General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Thunder]

Do you think the parents should have been killed?

no, I think they should have had water balloons thrown at them.

 

[FireGarden]

So much simplicity - and yet still the polarised opinions.
Is it conceivable we may be misframing the question?

Perhaps the 'It is simple' doesn't refer to the situation but to the rules by which people are claiming to reach a conclusion. The rules by which I decide the parents of these children are not responsible for their deaths (including their own) are simple. I would not punish these parents if they had lived, while their children died. Therefore I don't damn them or hold them responsible.

If my rules are too simplisitic, then explain why I should add complexity.

 

[FireGarden]

Right, because boots on the ground are necessary to do the things necessary to qualify as an "occupation".

Where does it say that?

For Gaza to be occupied Hamas serves at the pleasure of the IDF. Clearly, they don't. And clearly, the IDF does not control the day-to-day functions of the government of Gaza.

For Gaza to be occupied it must mean that the occupation begun by Israel has not ended.

Just like for a man to be married must mean that he got married and he has not been officially divorced. You can't just say 'he has left his wife, therefore he is not married'. Giving up some aspects of an occupation does not mean ending the occupation. Just like leaving the marriage bed does not end a marriage.

Have you found an example of an occupation yet where the occupier didn't have a single boot on the ground?

Yes, Gaza.

Have you figured out why during WWII France was divided between "occupied France" and Vichy France?

As I already linked: Germany didn't occupy that part of France at the time to which your map reffered. They did occupy it later. Why should that part of France be considered occupied before it was occupied? Are you saying that being an ally of a nation makes you occupied by that nation?

How do you justify that? The definition you quoted indicates that an occupier doesn't have to occupy all of a country just because they occupy part. To begin with, the Germans didn't occupy all of France.

Your source:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp#art42

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Israel, otoh, did occupy Gaza. They haven't done everything needed to end the occupation, so the occupation is not ended. Nowhere in your source does it say that removing troops is sufficient.

btw,
Did you consider the occupation of Gaza over in 2005-2006?

Can you guess from these terms which part had German or Italian troops on the ground, and which part didn't?

No. I would guess there were German troops in Vichy France. Why? Because they were allies.

But, otoh, why bark when you've got a dog?

Have you read about this armistice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_...rmistice_and_10_July_1940_vote_of_full_powers

The armistice divided France into occupied and unoccupied zones: northern and western France including the entire Atlantic coast were occupied by Germany, and the remaining two-fifths of the country were under the control of the French government with the capital at Vichy under Pétain. Ostensibly, the French government administered the entire territory.

Maybe it will give you a clue as to why Vichy France wasn't considered occupied at the time of the map you posted.

Ironically, Germany excercised far more control over officially non-occupied Vichy France than Israel does over Hamas-ruled Gaza.

Have you figured out why the occupation of Iraq ended with plenty of American boots still on the ground? And with plenty of American influence in Iraq?

 

[Tricky]

Keep it on topic, please. Communism and "other members" is not the topic.

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

 

[IDB87]

Israel, otoh, did occupy Gaza. They haven't done everything needed to end the occupation, so the occupation is not ended. Nowhere in your source does it say that removing troops is sufficient.

Isn't it a transitional phase between Israel and the PA? I'm not as up to date on the process of the Accords as you are, but what's the next step and how does Hamas factor into it?

 

[WildCat]

Where does it say that?

When it says:

Art. 42.

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

If there's a way to do this without boots on the ground I'm all ears. Be sure to explain how Hamas is working under the authority of the IDF! I predict you won't be doing so, sadly this will not qualify me for the $1 million because stating the obvious is not evidence of psychic ability.

The "occupation" of Gaza is unique, never before has such a scenario been considered an "occupation". It's yet another example of the double standard for Israel.

 

[FireGarden]

When it says:

If there's a way to do this without boots on the ground I'm all ears.

Easy. You have boots around the ground.

If you want to visit Gaza by sea, do you need Israel's permission? Yes.

See how they have authority?
This doesn't merely count as a blockade, because Israel began an official occupation. Perhaps you should look for the part of Hague which tells us how occupations end.

Maybe then you'll understand Solana and the US state dept positions. Not to mention your inability to find an independent authority who agrees with you.

Be sure to explain how Hamas is working under the authority of the IDF!

Why do I need to?

Did you consider the occupation over when the troops left and Fatah was still in control?

The "occupation" of Gaza is unique, never before has such a scenario been considered an "occupation". It's yet another example of the double standard for Israel.

Well this is nice slight of hand.
You began your claim of double standard, and I asked you to provide an example of an occupation that ended with the same restrictions that are on Gaza. You failed to do this. ie: you failed to find someone who behaved the same way as Israel but was treated differently.

Now you want to turn it around and ask me to find someone who behaved the same way as Israel. How does my failure to do that indicate a double standard against Israel?

According to your claim of uniqueness, everybody who has tried to switch an occupation into a blockade has been told: "no dice!" Everybody. That there is only one person who tried doesn't change the consistency of the ruling.

Still think it's a double standard? Then find someone else who acted the same way and was treated differently.

 

[bigjelmapro]

IDF forces raiding a flotilla in international waters and executing people..yes it is similar to executing people in there homes? If the IDF only shot people in self defense you might have a point, but shooting a man once in the chest and 4 more times in the head at close range is nothing but an execution. Get your facts straight before calling people out as trolls.
[/quot]
Still calling you a troll based on the above. Go to the flotilla thread and see how long you last there with the above drivel. Executing and international waters allegations have also been addressed. On top of what the Turkel commission found.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Media/american-killed-gaza-aid-flotilla/story?id=10814848

The point was that Skeptic, among others, did not condemn the execution of this man on the flotilla, but in fact called him a terrorist just for being there. Others in the flotilla thread made the same "they brought it upon themselves" type of arguments. I am just illustrating the hypocrisy.

You deem it execution based on what? Were the autopsy reports disclosed?

When you attack a soldier with knives, clubs, etc., you get shot.

So troll away.

 

[Mycroft]

If you want to visit Gaza by sea, do you need Israel's permission? Yes.

See how they have authority?

If you're a Gaza citizen and if you want to get a building permit, renew a license, or pay a parking fine, do you talk to Israel? Or do you talk to the Hamas led government?

You try to make your definition of "occupation" work by narrowing the definition of "authority" to an absurd level, quite literally only that which is the result of the blockade, but the authority is still in the hands of Hamas, who pays the civil servants who keep local government going and who makes and enforces the laws the locals live by. Trying to claim they don't have "authority" just because Israel doesn't allow them a sea port is just another example of revisionism.

Well this is nice slight of hand.
You began your claim of double standard, and I asked you to provide an example of an occupation that ended with the same restrictions that are on Gaza. You failed to do this. ie: you failed to find someone who behaved the same way as Israel but was treated differently.

Do you deny that Hamas exercises control in Gaza?

 

[FireGarden]

If you're a Gaza citizen and if you want to get a building permit, renew a license, or pay a parking fine, do you talk to Israel? Or do you talk to the Hamas led government?

You talk to Hamas.
That Israel has given up some control is not at issue. They also retain some control. Sufficient control, in the eyes of those I've quoted, for the occupation to still be ongoing.

It's not just the blockade. I didn't attempt to give a complete list.

Way back in post 1067 (that number might change when the next thread is merged!), I linked to this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/25/israelandthepalestinians.egypt

I don't claim this is exhaustive, either:

In 2005 Israel withdrew its settlers and soldiers but the international community still regards Gaza as occupied territory because Israel has effective control over the Palestinians there. It controls the population register as well as Gaza's sea space and air space, prevents large-scale use of the harbour and any use of Gaza's one airport, conducts frequent military operations in Gaza and controls all crossings into Israel.

Israel is also responsible for delivering electricity, water and medicine to Gaza.

Not all those things will change automatically with the end of an occupation. But Israel got these responsibilities via its occupation of Gaza. And they are acknowledged as responsibilities by a member of the Israeli government:

"We need to understand that when Gaza is open to the other side we lose responsibility for it. So we want to disconnect from it," [deputy defence minister, Matan Vilnai] said. "We want to stop supplying electricity to them, stop supplying them with water and medicine, so that it would come from another place."

So why didn't they stop supplying all that? Because Egypt refused to take up those responsibilites.

Do you deny that Hamas exercises control in Gaza?

No. It's already been raised, but you can be forgiven for missing it. The US state dept was quoted as saying Hamas exercises control in Gaza. The same state dept who say Gaza is occupied.

And I don't see what your question has to do with the paragraph you quoted.

 

[Thunder]

The "occupation" of Gaza is unique, never before has such a scenario been considered an "occupation".

yeah? evidence please.

It's yet another example of the double standard for Israel.

the revisionists in this forum have a ton of double-standards in favor of Israel.

 

[WildCat]

You talk to Hamas.
That Israel has given up some control is not at issue. They also retain some control. Sufficient control, in the eyes of those I've quoted, for the occupation to still be ongoing.

And yet...

Art. 42.

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Whatever Gaza is, to claim it fits this definition is absurd.

 

[Thunder]

And yet...

Art. 42.

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Whatever Gaza is, to claim it fits this definition is absurd.

Israel has ultimate sovereignity over the Gaza Strip.

just because they pulled out their troops does not mean they don't have the legal right to put them back in, use its airspace at will, enter its territorial waters at will, etc etc.

in essense...the "boots on the ground" argument for Occupied Territory, is very unsophisticated.

...but its cute.

 

[Thunder]

The "occupation" of Gaza is unique, never before has such a scenario been considered an "occupation".

still waiting for that evidence

It's yet another example of the double standard for Israel.

double-standards huh? wanna talk about double-standards?

let us know when the Knesset officially recognizes the genocide of the Armenians, at the hands of the Ottoman Empire.

let us know when the Knesset officially recognizes the right of an independent Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza.

 

[Skeptic]

(In answer to the question: "should the parents be killed?")

no, I think they should have had water balloons thrown at them.

I guess that's a "yes".

 

[Skeptic]

Again, I suppose Israel should just send troops back into Gaza, considering the fact that it somehow still "occupies" it.

 

[Thunder]

Again, I suppose Israel should just send troops back into Gaza, considering the fact that it somehow still "occupies" it.

they have that right.

 

[Thunder]

I guess that's a "yes".

sure, whatever you like. looks like sig. material.

 

[Skeptic]

On first sight, it sure does looks like .sig material.

But since you're already on record saying you have no idea what the mean ol' Warsaw ghetto fighters could possibly have had against the Nazis; that someone who burned a book as political protest should be killed...

...well, comparatively, declaring that it's OK to kill Jews for living where you don't think they should doesn't quite make the cut. After all, you've made it quite clear you think that for years, only usually not that explicitly.

 

[Thunder]

On first sight, it sure does look like .sig material.

yeah, you should totally put it in there. I mean, your whole sig. is already devoted to me already.

But since you're already on record saying you have no idea what the mean ol' Warsaw ghetto fighters could possibly have had against the Nazis;

sarcasm. look it up someday.

...well, comparatively, declaring that it's OK to kill Jews for living where you don't think they should doesn't quite make the cut.

you know, its very rude and uncivil to LIE about other people's statements.