The Legalities of Israel's Blockade

[CJ 2.0]

You'd be distinctly in the minority arguing that Gaza is not an occupied territory. Almost everyone acknowledges it as such, including most pro-Israeli posters on this site, though their position does seem to shift a bit depending on the exigencies of the particular debate. It's disingenuous to suggest that it's just a matter of "closing borders" when in fact Israel controls all traffic in and out of Gaza by any route to any destination.


But in any case, Israel would still have responsibilities as a belligerent regardless of whether it was a formal occupier.

This is, of course, completely and utterly untrue. Israel does not control who crosses the Egypt-Gaza border. Israel controls access to ITS border (as any other country does in absolute right, and it maintains an air and sea blockade to ensure that no contraband weaponry and dual-use items are imported into Gaza.

And of course Israel has responsibilities as a belligerent. Everyone has responsibilities except for Israel's enemies, who are free to target Israeli civilians at every opportunity, particularly as everything Israel could possibly do to protect those civilians is illigitimate because Israel is the one who would be the one taking those actions.

We all know that.

 

[Winston Smith]

This is, of course, completely and utterly untrue. Israel does not control who crosses the Egypt-Gaza border. Israel controls access to ITS border (as any other country does in absolute right, and it maintains an air and sea blockade to ensure that no contraband weaponry and dual-use items are imported into Gaza.

And of course Israel has responsibilities as a belligerent. Everyone has responsibilities except for Israel's enemies, who are free to target Israeli civilians at every opportunity, particularly as everything Israel could possibly do to protect those civilians is illigitimate because Israel is the one who would be the one taking those actions.

We all know that.

I have to say, when you tear into a straw man, you don't **** around. I would hate to be him.

 

[CJ 2.0]

I have to say, when you tear into a straw man, you don't **** around. I would hate to be him.

What straw man? Tell me this, if you think that interdicting a ship entering into a declared blockade zone in order to search the cargo and then send along any humanitarian aid into Gaza is "illegal", exactly what actual steps would you support for Israel to protect its population from the continuous war crime that is Hamas?

All I'm doing is adding the random numbers strewn about the ant-Israel propaganda battlefield and giving you them sum total instead of the discrete bits and pieces.

Sorry that doesn't really fit neatly into the propaganda game trying to be played.

Oh, and I assume you concede that Israel does not "control[] all traffic in and out of Gaza by any route to any destination", as you claimed immediately above. Which means that it is not Israel's fault if Gaza cannot source additional supplies of anything.

Which of course also does not fit into the propaganda game, which is why it cannot be acknowledged by the anti-Israel crowd. Of course, acknowledging it would be a good first start to actually improving the lives of Gazans, but that's not really the issue, is it? That's not "justice", sticking it to Israel is.

Words like "justice", just like "truth" and "law" and "rights", are just little gumbi rag dolls, to be bent and wisted around to be used as offensive weapons against Israel and its efforts to defend itself and its people. For the anti-Israel agitator, these are tools, not principles. And the last thing any of them seem to care about is whether those they claim to agitate for actually benefit through their advocacy or any results derived therefrom.

 

[Winston Smith]

Egypt's role has been largely to cooperate with Israeli policy, so that doesn't change the fact that the territory is under Israel's control.

I understand that Israel is the only country that's ever held to any standards, and that's really stinky, and it makes the Israelis and all their friends feel sad inside. Moving past that, though, the issue here is whether Israel has complied with the admittedly draconian (and probably anti-Semitic) standards that San Remo, the Geneva Conventions, and other documents embody. I haven't seen anything to indicate that they have complied, even granting your dubious suggestion that Gaza isn't occupied territory.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Egypt's role has been largely to cooperate with Israeli policy, so that doesn't change the fact that the territory is under Israel's control.

Actually, it does. Israel "controls" it because it is effectively able to keep the pressure on Hamas and could invade and take it over whenever it wants. That is something entirely different than occupation. You can think of it, loosely, like Syrian hegemony in Lebanon, but with a far less expansionist intent.

But I do like the gymnastics - because Egypt chooses to also limit inflows and outflows into a territory run by a terrorist organization, everything is Israel's fault.

Right.

I understand that Israel is the only country that's ever held to any standards, and that's really stinky, and it makes the Israelis and all their friends feel sad inside. Moving past that, though, the issue here is whether Israel has complied with the admittedly draconian (and probably anti-Semitic) standards that San Remo, the Geneva Conventions, and other documents embody.

Of course. Which it does. As expalined earlier. But you know as well as I do that the issue is not whether the law is complied with. If that were true people would care about all different sorts of conflicts they couldn't give a rat's *** about. People raise this as an issue because it is something that can be distorted to score points against Israel.

And I sincerely appologize for ruining your narrative by talking about it.

I haven't seen anything to indicate that they have complied, even granting your dubious suggestion that Gaza isn't occupied territory.

Complied with what?

 

[Winston Smith]

The point is very much whether the law was complied with, and you haven't begun to explain how the blockade was legal. All you've really done is run through a laundry list of ad hominem arguments and concluded that everyone except Israel is responsible for Israel's policies.

 

[CJ 2.0]

The point is very much whether the law was complied with, and you haven't begun to explain how the blockade was legal. All you've really done is run through a laundry list of ad hominem arguments and concluded that everyone except Israel is responsible for Israel's policies.

ad hominem arguments? Really? Care to explain that one? I have made perfectly rational arguments, following which I have made general observations that could also be interpreted as ad hominem slights, but these were not tied to the substantive arguments provided first. they were just observations and attempts to caucus about how anti-Israelers can manifest the kinds of positions that they do so regularly and ignore the reality of what they are advocating so completely.

What you perhaps have misinterpreted as ad hominem, which is really just logic, is demonstrating the absurdity of the situation if what you are advocating is correct. that, and pointing out that manuals are not the same thing as unwritten international law and that coherent principles would clearly support what Israel is doing and has done in boarding the propaganda "relief" ships (whose "relief" goods were denied entry into Gaza by Hamas) as consistent with international law

 

[expandmymind]

Are you somehow under the impression that if you can just cut and paste enough words that you win the interwebs or something?

You got me. I heard my Blue Peter Badge and chocolate watch are in the post...

I posted it in full so people could read it in full on the site. No need for the twatty comment.

 

[expandmymind]

a bit confused. the abtract refers to "no less than 10 passengers of the flotilla are dead". My understanding is that this is wholly inaccurate.

Not a great start.

In other words, Fail.

Stating the man's opinion does not make it a 'fail' when he goes on to back up that opinion extensively.

of course, if you really want to get into it, the anonamous author of this analysis would lose a lot of marks for not mentioning Article 67 of the San Remo Manual, which is the one cited by proponents of legality of the action to board the ship. Without even raising it to dismiss it, this says a lot about the degree to which the author wished to bend the reality he recognizes to maximise the propaganda effect of his analysis.

Why, when that law is only applicable to parties of an armed conflict (guns, not knives), would he need to mention it? It was an unarmed civilian vessel that was attacked.

From the very first article: 1. The parties to an armed conflict at sea are bound by the principles and rules of international humanitarian law from the moment armed force is used.

 

[expandmymind]

The "analysis" is merely one person's opinion. Nothing more. In terms of practical application of international law, the International Court of Justice has issued no binding rulings against the marine blockade of the Gaza Strip. No such opinion is likely.

Note entirely correct.

The blockade has never been recognised by the UN, or most countries in the world for that matter, and has indeed also been condemned by the UN and almost every civilised government on the planet.

And the analysis based his stance on existing international law.

 

[Winston Smith]

ad hominem arguments? Really? Care to explain that one? I have made perfectly rational arguments, following which I have made general observations that could also be interpreted as ad hominem slights, but these were not tied to the substantive arguments provided first. they were just observations and attempts to caucus about how anti-Israelers can manifest the kinds of positions that they do so regularly and ignore the reality of what they are advocating so completely.

What you perhaps have misinterpreted as ad hominem, which is really just logic, is demonstrating the absurdity of the situation if what you are advocating is correct. that, and pointing out that manuals are not the same thing as unwritten international law and that coherent principles would clearly support what Israel is doing and has done in boarding the propaganda "relief" ships (whose "relief" goods were denied entry into Gaza by Hamas) as consistent with international law

Coherent principles are exactly what the manuals are trying to establish by bringing the law into step with Geneva and other developments of the last century or so. Not to say the more recent treaties don't apply to maritime affairs, but the unwritten law you speak of has lagged behind. What would really be absurd would be to set maritime law apart and say that the general rules of proportionality don't apply there.

 

[donsutherland1]

The blockade has never been recognised by the UN, or most countries in the world for that matter, and has indeed also been condemned by the UN and almost every civilised government on the planet.

And the analysis based his stance on existing international law.

It's his opinion. Nothing more. I fully recognize that there are many opinions on the issue, but I'm concerned strictly with facts.

In terms of concrete substance, the International Court of Justice has issued no binding judgments against Israel for the maritime blockade. There also is no UN Security Council resolution that condemns the blockade as a violation of international law. Those are things one would reasonably look for if international law prohibited the maritime blockade.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Coherent principles are exactly what the manuals are trying to establish by bringing the law into step with Geneva and other developments of the last century or so. Not to say the more recent treaties don't apply to maritime affairs, but the unwritten law you speak of has lagged behind. What would really be absurd would be to set maritime law apart and say that the general rules of proportionality don't apply there.

They do apply. You (and many others) just don't understand them.

Maintaining a blockade to deny the unfettered flow of munitions through ports to genocidal terrorist organizations funded and, to an extent, managed by a state at war with you (i.e., Iran) is entirely proportionate (and indeed is under proportionate) to the potential impact of these weapons, particularly as they are intended to be used to target civilians and be used as a second front when that enemy elects to launch a war.

Similarly, opening fire on "activists" stabbing soldiers is also entrieyl proprtionate.

The key issue in proportionality, which you (and many others) seem to have missed, is what the object (the metric, so to speak) of proportionality is. The issue is not proportionality in effect, but proportionality of RISK and REWARD.

thus, we have heard a zillion times, wrongly, that Israel's actions during the Oslo Terror War were "disproportionate" because they killed x people when interdicting suicide bombers, and the last suicide bombers only killed x-y civilians. But that is entirely not the point or the proper means of measuring proportionality. Targeted killings, as one example, was a measured, proportionate response to the grave risks posed to Israel's civilian population from this government-sanctioned war crime and crime against humanity that was the Palestinians' suicide bomb campaign against Israeli civilians.

It doesn't matter how "successful" any particular suicide bombing was, what mattered was the potential, and whether the response to that potential was measured enough to be proportional to that risk.

Given the ability to import extremely destructive long range missles and other heavy advanced munitions by sea, together with the risks of those weapons to Israeli civilians and soldiers, a blockade requiring the search of all shipsd and the delivery of any humanitarian cargo over land is, rather obviously, if you are honest enough to think about it, entirely proprotional.

 

[Winston Smith]

They do apply. You (and many others) just don't understand them.

Maintaining a blockade to deny the unfettered flow of munitions through ports to genocidal terrorist organizations funded and, to an extent, managed by a state at war with you (i.e., Iran) is entirely proportionate (and indeed is under proportionate) to the potential impact of these weapons, particularly as they are intended to be used to target civilians and be used as a second front when that enemy elects to launch a war.

Similarly, opening fire on "activists" stabbing soldiers is also entrieyl proprtionate.

The key issue in proportionality, which you (and many others) seem to have missed, is what the object (the metric, so to speak) of proportionality is. The issue is not proportionality in effect, but proportionality of RISK and REWARD.

thus, we have heard a zillion times, wrongly, that Israel's actions during the Oslo Terror War were "disproportionate" because they killed x people when interdicting suicide bombers, and the last suicide bombers only killed x-y civilians. But that is entirely not the point or the proper means of measuring proportionality. Targeted killings, as one example, was a measured, proportionate response to the grave risks posed to Israel's civilian population from this government-sanctioned war crime and crime against humanity that was the Palestinians' suicide bomb campaign against Israeli civilians.

It doesn't matter how "successful" any particular suicide bombing was, what mattered was the potential, and whether the response to that potential was measured enough to be proportional to that risk.

Given the ability to import extremely destructive long range missles and other heavy advanced munitions by sea, together with the risks of those weapons to Israeli civilians and soldiers, a blockade requiring the search of all shipsd and the delivery of any humanitarian cargo over land is, rather obviously, if you are honest enough to think about it, entirely proprotional.

That's another straw man. No one is talking about measuring proportionality in terms of raw numbers or denying Israel the right to stop the unfettered flow of weapons into Gaza. We're talking about a blockade designed to achieve a political end by inflicting suffering on civilians.

 

[expandmymind]

It's his opinion. Nothing more. I fully recognize that there are many opinions on the issue, but I'm concerned strictly with facts.

In terms of concrete substance, the International Court of Justice has issued no binding judgments against Israel for the maritime blockade. There also is no UN Security Council resolution that condemns the blockade as a violation of international law. Those are things one would reasonably look for if international law prohibited the maritime blockade.

Please, if you want to refute the man's claims, then why don't you go through his claims point by point. Dismissing out of hand the man's points, does not a retort make. Go through it and explain why he's wrong.. he declares it illegal for many reasons and I have yet to see anyone refute one of them.

Considering it took the court almost 40 years to declare all the settlements in the occupied territories illegal, as they did back in 2004 (while the entire planet bar Israel and the US already knew this to be the case), using the fact that they haven't made a decision regarding the blockade is quite a weak deflection. Actually it's a very weak deflection. The point you make about no resolution is valid but not very as the UN have condemned the blockade and failed to recognise its legal right to exist.

Here's the easiest way to simplify it, it is how Amnesty classifies the blockade as illegal.

The Gaza Strip, along with East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank, was occupied by Israel in 1967. Israel has imposed increasingly severe restrictions on Palestinian movement into and out of Gaza since the early 1990s, including on their movement to other parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This contradicts the principle, accepted by the international community, that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip comprise one territorial unit, and violates the occupying power’s duty to ensure the welfare of the occupied population, as stipulated under Articles 27 and 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

AIUK : Gaza: 'easing' not enough, Israel's blockade should be lifted

And this is only on top of the reasons given in the OPsts. Israel have an obligation as an occupying power (they are still by definition an occupying force, regardless of the withdrawal and regardless of their classification as part of the greater Palestinian state mentioned in the quote above, but we can debate this also if you wish) to ensure the safety of the population they occupy. This immoral blockade is in clear violation of this.

95 percent of their water is undrinkable and they are not allowed the materials needed to begin the 20 years estimated repair time for goodness sake.

23 August 2010: Water supplied in Gaza unfit for drinking; Israel prevents entry of materials needed to repair system

B'Tselem - The Gaza Strip - 23 August 2010: Water supplied in Gaza unfit for drinking; Israel prevents entry of materials needed to repair system

 

[CJ 2.0]

That's another straw man. No one is talking about measuring proportionality in terms of raw numbers or denying Israel the right to stop the unfettered flow of weapons into Gaza. We're talking about a blockade designed to achieve a political end by inflicting suffering on civilians.

Sorry, this particular blockade was of delivering non-humanitarian goods by sea, and in fact did allow for the unfettered flowe of humanitarian aid over land once that cargo was searched.

You may be conflating (which Israel does as well), the naval blockade with the limitation Israel places on exports from its territory into Gaza. Israel, as a sovereign nation, is of course entirely at liberty to decide what of its own goods and how much of those goods to sell or donate into Gaza. That is something entirely and totally separate from the naval blockade, even though they are happening simultaneously and Israel, like everyone else, often muddles this distinction.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Please, if you want to refute the man's claims, then why don't you go through his claims point by point. Dismissing out of hand the man's points, does not a retort make. Go through it and explain why he's wrong.. he declares it illegal for many reasons and I have yet to see anyone refute one of them.

Actually, I did. You just decided to quote from a tangential point in my post to latch onto without addressing any of the substance.

Perhaps it was inadvertent though, as you seem to genuinely beleive that "you have yet to see anyone refute one of them".

But here's a link to my original criticism in case you want to take another run through:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/81588-legalities-israels-blockade.html#post1058986055

 

[CJ 2.0]

Here's the easiest way to simplify it, it is how Amnesty classifies the blockade as illegal.

AIUK : Gaza: 'easing' not enough, Israel's blockade should be lifted

sorry, is Amnesty saying that if you occupy part of a "single territorial unit" you are deemed to be occupying all of it and you have an obligation to provide resources to all of the occupants of that single terrtitory regardless of whether you actually are in physical occupation of that portion of the "single territorial unit"?

Cause that's certainly what it sounds like.

And that's retarded.

 

[expandmymind]

Sorry, this particular blockade was of delivering non-humanitarian goods by sea, and in fact did allow for the unfettered flowe of humanitarian aid over land once that cargo was searched.
.

Do you mean the flotilla? Or the blockade? If you do indeed mean the blockade then I suggest you do a search for the list of items banned. Are cattle, goats, jam, eggs (the latter two are just examples of the type of products Israel had barred, but sweets and toys were also barred), classified as non humanitarian aid by you? And one of the most important items, mortar, is still to this day banned - even though the UN have told Israel they can supervise (as they have already done) building works, making sure all the material is accounted for. (The UN representative in this video YouTube - Norman Finkelstein vs. zionist at crosstalk on Israeli attack part 1 is where I learned of what I mention about mortar). They haven't even been able to build their country after it was leveled by Israel, or their decaying water system.

If mortar desperately need to rebuild a water system to combat the fact that 95% of the water pumped in to Gaza is toxic, is classed as non-humanitarian aid by you, then I'm afraid you are a lost cause.

 

[expandmymind]

sorry, is Amnesty saying that if you occupy part of a "single territorial unit" you are deemed to be occupying all of it and you have an obligation to provide resources to all of the occupants of that single terrtitory regardless of whether you actually are in physical occupation of that portion of the "single territorial unit"?

Cause that's certainly what it sounds like.

And that's retarded.

Well this was basically a non reply but I'll address it anyways.

If Norway invades Scotland and occupies the top half of the country, Scotland is still occupied. Not being able to interact with the other half of your country (the majority of Palestine for the Gazans), is massively detrimental to a country's ability to operate and survive.

But this is irrelevant, as Gaza is still classified as being occupied because they have no freedom of movement, Israel crosses the border whenever they please, no sovereignty over their airspace, no way to trade, no control over their own borders (they aren't even allowed half a mile within them without being shot or blown to pieces) etc., etc., etc... Israel is the only country in the world that I know of that stopped classifying Gaza as occupied when they 'left' in 2005. The UN still classifies Gaza as occupied, and for good reason.

I understand the logic though. We'll 'leave', then we'll have no responsibility (this is how they get away with it internally I'd imagine), and if they get rowdy we'll bomb the crap out of 'em. Now the Gazans are being strangled into submission for voting the wrong way (this is clearly a targeting of the civilian population), while the whole world is forced to sit by and watch the untouchable Israel.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Do you mean the flotilla? Or the blockade? If you do indeed mean the blockade then I suggest you do a search for the list of items banned. Are cattle, goats, jam, eggs (the latter two are just examples of the type of products Israel had barred, but sweets and toys were also barred), classified as non humanitarian aid by you?

and like I said, are these items banned from humanitarian import by bringing ships into Ashdod and then delivering them over land? Or are they banned from the list of goods Israel supplies itself or allows in through its territory in the ordinary course? Cause they are different.

In any event, the Palestinians can get those goods through their Egyptain border, shoudl Egypt choose to allow them to import those goods. You know, or through "aid" that is provided through proper channels designed to avoid weapons smuggling.

And one of the most important items, mortar, is still to this day banned - even though the UN have told Israel they can supervise (as they have already done) building works, making sure all the material is accounted for.

yes, cause when Hamas comes to the UN with guns and threatens to kill them if they don't hand over the materials used to make bunkers, I'm sure the UN will fight back.

(The UN representative in this video YouTube - Norman Finkelstein vs. zionist at crosstalk on Israeli attack part 1 is where I learned of what I mention about mortar). They haven't even been able to build their country after it was leveled by Israel, or their decaying water system.

Yes, always love a propaganda talk by Finkie.

If mortar desperately need to rebuild a water system to combat the fact that 95% of the water pumped in to Gaza is toxic, is classed as non-humanitarian aid by you, then I'm afraid you are a lost cause.

sorry, that toxicity stat is not true, first, and second, you have the rather unfortunate fact that water quality declined in Gaza because of the unfortunate tendancy of Hamas and other terrorist organizations to dig up pipes to build rocket casings.

They maybe should have thought about how that maybe wasn't such a good idea.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Well this was basically a non reply but I'll address it anyways.

If Norway invades Scotland and occupies the top half of the country, Scotland is still occupied. Not being able to interact with the other half of your country (the majority of Palestine for the Gazans), is massively detrimental to a country's ability to operate and survive.

it is also irrelevant to whether the part of Scotland with its own sovereign government and own army is occupied or not (hint: it is not).

But this is irrelevant, as Gaza is still classified as being occupied because they have no freedom of movement

So they are occupied by Egypt?

Israel crosses the border whenever they please

and so does Hamas, when it can get away with it. That's what a state of war is all about, no?

no sovereignty over their airspace

as a result of the terror war they launched, of course, but no need to mention that. It is enough to point out that is irrelevant. They initiated an armed conflict with Israel and have refused to stop and make peace. Denying the ability of flights in and out of a territory, just like denying ships entering or leaving a territory, does not mean that you have occupied that territory.

Or are you saying that the US occupied Cuba when they blockaded it?

[qute]
, no way to trade
[/quote]

again, are you saying that Egypt is occupying Gaza?

no control over their own borders (they aren't even allowed half a mile within them without being shot or blown to pieces)

Which, again, couldn't have anything to do with the propensity to send "activists" to murder people on the other side, combined with the relative weakness of the Palestinian war-making machne that they refuse to abandon?

Israel is the only country in the world that I know of that stopped classifying Gaza as occupied when they 'left' in 2005. The UN still classifies Gaza as occupied, and for good reason.

Meaningless orgument from authority, where the "authority" makes an entirely political decision based on membership.

That it?

I understand the logic though. We'll 'leave', then we'll have no responsibility (this is how they get away with it internally I'd imagine), and if they get rowdy we'll bomb the crap out of 'em. Now the Gazans are being strangled into submission for voting the wrong way (this is clearly a targeting of the civilian population), while the whole world is forced to sit by and watch the untouchable Israel.

yup. Voting. "The wrong way". That's why they are being punished. Couldn't have anything to do with the genuine threat Hamas poses to Israel and the civilians it consistently targets for murder.

 

[expandmymind]

and like I said, are these items banned from humanitarian import by bringing ships into Ashdod and then delivering them over land? Or are they banned from the list of goods Israel supplies itself or allows in through its territory in the ordinary course? Cause they are different.

Banned, as in not allowed in. The list has been loosened recently due to the Flotilla incident though.

An example of some of the items still banned
glucose, industrial salt, plastic/glass/metal containers, industrial margarine, tarpaulin, sheets for huts, fabric (for clothing), flavor and smell enhancers, fishing rods, various fishing nets, buoys, ropes for fishing...

Regardless of what is allowed in, nothing can leave. This is almost as important to the survival of Gaza as what is allowed in. Even if they were permitted to trade with the outside world, over 1000 of their factories were destroyed during the Gaza 'war' and they aren't allowed the material needed to repair them.

How long will this go on? It is barbarous.

In any event, the Palestinians can get those goods through their Egyptain border, shoudl Egypt choose to allow them to import those goods. You know, or through "aid" that is provided through proper channels designed to avoid weapons smuggling.

Not true. Israel dictates what comes and goes from Gaza, Egypt merely close the border - which has only been opened to a limited amount of people. And only because Israel were under so much international pressure.

This constant deflection to Egypt, while in some ways warranted, is still a deflection. Egypt would not have shut their borders of their own accord. There can't be a person on the planet who actually believes that their side of the border is being shut for any other reason than to go along with Israel's objectives. When we note that they are second only to Israel when it comes to US aid, it becomes fairly obvious that they probably don't even have much of a choice. This is the way the Middle East is set up - cruel dictators controlling their populations who hate them with the backing and arming along with the political support of the US which allows them to do so. In return, they are USA/Israel friendly. Basically the status-quo.

yes, cause when Hamas comes to the UN with guns and threatens to kill them if they don't hand over the materials used to make bunkers, I'm sure the UN will fight back.

What rubbish. I'm, sorry to be rude mate but this is complete crap. This has never happened (that I know of) and even if it did, it would put Hamas's case back 10 years. Why would they even bother building a bunker when it would just get mauled straight away by an air-strike? This is a silly excuse often employed and at the expense of almost the entire Gazan population (I'm referring to the water statistic which you dismissed out of hand).

And besides, wouldn't you prefer for them to build bunkers? After all, it would mean you could target them without killing civilians - finally, legitimate military targets. Yet another excuse used by Israel that doesn't even make sense.

Yes, always love a propaganda talk by Finkie.

First, to speak of Finkelstein like that shows you haven't read his work. Second, the video I provided had a UN worker (which is who I clearly was referring to) who is the one who stated that they can build without Hamas stealing everything' as you claim. And he should know... he's done it before.

sorry, that toxicity stat is not true, first, and second, you have the rather unfortunate fact that water quality declined in Gaza because of the unfortunate tendancy of Hamas and other terrorist organizations to dig up pipes to build rocket casings.
They maybe should have thought about how that maybe wasn't such a good idea.

This is simply not true. The statistic is recent and as far as UI'm aware accurate.

B'Tselem - The Gaza Strip - 23 August 2010: Water supplied in Gaza unfit for drinking; Israel prevents entry of materials needed to repair system

And your weak claim that Hamas are responsible for the state of the water is a terrible piece of propaganda you've bought into hook, line and sinker. The B'tselem piece explains why the water is in the state it's - I suggest you read it.

And how is the way the water declined even relevant? Are you suggesting that because (as you claim) Hamas is responsible, that it shouldn't be allowed to be fixed?

 

[expandmymind]

So they are occupied by Egypt?

Egypt. This deflection again. Egypt have only closed a border and it is clearly at Israel's behest. They don't fit the criteria for an occupying power as Israel does.

and so does Hamas, when it can get away with it. That's what a state of war is all about, no?

Here are some more reasons why they are still classed as an occupying power.

A. Israel Will Retain Effective Control over the Gaza Strip and Will Therefore Remain the Occupying Power

Under the “Disengagement” Plan, Gazans will still be subjected to the effective control of the Israeli military. Although Israel will supposedly remove its permanent military presence, Israeli forces will retain the ability and right to enter the Gaza Strip at will.[28]

Further, Israel will retain control over Gaza’s airspace, sea shore, and borders.[29] Under the Plan, Israel will unilaterally control whether or not Gaza opens a seaport or an airport. Additionally, Israel will control all border crossings, including Gaza’s border with Egypt.[30] And Israel will “continue its military activity along the Gaza Strip’s coastline.”[31] Taken together, these powers mean that all goods and people entering or leaving Gaza will be subject to Israeli control.

Finally, Israel will prevent Gazans from engaging in international relations.[32] Accordingly, if it enacts the “Disengagement” Plan as envisaged, Israel will effectively control Gaza—administratively and militarily.[33] Therefore, Israel will remain the Occupying Power of the Gaza Strip.


B. Israel Will Remain the Occupying Power of the Gaza Strip so long as Israel Retains
the Ability to Exercise Authority over the Strip

In The Hostages Case, the Nuremburg Tribunal expounded upon The Hague Regulations’ basic definition of occupation in order to ascertain when occupation ends.[34] It held that “[t]he test for application of the legal regime of occupation is not whether the occupying power fails to exercise effective control over the territory, but whether it has the ability to exercise such power.”[35] In that case, the Tribunal had to decide whether Germany’s occupation of Greece and Yugoslavia had ended when Germany had ceded de facto control to non-German forces of certain territories. Even though Germany did not actually control those areas, the Tribunal held that Germany indeed remained the “occupying power”—both in Greece and Yugoslavia generally and in the territories to which it had ceded control—since it could have reentered and controlled those territories at will.

Similarly, Israel will retain ultimate authority over Gaza and to a much greater degree than Germany in The Hostages Case: The Israeli military expressly reserves itself the right to enter the Gaza Strip at will. Further, Israel will not just retain the ability to exercise control over Gaza, but it will also retain effective control over Gaza’s borders, air and sea space, overall security, and international relations.
Moreover, even if Israel should devolve some of its duties to third parties—either as co-occupying powers or as designees—Israel will remain an occupying power so long as it retains the ability to effectively control the Gaza Strip at will, whether with Israel’s own troops or those of its agents or partners.

"The Israeli 'Disengagement' Plan: Gaza Still Occupied" - Report by PLO Negotiations Affairs Dept./Non-UN document (1 September 2005)

There is already precedent here, so it's a hard one for you to try to argue. Gaza is still occupied.

as a result of the terror war they launched, of course, but no need to mention that. It is enough to point out that is irrelevant. They initiated an armed conflict with Israel and have refused to stop and make peace. Denying the ability of flights in and out of a territory, just like denying ships entering or leaving a territory, does not mean that you have occupied that territory.

This terror is feeble. It is a form of resistance that is almost purely symbolic. It is such a weak point for someone to bring this up as a justifiable reason for the blockade when we simply look at the statistics of how many people have been killed and injured, then compare it with the amount of Palestinians killed or injured by Israel. Would tyou rather they lob mashed potatoes over?

They initiated an armed conflict? Israel were the one's who occupied their people. This is an initiation of the conflict. You have reversed cause and effect. Occupation, then resistance. If they were free and still firing rockets then I would would be on your side of the debate, but they are under brutal occupation.

And just for the record, before the Gaza war it was Israel who broke the ceasefire on November the fourth, crossing the border and killing six militants. So even then it was Israel who initiated the conflict!

again, are you saying that Egypt is occupying Gaza?

I have already answered this.

Which, again, couldn't have anything to do with the propensity to send "activists" to murder people on the other side, combined with the relative weakness of the Palestinian war-making machne that they refuse to abandon?

Yeah, Not guilty. The Israeli captain who emptied his rifle into a Palestinian schoolgirl | World news | The Guardian

I'm sure this little girl who was slaughtered fit that criteria. Shot about 700 metres from the border.

They refuse to abandon the feeble 'war making machine' becuase Israel have refused to abandon their occupation and stranglehold on Gaza. Hamas offered a long term truce after the Gaza war if Israel loosened its blockade, Israel refused.

Meaningless orgument from authority, where the "authority" makes an entirely political decision based on membership.

Ridiculously flimsy cop-out.

yup. Voting. "The wrong way". That's why they are being punished. Couldn't have anything to do with the genuine threat Hamas poses to Israel and the civilians it consistently targets for murder.

77 Civilians have been killed by Israeli security forces since operation cast lead. 28 Israelis have been killed in total from rocket fire. Who's citizens have more right to be afraid? Which force is more of a threat to innocent civilians? This perpetuated and weak excuse that is constantly spewed out in defence of Israel's brutal treatment doesn't even nearly hold up to scrutiny.



And please, could we get this back on topic. If you want to claim that this man's analysis (the OP) is wrong then quote examples from his text explaining, one by one, because he gives numerous reason, why his points are invalid. Otherwise, the viewpoint remains unchallenged.

Your sweeping statements don't cut it.