[W:3] Gaza Occupation or Not

[Aristaeus]

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

Perhaps a better word would be controlled. Either way, the end result for the people of Gaza is the same.

 

[Chagos]

Chagos:



? What happened ...............~

I see no merit in continuing this pointless argument, that's what happened.

 

[Apocalypse]

Israel does indeed militarily occupy Gaza.

Evidently not.

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.

It's called a military buffer zone, not an occupied territory. Israel doesn't occupy that territory - it denies entry to Palestinians for good and justified security reasons any moral person will support in an absolute manner, that's not the definition of an occupation so you're in a clear opposition with the logic and facts regarding the term.

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.

All for good and justified reasons any moral person will support in an absolute manner however none have anything to do with occupying a territory, for example the US 'observes' and sends troops regularly into Syrian land yet that is not an occupation and to claim so would be just as ridiculous as to claim that Israel occupies Gaza. Completely in opposition to the basic logic and facts surrounding the term military occupation.

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.

A territory not occupied cannot be considered as occupied, from the same reason that a flower not watered cannot be considered a watered flower. You're in direct opposition to the term here.

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.

Also completely wrong. A territory needs to be occupied for it to be occupied. If Palestine was a state, a sovereign state including the WB and Gaza for example, it would be considered occupied by Israel - but Gaza as a terrtiroy would still not be considered "an occupied territory". You're showing complete and full ignorance of the term. Choosing to awarely and openly embrace ignorance for propaganda purposes is awful.

And thus your claim is debunked easily using basic logic and common sense as well as referencing the term's meaning.
You should avoid making such arguments, even if it is for the sake of a dark and barbaric ideology, it merely exposes your detachment from the facts and proves the point that the anti-Israeli position isn't reality-related.

 

[oneworld2]

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

Your resort to cheap insults and your compulsion to underhandedly misrepresent what people have written appears to know no bounds and shows an unwillingness to actually debate people with any degree of civility

I have shown already , clearly enough , that you decided to swap the word control for the word occupation wrt the telecommunications situation I commented on and ridiculously tried to make out that this was the case for occupation I was putting up. The truth was evidently that the control Israel exerts over the lives of the people of Gaza , both in civil and military terms , including the telecommunications system , altogether constitute enough control to merit it being referred to as an occupied territory

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

The fact the PA agreed to lots of stuff during that period that would come to be seen by the Palestinians themselves as ( what it was ) a sell out in order to assure their position as the sole representatives of the Palestinians doesn't detract from the argument being made. That the PA became subcontractors of the occupation is why they lost the Palestinians themselves in droves

Yup, as already outlined.

The only things that have been " sloppy and vapid " in this thread thus far imo are your counter arguments to those arguing against you

 

[oneworld2]

Perhaps a better word would be controlled. Either way, the end result for the people of Gaza is the same.

I agree with the sentiments wrt the people there btw

That said , if you have enough control , civil/military , to be able to ring someone up , tell them to leave their house and blow it to pieces , to claim that that level of control falls significantly short of that given by a boots on the ground occupation level of control is on seriously shaky ground imo

If they duck out of being military occupiers or PR spin others into believing it is so , they can duck out of the responsibilities of the laws pertaining to occupation and occupiers. That's their intention imo

 

[Chagos]

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.

 

[Aristaeus]

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.

A strict dictionary definition may be different to a legal definition or idiomatic usage.

 

[Chagos]

Anybody can, BTW, ring me up any time without my having given him or her my numbers or my phone being directly dependent on any particular communications network.

Putting that down to some dark and nefarious conspiracy by a neighbouring or further afield power would be idiotic and would just show the ignorance held by anyone pursuing such silly theories, over how communication gateways work.

If the Gaza administration were to invest the money it wastes on ammunition into establishing its very own national communications provider, nothing would change in its customers of said network being as accessible from anywhere as they are now.

 

[Chagos]

A strict dictionary definition may be different to a legal definition or idiomatic usage.

Which really isn't the issue here at all. It's about using definitions in whatever way they suit the user's agenda and, if deemed necessary, switching between them for own convenience's sake to have them mean one thing now and the direct opposite 5 minutes from now.

The sort of behaviour I call BS on, no matter what the topic or the forum.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Perhaps a better word would be controlled. Either way, the end result for the people of Gaza is the same.

1. Perhaps if controlled was what was meant we should be talking about how Israel is controlling Gaza, not how it is occupying gaza, which was the assertion in the thread title?

2. The end result for the people of Gaza is not the same. If Israel was the actual occupying power Hamas would not be in charge and the people in Gaza would not be under the thumb of an oppressive theocratic terrorist movement.

3. Paradoxically, if Gaza wasn't being run by Hamas a lot of the restrictions that are being classified as constituting "control" (which is still too strong a word) would never have been implemented.

4. Beyond that, if the Palestinians chose peace instead of their terror war in 2000, those restrictions would be even less. Almost seems like the Palestinian efforts to attack and conquer Israel are ... counterproductive?

 

[Fledermaus]

Perhaps a better word would be controlled. Either way, the end result for the people of Gaza is the same.

Perhaps if they quit lashing out at the Israelis things would improve.

 

[Fledermaus]

In regards to the telecommunications issue. Build your own. Run land lines if needed through Egypt.

 

[Aristaeus]

Perhaps if they quit lashing out at the Israelis things would improve.

Perhaps if Israel hadn't taken 80% of their land they wouldn't lash out.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Perhaps if Israel hadn't taken 80% of their land they wouldn't lash out.

You mean if Israel didn't exist?

Thanks for the very helpful contribution.

 

[Apocalypse]

You mean if Israel didn't exist?

Thanks for the very helpful contribution.

As I said openly embracing immorality thus recognizing the moral high ground of their opposition - every single time.

 

[Evilroddy]

Evidently not.

This is your opinion. Provide evidence or authority for your case or your refutation fails.

It's called a military buffer zone, not an occupied territory. Israel doesn't occupy that territory - it denies entry to Palestinians for good and justified security reasons any moral person will support in an absolute manner, that's not the definition of an occupation so you're in a clear opposition with the logic and facts regarding the term.

It is called a "military buffer zone" when you build it on your own territory. It is called "military occupation" when you build it on the territory of a place which you have invaded by military force. Israel does militarily occupy that territory by the construction of barriers and by the regular insertion of Israeli troops to defend, maintain or repair the barriers built on Palestinian/Gazan territory. Furthermore the IDF has OPs (Observation Posts) which are manned by IDF and security personnel in the security zones. Finally the IDF positions engineering and combat vehicles in the security zone on Palestinian territory in order to control by observation and fire the territory and population of Gaza/Palestine.

All for good and justified reasons any moral person will support in an absolute manner however none have anything to do with occupying a territory, for example the US 'observes' and sends troops regularly into Syrian land yet that is not an occupation and to claim so would be just as ridiculous as to claim that Israel occupies Gaza. Completely in opposition to the basic logic and facts surrounding the term military occupation.

The above is an expression of your opinion and is not a fact-based argument. I am not arguing whether Israel should or should not militarily occupy Palestinian/Gazan territory and therefore your argument about reasons for doing so or the morality of it have no bearing on the case. I am arguing that Israel IS militarily occupying Palestinian/Gazan territory based on the definition of military occupation I provided earlier from the Merrian-Webster dictionary and based on the behaviour of Israel with respect to the territory in question as cited by examples given. Challenge the definition and the facts presented with alternate definitions or contrary facts if you wish to refute the argument, but your own opinions carry no weight unless supported by evidence or other authority.

Since you brought up Syria, by the definition of military occupation provided, the US is militarily occupying parts of Eastern Syria. They have built fortified bases in Syria which are well garrisoned and have done so without the permission of the internationally recognised government of Syria. So another of your arguments fails.

A territory not occupied cannot be considered as occupied, from the same reason that a flower not watered cannot be considered a watered flower. You're in direct opposition to the term here.

Physical presence over all of a hostile territory is not necessary for there to be a military occupation in effect as proved by the citations of the US/Coalition occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. Metaphors and similes cannot replace facts and evidence. While I make a case backed up by definitions and examples you are writing an editorial backed up by your own opinions but no other supporting authority.

Also completely wrong. A territory needs to be occupied for it to be occupied. If Palestine was a state, a sovereign state including the WB and Gaza for example, it would be considered occupied by Israel - but Gaza as a terrtiroy would still not be considered "an occupied territory". You're showing complete and full ignorance of the term. Choosing to awarely and openly embrace ignorance for propaganda purposes is awful.

Most of the world considers the West Bank and Gaza to be Occupied Territories and has referred to them as such since 1967. That's over fifty years of custom and usage in support of the fact that both parts of Palestine are considered occupied, by authorities outside of Israel. What proof do you have that Palestine was not occupied after the collapse of the British Mandate of Palestine (an internationally recognised territorial entity)? Please present it in order to make your case. There is no willful ignorance on my part going on. I don't accept your notion that territories cannot be occupied and that only sovereign states can be. If that were the case then most of Canada is not Canadian territory and much of Australia is not Australian and thus can be taken by anyone freely without occupation. That is absurd.

Continued next post.

 

[Evilroddy]

And thus your claim is debunked easily using basic logic and common sense as well as referencing the term's meaning.
You should avoid making such arguments, even if it is for the sake of a dark and barbaric ideology, it merely exposes your detachment from the facts and proves the point that the anti-Israeli position isn't reality-related.

Your logic is personal to you and your common sense is not common to both of us. Neither of these are solid ground on which to build a strong case. You need facts and authorities which have been nearly absent on your side of this debate so far. I provided a definition for military occupation, you did not, so until you provide a definition with some authority your refutation of terms is a hollow one. I have provided many facts and examples to support my case. You have provided very few and I have refuted them with more facts and examples. Your invocation of terms like "dark and barbaric ideology" and "anti-Israeli position" are appeals to emotion which have no place in a logical, evidence-based argument over the morally neutral question of whether Gaza is militarily occupied by Israel or not. Appeals to reason are needed and not rhetorical tricks to sway the emotions of readers. Such tactics detract from your already very weak case.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Apocalypse]

This is your opinion. Provide evidence or authority for your case or your refutation fails.

As I said, "evidently not". Key word being evidently, thus not an opinion. I went forward to lay out the logical and factual claims that debunk each of your false assertions, themselves not being based on anything.

It is called a "military buffer zone" when you build it on your own territory.

This is completely made up by you. A demonstration of how your illogical claims are being constructed out of thin air by you and based on your ignorance.

It is called "military occupation" when you build it on the territory of a place which you have invaded by military force.

You're repeating a debunked claim. Already explained why a territory not occupied is not "occupied territory". Telling people that if they come 100 meters near the border they risk getting shot at, is not an occupation of said territory, there's zero logic provided by you to base that already inherently illogical claim.

Israel does militarily occupy that territory by the construction of barriers and by the regular insertion of Israeli troops to defend, maintain or repair the barriers built on Palestinian/Gazan territory. Furthermore the IDF has OPs (Observation Posts) which are manned by IDF and security personnel in the security zones. Finally the IDF positions engineering and combat vehicles in the security zone on Palestinian territory in order to control by observation and fire the territory and population of Gaza/Palestine.

Already debunked in the previous comment. None of this bases a claim for a military occupation and by these standards a lot of territories that aren't occupied by other nations will be considered as occupied by them.
You're making up your own standards for an occupation out of thin air and based on literally nothing, and as you merely repeat claims I already debunked there's no point in going forward.

 

[Chagos]

In regards to the telecommunications issue. Build your own. Run land lines if needed through Egypt.

Making Gaza phone owners just as accessible as they are now.

 

[Apocalypse]

Your logic is personal to you and your common sense is not common to both of us. Neither of these are solid ground on which to build a strong case. You need facts and authorities which have been nearly absent on your side of this debate so far. I provided a definition for military occupation, you did not, so until you provide a definition with some authority your refutation of terms is a hollow one. I have provided many facts and examples to support my case. You have provided very few and I have refuted them with more facts and examples. Your invocation of terms like "dark and barbaric ideology" and "anti-Israeli position" are appeals to emotion which have no place in a logical, evidence-based argument over the morally neutral question of whether Gaza is militarily occupied by Israel or not. Appeals to reason are needed and not rhetorical tricks to sway the emotions of readers. Such tactics detract from your already very weak case.

Cheers.
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)

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.

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.

 

[Fledermaus]

Perhaps if Israel hadn't taken 80% of their land they wouldn't lash out.

80% of who's land? Egypt's or Jordan's?

 

[CJ 2.0]

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)

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.

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.

My favourite quick-take observation on the "logic" of his position:

If there is a zone spanning a border which both sides view to be an exclusionary zone and where incursions by either side would result in firing by the other, Mr. Evil's "logic" would mean that BOTH countries are entirely occupying the other and that people in both countries are "occupied".

But wait, he has an argument from authority to fall back on, which apparently is a trump card even though that entire thing is built on laziness and anti-Israel animosity.

 

[Apocalypse]

My favourite quick-take observation on the "logic" of his position:

If there is a zone spanning a border which both sides view to be an exclusionary zone and where incursions by either side would result in firing by the other, Mr. Evil's "logic" would mean that BOTH countries are entirely occupying the other and that people in both countries are "occupied".

But wait, he has an argument from authority to fall back on, which apparently is a trump card even though that entire thing is built on laziness and anti-Israel animosity.

There's simply no logic in the claims made, absolute zero.
"I'm saying that China is a theocracy because 1/8th of the population of Stockholm want to buy new shoes" kind of claims and reasoning.

In addition to the zero logical basis, simply repeating his claims as if merely saying them again and again means he's made a point, well, makes his input quite ridiculous.
- "There is a no-go zone enforced in Gazan territory - that's an occupation"
- "No, it's not an occupation, it's a no-go zone enforced by the military. What logical basis is there for that assertion?"
- "There is a no-go zone enforced in Gazan territory - that's an occupation".

Meh.

 

[Apocalypse]

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

military occupation noun
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

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.

 

[Evilroddy]

As I said, "evidently not". Key word being evidently, thus not an opinion. I went forward to lay out the logical and factual claims that debunk each of your false assertions, themselves not being based on anything.

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.

This is completely made up by you. A demonstration of how your illogical claims are being constructed out of thin air by you and based on your ignorance.

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.

Definition of buffer zone: a neutral area separating conflicting forces broadly; an area designed to separate

From the Merriam-Wenster Dictionary

And:

Buffer zone:1. A defined area controlled by a peace operations force from which disputing or belligerent forces have been excluded. A buffer zone is formed to create an area of separation between disputing or belligerent forces and reduce the risk of renewed conflict. Also called area of separation in some United Nations operations. Also called BZ. See also area of separation; line of demarcation; peace operations.

From: https://www.militaryfactory.com/dictionary/military-terms-defined.asp?term_id=802

You're repeating a debunked claim. Already explained why a territory not occupied is not "occupied territory". Telling people that if they come 100 meters near the border they risk getting shot at, is not an occupation of said territory, there's zero logic provided by you to base that already inherently illogical 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.

Already debunked in the previous comment. None of this bases a claim for a military occupation and by these standards a lot of territories that aren't occupied by other nations will be considered as occupied by them. You're making up your own standards for an occupation out of thin air and based on literally nothing, and as you merely repeat claims I already debunked there's no point in going forward.

As per the last quote above, no proof, no debunking. Back up your assertions please, as I have done. As to standards of military occupation, I am basing my argument on cited definitions and historical examples given. It is you who is pulling definitional rabbits out of thin air.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.