General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Nightowl2548]

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.

I think from an Israeli point of view it is just common sense to keep a buffer against a very real threat from people who would destroy them if they had the upper hand. It is easy for people sitting in front of a TV thousands of miles away to criticize them and want to sing Kum Buy Yah. Same as 150 years ago people living in comfort on the east coast could fantasize about the "noble savage" while frontier families lived with the very real horror of Indians raiding their farms and literally slowly slicing them and their children into little pieces in ways unimaginable. Was it right for them to steal the Palestinians land 70 years back? No. But they are there now and what are they supposed to do? Israel is a fait accompli, people are just going to have to learn to live with that.

 

[Thunder]

It is easy for people sitting in front of a TV thousands of miles away to criticize them and want to sing Kum Buy Yah.

cute. is that Aramaic?

Israel is a fait accompli, people are just going to have to learn to live with that.

yes, but Israeli control of the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and even East Jerusalem..is not set in stone.

I believe there is a 50/50 chance that within 20 years, we will once again see Arab control over most of these lands.

 

[Virus]

Hamas is not an internationally recognized soverign entity.

It doesn't have to be. Gaza is strong-armed under the control of an Islamic terrorist/crime syndicate. The booted out the PA and don't recognize Abbas as the president. So it's effectively it's own little enclave that nobody shows much interest in governing.

"Gangster Enclave" would be the best description but no such designation exists in international law so most people default to the designation from the Oslo Accords, which in practice have long since broken down.

 

[Thunder]

"Gangster Enclave" would be the best description..

well, in the real world of laws, such a designation has no meaning.

Gaza is under Israel Occupation until Egypt takes it over, or until Gaza is declared an independent state, or until Palestine (the West Bank, Gaza, and some of EJ) is declared free and sovereign.

 

[Virus]

well, in the real world of laws, such a designation has no meaning.

Gaza is under Israel Occupation until Egypt takes it over, or until Gaza is declared an independent state, or until Palestine (the West Bank, Gaza, and some of EJ) is declared free and sovereign.

You can't occupy something without being there. It's still designated "occupied territory" because there's no name for the current situation.

 

[Thunder]

You can't occupy something without being there.

errr........not soo fast there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation

The Hague Conventions of 1907 further clarified and supplemented these customary laws. Specifically "Laws and Customs of War on Land" (Hague IV); October 18, 1907: "Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile State."[1] The first two articles of that section state:

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.

 

[Skeptic]

Curious Wildcat if you consider in incidents like the Kafr Qasim massacre?

Yes, he probably does. I do. And so did the Israeli courts that sentenced those who did it to jail in the 1950s.

I looked over the Israeli press at the time (due to other reasons): there is nothing but revulsion towards the soldiers who did it. The government, to its shame, tried to hide the fact of the massacre -- but it was Israeli members of parliament, Jews and Arabs, as well as Jewish intellectuals (first of all the de facto Israeli national poet at the time, Nathan Alterman) who published the facts, in the knesset (Israeli parliament), where they read the details into the record, or in the press.

The story of the massacre itself interesting from the point of view of morality. It began when Major Samuel Malinky, responsible for security in eight arab villages, told his eight platoon commanders (one in each village) to shoot "without sentiments" those who didn't obey the curfew laws. Seven of the eight refused and shot nobody. Only one -- Lt. Gabriel Dahan -- obeyed the command in "his" village, Kfar Kassam. The court sentenced him and his soldiers to long periods in jail, although they were soon pardoned.

So the Israeli public in general, the Israeli courts, Israeli intellectuals, Israeli MPs, and most of the Israeli soldiers given the command to shoot civilians either refused, or were outraged by it. The shameful behavior here -- apart from the shooters themselves -- is that of the Israeli government, for trying to cover up and then pardoning the convicted. Does this massacre show the immorality of the commander who ordered it and the soldiers who obeyed it, and the (lesser) immorality of the government's coverup attempts? Indeed it does. Does it show immorality of the Israeli public or IDF soldiers in general? Quite the opposite.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

When scientists make claims, they can point to objective evidence to support those claims. When politicians make claims, it’s to suit their objectives.

In this argument you very carefully avoid the objective evidence, the actual definition of “occupation” as written into the Hague Convention, and focus instead entirely on other people, politicians, who agree with you. That’s argumentum ad populum.

And it certainly means that I can't be considered to be 'revisionist' on the matter.

The “revision” here is revising the actual definition of “occupation”. Even though you’re not personally making the changes, you’re following those that are.

They are not silent on the matter...

It’s pretty silent. You may want to beat up a travel advisory, a line on an on-line reference source and an old quote from Javier Solana into a great roar, but the truth is that’s not very much.

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

Well you’re not going to get Javier Solana to say, ”Oh my reasoning is totally bogus, but we have to argue it that way because the real issue is…” Not gonna happen, but I can quote an article that I essentially agree with that follows the same line of thought.

http://www.ejiltalk.org/is-gaza-still-occupied-by-israel/

Meanwhile, here are some links:

<snip>

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.

This proves…what? No matter where you stand on this issue, the advantages all around of Gaza being self sufficient in water and power are obvious. That it’s come up in memos and discussions only shows that they’re aware of these arguments, not that they validate them.

 

[Virus]

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

What functions of government is Israel exercising in Gaza? Hamas exercises control of Gaza. If Israel is the authority in Gaza, why don't they just order Galid Shilat to be released from their own prison?

 

[Leif Roar]

But I got to thinking, Isn't that a very unique claim?

It's not a unique claim -- the Winter War between Finland and the Soviet Union was fought over a similar claim by Moscow and USA's position during the Cuban Missile Crisis could be said to be based on a similar claim -- but it's a type of claim that's rarely given credence outside the world of realpolitik.

That said, Israel is in an unenviable position strategically: it doesn't have enough internal territory to "bleed off" a strong attack over -- Norway might base its invasion defense on a stubborn retreat south to Tromsø, but Israel has no such option -- nor does it have the "Switzerland defense" of inaccessible terrain or Britain's "We're an island."

 

[FireGarden]

When scientists make claims, they can point to objective evidence to support those claims. When politicians make claims, it’s to suit their objectives.

In this argument you very carefully avoid the objective evidence, the actual definition of “occupation” as written into the Hague Convention, and focus instead entirely on other people, politicians, who agree with you. That’s argumentum ad populum.

Except you ignore what Solana said would be necessary to end the occupation. You ignore the evidence that Israel still retains control in and over Gaza, thus matching the definition of 'occupation' in the Hague convention. It does not say 'absolute authority' it does not say 'control of every aspect of government'. You gave some examples yourself of what a government does and Israel does some of those things for Gaza -- like issuing permits. It is responsible for water and electricity, but you pretend that is nothing to do with government. It collects taxes on imports and decides whether to pass those taxes on to the PA/Hamas, but you don't even comment on that.

The “revision” here is revising the actual definition of “occupation”. Even though you’re not personally making the changes, you’re following those that are.

"Those that are" include people like Solana and the CIA.
I think it's more likely that you and Israel have revised the meaning of 'occupation' to make it require absolute authority. It does not. Israel retains enough authority and control for the definition to apply.

It’s pretty silent. You may want to beat up a travel advisory, a line on an on-line reference source and an old quote from Javier Solana into a great roar, but the truth is that’s not very much.

And yet it is so much more than what you have.

Well you’re not going to get Javier Solana to say, ”Oh my reasoning is totally bogus, but we have to argue it that way because the real issue is…” Not gonna happen, but I can quote an article that I essentially agree with that follows the same line of thought.

http://www.ejiltalk.org/is-gaza-still-occupied-by-israel/

So we have to rely on your mind reading skills to determine what Solana really thinks?

Anyway, congratulations on finding a lawyer who agrees with you. At least until he responds to the first comment, after which he seems less sure.
http://www.ejiltalk.org/is-gaza-still-occupied-by-israel/

He thinks this is the best argument for saying the occupation is ongoing. I disagree, but let's hear him out:

Occupation does not necessarily mean the control of all of the territory, all of the time, at the same level of intensity. Many occupations meet with significant and active resistance while they are ongoing. Consider, for example, the US and UK-led occupation of Iraq. The strength of the insurgency there was such that at any given time these states lacked control over, say, some parts of the Sunni Triangle or some parts of Basra. That does not mean that their occupation of those parts of Iraq ceased, because the occupants were able to reestablish their control at will, as they did. The lapse in control was merely temporary, due to the fact that the level of resistance was such that the occupants could not control all of Iraq, every bit of it, all of the time.

Another well-known example is the German occupation of Yugoslavia during World War II. The partisans fighting against the Nazis were from time to time able to temporarily liberate a bit of territory here or there, but that did not mean that Germany’s occupation ceased. This was so because, as the military tribunal at Nuremberg ruled in United States v. List, ‘the Germans could at any time they desired assume physical control of any part’ of Yugoslavia.

But, apparently, this doesn't apply to Israel and Gaza because Israel "can’t reestablish its control over Gaza with ease". Because that's how America re-took Fallujah: with ease? Hardly.

Your source's reaction, when Fallujah is mentioned in the comments: "As for the Fallujah comparison, if reassuming control would be as easy as you say, the case for Israel remaining the occupant of Gaza is that much stronger. But this is essentially a military question. If we were now before the ICJ, we would need to hear expert testimony on the matter to actually form an opinion. My initial impression was the opposite, but it might well be wrong."

And this is operating from the assumption that the above matter is the deciding factor. Solana didn't say so. Solana said:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3135368,00.html

Only an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians regarding the control over the land, air and sea passages in Gaza will permit the international community to acknowledge the end of Israel’s occupation in Gaza, Javier Solana, the EU High Representative for EU Common Foreign and Security, said Tuesday during a meeting with Meretz-Yahad Party leader Yossi Beilin in Jerusalem.

Which is along the lines of one of the arguements dismissed by your source earlier in his article. I'll take Solana's word as being more authoritative.

Another point raised by the comment in your link:

A separate issue that you did not get into was Israel’s ongoing administrative control over certain governing institutions and infrastructure in the Gaza Strip, relevant for the Geneva test. A few points to bear in mind: Israel controls Gaza’s monetary policy through the circulation of the shekel. The population registry, which enables the issuance of identity documents and essentially controls the bureaucratic existence of residents, remains in the hands of the MoD. Gaza’s land-line telephone network remains totally integrated with Israel’s (side anecdote: I once documented a case where the IDF delivered a telephonic ‘warning’ to a family minutes before the aerial demolition of their home, using a landline that had been disconnected months previously because the family had not paid the phone bill).

This proves…what? No matter where you stand on this issue, the advantages all around of Gaza being self sufficient in water and power are obvious. That it’s come up in memos and discussions only shows that they’re aware of these arguments, not that they validate them.

And that the Israeli government is aware that the arguments come from everybody, not just an online reference and travel advisory.

 

[FireGarden]

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?

Strange, isn't it?
One would almost think that there is more to the relationship between Israel and Gaza. I wonder what it could be....

 

[WildCat]

Strange, isn't it?
One would almost think that there is more to the relationship between Israel and Gaza. I wonder what it could be....

One would also wonder how a group in an "occupied" territory can operate openly, assume all functions of government, and attack the country which is allegedly occupying it.

The answer, of course, is that Gaza isn't actually occupied. Except if you use the definition that applies to Israel and only Israel. One standard or the entire world except Israel, and one for Israel. Call it a double standard, or the Orwellian "higher standard", either way it reeks of hypocrisy and ulterior motives.

 

[truethat]

I don't think any honest members here believe that there are no anti-Semites amoung the millions of anti-Zionists, or even simply critics of Israel.

But to disregard any & all criticism of Israel as an "anti-Semitic double-standard", says a lot more about the accuser..then the accused.

I agree with this

I think from an Israeli point of view it is just common sense to keep a buffer against a very real threat from people who would destroy them if they had the upper hand. It is easy for people sitting in front of a TV thousands of miles away to criticize them and want to sing Kum Buy Yah. Same as 150 years ago people living in comfort on the east coast could fantasize about the "noble savage" while frontier families lived with the very real horror of Indians raiding their farms and literally slowly slicing them and their children into little pieces in ways unimaginable. Was it right for them to steal the Palestinians land 70 years back? No. But they are there now and what are they supposed to do? Israel is a fait accompli, people are just going to have to learn to live with that.

I agree with the sentiment of the buffer zone to some degree. But not when they take the buffer zone for "protection" then start building in it and occupying it and sending people to live there and then deciding that they need more protection.

Yes, he probably does. I do. And so did the Israeli courts that sentenced those who did it to jail in the 1950s.

I looked over the Israeli press at the time (due to other reasons): there is nothing but revulsion towards the soldiers who did it. The government, to its shame, tried to hide the fact of the massacre -- but it was Israeli members of parliament, Jews and Arabs, as well as Jewish intellectuals (first of all the de facto Israeli national poet at the time, Nathan Alterman) who published the facts, in the knesset (Israeli parliament), where they read the details into the record, or in the press.

The story of the massacre itself interesting from the point of view of morality. It began when Major Samuel Malinky, responsible for security in eight arab villages, told his eight platoon commanders (one in each village) to shoot "without sentiments" those who didn't obey the curfew laws. Seven of the eight refused and shot nobody. Only one -- Lt. Gabriel Dahan -- obeyed the command in "his" village, Kfar Kassam. The court sentenced him and his soldiers to long periods in jail, although they were soon pardoned.

So the Israeli public in general, the Israeli courts, Israeli intellectuals, Israeli MPs, and most of the Israeli soldiers given the command to shoot civilians either refused, or were outraged by it. The shameful behavior here -- apart from the shooters themselves -- is that of the Israeli government, for trying to cover up and then pardoning the convicted. Does this massacre show the immorality of the commander who ordered it and the soldiers who obeyed it, and the (lesser) immorality of the government's coverup attempts? Indeed it does. Does it show immorality of the Israeli public or IDF soldiers in general? Quite the opposite.

Of course, what they did had no way out. There was no option but to admit that it was a horrendous mistake. Except it wasn't a horrendous mistake. It was ordered and done deliberately and women and children were shot and then left in the streets to die since no one could come out to help them for fear of being shot because of the curfew.

So why are the soldiers out? You kill women and children in cold blood and serve 5 years?


In addition this kind of thing is not unusual. Women, children, regular civilians are shot and killed and bombed by Israeli forces on a regular basis whenever something goes wrong. Instead of calling them collateral damage they insist that these people were covering up for terrorists or some such thing.

It does cause people to have a distaste in their mouth about the entire situation. The same way people have distaste in their mouth when the US went into Iraq. Were those who criticized us "Anti American?"

No it's that when you see an abuse of power it bothers you.

It seems that by suggesting that this is about Anti Semitism it creates this justification for the actions in Israel.

 

[Skeptic]

Of course, what they did had no way out. There was no option but to admit that it was a horrendous mistake. Except it wasn't a horrendous mistake. It was ordered and done deliberately and women and children were shot and then left in the streets to die since no one could come out to help them for fear of being shot because of the curfew.

I agree 100%, but the point is, nobody is saying otherwise. I am not in any way defending what the major did or what the lieutenant or his soldiers did. I am pointing out simply that seven out of eight of the officers given this direct command refused point blank to carry it out. Nor am I defending the Israeli government's frankly despicable decision to pardon them. But the Israeli public and people -- and most of the soldiers -- were outraged.

(Imagine what would have happened, by the way, if 7 out of 8 German soldiers told to carry out similar, indeed much worse, crimes in the East during WWII refused point blank to do so, and would do everything to publish the deed, including by reading the description into the record in the Reichstag. Even if nobody ever punished the 1/8th of the soldiery which agreed, do you think the Jewish or Polish or Slav massacres there could have occurred as they did?)

In addition this kind of thing is not unusual. Women, children, regular civilians are shot and killed and bombed by Israeli forces on a regular basis whenever something goes wrong.

If "whenever something goes wrong" means "whenever Hamas and related folks use their houses as military bases", then yes. But, sorry, there is simply no comparison between shooting civilians for violating curfew and having civilians killed during fighting within a city. The moral blame here is on Hamas, not on Israel. In fact the IDF is extremely careful with civilian lives: "Cast Lead" for instance had a very low number of civilians killed compared to combatants, especially considering the close house-to-house fighting involved.

Let's take Kfar Kassam again. Imagine that the Lieutenant's forces, when entering the city to enforce curfew without any thought of killing anybody, were caught in a crossfire from various houses in the town square and shot their way out. Then, after the battle, it turned out that the shooters deliberately shot at the soldiers from houses they filled to the brink with sick civilians from the local hospital (much like Hamas' headquarters during operation "Cast Lead" was in the basement of a hospital), so the soldiers, when returning fire, killed 40 civilians. Would that be a massacre? Perhaps, but it would have been morally the ambushers' fault, not the soldiers'.

Instead of calling them collateral damage they insist that these people were covering up for terrorists or some such thing.

Most of the time they weren't willfully covering up, but forced to cover up by the terrorists. For example, the Hamas leadership during "Cast Lead" headquartered itself in the basement of the hospital. According to the rules of way, if Israel had bombed that hospital (it didn't), the moral and legal blame would have been on Hamas for deliberately turning it into a military target by having its headquarters there, even if the people in the hospital didn't want them there (I don't think anybody is saying they did, or usually do). When Hamas uses your house to store rockets, soldiers, or weapons, your house is a military target.

It does cause people to have a distaste in their mouth about the entire situation. The same way people have distaste in their mouth when the US went into Iraq. Were those who criticized us "Anti American?"

Depends. Sometimes not. Sometimes so -- as in the case of those who were screaming about the US "violations of human rights" while caring nothing at all that they are marching in "peace" protests together with Islamists who support the killing and subjugation of all those who they dislike.

 

[FireGarden]

One would also wonder how a group in an "occupied" territory can operate openly, assume all functions of government, and attack the country which is allegedly occupying it.

Not all functions of government, unless you say that setting import taxes isn't a function of government. And that government has no role in electricity or water. etc. But I'm sure you won't say that.

 

[WildCat]

Not all functions of government, unless you say that setting import taxes isn't a function of government.

And that government has no role in electricity or water. etc. But I'm sure you won't say that.

Hamas is free to develop their own water and electricity, aren't they? They choose to spend it on weapons to kill Jews instead.

And at any rate, this is just another pathetic attempt by you to redefine the meaning of "occupation".

"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".

Hamas is clearly in control of Gaza, and the IDF clearly is not.

 

[truethat]

I agree 100%, but the point is, nobody is saying otherwise. I am not in any way defending what the major did or what the lieutenant or his soldiers did. I am pointing out simply that seven out of eight of the officers given this direct command refused point blank to carry it out. Nor am I defending the Israeli government's frankly despicable decision to pardon them. But the Israeli public and people -- and most of the soldiers -- were outraged.

(Imagine what would have happened, by the way, if 7 out of 8 German soldiers told to carry out similar, indeed much worse, crimes in the East during WWII refused point blank to do so, and would do everything to publish the deed, including by reading the description into the record in the Reichstag. Even if nobody ever punished the 1/8th of the soldiery which agreed, do you think the Jewish or Polish or Slav massacres there could have occurred as they did?)



If "whenever something goes wrong" means "whenever Hamas and related folks use their houses as military bases", then yes. But, sorry, there is simply no comparison between shooting civilians for violating curfew and having civilians killed during fighting within a city. The moral blame here is on Hamas, not on Israel. In fact the IDF is extremely careful with civilian lives: "Cast Lead" for instance had a very low number of civilians killed compared to combatants, especially considering the close house-to-house fighting involved.

Let's take Kfar Kassam again. Imagine that the Lieutenant's forces, when entering the city to enforce curfew without any thought of killing anybody, were caught in a crossfire from various houses in the town square and shot their way out. Then, after the battle, it turned out that the shooters deliberately shot at the soldiers from houses they filled to the brink with sick civilians from the local hospital (much like Hamas' headquarters during operation "Cast Lead" was in the basement of a hospital), so the soldiers, when returning fire, killed 40 civilians. Would that be a massacre? Perhaps, but it would have been morally the ambushers' fault, not the soldiers'.



Most of the time they weren't willfully covering up, but forced to cover up by the terrorists. For example, the Hamas leadership during "Cast Lead" headquartered itself in the basement of the hospital. According to the rules of way, if Israel had bombed that hospital (it didn't), the moral and legal blame would have been on Hamas for deliberately turning it into a military target by having its headquarters there, even if the people in the hospital didn't want them there (I don't think anybody is saying they did, or usually do). When Hamas uses your house to store rockets, soldiers, or weapons, your house is a military target.



Depends. Sometimes not. Sometimes so -- as in the case of those who were screaming about the US "violations of human rights" while caring nothing at all that they are marching in "peace" protests together with Islamists who support the killing and subjugation of all those who they dislike.

This smacks slightly of Anti Islamism. SOME Islamists might be that way be that's a sweeping generalization. One that is often used to justify killing innocent Muslims.

A person who is raised in this kind of atmosphere might have sympathetic leanings towards Hamas because they perceive them to be freedom fighters. This doesn't justify their execution.

 

[Thunder]

"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".

Hamas is clearly in control of Gaza, and the IDF clearly is not.

ok, so are you saying that when the IAF flys over Gaza, they are violating Gaza's soverign airspace and Hamas has the right to complain about such actions to the United Nations?

 

[Thunder]

The answer, of course, is that Gaza isn't actually occupied. Except if you use the definition that applies to Israel and only Israel. One standard or the entire world except Israel, and one for Israel. Call it a double standard, or the Orwellian "higher standard", either way it reeks of hypocrisy and ulterior motives.

the only double-standard, hypocrisy, and ulterior motives, are the ones that Neo-Zionists apply.