General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[WildCat]

That's fine. So the U.S. (or NATO, if you'd like) is occupying Libya, right?

Thunder is still trying to find a definition for "occupation" that applies to Israel and the Gaza strip but doesn't apply to many other places which nobody claims are occupied, I see.

Damn, this pretending you don't have a double standard thing is tough!

 

[Thunder]

Thunder is still trying to find a definition for "occupation" that applies to Israel and the Gaza strip but doesn't apply to many other places which nobody claims are occupied, I see.

wrong.

false.

typical Wildcat silly attack.


tell us again about your wild conspiracy theory, that Israel controls Hamas.

 

[mortimer]

NATO has yet to conquer Libyan territory through armed conflict, so its clearly not the same thing.

So this is another precondition to "effective control" of a territory... that it was previously conquered through armed conflict, correct? Wait, didn't Hamas conquer Gaza through armed conflict?

 

[Thunder]

So this is another precondition to "effective control" of a territory... that it was previously conquered through armed conflict, correct? Wait, didn't Hamas conquer Gaza through armed conflict?

I'm not the one who originally used the term "effective control".

so maybe you should whine to the guy who did.

 

[Thunder]

Damn, this pretending you don't have a double standard thing is tough!

tell us again why the Israeli govt. should not have to officially recognize the Armenian Genocide, nor officially recognize the Palestinian right to an independent state.

double-standard..indeed.

 

[mortimer]

I'm not the one who originally used the term "effective control".

so maybe you should whine to the guy who did.

Sorry, thought you were defending that definition of occupation.

So, what is your definition of occupation, that doesn't rely on an appeal to authority, and that applies to the Israel-Gaza situation?

 

[Thunder]

Sorry, thought you were defending that definition of occupation.

So, what is your definition of occupation, that doesn't rely on an appeal to authority, and that applies to the Israel-Gaza situation?

you want MY definition of Occupation?

sorry, but I am not a scholar of international law. therefore, I follow the experts on such matters, such as the United Nations, the United States Department of State, the British Foreign Ministry, the European Union, etc etc.

 

[bikerdruid]

you want MY definition of Occupation?

sorry, but I am not a scholar of international law. therefore, I follow the experts on such matters, such as the United Nations, the United States Department of State, the British Foreign Ministry, the European Union, etc etc.

i applaud your humility, thunder.
i have found it astounding that several members on this board have waved away the statements by the United Nations, the United States Department of State, the British Foreign Ministry, the European Union, etc etc, and arrogantly declared that they know better....

 

[mortimer]

you want MY definition of Occupation?

sorry, but I am not a scholar of international law. therefore, I follow the experts on such matters, such as the United Nations, the United States Department of State, the British Foreign Ministry, the European Union, etc etc.

So Appeal to Authority fallacy it is. That's fine. You seem to have several other opinions about Israel that are not based on that fallacy, which is curious.

 

[mortimer]

i applaud your humility, thunder.
i have found it astounding that several members on this board have waved away the statements by the United Nations, the United States Department of State, the British Foreign Ministry, the European Union, etc etc, and arrogantly declared that they know better....

Bikerdruid, don't you have a certain distaste for governments, whether they be national or global governments? Why do you trust them in this case, when in other cases you express how evil governments are?

 

[bikerdruid]

Bikerdruid, don't you have a certain distaste for governments, whether they be national or global governments? Why do you trust them in this case, when in other cases you express how evil governments are?

i have an absolute distaste for all governments.
however, there are realities in the world. we do have governments, whether i like it or not.
i don't trust their word in anything, including this matter.

however, the arrogance of people who do support the concept of governments, who arbitrarily wave off the declarations of those governments, as it suits their purposes, never ceases to amaze me.

 

[mortimer]

i have an absolute distaste for all governments.
however, there are realities in the world. we do have governments, whether i like it or not.
i don't trust their word in anything, including this matter.

however, the arrogance of people who do support the concept of governments, who arbitrarily wave off the declarations of those governments, as it suits their purposes, never ceases to amaze me.

Fair enough. So do you consider Gaza occupied, and if so, why?

 

[Thunder]

So Appeal to Authority fallacy it is. That's fine. You seem to have several other opinions about Israel that are not based on that fallacy, which is curious.

Occupation is a legal status. So yes, I appeal to the experts on international law. This does not constitute a logical fallacy.

Curious how you find such a stance, troublesome. Would you prefer I instead appeal to JREF Neo-Zionists?

 

[bikerdruid]

Fair enough. So do you consider Gaza occupied, and if so, why?

yes i do.
they are 'occupied' because all but their most basic rights are controlled by israel.
they have, unfortunately under hamas, only local control. even the basics of trade for food and supplies is tightly controlled by israel.
they have no control on the movement of people in and out of their state.
they are no, in any multilateral aspect, a nation.

 

[Thunder]

they have, unfortunately under hamas, only local control. even the basics of trade for food and supplies is tightly controlled by israel.

ah...so you DO believe that Israel controls Hamas!!!!!

 

[bikerdruid]

ah...so you DO believe that Israel controls Hamas!!!!!

nope.

 

[Thunder]

nope.

but...but...if Israel ultimately controls Gaza...then they also control Hamas!!

and if Israel controls Hamas, that means that all supposed Hamas terror-attacks are really false-flags!!

Alex Jones and Jeff Rense were right!!!

 

[Skeptic]

The "argument" seems to be that someone somewhere said "Israel occupies Gaza", therefore it does. Naturally this definition of "occupation" -- which trumps the fact that, say, no Israelies are there, Hamas (which openly declares it wants to destroy Israel) rules the place, etc. -- applies only to Israel.

Also, it comes from the same folks who usually consider governments or politicians to be the scum of the earth. Suddenly, when some government or politician says something against Israel, it's pure gold. This sudden high regard for politicians, too, applies only to Israel.

It's a bit like the attempt to declare Israel is a theocracy because it has no separation of Church and state -- while leaving, say, England outside the "theocratic" circle. Again a definition that applies, in the face of common sense (not to say the usual meaning of words), only to Israel.

It almost seems as if some folks here have something against Israel and are grossly unfair to it.

 

[bikerdruid]

The "argument" seems to be that someone somewhere said "Israel occupies Gaza", therefore it does. Naturally this definition of "occupation" -- which trumps the fact that, say, no Israelies are there, Hamas (which openly declares it wants to destroy Israel) rules the place, etc. -- applies only to Israel.

Also, it comes from the same folks who usually consider governments or politicians to be the scum of the earth. Suddenly, when some government or politician says something against Israel, it's pure gold. This sudden high regard for politicians, too, applies only to Israel.

It's a bit like the attempt to declare Israel is a theocracy because it has no separation of Church and state -- while leaving, say, England outside the "theocratic" circle. Again a definition that applies, in the face of common sense (not to say the usual meaning of words), only to Israel.

It almost seems as if some folks here have something against Israel and are grossly unfair to it.

gaza is 'occupied' because all but their most basic rights are controlled by israel.
they have, unfortunately under hamas, only local control. even the basics of trade for food and supplies is tightly controlled by israel.
they have no control on the movement of people in and out of their state.
they are no, in any multilateral aspect, a nation.

do you deny these facts?

 

[Skeptic]

yes i do.
they are 'occupied' because all but their most basic rights are controlled by israel.

Same applies to Libya, or England during WWI, etc.

they have, unfortunately under hamas, only local control. even the basics of trade for food and supplies is tightly controlled by israel.

Ditto during other countries which are under blockade, like, again, England during WWI. Or Iraq under the UN sanctions "oil-for-food" period.

But that hardly means sanctions or blockade are an occupation.

You're simply changing the word "occupation" to fit your current agenda contrary to all common sense.

It's an old trick with Marxists, by the way: everybody who disagrees with them is a "fascist", any action they dislike is "dictatorial", any military action by someone they dislike is "genocide", and now any blockade by people they hate is "occupation".