- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,719
- Reaction score
- 35,498
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I'm not the most knowledgeable person on the issue either but I'll add what I think is true (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Gaza used to be an Israeli controlled territory but has been given an autonomous status. Gaza isn't it's own sovereign nation, and it's still under the jurisdiction of Israel. I believe several years ago Israel tried to help push the two state solution by militarily forcing all Jews out of their homes in the Gaza strip and allowing the Gaza strip to govern itself with their own political party. Gaza had elections, and coups, and eventually Hamas (a terrorist organization) rose to power and now currently rules the Gaza Strip. Hamas has attacked Israel since their creation and has a stance that Israel has no right to exist and that the Jews must be pushed into the sea. Israel gave Gaza a chance at independence and they chose to be ruled over by a terrorist nation that wants to take over Israel. Gaza is one of the Palestinian Territories, but it isn't a sovereign nation and I believe it can be described as an autonomous territory under Israeli control.Okay, I am about as noob as noob can come with the whole issues surrounding Israel and Palestine so as I look into the flotilla thing a few things crossed my mind that I'm curious and was wondering if people could give me some answers...
First, is Gaza technically part of Israel that they simply are allowing others to live on, or is that land completely seperate to Israel and technically free in and of itself.
I believe that Gaza is politically independent, but not completely independent from Israel. Regardless of if Gaza is independent, Israel and Egypt have the grounds to create a blockade because the Gaza strip is governed by a terrorist organization that attacks Israel and calls for their destruction. Israel has the blockade for national security reasons, they can't allow weapons to be smuggled into the Gaza Strip. You could almost call the Gaza Strip an enemy combatant against Israel due to their current leadership and their actions.Second, if Gaza is independent from Israel what right or on what grounds does Israel have in forming a military blockaide around it? Is it part of an agreement for giving the land, is it something under international law, is it a case of simply being strong enough to doing it and no one wanting to speak out against it in an authoratitive way, or something else? Basically, why is the blockaide there and how is it legal or at the least allowable.
Yes, Egypt is blocking transport in and out of the Gaza Strip. Both Israel and Egypt have a wall around their respective borders with Gaza, and both have checkpoint areas of entry where they allow or block people and items from entering Gaza.Third, is Egypt blocking transport in and out of the Gaza Strip on their border, and if not why are people not instead simply sailing to Egypt and then transporting their "aid" over land?
I hope some of what I posted helps. Again, I am not an expert on the legal status of these things, but that is what I do know. If I'm wrong on something someone please correct me because I would like to know for myself as well.Anyone know some answers for these, as I imagine it will help remove some of my confusion.
Okay, I am about as noob as noob can come with the whole issues surrounding Israel and Palestine so as I look into the flotilla thing a few things crossed my mind that I'm curious and was wondering if people could give me some answers...
First, is Gaza technically part of Israel that they simply are allowing others to live on, or is that land completely seperate to Israel and technically free in and of itself.
Second, if Gaza is independent from Israel what right or on what grounds does Israel have in forming a military blockaide around it? Is it part of an agreement for giving the land, is it something under international law, is it a case of simply being strong enough to doing it and no one wanting to speak out against it in an authoratitive way, or something else? Basically, why is the blockaide there and how is it legal or at the least allowable.
Third, is Egypt blocking transport in and out of the Gaza Strip on their border, and if not why are people not instead simply sailing to Egypt and then transporting their "aid" over land?
Anyone know some answers for these, as I imagine it will help remove some of my confusion.
Okay, I am about as noob as noob can come with the whole issues surrounding Israel and Palestine so as I look into the flotilla thing a few things crossed my mind that I'm curious and was wondering if people could give me some answers...
First, is Gaza technically part of Israel that they simply are allowing others to live on, or is that land completely seperate to Israel and technically free in and of itself.
Second, if Gaza is independent from Israel what right or on what grounds does Israel have in forming a military blockaide around it? Is it part of an agreement for giving the land, is it something under international law, is it a case of simply being strong enough to doing it and no one wanting to speak out against it in an authoratitive way, or something else? Basically, why is the blockaide there and how is it legal or at the least allowable.
Third, is Egypt blocking transport in and out of the Gaza Strip on their border, and if not why are people not instead simply sailing to Egypt and then transporting their "aid" over land?
Anyone know some answers for these, as I imagine it will help remove some of my confusion.
1) Gaza was given to the Palestinians in the partition plan at the end of the British mandate over the land of Israel/Palestine.
When Israel was formed, a day later, it was attacked in what is known as the 48' war, or the Israeli independence war.
During that war Jordan has annexed the West Bank and Egypt has done the same with the Gaza Strip.
In 1967 Israel has conquered the Gaza strip from Egypt (Amongst the many other territories it has conquered in that war) and has occupied it.
In the late 80's Israel has given autonomy to the Palestinians over some West Bank areas and the Gaza Strip.
The PLO was having a degree of control over the Gaza Strip but it was still occupied by Israel.
In 2005 Israel has withdrawn and dismantled the occupation of the Gaza Strip, making it a self-governed non-sovereign territory.
Hamas has later on came into power and today the Gaza Strip is a Hamas-governed non-sovereign territory.
2) Gaza is not a sovereign entity and hence there are no issues in blockading it.
3) Both Egypt and Israel blockade the Gaza Strip.
You can't transfer cargo from the Egyptian side just as you can't from the Israeli side.
The UN has condemned Israel for that because it believes that Israel does so with the intent of collectively punishing the Gazan people.It's not free, it's besieged. According to international law that means that technically Gaza is (like West Bank) still occupied, which is considered as a collective punishment towards civilian (= it is illegal) and the UN has repeteadly condemned Israel for that.
Only against sovereign territories.Blockades is an act of war.
And still more humanitarian aid is transferred through the Israeli side.I read that Egypt had opened its border with Gaza today
Egypt decides to open Rafah crossing with Gaza - People's Daily Online
100% opposed answers...I'm not even astonished anymore :2razz:
Gaza is not under Israel.Okay, so now I'm confused again...
Is Gaza simply self-governing but not soveirgn (and thus still under Israel, I guess akin to a U.S. Territory) or as they soverign and a state all unto themself?
It's neither.If its the former, then how in the world can you "occupy" that which is technically yours? For example if we put soldiers in Puerto Rico or Guam I would not imagine that the U.S. would be an "occupier" because while they're independently government they're still a territory of the United States yes?
If its the latter, then how in the world could we NOT call it "occupying" if they have people inside, a fence around it, blockaides aroudn it, and are essentially establishing control and power upon it. (And not saying that technically occupying is bad, but more how could you not use the term)
The Gaza Strip is not a sovereign entity.Again, whether its an "act of war" or a "justifiable protective action regarding its own land" seems to hinge significantly on whether or not palestine is sovereign or not.
They can say that they believe it's illegal and then condemn it.(That they believe Israel does it with the intention to collectively punish all of Gaza's residents)Additionally, in regards to the U.N.'s condemnation, can the UN condemn something if it is not being illegally done? And if they can, then why the assumptions or the seemingly dishonest implication that because the UN condemned the action that somehow it means it was actually bad or illegal?
Blockades is an act of war. Israel has started the Six Days War because Egype made a blockade on the Straits of Tiran.
If a blockade is an act of war, then how could Israel have started the six-day war? If Egypt put up the blockade first, and that is an act of war, we must conclude that Egypt started the war.
It goes both ways, indeed:
either you consider that blockades are not an act of war, then Israel started the 1967 war,
or you consider that it is an act of war, and then Hamas has the right to launch rockets at Israel and the people on the flotilla should have shot down the IDF helicopters.
I wouldn't say that it being an act of war gives Hamas the right to launch rockets into Israel since the rockets are headed towards civilian targets or they are indiscriminately fired.
If they were headed at military targets, that'd be a different story.
If the IDF helicopters threaten a ship, and the ship has the means to shoot down the helicopters, then they are justified in doing so. Then the IDF would be justified in blasting the ship to hell as well even before the ship fires on them, though. If a ship ventures into war torn waters, it is placing itself at risk to be blasted to hell.
It doesn't work to ask these people nicely Zyph. They don't understand nice.Seriously, there was a bit of a discussion here, start your own thread if you want to take it in an entirely different direction.
Weren't the rockets before the blockade?It goes both ways, indeed:
either you consider that blockades are not an act of war, then Israel started the 1967 war,
or you consider that it is an act of war, and then Hamas has the right to launch rockets at Israel and the people on the flotilla should have shot down the IDF helicopters.
It doesn't work to ask these people nicely Zyph. They don't understand nice.
It goes both ways, indeed:
either you consider that blockades are not an act of war, then Israel started the 1967 war,
or you consider that it is an act of war, and then Hamas has the right to launch rockets at Israel and the people on the flotilla should have shot down the IDF helicopters.
Okay, I was doing a little research...
I understand now what you're talking about in regards to being a soveriegn state or not, but that raises more questions.
I don't quite understand now how you can claim that Gaza, or more specifically Palestine, is not soveriegn.
It has a government, it has defined borders, it has a permanent population, and it appears it is recognized through diplomatic relations with over 100 states placing it as being recognized by at least half of the U.N. recognized states it seems.
What is the justification for why the claim is that it is not a soveriegn state?
Okay, I was doing a little research...
I understand now what you're talking about in regards to being a soveriegn state or not, but that raises more questions.
I don't quite understand now how you can claim that Gaza, or more specifically Palestine, is not soveriegn.
It has a government, it has defined borders, it has a permanent population, and it appears it is recognized through diplomatic relations with over 100 states placing it as being recognized by at least half of the U.N. recognized states it seems.
What is the justification for why the claim is that it is not a soveriegn state?
Gaza is not sovereign because it is not the territory of any state.
There is no state governing the territory, only a government(Hamas), and one of the four keys for a sovereign state is independence, which Gaza lacks.
How would Gaza gain independence?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?