General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[FireGarden]

And yet...

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.

Whatever Gaza is, to claim it fits this definition is absurd.

Now tell us when a territory, once considered occupied, becomes not occupied.

Israel hasn't relinquished all control of Gaza.

I notice you dodge all the questions I asked:
Did you consider the occupation over when the troops left and Fatah was still in control?

Still think it's a double standard? Then find someone else who acted the same way and was treated differently.

And you seem to have ignored the examples I gave of Israel still being involved in Gaza.

 

[Thunder]

Now tell us when a territory, once considered occupied, becomes not occupied.

uh....da territory ain't no longer occupied..when da soldiers have no boots on da ground.

its not a law, but it done sound right to me. hee hee



and I guess that if there were no American soldiers in Puerto Rico, it would cease being a Commonwealth of the United States?

I would LOVE...just LOVE to see this law in the Geneva Conventions or the UN Charter, stating that a legal occupation of territory ends when there are no more personnel from the Occupying Power, on that territory.

anyone? anyone?

 

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by Thunder
(In answer to the question: "should the parents be killed?")

no, I think they should have had water balloons thrown at them.

I guess that's a "yes".

man, there's a stretch......
in skeptic's bizarro world, water balloons=death.

that explains a lot.

 

[bikerdruid]

But since you're already on record saying .................... that someone who burned a book as political protest should be killed...
...well, comparatively, declaring that it's OK to kill Jews for living where you don't think they should doesn't quite make the cut. After all, you've made it quite clear you think that for years, only usually not that explicitly.

skeptic....i challenge you to show us where thunder:

1. ever promoted death to someone who burned a book.
2. ever explicitly declared it is ok to kill jews for living where he does not think they should.

put up, or retract your statement and apologize for your slander.

 

[Thunder]

I guess that's a "yes".

oh...look what Parky wrote!!!!!

Originally Posted by Thunder
no one here supports the murder of this family, and especially the innocent children.

I guess that means that suggesting I believe otherwise, is a lie huh?

yep

 

[WildCat]

skeptic....i challenge you to show us where thunder:

1. ever promoted death to someone who burned a book.
2. ever explicitly declared it is ok to kill jews for living where he does not think they should.

put up, or retract your statement and apologize for your slander.

Did you click the link on his sig?

 

[Thunder]

Did you click the link on his sig?

do you know what sarcasm is?

do you REALLY think that I believe the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto did not individually suffer under the Nazis?

it was a strawman!!!!!!!

oy.

 

[Skeptic]

skeptic....i challenge you to show us where thunder:

1. ever promoted death to someone who burned a book.

Sure. Look at my signature. "I hope he gets a fatwa" is Thunder's reaction to someone who burned a Koran (or, I think, didn't even do that but merely *said* he will). In the context it is quite clear he meant "fatwa" in the same sense as Salman Rushdie's "fatwa", that is, a death sentence from the Ayatollahs.

2. ever explicitly declared it is ok to kill jews for living where he does not think they should.

Sure. Look at his post above. When asked if it is OK to kill adult settlers, his sarcastic reply is "No, they should have water baloons thrown at them", which is in context another way of saying "yes", much like it would if the reply was spoken; much like, for example, someone who bitterly complains about a manager in a store and is asked "so you think he should be sued?" would sarcasticly reply, "No, I think he should be given a medal".

Also, the question was asked in the first place when he said he thinks the children should have not been killed, implicitly meaning the adults should, or could, have been (the children should merely have been orphaned). Asked if he really thinks that, this was his sarcastic reply. This further makes it clear was another way of saying "yes".

Gee, that was easy, wasn't it?

 

[Skeptic]

By the way -- the simplest explanation to such bizzare behavior on some posters' part is that the posters in question are dhimmis. They thinks it acceptable (sort of) to sometimes criticize Islam and/or Muslims, but the moment someone does something Muslims really don't like -- such as burning a Koran or living in a settlement -- they consider death is a perfectly justifiable punishment.

How can someone be a dhimmi by choice? It's human nature. Some women, perhaps themselves victims of abuse, often sneer "what a slut" at rape victims. "Communists" who live in the west wrote hymms of praise to Cuba, the USSR, China, etc., knowing they would have been put in gulags there, for not conforming to exactly to the "true communism" the senile beurocrat at the top decided is politically correct that week. "Queers for Palestine" cheer those who would stone them to death. Some "good negroes" justified the Klan's murders -- after all, it was silly of the victims to put themselves in the line of fire like that. There was even, in the 1930s, a tiny group of intellectuals which was, in effect, Jews for Hitler.

Such people are not even worthy of contempt (as someone who surrenders himself to an inferior dhimmi status out of hope for gain, for example, might be); they are merely pathetic. As Epictetus said, there are some who are slaves in their body, and yet have a free soul; while others might be physically free, but have the soul of a slave.

 

[bigjelmapro]

So with all the circular jabberwockey coming from the supporters of the idea that Gaza is still under occupation, what function of government does Hamas not control there? This is the distinction. Same concept applies when the internim government of Iraq took over control from the US armed forces. Every function of government is in control of the Iraqis. The same is so for Gaza.

A naval blockade, the reasons for which we have been reminded of once again (Arms ship docks in Ashdod; IDF to display contents, does not change the balance of power and authority from Hamas over Gaza.

Mycroft already addressed the attempts of Firegarden to twists the term of authority to apply to the naval blockade, but to no avail.

Now the latest defense is where does international law stipulate when an occupation ends? Well, the same as it begins:

Occupation and international humanitarian law: questions and answers

1. What is occupation?

Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a " 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. "
...
5. When does occupation come to an end?

The normal way for an occupation to end is for the occupying power to withdraw from the occupied territory or be driven out of it. However, the continued presence of foreign troops does not necessarily mean that occupation continues.

A transfer of authority to a local government re-establishing the full and free exercise of sovereignty will normally end the state of occupation, if the government agrees to the continued presence of foreign troops on its territory. However, the law of occupation may become applicable again if the situation on the ground changes, that is to say, if the territory again becomes " actually placed under the authority of the hostile army " (H R, art. 42) – in other words, under the control of foreign troops without the consent of the local authorities.

Enforcing a naval blockade with a publicly declared exclusion zone does not provide the 'hostile army' any authority over the functions of Gaza's government.

 

[Thunder]

Sure. Look at my signature. "I hope he gets a fatwa" is Thunder's reaction to someone who burned a Koran (or, I think, didn't even do that but merely *said* he will).

you don't even know the basic facts of the news stories? unbelievable...but typical.

Sure. Look at his post above. When asked if it is OK to kill adult settlers, his sarcastic reply is "No, they should have water baloons thrown at them", which is in context another way of saying "yes",

and hours before that, I stated that "no one here supports the murder of this family". that includes me.

do you actually enjoy lieing about other member's beliefs and statements?

is this the only way you are able to debate? by constantly lieing and taking statements way out of context, and taking clearly strawman and sarcastic statements as if they are meant to be serious?

wow. very very sad to see.

 

[FireGarden]

Now the latest defense is where does international law stipulate when an occupation ends? Well, the same as it begins:

Occupation and international humanitarian law: questions and answers

"The normal way for an occupation to end is for the occupying power to withdraw from the occupied territory or be driven out of it. "

Gaza's waters are Gaza's territory. Gaza's airspace is Gaza's territory.
http://www.btselem.org/english/gaza_strip/control_on_air_space_and_territorial_waters.asp

The disengagement plan states: "Israel will hold sole control of Gaza airspace and will continue to carry out military activity in the waters of the Gaza Strip."

[...] Israeli combat and intelligence-gathering aircraft fly daily over the Gaza Strip.

[...] While there is no fence along Gaza's coastline, residents do not have open access to the sea. Palestinians wanting to go to sea need to request a permit from Israel, and those who obtain a permit are restricted in the distance they can go from shore.

Does that sound like Gaza is a sovereign state?

Farming without Land, Fishing without Water:
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/9A265F2A909E9A1D8525772E004FC34B

Dated May2010,
"The area inside the Buffer Zone along the northern and eastern borders with Israel contains nearly a third (29%) of the Gaza Strip's arable land, and is inaccessible to farmers and herders."

The IDF worked on the buffer zone shortly after the disengagment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel's_unilateral_disengagement_plan

All IDF forces left the Strip in the following hours. The last soldier left the strip, and the Kissufim gate was closed in the early morning of September 12.[37] This completed the Israeli pullout from the Gaza Strip.

On 20 September the IDF temporarily entered the northern Gaza Strip, constructing a buffer zone parallel to the border near Beit Hanoun before pulling out.[38].

It's probably been extended since then, but I'm not going to look up the details.

That's not control over territory?

It seems entirely in tune with what I quoted earlier:

"In 2005 Israel withdrew its settlers and soldiers but the international community still regards Gaza as occupied territory because Israel has effective control over the Palestinians there. It controls the population register as well as Gaza's sea space and air space, prevents large-scale use of the harbour and any use of Gaza's one airport, conducts frequent military operations in Gaza and controls all crossings into Israel. "

Also:

"We need to understand that when Gaza is open to the other side we lose responsibility for it. So we want to disconnect from it," [deputy defence minister, Matan Vilnai] said. "We want to stop supplying electricity to them, stop supplying them with water and medicine, so that it would come from another place."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/25/israelandthepalestinians.egypt

 

[Thunder]

somoene, please explain to me how a land is not legally Occupied, if their airspace and waters are still controlled by another state?

how is a land not legally Occupied, if another country has the legal right to enter that territory at any time?

 

[WildCat]

"The normal way for an occupation to end is for the occupying power to withdraw from the occupied territory or be driven out of it. "

Gaza's waters are Gaza's territory. Gaza's airspace is Gaza's territory.
http://www.btselem.org/english/gaza_strip/control_on_air_space_and_territorial_waters.asp



Does that sound like Gaza is a sovereign state?

Farming without Land, Fishing without Water:
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/9A265F2A909E9A1D8525772E004FC34B

Dated May2010,
"The area inside the Buffer Zone along the northern and eastern borders with Israel contains nearly a third (29%) of the Gaza Strip's arable land, and is inaccessible to farmers and herders."

The IDF worked on the buffer zone shortly after the disengagment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel's_unilateral_disengagement_plan



It's probably been extended since then, but I'm not going to look up the details.

That's not control over territory?

It seems entirely in tune with what I quoted earlier:

"In 2005 Israel withdrew its settlers and soldiers but the international community still regards Gaza as occupied territory because Israel has effective control over the Palestinians there. It controls the population register as well as Gaza's sea space and air space, prevents large-scale use of the harbour and any use of Gaza's one airport, conducts frequent military operations in Gaza and controls all crossings into Israel. "

Also:

"We need to understand that when Gaza is open to the other side we lose responsibility for it. So we want to disconnect from it," [deputy defence minister, Matan Vilnai] said. "We want to stop supplying electricity to them, stop supplying them with water and medicine, so that it would come from another place."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/25/israelandthepalestinians.egypt

What part of "controls the functions of government" don't you understand?

We get it, you are upset that Hamas doesn't have a seaport so they can import the heavy arms to kill Jews, wah wah wah.

By this definition Iraq was occupied by the US from 1991-2003.

 

[bikerdruid]

Sure. Look at my signature. "I hope he gets a fatwa" is Thunder's reaction to someone who burned a Koran (or, I think, didn't even do that but merely *said* he will). In the context it is quite clear he meant "fatwa" in the same sense as Salman Rushdie's "fatwa", that is, a death sentence from the Ayatollahs.



Sure. Look at his post above. When asked if it is OK to kill adult settlers, his sarcastic reply is "No, they should have water baloons thrown at them", which is in context another way of saying "yes", much like it would if the reply was spoken; much like, for example, someone who bitterly complains about a manager in a store and is asked "so you think he should be sued?" would sarcasticly reply, "No, I think he should be given a medal".

Also, the question was asked in the first place when he said he thinks the children should have not been killed, implicitly meaning the adults should, or could, have been (the children should merely have been orphaned). Asked if he really thinks that, this was his sarcastic reply. This further makes it clear was another way of saying "yes".

Gee, that was easy, wasn't it?

FAIL....(pathetically)
1+1.....does not =6

 

[FireGarden]

What part of "controls the functions of government" don't you understand?

So, if you're a fisherman in Gaza and want a permit to go fishing, who do you ask? Israel

If you're a farmer in Northern Gaza and want to farm your land, whose permission do you need (and won't get)? Israel's

Does that sound like a soveriegn state?

By this definition Iraq was occupied by the US from 1991-2003.

America never began an occupation of Iraq in 1991. That's why America didn't have to try and turn an occupation into a blockade.

Neither did America control all of Iraq's borders in 1991-2003. You don't even get Rafah being free from Israel:

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

Under its terms, the Rafah crossing with Egypt was to be reopened, with transits monitored by the Palestinian National Authority and the European Union. Only people with Palestinian ID, or foreign nationals, by exception, in certain categories, subject to Israeli oversight, were permitted to cross in and out. All goods, vehicles and trucks to and from Egypt had to pass through the Israeli crossing at Kerem Shalom, under full Israeli supervision.

Isreal's disengagement plan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel's_unilateral_disengagement_plan

Israel will continue to control Gaza's coastline and airspace and reserves the right to undertake military operations when necessary.

[...] existing customs arrangements with Israel — under which imports from Israel to Gaza are not taxed, exports from Gaza to Israel are taxed, and Israel collects customs duties on foreign products entering Gaza—will remain in force and the Israeli currency will continue to be used (Art 10).

So your comparison to Iraq 1991-2003 is way off.

We get it, you are upset that Hamas doesn't have a seaport so they can import the heavy arms to kill Jews, wah wah wah.

Straw man and appeal to emotion.

 

[WildCat]

So, if you're a fisherman in Gaza and want a permit to go fishing, who do you ask? Israel

A blockade is not an occupation.

If you're a farmer in Northern Gaza and want to farm your land, whose permission do you need (and won't get)? Israel's

And yet Google earth shows cultivated land right up to the Israeli border. Who's farming that, Jews?

Does that sound like a soveriegn state?

What does that have to do wit whether or not Israel is occupying Gaza?

America never began an occupation of Iraq in 1991. That's why America didn't have to try and turn an occupation into a blockade.

Sure they did, according to your definition.

Neither did America control all of Iraq's borders in 1991-2003. You don't even get Rafah being free from Israel:

Which has squat to do with an occupation. Again, you keep making up new defiitions of "occupation" for the sole purpose of claiming Israel occupies Gaza.

So your comparison to Iraq 1991-2003 is way off.

Nope. By your own criteria Iraq was occupied from 1991-2003.

Straw man and appeal to emotion.

It's not a strawman. The blockade is there to prevent war materiel from being sent to Hamas. You want the blockade lifted. Therefore you support conditions whereby Hamas can import weapons.

And as it so happens Israel just intercepted an arms ship bound for Gaza.

You have this bizarre belief that Israel is required to allow arms shipments to Hamas. They aren't, and they won't. Israel is not responsible for the Gaza strip, any suffering there lies squarely at the feet of Hamas.

As it turns out, electing a genocidal terrorist group as your government has consequences! And who do you blame? The Jews!

 

[Thunder]

We get it, you are upset that Hamas doesn't have a seaport so they can import the heavy arms to kill Jews, wah wah wah.

why do you keep lieing about people's statements & claims?

everyone knows this is not true, even you.

 

[Thunder]

As it turns out, electing a genocidal terrorist group as your government has consequences! And who do you blame? The Jews!

Are you saying Firegarden is blaming me for the election of Hamas?

interesting..

 

[FireGarden]

A blockade is not an occupation.

I'm glad you finally realised that.

And yet Google earth shows cultivated land right up to the Israeli border. Who's farming that, Jews?

The buffer zone exists. If I'm wrong about Israel allowing people in to farm, then I'm wrong. But the fact remains, Israel controls the land without having troops on it.

What does that have to do wit whether or not Israel is occupying Gaza?

It shows that Hamas does not have full control. Israel may have given up some control, but not all. So the occupation continues.

Sure they did, according to your definition.

When did I give a definition of 'occupation'? I have used the definitions provided by you and bigjel. I've also used the understanding of groups like the CIA/US state dept and the EU/their representative.

Which has squat to do with an occupation. Again, you keep making up new defiitions of "occupation" for the sole purpose of claiming Israel occupies Gaza.

I've not made up any definitions of 'occuption'. I've used yours. And illustrated how Israel still retains control in the territory it claims to have given up. Enough control for the authorities I've quoted to regard the occupation as ongoing. In fact, ALL the independent authorities that have been quoted in this thread agree with me. Only Israel and some anonymous bods on the JREF forum disagree.

Nope. By your own criteria Iraq was occupied from 1991-2003.

You can keep saying it. But it is obviously wrong. One of my critieria would require you find an international body, say the UN, which recognised Iraq as occupied from 1991-2003. The same UN which authorised no-fly zones over Iraq. Not as part of an occupation.

If America HAD started an occupation THEN done all the things Israel has done (listed above, a no-fly zone and blockade being only two) you might have a point. But they didn't.

It's not a strawman. The blockade is there to prevent war materiel from being sent to Hamas. You want the blockade lifted. Therefore you support conditions whereby Hamas can import weapons.

Whatever the purpose of the blockade, you misrepresent my position when you say what you said. Therefore it is a strawman.

Though I was hopeful at the time, I think Israel made a serious mistake when it withdrew from the Gaza strip without first reaching a proper resolution. I've not said Israel cannot prevent weapons from reaching Hamas.

And as it so happens Israel just intercepted an arms ship bound for Gaza.

You have this bizarre belief that Israel is required to allow arms shipments to Hamas.

Another misrepresentation of my position. ie: a strawman.

They aren't, and they won't. Israel is not responsible for the Gaza strip, any suffering there lies squarely at the feet of Hamas.

As it turns out, electing a genocidal terrorist group as your government has consequences! And who do you blame? The Jews!

In fact, a growing army of the things.