General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Mycroft]

A false premise, huh? Every important organisation in the world seems to agree with me: Gaza is still occupied.

First, the logical fallacy displayed here is argumentum ad populum.

Second, it’s not even true. Most of the organizations of the world are silent on the matter due to its highly charged political nature. That’s why you have to go back five years to find an EU official saying it, and your only source for the US State Department saying it is not a policy statement, but a single line in their online reference guide.

The organizations that do push that point of view do so for a very specific reason; because the status of “occupied” places certain legal responsibilities on Israel to supply the basic needs of the Gaza citizenry at a basic level, which is why the argument over borders and airspace, which has no precedent, is created. They fear that without that legal responsibility, Israel will allow a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

But that in itself is another logical fallacy. Argumentum ad consequentiam..

But the truth is Israel hasn’t allowed that to happen so far so there is no reason to believe they would allow that to happen in the future. Also, there are other agreements between Israel and Palestinians in place that would preclude that.

It’s also another manifestation of the anti-Israel camp placing all responsibility on Israel and no responsibility on Palestinians. The reality is that Palestinians should be responsible for Palestinian well being, and if they were held to that standard then meeting that obligation would preclude them from continuing to make war with Israel.

 

[FireGarden]

First, the logical fallacy displayed here is argumentum ad populum.

When I say that most scientists agree with the big bang theorem, it doesn't prove that theorem is true. But, if you trust scientists, then it does lend the theorem a lot of weight. And it certainly means that I can't be considered to be 'revisionist' on the matter.

Second, it’s not even true. Most of the organizations of the world are silent on the matter due to its highly charged political nature. That’s why you have to go back five years to find an EU official saying it, and your only source for the US State Department saying it is not a policy statement, but a single line in their online reference guide.

They are not silent on the matter. The CIA link is dated Feb 2011. And if you want to say that doesn't accurately describe the opinion of the US government, then it would help if you could link to their actual opinion. They seem satisfied to allow the CIA to say this. Or maybe they're not aware of it. I think you should bring it to their attention yourself.

Similarly, when a UK government website (even if it is only about travel advice) describes Gaza as occupied, then that is because the UK government describes Gaza that way. It's not a typo.

The organizations that do push that point of view do so for a very specific reason; because the status of “occupied” places certain legal responsibilities on Israel to supply the basic needs of the Gaza citizenry at a basic level, which is why the argument over borders and airspace, which has no precedent, is created. They fear that without that legal responsibility, Israel will allow a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

But that in itself is another logical fallacy. Argumentum ad consequentiam..

But the truth is Israel hasn’t allowed that to happen so far so there is no reason to believe they would allow that to happen in the future. Also, there are other agreements between Israel and Palestinians in place that would preclude that.

All of which is your opinion.
Unless you can cite a source rather than putting opinions in their mouths.




Meanwhile, here are some links:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3921587,00.html
July 2010

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman continued to propagate his recently formulated plan for a second disengagement from Gaza on Sunday, after a meeting with the EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton.

What need is there for a second disengagement, if the first was complete?

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3920724,00.html

Five years after Israel's unilateral disengagement from Gaza, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has proposed a new plan aimed at ridding Israel of any responsibility for the coastal enclave, the Yedioth Ahronoth daily reported Friday.

Lieberman is troubled by the fact that despite the evacuation of all Israeli settlements in Gaza and a full IDF withdrawal, the disengagement was not acknowledged by the international community, which still demands that Israel provide the Strip's residents with their basic necessities.

[...] A confidential document sent to Lieberman recently states that "we must discreetly approach the US, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and renowned international law experts to examine their terms for international recognition of an end to the occupation."

Of course, you say, that's only the foreign minister. Netanyahu's first reaction:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...ate-confrontation-appears-inevitable-1.302525

Lieberman's "disengagement" plan, widely viewed as a slight to Cairo ahead of Netanyahu's visit, was neither coordinated with the prime minister nor received his approval - points Netanyahu is expected to emphasize at today's meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Netanyahu, Jan 2011:
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=204568

Netanyahu told Alliot-Marie, who is scheduled to visit Gaza on Friday, that Israel would work toward “disengaging” from Gaza’s infrastructure, starting with removing the area from Israel’s water and electricity grids.

This plan was first brought up by Lieberman in the summer, with the idea being that the EU would be asked to help build a power plant, water desalination plant and sewage treatment plant in Gaza to make it self sufficient.

Conclusion?
Israel still wants to give up its responsibilities for Gaza. This time, Lieberman especially, it's looking for ways to disengage which will be internationally recognised as an end to the occupation.

 

[WildCat]

Meanwhile, Hamas fired at least 50 mortar rounds into Israeli towns today.

And, of course, Israel is still expected to supply them with fuel, water, food, etc... what other country on the planet would do this for the people who are trying to kill every last one of them?

 

[Pardalis]

One needs to remember, that "occupation", in the mind of Hamas and other radicals, is the entire territory that is known as Israel.

 

[Thunder]

Meanwhile, Hamas fired at least 50 mortar rounds into Israeli towns today.

And, of course, Israel is still expected to supply them with fuel, water, food, etc... what other country on the planet would do this for the people who are trying to kill every last one of them?

strawman. the 1 million people of Gaza are not Hamas.

 

[Pardalis]

Meanwhile, Hamas fired at least 50 mortar rounds into Israeli towns today.

And, of course, Israel is still expected to supply them with fuel, water, food, etc... what other country on the planet would do this for the people who are trying to kill every last one of them?

And they intercepted a ship loaded with weapons heading for Gaza

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/03/16/israel.weapons/index.html

The Israeli military displayed mortar shells, ammunition and surface-to-sea missiles in Ashdod on Wednesday, ordnance that officials said was seized from a ship bound for Gaza.

 

[Thunder]

And they intercepted a ship loaded with weapons heading for Gaza

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/03/16/israel.weapons/index.html

The ship made a stop in Turkey before heading for the Egyptian port of Alexandria, where the containers were to be unloaded.




which is it? were they going to Gaza or Egypt? Alexandria is pretty damn far from Gaza.

maybe the weapons were heading to Libya?

 

[WildCat]

And they intercepted a ship loaded with weapons heading for Gaza

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/03/16/israel.weapons/index.html

And of course it's sheer coincidence that cargo ship full of Iranian weapons left the same port where 2 Iranian warships were docked the week before.

 

[Thunder]

And of course it's sheer coincidence that cargo ship full of Iranian weapons left the same port where 2 Iranian warships were docked the week before.

a ship full of weapons, bound for Alexandria. and the weapons were meant for Gaza.

yeah, that makes tons of sense.

 

[Pardalis]

maybe the weapons were heading to Libya?

Why would it be going to Libya? Are you saying Iran is helping the insurgency there? Got anything to prove that? That would be surprising to alot of people.

On the other hand, the links between Iran and Hamas are not a secret.

 

[Thunder]

Why would it be going to Libya?

there is a civil war in Libya.


please provide your evidence that the weapons were heading for Gaza.

 

[Pardalis]

there is a civil war in Libya.

No kidding?

And what does Iran have to do with it? Got any links to prove they are helping either side?

 

[Thunder]

No kidding?

And what does Iran have to do with it? Got any links to prove they are helping either side?

please provide evidence that the ship bound for Alexandria, was going to then ship the weapons to Gaza.

 

[Pardalis]

please provide evidence that the ship bound for Alexandria, was going to then ship the weapons to Gaza.

Please provide evidence it was intended for Libya.

 

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Pardalis
And they intercepted a ship loaded with weapons heading for Gaza


..this is the original claim regarding the ship full of weapons.

please provide evidence for this claim.

if you have no evidence for it, perhaps you should retract it.

 

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Pardalis [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
And they intercepted a ship loaded with weapons heading for Gaza


..this is the original claim regarding the ship full of weapons.

please provide evidence for this claim.

The IDF seems to think so:

Lt. Col. Avital Leibowitz, spokeswoman for the Israel Defense Forces, said the military believes that these weapons were intended to be smuggled into Gaza through the numerous tunnels between the Egyptian Sinai desert and the coastal strip, which is governed by Hamas.

Now, about that Iran-Libya connection? Got any reading material for me?

 

[Thunder]

The IDF seems to think so

ahh..so the evil smugglers were gonna ship the weapons from Alexandria ALL the way to the Gaza border, and then smuggle them through the tunnels.

why didn't they go to a closer port? there are two that are hundreds of miles closer to Gaza, than Alexandria.

so far, no evidence has been provided that these weapons were meant for Gaza..or anyone else for that matter.

all we have is the speculation of Wildcat, Pardalis, and the IDF.

 

[Pardalis]

ahh..so the evil smugglers were gonna ship the weapons from Alexandria ALL the way to the Gaza border, and then smuggle them through the tunnels.

Egypt has roads, you know.

all we have is the speculation of Wildcat, Pardalis, and the IDF.

Except the IDF has first-hand experience, and the connection between Iran and Hamas has no longer to be established, it's a very well known fact.

Your suggestion that Iran is somehow helping the Libyan insurgency on the other hand... is unheard of.

 

[Thunder]

Egypt has roads, you know.

Except the IDF has first-hand experience,

the Israelis have a lot of experience with a whole lot of things.

sorry, but you have yet to provide any evidence supplied by the news media OR the Israelis.

your claim remains evidence-free.

 

[Cobalt]

strawman. the 1 million people of Gaza are not Hamas.

Someone want to point out that saying "strawman" doesn't make it true?