The Israeli Disengagement From Gaza A Move To " Freeze " The Peace Process

[oneworld2]

Place those who have taken violent action against Israel into custody and turn over all heavy weaponry. I'd take the offer that Egypt's president made offering some of their land and begin negotiations with Israel in earnest.

What makes you think Israel would want to negotiate with you ? Surely you are aware of how they manufacture situations where they " can't find anyone to negotiate with " or make sure of it.

Just look at their reaction to the recent Palestinian unity agreement

 

[CycloneWanderer]

What makes you think Israel would want to negotiate with you ? Surely you are aware of how they manufacture situations where they " can't find anyone to negotiate with " or make sure of it.

Just look at their reaction to the recent Palestinian unity agreement

Hey, now. I didn't question or criticize your fairytale scenario.

 

[oneworld2]

And by 'people' you mean you and by 'make their minds' you mean made a baseless accusation.

Nope, I mean people can make up their own minds about information that is put up , it's really that simple.

You're once more ignoring the reality that some of the people who live in Gaza are... wait for it... terrorists. Yes, actual terrorists who seek to inflict damage on Israeli lives. It actually happens. As such, Israel is justified in creating a buffer zone. The buffer zone is by the way 1 kilometer long and not, as you've claimed twice by now, 3 kilometers. It was expanded into 3 kilometers during the recent war, the reason being obvious. It is completely legitimate for Israel to maintain such buffer zone due to the reality of Gazan terrorists getting near the fence and attacking Israelis.

The context of what you replied to was whether Israel exerts effective control over Gazans. I pointed out that they have just ordered people out of 44% of the total area of Gaza for fear of being killed by the IDF. That's effective control , or should be , in anyones book.

Yes some Gazan residents are terrorists , as are most of the adult population of Israel. Why? Because it is mandatory to serve in the IDF and as such most adult Israelis will have served in the brutal and repressive occupation of Palestinians in the OPTs IE Israeli state terrorism.

 

[oneworld2]

Hey, now. I didn't question or criticize your fairytale scenario.

It's a valid question

And you have criticized my reaction to your question by referring to it as a " fairytale scenario "

Did you even read the link I provided ?

If you had of you would understand why it enjoys much support and offers a just settlement of the conflict for both sides.

Or you can support the Israeli wish list that is in contravention of international law and the overwhelming international consensus.........which will not allow for a just settlement.

 

[oneworld2]

For you perhaps, for any moral person the right of Israelis to self defense is unquestionable.

Sticks and stones and you should familiarize yourself with occupation law and the right to self defence before you make such statements.

Occupation Law prohibits an occupying power from initiating armed force against its occupied territory. By mere virtue of the existence of military occupation, an armed attack, including one consistent with the UN Charter, has already occurred and been concluded. Therefore the right of self-defense in international law is, by definition since 1967, not available to Israel with respect to its dealings with real or perceived threats emanating from the West Bank and Gaza Strip population.

To achieve its security goals, Israel can resort to no more than the police powers, or the exceptional use of militarized force, vested in it by IHL. This is not to say that Israel cannot defend itself—but those defensive measures can neither take the form of warfare nor be justified as self-defense in international law. As explained by Ian Scobbie:

To equate the two is simply to confuse the legal with the linguistic denotation of the term ”defense.“ Just as ”negligence,“ in law, does not mean ”carelessness” but, rather, refers to an elaborate doctrinal structure, so ”self-defense” refers to a complex doctrine that has a much more restricted scope than ordinary notions of ”defense.“

To argue that Israel is employing legitimate “self-defense” when it militarily attacks Gaza affords the occupying power the right to use both police and military force in occupied territory. An occupying power cannot justify military force as self-defense in territory for which it is responsible as the occupant. The problem is that Israel has never regulated its own behavior in the West Bank and Gaza as in accordance with Occupation Law.

No, Israel Does Not Have the Right to Self-Defense In International Law Against Occupied Palestinian Territory

I'm glad you've admitted that you do not believe in such right for Israelis. Does that work for Jews outside of Israel as well? If Hezbollah attempts another attack on a Jewish community in Argentina for example should Israel not act against it too since Jews in general have no right to self defense and must all die?
Please do answer this question.

See above.............legal self defence isn't an issue, a bogus one where you are in violation of occupation law is............... as I have said on many occasions before.............Israel is " defending " itself as any occupying power is forced to defend itself , from the very people it is attempting to crush

That's a different thing altogether and the laws obviously reflect that distinction

 

[Apocalypse]

The context of what you replied to was whether Israel exerts effective control over Gazans. I pointed out that they have just ordered people out of 44% of the total area of Gaza for fear of being killed by the IDF. That's effective control , or should be , in anyones book.

The expansion of the buffer zone to 3 kilometers was only done during the operation itself, again, from obvious reasons.
Buffer zones do not constitute an occupation. You can argue that they do but that would just be stupid and a waste of time.

Yes some Gazan residents are terrorists , as are most of the adult population of Israel. Why? Because it is mandatory to serve in the IDF and as such most adult Israelis will have served in the brutal and repressive occupation of Palestinians in the OPTs IE Israeli state terrorism.

You see, it is because of statements like this that you cannot be taken seriously.
You're merely another radical, an extremist and nothing more.

 

[Apocalypse]

Sticks and stones and you should familiarize yourself with occupation law and the right to self defence before you make such statements.



No, Israel Does Not Have the Right to Self-Defense In International Law Against Occupied Palestinian Territory



See above.............legal self defence isn't an issue, a bogus one where you are in violation of occupation law is............... as I have said on many occasions before.............Israel is " defending " itself as any occupying power is forced to defend itself , from the very people it is attempting to crush

That's a different thing altogether and the laws obviously reflect that distinction

Thanks for sharing your piece of anti-Israeli propaganda with me but I think I'll pass..?

Again, Israel has a right to self-defense and that right is undeniable.
You may approve of murdering civilians in Israel, Israel shouldn't, Israel doesn't.
Hope it clarifies.

 

[ido_]

As I have already stated Israel doesn't just control the borders , it controls the sea and the air. It's government , as and when , dictates that the people in Gaza move when they say move , or else they stand a good chance of being killed. The 3 kilometre " buffer zone " accounts for 44 % of Gazas total territory and raises the population density in the remainder to around 20,000 people per square mile.

As I said, naval blockade and control of airspace is not "effective control" to have "effective control" you need to control what is happening on the ground

It decides who and what can go in and come out. Who can fish where etc etc

Israel don't decide who goes in and out of Gaza, it decides who goes in and out of Israel, and like any other country in the world it has every right doing so.
The Palestinian dude on the Palestinian side of the border decides who goes in and out of Gaza, thats how border crossings work all around the world.

 

[oneworld2]

As I said, naval blockade and control of airspace is not "effective control" to have "effective control" you need to control what is happening on the ground



Israel don't decide who goes in and out of Gaza, it decides who goes in and out of Israel, and like any other country in the world it has every right doing so.
The Palestinian dude on the Palestinian side of the border decides who goes in and out of Gaza, thats how border crossings work all around the world.

Not so. You don't have to have boots on the ground to have " effective control " over a region and thus qualify as occupiers

from Amnesty International website..........

Israel withdrew its civilian settlers and military bases from inside the Gaza Strip in 2005. Why does Amnesty International still consider Israel the occupying power in the Gaza Strip, and what are Israel’s obligations as the occupying power?

[snip ]

Israel maintains sole control of Gaza’s air space and territorial waters, and continues to prohibit any movement of people or goods in or out of Gaza via air or sea. Israel directly controls all but one of Gaza’s land border crossings, and continues to close three out of the four crossings for commercial goods, restrict the volume of key imports, and ban most exports, all of which have a serious impact on humanitarian and socioeconomic conditions in Gaza. Israel continues to control the Palestinian population registry, which covers residents of both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, so any change in these records and all Palestinian Authority identity documents (including ID cards and passports) require Israeli approval. An Israeli-approved ID card or passport is required for any Palestinian to leave Gaza, including through the Rafah crossing. And the Gaza Strip continues to depend on Israel for the majority of its electricity supply.

Did you get that ?

" An Israeli-approved ID card or passport is required for any Palestinian to leave Gaza, including through the Rafah crossing."

Document - Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories: Israel/Gaza conflict, July 2014 | Amnesty International

 

[Apocalypse]

Not so. You don't have to have boots on the ground to have " effective control " over a region and thus qualify as occupiers

from Amnesty International website..........

If your entire argument depends on the words of Amnesty, HRW or any single organization or another then you should just come out clean and admit you have nothing to base your argument on. Any possible Israeli monitoring of the Gazans has nothing to do with "occupying the Gaza Strip".

According to the Hague conventions:

The Hague Convention of 1907 specify that "[t]erritory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army."

Military occupation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is Gaza's territory placed under the authority of the IDF?
Simply put, no. It is under the authority of the terrorist organization of Hamas.

 

[oneworld2]

If your entire argument depends on the words of Amnesty, HRW or any single organization or another then you should just come out clean and admit you have nothing to base your argument on. Any possible Israeli monitoring of the Gazans has nothing to do with "occupying the Gaza Strip".

I have already given multiple sources concerning the " effective control " Israel still has over Gazans and those that agree that it constitutes an ongoing occupation , Amnesty was just the latest one.

According to the Hague conventions:



Military occupation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is Gaza's territory placed under the authority of the IDF?
Simply put, no. It is under the authority of the terrorist organization of Hamas.

That part of the Hague Conventions was also included in the Amnesty page I cited.

As is usual your default source is wikipedia which is not accepted as a credible source seeing as I , or anyone else ,could change the information on it tonight if I so desired.

I'm more inclined to take credible human rights groups/international law experts views than wikipedia

As I have stated , and you have ignored , nobody can leave Gaza without an Israeli approved ID card , that's control......... along with all the other points I have referred to

 

[Jack Hays]

Many , alleged or self proclaimed , " supporters of Israel " often cite the Israeli disengagement from Gaza as an event to highlight the good will of the Israeli leadership and , simultaneously , the hate filled ungratefulness of Palestinians. This thread was initiated to examine/dicuss just how accurate this narrative, that is so often peddled , actually is.

Well, I think this interview in Haaretz with Dov Weisglass , described in the paper as " Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser " sheds some light on the subject and goes some way to showing the official thinking behind the disengagement , which was described in the interview as a ploy , as a result of certain other factors, to " freeze the peace process "

Well worth reading in full for a couple of reasons. Anyhow.............



*Advertisement

How many years ago? Ten?

 

[Jack Hays]

Many , alleged or self proclaimed , " supporters of Israel " often cite the Israeli disengagement from Gaza as an event to highlight the good will of the Israeli leadership and , simultaneously , the hate filled ungratefulness of Palestinians. This thread was initiated to examine/dicuss just how accurate this narrative, that is so often peddled , actually is.

Well, I think this interview in Haaretz with Dov Weisglass , described in the paper as " Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser " sheds some light on the subject and goes some way to showing the official thinking behind the disengagement , which was described in the interview as a ploy , as a result of certain other factors, to " freeze the peace process "

Well worth reading in full for a couple of reasons. Anyhow.............

Here's a more up to date interview.

OCT 24

[h=3]An interview with Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon[/h]
Israel's defense minister discusses Iran, Syria and the Islamic State.

 

[oneworld2]

How many years ago? Ten?

Just before the disengagement , that's why it's relevant. I would have thought that was obvious

 

[Jack Hays]

Just before the disengagement , that's why it's relevant. I would have thought that was obvious

Sure you did . . . .:roll:

 

[oneworld2]

Here's a more up to date interview.

OCT 24

[h=3]An interview with Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon[/h]
Israel's defense minister discusses Iran, Syria and the Islamic State.

That makes small passing , hindsight , references to the disengagement and is thus almost completely off topic to this thread

Is this an attempt to derail it ?

Why don't you just stick to the thread topic ?

 

[polgara]

Here's a more up to date interview.

OCT 24

[h=3]An interview with Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon[/h]
Israel's defense minister discusses Iran, Syria and the Islamic State.

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Excellent article! :thumbs: I believe that the entire article could be truthfully summed up as "the conflict is about the existence of the Jewish state and not about the creation of the Palestinian one," as stated by the Israel's defense minister. The UN gave Israel the land they live on over 60 years ago - it's way past time for Palestine and other Israel haters to stop the whining and complaining about that fact!

 

[oneworld2]

Thanks for sharing your piece of anti-Israeli propaganda with me but I think I'll pass..?

I thought you might rather than discuss the contents

Again, Israel has a right to self-defense and that right is undeniable.

Not under occupation law , that's the whole point. No wonder you decided to " pass "

You may approve of murdering civilians in Israel, Israel shouldn't, Israel doesn't.
Hope it clarifies.

The only thing it clarifies is your willingness to avoid information that challenges your beliefs

 

[Jack Hays]

That makes small passing , hindsight , references to the disengagement and is thus almost completely off topic to this thread

Is this an attempt to derail it ?

Why don't you just stick to the thread topic ?

Just trying to bring the discussion into the present. Failure to do that is the root of many Palestinian problems.

 

[Jack Hays]

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Excellent article! :thumbs: I believe that the entire article could be truthfully summed up as "the conflict is about the existence of the Jewish state and not about the creation of the Palestinian one," as stated by the Israel's defense minister. The UN gave Israel the land they live on over 60 years ago - it's way past time for Palestine and other Israel haters to stop the whining and complaining about that fact!

Accurate and incisive as usual. Thanks, Polgara.:2wave:

 

[oneworld2]

I believe that the entire article could be truthfully summed up as "the conflict is about the existence of the Jewish state and not about the creation of the Palestinian one,"

You don't see any racism in that do you

The UN gave Israel the land they live on over 60 years ago -

Wrong

it's way past time for Palestine and other Israel haters to stop the whining and complaining about that fact!

Nope, it's way past time the Palestinians had a state of their own and Israel was reigned in as the serial abuser of human rights and international law and conventions that it is.

 

[oneworld2]

Just trying to bring the discussion into the present. Failure to do that is the root of many Palestinian problems.

Sure you are :roll:

 

[Common_good]

I think the issue might be down to the UN allocating around 55% of the former Palestine Mandate to the Jewish People 60 years ago however now the territory of Israel covers around 78%?

 

[Jack Hays]

Sure you are :roll:

Personally, I doubt there will be a Palestinian state any time during the next 100 years. There could have been, but Palestinian political incompetence and battlefield cowardice kicked that opportunity away.

 

[oneworld2]

I think the issue might be down to the UN allocating around 55% of the former Palestine Mandate to the Jewish People 60 years ago however now the territory of Israel covers around 78%?

With the other 22% consisting of the Occupied Palestinian Territories