General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[mortimer]

Israel doesn't need permission to fly over Gaza or the West Bank.

Israel only needs permission to fly over sovereign states.

You once again completely miss the point. The Fool's definition of "occupation" did not require permission to fly over. His definition was: troops with the ability to enter a territory for a couple of hours, and the ability (with or without permission) to fly over that territory.

By The Fool's definition, the U.S., Israel, China, Russia, and several other countries are occupying just about every other country on Earth.

I was attempting to show how ridiculous The Fool's definition of "occupation" was. Get it?

 

[Par]

its just like my flood analogy. living in a known flood-prone area is invited disaster, just like living in illegal Israeli settlements.

One significant difference is that floods are not moral agents, whereas people are. Someone who lives on a floodplain only has themselves to blame. Someone who lives in an area where they’re likely to get themselves and their children killed is irresponsible, but, when it comes to the killing itself, blameless.

Perhaps you'd like to address my partition proposal instead, Thunder?

 

[WildCat]

You once again completely miss the point. The Fool's definition of "occupation" did not require permission to fly over. His definition was: troops with the ability to enter a territory for a couple of hours, and the ability (with or without permission) to fly over that territory.

By The Fool's definition, the U.S., Israel, China, Russia, and several other countries are occupying just about every other country on Earth.

I was attempting to show how ridiculous The Fool's definition of "occupation" was. Get it?

But you see, this new definition only applies to Jewish states.

 

[Skeptic]

So far as Thunder is concerned, Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular are like floods or animals: they are not moral agents. They merely react, or act, insensibly, without any ability to choose for themselves between right and wrong.

 

[bikerdruid]

One significant difference is that floods are not moral agents, whereas people are. Someone who lives on a floodplain only has themselves to blame. Someone who lives in an area where they’re likely to get themselves and their children killed is irresponsible, but, when it comes to the killing itself, [I]blameless[/I].

so, you feel that although, irresponsible, the parents are blameless?
dude....there is a connection between responsibility and blame.

you must be one of those people that feels that nothing is ever your fault.
the blame must always lie with someone else.

 

[FireGarden]

Because for Israel to fit that definition it means that Hamas serves Israel.

That doesn't explain anything, just restates the implied claim.

Wow, did that point fly right over your head!

If Israel now occupies Gaza, then the US occupied Iraq from 1991-2003. Because the situations are very close.

No they are not very close. No occupation was even begun, so no occupation needed to be ended.

Compare 1991-2003 with 2003-2004.
America troops still in Iraq and the occupation is over. Why? Well, the main reason is that America transferred sovereignty to an Iraqi government. And they did so in a manner recognised by the international community. They didn't unilaterlly move out to the borders -- all the time maintaining control of those borders.

All of which shows that your claim is hogwash -- occupations don't end when boots leave the ground.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_interim_government

It was recognized by the U.S., the United Nations, the Arab League and several other countries as being the sovereign government of Iraq (see Iraqi sovereignty for more information). The U.S. retained significant de facto power in the country and critics contend that the government existed only at the pleasure of the United States and other coalition countries, whose military forces still remain in Iraq. The coalition did promise that its troops would leave if the new sovereign government requested it, but no such request was made.

That's how an occupation can end.

I know the motivations of the State Dept., they cannot have relations with a terrorist group (Hamas), so they pretend that Fatah actually excercises authority over Gaza. And since they consider the PA the authority in the WB and Gaza and would like a final peace agreement that doesn't exclude Gaza it makes sense to clump them together. They're basically hoping that Gaza will be brought back into the fold.

Your say so isn't convincing.

Now go ponder the difference between "Occupied France" and "Vichy France". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:France_map_Lambert-93_with_regions_and_departments-occupation.svg

I don't see how that helps you. The Vichy government were allies of Nazi Germany.

Your map is on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France

The Vichy regime maintained some legal authority in the northern zone of France (the Zone occupée), which was occupied by the German Wehrmacht. Its laws, however, were only applied where they did not contradict German ones. This meant that the regime was most powerful in the unoccupied southern "free zone", where its administrative centre of Vichy was located, until November 1942. After the landing of the Allied forces in North Africa on 8 November 1942, Hitler ordered the occupation of France's free zone, after which the former free zone was subject to German rule like the northern zone, except for a sliver along the Alps that was under Italian rule until September 1942.

So in what sense does your map answer the challenge I set?

When Israel left Gaza in 2005, the optimists said it would prove to the world Israel can end the occupation. The pessimists, or perhaps the realists, said it won't work: the blame-Israel-first crowd would just redefine "occupation" in a way that somehow includes not having a single Israeli soldier or civilian in the "occupied" area, and continue to blame Israel. The same, of course, will happen if Israel withdraws from the WB.

When these pessimists referred to the 'blame-Israel-first crowd', did they have in mind anybody at the JREF forums, or where they thinking of the USA, EU and (it seems, given the lack of supplied counter-examples) the rest of the world?

 

[FireGarden]

I was attempting to show how ridiculous The Fool's definition of "occupation" was. Get it?

And seem to have done so by not using the full definition. Congratulations.

 

[Par]

One significant difference is that floods are not moral agents, whereas people are. Someone who lives on a floodplain only has themselves to blame. Someone who lives in an area where they’re likely to get themselves and their children killed is irresponsible, but, when it comes to the killing itself, blameless.

so, you feel that although, irresponsible, the parents are blameless?

Bizarrely, you seem to have missed out the part where I said, “when it comes to the killing itself”. This confusion could have been avoided had you addressed my partition proposal above.

 

[Par]

you must be one of those people that feels that nothing is ever your fault. the blame must always lie with someone else.

My position is laid out very clearly in the partition proposal above. I provide argument in its support. Yet seemingly you refuse even to read it, let alone to address it. Such behaviour is baffling; I’m not sure what more I can do for you.

 

[bikerdruid]

Bizarrely, you seem to have missed out the part where I said, “when it comes to the killing itself”. This confusion could have been avoided had you addressed my partition proposal above.

so, you create a disconnect (partition) where one does not exist.....
wow....you are probably the type that would support the rights of a burglar who slips on your icy sidewalk while stealing your t.v......

 

[Par]

so, you create a disconnect (partition) where one does not exist.....
wow....you are probably the type that would support the rights of a burglar who slips on your icy sidewalk while stealing your t.v......

My position is laid out very clearly in the partition proposal above. I provide argument in its support. Yet seemingly you refuse even to read it, let alone to address it. Such behaviour is baffling; I’m not sure what more I can do for you.

 

[Skeptic]

you must be one of those people that feels that nothing is ever your fault. the blame must always lie with someone else.

Well, I'm one of those guys who thinks the blame for the death by stabbing of a baby lies with the man who stabbed the baby. Then again, I also think the blame for the deaths of millions in communist countries lies with communism, which shows how much I know.

 

[bikerdruid]

My position is laid out very clearly in the partition proposal above. I provide argument in its support. Yet seemingly you refuse even to read it, let alone to address it. Such behaviour is baffling; I’m not sure what more I can do for you.

i read you the first time.
there is nothing i wish for you to do for me.

 

[bikerdruid]

Well, I'm one of those guys who thinks the blame for the death by stabbing of a baby lies with the man who stabbed the baby. Then again, I also think the blame for the deaths of millions in communist countries lies with communism, which shows how much I know.

i see you are suffering from a disconnect too.

 

[WildCat]

That doesn't explain anything, just restates the implied claim.

It's not my claim, it's the actual text of Hague IV.

No they are not very close. No occupation was even begun, so no occupation needed to be ended.

The US controlled Iraq's air space and borders. According to you this is all that is required for an "occupation" to be in effect, yes?

Compare 1991-2003 with 2003-2004.
America troops still in Iraq and the occupation is over. Why? Well, the main reason is that America transferred sovereignty to an Iraqi government. And they did so in a manner recognised by the international community. They didn't unilaterlly move out to the borders -- all the time maintaining control of those borders.

All of which shows that your claim is hogwash -- occupations don't end when boots leave the ground.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_interim_government

Now you're going to claim a country can't end an occupation unilaterally?

 

[Par]

i read you the first time.
there is nothing i wish for you to do for me.

My position is laid out very clearly in the partition proposal above. I provide argument in its support. Yet seemingly you refuse even to read it, let alone to address it. Such behaviour is baffling.

 

[Par]

I’ll appeal to the crowd here for advice:

What should one do when one, in good faith, enters into a conversation with another only to learn that their interlocutor is quite, quite insane? Do you carry on trying to reason with them? Should you run away? Might one, alternatively, throw caution to the wind and start babbling and raving along with them, thereby forming a kind of two-man conga line?

What a pickle!

 

[bikerdruid]

I’ll appeal to the crowd here for advice:

What should one do when one, in good faith, enters into a conversation with another only to learn that their interlocutor is quite, quite insane? Do you carry on trying to reason with them? Should you run away? Might one, alternatively, throw caution to the wind and start babbling and raving along with them, thereby forming a kind of two-man conga line?

What a pickle!

you must be labouring under the illusion that a give a rodent's posterior what you think of me, or my opinions.
...and you seem to be projecting that illusion further afield.

 

[bikerdruid]

My position is laid out very clearly in the partition proposal above. I provide argument in its support. Yet seemingly you refuse even to read it, let alone to address it. Such behaviour is baffling; I’m not sure what more I can do for you.

My position is laid out very clearly in the partition proposal above. I provide argument in its support. Yet seemingly you refuse even to read it, let alone to address it. Such behaviour is baffling; I’m not sure what more I can do for you.

My position is laid out very clearly in the partition proposal above. I provide argument in its support. Yet seemingly you refuse even to read it, let alone to address it. Such behaviour is baffling.

echo echo echo echo echo.......

 

[Par]

you must be labouring under the illusion that a give a rodent's posterior what you think of me, or my opinions.
...and you seem to be projecting that illusion further afield.

Just to reiterate: My position is laid out very clearly in the partition proposal above. I provide argument in its support. Yet seemingly you refuse even to read it, let alone to address it.