Of course not. Because you know darn well the legal definition doesn’t back you up.
I have no need to use the definition of 'occupation' because qualified people have already spoken on the matter.
For starters they could have listed the internationals who hold the opinion that Israel has not ended the occupation.
By 'has not been accepted internationally' I take the BBC to mean that NO international body has accepted it. If you think they missed somebody, why don't you list them?
Honestly, I haven’t checked. When we have a legally established definition that’s pretty easy to understand, I don’t personally think it’s necessary to compile a list of politicians who agree or not. But for the sake of argument, if you were to identify a significant list of politicians who agree with your point of view, I think all that would accomplish is to completely validate the claim that Israel is held to different standards than the rest of the world.
You're proceeding from the premise that the CIA, UK, EU (and your goverment, I reckon) are wrong on this matter. As far as I know, you aren't qualified to say that. So I disagree that they are wrong. I think they understand what 'occupation' means. They understand when it starts and when it finishes.
Show me some other occupation which 'ended' with the occupied territory still under the restrictions which Gaza is under. You've claimed there is a double standard -- that Israel is being treated differently. Back that up with an example.
If you truly believe that then it’s bizarre that you’re trying to push the term “Hafrada”. Do you believe they are separated or not? Which is it? Or is it that they are separated when you want to manufactured an emotionally charged term to use for propaganda purposes, and they are not separated when saying so lends a little weight to your revisionist changing definitions?
Israel controls the lives of Palestinians, but doesn't let them take part in Israeli society. So Israel has not 'seperated itself from its enemies' -- it is very intimately involved with the Palestinians. And yet... You can hardly call them one people.
If the contradictory nature of that is too much for you, then so be it.
I don’t need a lawyer to read and understand the Hague Conventions. There is a legal definition of “occupation” and you’re not using it. Instead you’re choosing to make up a different definition and apply it exclusively to Israel. That’s revisionism.
I've not made up any definition. I'm relying upon qualified people to reach a conclusion. You, otoh, are relying on your own expertise. Why should I trust you? You've not even bothered to look for an authority who agrees with you. Are you afraid you won't find one? That it will be you, with your total understanding of the matter, against the rest of the 'revisionist' world?
So…you’re claiming you want to take the Hebrew word for “separation” and use it to say they are not separated. And in order to do that you can’t just say, “They’re not really separated.” Oh yeah, and “separation” is worse than Apartheid…therefore Israel should be more in control of Palestinian government…?!
Surely you must see the logical problems with all that?
I might if I could understand it.
Wouldn’t it be so much easier to just say you believe Palestinians need more independence than they have right now, and that you believe that even though Israel is no longer occupying Gaza that they still have a moral obligation to the people of Gaza? You’d be saying the things you seem to believe, but you wouldn’t need to tie yourself up in logical knots trying to coin new terms and force old words into new definitions. Most of the time just saying what you think the truth is in simple terms is the best.
Granted, you run the risk of giving Israel credit for its policy of disengagement (I don’t know what the Hebrew word for “disengagement is, but at least it’s an actual policy, unlike “Hafrada”) and you would run the risk of saying Israel was right to withdraw from Gaza…but that might not be such a downside if it makes you come across as being a reasonable moderate and not just an anti-Israel kook.
Again, I don't know who you're arguing against here. I've not coined new terms, nor forced new meanings on old words -- though I am sure such things happen very legitimately in international affairs.
So, to recap;
You have not only failed to cite a definition of “occupation” as defined by the Hague Conventions, but have asserted you have no intention of doing so. Bizarrely, you do cite snippets from travel websites.
From a UK government website. And also a quote of an EU representative who lays out what is needed for the occupation to be considered over. Not to mention the CIA.
You have failed to list the assurances given to the Israelis by the Palestinians that a new Palestinian state won’t be just a platform to wage war against Israel, but you have cited a statement by Abbas saying he rejects violence in the short-run.
Actually, I linked to such an assurance. You weren't satisfied by it. But it is there. And, frankly, I think it is the best Israel will get.
You have actually named one international politician who claimed Gaza is still occupied, Javier Solana, but failed to notice his comments predate the withdrawal from Gaza and that Mr Solana has been retired for a couple of years now. It’s unclear from reading the article if the statement represents an official statement of policy from the post he held or a personal opinion. In any case, I’m going to assume that finding it indicated you put effort into looking, and that’s the best you found.
And, yet, I'm doing so much better than you. Nice of you to be honest and admit you haven't bothered trying. Now, if only you could admit to yourself WHY you haven't bothered trying. Was it the fact that if the CIA don't agree with you then who in hell would?
As for Mr Solana,
He was the EU representative at the time and he was laying out the conditions upon which the occupation would be considered over. Nice of you to belittle it, especially with only amateur opinion on your side of the argument.
Hey, hold out on the possibily that the EU has changed their mind, or were misrepresented by their representative -- but don't google for evidence of that. It's too scary!!!!
