LOL. The bit I quoted says Israel doesn't issue permits to all applicants. Which implies that it does issue permits to some.
But it was about fishing permits, was it not? Or is it my imagination that you replied with (the yet to be substantiated) b'tselem article when I replied about fishing permits? Guess it was.
'whoever' in this case includes almost everybody.
So back to argumentum ad populum and the parroting of an out-of-date status of Gaza.
The CIA website is there to state facts.
You say they're quoting the UN. Wildcat says they're quoting the US state dept.
I haven't seen the US state department state anything beyond travel advisories (post withdrawal). The CIA states the current situation without the required reassessment, because its a hot political topic, most dance around the subject.
This statement about 'facts' is contradicted below by you. Are you or are you not using legal terms and thus making legal arguments?
I'm not here to argue the law with you. We had a lot of fun in the other thread, arguing about whether or not Egypt opened the Rafah crossing to a greater extent after the flotilla raid. I was satisfied with the reporting of the BBC, YNET, Haaretz, the JPost, etc. But you wanted actual numbers. Easy enough. I gave you the numbers. You still wouldn't admit you were wrong.
...
I will not argue the law with you.
As you've stated when you have no legal argument to use the terms you keep using. Glad we're beyond that now.
The Rafah crossing argument is already done and dusted since you've provided nothing beyond gestures as an overall improvement. Its become excessively redundant, as in this case, the excessive use of the CIA website to back up your argument about the legal status of Gaza. But hey, we're not discussing international law/statutes/etc. here. I forgot
It's not cherry picking. In fact, it is you who ignore part of what Mycroft's source says. I acknowledged the quote you gave when I said this:
...
But you ignore that Mycroft's source modifies his initial judgement in the comments.
Showed that you cherry picked by that hack-job. And who said I agreed with the source in its entirety. I only agreed with the parts I've argued from the get-go. I've given an example of my disagreements with that article. So what of it?
You've given that source before. I got this far last time and still see no reason to read further:
...
Israel has had official military business in the territory. That your source refuses to recognise that probably explains their position. We've been over it before: land, air, sea, buffer zones, etc.
'Official military business'? This is what we're referring to the reaction to missile/mortar barrages by Hamas and their affiliates? Business. Good to know.
Recognize what exactly? Ban Ki-Moon's statement at face value? That deserves a lol from me. Ta.
And yes, we've been over this. Functions of government all under Hamas's control. Buffer zones have been there for ages (as with previous agreements). No adherence to previous agreements by Hamas between Israel/PA about buffer zones, control of its internal waters, etc.
All of the above, not preconditions to effective control, thus not occupation.
How is it that I have to read to the counter-arguments, but you refuse to read the arguments I support? Because it makes you feel uncomfortable? Unworthy of your time?
"Sui generis ", huh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_generis
"...literally meaning of its own kind/genus or unique in its characteristics."
What makes you think the literal meaning is the ones being used here?
Actually, I don't think that is Mycroft's position. He was of the opinion that Israel was being treated differently -- not that Israel should get to invent new categories so as to avoid using the word 'occupation'.
No. The issue is the use of the term 'occupation' and its unique application to Israel.
The point of the last bit still escapes me. Even if the world was to accept that the occupation is over... What then? Do you get to ask "The occupation is over, so why does the fighting go on?" as if that is confusing. Who wouldn't be satisfied to live with a blockade? There's no pleasing some people, I reckon.
I think a reassessment would make the Arab world and Islamic uhmmah, for the most part, and then the international community, more responsible for the plight of the Palestinians rather than harp on about their suffering whilst isolating and discriminating those Palestinian refugees (which is special in this case) residing within their borders at the same time (a great deal of which were originally from/related to the country they are classified as 'refugees' in. At this moment, the pillaging of a vaguely worded Geneva convention as a perpetual meatshield and the sole responsibility Israel has to babysit Hamas and Gaza is what needs to be changed.
This reassessment would be a step towards final status agreements between Israelis and the Palestinians, which obviously would be the end of any blockade, and hopefully, the end of Hamas in power and a more responsible government for the Palestinians overall. But the latter bit is just wishful thinking. Its easy to see the current result of Egypt's use of Gaza as its base for asymetrical warfare for the decades leading up to the cold peace between Israel-Egypt. It won't be easy to unlearn.
But hey, I guess Israelis will have to get used to being in the perpetual crosshairs of Palestinian terrorists...
.gif "What was that? :wwt")
