[W:3] Gaza Occupation or Not

[Apocalypse]

Without supporting evidence it is just opinion. The word evidently is irrelevant to the validity of your statement. Provide evidence to back up your claims as I have done.

You've provided zero logical basis to each and every single assertion you have made.
From your claim that an occupying power is an occupying power if it can "observe" the people in the territory, to your claim that the existence of a no-go zone enforced by a military in the territory next to the border is an occupation.
None were based. This is what I said earlier, it was true then. It is true now.

In order for an area to be a buffer zone it must be located on neutral ground and must be administered by a force which is not one of the combatants in a dispute. As the security zones are located in Gaza (not neutral territory) and as they are administered, enforced and maintained by the Israeli state and not a third-party the security zones are not buffer zones but rather zones of occupation. See the definitions below as supporting evidence.

What are you even talking about?
A neutral area means an area that neither side goes into. There's no neutral territory between that which is defined as Gaza and that which is defined as Israel, and how could there be?
And it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion here regarding whether or not the existence of a military buffer zone, enforced by Israel, means that Israel is occupying Gaza.
Notice how unsurprisingly you continue to provide zero logical basis for that claim.

As you failed to debunk my claim in previous posts with any evidence, the repetition was justified. In previous posts I demonstrated with cited definitions and historical examples that physical presence is not a necessary prerequisite for military occupation. You disagreed with my position but provided no evidence to support your argument when you explained why I was wrong. Thus your debunking was based on opinion and therefore failed to date.

Since your words were debunked you cannot simply repeat them.
They were debunked by showing that there's no logical basis to them, so if you expected to keep holding them (and you couldn't - they really had no logical basis), you need to provide in your reply a new input which would be the logical basis for your claims. You keep failing to provide any logical basis to any of your claims, your already debunked claims. It's pointless.

Again for this example; assuming we accept your claim that physical presence is not a requirement - it doesn't mean Israel is occupying Gaza as it has no effective control of the territory the way Hamas, the occupying party controlling and possessing the territory, have.
See? I called out the lack of logical basis in your claims. Now, to answer that call out by repeating the same thing, without providing any new input, is just making your current input ridiculous and easy to dismiss and debunk.

So far you've made more than several accusations. 100% of them were called out and the lack of logical basis was shown. If you wish to merely continue to repeat debunked assertions, be my guest, it goes to show my point about the open and aware embracing of ignorance.

 

[Evilroddy]

When you list "observing people from a territory" as a reason for why a territory is occupied, not providing any logical or factual reason for why it is so, completely relying on your own words - In the sense of "it is so because I said it is so, because I want it to be so, because I need it to be so for the purpose of propagnada" - your words are not holding any water.
In my reply I've answered such baseless assertions and debunked each one of them using logic, facts and common sense. (None are subjective to any individual as you falsely implied)

Observation leads to targeting with weapons, which leads to attack, which leads to denial of access to territory and changing the targetted population's behaviour, as was explained in a previous post. Factual evidence has been provided and logical argumentation has been used. I have provided and continue to provide you with supporting evidence for my arguments. You, on the other hand, not so much. So it amuses me that you claim I demand that, "it is so because I said it is so, because I want it to be so, because I need it to be so for the purpose of propagnada", when this is exactly what you yourself are doing, while I am providing you with evidence in the form of definitions and historical examples.

Thus your claim was debunked. In your reply to the debunking of your assertions you've provided no logical reasoning to claims like the one mentioned above and simply repeated them showing you have an intention to embrace ignorance for the sake of promoting barbaric and backwards agendas. On a side note this is not "appealing to emotion", it's an appeal to morality. This is what this place is for mostly - discussing morality.

Alas you have debunked nothing really. That requires citing evidence or authorities which you have not offered. What you have done is disagreed with me but you haven't made a counter-case at all. And the inflammatory rhetoric will not work on me and will only weaken your own case to objective third parties reading this thread.

Pehraps next time you should avoid making illogical claims such as the claim that Gaza is occupied, as it only serves to ridicule that agenda and present the embracing of ignorance it requries from its followers.

As has been demonstrated in previous posts Gaza is militarily occupied and until you construct a sound counter argument based on evidence my position will stand. Once again physical presence is not required and control of territory and hostile populations are the hallmarks of military occupation. Thus Gaza is militarily occupied both at its margins and in depth.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

To conclude this "discussion", the definition of a military occupation based on Merriam-Webster;



https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/military occupation

Israel doesn't control and possess the Gaza Strip, so the Gaza Strip is not under an Israeli occupation.
Same goes for Egypt.

The conclusion is that yes, Gaza Strip is under a military occupation - by the terrorist Islamist group known as Hamas, and its allies, who control and possess the Gaza Strip.

Apocalypse:

The definition of possession by the Merrian-Webster dictionary is:

Definition of possession
1a : the act of having or taking into control
b : control or occupancy of property without regard to ownership
c : OWNERSHIP
2 : something owned, occupied, or controlled : PROPERTY

Israel controls Gaza by observation, targeting, fire and by denying access and free movement to the Gazans, thus controlling their behaviour. Possession is a function of control of something. Possession is the result of being able to choose to deny anyone access to what you possess. Israel controls access to Gaza and controls movement and behaviour in Gaza. So once again control of Gaza causes possession (but not ownership) of Gaza.

To summarise from the POV of Israel Gaza and all of Palestine are Hostile territory. Israel has excluded Gazans from security zones in Gaza which have manned OPs, Israeli installed, defended and maintained barriers and military patrols on them. It has been demonstrated that Israel controls Gaza by targeting and by fire. Control is also de facto possession by the definition of possession offered here. Israel uses military law (martial law) and military courts to control Palestinians' behaviourism addition to targetted fire. Israel controls key infrastructure and denies other key infrastructure in Gaza. Israel controls tax revenues going to both the WB and Gaza. These are aspects of governance. So Israel fills all the criteria for being an occupying power. Thus Gaza is occupied territory.

The fact that Hamas, although very arguably illegitimate is a Palestinian political entity makes occupation moot. Gazans are always the default occupiers of their own lands unless stopped by a foreign power, like Israel or the British Empire or the Ottoman Empire.. This does not change the fact that Israel meets all the criteria to be labled a military occupier of both Gaza and the whole of post 1948 Palestine.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

PS: I hope that was logical enough for you as being this pedantic annoys even me, a compulsive pedant.

 

[oneworld2]

If anybody has done any word swapping here, it's the one who swapped the originally self-cited "occupation" for "control". In the process nevertheless attempting to equate the two terms as meaning the same one and single thing, "occupation".

That's the sort of dishonesty in posting that I don't make much time for, if at all.

It's really really easy to understand but you somehow manage to make it look hard .

The level of control is key as to whether or not an occupation is in force or not.

It was set as such in the OP.

It was also contained in the definition from the dictionary source Evilroddy used.

It has been part of Evilroddy's argument too.

Your inability to understand how the two words correlate is the problem and not an indication of any " dishonesty " on the part of anyone else. If you want to "make time ' for anything , try making it to improve your own ability to comprehend how words relate to concepts instead of spouting off with spurious charges of dishonesty

 

[Chagos]

Well, I suppose one can argue definitions here until the cows come home.

Providing, that is, one has nothing better to do than argue for argument's sake.

Fortunately a category I don't fall into.

So having posted my take on the matter and having explained the reasoning behind it, neither agreement nor disagreement being all that important to me, that'll just have to suffice.

 

[oneworld2]

You've provided zero logical basis to each and every single assertion you have made.
From your claim that an occupying power is an occupying power if it can "observe" the people in the territory, to your claim that the existence of a no-go zone enforced by a military in the territory next to the border is an occupation.
None were based. This is what I said earlier, it was true then. It is true now.



What are you even talking about?
A neutral area means an area that neither side goes into. There's no neutral territory between that which is defined as Gaza and that which is defined as Israel, and how could there be?
And it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion here regarding whether or not the existence of a military buffer zone, enforced by Israel, means that Israel is occupying Gaza.
Notice how unsurprisingly you continue to provide zero logical basis for that claim.



Since your words were debunked you cannot simply repeat them.
They were debunked by showing that there's no logical basis to them, so if you expected to keep holding them (and you couldn't - they really had no logical basis), you need to provide in your reply a new input which would be the logical basis for your claims. You keep failing to provide any logical basis to any of your claims, your already debunked claims. It's pointless.

Again for this example; assuming we accept your claim that physical presence is not a requirement - it doesn't mean Israel is occupying Gaza as it has no effective control of the territory the way Hamas, the occupying party controlling and possessing the territory, have.
See? I called out the lack of logical basis in your claims. Now, to answer that call out by repeating the same thing, without providing any new input, is just making your current input ridiculous and easy to dismiss and debunk.

So far you've made more than several accusations. 100% of them were called out and the lack of logical basis was shown. If you wish to merely continue to repeat debunked assertions, be my guest, it goes to show my point about the open and aware embracing of ignorance.

You are completely wrong here.

Evilroddy has taken time and patience in thoroughly supporting his position whereas you have only given your own , unsupported , opinion.

He gave the definition

He gave quite a few historical examples for people to relate to

He outlined , in great detail ( much better than anyone has here so far ) , how all of the factors regarding the facts on the ground culminate to create a devastating amount of military control that constitute effective military control and thus occupation

Just saying I " debunked " this and " debunked " that might serve to fool some people who haven't bothered to read through the exchange properly but for those that have the opposite is true

 

[Chagos]

advice to all:

If you want to protect your window sill cactus against Anthrax, for the love of God never approach it with mustard cream.

:mrgreen:

 

[Evilroddy]

advice to all:

If you want to protect your window sill cactus against Anthrax, for the love of God never approach it with mustard cream.

:mrgreen:

Chagos:

Lines two and three of your post are an hypothesis. Do you have empirical evidence to support this hypothesis? If so, please let us know so that we can peer-review your supporting reports and experimental work. Then we will try to redo your experiment in order to reproduce your results. If we can, then your hypothesis may become a working theory. Until then it is just an hypothesis.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Chagos]

Chagos:

Lines two and three of your post are an hypothesis. Do you have empirical evidence to support this hypothesis? If so, please let us know so that we can peer-review your supporting reports and experimental work. Then we will try to redo your experiment in order to reproduce your results. If we can, then your hypothesis may become a working theory. Until then it is just an hypothesis.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

I can only supply anecdotal evidence, as I'm aware an oxymoron of itself.

Nevertheless, my particular window sill cactus took treatment with mustard cream most unkindly. IOW it died.

Having lacked anthrax in any form at the time of the experiment, I could not establish whether it would have affected the cactus at all.

However, if you supply credible proof that you possess all the physical and physiological attributes of a cactus (not sure whether "psychological" need be a must) I'd be willing to put you thru the work.

Let me know when would be most convenient.


:mrgreen:

 

[Evilroddy]

I can only supply anecdotal evidence, as I'm aware an oxymoron of itself.

Nevertheless, my particular window sill cactus took treatment with mustard cream most unkindly. IOW it died.

Having lacked anthrax in any form at the time of the experiment, I could not establish whether it would have affected the cactus at all.

However, if you supply credible proof that you possess all the physical and physiological attributes of a cactus (not sure whether "psychological" need be a must) I'd be willing to put you thru the work.

Let me know when would be most convenient.


:mrgreen:

Chagos:

Yikes. I never knew you were a green-thumbed Dr. Mengelez?

I'm not sure how good an experimental surrogate a human being is for a cactus but if it is any help I have a cactus and its blooming right now. Furthermore, and don't be alarmed, anthrax is surprising easy to find in nature if you know where to look (but it is very hard to weaponise safely) and so will not be too much of a problem on this end. However more details on the particulars of the mustard cream, the means and duration of exposure, window and window sill alignment, window size and type, and the exact type and size of cacti used is needed. I will have control groups and will run multiple trials, so it will take time to grow many cacti from cuttings. Can I substitute African violets because I have lots of those here?

If you could copy and send along your lab notes, they would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers.
Veryevilroddy.

 

[Apocalypse]

Apocalypse:

The definition of possession by the Merrian-Webster dictionary is:



Israel controls Gaza by observation, targeting, fire and by denying access and free movement to the Gazans, thus controlling their behaviour. Possession is a function of control of something. Possession is the result of being able to choose to deny anyone access to what you possess. Israel controls access to Gaza and controls movement and behaviour in Gaza. So once again control of Gaza causes possession (but not ownership) of Gaza.

To summarise from the POV of Israel Gaza and all of Palestine are Hostile territory. Israel has excluded Gazans from security zones in Gaza which have manned OPs, Israeli installed, defended and maintained barriers and military patrols on them. It has been demonstrated that Israel controls Gaza by targeting and by fire. Control is also de facto possession by the definition of possession offered here. Israel uses military law (martial law) and military courts to control Palestinians' behaviourism addition to targetted fire. Israel controls key infrastructure and denies other key infrastructure in Gaza. Israel controls tax revenues going to both the WB and Gaza. These are aspects of governance. So Israel fills all the criteria for being an occupying power. Thus Gaza is occupied territory.

The fact that Hamas, although very arguably illegitimate is a Palestinian political entity makes occupation moot. Gazans are always the default occupiers of their own lands unless stopped by a foreign power, like Israel or the British Empire or the Ottoman Empire.. This does not change the fact that Israel meets all the criteria to be labled a military occupier of both Gaza and the whole of post 1948 Palestine.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

PS: I hope that was logical enough for you as being this pedantic annoys even me, a compulsive pedant.

That's the point - that Israel doesn't control Gaza the way Hamas does. Israel doesn't control who goes where inside Gaza, Israel doesn't administer the territory, Israel cannot for example create a checkpoint in Gaza City to prevent terrorists launching rockets from escaping, etc.

Your entire notion here, what I call an attempt to claim the world is flat and Israel the one to flatten it, is based on the empty denial of such obvious fact.

When I say you failed to grant any logical basis to your claims, I'm referring to how you're claiming Israel observing Gazan citizens makes it an occupying power in Gaza, how you're claiming Israel being able to attack and target Gazan terrorists makes it an occupying power in Gaza, how you're claiming Israel enforcing a no-go military buffer zone on the area near Gaza's boirder with Israel makes it an occupying power in Gaza, etc. You cannot provide logical basis because it's nonexistent for such claims and indeed you haven't provided logical basis to any of these claims and done nothing aside of repeating them claiming this is a form of control when it's not.

Hence, as already stated, in the first reply of mine I completely debunked your assertions and since then you are repeating a debunked notion.

 

[Apocalypse]

Observation leads to targeting with weapons, which leads to attack, which leads to denial of access to territory and changing the targetted population's behaviour, as was explained in a previous post. Factual evidence has been provided and logical argumentation has been used. I have provided and continue to provide you with supporting evidence for my arguments. You, on the other hand, not so much. So it amuses me that you claim I demand that, "it is so because I said it is so, because I want it to be so, because I need it to be so for the purpose of propagnada", when this is exactly what you yourself are doing, while I am providing you with evidence in the form of definitions and historical examples.

You can observe, target with weapons, deny access to territory, etc.
All that combined is not a form of an occupation. As the definition I provided shown and debunked your assertions - a military occupation grants control over the territory to the one establishing it. Since the control of the Gazan territory belongs with the Islamist terror group of Hamas, as granted by elections and later by the use of force against the occupied Gazans to establish their terror rule and prevent any opposition, it cannot be claimed that Israel/Egypt are in control of Gazan territory, that it is under an Israeli/Egyptian military occupation.

 

[ataraxia]

Only argument falling flat on its face here is the attempt to equate actual occupation with control from outside and around.

Sloppy and vapid misrepresentation of terms.

Well but just to play devil’s advocate: how would you feel if Russians put up a naval blockade of both the east and west coasts of the nation, assasinate any of our leaders they don’t like, have drones monitoring our skies, and control our land borders? And then tell us they are not really occupying us?

I don’t feel too strongly for either side in this, but there are legitimate gripes on both sides. It’s a royal mess that won’t be easy to fix any time soon.

 

[Apocalypse]

Well but just to play devil’s advocate: how would you feel if Russians put up a naval blockade of both the east and west coasts of the nation, assasinate any of our leaders they don’t like, have drones monitoring our skies, and control our land borders? And then tell us they are not really occupying us?

I don’t feel too strongly for either side in this, but there are legitimate gripes on both sides. It’s a royal mess that won’t be easy to fix any time soon.

If Russian innocents were constantly being terrorized by the leadership of that territory, a naval blockade and the killing of the terrorist leaders seems to be more than legitimate.
A government after all has the responsibility to provide security for its citizens. Not doing so - thus simply allowing their citizens to be murdered - would mean the Russian government has no right to exist.

 

[ataraxia]

If Russian innocents were constantly being terrorized by the leadership of that territory, a naval blockade and the killing of the terrorist leaders seems to be more than legitimate.
A government after all has the responsibility to provide security for its citizens. Not doing so - thus simply allowing their citizens to be murdered - would mean the Russian government has no right to exist.

I was actually talking about the Russians blockading THIS country, the US, because they are saying we are terrorists. They could make a case for that, you know.

 

[Apocalypse]

I was actually talking about the Russians blockading THIS country, the US, because they are saying we are terrorists. They could make a case for that, you know.

If the US government was launching hundreds of rockets at Russian cities trying to kill as many Russian civilians as they can, they could make a case for that.
In present reality, however, they cannot. They can claim the US terrorizes them all they want, but the US does no such thing and is not even in an open warfare with Russian forces.

 

[CJ 2.0]

I was actually talking about the Russians blockading THIS country, the US, because they are saying we are terrorists. They could make a case for that, you know.

Your assessment lens necessarily depends on conflating mere assertions of terrorism with actual terrorism.

It is indisputable that the Palestinians have engaged in systematic, purposeful, strategically intended terrorism against Israel for a very long time.

Pretending that this is the same as the Russians asserting that the US are terrorists is simply abandoning your obligation to participate in objective reality to stew in a fetid bath of relativism.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chagos]

Well but just to play devil’s advocate: how would you feel if ..................................~

annoyed, deprived etc.

But NOT occupied.

That would require Russian soldiers in the streets, Russian military law to rule everyday life.

 

[Evilroddy]

That's the point - that Israel doesn't control Gaza the way Hamas does. Israel doesn't control who goes where inside Gaza, Israel doesn't administer the territory, Israel cannot for example create a checkpoint in Gaza City to prevent terrorists launching rockets from escaping, etc.

Your entire notion here, what I call an attempt to claim the world is flat and Israel the one to flatten it, is based on the empty denial of such obvious fact.

When I say you failed to grant any logical basis to your claims, I'm referring to how you're claiming Israel observing Gazan citizens makes it an occupying power in Gaza, how you're claiming Israel being able to attack and target Gazan terrorists makes it an occupying power in Gaza, how you're claiming Israel enforcing a no-go military buffer zone on the area near Gaza's boirder with Israel makes it an occupying power in Gaza, etc. You cannot provide logical basis because it's nonexistent for such claims and indeed you haven't provided logical basis to any of these claims and done nothing aside of repeating them claiming this is a form of control when it's not.

Hence, as already stated, in the first reply of mine I completely debunked your assertions and since then you are repeating a debunked notion.

Apocalypse:

Hamas is not a foreign occupying power in Gaza. It was elected to power in free elections. Admittedly there have been no elections since then but Hamas did not invade Gaza and occupy it. Israel on the other hand did invade and occupy Gaza. It still does, having changed its method of occupation from physical presence to encirclement and control by stand-off, targeted fire. Israel uses martial law to control Gaza and the WB. It is Israeli martial law administered by Israeli military tribunals. Israel can create check points anywhere in Gaza at its government's option. It chooses not to do so however. Many of the checkpoints which Israel does maintain on the margins of Gaza are built on Gazan territory as are the security zones and their barriers.

Your second paragraph is irrelevant editorialising and will be ignored as not germane to the issue at hand.

Logic is a process used in formulating thoughts and arguments. Arguments use logic but are not based on logic. Arguments are based on evidence, authority and verifiable citations. Logic organises such arguments. The evidence and citations have been provided by me in abundance, but not by you. The claims made by me were backed up by cited definitions and historical examples. Your objections to my claims were backed up by nothing other than your own opinions and biases. My claims have been proved, your claims and rebuttals are unsupported by evidence and thus unproved.

As has been clearly explained before in previous posts, the security zones are not buffer zones as recognised by international law because they are not located in neutral territory and they are not administered by a neutral third party force but are rather located on Gazan territory and are enforced by one of the combatants, Israel. This has been demonstrated by citations which you have never refuted with evidence.

Hence, you have done almost nothing to rebut my claims and to disprove my case as you still refuse to cite evidence or authority in order to prove your refutation. That you disagree with me is very clear. That you have disproved my claims is false for you have offered no evidence or authority to support your counter-claims, and have offered only unsubstantiated opinion in your responses to date. You have debunked nothing because you have proved nothing.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

You can observe, target with weapons, deny access to territory, etc.
All that combined is not a form of an occupation. As the definition I provided shown and debunked your assertions - a military occupation grants control over the territory to the one establishing it. Since the control of the Gazan territory belongs with the Islamist terror group of Hamas, as granted by elections and later by the use of force against the occupied Gazans to establish their terror rule and prevent any opposition, it cannot be claimed that Israel/Egypt are in control of Gazan territory, that it is under an Israeli/Egyptian military occupation.

Apocalypse:

How did the German army of WWII manage to occupy the huge tracts of land they took from the Soviet Union between 1941 and 1945? They did not have enough troops to physically occupy the whole territory which they had conquered. Therefore they built fortified strong points along key routes of communication and supply but controlled most of the country by targetted fire, land and air patrolling or didn't control it at all.

By the beginning of the 21st Century technology had improved and the US/Coalition occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq had much smaller physical presence foot prints and relied much more heavily on observation, weapons targeting and stand-off firing from aircraft, artillery, AFVs and sniper weapons to achieve control and domination of the territory being occupied. The small size of Gaza has allowed the IDF to maintain its control and dominance of Gaza without much physical presence except in the security zones along the margins of the Gaza Strip. By observation, targeting, and fire the IDF can control and dominate most of the land of Gaza. By controlling the sea beside Gaza and the air above Gaza Israel's control and dominance is nearly complete. Thus Israel controls Gaza by controlling access to parts of Gaza and by controlling Gazans' access and freedom of movement within the territory. Since, as has been previously demonstrated, Israel controls Gaza, it also possesses Gaza. The combination of military control and forceful possession of territory are the requirements for military occupation. Therefore Gaza is still occupied today despite the Bally-Hoo about the Israeli settler and almost complete IDF pull-out from Gaza 12 years ago. The pull-out was simply a change in the methodology in occupation, not a cessation of occupation as Israeli hasbara (propaganda) would have uncritical audiences believe.

The other clever bit of hasbara was convincing much of the world that Gaza was a different territory from the rest of the Palestinian occupied territories when it was still in fact part of the Occupied Territories created by the Israeli initiated Six-Day War in 1967 and the military ccupation of more Palestinian land than had been seized previously in 1947-1948 by Jewish irregulars. Since Gaza is part of Occuppied Palestine and is still defined by the international community as part of the Occupied Territories, it itself is still occupied even though the methods of occupation was changed by Israel in 2006.

The argument that Hamas and not Israel is the military occupier of the Gaza Strip is not based in evidence or historical fact. Hamas came to power in Gaza through a free election and not through military invasion and force of arms. Hamas, like any authoritarian government, does use force to maintain its position of power in Gaza over its people but so do many other states or authorities use force against their own people to maintain their power. Those states/authorities do not militarily occupy their own territory and populations despite their reliance on force and nor does Hamas. Do you claim that Hezbollah militarily occupies Lebanon or that the Duarte regime militarily occupies the Philippines despite both regimes being elected to power? Such a claim is spurious at best and dishonest at worst.

Gaza is militarily occupied by Israel alone. Egypt has played no primary role in the military occupation of the Gaza Strip since it was expelled by Israeli invasion more than half a century ago. It has and does cooperate with Israel in containing and blockading Gaza at times, but it has no primary role in Gaza's military occupation anymore. Israel is the military occupying power in Gaza and no one else.

Cheers.
Evilroddy

 

[Apocalypse]

Hamas is not a foreign occupying power in Gaza. It was elected to power in free elections. Admittedly there have been no elections since then but Hamas did not invade Gaza and occupy it. Israel on the other hand did invade and occupy Gaza. It still does, having changed its method of occupation from physical presence to encirclement and control by stand-off, targeted fire. Israel uses martial law to control Gaza and the WB. It is Israeli martial law administered by Israeli military tribunals.

The Islamist terror group of Hamas came to power through elections but since then held its rule of terror over the occupied population using force. Their control of the Gaza Strip is based purely on their military power. Thus they are controlling and possessing a hostile territory through military power, thus a military occupation. Pretty simple concepts all of that.

Of course neither Israel nor Egypt control Gaza, the way Hamas does, and thus there is no Israeli or Egyptian occupations of the Gaza Strip - as shown already several times now.

Israel can create check points anywhere in Gaza at its government's option.

But that's utter nonsense, what on Earth are you talking about here?
Israel can do no such thing freely. Israel is not in control of Gazan territory (hence no occupation) so in order to create a checkpoint within Gazan territory it needs to go to a full out war with Hamas for that, to bring it down after several months possibly, completely eradicating its ability to control the territory, and only then can it create a checkpoint within Gazan territory. Of course it cannot create a checkpoint in a territory controlled by an armed to the teeth hostile terror militia. If Israel was occupying Gaza that would be possible, but since Israel doesn't occupy Gaza it's absurd to assume it can just "do so freely" as you falsely claimed.

That you're making such illogical claims, like the above and previous ones I've debunked and shown the absurdity of, clearly demonstrate your inability to cope with reality and admit to the facts as they are.
That you're using such completely senseless claims like the above one claiming that Israel can construct a checkpoint within Gaza whenever it wishes to - to base your absurd claim regarding an imaginary Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip - goes to show how much of a detached from reality claim it truly is. How much you're in direct opposition to reality here, just as I'm saying and just as I've shown.

 

[Evilroddy]

The Islamist terror group of Hamas came to power through elections but since then held its rule of terror over the occupied population using force. Their control of the Gaza Strip is based purely on their military power. Thus they are controlling and possessing a hostile territory through military power, thus a military occupation. Pretty simple concepts all of that.

Of course neither Israel nor Egypt control Gaza, the way Hamas does, and thus there is no Israeli or Egyptian occupations of the Gaza Strip - as shown already several times now.



But that's utter nonsense, what on Earth are you talking about here?
Israel can do no such thing freely. Israel is not in control of Gazan territory (hence no occupation) so in order to create a checkpoint within Gazan territory it needs to go to a full out war with Hamas for that, to bring it down after several months possibly, completely eradicating its ability to control the territory, and only then can it create a checkpoint within Gazan territory. Of course it cannot create a checkpoint in a territory controlled by an armed to the teeth hostile terror militia. If Israel was occupying Gaza that would be possible, but since Israel doesn't occupy Gaza it's absurd to assume it can just "do so freely" as you falsely claimed.

That you're making such illogical claims, like the above and previous ones I've debunked and shown the absurdity of, clearly demonstrate your inability to cope with reality and admit to the facts as they are.
That you're using such completely senseless claims like the above one claiming that Israel can construct a checkpoint within Gaza whenever it wishes to - to base your absurd claim regarding an imaginary Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip - goes to show how much of a detached from reality claim it truly is. How much you're in direct opposition to reality here, just as I'm saying and just as I've shown.

Apocalypse:

The United Nations also calls Gaza occupied territory, most recently in a report commissioned by the U.N. Human Rights Council that concluded that both Israel and armed Palestinian factions in Gaza may have committed war crimes. The United Nations says it does not matter that Israeli soldiers are not based inside the strip; they have “effective control.”

From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...a-strip/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6726e7bda46b

The Gaza Strip is part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), and has been under Israeli military control since 1967. For decades, Israel maintained a permanent armed presence in Gaza, expropriated land, and built colonies for a Jewish settler population that rose to more than 8,000. In 2005, Israel removed these settlers, and redeployed its armed forces to Gaza’s perimeter fence.

Contrary to what some have maintained, however, this so-called ‘disengagement’ process did not end Israel’s status as occupier. Under international law, a central element of the test for occupation is whether or not the state exercises “effective control” over the territory in question.

From: https://medium.com/@benabyad/is-the-gaza-strip-really-under-israeli-occupation-f1e9ea7a5781

A better case is made by reading the whole article cited above.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

Israel’s blockade and control of Gaza stretches from its eastern and northern land crossings to the Mediterranean Sea in the west, with Egypt controlling the south. What it calls a “border” is actually a militarized network of naval ships, barbed wire, electronic barriers, lethal no-man zones, and surveillance systems that operate as the fence of an open-air prison. In legal terms, Israel retains “effective control” of the Strip (including people’s movement, its airspace, flow of goods, and other needs of daily life), and therefore remains its occupying power.

From: https://972mag.com/the-myth-of-the-gaza-border/135392/

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Apocalypse]

Apocalypse:



From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...a-strip/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6726e7bda46b



From: https://medium.com/@benabyad/is-the-gaza-strip-really-under-israeli-occupation-f1e9ea7a5781

A better case is made by reading the whole article cited above.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

You've now went on to appeal to the authority of bodies such as the UN which has none(and to the mere opinion of two individuals).

I'll take it that you admit to your promotion of completely made up nonsense for the sake of propaganda. Good.

 

[Evilroddy]

You've now went on to appeal to the authority of bodies such as the UN which has none(and to the mere opinion of two individuals).

I'll take it that you admit to your promotion of completely made up nonsense for the sake of propaganda. Good.

Apocalypse:

Throughout this thread you have accused me of making up the argument that Israeli control of Gaza constituted continued military occupation despite the "disengagement" of the IDF in 2005. The cited articles were added to prove that your accusation of made-up arguments was not true. My arguments are neither made-up nor unique to myself. They are based on evidence, authority and the proper definitions of key terms used when discussing the issue at hand here.

To all:

Although I suspected it before I began posting on this thread, it is crystal-clear to me now that some posters in this thread have abandoned reason and abjure any and all evidence which challenges their convictions, no matter how much is presented or how reliable it is. They do this because they have to, in order to protect and preserve their calcified and brittle opinions/convictions on matters relating to Israel and Palestine. Such posters are so invested in their own personal narrative or 'take' on the issue that they cannot debate it in good faith nor in any balanced way, as they are effectively fanatics. They are so wedded to their own interpretation of the issues that they can't even tolerate and allow other positions to be expressed and read by third parties. They reject any view or argument contrary to their own fossilised convictions out of hand and attempt to silence anyone who dares to voice or write such contrary arguments by any and all means. They do this without regard to the arguments made or the evidence and authorities presented by others and they feel compelled to attack the other debaters personally and visciously rather than restricting their attacks to the arguments and evidence presented in the debate. Thus no civil debate with such fanatics is possible.

Accordingly, I have and will continue to make my case to those possessed of reason and those willing to examine all kinds of evidence with at least an open mind. They don't have to be convinced but they do have to be willing to examine and debate alternative positions. There is no point in debating with hardened fanatics, whose diamond-hard convictions have disabled their reason, blinded their eyes to most evidence and hardened their hearts to the point where they feel they have to personally attack and insult any person who offers a case different from their own dogmatic and deeply entrenched position. Thus I will do an end-run around such fanatics and will continue to appeal to those readers here who are still capable of conceiving of and conducting open debate on I/P issues in a constructive and civil way. I will hereafter ignore the posts of such fanatics unless such posts are both constructive and civil.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.