General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[WildCat]

I'm glad you finally realised that.

Yet here you are claiming the opposite...

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.

Google Earth shows no such buffer zone.

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

For an occupation, Israel would have to have full control. They don't.

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.

You have failed completely to show that Israel occupies Gaza by any traditional meaning of the word.

I've not made up any definitions of 'occuption'. I've used yours.

No sweetheart, it's entirely your own definition. Israel does not excercise authority in Gaza. If it did I don't think Hamas could have parades and TV stations and radio stations and enact and enforce laws. Because Hamas is the authority in Gaza, not Israel.

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.

What part of Hague IV requires an international body to declare the beginning or end 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.

And once again, you're making this up as you go along. This criteria of yours doesn't exist in international law.

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

It's not a strawman. If the blockade ends Hamas gets a port with which to import weapons from their good friends in Iran and Syria. You may as well claim that even though you pushed your wife off the roof you never intended for her to hit the ground, therefore you are not guilty of murder.

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.

Of course. If Israel stays they're oppressing the Palestinians. If they withdraw they're still oppressing the Palestinians. No matter what Israel does, it's the wrong thing. And Palestinians have no rsponsibility whatsoever for their plight.

Another misrepresentation of my position. ie: a strawman.

I know exactly what your position is - you think Gaza should have a port and you really want people to think that doesn't mean you want Hamas to get weapons. Once again, it's like pushing your wife off a roof and saying you didn't mean to kill her because you didn't know she'd hit the ground and was just fine the last time you touched her. Who do you think you're fooling with this drivel?

In fact, a growing army of the things.

I understand your position perfectly well. The next time you place any responsibility at all on the Palestinians for their situation will be the first time you do so.

 

[Thunder]

For an occupation, Israel would have to have full control. They don't.

yeah? prove it.

 

[IDB87]

yeah? prove it.

Read the Oslo Accords.

 

[Mycroft]

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

When it no longer fits the definition. Neither the Hague nor the Geneva conventions outline any specific ceremony or ritual that needs to be conducted.

Israel hasn't relinquished all control of Gaza.

Except you stretch the definition of "all" to absurd levels. As long as you include what could happen through force of arms, or just exercising normal control of their own borders, Israel can't release enough "control" to satisfy you.

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?

I don't see how answering either way would change the issue being discussed. I think the honest answer is the areas under autonomous control of the PA are not occupied, but the areas that are still under Israeli control could be considered occupied.

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

It doesn't work that way. The double standard is making up a unique definition of "occupation" that applies only to Israel and has never applied anywhere else. That's "double" in that there is one standard for the entire world, and another standard for Israel.

By your standard, because the Israeli/Arab conflict is unique from other conflicts in many ways, you can just make up whatever the hell you want and claim it's not a double-standard simply because that precise situation hasn't arisen before.

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

Of course they are "involved" with a hostile force that still makes war with them. None of your examples of "control" are different from how any nation controls it's own border. Electricity, food, medicine flow across the US/Canadian border, but nobody pretends that means one nation "controls" the other.

 

[Thunder]

If Israel simply occupied Jordanian territory, then one could argue that once Israel removes all settlers and military personnel, the land is no longer occupied and resorts back to Jordanian soverignity.

However, there is no independent and internationally recognized soverign state or entity, that can take control of Gaza..just because it is lacking in Israeli sneakers.

The Palestinian Authority, nor Hamas, are soverign independent state-entities. They are not member states of the United Nations. They have no power no authority to implement soverignity upon the territory.

This is why a simple removing of personnel from Gaza is not enough to declare it "unoccupied". Nevermind the elements of soverignity that Israel still enforces upon Gaza, such as their control of its air and seas.


...now, if Egypt sent in personnel, and raised the flag, THEN maybe one could argue that Gaza is no longer Israeli-occupied. But this has not taken place.

 

[IDB87]

The Palestinian Authority, nor Hamas, are soverign independent state-entities. They are not member states of the United Nations. They have no power no authority to implement soverignity upon the territory.

But that's what the Accords were about, Thunder. It was supposed to be a transfer of authority/security FROM Israel to the PA (which has happened a great deal, as is evidenced by the fact that Hamas runs day to day operations of Gaza, implements laws, and is responsible for its citizens where as Israel is chiefly responsible for the borders it shares with the city). It just so happens that Hamas has kind of retarded that process.

 

[Thunder]

But that's what the Accords were about, Thunder. It was supposed to be a transfer of authority/security FROM Israel to the PA..

yes, for the purpose of autonomy. NOT soveriegnity.

The Oslo Accords did NOT establish an independent state.

...but you are fully aware of that.

 

[Mycroft]

But that's what the Accords were about, Thunder. It was supposed to be a transfer of authority/security FROM Israel to the PA (which has happened a great deal, as is evidenced by the fact that Hamas runs day to day operations of Gaza, implements laws, and is responsible for its citizens where as Israel is chiefly responsible for the borders it shares with the city). It just so happens that Hamas has kind of retarded that process.

Well, that and that there is nothing that says they have to be sovereign states. That's just Parky making stuff up.

I'm not the only one that has him on ignore. I invite you and anyone else to join that endeavor. Trolls do go away if they don't get the attention they crave.

 

[Thunder]

Well, that and that there is nothing that says they have to be sovereign states. That's just Parky making stuff up.

how does one go from being under the legal status of Occupation, to NOT being soveriegn?

what good is an end to an occupation if its not followed by independence and freedom?

 

[IDB87]

how does one go from being under the legal status of Occupation, to NOT being soveriegn?

what good is an end to an occupation if its not followed by independence and freedom?

Well I don't think Israel has the right to do that, now do they?

 

[Thunder]

Well I don't think Israel has the right to do that, now do they?

the right to do what?

 

[FireGarden]

But that's what the Accords were about, Thunder. It was supposed to be a transfer of authority/security FROM Israel to the PA (which has happened a great deal, as is evidenced by the fact that Hamas runs day to day operations of Gaza, implements laws, and is responsible for its citizens where as Israel is chiefly responsible for the borders it shares with the city). It just so happens that Hamas has kind of retarded that process.

Nobody, not even Israel, is saying that the occupation is over in the West Bank -- or even in parts of the West Bank. So why would this transfer of authority -- which isn't complete -- be considered an end to the occuption in Gaza?


ETA: Mycroft is saying "the areas under autonomous control of the PA are not occupied..."

Yet here you are claiming the opposite...


Google Earth shows no such buffer zone.

What would it look like? Do you expect to see it painted white and blue?

For an occupation, Israel would have to have full control. They don't.

So you keep claiming. But the definition you quoted didn't say that. "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army."

Not to mention that Israel did have full control (or as close as possible) before it decided to give some up. It has not given up enough to satisfy anyone important.

You have failed completely to show that Israel occupies Gaza by any traditional meaning of the word.

The meaning 'as recognised by international law', obviously isn't good enough for you. Gaza's legal status is 'occupied' because those who determine such things say so.

No sweetheart, it's entirely your own definition.

Saying so doesn't make it so.

Israel does not excercise authority in Gaza. If it did I don't think Hamas could have parades and TV stations and radio stations and enact and enforce laws. Because Hamas is the authority in Gaza, not Israel.

Israel does exercise authority in Gaza, because if it didn't people wouldn't need to ask Israel's permission to use their land in the buffer zones. etc.

What part of Hague IV requires an international body to declare the beginning or end of an occupation?

When the text of Hague IV speaks up on its own, maybe then we can do away with international bodies.

Since you can't cite the UN saying Iraq was occupied 1991-2003, cite someone else.

And once again, you're making this up as you go along. This criteria of yours doesn't exist in international law.

Doesn't change the gulf between the two situations, thus making your comparison no good.

It's not a strawman. If the blockade ends Hamas gets a port with which to import weapons from their good friends in Iran and Syria. You may as well claim that even though you pushed your wife off the roof you never intended for her to hit the ground, therefore you are not guilty of murder.

This is insane. And absolutely nothing to do with the claims I have actually made.

Of course. If Israel stays they're oppressing the Palestinians. If they withdraw they're still oppressing the Palestinians. No matter what Israel does, it's the wrong thing. And Palestinians have no rsponsibility whatsoever for their plight.

Your inability to understand a simple paragraph undermines your claims to understand international law.

The strawmen continue to multiply.

I know exactly what your position is - you think Gaza should have a port and you really want people to think that doesn't mean you want Hamas to get weapons. Once again, it's like pushing your wife off a roof and saying you didn't mean to kill her because you didn't know she'd hit the ground and was just fine the last time you touched her. Who do you think you're fooling with this drivel?

You inability to guess what my position is undermines your claims to know what the state department REALLY believe when they say Gaza is occupied.

 

[FireGarden]

When it no longer fits the definition. Neither the Hague nor the Geneva conventions outline any specific ceremony or ritual that needs to be conducted.

And yet the rituals go on in the halls of power.

Except you stretch the definition of "all" to absurd levels. As long as you include what could happen through force of arms, or just exercising normal control of their own borders, Israel can't release enough "control" to satisfy you.

I've not relied on what 'could' happen. I've relied on what actually is happening.

Remember when you asked this:

If you're a Gaza citizen and if you want to get a building permit, renew a license, or pay a parking fine, do you talk to Israel? Or do you talk to the Hamas led government?

It turns out that if you want to build in the buffer zone, you'll need to talk to Israel. Just like if you need a permit to fish.

I don't see how answering either way would change the issue being discussed.

It will make a difference to Wildcat, to whom the question was directed. I can't be bothered to look up and post his attempt to read the mind of the state department.

It doesn't work that way. The double standard is making up a unique definition of "occupation" that applies only to Israel and has never applied anywhere else. That's "double" in that there is one standard for the entire world, and another standard for Israel.

By your standard, because the Israeli/Arab conflict is unique from other conflicts in many ways, you can just make up whatever the hell you want and claim it's not a double-standard simply because that precise situation hasn't arisen before.

If you want to go on saying that Israel is being treated differently, you have to point to someone who did the same as Israel and was treated differently. Who else has tried to turn an occupation into a blockade -- retaining in their own official statement control of the sea and air; and controls a buffer zone, etc.

Of course they are "involved" with a hostile force that still makes war with them. None of your examples of "control" are different from how any nation controls it's own border. Electricity, food, medicine flow across the US/Canadian border, but nobody pretends that means one nation "controls" the other.

In the case of US/Canada, nobody pretends that one side has a responsibility to provide those things -- a responsibility a government member is on record as wanting to pass on to someone else.

 

[IDB87]

Nobody, not even Israel, is saying that the occupation is over in the West Bank -- or even in parts of the West Bank. So why would this transfer of authority -- which isn't complete -- be considered an end to the occuption in Gaza?

I never said the occupation was technically over in Gaza, just pointed out that it's certainly unique and can't really be used as a point against Israel, imho..

Regarding the PA and Gaza, the PA was established in both the West Bank and Gaza (as I'm sure you know). Hamas IS the PA, but they don't give a damn about the accords, thus the transition of authority (and the "occupation") is kind of at a stand still until the two groups can get along and carry on with the transition.

Unilateral disengagement of Israel from Gaza is one of the first steps towards the Palestinians achieving sovereignty (How does that even happen in the long run anyway?).

 

[FireGarden]

I never said the occupation was technically over in Gaza, just pointed out that it's certainly unique and can't really be used as a point against Israel, imho..

Some people seem to think that occupations are intrinsically bad. But they are not. The US occupation of Japan was a good thing.

In the case of Israel's occupation -- it's the way Israel has done it. The settlements, etc. That is what made the occupation bad.

Occupation doesn't have to mean oppression. In fact, the laws are there to avoid occupation becoming oppression -- not to blacken the name of everybody who conducts an occupation.

 

[IDB87]

Some people seem to think that occupations are intrinsically bad. But they are not. The US occupation of Japan was a good thing.

In the case of Israel's occupation -- it's the way Israel has done it. The settlements, etc. That is what made the occupation bad.

Occupation doesn't have to mean oppression. In fact, the laws are there to avoid occupation becoming oppression -- not to blacken the name of everybody who conducts an occupation.

Well to your average person, occupation tends to bring up negative images (German occupied anything, US occupation of Iraq, etc), and more often than not, it's used as a slight against the occupier.

That's why there's such a pushback on *the usage of the term, I think.

 

[Thunder]

Well to your average person, occupation tends to bring up negative images (German occupied anything, US occupation of Iraq, etc), and more often than not, it's used as a slight against the occupier.

That's why there's such a pushback on this, I think.

plus the fact that Israel can do no wrong, let alone the fact that folks still contest the concept that Gaza was EVER Occupied territory.

remember the whole "disputed territory" crowd?

 

[Thunder]

In the case of Israel's occupation -- it's the way Israel has done it. The settlements, etc. That is what made the occupation bad.

Occupation doesn't have to mean oppression. In fact, the laws are there to avoid occupation becoming oppression -- not to blacken the name of everybody who conducts an occupation.

any land that is conquered in wartime is OCCUPIED....until such time as the warring powers finalize the fate of such territory.

its neither intrinsically bad nor good. its just a common outcome of war.

 

[Skeptic]

how does one go from being under the legal status of Occupation, to NOT being soveriegn?

Very easily -- in fact it's very common.

Just to give a few obvious examples, let's take (say) Egypt. It was occupied by the Germans during WWII, but after that ended it was still a colony until independence. Just because an army ceases to occupy a certain territory does not mean that territory becomes an independent state. E.g., the Basques in Spain, or the Kurds in Iraq and Turkey, are not occupied by Spain or Iraq or Turkey, but are still not members of their own sovereign state.

I am not making any moral comparison between the Kurds or Basques and Hamas -- so far as I know, the Kurds never declared their goal is to massacre the Turks and wipe Turkey off the map -- I am merely pointing out a simple point about international law.

As someone who presumes to "explain" to Israel all the time how awful and illegal and contrary to international law everything it does is, the least you could do is learn the first thing about international law. The beginning and end of your interest in actual international law seems to be, frankly, "what can I blame Israel for today?".

 

[Thunder]

Very easily -- in fact it's very common.

Just to give a few obvious examples, let's take (say) Egypt. It was occupied by the Germans during WWII, but after that ended it was still a colony until independence. Just because an army ceases to occupy a certain territory does not mean that territory becomes an independent state. E.g., the Basques in Spain, or the Kurds in Iraq and Turkey, are not occupied by Spain or Iraq or Turkey, but are still not members of their own sovereign state.

as expected, horrible analogies

#1. you can bet that until independence, Egypt had foreign troops & personnel on its soil.

#2. The Basques....are not a territory. The Kurds...are not a territory.

And no, the Spanish Basque country is not territory under Spanish occupation. It is soveriegn Spanish territory and shall probably remain so.

Kurdistan, as it was never a seperate and/or independent territorial unit, also cannot be called "occupied territory".


try again. or don't.