You mean the internationals who set international law? Cute.
Who? The BBC doesn’t name anyone or any law. If your claim is that the internationals who set international law have made this determination, then please name these people and the laws they cite.
I predict you will no more do that than you named the Hague Conventions and Geneva Conventions that define occupation.
I'll depend on the BBC. They list only Israel as accepting that the occupation is over.
They don’t list anything at all, remember? They haven’t named these internationals and have given no indication that they are anything other than exactly what I described earlier, people like you.
ETA: And here are some more 'internationals' that you can call deniers:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gz.html
Touché. Our State Department contradicts itself by simultaneously describing it as “occupied” while stating that the troops have been withdrawn. One would almost think it were a political organization trying to please both sides. Oh, wait…
Relevant because it is part of living under a government -- no matter how much its supporters claim it has 'seperated itself from its enemies'.
It’s only relevant if you can cite the parts of the Hague Conventions and Geneva Conventions that name that as part of the legal definition of “occupation”. You have been challenged to do that, and so far you have failed.
And again, you have to stretch the definition of “living under a government” to even make that work. The Palestinians have a government. It’s called the “Palestinian Authority.” If it’s not much of a government that’s because they’ve put their time and resources into killing Israelis rather than building up their own government. Yes, that is unfortunate, but hardly Israel’s fault.
We've got at least two arguments here. Don't conflate my claims about Hafrada with my response to you raising the occupation status of Gaza.
Right. Your logical fallacies on that issue are completely different.
The assurances are all over the place. Arafat has been dead some time. Read the Palestine papers. A discussion on some aspects here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198838
If they are all over the place then you should have no problem compiling a list. I’m not going to go through old threads trying to guess what you think the good parts are and try to build your argument for you, that’s your job. You made the claim, now back it up. If the points are as good as you seem to think they are, you should take special satisfaction in demolishing my arguments in open forum,
But I predict you will not be able to do that. Why? Because the same arguments back then only convinced you. There is no reason to believe they are any more convincing today.
My argument is that Hafrada is worse than apartheid. And that is based on the claim of those I quoted in the linked thread. The fence is not the only manifestation of Hafrada.
Right, your argument here is based on taking a neutral term, “separation” and loading it up with as much of an emotional charge as you can. You do that because arguing individual points is too hard, you find that often they don’t stand up on their own, that the reality is often very different from how it’s presented and always more complex. But if you can create a catch-term that carries all that emotional weight, you can use it as a propaganda tool without having to support or defend the less-than-solid foundation it sits on.
So, to recap:
You have failed to cite a definition of “occupation” as defined by either the Hague Conventions or the Geneva Conventions.
You have failed to list the assurances given to the Israelis by the Palestinians that a new Palestinian state won’t be just a platform to wage war against Israel.
You also have a new challenge to name these “internationals” you claim the BBC was referring to, and cite the laws they set.
