Questions regarding flotilla from a neophyte

[Tucker Case]

That's not true. The IRA consistently targeted civilians. Yes, the undertook hits on enemy individuals and British troops but you must be aware of the very worst IRA atrocities which were indiscriminate: Enniskillen, Omagh, Harrods, Warrington, Birmingham, Brighton and many more. I'm not singling out the IRA however, their Loyalist enemies, the UDA, UVF and others also targetted civilian targets indiscriminately.

I said "focus primarily on combatant targets" which is not to say that they never intentionally targetted civilians. They most certainly did.

But they also did primarily target military targets. (and by IRA, I mean the pIRA)

CAIN: Sutton Index of Deaths - extracts from Sutton's book

According to the data, the pIRA was responsible for 1824 killings between 1969 and 2001. 1246 were combatants (this includes suspected informants, but not unintended civilian casualties from attacks on military targets or mistaken identity). That equals 68% of the total killings being specifically combatants. When you add in the tally from the "unintended targets" the percentage jumps to about 76%.

That's even before we talk about the legitimacy of targeting politicians, drug dealers and criminals as well as without adjusting for unintended civilian casualties in premature bomb explosions.

76% of the casualties being in attacks that were intended to be combatants definitely qualifies as "primarily" targetting combatants.


P.S. This is just to give the reasoning behind my statements, not to hijack the thread. If we want to discuss this topic in greater depth, we need to start a separate thread on it. Send me a PM if you want to continue this discussion.

 

[Tashah]

I guess what I'm saying is....

It makes zero sense that Gaza, and to a farther extent the West Bank, is just "nothing".

Its either a soveriegn state.....or its occupied but unclaimed territory by Israel.

It can't just be "nothing".

The Palestinian territories are in stasis. The Palestinians do not actually want to be declared a sovereign state at this time, because doing so would strongly infer (via sovereignty) that the current borders are the permanent Israel/Palestine borders.

Wisdom posits that they would most likely be better served - territory wise - by negotiating the permanent borders. In all likely-hood, Israel will retain the five largest settlement blocs in the West Bank and Palestine will be compensated via a land swap.

One of the biggest problems here, is that Hamas (which governs Gaza) has so far refused to participate in the settlement negotiations and will not recognize any mutual agreement between Israel and Abbas/Fatah as binding on government/people of Gaza. This belligerence infers the necessity then of a three-state solution... Israel/Palestine/Gaza.

Hope this helps.

 

[Tucker Case]

The Palestinian territories are in stasis. The Palestinians do not actually want to be declared a sovereign state at this time, because doing so would strongly infer (via sovereignty) that the current borders are the permanent Israel/Palestine borders.

Wisdom posits that they would most likely be better served - territory wise - by negotiating the permanent borders. In all likely-hood, Israel will retain the five largest settlement blocs in the West Bank and Palestine will be compensated via a land swap.

One of the biggest problems here, is that Hamas (which governs Gaza) has so far refused to participate in the settlement negotiations and will not recognize any mutual agreement between Israel and Abbas/Fatah as binding on government/people of Gaza. This belligerence infers the necessity then of a three-state solution... Israel/Palestine/Gaza.

Hope this helps.

Definitely helped me. One question, though, does the three-state solution seem to be gaining more support as time goes on?

 

[Tashah]

Definitely helped me. One question, though, does the three-state solution seem to be gaining more support as time goes on?

I personally do not favor this approach because I would much prefer a final settlement that is binding on ALL Israelis and ALL Palestinians.

Unless Fatah and Hamas reconcile however, the three-state solution will virtually be required. This is messy, and I hate messy :2razz:

 

[Tucker Case]

I personally do not favor this approach because I would much prefer a final settlement that is binding on ALL Israelis and ALL Palestinians.

Unless Fatah and Hamas reconcile however, the three-state solution will virtually be required.

Makes sense.

One thing I've noticed in history, though, is that shortly after a state gains independence (usually within 50 years), there is always seems to be a civil war of some sort.

Are we essentially seeing a sort of civil war between Palestinians prior to the creation of a State?

This is messy, and I hate messy :2razz:

:mrgreen: :lol:

 

[Zyphlin]

No. Who'll pay for it? Hamas?

No clue, that's why I'm asking. So you're saying that Israel provides numerous things for Gaza for free and thus Gaza is dependent on them?

Question...is this because Israel chooses to, because Gaza absolutely needs them to, or becaus Israel does not let the requisite items into the country to be able to fashion the things they'd need to be independent?

It's a non-state entity.
A territory doesn't have to be occupied or to be a state in order to exist as a territory.
Antarctica is not occupied and is not a state.

Antarctica also doesn't have a:

1. Permanent Population
2. A government
3. Diplomatic relations with other states.

So its a failed comparison to Gaza and or Palestine that has all those things.

A better example would be the ROC/Taiwan, would it not?

 

[Tashah]

Are we essentially seeing a sort of civil war between Palestinians prior to the creation of a State?

I would say that Fatah (West Bank) and Hamas (Gaza) are currently in a "cold" civil war.

No one can rectify this situation except the Palestinians themselves.

 

[Zyphlin]

The Palestinian territories are in stasis. The Palestinians do not actually want to be declared a sovereign state at this time, because doing so would strongly infer (via sovereignty) that the current borders are the permanent Israel/Palestine borders.

Gotcha. So its Palestinians themselves...not those exterior to them...who are stating they have no distinct borders and as such can not be delcared a state? I had thought this was an external thing being imposed on them rather than internally chosen.

Wisdom posits that they would most likely be better served - territory wise - by negotiating the permanent borders. In all likely-hood, Israel will retain the five largest settlement blocs in the West Bank and Palestine will be compensated via a land swap.

One of the biggest problems here, is that Hamas (which governs Gaza) has so far refused to participate in the settlement negotiations and will not recognize any mutual agreement between Israel and Abbas/Fatah as binding on government/people of Gaza. This belligerence infers the necessity then of a three-state solution... Israel/Palestine/Gaza.

Hope this helps.

So what you're saying is if there was no Gaza Strip there's a likelihood that a Palestine/Israel agreement would've already been made, with defined borders, and official recognition. However since Gaza is technically part of Palestine and they're not satisified they're holding it up for everyone. As such, you're advocating the best idea is to do a Three State Solution. Is Israel or The West Bank Palestinians seemingly comfortable with that, or do one or both sides disagree? And if they both are fine with it, why not do it and just let Gaza deal with it?

 

[Apocalypse]

No clue, that's why I'm asking. So you're saying that Israel provides numerous things for Gaza for free and thus Gaza is dependent on them?

Question...is this because Israel chooses to, because Gaza absolutely needs them to, or becaus Israel does not let the requisite items into the country to be able to fashion the things they'd need to be independent?

Israel provides the Gaza Strip with electricity for free, yes.
I think it's more of a legal issue that Israel is bound to, due to Israel being the occupier of the territory in the past.

Antarctica also doesn't have a:

1. Permanent Population
2. A government
3. Diplomatic relations with other states.

So its a failed comparison to Gaza and or Palestine that has all those things.

A better example would be the ROC/Taiwan, would it not?

It wasn't a comparison, it was an example for a territory that is not a state and is not occupied.
But yes if one is looking for a comparison Taiwan is a good one.

 

[bub]

Israel being the occupier of the territory in the past.

I read everywhere that blockade = occupation. Could you enlighten me?

 

[Tashah]

Gotcha. So its Palestinians themselves...not those exterior to them...who are stating they have no distinct borders and as such can not be delcared a state? I had thought this was an external thing being imposed on them rather than internally chosen.

Essentially yes. They will be better off territory-wise by negotiating the final permanent borders. If they should declare total independence and sovereignty tomorrow, then it is what it is. One cannot claim sovereignty and also claim liquid borders.

So what you're saying is if there was no Gaza Strip there's a likelihood that a Palestine/Israel agreement would've already been made, with defined borders, and official recognition. However since Gaza is technically part of Palestine and they're not satisified they're holding it up for everyone. As such, you're advocating the best idea is to do a Three State Solution. Is Israel or The West Bank Palestinians seemingly comfortable with that, or do one or both sides disagree? And if they both are fine with it, why not do it and just let Gaza deal with it?

Israel and Abbas/Fatah are currently engaged in settlement negotiations. Hamas has refused to be a party to these negotiations.

I believe Abbas has put forth the proposition that IF his faction and Israel agree to a mutual settlement, that such agreement be placed as a plebiscite to ALL Palestinians to vote on. Hamas said no.

Unless Hamas changes its tune Zyph, the best Israel can accomplish here is only a partial peace accord through no fault of its own.

 

[Zyphlin]

I read everywhere that blockade = occupation. Could you enlighten me?

I'm not even well versed in the middle east and I can do that.

Its clear and undeniable when one has troops directly inside another state or territory by force and exerting control over it that one is occupying.

However

The notion that a blockade is occupying is disputed and contrary to your hyperbolic statement "everywhere" else besides this thread does not proclaim that Israel's blockade equates to occupation. There is disagreement within portions of the international community about this and thus it is not a clear cut, without question care as it is was in the past. So another way to more simply read Apoc's statement would be "Israel being the UNQUESTIAONBLE occupier of the territory in the past."

 

[bub]

I'm not even well versed in the middle east and I can do that.

Its clear and undeniable when one has troops directly inside another state or territory by force and exerting control over it that one is occupying.

Like in West Bank then?

However

The notion that a blockade is occupying is disputed and contrary to your hyperbolic statement "everywhere" else besides this thread does not proclaim that Israel's blockade equates to occupation. There is disagreement within portions of the international community about this and thus it is not a clear cut, without question care as it is was in the past. So another way to more simply read Apoc's statement would be "Israel being the UNQUESTIAONBLE occupier of the territory in the past."

Well I checked and you are right, it's just organizations like Human Right Watch (which is not neutral but which is still directed by an American attorney who studied at Yale) and Amnesty International who say that.

However, it is still difficult to argue that Gaza is "sovereign" since it does not control its borders.

 

[Apocalypse]

I read everywhere that blockade = occupation. Could you enlighten me?

Well apparently you've been reading bull**** everywhere, that is as far as I can enlighten you bub.

Cuba was not occupied when it was blockaded by the US.

 

[Tucker Case]

However, it is still difficult to argue that Gaza is "sovereign" since it does not control its borders.

Unless I'm reading this thread wrong, I don't think anyone is saying that Gaza is sovereign yet.

It's been said that their lack of sovereignty is at least partially due to the fact that the exact location of the permanent borders are currently in dispute.

 

[Zyphlin]

Like in West Bank then?

As I've said, I'm not as versed with Middle East things as some. That said, it does seem that the West Bank is at the very least more universally regarded as potentially being an occupation of some kind than Gaza is. I'm honestly not sure as I've mostly been looking at gaza recently.

However, it is still difficult to argue that Gaza is "sovereign" since it does not control its borders.

The need to control ones borders is not needed for sovereignty, only that one has defined borders. That said, most are saying in this thread that Gaza ISN'T sovereign, in part because they refuse to acknowledge their current border as the extent of their bordre among other reasons it seems. Is that correct?

I'm not sure anyone was in the thread making the argument for Gaza being sovereign but I.

 

[bub]

Unless I'm reading this thread wrong, I don't think anyone is saying that Gaza is sovereign yet.

Since the contrary of "sovereign" is "occupied" and that they are "partially sovereign", I think we can also say that they are "partially occupied" then!

It's been said that their lack of sovereignty is at least partially due to the fact that the exact location of the permanent borders are currently in dispute.

Also in Gaza? There aren't any Israeli colonies there, isn't the border clear for everyone?

 

[bub]

As I've said, I'm not as versed with Middle East things as some. That said, it does seem that the West Bank is at the very least more universally regarded as potentially being an occupation of some kind than Gaza is. I'm honestly not sure as I've mostly been looking at gaza recently.

You said "Its clear and undeniable when one has troops directly inside another state or territory by force and exerting control over it that one is occupying.".

So since there are Israeli military bases in West Bank, this territory is being occupied by Israel according to your definition.

The need to control ones borders is not needed for sovereignty, only that one has defined borders.

said, most are saying in this thread that Gaza ISN'T sovereign, in part because they refuse to acknowledge their current border as the extent of their bordre among other reasons it seems. Is that correct?

I'm not sure anyone was in the thread making the argument for Gaza being sovereign but I.

I know there is a dispute over the borders in West Bank, I was not aware of such disputes in Gaza

 

[Tucker Case]

Since the contrary of "sovereign" is "occupied" and that they are "partially sovereign", I think we can also say that they are "partially occupied" then!

Are those really the only two choices: sovereign or occupied?

Because I would say that the opposite of sovereign is dependent.

Also in Gaza? There aren't any Israeli colonies there, isn't the border clear for everyone?

If true, that would be a bonus in developping a three-state solution. But in a two state solution, the west banks borders are an issue, no?

 

[Zyphlin]

Since the contrary of "sovereign" is "occupied" and that they are "partially sovereign", I think we can also say that they are "partially occupied" then!

Apparently that is not the case.

There is "soveriegn", there is "occupied", there is "territory" (Such as Peurto Rico with regards to the U.S.), there is "disputed sovereignty" (ala Taiwan I believe), and then there appears to be the nebulus unsovereign land. This is an area that is lacking the requirements for sovereignty in some fashion while not being part of or a territory of a Sovereign State and is not occupied by a soveriegn state.

Essentially what people seem to be saying is that Gaza is an unsovereign land. To their favor they do have a permanent population, government, and numerous diplomatic ties with other states. However others have suggested in this thread that it appears they are dependent on another country (as someone suggested, their power is provided by Israel) and they do not have defined borders...both generally required to define a nation.

So essentially...if Israel is not "occupying" Gaza and is not claiming it as a territory and if Gaza is not able to be considered Sovereign then essentially its Unsovereign Land.

That seems to be what the argument is.

Also in Gaza? There aren't any Israeli colonies there, isn't the border clear for everyone?

Actually, if I read the posters correctly, the problem primarily is in Gaza from what was explained in thread. Essentially Hamas disagree's that the Gaza strip should be the extent of their Borders so won't agree that such is the extent of their borders, thus meaning they do NOT have a definite definable territorial boundry.

And even if it is not and its the West Banks' boundries that are conflicted, unless Gaza starts to wish for a "Three State Solution" then it'd still mean Palestines borders are not defined and therefore still suffers the same fate.

 

[Zyphlin]

You said "Its clear and undeniable when one has troops directly inside another state or territory by force and exerting control over it that one is occupying.".

So since there are Israeli military bases in West Bank, this territory is being occupied by Israel according to your definition.

This I don't know, since I didn't say "Having military bases" = Occupation. The United States has military bases all over the world, yet we're not occupying Germany, Japan, Etc.

As I said, I don't know enough about the entire situation to say something exact. What little I've been able to research real quick is that The West Bank is "occupied", however the issue is that its a situation that is essentially unique unto itself as traditionally "occupation" was viewed negatively in part because its a soveriegn state moving into another sovereign state and exerting its will...however in the case of The West Bank the land has not been part of a soveriegn state for most of the last century if not longer and thus has been continually contested land.

 

[Tashah]

Actually, if I read the posters correctly, the problem primarily is in Gaza from what was explained in thread. Essentially Hamas disagree's that the Gaza strip should be the extent of their Borders so won't agree that such is the extent of their borders, thus meaning they do NOT have a definite definable territorial boundry.

Actually, the current Israel/Gaza border is virtually identical to the pre-1967 border. Hamas wants Israel gone completely. According to their way of looking at things then, there should be no Israel at all and thus no border at all.

 

[bub]

This I don't know, since I didn't say "Having military bases" = Occupation.

You said "troops = occupation". I assume there are IDF troops in IDF bases

The United States has military bases all over the world, yet we're not occupying Germany, Japan, Etc.

The USA do not impose the presence of its troops in Germany nor in Japan

As I said, I don't know enough about the entire situation to say something exact. What little I've been able to research real quick is that The West Bank is "occupied"

that is why it is called "occupied territories": "In a related case the Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, stated that Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria in belligerent occupation, since 1967."

Israeli-occupied territories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Zyphlin]

Actually, the current Israel/Gaza border is virtually identical to the pre-1967 border. Hamas wants Israel gone completely. According to their way of looking at things then, there should be no Israel at all and thus no border at all.

So essentially they won't accept that their "border" is Gaza/The West Bank because they believe that Israel should not exist and should be part of their land, and if they were to claim and accept Gaza as their border they'd have to essentially relinquish what they feel is their rightful claim of Israel as part of their state.

Is that the general gist?

 

[bub]

Actually, the current Israel/Gaza border is virtually identical to the pre-1967 border. Hamas wants Israel gone completely. According to their way of looking at things then, there should be no Israel at all and thus no border at all.

That is what is written in their charter, indeed. But the Likkud's charter says the same, yet few people argue that the Likkud does not accept the right of Palestinians to establish their own state next to Israel. That's because charters are just charters, they were written a long time ago and the opinion of the Hamas/Likkud changes over time

Settlements

The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.

(...)

The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.

(...)

Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusale

(...)

The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.

Likud - Platform

(for those who do not understand, the Likkud platform of 1999 rejects the right of Palestinians to create a state and says that the borders of Israel is on the Jordan river = Israel should annex all of West Bank and Gaza)