The Hague Convention definition of occupation has two parts. You need boots on the ground, and you need to have taken control of local government functions. So if your forces move in, engage some other forces, then move on, the area was never occupied. If your forces move in, and you send a delegation to City Hall to tell the Mayor he need not show up to work tomorrow, then it's an occupation.
Wildcat quoted some of Hague.
He didn't quote a part that mentioned occupations need boots on the ground, or that occupations end when the boots leave.
You're making the claim. Back it up.
And because the actual definition doesn’t support you.
As above, you're making a claim as to what the definition of occupation says. You should back it up. My claim is that the EU, US (state dept and CIA) etc all understand what occupation means.
No. The premise I’m preceding from is that there is in international law an actual definition of “occupation”. Wildcat quoted it to you and I’ve referred to it many times now. The current situation in Gaza does not match that definition.
That's what you keep saying. And saying it implies you think the authorities I've quoted are wrong. It's you who is wrong.
Irrelevant. Even if this ending is unique (you have been shown an example, you just denied it) it is still an ending. How about you show another example of an “occupation” where there were no soldiers controlling the ground and the “occupier” did not control the functions of local government?
Do you mean the example which was never an occupation in the first place? How did that occupation end when it didn't start?
How about you actually support your claim that Israel is being held to a different standard? Lots of occupations have ended. There are particular things which need to be done for them to end. Giving up some aspects doesn't end an occupation anymore than giving up the marriage bed ends a marriage.
Which contradicts your previous claim that Israel’s “separation” is “worse than Apartheid.” Are they separated or not?
Israel controls the lives of Palestinians, but doesn't let them take part in Israeli society. So Israel has not 'seperated itself from its enemies' -- it is very intimately involved with the Palestinians. And yet... You can hardly call them one people.
If the contradictory nature of that is too much for you, then so be it.
Stick with the pedantry.
Israel often opines that it is held to double standards by the international community. If these “qualified people” do indeed assert a definition of “occupation” that is different from what is internationally agreed upon in the Hague Conventions, then that validates that opinion.
You said "If".
So what is there to disagree with?
I rely on the definition in the Hague Convention. I have referred to it many times. Wildcat has quoted it to you. You don’t need to trust me, you can read for yourself what is written in the law.
Yes, Wildcat quoted it to me and it said nothing about boots on the ground. It certainly didn't say that an occupation is automatically over when the boots leave the ground. If that is what you are relying upon, then you don't have anything. If you did, then you would be able to find an independent authority that agrees with you. You won't dare even look, because if the CIA/US state dept don't agree with you then who in hell would?
My point exactly. You simultaneously claim that Israel is not separated from the Palestinians, and that they are separated. And that the “separation” is “worse than apartheid.” Your argument, if you can’t figure it out how are the rest of us supposed to cope?
I've adressed that. And if the contradiction is too much for you then why don't you decide for us: are they seperate or not? You claimed Israel seperated itself from its enemies. So that indicates 'Yes'. Do you really believe that Israel does not get in the Palestinians' faces everyday? I would guess not. Therefore how can you say they are seperate?
There are different aspects to their lives. They are very intimately connected in one respect and very remote in another.
If that's too tough a concept for you, I don't think I'll do any better explaining it.
The new term you try to coin is “Hafrada”, remember? The new meanings on old words are the aspects of “occupation” that are not part of its written definition in the Hague Convention.
I didn't coin 'Hafrada'. And I haven't changed its meaning. I have never tried to say that 'Hafrada' means occupation. That was you conflating two seperate arguments. I didn't mention occupation until you did, when you claimed my categorisation of Hafrada was the same kind of revisionism as those that say the occupation is over. You then took it upon yourself to think that I was saying 'hafrada'=occupation. I never have. In fact, I've pointed out this conflation to you before.
No. It was a statement of fact, followed by an opinion.
What’s written in the Hague Convention is quite clear.
Then show me the bit that says an occupation is over when the boots leave the ground -- no matter what else is going on.
