You're probably right, but it's the number one reason why so many people side with the Palestinians on this issue. It's really hard to justify the settlements, and it makes it impossible for Israel to claim the moral authority.
Life in Occupied Palestine
- Thread starter charlesmartel
- Start date
You're probably right, but it's the number one reason why so many people side with the Palestinians on this issue. It's really hard to justify the settlements, and it makes it impossible for Israel to claim the moral authority.
You're probably right as well, but if the settlements will be gone something else
will come instead.
It seems that most of the world doesn't really need a good reason to be on the Palestinian side.
And if the world would really care about the poor people of gaza they will already step in, but there's no oil in gaza(Not like Iraq/Lybia)
I would have to disagree. I've made a cute little picture here...
Though no country (aside from Israel) or legal body (aside from Israeli SC) that I'm aware of agrees with the dubious Israeli assertion that the occupation of Gaza ended, I think your reasoning is faulty. Here's why.
Gaza accounts for about 5% of what is recognized as Palestinian territory. Israel contests that them having removed settlements in that 5%, while continuing to grow them in the rest of West Bank - the fact that there is still no peace, means that settlements are not the issue.
Ending settlements in 5% of an occupied country while expanding it in the remaining 95% of said country - and then shrugging your shoulders when no peace deal is reached and saying your opponent is the one causing the problems - this is disingenuous at best.
I really can't follow that logic.
The entire premise of this post is that occupation is defined by ground combat troops present in an area. The difficulty comes when you have to go by the actual LEGAL definition, rather than one you pulled from an opinion piece out of JPost.
For those who refuse to get our legal definitions from JPost, I would welcome you to refer to Article 42 of the Hague regulations.
So the question is does the Israel exercise unconsented-to military control over a territory to which it has no title - in this case Gaza.
Hmmm... it forcibly controls the airspace. It forcibly controls the sea. It forcibly controls the land (try farming near the wall... you'll get shot).
So if you use the definition of occupation that you randomly pulled from JPost opinion columns, people would have to agree with you.
However if someone is educated and uses the actual legal definition, the result is very clear. Israel still maintains unconsented to military control over the Gaza strip, and as such it is occupied.
The bottom line is there are only 2 sides to the Gaza conflict: Israel and Hamas, both democratically elected by its civilians.
If you are only criticizing one side like some of you do than you are essentially giving the green light to the other side, supporting Hamas.
And if you are supporting Hamas you might as well support ISIS and their Islamic State because both groups share the same ideas and goals.
You can try and complicate things but it all boils down to this.
One side wants the other dead and they openly admit it, you just have to open your mind and understand they are not like you and me, they are like ISIS.
If you are only criticizing one side like some of you do than you are essentially giving the green light to the other side, supporting Hamas.
And if you are supporting Hamas you might as well support ISIS and their Islamic State because both groups share the same ideas and goals.
You can try and complicate things but it all boils down to this.
One side wants the other dead and they openly admit it, you just have to open your mind and understand they are not like you and me, they are like ISIS.
watch this vid
the sad/funny side of this video is that anyone who will watch it wouldn't be surprised or shocked, not even a bit. like I said before -
have fun while these things happen only in the mid east, soon they gonna start happening in your backyard.
the sad/funny side of this video is that anyone who will watch it wouldn't be surprised or shocked, not even a bit. like I said before -
have fun while these things happen only in the mid east, soon they gonna start happening in your backyard.
As more than a month has passed since Israel began its Operation Protective Edge in Gaza, it’s high time to dig through the carnage that many of my colleagues from major U.S. media outlets are leaving behind—especially the New York Times.
The Media Intifada: Bad Math, Ugly Truths About New York Times In Israel-Hamas War
The Media Intifada: Bad Math, Ugly Truths About New York Times In Israel-Hamas War
False dilemma - RationalWiki
"A false dilemma, or false dichotomy, is a logical fallacy which involves presenting two opposing views, options or outcomes in such a way that they seem to be the only possibilities: that is, if one is true, the other must be false, or, more typically, if you do not accept one then the other must be accepted. The reality in most cases is that there are many in-between or other alternative options, not just two mutually exclusive ones...
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Nonsense. Believing that some measures taken by the Dubya (or Obama, or any other) government were unnecessary, excessive or morally suspect obviously doesn't entail a murderous disregard for human life — quite the opposite, in many cases.
A false dichotomy similar to the last two surrounds discussions about Israel. One example of this is how some persons insist that being critical of the state of Israel (including, but not limited to, its existence) or Israeli policies amounts to a) anti-Zionism and b) anti-Semitism. Another example is how persons both on the "pro-Palestinian side" and the "pro-Israeli side" claim that you cannot both support Israel's right to exist and Israel's right to self-defense and also support an independent Palestine."
This is a good documentary on Normal Finkelstein:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8qDpg_x49Y[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8qDpg_x49Y[/ame]
Gaza is not occupied by Israel under international law - if you actually read international law
The Hague Conventions definition of 1907 is the only legal definition of occupation. That's it.
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.
Amnesty International expanded on this definition when the US invaded Iraq:
[...] the de facto effective control of territory by foreign armed forces coupled with the possibility to enforce their decisions, and the de facto absence of a national governmental authority in effective control. [...]
Clearly, Gaza has a government that is not controlled by Israel, and just as clearly, occupation requires a physical presence on the territory itself.
Interestingly, Amnesty never refers to their own definition when talking about Gaza.
They aren't the only hypocrites whose definitions of "occupation" changes only for Israel.
The UN, when asked specifically how they can define Gaza as occupied, sputtered nonsense in response, saying that Gaza and the West Bank are considered a single territory, and therefore if the West Bank is occupied then Gaza must be too.
This means that they disagree with The Hague 1907 definition which clearly defines occupation as being applied only to the part of territory under control.
By the UN's definition, all of Cyprus would be occupied by Turkey because some of it is occupied by Turkey.
The UN also specifically denied that Libya was occupied by the US and allies when its situation was quite analogous to Gaza today.
HRW likewise has one definition of occupation for the world, and another one for Israel.
In short, anyone who claims Israel occupies Gaza is making an argument that no one has ever made in respect to occupation anywhere else in the world.
It proves yet again that when it comes to Israel, the very definitions of words are uniquely different for Israel.
(By the way, any territory that the IDF controls during the war would be considered occupied, and Israel would have legal obligations towards residents of the areas it controls.
That situation is the exact reason there is a definition to begin with.
But when Israel withdraws, Gaza goes back to being effectively controlled by its government, a government that Israel is powerless to change itself without a true occupation.)
Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Gaza is not occupied by Israel under international law - if you actually read international law
The Hague Conventions definition of 1907 is the only legal definition of occupation. That's it.
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.
Amnesty International expanded on this definition when the US invaded Iraq:
[...] the de facto effective control of territory by foreign armed forces coupled with the possibility to enforce their decisions, and the de facto absence of a national governmental authority in effective control. [...]
Clearly, Gaza has a government that is not controlled by Israel, and just as clearly, occupation requires a physical presence on the territory itself.
Interestingly, Amnesty never refers to their own definition when talking about Gaza.
They aren't the only hypocrites whose definitions of "occupation" changes only for Israel.
The UN, when asked specifically how they can define Gaza as occupied, sputtered nonsense in response, saying that Gaza and the West Bank are considered a single territory, and therefore if the West Bank is occupied then Gaza must be too.
This means that they disagree with The Hague 1907 definition which clearly defines occupation as being applied only to the part of territory under control.
By the UN's definition, all of Cyprus would be occupied by Turkey because some of it is occupied by Turkey.
The UN also specifically denied that Libya was occupied by the US and allies when its situation was quite analogous to Gaza today.
HRW likewise has one definition of occupation for the world, and another one for Israel.
In short, anyone who claims Israel occupies Gaza is making an argument that no one has ever made in respect to occupation anywhere else in the world.
It proves yet again that when it comes to Israel, the very definitions of words are uniquely different for Israel.
(By the way, any territory that the IDF controls during the war would be considered occupied, and Israel would have legal obligations towards residents of the areas it controls.
That situation is the exact reason there is a definition to begin with.
But when Israel withdraws, Gaza goes back to being effectively controlled by its government, a government that Israel is powerless to change itself without a true occupation.)
Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Gaza is not occupied by Israel under international law - if you actually read international law
So, if an Arab country turned Israel into an open air prison that wouldn't be considered an occupation? And you'd be fine with that?
You can keep on keeping on but Israel will never cease to exist.
Deal with it, you anti-zionist keyboard warriors will not change that.
Saudi foreign minister: we must denounce our hatred toward Israel and begin normalize ties with Jewish nation
Referring to the ongoing war in Gaza strip, the Saudi foreign Minster stressed that Hamas authority is the sole responsible for Palestinian calamity and they must brought before the law.
The Saudi official further added that Arab World Increasingly Frustrated With Hamas which is seeking more wars.
AWDNews - Saudi foreign minister: we must denounce our hatred toward Israel and begin normalize ties with Jewish nation
Deal with it, you anti-zionist keyboard warriors will not change that.
Saudi foreign minister: we must denounce our hatred toward Israel and begin normalize ties with Jewish nation
Referring to the ongoing war in Gaza strip, the Saudi foreign Minster stressed that Hamas authority is the sole responsible for Palestinian calamity and they must brought before the law.
The Saudi official further added that Arab World Increasingly Frustrated With Hamas which is seeking more wars.
AWDNews - Saudi foreign minister: we must denounce our hatred toward Israel and begin normalize ties with Jewish nation
Your own quotes proves you are lying. Here's a simple question...
1) Do the Palestinians in Gaza have control over their own airspace? (The answer is no)
2) Do the Palestinians have control over their own territorial waters (The answer is no. Israel fires on and sinks Palestinian fishing boats)
3) Do the Palestinians have control over their own LAND? The answer is again NO. We have 40%+ of farmable land in GAZA is a no-go zone for Palestinians -armed or not.
Now lets again look at the definition of occupation above and ask yourself this question. Has Israeli authority been established and exercised and enforced in Gaza? That answer is clearly yes. Try going on farm land in Gaza near the wall without permission from the Israelis. Try flying over Gaza without permission from the Israelis. Try entering Gaza's territorial waters without permission from the Israelis. Try leaving Gaza to go to West Bank (Palestinian territory) without permission from the Israeli's. Try importing food without permission from the Israelis. Try exporting produce without permission from the Israelis. You're lying and we both know it.
It is very clear that insomuch as the Israeli military has established and continually exercises it's authority inside of Gaza (land, sea and air)...
That GAZA IS OCCUPIED.
When the Israeli military withdraws from Gaza's land (no buffer zones lethally enforced), sea (no navy in Gaza water without permission) and air (no airforce over Gaza without permission) - then you will be correct.
Until then you are just lying to cover up for the increasingly unjustifiable policies of the Israeli goverment.
Saudi Crocodile Tears Over Gaza - David Hearst
"..one reason why the government of Saudi Arabia has such an extreme position on Hamas and the Brotherhood in general, is that it knows full well that its own people don't share their view.
Saudi Arabia's leading pollster Rakeen found that 95 percent out of a representative sample of 2,000 Saudis supported the continuation of the Palestinian resistance factions. Only three per cent did not. Eighty-two percent supported the firing of rockets into Israel and 14 percent opposed it. The kingdom's hatred of Islamism stems not from the fact that it presents a rival interpretation of Islam. It is that it presents to a believer, a democratic alternative. That is what really scares the monarchy."
"..one reason why the government of Saudi Arabia has such an extreme position on Hamas and the Brotherhood in general, is that it knows full well that its own people don't share their view.
Saudi Arabia's leading pollster Rakeen found that 95 percent out of a representative sample of 2,000 Saudis supported the continuation of the Palestinian resistance factions. Only three per cent did not. Eighty-two percent supported the firing of rockets into Israel and 14 percent opposed it. The kingdom's hatred of Islamism stems not from the fact that it presents a rival interpretation of Islam. It is that it presents to a believer, a democratic alternative. That is what really scares the monarchy."
Those all true but came into affect only in 2007, 2 years after israel left gaza and hamas took charge.
Once Hamas took charge israel knew whats shes in for and closed all exits.
You said we, where u from ?
But there is a big difference between Hamas and ISIS, because it would be difficult to find anyone who wants to be taken seriously defending ISIS,
whereas quite a few activists who pretend to care about human rights are eager to defend Hamas’ display of brutality against the citizens they rule.
?
"Israel continues to maintain exclusive control of Gaza's airspace and the territorial waters, just as it has since it occupied the Gaza Strip in 1967"
Gaza Strip - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No - entry/exit restrictions (try flying out of Gaza to anywhere internationally), airspace, naval - were still controlled by Israel. I am not confident on the buffer zone (inside Palestinian territory of course - though they could have put it inside Israel) but I believe it was implemented in 2002 and continued throughout.
I used we to describe a situation, not possession. It is in no way personal as I am from North America. Similar to how I would say we have ISIS terrorizing and rampaging across Iraq. It in no way denotes possession but rather description of a situation.