General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[WildCat]

Who controls the Gaza Strip?

the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip
Los Angeles Times

the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip
Arab News

the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip
Xinhua

the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip
The Canadian

Hamas-controlled Gaza
Al Arabiya

the Hamas-controlled territory
Khaleej Times

the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip
People's Daily

Odd, I don't see many (any?) references to the "IDF-controlled Gaza Strip" in the news. It's almost like nobody actually believes the claim that the IDF controls Gaza.

 

[FireGarden]

Yes, I know you are confused. It's partly why I repeat the links I post so often that bigjel has to tell me off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel's_unilateral_disengagement_plan

Egypt will control Gaza's Egyptian border. Israel will continue to provide Gaza with water, communication, electricity, and sewage networks (Art 8)[4]

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).

See also bigjel's post where he misunderstands why I post this data:

Point out where Israel has any obligation to provide taxes collected to a terrorist group? I'm sure you'll argue that Hamas won in a free and fair democratic election to circumvent the whole terrorist argument.

And various newspapers that reported Israel withholding those taxes when Hamas won the election.

Hamas is free to develop their own water and electricity, aren't they?

You're a funny man.
Of course they're not. You can justify the restriction on Hamas in many ways, but that doesn't remove the fact that there ARE restrictions. So they are not able to do these things independently of Israel.

Perhaps you can read the links I gave just a few posts ago on Lieberman's plan for a second disengagement. Yes, another. Apparently the completeness of the first left them with some more disengaging to do.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6994618&postcount=1363

And at any rate, this is just another pathetic attempt by you to redefine the meaning of "occupation".

"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".

Hamas is clearly in control of Gaza, and the IDF clearly is not.

You are talking as if the definition says 'complete control'. It does not. Hell, even Mycroft's source agreed with that. Israel's authority has been established in Gaza, it was exercised in Gaza and it can be exercised in Gaza. Ergo, it is occupied by Israel.

 

[bikerdruid]

ok, so are you saying that when the IAF flys over Gaza, they are violating Gaza's soverign airspace and Hamas has the right to complain about such actions to the United Nations?

..or shoot them down for infringing on their sovereignty.
if gaza is in charge, no one should be able to complain about that.

 

[Thunder]

..or shoot them down for infringing on their sovereignty.
if gaza is in charge, no one should be able to complain about that.

indeed.

if Israel is no longer occupying Gaza, then the people of Gaza have EVERY RIGHT to shoot down Israeli planes that fly over their territory without their expressed permission.

this also means that the people of Hamas have every right to fire upon any Israeli who steps one foot inside Gazan territory.

and the people of Gaza have EVETY RIGHT to fire upon any Israeli ship that violated Gaza's territorial waters. this goes out five miles from the land right?

 

[bikerdruid]

indeed.

if Israel is no longer occupying Gaza, then the people of Gaza have EVERY RIGHT to shoot down Israeli planes that fly over their territory without their expressed permission.

this also means that the people of Hamas have every right to fire upon any Israeli who steps one foot inside Gazan territory.

and the people of Gaza have EVETY RIGHT to fire upon any Israeli ship that violated Gaza's territorial waters. this goes out five miles from the land right?

true...sovereign nations hold those rights.

 

[FireGarden]

Who controls the Gaza Strip?

the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip
Los Angeles Times

the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip
Arab News

the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip
Xinhua

the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip
The Canadian

Hamas-controlled Gaza
Al Arabiya

the Hamas-controlled territory
Khaleej Times

the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip
People's Daily

Odd, I don't see many (any?) references to the "IDF-controlled Gaza Strip" in the news. It's almost like nobody actually believes the claim that the IDF controls Gaza.

Perhaps you can provide us with dates between which Fallujah was under occupation. Cross referenced with dates during which the insurgents had control of Fallujah. And when the US had no boots on the ground in Fallujah.

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

As part of the occupation of Iraq, the First Battle of Fallujah, codenamed Operation Vigilant Resolve, was an unsuccessful attempt by the United States Military to capture the city of Fallujah in April 2004.

[...] By early March 2004, the city began to fall under the increasing influence of guerrilla factions. The rising violence against the American presence resulted in the complete withdrawal of troops from the city, with only occasional incursions trying to gain and reinforce a "foothold in the city" being attempted.[

[...] Although hundreds of insurgents had been killed in the assault, the city remained firmly in their control. U.S. forces had by then only managed to gain a foothold in the industrial district to the south of the city. The end of major operations for the time being led to negotiations between various Iraqi elements and the Coalition forces, punctuated by occasional firefights.

[...] On May 1, 2004, the United States withdrew from Fallujah, as Lieutenant General James Conway announced that he had unilaterally decided to turn over any remaining operations to the newly-formed Fallujah Brigade, which would be armed with US weapons and equipment under the command of former Ba'athist Army General Jasim Mohammed Saleh. Several days later, when it became clear that Saleh had been involved in military actions against Shi'ites under Saddam Hussein, US forces announced that Muhammed Latif would instead lead the brigade. Nevertheless, the group dissolved and had turned over all the US weapons to the insurgency by September,[37] prompting the necessity of the Second Battle of Fallujah in November, which successfully occupied the city.

The US didn't even want control of the centre of the town:
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-04-05/world/iraq.main_1_fallujah-restive-city-iraqis?_s=PM:WORLD

The Fallujah operation may unfold over several days, and the Marines may not attempt to control the center of the town, military sources said.

Oh, no. I guess that means the occupation of Fallujah ended before the occupation of the rest of Iraq. The Americans withdrew on May 1st 2004, the insurgents had control in April 2004. Why was this never acknowledged by the revisionist world? Why didn't they understand that if the US didn't have boots on the ground in Fallujah, then it wasn't occupied?

Why did the world wait until June 2004 to make any acknowledgement that Fallujah wasn't occupied? It's such a mystery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1546

I bet if I had looked up 'Fallujah' on a CIA database in May 2004, it would have said 'unoccupied' -- damn their revisionist double standards!

 

[cwalner]

This smacks slightly of Anti Islamism. SOME Islamists might be that way be that's a sweeping generalization. One that is often used to justify killing innocent Muslims.

A person who is raised in this kind of atmosphere might have sympathetic leanings towards Hamas because they perceive them to be freedom fighters. This doesn't justify their execution.

I think you either don't understand the terms or have serious blinders on.

The term Islamist does not refer to all muslims, but only those of a very specific and extreme ideology

Skeptic's use of the term in suggesting that Islamists support the killing and subjugation of those the don't like is a slight exaggeration, but the ideology is based in the use the violence to achieve their ends and they have no problems using murder and subjugation in pursuit of their goals

I think of it this way. Islamism:Islam as White Nationalism:Christianity

 

[truethat]

Did you see the word "slightly" and why bring it up except to push a stereotype? What does it have to do with the topic of this thread?

It is not a "slight" exaggeration. It is an exaggeration.

 

[WildCat]

Yes, I know you are confused. It's partly why I repeat the links I post so often that bigjel has to tell me off.

How on earth does Israel taxing goods from Gaza support your claim that Israel occupies Gaza? By that standard the US occupies Europe, because of the chicken tax. I get it, this particular definition opf "occupied" only applies to Israel.

Of course they're not. You can justify the restriction on Hamas in many ways, but that doesn't remove the fact that there ARE restrictions. So they are not able to do these things independently of Israel.

Translation: Hamas wants to wage war against Israel instead. Sorry, that's not the fault of Israel.

Perhaps you can read the links I gave just a few posts ago on Lieberman's plan for a second disengagement. Yes, another. Apparently the completeness of the first left them with some more disengaging to do.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6994618&postcount=1363

I wasn't aware that merely being engaged means "occupied". Is the UN occupying Libya at the moment?

You are talking as if the definition says 'complete control'. It does not. Hell, even Mycroft's source agreed with that. Israel's authority has been established in Gaza, it was exercised in Gaza and it can be exercised in Gaza. Ergo, it is occupied by Israel.

Except the IDF doesn't control anything in Gaza. If they did those sweet little guys calling themselves Hamas wouldn't be in control. Do you think Hamas is controlled by Israel?

 

[WildCat]

Perhaps you can provide us with dates between which Fallujah was under occupation. Cross referenced with dates during which the insurgents had control of Fallujah. And when the US had no boots on the ground in Fallujah.

If the US did not control it and had no boots on the ground it didn't occupy it, did they?
Once again:

"The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."

So simple, yet you cannot comprehend it.

Oh, no. I guess that means the occupation of Fallujah ended before the occupation of the rest of Iraq. The Americans withdrew on May 1st 2004, the insurgents had control in April 2004. Why was this never acknowledged by the revisionist world? Why didn't they understand that if the US didn't have boots on the ground in Fallujah, then it wasn't occupied?

What on earth are you blathering about? Are you claiming that once territory is occupied, it is always occupied, even after the occupiers are driven out?

Why did the world wait until June 2004 to make any acknowledgement that Fallujah wasn't occupied? It's such a mystery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1546

I bet if I had looked up 'Fallujah' on a CIA database in May 2004, it would have said 'unoccupied' -- damn their revisionist double standards!

I have no idea what double standard you claim to be seeing here.

The only double standard I see is that Israel is the only country in history that "occupies" a territory they don't control.

 

[WildCat]

This smacks slightly of Anti Islamism. SOME Islamists might be that way be that's a sweeping generalization. One that is often used to justify killing innocent Muslims.

A person who is raised in this kind of atmosphere might have sympathetic leanings towards Hamas because they perceive them to be freedom fighters. This doesn't justify their execution.

I don't think you know what "Islamist" means. Hint: It's not someone who is Muslim.

 

[FireGarden]

How on earth does Israel taxing goods from Gaza support your claim that Israel occupies Gaza? By that standard the US occupies Europe, because of the chicken tax. I get it, this particular definition opf "occupied" only applies to Israel.

I don't understand your example. Or maybe you didn't understand mine.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4729000.stm

Israel will withhold an estimated $50m (£28m) in monthly customs revenues due to the PA, ...

Translation: Hamas wants to wage war against Israel instead. Sorry, that's not the fault of Israel.

I didn't say it was the fault of Israel. I said there are restrictions which mean that Gaza cannot be independent of Israel when it comes to electricity, etc.

If the US did not control it and had no boots on the ground it didn't occupy it, did they?
Once again:

"The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."

So simple, yet you cannot comprehend it.

And yet you are, again, in an overwhelming minority on the subject of occupation. Who else argues that Fallujah wasn't occupied May 2004? Earlier you asked for another example of an occupation that didn't include boots on the ground. Well, there it is. Fallujah was internationally accepted as occupied while in the control of insurgents and with no American boots on the ground.

btw,
Did you read Mycroft's source?

What on earth are you blathering about? Are you claiming that once territory is occupied, it is always occupied, even after the occupiers are driven out?

Not always. But, yes, Fallujah was considered occupied even after America had been forced to withdraw. Don't take my word for it. Read Mycroft's source. He also uses parts of Yugoslavia under German occupation as an example.

I have no idea what double standard you claim to be seeing here.

Because that was sarcasm. You'll learn to see it after a while.

The only double standard I see is that Israel is the only country in history that "occupies" a territory they don't control.

Hah! That's funny. Because less than a few minutes ago you saw me point out that Fallujah was occupied. And, if you could be bothered to read Mycroft's source, you would see that I'm not the only one to consider it occupied while free of American boots.

 

[Thunder]

If Israel no longer occupies Gaza, that means that Israel no longer has the right to use its airspace...right?

If Israel no longer occupies Gaza, that means Israel no longer has the right to use its territorial waters...right?

If Israel no longer occupies Gaza, that means Israel no longer has the right to set one foot in Gaza.....right?

 

[quixotecoyote]

If Israel no longer occupies Gaza, that means that Israel no longer has the right to use its airspace...right?

If Israel no longer occupies Gaza, that means Israel no longer has the right to use its territorial waters...right?

If Israel no longer occupies Gaza, that means Israel no longer has the right to set one foot in Gaza.....right?

Please show your work for each of those. Because "no longer occupies" does not generally mean "surrenders all rights in relation to".

 

[bikerdruid]

..or shoot them down for infringing on their sovereignty.
if gaza is in charge, no one should be able to complain about that.

indeed.

if Israel is no longer occupying Gaza, then the people of Gaza have EVERY RIGHT to shoot down Israeli planes that fly over their territory without their expressed permission.

this also means that the people of Hamas have every right to fire upon any Israeli who steps one foot inside Gazan territory.

and the people of Gaza have EVETY RIGHT to fire upon any Israeli ship that violated Gaza's territorial waters. this goes out five miles from the land right?

hmmm.....int'resting doncha think? that nobody has addressed these posts?

 

[quixotecoyote]

hmmm.....int'resting doncha think? that nobody has addressed these posts?

As I said to Thunder, you've got a lot more work to do to argue that not occupying a place requires you to surrender all rights in relation to that place.

If you shoot rockets from your side of the border, no one needs to occupy you to drop a bomb on you or march in, shoot you, and march out.

If you try to ship in arms to continue attacks, no one needs to occupy you to blockade your seaports.

 

[Virus]

If Israel no longer occupies Gaza, that means that Israel no longer has the right to use its airspace...right?

If Israel no longer occupies Gaza, that means Israel no longer has the right to use its territorial waters...right?

If Israel no longer occupies Gaza, that means Israel no longer has the right to set one foot in Gaza.....right?

They're at war. Israel can and will defend itself.

 

[Skeptic]

A person who is raised in this kind of atmosphere might have sympathetic leanings towards Hamas because they perceive them to be freedom fighters. This doesn't justify their execution.

Agreed 100%. Of course "sympathy with Hamas" does not "justifies their execution". You can sympathize with Hamas as much as you want. What matter is Hamas' actions.

If Hamas uses a civilian buildings as its headquarters, as a rocket-launching pad, as a weapons cache, then these building becomes a legitimate civilian target regardless of what the civilians of the building think about it, whether they enthusiastically support Hamas or are forced to comply while hating Hamas. On the other hand, the "average Muhammad' Hamas supporter, is not a legitimate target, however much he hates Israel or loves Hamas, of course.

But this is precisely the principle Israel is using. Israel never bombed pro-Hamas rallies, Hamas-led kindergardens where children are taught to kill Jews, the homes of the people on Hamas TV who declared the holocaust never happened, etc., etc. Being pro-Hamas or antisemitic, however virulently, is not enough. But Israel sometimes bombed buildings with people that surely were not all Hamas supporters and, for all we know, even hated Hamas for putting them at risk like that. Why? Because those buildings were used by Hamas as headquarters, weapons depots, etc.

 

[Cobalt]

the strawman I pointed out is indeed a strawman.

Yeah, no. Here's why.

and if NOT a strawman, then its a lie. you choose.

Let's look at what WildCat actually said.

Meanwhile, Hamas fired at least 50 mortar rounds into Israeli towns today.

And, of course, Israel is still expected to supply them with fuel, water, food, etc... what other country on the planet would do this for the people who are trying to kill every last one of them?

The context of who the underlined "them" and "people" are is clearly Hamas. Now, let's check the definition of a "straw man fallacy." Here's one example relevant to this discussion:

Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions

In fact, that's precisely what you've done in your reply here, ignoring the context of who WildCat is referring to:

strawman. the 1 million people of Gaza are not Hamas.

Note that in the actual reply, should you click it, you placed the phrase, "the people" in bold, thus assigning a position that WildCat did not take and "defeating" it by using the context YOU desire to "win" the argument.

In trying to claim that WildCat used a straw man fallacy, you, yourself, used a straw man fallacy.

do you REALLY feel that the 1 million people of Gaza are trying to kill every last Israeli?

huh.

This is not a claim I've ever made.

 

[Stout]

Cheers Cobalt