General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Skeptic]

If anybody wants to see an excellent example in this forum of the difference between criticism of Israel and antisemitism, let us take this thread.

Take a look at how "Firegarden" and "Vorticity" or even "ProbeX", which I think is totally wrong in his claim that Jews are not an ethnicity, treat the issues in the thread. They ask specific questions and give actual positions. People strongly disagree with them but nobody says they're bigots (at most people say they are wrong).

"Parky76" and "The Fool", however, who are accused of bigotry by others in the thread. Why? Because clearly they don't care about the facts, but merely wish to smear Israel using an obvious double standard, and pretending to be OUTRAGED over a totally minor beurocratic point. If this isn't enough, the forum's resident holocaust-denying 9/11 conspiracy theorist, "MaGZ" (that stands for "Missiles at Ground Zero"), agrees with them about the eeeeeeeeeebil joooooooz, I mean "zionists"...

So not only is it possible to distinguish between antisemitism and criticism of Israel, most members of this forum can and do just that all the time: only some, indeed a small number (although extremely prolific posters) of those who criticize Israel are considered antisemitic, due to their obsessive hatred of the Jewish state.

P.S.

Naturally, when the few obsessive posters post 80 "evil Israel sucks" unfair, ignorant posts in the same time it takes many non-obsessed posters post 20 "Israel is wrong to do X, here's why" posts, 80% of the posts made criticizing Israel are accused of being antisemitic. But that isn't because all or most critics of Israel on this forum are antisemites -- it's an optical ilusion, the result of the few antisemites' obsessiveness.

 

[Thunder]

"Parky76" and "The Fool", however, who are accused of bigotry by others in the thread. Why? Because clearly they don't care about the facts, but merely wish to smear Israel using an obvious double standard, and pretending to be OUTRAGED over a totally minor beurocratic point. If this isn't enough, the forum's resident holocaust-denying 9/11 conspiracy theorist, "MaGZ" (that stands for "Missiles at Ground Zero"), agrees with them about the eeeeeeeeeebil joooooooz, I mean "zionists"...

err....I am a Jew.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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


criticism of israel is not about hating jews.

Funny how some people just assume you think and feel a certain way without asking you and just carry on insisting that's what your beliefs are, isn't it?

 

[bikerdruid]

Funny how some people just assume you think and feel a certain way without asking you and just carry on insisting that's what your beliefs are, isn't it?

this is not about myself, either.
this is a thread discussing israeli/palestinian issues.
it is not about jewish/muslim issues.

israels oppression of palestinians is not about religion.
skeptic cannot seem to figure that out.
he keeps whining and pulling the 'jew card'.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

err....I am a Jew.

So was Benjamin Freedman.

 

[Pardalis]

jordan is not holding gaza captive and are not appropriating palestinian farms in the west bank.
israel is quilty of both of these.

So you're OK with Jordan having stolen three thirds of what was once called "Palestine"?

 

[FireGarden]

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?

Who are you talking about? Surely not me. Unless you think I actually care what JREF forum members think compared to the US state dept, EU and UN. I didn't have to lift a finger to convince them -- and they're the ones who count.

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"?

I did not coin the term Hafrada. And it was not me who first compared the situation in the West Bank to apartheid -- people who lived under apartheid did. And, once again, Hafrada is not my term for occupation.

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.

So dishonest that you can find no independent authority who agrees with you on the status of Gaza, but I've found the US state dept, EU and UN. I guess we're all revionists.

 

[FireGarden]

Where does Israel issue fishing permits? And again, how does not being able to fish the extra few kilometers take away any function of government? Palestinians can still fish off the coast.

With Israel's permission they can fish off the coast. Israel itself admits they still control Gaza waters. Their disengagement plan never claimed they were going to give that up. See the quote from B'tselem, above and also here's the CIA again, date Feb 2011:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gz.html

Maritime claims:
Israeli-occupied with current status subject to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement - permanent status to be determined through further negotiation

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html?countryName=Gaza Strip&countryCode=gz&regionCode=me#2106

territorial sea - the sovereignty of a coastal state extends beyond its land territory and internal waters to an adjacent belt of sea, described as the territorial sea in the UNCLOS (Part II); this sovereignty extends to the air space over the territorial sea as well as its underlying seabed and subsoil; every state has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles;

And where is a buffer zone in a DMZ, also applicable on Israel's side, as prerequisite for occupation?

How does what Israel does on Israel's side of the border change what Israel does on the other side of the border? Controlling a buffer zone is controlling territory.

btw, who checks the Israeli side of this demilitarized zone to make sure it is demilitarized? Could you post a link to someplace that describes the running of this DMZ? I've googled and not really come up with anything.

How does a buffer zone change this argument? Perhaps you could point out where this buffer zone, which has existed since post-'73, is a form of 'occupation'.

The buffer zone is controlled by Israel.

As is your narrow concept of 'authority' and how occupation is applicable to controlling a portion of ones internal waters or even ones airspace. By that line of thought, even Egypt is occupying Gaza by controlling a portion of the overlapping internal waters between Gaza and Egpyt.

The fact of the matter is with agreements written out in Oslo and Gaza-Jericho 1994 stipulate that the PA should be (and has been practiced in part prior to Hamas's takeover in 2007) of Gaza's airspace and internal waters. Since Hamas took over, a belligerent, non-state entity and terrorist group, with a extensive list of smuggling weapons via the sea, Israel is justified according to San remo, allowed to set up a naval blockade to thwart this smuggling. There's more than enough reason why the UN has found no legal avenue to argue or label said naval blockade as illegal. And neither has there been a legal argument that stands up to scrutiny that said naval blockade is a form of occupation according to international law/statutes.

None.

I disagree with you entirely and I support the reassessment of the status of Gaza as supported in the paper linked based on the legal arguments named at length in the paper linked.

I'm not going to argue law. I have quoted qualified people. The EU, US, UN etc all agree that Gaza is occupied. I'm sure Israel will go on making its case to those and others.

Who says that the official status of Gaza named on these websites is not based off of the outdated status the UN continues to use? Still a fallacious argument.

The CIA website is dated Feb 2011. More to the point, if you HONESTLY believe that any of the sources have changed their minds since the time the webpage I linked to was written then why don't you post a link to their current position?

[...] West Bank and Gaza Strip are Israeli-occupied with current status subject to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement - permanent status to be determined through further negotiation; Israel removed settlers and military personnel from the Gaza Strip in August 2005

 

[FireGarden]

It's not particularly difficult to criticize Israel in ways that never draw the accusations of bigotry. Keep the discussions to actual policies, don't indulge in conspiracy theory speculation, don't use double standards or special pleading, avoid inflammatory rhetoric. These are pretty good rules to follow anyway.

Don't forget the rule I forgot to follow: don't quote the US state dept on controversial matters. Appeals to authority like that obviously fail to an appeal to what the authority REALLY meant.

And following those rules, it's easy to say, Israel doesn't work hard enough to come to an agreement with the PA. Israel's lack of a civil marriage law is archaic. Israel's behavior in the Lebanon war was a deplorable over-reaction. Israel's strikes against Gaza was disproportionate to the provocation. Israel should relax its controls on Gaza imports because while it's legitimate to restrict weapons, it's not legitimate to keep their economy on the verge of collapes... etcetera.

It's been a while since I agreed with you.

 

[bikerdruid]

So you're OK with Jordan having stolen three thirds of what was once called "Palestine"?

this thread is about israel/palestinian issues.
i am concerned with israel's mis-treatment of it's palestinian citizens.
jordan is not guilty of mis-treating it's citizens.

 

[FireGarden]

this thread is about israel/palestinian issues.
i am concerned with israel's mis-treatment of it's palestinian citizens.
jordan is not guilty of mis-treating it's citizens.

Yes it is, actually. Even specifically Palestinians -- some of whom have found out, while applying for official doucments, that they've been stripped of Jordanian citizenship.

 

[WildCat]

jordan is not guilty of mis-treating it's citizens.

Wait, is there another Jordan somewhere? And what Israeli citizens are being mistreated?

 

[bikerdruid]

Wait, is there another Jordan somewhere? And what Israeli citizens are being mistreated?

neither question is worthy of a response.

 

[Thunder]

So you're OK with Jordan having stolen three thirds of what was once called "Palestine"?

stolen?

it was made this way by the British.

you have an interesting definition of "stolen".

 

[Mycroft]

Who are you talking about? Surely not me...

Of course I'm talking about you, but not only you. You didn't make up the talking points, but you subscribe to them. And yes, it takes some mental gymnastics to believe that what's written down in law as the actual definition of "occupation" doesn't matter if you have a newspaper clipping from 5 years ago from some EU official who disagrees. Common sense says the opinion of politicians is often driven by politics, but the law itself is written down, easily read, and objective.

I did not coin the term Hafrada. And it was not me who first compared the situation in the West Bank to apartheid -- people who lived under apartheid did. And, once again, Hafrada is not my term for occupation.

You didn't personally coin it, but the motives for pushing it are the same as whoever did. You want an emotionally charged term that makes for good propaganda. "Hafrada", if it gains common acceptance, would fit the bill nicely. Fortunately while the press is mostly sympathetic they're not actually stupid, and can tell the difference between "Apartheid", which was the actual name of a set South African policies, and a term made up for its propaganda value.

So dishonest that you can find no independent authority who agrees with you on the status of Gaza, but I've found the US state dept, EU and UN. I guess we're all revionists.

The Hague Convention itself is an independent authority. I think it's absurd that you dismiss the law itself when arguing what the law says.

 

[FireGarden]

Of course I'm talking about you, but not only you. You didn't make up the talking points, but you subscribe to them. And yes, it takes some mental gymnastics to believe that what's written down in law as the actual definition of "occupation" doesn't matter if you have a newspaper clipping from 5 years ago from some EU official who disagrees. Common sense says the opinion of politicians is often driven by politics, but the law itself is written down, easily read, and objective.

Appeal to 'They've changed their minds!" without supporting evidence. In fact contrary to the evidence available. Wiki may not be infallible, but I think someone somewhere would have noticed that the EU have changed their minds. Not to mention the other sources. This gambit was beneath you, and I'll make the same comment I made to bigjel: if you HONESTLY believe that any of the sources have changed their minds since the time the webpage I linked to was written then why don't you post a link to their current position?

I know the answer: If the CIA factbook (dated Feb 2011) doesn't agree with you, then who in hell would?

The Hague Convention itself is an independent authority. I think it's absurd that you dismiss the law itself when arguing what the law says.

Until the Hague convention learns to speak and issues a decision on the matter, you are left with arguing that the people whose job it is to consider such laws aren't doing it properly. And you don't have the authority to make that judgement. The US state dept says that Gaza is occupied because it fits the definitions. Same for EU, etc.

I notice you dropped some of your debating points since the issue of permts for fishing and the use of land in the buffer zone was raised.

 

[Mycroft]

Appeal to 'They've changed their minds!" without supporting evidence. In fact contrary to the evidence available. Wiki may not be infallible, but I think someone somewhere would have noticed that the EU have changed their minds. Not to mention the other sources. This gambit was beneath you, and I'll make the same comment I made to bigjel: if you HONESTLY believe that any of the sources have changed their minds since the time the webpage I linked to was written then why don't you post a link to their current position?

As I didn't claim anything or anyone changed their mind, this makes no sense. Care to try again?

Until the Hague convention learns to speak and issues a decision on the matter, you are left with arguing that the people whose job it is to consider such laws aren't doing it properly...

I don't know where you come from, but here in the United States the job of interpreting the law falls on the Judiciary. That means that if something comes before the Supreme Court of the United States and the SCOTUS makes a decision that the law should be interpreted in some way other than how it's written down, then that's the way it is. If an appointee from the State Department offers an opinion, then that's just his opinion.

For example, if Condoleezza Rice were to offer a legal opinion that water-boarding were not torture, many people might disagree with her even though she was head of the State Department, a very smart woman, and a woman of importance whose opinion carried weight. If the Supreme Court offered the same opinion, then the issue is settled and you would need either a change in law or a different Supreme Court to change it.

And you don't have the authority to make that judgement. The US state dept says that Gaza is occupied because it fits the definitions. Same for EU, etc.

I may have skimmed over some of the posts. Where does the State Department say that again? Or are you speaking of the CIA factbook entry?

I notice you dropped some of your debating points since the issue of permts for fishing and the use of land in the buffer zone was raised.

I haven't gotten into the fishing permit debate because I don't think it's important. The assertion that if Israel controls any tiny portion of Gaza then they "occupy" the entire region is specious. If you want to claim that Israel "occupies" the coastal waters of Gaza, then I won't argue with you, but the claim that if Israel controls those waters then they still "occupy" all of Gaza is just another example of making up special definitions that only fit the Israeli/Palestine conflict.

 

[Thunder]

If Israel no longer has soverignity over the Gaza Strip, then what nation does?

 

[FireGarden]

As I didn't claim anything or anyone changed their mind, this makes no sense. Care to try again?

So you mentioned the age of the clipping for no reason what so ever? Well done.

I may have skimmed over some of the posts. Where does the State Department say that again? Or are you speaking of the CIA factbook entry?

Maybe that's Wildcat's influence! But I seem to remember Thunder posting a few links, too.

I haven't gotten into the fishing permit debate because I don't think it's important. The assertion that if Israel controls any tiny portion of Gaza then they "occupy" the entire region is specious. If you want to claim that Israel "occupies" the coastal waters of Gaza, then I won't argue with you, but the claim that if Israel controls those waters then they still "occupy" all of Gaza is just another example of making up special definitions that only fit the Israeli/Palestine conflict.

I doubt I've given a complete list of all the things Israel still controls. Waters, a buffer zone and airspace are quite substantial. The guardian (or was it independent?) article I linked earlier mentioned a couple of other things. And also said what I quoted the BBC saying: Israel thinks the occupation is over but that's not accepted internationally.

It's not my job to give an exhaustive case proving that the occupation is ongoing. I'm satisfied with the opinions of the sources I have given. They are not isolated, anti-Israel revisionists. I don't believe they reached their conclusion by redefining 'occupation'.

That in the end is a difference of opinion between us which doesn't look like it will settled by debate. Rock, paper, scissors then?

 

[Mycroft]

So you mentioned the age of the clipping for no reason what so ever? Well done.

Well, that it was a clipping and that it was old are both indicators of the weakness of the argument. If I cited a newspaper interview with Colin Powell from 2004 where he offered an opinion, could I state that as US policy of that time without first ascertaining if he was offering a personal opinion or speaking for the administration? Could I offer that as evidence of the policy of today? If what he said were a legal opinion, wouldn't it be a good idea to verify with a legal authority?

Maybe that's Wildcat's influence! But I seem to remember Thunder posting a few links, too.

I've had Thunder on ignore for a while now. If he's contributed anything worthwhile, I'd be surprised.

I doubt I've given a complete list of all the things Israel still controls. Waters, a buffer zone and airspace are quite substantial. The guardian (or was it independent?) article I linked earlier mentioned a couple of other things. And also said what I quoted the BBC saying: Israel thinks the occupation is over but that's not accepted internationally.

All the things listed either relate to things Israel provides to Gaza or relate to maintaining the blockade of Gaza. It's kinda disingenuous to claim that Israel "occupies" Gaza because Israel gives them (and thus "controls") things like water, oil and electricity.

It's not my job...

Nothing is your job. Participation in these forums is always voluntary. I don't personally expect to change your mind any more than I've been able to change the mind of The Fool or AUP over the last seven years. You've chosen your political beliefs, and I don't expect you to give them up lightly.

But you made a claim, so the issue is how well you back it up. So far you've got an EU official who said something in a newspaper 5 years ago, the BBC saying "not accepted internationally", and a sentence in an on-line reference guide. I've got the actual definition agreed to in the Hague Convention, the very basis for the international law under discussion. I think that trumps everything you got.

That in the end is a difference of opinion between us which doesn't look like it will settled by debate. Rock, paper, scissors then?

Or...something you haven't done yet...is to reference the actual legal definition of "occupied" and compare it to the situation in Gaza. That is the one thing, the objective standard, that you've refused to look at in all these pages of discussion.