The result of brutal occupation? (Tel Aviv attack)

[Mycroft]

Also ZN...why do you quote access rules decided by Egypt in support of a claim that Egypt doesn't set the access rules?

Because your initial claim was not that Egypt gets to decide who comes and goes from their country, but that Palestinians in Gaza were "imprisoned" in Gaza.

Which, if your standard of "imprisonment" is that when you leave your country, the country you're going to gets to make up the rules on how people are allowed to enter, then everyone on this planet is similarly "imprisoned" in their own country.

This is the kind of rhetoric that makes you seem insane, by the way.

 

[The Fool]

I am not going to play feed the troll. You said "Egypt determines who enters Egypt". I proved with documentation that Egypt does not determine who enters Egypt if they are under 18 and over 40, women, students at Egyptian universities, holders of diplomatic passports, those seeking medical treatment, members of official delegations and Palestinian merchants. End of story.

No ZN you have only demonstrated that Egypt does not require certain classifications (using egyptian rules) do not require a visa. This is not in any way proof that Egypt does not control thier borders or that people. You have attempted to demonstrated that the borders you claim are not controlled by Egypt by producing Egyptian rules of entry...do you realise how silly that looks?

And the guidlines say ......

Bingo....Egyptian guidelines.

 

[The Fool]

Because your initial claim was not that Egypt gets to decide who comes and goes from their country, but that Palestinians in Gaza were "imprisoned" in Gaza.

This latest fog and mirrors session was prompted by ZNs response to this "They could also beg passage from Egypt ...." He got upset because he claimed that The egyptians don't decide who gets in, to prove this he provided the rules the Egyptians provide for who gets in.....Yes, I'm not kidding.... he provided the rules they apply to demonstrate that they don't control it....

Now that ZN appears to be running out of commitment for the position....you want to come in with more fog and mirrors by trying to confuse what ZN was complaining about....

you two make a fine tag team....

 

[zenith-nadir]

If you are claiming that Palestinians decide if they can enter Egypt you are either completely uninformed or lying..

Any Palestinian who is under 18 and over 40, female, a student at Egyptian university, holder of a diplomatic passport, seeking medical treatment, a member of an official delegation or a Palestinian merchant decides if they want to enter Egypt, they are exempt from needing an Egyptian visa.

Ergo, any Palestinian who is under 18 and over 40, female, a student at Egyptian university, holder of a diplomatic passport, seeking medical treatment, a member of an official delegation or a Palestinian merchant does not need Egyptian permission to enter Egypt.

Which means that many many Palestinians do not have to:

beg passage from Egypt

So your claim that Palestinians are "prisoners" who have to "beg passage" from Egypt to travel outside of Gaza is just nothing but examples of exaggeration and obfuscation.

 

[The Fool]

Any Palestinian who is under 18 and over 40, female, a student at Egyptian university, holder of a diplomatic passport, seeking medical treatment, a member of an official delegation or a Palestinian merchant decides if they want to enter Egypt, they are exempt from needing an Egyptian visa.

Ergo, any Palestinian who is under 18 and over 40, female, a student at Egyptian university, holder of a diplomatic passport, seeking medical treatment, a member of an official delegation or a Palestinian merchant does not need Egyptian permission to enter Egypt.

Which means that many many Palestinians do not have to:

Ok ZN, this is the last time I respond to this...

You say Egypt does not control its border, Palestinians do....You provide Egyptian rules of entry to support this claim......Egyptian rules of entry...I'll say that one more time...Egyptian rules of entry. What version of reality says that those who set the rules are not in control and those that obey the rules are.....whatever.

 

[zenith-nadir]

You say Egypt does not control its border, Palestinians do....

I never said Egypt "does not control its border", we are specifically refering to - and have been for many posts now - the Rafah crossing THROUGH the Egyptian border.

11/25/2005

In a joint press conference with the chairman of the European observers mission Piatro Pestolizi, he said that the sovereignty on the crossing will be in Palestinian hands.

You provide Egyptian rules of entry to support this claim......

Which state that any Palestinian who is under 18 and over 40, female, a student at Egyptian university, holder of a diplomatic passport, seeking medical treatment, a member of an official delegation or a Palestinian merchant decides if they want to enter Egypt, they are exempt from needing an Egyptian visa.

Ergo Palestinians are not "prisoners" who have to "beg passage" from Egypt to travel outside of Gaza.

 

[Mycroft]

Bingo....Egyptian guidelines.

One more time:

Your initial claim was not that Egypt makes up the rules on who goes to Egypt, but that Palestinians in Gaza are "imprisoned" in Gaza.

Remember?

First you claimed Palestinians were "imprisoned" in Gaza.

Then when numerous people pointed out Israel doesn't control the Gaza/Egypt border, you then claimed that Egypt controlled that border.

Then when it was pointed out that Palestinians controlled that border, you then scoffed at the idea of Egypt just letting people come and go as they please.

Then when it was pointed out that that was pretty much the policy, except that men between 18 and 40 require a visa, you then claimed Egypt still “controlled” the border because they’re the ones that made the rules, as liberal as they are.

The logical fallacy you demonstrate here is called “moving the goalposts.” That’s when every time you are proven wrong, you change what you are arguing a little bit to make it “fit”.

You’re good at it, but we can plainly see that your original assertion was that Palestinians are “imprisoned” in Gaza. A claim that’s clearly false as they do have the ability to leave through Egypt.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Oh...it even gets dumb and dumber Mycroft.

Friday 30 December 2005 (aljazeera)

Gazan policemen incensed at the death of a fellow officer in a clan clash had blockaded the border with Egypt, prompting European Union monitors to withdraw in a fresh blow to the Palestinian Authority's efforts to curb chaos.

Witnesses said policemen, backed by armed men from the ruling Fatah faction led by Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, prevented vehicles from reaching the Rafah crossing. They fanned out in the terminal, forcibly ejecting would-be travellers.

Jan 4, 2006 (AP)

RAFAH, Gaza Strip — Hundreds of angry Palestinians streamed into Egypt on Wednesday after militants with stolen bulldozers broke through a border wall, and two Egyptian troops were killed and 30 were wounded by gunfire in the rampage.

(emphasis mine)

 

[The Fool]

One more time:

Your initial claim was not that Egypt makes up the rules on who goes to Egypt, but that Palestinians in Gaza are "imprisoned" in Gaza.

Remember?

First you claimed Palestinians were "imprisoned" in Gaza.

Then when numerous people pointed out Israel doesn't control the Gaza/Egypt border, you then claimed that Egypt controlled that border.

That seems to be a point of disagreement. People call for gaza to be sealed...I describe that as imprisoning the occupants. This provides an oportunity for a semantic distraction because the people that favor the sealing of gaza want it described using thier favorite words and not words that could make it sound nasty...

Next diversion....its not imprisoning or sealing or whatever because there are a few places that Palestinians could squeeze out. I point out they would need to be good swimmers (the sea) or need to beg permission from Egypt. Next diversion....claims that palestinians decide who goes into Egypt....not Egyptians....this claim is still being weaseled around as it is obvious that Egypt sets the rules for entry to Egypt but you still have to make the access rule setters look like they don't control access.

Now we go through another diversion...the "thats not your original claim" standard....I am not addressing the original claim because I am addressing the diversions. Sound confusing? thats your aim....

whats the next diversion?

 

[Mycroft]

Oh...it even gets dumb and dumber Mycroft.

I'm feeling "imprisoned" because if I want to cross the border into Canada or Mexico I'll have to abide by whatever rules those countries decide on for entry. I know they're pretty lenient, but just the fact that they make the rules is enough for me to feel imprisoned. It doesn't matter that the rules are very lax.

Of course, I would never blame Canada or Mexico for this. It's all Isreal's fault.

 

[Mycroft]

That seems to be a point of disagreement. People call for gaza to be sealed...

People? What people? Who would have a reason to want that?

People who might be the target of rockets? People who might be inside building brought down by explosives smuggled in by the Mediterranean Sea?

Are those the people you’re talking about? Are their concerns of any weight with you? Or should they just lump it because you think it’s a crime that any Palestinian should have to drive up to 50 miles to reach an open border?

The truth here is Gaza can have an airport and a deep water port. All it needs to do is get a government willing to make peace and make these things happen. Until that happens, they’re the ones “imprisoning” themselves.

The things Palestinians want Palestinians need to make happen. Their problem is they have too many “supporters” like you, who don’t hold them responsible or capable of anything.

I describe that as imprisoning the occupants. This provides an oportunity for a semantic distraction because the people that favor the sealing of gaza want it described using thier favorite words and not words that could make it sound nasty...

Yeah, it’s a tragedy they might have to go as far as 50 miles to get to an open border, and that’s only the folks who live at the extreme northern tip of Gaza.

Next diversion....its not imprisoning or sealing or whatever because there are a few places that Palestinians could squeeze out. I point out they would need to be good swimmers (the sea) or need to beg permission from Egypt. Next diversion....claims that palestinians decide who goes into Egypt....not Egyptians....this claim is still being weaseled around as it is obvious that Egypt sets the rules for entry to Egypt but you still have to make the access rule setters look like they don't control access.

Wow, you’re still bangin’ that drum no matter how stupid it makes you look? OMG!!! Egypt gets to set the rules for who goes into Egypt!!!

Well, so what?

Now we go through another diversion...the "thats not your original claim" standard....I am not addressing the original claim because I am addressing the diversions. Sound confusing? thats your aim....

whats the next diversion?

Dunno, you tell me. Remember your recent “diversion” where you conflated shooting artillery at empty fields with “targeting civilians”? Tell me, who’s trying to make the issue confusing?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Now I know you are baiting me. I did not say the word "censor", in fact nowhere in this thread do I say "we must censor The Guardian." I challenge you to show JREFers where I said "the Guardian should be censored." Go for it.

...snip...

And I never said that you used the word censor - I challenge you to show "JREFers" (which is itself an inaccurate term - Members of the forum are not JREFers which would indicate some link with the JREF - see the various disclaimers on the site regarding this point) where I said that you said "the Guardian should be censored." Go for it.

What I said was that you "...now calls for the censoring of the press when they publish something you disagree with....", which is what you did i.e:

....snip...

Op-ed writers should not be allowed to write complete fabrications and then have those fabrications printed in a newspaper.

...snip...

What else is it other then censorship if people are not allowed to write what they want?

 

[Darat]

That seems to be a point of disagreement. People call for gaza to be sealed...I describe that as imprisoning the occupants. This provides an oportunity for a semantic distraction because the people that favor the sealing of gaza want it described using thier favorite words and not words that could make it sound nasty...

...snip...

I asked before but how is this different from nations and states that are completely surrounded by other nations? Are the people in those states "imprisoned"?

 

[The Fool]

I asked before but how is this different from nations and states that are completely surrounded by other nations? Are the people in those states "imprisoned"?

Do the nations you have in mind not allow the completely surrounded Nation to use air transport? Do they restrict trade between that nation and outside nations by regularly partially or fully blockading the major trade exits? In effect do they control the foriegn and trade policy of that surrounded nation? Some will reject the description of "Imprison" and prefer to use the term "seal off" or something similar. They will point to a road across a desert leading directly away from thier markets and say they could use that instead....They dismiss air trade or sea trade...not allowed....sorry. I can't think of another nation doing that at the moment....Maybe there Is and I'm missing it. Certainly its not being drawn to my attention by people posting in support of it...

I can imagine that other nations placed in the same situation as Israel would react in the same way...If it were more common it still would not make it right. I am regularly told that I am only interested in Israel but by all means show me another nation doing the same things to thes "surrounded nations" and introduce me to the people on JREF speaking out in support of it and I'll certainly ask them the same questions.

 

[Darat]

Do the nations you have in mind not allow the completely surrounded Nation to use air transport? Do they restrict trade between that nation and outside nations by regularly partially or fully blockading the major trade exits?

I am sure that if such a "sate locked" country declared war on such a neighbour then blockades would be imposed.

In the case of the Palestinians they have freely chosen a government which has declared war on Israeli. One of the consequences to this is that (IMO) Israeli has no obligations to such a country and it is in fact against the best interests of Israeli to help such a country (or proto-state).

In effect do they control the foriegn and trade policy of that surrounded nation?

A consequence of geography - that's just the way it is for the proto-Palestinian state, I would have thought in such a situation the leaders of the proto-state would be leaning over backward to ensure good relations with their neighbour to avoid such a situation.

Some will reject the description of "Imprison" and prefer to use the term "seal off" or something similar. They will point to a road across a desert leading directly away from thier markets and say they could use that instead....They dismiss air trade or sea trade...not allowed....sorry.

It is not that they are not allowed it is that the Israel has no obligation (caveat - regarding the coastline I've already explained Israel should disengage with that) to allow any country access to Israel, whether that be Israeli air space and so on. And certainly no obligation to allow a nation engaged in war against Israel such access.

I can't think of another nation doing that at the moment....Maybe there Is and I'm missing it. Certainly its not being drawn to my attention by people posting in support of it...

Probably are analogous situations in Africa at the moment and there certainly were analogous situations during the cold war and the problems in the Balkans over the last decade or so.

I can imagine that other nations placed in the same situation as Israel would react in the same way...If it were more common it still would not make it right. I am regularly told that I am only interested in Israel but by all means show me another nation doing the same things to thes "surrounded nations" and introduce me to the people on JREF speaking out in support of it and I'll certainly ask them the same questions.

War alters many things, for instance in the UK we suspended many of our civil rights for many decades (and some are still suspended) in some areas of the country because we were being attacked by terrorists. Was that right? Well no I didn't think it was right however I think some of it was probably necessary.

The resolution to this is very simple - let the Palestinians retract their declaration of war against Israel and then I suspect most world opinion would turn on Israeli if it didn't then re-engage (diplomacy, trade etc.) with the proto-state.

 

[The Fool]

I am sure that if such a "sate locked" country declared war on such a neighbour then blockades would be imposed.

You use this a lot...the statement that a nation has declared war on Israel...No they have not. Niether have they "virtually declared war" which , from memory, is how you describe it.

I think that placing the obligations of nationhood on Palestinians without the advantages of Nationhood is unsound. It seems to me that you want to treat them as a nation when it comes to obligations but not when it comes to rights. Thier Nationhood rights vanish because they have not earned them...funny thing is that they have managed to earn the obligations.

If I could use a comparison did Israel declare war on Britain when Terrorists from the "proto-state" of Israel attacked the british? Should this have terminated the move towards recognising thier nationalist ambitions?

 

[Darat]

You use this a lot...the statement that a nation has declared war on Israel...No they have not. Niether have they "virtually declared war" which , from memory, is how you describe it.

I think this is nothing more then an argument about semantics. I agree in a technically accurate sense of the word "war" that no state has declared war on Israel, since there is no state of Palestine.

However this area is slowly becoming a state, this is the reasons I call it a "proto-sate" and therefore since this proto-state's freely chosen government has as an objective the destruction of Israel it is reasonable (use of the word) to say that the "proto-state" has declared "war" on Israel.

I think that placing the obligations of nationhood on Palestinians without the advantages of Nationhood is unsound. It seems to me that you want to treat them as a nation when it comes to obligations but not when it comes to rights. Thier Nationhood rights vanish because they have not earned them...funny thing is that they have managed to earn the obligations.

I would suggest you go back to my posts because you have totally misunderstood my position. I think Israeli should treat Palestine as a nation state now, albeit one that has declared war on Israel. That is why I have been saying for a long time now that Israel should "disengage" with the proto-state, I do not believe Israel has any rights to decide what should or should not happen inside Palestine. (Caveat - attacks against Israel from the proto-state.)

If I could use a comparison did Israel declare war on Britain when Terrorists from the "proto-state" of Israel attacked the british? Should this have terminated the move towards recognising thier nationalist ambitions?

This was based on a misunderstanding of my position.

 

[Skeptic]

There were refugees, and the knowledge that the goal of many zionists was the 'greater israel'. It was no secret, it is was their stated aim.
.

Gee, so it's not "the occupation" after all, but israel's very existence, that's the problem.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[zenith-nadir]

And I never said that you used the word censor....

Op-ed writers should not be allowed to write fabrications and then have those fabrications published in a newspaper. If that is the case then I am free to write an OpEd that "Darat is a child murdering pedofile who steals panties from the elderly and eats them".

Then using your criteria:

What else is it other then censorship if people are not allowed to write what they want?

....you cannot sue me for defamation of character since I should be able to write anything I want.

The reality is:

July 31, 2005

By DAVID SHIPLEY, editor, Op-Ed page

In February 2004, I published an essay in this space describing life at the Op-Ed page. While the article touched on the main facets of our operation high up in the Times building, it focused largely on the submission and selection process. But deciding what runs in Op-Ed is only part of what we do. We also edit the articles that appear in this space. Not surprisingly, readers have lots of questions about the editing that goes on. What kinds of changes do we suggest - and why? What kinds of changes do we insist upon - and why?

[snip]

Fact-check the article. While it is the author's responsibility to ensure that everything written for us is accurate, we still check facts - names, dates, places, quotations.

We also check assertions. If news articles - from The Times and other publications - are at odds with a point or an example in an essay, we need to resolve whatever discrepancy exists.

[snip]

So the New York Times checks "facts" and "assertions" in their OpEds...those nazi-loving censors that they are.

In fact you'll find most reputable newspapers in the world checks "facts" and "assertions" in their OpEds before they are published since a newspaper's credibility is its greatest asset.

It is a disservice to the reputation of the paper and the intelligence of the reader to publish OpEds with false information in them. That is why I singled the Guardian out when it comes to my point about exaggeration and obfuscation vis a vis the Middle East.

When Israel is neither "relentlessly shelling civilian population centres" and Gaza is not "occupied" yet the Guardian see fit to publish and OpEd/Comment/Whatever-the-label which clearly states:

Monday's suicide bombing in Tel Aviv rightly drew international condemnation, yet criticism of Israel's relentless shelling of civilian population centres in the occupied Gaza Strip has been blocked by the US at the UN security council.

I have an issue with publishing that level of untruthfulness. You call me a censor, I just want the truth printed and not an utter pack of lies.

 

[Skeptic]

Do the nations you have in mind not allow the completely surrounded Nation to use air transport? Do they restrict trade between that nation and outside nations by regularly partially or fully blockading the major trade exits?

Sure--when the "completely surrounded Nation"'s official and practical goal is a genocide or taking over of the nations that surround it. The allies in WWII, for instance, were not too concerned with whether or not "completely surrounded" Germany can make good use of its ports during the war. Nor did they feel any pressing moral duty to make sure Germany is not deprived of its industrial capacity.

You might not like it, but the PA had declared, long ago, a genocidal war of annihilation on israel. Just read what their leaders and their people say, or look at what they do. As this is war, and a total war at that--at least from the Palestinian side, where the goal is a second holocaust--israel is certainly not morally required to make sure its enemy's trade and commerce are in satisfactory shape.