• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Same applies to Libya, or England during WWI, etc.



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.

codswallop.:rolleyes:
 
yes i do.
they are 'occupied' because all but their most basic rights are controlled by israel.
Which rights are those?
they have, unfortunately under hamas, only local control. even the basics of trade for food and supplies is tightly controlled by israel.
They have a border with Egypt. Is Egypt occupying Gaza?
they have no control on the movement of people in and out of their state.
they are no, in any multilateral aspect, a nation.
Again, they have a border with Egypt. Is Egypt occupying Gaza?
 
Which rights are those?

They have a border with Egypt. Is Egypt occupying Gaza?

Again, they have a border with Egypt. Is Egypt occupying Gaza?

No, because this definition of occupation magically applies only to Israel, silly!
 
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.

They are not occupied, because their most basic rights are under their own control.
They (unfortunately) under Hamas have at least local control.
[BD's confusion about the difference between occupation and blockade ignored.]
[BD's invention of a novel and undefined concept of nationhood as having a "multilateral aspect", and its lack of demonstrated relevance to the concept of occupation, ignored.]

Looks like Gaza is still blockaded, and still not occupied, BD. Would you like to explain in more detail what you mean?
 
No, because this definition of occupation magically applies only to Israel, silly!
Nope. The definition of occupying power and how its determined is the same for everyone. You guys just flap around a lot when the rest of the world won't accept the alternate definition you want to use....bad luck about that.
 
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?
Hamas conquered Gaza through armed conflict??????
this discussion is getting really really weird.
 
As a general observation on this thread would it be possible for all the people carrying in their own pet definition of occupying power to form a separate queue? You really lack relevance in this discussion.
 
The "argument" seems to be that someone somewhere said "Israel occupies Gaza", therefore it does.

Someone somewhere, huh?
That's a nice new brush, and a very lumpy carpet. What have you been doing?

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.

If you'd bothered to follow the conversation, you would be aware of the examples given by Mycroft's source: parts of Yugoslavia and the Sunni triangle in Iraq. And also Basra.

Uganda's occupation of Ituri might be another. Uganda didn't always have full control of every part of the territory. But I'm not aware of anyone subdividing the occupation on the basis of which group of rebels were friendly with Uganda at which point in time.
 
He doesn't know anything about Israel, either, so it sort of evens out.

err....tell us again how the Law of Return protects all Jews and their immediate descendants from persecution.

;)

The "law of return" is special in only one interesting sense: it (or rather the "who is a Jew" law which defines who is legally a Jew for the purposes of the "law of return") defines a "Jew" for such purposes based on the Nazi Nuremberg laws.

Why? The idea being that if someone was enough of a Jew for the Nazis to try and kill, they should be enough of a Jew for the Jewish state to grant citizenship to if they so wish. The one place, in other words, where Israeli laws really are based on Nazi laws,

soooooooo debunked.
 
Last edited:
Admit it. You were looking for an equivalency to the Palestinian Nazi textbooks and this was the best you could find.

I've played a bunch of video games where you shoot people in keffiyehs. Yawn.

..ok, everyone say it with me now: "There is NO anti-Arab racism in Israel and its anti-Semitic to suggest such racism."

Why should we say your strawman with you?
 
Last edited:
Israel's moral and cultural superiority to its enemies:

“The other side includes both hostiles and civilians,” Lapson said, “and the hostiles will often embed themselves among the civilians. We go over a large number of what-if scenarios. We imbue an ethical and moral backbone in all our soldiers from the very beginning, and we have humanitarian officers with our infantry troops. We take extra precautions, even when it puts our own troops in danger.”

“We train our soldiers to respect sacred buildings,” Lapson said. “We have a lot of respect for the holy places of all peoples and all cultures. This is something we integrate into our training. We train our soldiers with extra sensitivity even though we know it can be used against us by our enemies.”

“As you can see,” Lapson said, “the mosque here is in an elevated position. It’s a great firing position. We might need a pinpoint strike. We might even send an engineering team to take out only the part of the mosque that’s causing a threat and will do minimal collateral damage. Obviously sending in a team to take out only a specific part of the mosque will endanger the team that’s carrying out that assignment, but it’s something we’re willing to do. We are willing to take those extra precautions.”

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaeltotten/2011/01/09/the-israeli-way-of-war-2/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom