The Levy Report and the ‘Occupation’ Narrative

[shira]

Looking back over the last two weeks, what appeared to hit a raw nerve with critics of the report of Justice Edmond Levy’s committee was not what it had to say about the specific issues for which it was appointed, like zoning and planning in the West Bank, but rather with how it dealt with the broader narrative for describing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This became evident in how the reaction focused on the report’s conclusion that “the classical laws of ‘occupation’ as set out in the relevant international conventions cannot be considered applicable to … Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria.”

How did Justice Levy, who recently retired from Israel’s Supreme Court, reach this conclusion along with his two colleagues? They argued that the Israeli presence in the West Bank was unique, sui generis, because there was no previously recognized sovereign there when it was captured by the Israel Defense Forces during the Six-Day War in 1967. The Jordanian declaration of sovereignty in 1950 had been rejected by the Arab states and the international community, as a whole, except for Britain and Pakistan.

Moreover, as the Levy Report points out, the Jewish people still had residual historical and legal rights in the West Bank emanating from the British Mandate that were never cancelled, but rather were preserved by the U.N. Charter, under Article 80 — the famous “Palestine Clause” that was drafted, in part, to guarantee continuity with respect to Jewish rights from the League of Nations.

There were other issues that made the Israeli presence in the West Bank unique. With the advent of the Oslo Agreements in the 1990s, there was no longer an Israeli military government over the Palestinian population. Indeed, the famous 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention on occupied territories stipulates that an Occupying Power is bound to its terms “to the extent that such a Power exercises the function of government in such territory (Article 6).”

more...
http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/07/20/the-levy-report-and-the-occupation-narrative/

[shira]

1. WRT the international community comparing Israel's "occupation" with other nations....

It is instructive to see how the international community looks at far clearer cases of territories that came under military control of foreign forces as a result of armed conflict. On July 20, 1974, the Turkish Army invaded Cyprus, which had been an independent state since 1960, taking over 37 percent of the island. The Turkish zone declared its independence in 1983, but no state, except Turkey, recognized the new government.

How does most of the international community refer to the territory of Northern Cyprus? The fact of the matter is that they don’t label it an “occupation.” When the EU accepted Cyprus as a new member state in 2004, it prepared a memorandum explaining that the accession to the EU was suspended “in the area of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control.”

There are 2 other examples as well in this article.

The International community does not call it "occupation" in any of the 3 examples.

The term is purely political.

[kayecy]

2. You must be getting desperate for comparisons!

The International Community has differing views on whether Northern Cyprus is under Turkish occupation, but few, if any, think like you that the situation is comparable to the West Bank.

1. Whilst many Turkish Cyriots want the Turkish army numbers (35,000) to be reduced, almost non of them want the Turkish army to leave.

2. The Turkish army and the people you say are under occupation are of the same ethnicity, religeon and speak the same language.....Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974 to protect the local Turkish population.

I invite you to compare these basic characteristics of the Turkish control of Northern Cyprus with Israel's control of the West Bank.


....................................
Wikepedia states the following as its definition of "Military Occupation":

Military occupation is effective provisional control[1] of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign.The intrinsically temporary nature of occupation, when no claim for permanent sovereignty is made by the occupying entity, distinguishes occupation from both colonialism or annexation

Since Israel is definitely in "effective control" are you claiming it is not an occupation because the Israeli control is not of a "temporary nature"?

[shira]

3. Since Oslo, Turkey has far more effective control of Cyprus than Israel does of Gaza or the WB...

As the OP states:

With the advent of the Oslo Agreements in the 1990s, there was no longer an Israeli military government over the Palestinian population. Indeed, the famous 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention on occupied territories stipulates that an Occupying Power is bound to its terms “to the extent that such a Power exercises the function of government in such territory (Article 6).”

1. Do you think Israel currently occupies Gaza?

2. Does Turkey (according to 4GCA6) meet the requirements of being an occupying power even more than Israel (based on their total, effective control of the territory as opposed to Israel's partial control)?

======

To answer you, "occupation" of the WB has nothing to do with a "temporary" situation. It's about effective control. Israel hasn't effectively controlled areas A and B since Oslo. Now WRT area C, that's definitely effective control.

[kayecy]

4. You agree Israel is the occupying power in Area C (62%)......

Now WRT area C, that's definitely effective control.

So you agree that Israel is the occupying power in Area C (62%) and East Jerusalem….Israel has security control of Area B (20%) and therefore effective overall control….That leaves Area A (18%) which is no more than a few Bantustans.

To answer your specific questions:

1. Do you think Israel currently occupies Gaza?

Israel retains control of Gaza's airspace and coastline, it continues to be designated as an occupying power in the Gaza Strip by the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly[9] and the USA…… I also agree that Israel occupies Gaza.

2. Does Turkey (according to 4GCA6) meet the requirements of being an occupying power even more than Israel (based on their total, effective control of the territory as opposed to Israel's partial control)?

I have no idea what 4GCA6 means……I do know that UN Security Council resolution 446 states “(the) practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity, and it calls on Israel as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention"

Does that answer your questions?.......If so, perhaps you could now do the comparison I asked for in my last post:

1. Israel has one law for its citizens in Area C and military law for the natives……..Turkey imposes one law regime for everyone.
2. Israel’s control is resisted by the natives in all the areas….Turkey’s control is welcomed by most Turkish Cypriots.
3. Israel has total effective control of Area C, and does not deny that it plans to annex all or part of this area or that it has relinquished all claim to Areas A & B.…….Turkey has effective control of Northern Cyprus but no control or claim over the Greek Cyprus area…….Turkey, of course, is not planning to annex any part of Cyprus

Unless you can come up with similarities (other than each using a national army), I suggest that both the article and yourself are comparing apples with oranges.
.

[shira]

5. Sorry, but it's complete nonsense when you believe Gaza is still occupied...

Hamas (the Palestinians running Gaza) say Gaza is not occupied...
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=252254

Further, the actions that NATO undertook recently in Libya were FAR and away more invasive than what Israel currently does WRT Gaza. However, the UN is careful not to call that an occupation....
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=223231

The reason Gaza is not an occupation according to the Geneva 4th Convention Article 6 (G4CA6) is simple. There's no Israeli military in Gaza enforcing law and order there. Under International Law, Israel would be legally obligated to do so if they were still the occupying power there. But they're not; Hamas is.

You're wrong, and comically so.

Not only is what NATO does in Libya more invasive (more of an "occupation" than Gaza) but the same applies to Turkey WRT Cyprus. That you deny it goes to show there's no point continuing this farce of a discussion.

[azurnoir]

6. so you disagree with the UNSC interesting indeed n/t

[shira]

7. I believe in one standard for all. Got a problem with that? n/t

[azurnoir]

8. well seeing as how apparently

you enthusiastically support Netanyahu's (Likud's) Levy Commission ruling that there is no occupation in the West Bank your not supporting the UNSC's opinion that Gaza is still occupied would indicate a single standard for you but tell us in being consistent with your standards does the same apply to the UNSC's ruling about NOT sanctioning settlements or is that different

[shira]

9. When the UN says that what NATO does in Libya is not occupation, and it's more invasive than Gaza...

....but that Gaza is still occupied, that's a double standard.

Logically speaking, if what is going on in Libya is MORE invasive (more like an occupation) than what goes on in Gaza, and NATO is not occupying Libya, then Israel cannot be occupying Gaza.

What's difficult about that?

Now politically speaking, the UN can say anything it wants, no matter how contradictory. That's politics. And that's what's going on WRT the UN and Gaza. Pure politics.

[kayecy]

10. Still waiting for your apples & oranges comparison......

Still unable to think of any similarities?....What a fraud you are!


Why did you bother to post that nonsense article if you cannot show there is any comparison?

[shira]

12. See #5. It's still a joke when you claim Gaza is occupied. There's no IDF presence there...

...and you're claiming that's more an occupation than Turkey WRT Cyprus?

Really?

How can you expect me to take you seriously?

======

As to your other points, I wish to settle Gaza first before moving onto the WB. Otherwise, the conversation is a joke.

[kayecy]

21. The article you posted had nothing to do with Gaza....

As to your other points, I wish to settle Gaza first before moving onto the WB. Otherwise, the conversation is a joke.

Interesting, you apparently think the US and the UN view on Gaza is a joke......I guess this is just another case of everyone-being-out-of-step-but-Shira.

...................................
The article you posted had nothing to do with Gaza....You and the famously impartial Dore Gold then compared the International Community’s reaction to the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus, but neither of you produced any evidence to indicate why Turkey’s occupation should be considered comparable to Israel’s occupation.

Having been picked up on this, and realizing you had no support for your claim, you introduced Gaza as a red-herring.....You then went on to demand an answer to your red-herring or you would consider this conversation a joke.

The next red-herring you introduced was a claim that I and the UN etc are “ comicaly wrong”, no doubt hoping I would forget that you had offered no substantiation to your Turkish occupation reference.

As you have failed with first your Gaza diversion, then your “comically wrong” diversion, I imagine your next red-herring will be to introduce more of your anti-semite innuendo.
.

[shira]

23. Based on your response, it's obvious you can't defend the argument that Gaza is occupied...

The point of the article wasn't to compare occupations. The point was that there are other occupations that, for political reasons and not International Law, don't count as genuine occupations; real occupations that are far more invasive than what Israel does in both the WB and Gaza.

Now as to the West Bank/Cyprus comparison, two things:

1. Unlike the complete control Turkey has over the Cyprus government there, Israel has allowed the Palestinians to self-govern since Oslo in the mid 90's. The very definition of occupation is based on the 4th Geneva Convention, Article 6 which states “to the extent that such a Power exercises the function of government in such territory (Article 6).” Israel hasn't governed since the mid 90's. In the 3 examples within the OP, those nations are governed completely by the occupying power. Not so for Israel.

2. Israel has offered to end the "occupation" and settlements, and grant the Palestinians their own homeland and self-determination. The Turkish part of Cyprus is currently under military occupation and there's no chance anytime soon that Turkey will offer to end their occupation and grant statehood and self-determination to the citizens there. So you can bitch all you want about how different or how much worse Israel's "occupation" is in comparison, but they've offered the Palestinians their own state and self-determination. Can you imagine the people of Cyprus rejecting their own self-determination?

=====

So what do we have? Legally, Israel doesn't fit the description of occupation except for area "C" (and based on legal claims, that's questionable too). Your support for your views is entirely political. Legally, you're wrong and you know it. Politically, who gives a shit...

[kayecy]

24. Thank you for at last getting round to explaining .......

Thank you for at last getting round to explaining why you think the two occupations are comparable....Let us see how valid your explanation is:

1. Unlike the complete control Turkey has over the Cyprus government there, Israel has allowed the Palestinians to self-govern since Oslo in the mid 90's. .

Turkey only has control of the northern 40% of Cyprus.....The Cyprus Government is in complete control of the South.......Your explanation is factually wrong.

2. Israel has offered to end the "occupation" and settlements, and grant the Palestinians their own homeland and self-determination. The Turkish part of Cyprus is currently under military occupation and there's no chance anytime soon that Turkey will offer to end their occupation and grant statehood and self-determination to the citizens there. .

In 1983, encouraged by the Turkish Government, Turkish-Cypriots declared UDI as "The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus"……..You appear to be ignorant of the fact that there is a democratically elected Northern Cyprus Government.

…………………………………………..
Having shown that you are totally misinformed on the Cyprus situation, let us look at your legality claim:

“Legally, Israel doesn't fit the description of occupation except for area "C".

You offer no support for this claim except an article written by a Greater-Israel fanatic.

How do you explain the fact that the Israeli High Court of Justice has ruled that Israel holds the West Bank under "belligerent occupation"?

How do you explain the fact that The International Court of Justice, the UN General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council all regard Israel as the "Occupying Power"?


I must be crazy attempting to have a logical argument with someone who apparently considers herself to be able to interpret the Geneva Convention better than the world’s best legal brains.
.

[shira]

26. Again, 4GC Article 6 makes it clear Israel doesn't meet the description of an occupying power...

Especially WRT Gaza. That shouldn't even be controversial, but it appears you're too proud to admit it.

Turkey does meet the 4GCA6 description. And while you're right about Turkish-Cypriots declaring UDI, no one besides Turkey acknowledges those puppets of the Turkish regime being the legitimate government there.

Gaza proves w/o question that the basis for Israel's so-called occupation is purely political. If ruling bodies lie about Gaza, how good is their word WRT anything else?

A textbook example of how ridiculous politically biased rulings are is Amnesty International's view that Israel still occupies Gaza. Amnesty maintains that Israel still occupies Gaza. But how stupid could Amnesty be, you might ask? This one's real good. They clearly contradict themselves on the website with the following...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=362665&mesg_id=362783

That's straight from the Amnesty website, and there's simply no way Israel meets Amnesty's very own criteria for IDF occupation of Gaza. Read the last paragraph in that quote off Amnesty's website. Does Israel exercise final control over the acts of the local authorities in Gaza? Hell no, that's ridiculous and I know you know it. So what good is any other political ruling? They're worthless, and that's why double-standards exist; proving Dore Gold's point quite well.

[Ken Burch]

14. No...you believe in annexing the West Bank and telling the Palestinians

that it's enough that they could move to Jordan.

"Jordan is Palestine" is a position abandoned now by everybody other than a few hard-right cranks on the fringes of Israeli
politics. Why would you ever want to try to revive a position that even Ariel Freaking Sharon moved past?

BTW...it's not like denying that there's an occupation can possibly lead to the downfall of Hamas. There's no way that the two things could ever happen in the same logical progression.

[shira]

17. Really? That's what I believe? Where'd you get that from? Now as to Hamas/occupation...

...you've been corrected on that one a million times here.

No one here argues your straw man that the occupation will eventually destroy Hamas. Why do you keep using that straw man over and over, despite being corrected so many times?

[Ken Burch]

27. The IDF isn't on the soil of Gaza

but it does control Gaza's airspace(meaning that Gaza cannot be sovereign in any meaningful sense) and the Israeli government still insists on controlling Gaza's water supply(when, whatever a person thinks about Hamas, and you know perfectly well I hate them as much as you do, it's immoral to limit a population's access to drinkable water).

If not occupation, than still, clearly, siege. And clearly a failed siege. Why not admit that the status quo isn't working and try something different? We know that re-occupation couldn't have any positive results either. Why not admit that, with regard to Gaza, the entire hardline strategy has been a total failure?

[shira]

49. Why do you repeat the same old, tired, refuted arguments? You make them, your arguments....

...are obliterated, you disappear for a few days, come back, and then repeat.

What the hell is that?

Why not admit that the status quo isn't working and try something different? We know that re-occupation couldn't have any positive results either. Why not admit that, with regard to Gaza, the entire hardline strategy has been a total failure?

I can't count the number of times you've repeated the above, and how many times folks like Pelsar have set you straight.

[King_David]

25. I actually think you really do believe

That you know what everyone thinks.

It's hilarious and you do that with everyone.

Do you have help with this "talent"?

Radio Waves from out of space?

[Ken Burch]

28. No, I don't claim to read minds

I read posts. Shira HAS, in fact, attempted to revive the discredited and pointless "Jordan is Palestine" canard. She knows that it's offensive and can't have any positive results for anybody, INCLUDING Israel, but she keeps dredging it up. Why?

[shira]

33. Ken, prove what you are accusing me of. Or admit you're wrong. n/t

[Ken Burch]

40. You have repeatedly revived the "Jordan is Palestine" canard.

You keep spreading the claim that the whole original Transjordan region was supposed to be part of Israel, when that was never the intent. You did a whole thread exulting in the proposal of that right-wing wackjob MK's proposal that Palestinians be given the vote in Jordan(a meaningless act, since it would still mean they'd have no say about the settlements and the denial of access to water).

Palestinians are human beings...you can't punish ALL of them for what the crazy few have done.

[shira]

46. So you think I'm for greater Israel, some form of apartheid, ethnic cleansing...or what? n/t

[Ken Burch]

53. At best, you're for reducing Palestinians to something like a Luxemburg-like statelet

without uninterrupted access to water, without the right to have direct travel to and from Palestine from other countries, without the ability to travel unimpeded from one part of Palestine to another, and without any real guarantee that its sovereignty won't be revoked at a moment's notice.

And you put ALL the responsibility for the current situation on them, without acknowledging that the Israeli government has done anything to Palestinians at all that might possibly have contributed to the anger Palestinians feel towards that government.

[shira]

57. Really? After I've repeatedly said I'd accept the Clinton Initiatives and Olmert's offer...

Seriously?

[King_David]

59. Links to prove your nasty claims?

Link it up.

This should be good.

We are waiting.

[Ken Burch]

62. It's not nasty.

She did a thread in the last few months where she quoted a nutjob right-wing MK who was trying to revive the "Jordan is Palestine" canard, and she acted like making Palestinians vote in Jordanian elections(which would still leave them powerless to stop the illegal settlements) would be the happiest of all possible endings.

[King_David]

65. I am sure if it is not a fabrication,

That Shira supports ( or the multitude of other posters you claim support nasty) what you claim she does...

Then you can link it up for us all to see.

Go ahead please.

[Ken Burch]

67. This was a couple of months ago. I'll find it.

But I wouldn't lie about that. It sounded totally unlike shira to associate herself with crazies like that.

Jordan is Jordan...Palestine is Palestine. There's no overlap or confusion as to which is which.

(Sorry for the delay in this response...my computer's been locking up tonight for some reason).

Here's the link to the thread(on the old DU)where shira was celebrating the demagogic suggestions of Mr. Eldad:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x353899

(she CLAIMS to still be backing a two-state solution, but you can see from her posts that she is still a "Jordan is Palestine" type at heart. She says nothing about Eldad's arrogant claim that the Jordanian legislature in Amman is "the Palestinian parliament"...and acts as if it's enough that the Palestinians could still elect "their local leadership"...as if that leadership would have any real say as long as the Hashemite dynasty continues to hold power...which is almost certain to be the next several decades if not forever).

[King_David]

68. No link huh ?

[Ken Burch]

70. I just posted the link. Didn't you read it?

here it is again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x353899

[shira]

78. Ken, be honest. Where did I back Eldad's proposal? Or anything remotely rightwing?

You should actually summarize my position from that thread. I made myself clear plenty of times.

[Ken Burch]

79. You were talking about how it would be the ultimate "happy ending"

You were saying "I'm still for two states, BUT...".

And you were the originator OF that thread.

[shira]

82. Then summarize, please. I was very clear. Show me where my view = Eldad's. n/t

[Ken Burch]

89. you get really close to it in posts 25, 33, 43, 75 in the linked thread(among others)

Your whole argument in those posts(and several others in that thread)appears to be to try to trick people into agreeing that Jordan is Palestine...or "Jordan as A Palestinian state", which is the necessary set-up for the to-the-right-of-Likud argument that "well, they have ONE state, so why SHOULD they get the West Bank and why SHOULDN'T we build enough settlements there to annex the whole West Bank?" argument...all so that those major settlement blocs will stay in place(and be "expanded" in the West Bank(even though, if there were a two-state solution, there'd be no "security" justification for them and even though it would have cost far less for the Israeli government to just build sufficient public housing on the Israeli side of the Green Line).

You're at least enabling the "Jordan is Palestine" canard and putting settlement preservation and expansion BEFORE peace. It's a dangerous game...why give such a polarizing and damaging idea any creedence at all? It's just as unfair to Palestinians to push for Jordan-is-Palestine as it is to Israelis to push for a single-state solution.

[shira]

96. You've gotta be kidding. Well, this proves you only battle make-believe straw man arguments...

I asked you and others to think about the repercussions of an Arab Spring in Jordan, where the majority Palestinian population dethrones Abdullah and his Hashemite Kingdom. Overnight, Jordan's majority Palestinian population self-rules. I then asked you - once that happens or if it happens - whether the combination of present day Jordan, all Gaza, and some 80-90% of the WB is good enough to end the conflict altogether. In this scenario, Palestinians rule over 75% of the original mandate and have 3X as much land as Israel. The only thing Israel gets is 10-20% of the WB (settlements) at most. What do you find wrong with such a scenario?

[Ken Burch]

69. Here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x353899

Oh, and it's not "nasty"...I'm not saying that shira is a monster, or that Israel as a state is evil. Just that what's being done to the Palestinians is unnecessary and wrong. There's a huge difference between that and being "nasty".

[kayecy]

71. "Nasty"......That is a very insulting heading..........

That is a very insulting heading..........In what way was the claim "nasty"?.

[King_David]

72. Almost as nasty as some posts

Listing Jews in government lifted from a hate site ( Rense)
Believe it or not I have seen that posted on DU .

[King_David]

74. Just looked at one of your links,

"Did You Know
Citizens of Israel
Run Our Country?"

http://www.thechristiansolution.com/doc2012/525_DualCitizen.html

Just Lovely .

Apologize ?

ETA : Just looked around that disgusting site you linked to WOW !!

[shira]

75. None of those links match the order of the names you posted, which matched Rense...

...and other hate sites.

The order in which you posted those names matches identically with the list from Rense.

[King_David]

77. Just check out the site linked to ,it is even worse,

http://www.thechristiansolution.com/doc2012/525_DualCitizen.html

[kayecy]

83. You call that proof enough to justify a NASTY libel?

I see that King-David needs the help of the redoubtable Shira to help defend his 'NASTY' accusation....He probably won't respond so I will take this opportunity to show you and him how wrong you are.


For the first time, I have looked at the Rense list and it is obvios there are several significant differences to mine:

1. My list contained the name of John Bolton……The Rense list does not which is not surprising as he is not Jewish.

2. The Rense list #http://rense.com/general66/dest.htm# does not contain the names of the Ambassadors

3. The first ten names on my list were in the following order:
Richard Perle
Paul Wolfowitz
Douglas Feith
Edward Luttwak
Henry Kissinger
Dov Zakheim
Kenneth Adelman
I. Lewis Libby
Robert Satloff
Elliott Abrams

The first ten names on the Rense list are in the following order:
Paul Wolfowitz Deputy Secretary of Defense
Ari Fleischer #2001-2003# White House Press Secretary
Josh Bolten Deputy Chief of Staff
Ken Melman White House Political Director
David Frum #2001-2002# Speechwriter
Brad Blakeman White House Director of Scheduling
Dov Zakheim #2001-2004# Undersecretary of Defense #Controller#
I. Lewis Libby Chief of Staff to the Vice President
Adam Goldman #2001-2003# White House Liaison to the Jewish Community
Tevi Troy #2003-2004# White House Liaison to the Jewish Community

Is that enough for you to give me an apology or are you so bigoted that suspicion automatically becomes proof and justifies your libelous accusation?

[King_David]

84. I did reply,

I looked at one of your new links and it was worse than Rense IMO.


ETA :But your Origional list is identical to this list from an antisemitic site FYI :
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bushlist.htm

[Ken Burch]

86. And things like THAT shouldn't be posted.

Nothing I've done compares to that, however.

And nothing I've said about Israeli government policies towards Palestinians has ever had anything to do with Judaism or Jews.

If the State of Israel were run by and for Scottish Presbyterians(and that's mainly my OWN ancestry)I'd say the same things.

[King_David]

52. Muddled post

With deflection.

You constantly put words and attribute nasty to other posters .

But the good thing is that absolutely no one takes it seriously .

Ha

[Ken Burch]

54. If you feel that way, put me on ignore.

and you've attributed NOTHING but nasty to posters who disagree with you. It's perfectly obvious that you equate virtually any criticism of Israeli security policies or even the settlement project itself to antisemitism.

[King_David]

58. What a Joke

You do not even realize it.

[Ken Burch]

63. If you think I'm a joke, put me on ignore

You don't actually HAVE to trouble yourself to read my posts.

[King_David]

60. Prove it, Link it up,this should be good.

'you equate virtually any criticism of Israeli security policies or even the settlement project itself to antisemitism. '

C mon link it up.

We are waiting....

[holdencaufield]

61. Put you on ignore?!

No way ... you're way too much fun. I think we all enjoy your mind-reading show.

"You don't believe any such thing."

"No...you believe in annexing the West Bank and telling the Palestinians"

"... you're for reducing Palestinians to something like a Luxemburg-like statelet"


Have you ever thought of offering your services to law enforcement? You could eliminate all that evidence or due process nonsense and just jump straight to conviction based on your ability to read people's thoughts. Kind of like that movie "Minority Report" -- but without Tom Cruise's crappy acting.

After all, it doesn't matter what people say -- as long as you know what they're thinking.

[King_David]

66. + 1

[Ken Burch]

16. You don't believe any such thing.

You believe that anytime Israel does something, it's automatically more acceptable than when anybody else does it. The thing is, shira, most Israelis don't actually believe that anymore.

It doesn't make Israeli more secure for its defenders to give its government unquestioning support on whatever it justifies in the name of "security". Anytime you do that with any state(the examples of the foreign apologists for the USSR in the 1930's, or of American defenders of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam in the 1960's are telling on this point) that state will always just get more and more reckless, because it thinks it can do anything and its apologists will never call it out on anything.

[shira]

18. Double standards means more is expected from Israel than any other nation on earth...

That's what's happening here in this very thread WRT the definition of "occupation".

Gaza is occupied while Cyprus (Turkey) is not so much...

One standard.

[Ken Burch]

31. Nobody has denied that Turkey occupies Cyprus.

The UN and the world community have been demanding that Turkey get out of Cyprus for decades now. Nobody was letting Turkey off the hook.

It should be said, though, that the Turkish Army isn't limiting access to potable water for Greek Cypriots, or destroying innocent, harmless solar panels in Greek Cypriot areas. Nor are the Turks demolishing Greek Cypriot homes. Any violent or repressive acts on the part of the Turkish Army in Cyprus ended at least thirty years ago.

[shira]

47. When the EU accepted Cyprus, "occupation" was never mentioned. n/t

[Ken Burch]

87. I'm fairly sure, though, that they only accepted the Greek part of Cyprus.

They don't recognize Turkish control over the other part, unless I'm wrong.

[shira]

97. N.Cyprus is not an occupation to the EU, but Gaza somehow is...

It's nonsense that is purely 100% political.

And if you're going to say that a blockade is close enough to occupation, then list some blockades aside from Israel that justifies such a view.

[Ken Burch]

15. If another country controls your airspace and water supply, you are NOT sovereign.

That simply goes without saying.

You HAVE to control your own water supply to be an independent country. If you can't even guarantee that your own population won't die of thirst, what sovereignty do you have?

OK, the IDF isn't IN Gaza(and we both know nothing would be better if they were there, because they've proven that they can't actually ever defeat Hamas militarily, never having done so by now)but Hamas is effectively under some sort of Israeli control.

And since that control hasn't stopped the rockets...what the hell good does it DO?

Time to admit the Siege of Gaza is a total failure and try something else.

[shira]

19. That's not an occupation, however. Cyprus is occupied. Gaza is not. n/t

[Ken Burch]

29. Nobody has denied that Cyprus is occupied

The UN and the world have been demanding that Turkey leave for decades. Turkey is only there because the U.S. has egged them on to stay simply because Turkey is in NATO and Greece isn't(despite the fact that the Cold War's been over for 21 years and there is no reason to keep any vestiges of Cold War thinking in U.S. foreign policy).

Gaza is under siege if not physical occupation. Israel controls Gaza's airspace and access to water. Fine, the IDF isn't on the soil of Gaza, but is the difference really THAT important? Why do you obsess on it?

The siege only strengthens Hamas.

[shira]

34. The point of the OP is to show how Israel does not legally occupy Palestinian territory.

Your red herrings withstanding.

It appears you agree Gaza is not occupied. The question is why others insist that it is. Why do you think they insist Gaza is still occupied? What are they up to?

[Ken Burch]

44. Why are you obsessed with that one point?

And clearly you'd have to concede that Israel does occupy the West Bank(which it has no right to do).

[shira]

45. Why do you think Israel's accusers insist Gaza is occupied? What's their goal? n/t

[Ken Burch]

88. It's "critics of the Israeli government", not "Israel's accusers".

They aren't expressing hatred of all Israelis.

And I think the goal is simply to get the conditions the people of Gaza are living under changed. Lifting the siege, at least to the point of letting people in and out of Gaza(everybody should have the right to leave their own country and come back to it freely)would not threaten Israel. The same could be said of lifting all remaining restrictions on food imports(restrictions that were never justified in the first place, since you can't weaponize vegetables).

[Bradlad]

90. Here's what I don't get Ken.

You say their " . . goal is simply to get the conditions the people of Gaza are living under changed. Lifting the siege, at least to the point of letting people in and out of Gaza(everybody should have the right to leave their own country and come back to it freely)would not threaten Israel. The same could be said of lifting all remaining restrictions on food imports(restrictions that were never justified in the first place, since you can't weaponize vegetables)."

It would seem to me that anyone sincerely interested in the plight of innocent civilians - of any ethnicity - would first of all insist that Hamas stop firing rockets, mortars, machine guns and sniper rifles across the border and at the innocent civilians of Israel. Anyone sincerely interested in the plight of innocent civilians would do everything in their power including sending in a coalition of forces of member UN states to put a final end to Hamas and its leaders for committing such heinous crimes. I mean that is what the world does when terrorists attack the civilians of the US or England.

What warped sense of justice ignores ongoing crimes against humanity while adopting a goal of getting the victim of those crimes against humanity to halt its non-lethal, non-violent defense of trying to keep more rockets and weapons out of the perp's hands?

How can this seem just or fair to any reasonable person who actually values peace and the lives of innocent civilians on both sides who suffer from war? Of course, there is one other possible explanation for this. That's that the goal here is not the betterment of the lives of Gaza's civilians. It's really to see Hamas victorious (and Israel destroyed since that is Hamas' goal). But we all know playing the "poor besieged Gaza" card plays so much better on the evening news.

I mean, how would you explain this puzzle?

[Ken Burch]

91. You're not making the distinctions that are needed

You can't just reduce the entire population of Gaza to Hamas.

There are many people who live there simply because it's where their families always lived. Others live there because it's where they were shipped to after they were kicked out of their original homes in what is now Israel or because their original village was destroyed.

Not all of them are Hamas supporters, and it's deeply unjust to hold them ALL responsible for what Hamas has done(as it's equally unjust to hold all Israelis responsible for what their various governments have done to Gaza or the West Bank).

And I've never been a Hamas apologist myself...it's just that I recognize that any resolution to this situation requires getting their acquiescence at some level, because it's a permanent military stalemate...military "victory" as the world used to know it, isn't possible and could never produce magnanimous or progressive results even if it were possible.

BTW...the passive-aggressive "could it be that anybody who disagrees with me is just evil?" tone is totally inappropriate. It's perfectly possible to oppose the siege of Gaza without wanting to see Israel destroyed.

[Bradlad]

100. You are the one who is avoiding . .

Last edited Thu Jul 26, 2012, 12:04 PM - Edit history (2)

. . making the only distinctions that could ever end the blockade.

You say, " it's deeply unjust to hold them ALL responsible for what Hamas has done"

That's total bullshit. They happen to live in area governed by the most vile racist war criminals who attack the innocent civilians of another country from their own civilian neighborhoods. Is that Israel's fault? Those civilians elected them or did you forget about that?

Israel has an absolute moral right sanctioned by international law as well as a solemn duty to its own citizens to protect their lives. Even though Gaza's civilians are morally responsible for their own suffering in this case, Israel is doing nothing for the purpose of punishing them. Israel is protecting its citizens in the least violent way it has available. Israel can not allow rockets to be acquired and launched from Gaza. Period. The suffering of Gaza's civilians as a result of that effort is not in Israel's hands.

Their suffering is only in Hamas' hands. All Hamas has to do is stop attacking Israel and their suffering is over. Any sensible person that truly cared for the suffering of innocent civilians would be screaming and yelling for the world and the UN to use its combined diplomatic and if necessary, military power to put an end to the aggression of Hamas like the world did in Kosovo. But for some strange reason the world doesn't seem to mind so much when it is Jews who are the victims of racist aggression.

I don't know how much simpler this can be stated. And I don't know how you can possibly be arguing that Israel should allow more rockets into Gaza by lifting the blockade. Israel is not the war criminal here. Israel is defending its citizens from attack. You have not offered any reasonable justification for your position. Your comment is a list of excuses that don't hold water.

Perhaps as a person who says he truly cares about the suffering of innocent civilians - you should reconsider your view. Because your way is what is causing their suffering and the suffering of millions of Israeli civilians as well. I really think Ken it's possible you're so filled with hate for Israel that you can't possibly take their side in defense against any enemy - no matter how many Arab and Jewish civilians have to suffer.

[holdencaufield]

101. +1

That pretty much sums up the situation.

Blockade is legal...

Blockade is the least violent option...

Blockade has pre-determined requirements for cessation...

AND

Blockade saves lives... (on BOTH sides)

[Bradlad]

105. After sleeping on this . .

After sleeping on this I want to add the following: I realize you will likely take this as a personal attack at some level. I'm not editing what I said because I should take responsibility for it. But, rather than my comment be about me questioning your motives - I'd rather you consider it my incredulous reaction to someone who says they care about the plight of innocent civilians - yet they support the side that is causing all the suffering of those civilians - and they condemn the side that's doing everything they can to prevent that suffering - even to the point of not massively retaliating to the ongoing rocket attacks as any other Western democracy would have done but only using a non-lethal blockade to prevent at least some of the rockets from coming into the terrorists' hands and landing in Israel's towns.

It seems so clear me that I can't imagine what's going on in your head that prevents you from seeing this obvious (to me) truth. Maybe if you could see what concerns me and try harder to explain to me what I'm not getting about your pov, I'll try harder to get it.

[shira]

98. Egypt is also responsible then for this faux-occupation (blockade) of Gaza....

But Egypt isn't accused or criticized like Israel. Their role is ignored, minimized, or explained away.

In fact, Egypt is opening the border to Gaza.

No more blockade.

Happy, Ken?

[Ken Burch]

32. Nobody has ever denied that Cyprus is occupied

Nobody has let Turkey off the hook on that.

Stop spreading untruths on that point.

And the difference between occupation and siege is trivial.

[shira]

35. The difference b/w occupation and siege is trivial? Do you even know the difference? n/t

[Ken Burch]

38. It's occupation when another country's troops are on your soil

It's siege when they're five feet over the border and the government they serve is limiting your country's access to potable water. A difference, but a trivial difference.

Why are you belaboring it?

If you don't want people to call what Israel is doing to Gaza an occupation, then let Gaza control its own airspace, so goods and people can be peacefully and safely flown in and out of the place. Denying them control of their airspace hasn't stopped the rockets, so what good is it?

And the West Bank IS under occupation. It doesn't matter how many "areas" the IDF is in-they're there, so they have to be considered occupiers. And they're enabling the expansion of settlements(something that everyone who claims to be for peace has an OBLIGATION to oppose, since all settlement expansion is an injustice against Palestinians and does nothing at all to make Israel any more secure).

It's time to admit that it isn't all the Palestinians' fault...AND that the occupation wouldn't end if the Palestinians changed tactics. Just accept that there's plenty of blame on both sides...that's not too much to ask.

[shira]

39. It is? So the USA is occupying over 25 other nations right now since US troops are deployed....

...in over 30 other countries?

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

What good is it to not allow the freaks in Hamas airspace? Do you have to ask? With far nastier weapons, Hamas will ignite a war with Israel that will make OCL seem like kindergarten in comparison. Yours is a warmongering, anti-humanitarian position.

[Ken Burch]

41. Israel would have nothing to lose from allowing direct commercial airline service to Gaza.

They could at least do that.

There's no good reason people wanting to visit the place should HAVE to go through Egypt or Israel.

[shira]

48. Which of course Hamas would never use for military purposes. Get real, Ken. n/t

[shaayecanaan]

11. Satire is dead...

The Jordanian declaration of sovereignty in 1950 had been rejected by the Arab states and the international community, as a whole, except for Britain and Pakistan.

And the obvious rejoinder to that statement is...

[Ken Burch]

13. Occupation denial? really?

What the hell is it then?

Whatever it is, you can't really label it as beyond legitimate criticism.

Are you ever going to stop pretending that the whole thing is the Palestinians' fault and that Israel is innocent and blameless?

Please...stop insulting everybody's intelligence.

[shira]

20. You're consistent, Ken. Another straw man...

This has nothing to do with legit criticism or the fault of Palestinians. I realize you're more comfortable battling straw man arguments rather than focusing on one point. It's how you roll, but you can prove me wrong...

Indeed, the famous 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention on occupied territories stipulates that an Occupying Power is bound to its terms “to the extent that such a Power exercises the function of government in such territory (Article 6).”

Explain how Israel exercises the function of government:

a) In Gaza
b) In areas A and B of the WB, where over 95% of Palestinians there live.

[kayecy]

22. You reference does not show that Israel has ended its occupation of Gaza.....

The 4th Geneva Convention does not define when an occupation ends, but does state the following:

Article 2: The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Israel is still in at least partial occupation of the Palestine territories, hence it is still the occupying power in the whole of the territory.

Art. 77. Protected persons who have been accused of offences or convicted by the courts in occupied territory, shall be handed over at the close of occupation, with the relevant records, to the authorities of the liberated territory.

Israel still holds Gaza residents as prisoners.



Just in case anyone has any doubt that Shira is somewhat blinkered, herewith a quotation from The Jewish Daily Forward, July 13 2012:

Curiously, the central claim, that the West Bank isn’t occupied, isn’t new. Israel has been saying so since it captured the area from Jordan in 1967. It cites the language of the Fourth Geneva Convention...........It’s a reasonable reading of the text. Unfortunately, not one nation in the world accepts it, despite 45 years of Israeli lobbying. Every other nation interprets the convention as covering the West Bank and Gaza, whatever the phrasing...........Israeli courts have consistently ruled that the area is under military occupation, which simply means the army is sovereign there, not Israeli civil law.

[shira]

36. If Gaza is occupied then Israel is obligated to govern there, carry out all law and order there...

Do you disagree?

What's difficult about this?

[Ken Burch]

30. If your army is on another country's soil, without invitation, for all practical purposes

Last edited Tue Jul 24, 2012, 06:10 PM - Edit history (2)

you are exercising the function of government.

And without control of Area C, Palestine can't really function as any sort of independent entity. Area C bisects Palestine and makes it non-contiguous. It means Palestinians(even the overwheming majority who have never committed a violent act against anybody)can't travel freely from one part of Palestine to another.

Would you agree that the IDF was wrong to destroy the solar panels? And that it's wrong to limit access to drinkable water both in Gaza AND the West Bank?

[shira]

37. ROTFLOL! Statement of the day...

That demonstrates how far Israel's irrational critics will go to demonize the Jewish state.

If an army is on another country's soil is practically exercising the function of government...then where does that put the USA when it comes to all the countries in which US troops are deployed?

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

The USA is practically governing in over 25 other countries right now.

[Ken Burch]

42. In a lot of ways, the U.S. has limited political choices in the countries where it's put troops

And the IDF isn't just on Palestinian soil...it's making Palestinians live at its mercy-even the vast majority who have never harmed anyone. They punish all for the acts of the few.

[shira]

50. You were wrong about troops on another nation's soil. You realized it and edited your post....

....nearly 10 minutes later after being called out. That was a dumb statement, wasn't it?

[Ken Burch]

64. I clarified my post

What I was talking about had nothing in common with U.S. bases in Europe or Asia(most of which, for the record, I'd like to see removed).

What the IDF is doing in the West Bank IS occupation. And if it isn't technically occupation in Gaza, it's still domination and subjugation.

And I'd say that if any other country, made up of any other people, were doing the same thing to the Palestinians.

[Ken Burch]

43. on that soil without invitation.

It's not like the PA has a defense pact with Israel.

[shira]

51. You're wrong about that too. NATO intervened in Libya and the UN was careful...

...not to label that an occupation, even though it was FAR more invasive than anything Israel has been doing WRT Gaza.

It's purely political, Ken.

You know that, so who are you fooling?

[Ken Burch]

55. I'm not responsible for NATO's terminology.

An occupation is an occupation.

(Oh, and, if you hadn't noticed...the Libyan elections produced a victory for the secular liberals...thus proving that the Arab Spring CAN, in fact, produce positive outcomes and is not the dead loss you've labeled it as.)

[shira]

56. No, the UN made it clear that it wasn't an occupation. However, the UN maintains Gaza...

...is still occupied.

It's a purely political charge, nothing more. It can be safely ignored.

[Scootaloo]

76. What terminology would you use then?

Honest question. Palestinians have no control over Gaza's borders. Palestinians have no access to Gaza's waters. Palestinians have no control over Gazan airspace. For that matter, they have none of this control in the West Bank, either, with the added problem that Palestinian also have no actual control over territory in the West Bank, as continual settlement expansion is showing.

But they do have a government... A government that is not allowed to alter any of these sovereignty issues, a government that isn't even allowed to define itself as a state. So by the definition you use, that means there's no occupation.

Okay.

What would you call it, then?

[shira]

80. Blockade. n/t

[Scootaloo]

85. A blockade that will be lifted...?

[shira]

93. When the government of Gaza stops making war on Israel. Not a moment sooner. n/t

[Scootaloo]

102. And what is the determining factor in "stops making war"

according to Israel?

[holdencaufield]

103. Is that not self-explanatory? NT

[Scootaloo]

104. Try me.

[Ken Burch]

92. It's not like that would be LESS unacceptable.

Or make the Israeli government less culpable for the sufferings of those Gazans who don't back Hamas.

And really...how could anyone ever have justified restricting food imports? Everybody knew from the start that doing that would do nothing to weaken Hamas and that it would harm many innocent people.

[Purveyor]

81. Apartheid. eom

[shira]

95. Gaza? A blockade is now an act of apartheid? Okayyyyy. n/t

[holdencaufield]

99. You keep using that word...

... I do not think it means what you think it means.