution 3379, any UN statement on Israel is to be taken with no less than a trainload of salt. I usually perfer two for good measure.

McHrozni

 

[Aridas]

After UN resolution 3379, any UN statement on Israel is to be taken with no less than a trainload of salt. I usually perfer two for good measure.

McHrozni

Not a bad policy, in general, frankly. That doesn't actually address the point I actually made very well, though, and nor does it directly address what the UN actually claims is the basis for still counting Gaza as occupied.

 

[McHrozni]

Not a bad policy, in general, frankly. That doesn't actually address the point I actually made very well, though, and nor does it directly address what the UN actually claims is the basis for still counting Gaza as occupied.

Half of UN claims are based on the fact Israel borders Gaza. The other half do not amount to occupation without changing the definition of the word to the point it's meaningless.

In any event, arguing about whether we should still call Gaza occupied or not are fairly irrelevant. It's not that hard to figure out what would take to make Gaza as indenpendent as it would want to be. Ending rocket attacks from UN schools and hiding rockets in UN schools are two examples. Incidentally, has UN condemned either yet?

McHrozni

 

[WildCat]

Incidentally, has UN condemned either yet?

McHrozni

One of these days they may write a strongly worded letter, but only if they get to also include a few lines about how Zionism is racism.