[W:3] Gaza Occupation or Not

[oneworld2]

Okay there seems to be some things to consider as to the statement

Many commentators say that the Israeli control over many many important aspects of life constitutes an effective control ( occupation from without ) of the Gaza strip

People should really by now know something of what a list of these things would consist of. But for those still a little vague here is a summary

Control over all of Gaza's airspace and coastal waters

Control over who and what gets in and out in conjunction with Egypt ( both tied together by US allegiance/reliance )

Control over the borders as per the two mentioned above

Control over the treasury by means of control , along with the PA ( occupying sub contractors ), over the finances of the Gaza strip

Control of the registry of the population and the issuance of passports etc

That's the bones of it

So does that constitute a military occupation ?

The usual response being no boots on the ground = no occupation

So the boots on the ground would constitute an ongoing occupation

To me the best way to look at it , the most accurate way , is to see that the guards have been moved from the interior of the prison to the perimeter fence. Thus making their lives a lot safer but still giving them the opportunity to shoot the prisoners themselves as and when they choose

Something to consider from a military POV

Israel often cites occasions when an IDF operator/commander has a telephone call with a Palestinian family whose house they intend to blow up. ( that they know everyone's phone numbers is another indication of the level of control btw but there you go. )

If they have the means to take out individuals and homes as and when they please they obviously don't need boots on the ground to carry out the actions needed to maintain a military occupation. Technology has , in this instance , given them the means to carry out the actions a boots on the ground occupation requires without the need for boots on the ground in reality.

Thus the argument , imo , falls flat on it's face

 

[Fledermaus]

Okay there seems to be some things to consider as to the statement

Many commentators say that the Israeli control over many many important aspects of life constitutes an effective control ( occupation from without ) of the Gaza strip

People should really by now know something of what a list of these things would consist of. But for those still a little vague here is a summary

Control over all of Gaza's airspace and coastal waters

Control over who and what gets in and out in conjunction with Egypt ( both tied together by US allegiance/reliance )

Control over the borders as per the two mentioned above

Control over the treasury by means of control , along with the PA ( occupying sub contractors ), over the finances of the Gaza strip

Control of the registry of the population and the issuance of passports etc

That's the bones of it

So does that constitute a military occupation ?

The usual response being no boots on the ground = no occupation

So the boots on the ground would constitute an ongoing occupation

To me the best way to look at it , the most accurate way , is to see that the guards have been moved from the interior of the prison to the perimeter fence. Thus making their lives a lot safer but still giving them the opportunity to shoot the prisoners themselves as and when they choose

Something to consider from a military POV

Israel often cites occasions when an IDF operator/commander has a telephone call with a Palestinian family whose house they intend to blow up. ( that they know everyone's phone numbers is another indication of the level of control btw but there you go. )

If they have the means to take out individuals and homes as and when they please they obviously don't need boots on the ground to carry out the actions needed to maintain a military occupation. Technology has , in this instance , given them the means to carry out the actions a boots on the ground occupation requires without the need for boots on the ground in reality.

Thus the argument , imo , falls flat on it's face

What Israeli soldiers are stationed on Gaza territory?

Do you consider Egypt to be occupying Gaza as they control the entry points on the Egyptian border.

Is or is not aid still flowing to Hamas which in turn is squandered on arms and tunnels?

Do you believe a sovereign state must allow free passage for the citizens of a terrorist nation?

Have there or have there not been MILLIONS of dollars of weapons intercepted at sea thereby justifying a single a embargo?

Has or has not Hamas been dedicated to the destruction of Israel?

 

[DaveFagan]

Israel is most certainly an Apartheid state. Israel is in violation of many UN resolutions regarding Gaza/Palestine. How many unarmed protestors have been shot while standing inside Gaza by armed IDF guards? How many residents of Gaza have been dispossessed of legally owned lands in Israel proper by Israel courts? The USA supports all illegal activity of Israel allows an overwhelming presence oh Zionist sympathizers in the MSM. I say Zionist as opposed to Jews because there is a difference. At one time I was 100% sympathetic to the plight of Jews in Israel. That time has passed due to the treatment of the Palestinians, espionage in the USA (Pollard), nuclear weapons, and Zionist intrigue in MidEast politics regarding USA policy. The people in Gaza look exactly like the immigrants in Tijuana attempting to get in to the USA, except they have no avenue to get in Israel. Israel has long ago destroyed the myth of Israeli moral high ground by pursuing Zionist policies. People who pragmatically acknowledge the truth about current Zionist policies are branded as anti semites instead of rational human beings discussing existential realities. The proofs of that will surely follow this post. Yes. Gaza is equivalent to a concentration camp.
/

 

[Chagos]

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.

 

[Serenity]

Moderator's Warning:

Please do not respond to/debate content in post #3 or you may be risking ML Violations. Thanks for understanding.

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: Gaza Occupation or Not

There is no Egyptian occupation of Gaza and there is no Israeli occupation of Gaza, simply because the territory is not occupied.

The control of the Egyptian-Gaza border by Egypt and the Israeli-Gaza border by Israel as well as the naval blockade and the control of the airspace, are all just that, and cannot be described as an occupation of the land, as there is no effective control of the land by Israeli/Egyptian forces. If Israel wishes to create a checkpoint in Gaza City so to prevent a squad of terrorists from reaching their destination, for example, it cannot do so - it has no effective control of the territory which is fully under the control of Islamist terrorists and is governed by the Islamist terrorists.

To conclude, it's empty anti-Israeli propaganda and like all forms of anti-Israeli propaganda it isn't based on anything logical or factual.

 

[Chagos]

Just to add that the ability of Israelis (military commanders or ordinary citizens) to place phone calls to Gazans is about as much a sign of occupation as the fact that I can do that as well from far abroad is a sign of my being an occupier.

 

[oneworld2]

Just to add that the ability of Israelis (military commanders or ordinary citizens) to place phone calls to Gazans is about as much a sign of occupation

I said " control " not occupation. That was your distortion

I said it was another yet another aspect of the" control "Israel has over the lives of people there. That they can phone and/or send text messages to people before they blow their houses away is a definite psychological tool and control mechanism imo .............and not just my opinion

Critics say that Israel exploits the Oslo Accords by refusing to allow Palestinian companies to buy the equipment that would grant it independence from the Israeli networks. The way the system is set up now allows Israeli intelligence easy access to Palestinian telecommunications, Michael Dahan, an Israeli American political scientist and technology researcher at Sapir College, says.

"The ability to take over (command and control) the networks was either embedded in the systems prior to Palestinian control, and/or achieved via Unit 8200 (a miniature version of the NSA), a signals intelligent unit of the IDF," Dahan writes in an e-mail. In the past, the IDF has been accused of shutting down the Internet at times of conflict or using cellphone signals to target Hamas members. And Dahan argues that Israel's reach over Palestinian telecommunication has even wider consequences, helping to "advance a form of psychological warfare – 'we know who you are, we can reach you anywhere.'"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...wellian/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1c5f66942edf

The Israeli intelligence could , as the article goes on to state , always just hack the system anyway.

Whether you could is another thing altogether but the above put's you claim in a different light

I'm not so sure that the book you refer to wouldn't just include land line numbers for people and businesses with mobiles being a different story

as the fact that I can do that as well from far abroad is a sign of my being an occupier.

Do what ? Ring land line registered numbers ? Fine .What about mobiles ?

 

[oneworld2]

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.

Nope, what I am saying is that all of the things on that list show the enormous amount of Israeli control over the lives of everyone in Gaza. And that the technological sophistication renders a boots on the ground occupation unnecessary because you can achieve more or less the same level of control without risking the lives of the soldiers

When all of that is tallied up I think the idea that that an effective Israeli control of Gaza is still in place. Even if the Israelis wish to deny it so as to duck out of any responsibilities an ongoing occupation would enforce upon them. At least giving them some scope to duck one set of laws that require a certain degree of responsibility towards the people of Gaza wrt welfare and security

One source of the obligations imposed on Israel toward residents of the Gaza Strip is the laws of occupation, which are incorporated in the Hague Convention (1907) and in the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949). These laws impose general responsibility on the occupying state for the safety and welfare of civilians living in the occupied territory. The laws of occupation apply if a state has "effective control" over the territory in question. The High Court has held contrary to Israel 's claim, stating that the creation and continuation of an occupation does not depend on the existence of an institution administering the lives of the local population, but only on the extent of its military control in the area.

https://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/israels_obligations

 

[Fledermaus]

I said " control " not occupation. That was your distortion

I said it was another yet another aspect of the" control "Israel has over the lives of people there. That they can phone and/or send text messages to people before they blow their houses away is a definite psychological tool and control mechanism imo .............and not just my opinion

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...wellian/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1c5f66942edf

The Israeli intelligence could , as the article goes on to state , always just hack the system anyway.

Whether you could is another thing altogether but the above put's you claim in a different light

I'm not so sure that the book you refer to wouldn't just include land line numbers for people and businesses with mobiles being a different story

Do what ? Ring land line registered numbers ? Fine .What about mobiles ?

Thread: [W:3] Gaza Occupation or Not

Hmmmm

Now if the targets of the Israelis are the Palestinian civilians why warn them?

 

[Chagos]

Yes, as pointed out, the thread addresses occupation(or not).

And having one's telecommunications system depend on an outside telecommunications system does not represent occupation from that "outside".

Thus it can only be repeated:

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.

P.S. the article cited in post # 8 is BTW vastly outdated, this one being more to the point.

 

[Evilroddy]

Israel does indeed militarily occupy Gaza.

First, it has carved out a security zone around the edge of Gaza on Gazan territory in which it has placed barriers and obstacles as well as observation posts manned by Israeli military and security personnel.

Secondly, it denies Gazans access to these parts of their own territory and Israeli military or security personnel will arrest or shoot Gazans if they go into these security zones on Gazan soil.

Third, it regularly sends Israeli military personnel onto Gazan territory to maintain the obstacles without seeking permission from any Gazan authority.

Fourth Israel regularly breaches Gaza's sovereignty when it sends aircraft, helicopters, armoured fighting vehicles, engineering vehicles, maintenance patrols and hot pursuit patrols into or over Gazan territory.

Fifth, Israel actively patrols the coastline of Gaza, excluding Gazan boats and ships from some or all of Gaza's territorial waters while occupying those same waters.

Sixth, Israeli observation posts, aircraft, etc. observe and guide lethal and sub-lethal weapons and aircraft into Gazan territory to control the internal movements and behaviours of Gazans on their own sovereign territory.

Seven, it is not necessary to be physically occupying all of a territory's terrain in order to occupy it. Military power projection and not physical presence is what determines control of a territory and the ability to move in unilaterally and arrest or wound/kill members of a population is what determines control of a population.

Since Israel controls the sea around Gaza, the air above Gaza, occupies part of the land of Gaza and denies Gazans the ability to enter those occupied zones, projects military force over all the open land of Gaza in order to exert control over Gazan territory, enters Gazan sovereign space without authorisation from any Gazan authority regularly and controls both the territory and the population from its military positions both inside and outside Gaza, Gaza is Occupied Territory.

American and Coalition forces never physically occupied much of either Iraq's or Afghanistan's territory. Those occupations were based on power projection from military bases both inside and outside the occupied territory. Local patrols were launched to exert control immediately around military bases and outposts but the vast majority of the territory was UNoccupied by Coalition or American military personnel at any given time. Thus occupation was achieved by military power projection and not necessarily by physical presence. Since those operations were characterised as military occupations by the world so is the Israel control of Gaza considered an occupation.

Finally, the notional amputation of Gaza from the rest of Palestine is an idea promoted by Israel. But Gaza is in reality and as a matter of history a part of Palestine and part of the Occupied Territories since 1967. Since Gaza is part of Palestine and since other parts of Palestine are more physically occupied by Israeli military forces, Gaza is part of Occupied Palestine and therefore is itself occupied territory.

For these seven reasons plus the rejection of the notion that Gaza is separate from the rest of Palestine, Gaza must be considered an occupied territory.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[oneworld2]

Thread: [W:3] Gaza Occupation or Not

Hmmmm

Now if the targets of the Israelis are the Palestinian civilians why warn them?

You are off topic and I expect you know it

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Technically I don’t view it as an occupation. But that is just semantics and doesn’t minimize the ethical problems with what Israel actually IS doing to the Palestinians, regardless of what label you slap on it.

 

[oneworld2]

Yes, as pointed out, the thread addresses occupation(or not).

And having one's telecommunications system depend on an outside telecommunications system does not represent occupation from that "outside".

Thus it can only be repeated:

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.

P.S. the article cited in post # 8 is BTW vastly outdated, this one being more to the point.

From your link

“We have launched the 3G network service in the West Bank, while the Gaza Strip is still deprived of it because of Israeli restrictions,” Ammar Aker, CEO of the Palestine Telecommunications Group (Paltel) that operates Jawwal, said in an interview with Reuters in his Ramallah office.

You must think people here won't check your links and show that the link you referred everyone to is actually to do with the West Bank and NOT Gaza. Wrong they will and the quoted section only undermines your claims further

As for the thread title and your wish to distort what people are saying , it's just what you seem to want to do all of the time.

I said there is a large degree of control over the telecommunications by Israel wrt Gaza and not that that alone constitutes an occupation. The link you tried to throw every one off with supports what I am saying and , again , undermines you

 

[Chagos]

Some people clearly can't read of perhaps wish not to. It was clearly stated that

And having one's telecommunications system depend on an outside telecommunications system does not represent occupation from that "outside".

Apart from which it has conveniently been "embezzled" from the Reuters article that

Under interim peace deals, Israel has final say in allocating radio frequencies in the Palestinian territories.

Those peace deals, however interim, were thus not agreed by the Palestinian authorities in either Gaza or the WB???

Yup,

Sloppy and vapid misrepresentation

as already outlined.

 

[Chagos]

One can cut thru all long-windedness by addressing simply this

Seven, it is not necessary to be physically occupying all of a territory's terrain in order to occupy it.

by which definition Russia would be seen as occupying all of Ukraine.

Note that we are not discussing control here but, as per the OP's title, occupation.

I have certain takes (and none of them particularly polite towards the Israeli gubmint either) on the "control" as well, especially where it concerns Israeli settlements in the WB.

But that's not the topic here.

 

[Evilroddy]

One can cut thru all long-windedness by addressing simply this by which definition Russia would be seen as occupying all of Ukraine.

Note that we are not discussing control here but, as per the OP's title, occupation.

I have certain takes (and none of them particularly polite towards the Israeli gubmint either) on the "control" as well, especially where it concerns Israeli settlements in the WB.

But that's not the topic here.

Chagos:

Did Germany occupy all of France in order to be defined as the occupying power in 1940? Did Germany occupy all of the Soviet Union to be considered the occupying power? No. It is not necessary to occupy all of a territory to be defined as the occupying power.

Yes, present-day Russia invaded and is in occupation of Crimea and in de facto occupation through proxies of the Donbas and thus Ukraine is defined as in a state of military occupation and Russia is defined as the military occupying power.

The Merrian-Webster Dictionary:

Definition of military occupation: control and possession of hostile territory that enables an invading nation to establish military government against an enemy or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in its own territory

The first word of the definition quoted above and the key concept of military occupation is "control". Possession is the second and Israel possesses both part of Gaza (the security zones) and the whole of Gaza by denying free and full use to any other state or authority. Israel militarily invaded the Occupied Territories including Gaza in 1967 as per the definition above and considers it hostile territory even today. Israel uses its own martial law and military courts to enforce control and punish Gazans (such as members of Hamas or teenage girls in grief who slap soldiers) which Israel defines as enemies. The Likud Party platform claims the all of the territory in the British Mandate of Palestine including Gaza as rightfully Israeli territory and the Likud Party leads the present government of Israel. Thus the Israeli State sees hostile Gazans as rebels who are involved in violent insurrection against Israel which is defending what it claims is and will always be its own territory.

Thus when discussing "military occupation" one cannot help but discuss "control" as "control" is the conceptional corner-stone of the concept and act of military occupation.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Fledermaus]

You are off topic and I expect you know it

You flip flop and then call me for being off topic?

The thread title and OP discuss OCCUPATION....

How can OCCUPATION be off topic?

 

[Fledermaus]

From your link



You must think people here won't check your links and show that the link you referred everyone to is actually to do with the West Bank and NOT Gaza. Wrong they will and the quoted section only undermines your claims further

As for the thread title and your wish to distort what people are saying , it's just what you seem to want to do all of the time.

I said there is a large degree of control over the telecommunications by Israel wrt Gaza and not that that alone constitutes an occupation. The link you tried to throw every one off with supports what I am saying and , again , undermines you

Wow. You want Israel to provide 3G to a sector under control of Hamas... An entity devoted to the destruction of Israel.

Why doesn't Hamas use some of the funds they waste on weapons and tunnels and build their own infrastructure?

 

[Chagos]

Chagos:

Did Germany occupy all of France in order to be defined as the occupying power in 1940? Did Germany occupy all of the Soviet Union to be considered the occupying power? ..................~

Occupying a country in part is not occupying the (whole) country and as such Germany did not occupy France until the end of 1942 and Soviet Russia never.

"Your" Merriam Webster definition is calling for you to read it again with more attention.

 

[Evilroddy]

Occupying a country in part is not occupying the (whole) country and as such Germany did not occupy France until the end of 1942 and Soviet Russia never.

"Your" Merriam Webster definition is calling for you to read it again with more attention.

Chagos:

... and as such Germany did not occupy France until the end of 1942 ...

? What happened in late 1942 which all of a sudden made France occupied? Keep in mind the department of St. Pierre et Miquelon was never conquered and remained "Free French" after the collapse of the Fourth Republic.

From my post which you only partially quoted:

Did Germany occupy all of France in order to be defined as the occupying power in 1940? Did Germany occupy all of the Soviet Union to be considered the occupying power? No. It is not necessary to occupy all of a territory to be defined as the occupying power.

Bolding added by me for emphasis.

I think you might have things turned around. The fact that the German Army and Axis allies had militarily invaded and exerted effective control over a substantial chunk of the Western USSR means that the Western USSR was occupied territory. Look on maps or read it in history papers or books. France was occupied by the Germans in June of 1940, this 1942 stuff is a red herring. The Germans never conquered all of Europe and yet many historical maps and documents refer to the German controlled parts of Europe as "Occupied Europe". Gaza being a subset of Palestine is also occupied territory because Israel invaded it in 1967 and still exerts effective control over it. If any part of Palestine is militarily occupied then any part of Palestine which is controlled by the occupying power is occupied.

The Merrian-Webster definition is pretty clear. It refutes your claim that discussing "control" is removed from discussing "military occupation" and it lays out the necessary conditions for labelling a territory as militarily occupied.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Okay there seems to be some things to consider as to the statement

Many commentators say that the Israeli control over many many important aspects of life constitutes an effective control ( occupation from without ) of the Gaza strip

People should really by now know something of what a list of these things would consist of. But for those still a little vague here is a summary

Control over all of Gaza's airspace and coastal waters

Control over who and what gets in and out in conjunction with Egypt ( both tied together by US allegiance/reliance )

Control over the borders as per the two mentioned above

Control over the treasury by means of control , along with the PA ( occupying sub contractors ), over the finances of the Gaza strip

Control of the registry of the population and the issuance of passports etc

That's the bones of it

So does that constitute a military occupation ?

The usual response being no boots on the ground = no occupation

So the boots on the ground would constitute an ongoing occupation

To me the best way to look at it , the most accurate way , is to see that the guards have been moved from the interior of the prison to the perimeter fence. Thus making their lives a lot safer but still giving them the opportunity to shoot the prisoners themselves as and when they choose

Something to consider from a military POV

Israel often cites occasions when an IDF operator/commander has a telephone call with a Palestinian family whose house they intend to blow up. ( that they know everyone's phone numbers is another indication of the level of control btw but there you go. )

If they have the means to take out individuals and homes as and when they please they obviously don't need boots on the ground to carry out the actions needed to maintain a military occupation. Technology has , in this instance , given them the means to carry out the actions a boots on the ground occupation requires without the need for boots on the ground in reality.

Thus the argument , imo , falls flat on it's face

There is no occupation of Gaza

Didn’t you just start an entire thread about language manipulation?

Occupation means occupation. As in occupying the territory.

There is no occupation of Gaza except by the Hamas terrorist organization.

This isn’t hard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CJ 2.0]

Do what ? Ring land line registered numbers ? Fine .What about mobiles ?

I knew something was up here in Canada. Didn’t realize we were being occupied by the Indians given all the calls and texts I get about owing $ to the tax authorities that need to be paid immediately in apple gift cards.

I mean how else would they get my cell number unless we were occupied?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CJ 2.0]

Thread: [W:3] Gaza Occupation or Not

Hmmmm

Now if the targets of the Israelis are the Palestinian civilians why warn them?

Always fascinating to actually watch the goalposts get loaded onto a flatbed and driven down the road while the driver insists they were at the destination the entire time.

Gaza isn’t occupied. Pretending it is occupied is the perfect illustration of how the anti-Israelis consistently manipulate language to demonize Israel, justify attacks against it and rationalize terrorism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk