General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Thunder]

so guys, when do we talk about how Gaza is no longer occupied again?

 

[Skeptic]

What about Palestine?

And Israel was created out of the rest. Why is one considered the bad occupier, and the other a genuine legitimate country?

And I might add: where exactly in international law is this requirement for being a "seperate independent territorial area" found? And when exactly Gaza of all places was such a place? And isn't the world full of such countries -- say, Egypt after the Germans left but before independence, or any other colony -- which are just such "independent territorial areas", and are not occupied, but not independent, either?

Clearly the declaration that a place must be a "seperate independent territorial unit" to be occupied was just plucked out of thin air in an attempt to find a magical definition that would still blame Israel for "occupying Gaza" without having a single soldier there, while letting the rest of the world (in this case, Turks, Iraqis, and Spaniards) off the hook.

It's no wonder it doesn't work.

 

[Skeptic]

And again, some of that territory is now Jordan, and yet you don't have a problem with Jordan.

Not only that, but he is absolutely furious with those who suggest Jordan is in fact the, or a, Palestinian state -- who use the exact same argument he is now using to somehow blame Israel for something.

The rules are different for Jews, I guess.

 

[bigjelmapro]

"The normal way for an occupation to end is for the occupying power to withdraw from the occupied territory or be driven out of it. "

Gaza's waters are Gaza's territory. Gaza's airspace is Gaza's territory.
http://www.btselem.org/english/gaza_strip/control_on_air_space_and_territorial_waters.asp

As already explained, and what 4th GC art. 6 states:

“exercises the functions of government in such [occupied] territory.

Airspace and internal waters (in its entirety), does not fall into the category of a function of government.

Interesting paper that addresses the issues in its entirety and also expands upon what is considered occupied territory and the distinctions, ie:
(warning: pdf link)
Is Gaza Occupied? Redefining the Legal Status of Gaza

...
To expand upon those requirements, the case of United States v. List
et al. (“Hostages case”) before the United States Military Tribunal at
Nuremburg after World War II provides legal precedent for a more
comprehensive interpretation. The tribunal held that the established
government of the territory must be fully replaced by the occupier in
order for occupation to obtain.

… [A]n occupation indicates the exercise of
governmental authority to the exclusion of the
established government. This presupposes the
destruction of organized resistance and the
establishment of an administration to preserve law and
order. To the extent that the occupant’s control is
maintained and that of the civil government
eliminated, the area will be said to be occupied.32

An excerpt which is explained in detail later in that paper does not leave that much room for your interpretation of occupied, 'effective control' or authority.

"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. "

Argumentum ad populum.

This is just as effective an argument as stating that certain websites still classify Gaza as occupied, thereby circumventing any legal argument to support these claims.

As for the Gaza-Israel DMZ, there's no Israelis farming within a certain distance of the border either. This is the concept behind a DMZ. Again, this is not a function of government.

 

[FireGarden]

It would look like untended land instead of green farm land in rectangular patches.

Thanks for your expert opinion, General Wildcat.

Meanwhile, on planet Earth...
Even the Israeli government acknowledges it has a buffer zone in Gaza:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism...e+HAMAS+Terror+Organization+-+2007+update.htm

For Hamas and the other terrorist organizations, firing rockets and mortar shells is an asymmetrical, simple, readily available and cheap solution to Israel’s military superiority. While it does have problems, they believe that it allows them to continually disrupt the life of the civilian population within the rockets’ range for prolonged periods of time. That destabilizes Israel’s social fabric, bypasses the security buffer zone built by Israel along the Gaza Strip, and creates a kind of “balance of terror” that would make it difficult for Israel to carry out its counter-terrorism operations.

If you think that zone is entirely on the Israeli side, then you can check this map from 2005:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Governmen...nian population in the Gaza Strip 28-Dec-2005


Or this one from 2007

Or this one from 2010:
http://www.imemc.org/article/58932

Or google for your own. But please don't guess. You're not good at guessing.

As already explained, and what 4th GC art. 6 states:



Airspace and internal waters (in its entirety), does not fall into the category of a function of government.

So you're claiming that issuing permits for fishing isn't a function of government. That controlling land, including farm land, is not a function of government.

Interesting paper that addresses the issues in its entirety and also expands upon what is considered occupied territory and the distinctions, ie:
(warning: pdf link)
Is Gaza Occupied? Redefining the Legal Status of Gaza

Such a pity I only got this far into the introduction before finding a glaring error:

On September 12, 2005, the last Israeli soldier left the Gaza Strip, and
there has been no official Israeli military or civilian presence in the
territory since that time.

As the above link I gave Wildcat shows: even the Israeli government admits it has a buffer zone.

Israel also admits that it always intended to keep control of Gaza's sea and airspace.

http://www.btselem.org/english/gaza_strip/control_on_air_space_and_territorial_waters.asp

The disengagement plan states: "Israel will hold sole control of Gaza airspace and will continue to carry out military activity in the waters of the Gaza Strip."

[...] Israeli combat and intelligence-gathering aircraft fly daily over the Gaza Strip.

[...] While there is no fence along Gaza's coastline, residents do not have open access to the sea. Palestinians wanting to go to sea need to request a permit from Israel, and those who obtain a permit are restricted in the distance they can go from shore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel's_unilateral_disengagement_plan

All IDF forces left the Strip in the following hours. The last soldier left the strip, and the Kissufim gate was closed in the early morning of September 12.[37] This completed the Israeli pullout from the Gaza Strip.

On 20 September the IDF temporarily entered the northern Gaza Strip, constructing a buffer zone parallel to the border near Beit Hanoun before pulling out.[38].

So your article is built on a false premise. Now wonder, then, that they and you are confused by things like this:

Nonetheless, the United Nations has been
reluctant to accept that Gaza in no longer occupied, with a spokesman
for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon declaring in January 2009
that “the UN defines Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem as
occupied Palestinian territory. No, that definition hasn’t changed.”

All of which should end the discussion. Because that IS the legal status of Gaza -- like it or not, agree with it or not.

[A]n occupation indicates the exercise of
governmental authority to the exclusion of the
established government. This presupposes the
destruction of organized resistance and the
establishment of an administration to preserve law and
order. To the extent that the occupant’s control is
maintained and that of the civil government
eliminated, the area will be said to be occupied

That happened. So Gaza became occupied. It is still occupied, because Israel has not given up all control of Gaza. Who else has succeeded in turning an occupation into a blockade? Wildcat could think of no-one -- and he likes to make wild guesses.

Argumentum ad populum.

This is just as effective an argument as stating that certain websites still classify Gaza as occupied, thereby circumventing any legal argument to support these claims.

No, it isn't. The UN, US, EU etc are not 'certain websites'.

As for the Gaza-Israel DMZ, there's no Israelis farming within a certain distance of the border either. This is the concept behind a DMZ. Again, this is not a function of government.

How does that change the fact that Israel maintains the buffer zone?

 

[WildCat]

Thanks for your expert opinion, General Wildcat.

Meanwhile, on planet Earth...
Even the Israeli government acknowledges it has a buffer zone in Gaza:

And yet Google Earth photos (which are from 2007) show cultivated land right up to the border. Up to within a few hundred meters anyway. Your claim that farming is not allowed in "Northern Gaza" is patently false. Your link, bw, refers to a temporary zone in 2005, due to rockets being fired from there. Waging war has a price you know.

 

[bikerdruid]

Not only that, but he is absolutely furious with those who suggest Jordan is in fact the, or a, Palestinian state -- who use the exact same argument he is now using to somehow blame Israel for something.

The rules are different for Jews, I guess.

skeptic.....this is not about jews.


criticism of israel is not about hating jews.

 

[WildCat]

skeptic.....this is not about jews.


criticism of israel is not about hating jews.

Of course not, it's about hating "Zionists".

Pure concidence they happen to be Jewish I'm sure.

 

[Thunder]

Of course not, it's about hating "Zionists".

Pure concidence they happen to be Jewish I'm sure.

actually, there are more non-Jewish Zionists...than Jewish ones.

especially in the USA.

but yes, this pathetic strawman that all criticism of Israel is really just anti-Semitism, is a dead horse that NO ONE believes.

crying wolf, is all it is. I just hope that the world will pay attention when REAL anti-Semitism rears its head.

 

[bikerdruid]

Of course not, it's about hating "Zionists".

Pure concidence they happen to be Jewish I'm sure.

many zionists are not jewish.
wrong, again, wildcat.

 

[FireGarden]

And yet Google Earth photos (which are from 2007) show cultivated land right up to the border. Up to within a few hundred meters anyway. Your claim that farming is not allowed in "Northern Gaza" is patently false.

I've already acknowledged that possibility:

The buffer zone exists. If I'm wrong about Israel allowing people in to farm, then I'm wrong. But the fact remains, Israel controls the land without having troops on it.

But did you take a look at the numbers? When you say 'up to within a few hundred metres' do you mean up to 'possibly outside the buffer zone'?

Your link, bw, refers to a temporary zone in 2005, due to rockets being fired from there. Waging war has a price you know.

I checked the 2005 link. No mention of the word 'temporary'. I did see: "beginning December 28 at 18:00 and until further notice."

And that is only one link. The UN map from 2007 includes an area labled "northern no go zone", plus some more. The map from 2010 still includes what looks like that area, plus some more. The other link from Israel's MFA is dated 2007 to 2008 mentions a buffer zone, but no map.

I see you are unwilling to give up guessing -- no matter how bad you are at it. I'll take the UN's word over your expert investigation of google map data.

 

[Thunder]

many zionists are not jewish.
wrong, again, wildcat.

these guys think its anti-Semitic to be against anti-Jewish discrimination in Israel, and its anti-Semitic to be against illegal settlements in the West Bank.

they don't understand how much damage such stupidity and arrogance does to Israel and the Jewish people.

I mean honestly, several Muslim and Arab states, including the Palestinians, came to Israel's aid during the massive forest fires. But these guys still make believe they are simply surrounded by Neo-Nazi anti-Semites looking to gas them.

 

[truethat]

Of course not, it's about hating "Zionists".

Pure concidence they happen to be Jewish I'm sure.

Israel is a country. So criticizing Israel's policies is no different than criticizing the US for it's policies. It doesn't mean you hate all Americans because you don't like the US foreign policy.

I've never understood the knee jerk reaction that says criticizing Israel means you are anti Jewish.

 

[Thunder]

I've never understood the knee jerk reaction that says criticizing Israel means you are anti Jewish.

its clearly a long-established strategy, to disregard any/all criticism of Israel which the right-wing does not accept.

it would work well, except for that fact that it is used ALL the time.

just look at this forum: pretty much every criticism of Israel, whether it relates to the settlements, proposed loyalty oaths, the Gaza Strip, etc etc...is always eventually hand-waved away as "Jew-hatred".

so not only is it a dishonest strategy to disregard criticism, its also a sign of desperation and fatigue. its a fall-back argument to make when they don't have the time, patience, or energy to come up with an argument of substance.

....and like it said, it does great damage to Israel, as its become no different than crying wolf. Eventually, folks won't pay attention any more when Israel or right-wing Zionists complain about anti-Semitism..even if its a legit. complaint.

 

[truethat]

I kind of agree with that. The term "anti-Semitism" has no sway anymore. It's sad to see that people are so blind to it.

 

[Thunder]

I kind of agree with that. The term "anti-Semitism" has no sway anymore. It's sad to see that people are so blind to it.

no, luckily it still does.

but some day, it might no longer.

 

[Mycroft]

Some people seem to think that occupations are intrinsically bad. But they are not. The US occupation of Japan was a good thing.

Then one wonders at the mental gymnastics and special pleading required to make this "occupation". If it's such a neutral term, why work so hard to push it? Why would anyone need to expand on the established definition to make it fit this special circumstance?

And are we supposed to believe you're not pushing it for its negative connotations when you were so recently trying to coin a new term "Hafrada", and give it an emotional charge as being "worse than Apartheid"?

This is why I support Israel so ardently. It's not because Israel is particularly good. It's not. Not any better than any other country. It's because the people who stand against Israel are so blatantly dishonest.

 

[Mycroft]

skeptic.....this is not about jews.


criticism of israel is not about hating jews.

No one can read the hearts and minds of every individual, so it's certainly possible that many individuals are not motivated to be anti-Israel out of a hatred of Jews, but I think it's also undeniable that at least some people are. And while Skeptic may be wrong about any one individual, I think it's telling that alternative explanations for the double standards and special pleading are never offered.

 

[Pardalis]

skeptic.....this is not about jews.


criticism of israel is not about hating jews.

So why aren't you talking against Jordan, they "stole" the land of Palestinians too, right?

 

[Skeptic]

Of course not, it's about hating "Zionists".

Pure concidence they happen to be Jewish I'm sure.

And that of all the nations on the face of the planet, the one nation whose existence is illegitimate and those who wish it destroyed must be supported, is the Jewish one.

Pure coincidence.