General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Thunder]

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

Bueller?

Bueller?

no answer from the revisionists?

 

[FireGarden]

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?

Politicians have legal advisors. And if the EU representative misrepresented the EU, why don't you find someone who accurately represented the EU? And I do offer it as an indicator of the policy of today. If you think it doesn't indicate today's policy, then find today's policy.

I see no reason to provide any more references. The CIA factbook is dated Feb 2011, btw.

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.

So governments have absolutely no responsibility for things like power and water. News to me. How do they plan an economy without planning how much power is available to industry? With one arm behind their back, I guess. Similarly for water.

Controlling territory is occupation. And when that territory you control surrounds another territory, then you have effective control of the contained territory.

There's also this:

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

Israel will continue to control Gaza's coastline and airspace and reserves the right to undertake military operations when necessary.

[...] existing customs arrangements with Israel — under which imports from Israel to Gaza are not taxed, exports from Gaza to Israel are taxed, and Israel collects customs duties on foreign products entering Gaza—will remain in force and the Israeli currency will continue to be used (Art 10).

Supposing Hamas doesn't want Israel to collect those taxes? Or are taxes nothing to do with government?

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.

Actually you brought up the status of Gaza as an example of 'revisionism'. I disagreed. The sources I cited are not revisionists. Why should I be considered a revisionist for agreeing with them?

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.

Of course you do. All you can do is cling onto your belief that you have understood the situation and the law. All the time you are too afraid to look for an actual human authority who agrees with you. You know that if the CIA factbook says Gaza is occupied then the only people who disagree are not going to be considered independent.

The authorities I have cited are not anti-Israel revisionists. Perhaps you should consider that they are right and you are wrong.

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.

Others have linked to it, and I've provided examples of how Israel still has some significant control of Gaza. If you're going to convince me that so many states that are friendly to Israel have got it wrong, you really are going to need more than your say so.

 

[Thunder]

If Israel does not occupy the Gaza Strip, which nation controls this territory?

 

[bikerdruid]

If Israel does not occupy the Gaza Strip, which nation controls this territory?

didn't you already ask this question?
surely your vocal opponents have been eagerly answering it.
wildcat?
skeptic?

who controls gaza, its waters, it's borders? it's immigration/emmigration?

 

[theprestige]

Blockade and occupation are two different things.

 

[Virus]

If Israel does not occupy the Gaza Strip, which nation controls this territory?

None. It's an enclave of gangsters and radicals. Guess how many states want the burden of responsibility for it? Zero.

 

[Thunder]

None.

wrong answer. thanks for playing.

 

[Cobalt]

wrong answer. thanks for playing.

Only wrong because you disagree with it. Oh wait, you put me on ignore for calling you out on your childish trolling.

 

[Virus]

wrong answer. thanks for playing.

If only "Enclave of Gangsters and Radicals" was an accepted designation in international law. Then it could be called that.

 

[bikerdruid]

If Israel does not occupy the Gaza Strip, which nation controls this territory?

None. It's an enclave of gangsters and radicals. Guess how many states want the burden of responsibility for it? Zero.

are you claiming that israel does not have control over gaza?
their borders, their waters?
their immigration/emmigration?

 

[bikerdruid]

didn't you already ask this question?
surely your vocal opponents have been eagerly answering it.
wildcat?
skeptic?
theprestige?
virus?


who controls gaza, its waters, it's borders? it's immigration/emmigration?

Blockade and occupation are two different things.

afraid to answer the question?

 

[quixotecoyote]

are you claiming that israel does not have control over gaza?
their borders, their waters?
their immigration/emmigration?

No. He's saying that Israel doesn't control Gaza. I leave the difference for you as a much needed exercise in reading comprehension.

 

[Skeptic]

The UN just agreed to a no-fly zone over Libya. According to the definition of "occupation" some people here use about Gaza, this means that yesterday, the UN began to "occupy" Libya.

 

[The Fool]

The UN just agreed to a no-fly zone over Libya. According to the definition of "occupation" some people here use about Gaza, this means that yesterday, the UN began to "occupy" Libya.

sorry but this is absolute crap....you are seriously clutching at straws.

Blatant misrepresentation of others positions. Please tell me who has put forward the case that simply mounting air operations makes you the occupying power...please tell us who it was as I actually suspect it was just a voice in your head.

ok...on with the conga line of laughable deniers...



here's a simple question for you "skeptic"

http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-refuses-to-let-french-fm-visit-gaza-1.5761

why the hell would he have to ask bibi's permission? See this is typical of Bibi....all bluster when he is leading the chants of the deniers but quite happy to exercise his control when it suit.......remember, that would be the control you can't pluck up the courage to face and debate...much rather stick the head in the sand in the face of glaring reality and simply join the denial brigade. Did you study at the flat earthers academy of political science?

 

[FireGarden]

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.

I've noticed something about this.
There are, indeed, some officials who have backed waterboarding.

And we don't need to use hypotheticals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#Classification_as_torture

Subsequently, the U.S. government released a memorandum written in 2002 by the Office of Legal Counsel that came to the conclusion that waterboarding did not constitute torture and could be used to interrogate subjects. The OLC reasoned that "in order for pain or suffering to rise to the level of torture, the statute requires that it be severe" and that waterboarding did not cause severe pain or suffering either physically or mentally.

And this is, actually, a very good analogy for the current debate. What is severe pain and suffering? That gives people wiggle room in the same way as 'authority over territory' gives wiggle room.

If almost everybody qualified to give an opinion was of the same opinion, then making use of that wiggle room becomes less credible. In the case of waterboarding, as the wiki link shows, there are many notable people who have said waterboarding is torture.

Who says the occupation of Gaza is over? Israel. Bigjel linked to an article from an Israeli university, and there are comments from various Israeli politicians. That seems to be it. Against all the credible sources who say the occupation is ongoing. I conclude that Israel's control over Gaza is sufficient for it to fit the definition of occupation.

 

[FireGarden]

The UN just agreed to a no-fly zone over Libya. According to the definition of "occupation" some people here use about Gaza, this means that yesterday, the UN began to "occupy" Libya.

Which people are those, Skeptic?
Are they the people who are so slow to acknowledge the buffer zones and the control of territorial waters? You know... the people who argue that water and electricity are not the concern of government. That don't comment on the taxes Israel collects on behalf of the PA on foreign, non-Israeli goods that go to Gaza -- taxes Israel at first withheld when Hamas won the election. etc, etc.

None. It's an enclave of gangsters and radicals. Guess how many states want the burden of responsibility for it? Zero.

Guess which state took responsibility for it and can't drop that responsibility by doing less than is necessary.

 

[Thunder]

The UN just agreed to a no-fly zone over Libya. According to the definition of "occupation" some people here use about Gaza, this means that yesterday, the UN began to "occupy" Libya.

silly lies

 

[bikerdruid]

No. He's saying that Israel doesn't control Gaza. I leave the difference for you as a much needed exercise in reading comprehension.

well, then....he'd be wrong.
israel DOES control gaza.
if i choose to immigrate to gaza, who would i contact?
I would be contacting the israeli embassy, since gaza does not have one.

 

[truethat]

Is Israel's need for "protection" territories Special Pleading

I was having a conversation with someone on facebook who posted how upset he is that the world has gotten swept up in Anti Semitism and doesn't support Israel as it should.

I suggested that this isn't about Anti Semitism but really some people not liking Israel's foreign policy.

He brought up the Yom Kippur War and I replied that this was in response to Israel taking Sinai from Egypt for strategic purposes. They needed the land for protection.

It got me to thinking that maybe this is why so much accusation of "Anti- Semitism" is coming out of Israel because they seem to make a habit of occupying land that doesn't belong to them because they need "buffer zones" from all the crazies trying to kill them.

But I got to thinking, Isn't that a very unique claim? We all seem to understand that there needs to be "protection" and "buffer zones" but I can't think off the top of my head if there's another situation like this in the world.

Can any of you?

Also he seems to believe that Israel was sort of forced into taking Sinai for protection. Is this true? Can anyone fill me in on this. Thanks.

 

[bigjelmapro]

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

Spamming the same links isn't going to magically produce evidence that Israel issues fishing permits. Not being able to fish the extra few kilometers of internal waters off Gaza is not evidence that Israel occupies Gaza.

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.

Its the concept of a buffer zone that eludes you. Israel only controls its side of the buffer zone, as it has post-'73 according to previous agreements with Egypt and the PA/PLO. Since the PA does not control said buffer zones, airspace, and internal waters according to Oslo and the Gaza-Jericho agreements, then Israel has no obligation to simply sit there whilst Hamas and their affiliates continue with their asymetrical warfare tactics with impunity.

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.

I can only provide what personal experience I have when I was doing reserve duty along the Israel-Jordanian border, as per the agreements between the two nations.

What kind of evidence would satisfy you in this irrelevant deflection?

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.

I know you aren't arguing law, since the definitions provided regarding occupation do not agree with your interpretation, as well as those from several NGO's. All what you've provided is the current state as interpreted by the UN and parroted by the websites you've provided, which don't abide by international law, GC, Rome statues, etc. regarding war.

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?

It has nothing to do with a source to change anybody's minds, but a need to reassess the status of Gaza following Israel's unilateral disengagment several years ago and taking into account previous agreements between Israel and the PA. As far as I know, this reassessment has been on the back-burner at the UN for several years now.

Until you post some actual rebuttal using international law pertaining to occupation, then I would consider this done and dusted.

We'll reconvene when the UN blows the dust off this long needed issue and finally addresses it.