Gaza "beach" -- what really happened

[laughing dog]

You confuse "oppression" with "intent to return". And you assume oppression is the only method available to obtain those lands.

The Israelis view Arabs as a threat and will do so for a very long time, regardless of the validity of the perception at any point. The hysterical and counterfactual observations of the pro-Israel contingent in these threads is an example of the irrationality on all sides that is present.

What's irrational is to think that Israel would not leave Gaza alone, if Gaza left it alone. Of course not overnight, precisely because of the reason you stated, but most of the things Israel is doing in Gaza is a net loss to Israel, and there is no reason to think that the remaining issues (such as having an airport, free flow of goods from Egypt and by the sea, and fishing rights) could not be negotiated after a while. That's not the case in West Bank, where the continued land theft gives Israel a profit motive to continue the present course.

Your entire response missed the point. Land theft is not the only method available to the gov't of Israel. And it is costly method since it helps to fuel local and regional animosity. But the gov't of Israel chooses this method for a variety of reasons even though it is form of oppression. Why do you think that is?

Israel gets along just fine with all of its other neighbours. Even Lebanon and Syria.

Except, when it feels the need to invade or attack them.

 

[Jayjay]

What's irrational is to think that Israel would not leave Gaza alone, if Gaza left it alone. Of course not overnight, precisely because of the reason you stated, but most of the things Israel is doing in Gaza is a net loss to Israel, and there is no reason to think that the remaining issues (such as having an airport, free flow of goods from Egypt and by the sea, and fishing rights) could not be negotiated after a while. That's not the case in West Bank, where the continued land theft gives Israel a profit motive to continue the present course.

Your entire response missed the point. Land theft is not the only method available to the gov't of Israel. And it is costly method since it helps to fuel local and regional animosity. But the gov't of Israel chooses this method for a variety of reasons even though it is form of oppression. Why do you think that is?

Land theft is not a "method", it's the objective.

Israel gets along just fine with all of its other neighbours. Even Lebanon and Syria.

Except, when it feels the need to invade or attack them.

I specifically mentioned the two neighbouring Arab regimes that are openly hostile to Israel, but by and large keep to themselves, as worst-case scenario - and still managing to do a lot better than Hamas. That pretty much renders your point that Israel would find other excuses to oppressing Gaza because it perceives all Arabs as a threat, moot.

 

[laughing dog]

Land theft is not a "method", it's the objective.

FFS, it is one way to get the land.

I specifically mentioned the two neighbouring Arab regimes that are openly hostile to Israel, but by and large keep to themselves, as worst-case scenario - and still managing to do a lot better than Hamas. That pretty much renders your point that Israel would find other excuses to oppressing Gaza because it perceives all Arabs as a threat, moot.

Neither of those two countries is wholly contained in Eretz Israel. And regarding ____ as a threat, does not mean one is required to oppress _____. Unlike Syria and Lebanon, Gaza is home to a large number of Palestinian people and ruled by Palestinian people, who are still viewed as a threat by the gov't of Israel. Your position ignores these obvious and salient facts which makes it unconvincing.

On the other hand, this particular topic seems akin to arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[Jayjay]

FFS, it is one way to get the land.

The operative phrase there is getting the land. That's a profit motive. Besides it's working pretty well for Israel currently. The question in West Bank is not why, but why not? Contrast that with Gaza (or Southern Lebanon, or Sinai), where Israel does not seem to have any desire to re-establish the settlements or drive the Gazans out anymore.

I specifically mentioned the two neighbouring Arab regimes that are openly hostile to Israel, but by and large keep to themselves, as worst-case scenario - and still managing to do a lot better than Hamas. That pretty much renders your point that Israel would find other excuses to oppressing Gaza because it perceives all Arabs as a threat, moot.

Neither of those two countries is wholly contained in Eretz Israel. And regarding ____ as a threat, does not mean one is required to oppress _____. Unlike Syria and Lebanon, Gaza is home to a large number of Palestinian people and ruled by Palestinian people, who are still viewed as a threat by the gov't of Israel. Your position ignores these obvious and salient facts which makes it unconvincing.

Eretz Israel is a zionist wet dream, like Dar al Islam is an islamist wet dream. Saying that the Jews are unable to accept a country within "Eretz Israel" and are therefore going to continue to oppress Palestinians until end of time, is just as delusional as the opposite claim that Arabs will never accept Israel and will fight until the Jews are pushed to the sea.

As for being a threat, you started with a claim that Israel views all Arabs as a threat, and now you've backpedaled to a position that it views only Palestinians as such. To me it seems that my argument was convincing enough make you change your mind! But it's still special pleading to expect everyone to just assume that Israel would treat a hypothetical peaceful Gaza any differently than it does any of its other Arab neighbours.

 

[laughing dog]

The operative phrase there is getting the land. That's a profit motive. Besides it's working pretty well for Israel currently. The question in West Bank is not why, but why not? Contrast that with Gaza (or Southern Lebanon, or Sinai), where Israel does not seem to have any desire to re-establish the settlements or drive the Gazans out anymore.

I specifically mentioned the two neighbouring Arab regimes that are openly hostile to Israel, but by and large keep to themselves, as worst-case scenario - and still managing to do a lot better than Hamas. That pretty much renders your point that Israel would find other excuses to oppressing Gaza because it perceives all Arabs as a threat, moot.

Neither of those two countries is wholly contained in Eretz Israel. And regarding ____ as a threat, does not mean one is required to oppress _____. Unlike Syria and Lebanon, Gaza is home to a large number of Palestinian people and ruled by Palestinian people, who are still viewed as a threat by the gov't of Israel. Your position ignores these obvious and salient facts which makes it unconvincing.

Eretz Israel is a zionist wet dream, like Dar al Islam is an islamist wet dream. Saying that the Jews are unable to accept a country within "Eretz Israel" and are therefore going to continue to oppress Palestinians until end of time, is just as delusional as the opposite claim that Arabs will never accept Israel and will fight until the Jews are pushed to the sea.

As for being a threat, you started with a claim that Israel views all Arabs as a threat, and now you've backpedaled to a position that it views only Palestinians as such. To me it seems that my argument was convincing enough make you change your mind! But it's still special pleading to expect everyone to just assume that Israel would treat a hypothetical peaceful Gaza any differently than it does any of its other Arab neighbours.

I disagree. It is special pleading to say that more than 467,846 angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[Jayjay]

The operative phrase there is getting the land. That's a profit motive. Besides it's working pretty well for Israel currently. The question in West Bank is not why, but why not? Contrast that with Gaza (or Southern Lebanon, or Sinai), where Israel does not seem to have any desire to re-establish the settlements or drive the Gazans out anymore.

I specifically mentioned the two neighbouring Arab regimes that are openly hostile to Israel, but by and large keep to themselves, as worst-case scenario - and still managing to do a lot better than Hamas. That pretty much renders your point that Israel would find other excuses to oppressing Gaza because it perceives all Arabs as a threat, moot.

Neither of those two countries is wholly contained in Eretz Israel. And regarding ____ as a threat, does not mean one is required to oppress _____. Unlike Syria and Lebanon, Gaza is home to a large number of Palestinian people and ruled by Palestinian people, who are still viewed as a threat by the gov't of Israel. Your position ignores these obvious and salient facts which makes it unconvincing.

Eretz Israel is a zionist wet dream, like Dar al Islam is an islamist wet dream. Saying that the Jews are unable to accept a country within "Eretz Israel" and are therefore going to continue to oppress Palestinians until end of time, is just as delusional as the opposite claim that Arabs will never accept Israel and will fight until the Jews are pushed to the sea.

As for being a threat, you started with a claim that Israel views all Arabs as a threat, and now you've backpedaled to a position that it views only Palestinians as such. To me it seems that my argument was convincing enough make you change your mind! But it's still special pleading to expect everyone to just assume that Israel would treat a hypothetical peaceful Gaza any differently than it does any of its other Arab neighbours.

I disagree. It is special pleading to say that more than 467,846 angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Can you explain that in english please? First of all, how does referring to Israel's factual relationship with its other neighbours resemble a hypothetical medieval scholastic debate that has absolutely nothing to do with reality nor theology? And second, wouldn't claiming that exactly 467,846 angels can dance n a head of a pin but no more fit the description of special pleading much better?

 

[laughing dog]

Can you explain that in english please? First of all, how does referring to Israel's factual relationship with its other neighbours resemble a hypothetical medieval scholastic debate that has absolutely nothing to do with reality nor theology?

We are discussing a theoretical possibility with zero probability of occuring over the next 50 years or so. After that, the world will have changed so much, who can tell what will be likely or not. Hence, IMO, it is no longer worthwhile trying to point out the actual or perceived fallacies or inaccuracies in either of our responses.

And second, wouldn't claiming that exactly 467,846 angels can dance n a head of a pin but no more fit the description of special pleading much better?

It would depend, but there is no reason to believe that is the only alternative.

 

[arkirk]

They were children, so what is clear is that the Israeli troops didn't care much who they were killing.

Kind of like that leaked video of American troops shooting up a couple of reporters and their escort and then a guy and his children who stopped to help.

They didn't know who they were killing and didn't care.

But they sure as hell wanted to kill somebody mighty bad.

What evidence do you have that they didn't care? Are you one of those religionists who believe in absolute certainty and that people can have it?

Would you use the same argument when one soldier (the US, let's say), kills another US soldier as a result of friendly fire? Would you say that the one solider killed the other US solider because he wanted him to die and didn't care who he was? Or does your bizzare argument only apply to Israel due to your extreme hatred for that country?

- - - Updated - - -

That is a most bizarre conclusion. You are claiming they knew they were children and decided to bomb anyway? What evidence do you have of that?

They obviously didn't care who they might be killing or they wouldn't have killed them. Hamas did not place those children there. You and Loren should wake up to the fact that this problem requires another solution. Israel has been bombing and invading and squeezing these people well past any recognizable breaking point. Israel is a peculiar situation in that it looks like both sides are lost causes...and it is only a matter of time till they both realize it. I think the answer has to be Secular government for Palestine...or more of this craziness.

Another religionist who believes in 100% absolute certainty (as if it were possible for Israel to have 100% absolute certainty on who the targets are). Come back to the real world where your mythical 100% absolute certainty doesn't actually exist.

Would you go up to a soldier who mistakenly killed another soldier in a friendly fire incident that "you obviously didn't care who you might be killing or you wouldn't have killed them".

We see through your irrational double standards and your appeal to emotion, reminds me of fundy Christians.

Yes I would because it is true that ALL SOLDIERS have discounted human life. That is why they are soldiers...ready to kill others.

It is you that has irrational double standards and your appeal to fear reminds me of fundy Christians. They clearly are not lovey dovey people. You and who else constitutes this big "WE" anyway. There are lots of people who don't give a hand what happens so long as it doesn't get in the way of their financial security or safety. You seem in that crowd if you ask me and so what? You are damned right I disagree with you. Those boys on that beach were murdered by IDF people.

 

[untermensche]

All nations have the right of self defense. When they are being attacked they can shoot at those doing the attacking.

No nation has the right to invade other people and kill anyone who defends themselves from the invasion.

Not even Israel.

Israel is only permitted to use violence against the people actually firing the rockets. They are criminals just like any other criminal.

It has no right to harm anyone else.

I have already shown that by standard legal definition Gaza is not occupied. Apparently that thread went in one eye and out the other.

Nobody but you accepts that a blockade and control over what gets in and continual unlawful and deadly invasions is not an occupation.

The article you posted had no rulings on the situation in Gaza.

But even Israeli courts have ruled the settlements are illegal and Israel breaks the law every second of every day by maintaining them.

 

[Jayjay]

We are discussing a theoretical possibility with zero probability of occuring over the next 50 years or so. After that, the world will have changed so much, who can tell what will be likely or not. Hence, IMO, it is no longer worthwhile trying to point out the actual or perceived fallacies or inaccuracies in either of our responses.

I don't know what debate you thought you were engaged in, but I have been talking about what would happen right now, or what might have easily happened already, had Hamas taken a different road in Gaza. Not some imaginary scenario 50 years hence.

And second, wouldn't claiming that exactly 467,846 angels can dance n a head of a pin but no more fit the description of special pleading much better?

It would depend, but there is no reason to believe that is the only alternative.

Your metaphors mix like Jews and Arabs.

 

[Jayjay]

No nation has the right to invade other people and kill anyone who defends themselves from the invasion.

Not even Israel.

Israel is only permitted to use violence against the people actually firing the rockets. They are criminals just like any other criminal.

It has no right to harm anyone else.

Yet you think that Hamas isn't bound by the same rules and can fire rockets indiscriminately, even at their own people. Why the double standard?

I have already shown that by standard legal definition Gaza is not occupied. Apparently that thread went in one eye and out the other.

Nobody but you accepts that a blockade and control over what gets in and continual unlawful and deadly invasions is not an occupation.

The article you posted had no rulings on the situation in Gaza.

But even Israeli courts have ruled the settlements are illegal and Israel breaks the law every second of every day by maintaining them.

Bullshit on so any levels. There are no settlements in Gaza, blockades and invasions are not an occupation (or you'd have to admit that Hamas is occupying Israel, which would be ridiculous), the ruling not being done on situation in Gaza doesn't mean that the court's understanding of international law is wrong, and clearly Loren is not the only one who can see this.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't know what debate you thought you were engaged in, but I have been talking about what would happen right now, or what might have easily happened already, had Hamas taken a different road in Gaza. Not some imaginary scenario 50 years hence.

And I think your replies make it abundantly clear you don't know what debate you are engaging. You think the Israelis would not oppress Gaza if it were peaceful. I don't. I think your arguments are unconvincing and you don't. At his time, uncharacteristicly, you seem unable accurately to describe my claims. Rather than continue wasting our time and effort, I am going to stop. Feel free to continue.

 

[untermensche]

Yet you think that Hamas isn't bound by the same rules and can fire rockets indiscriminately, even at their own people. Why the double standard?

I never said any such thing. I said it is resistance to oppression, which it is. Certain kinds of resistance to oppression can also be unjustified.

But Israel prevents Gaza from becoming normalized with it's illegal blockade and continual illegal invasions and incursions.

And Israel is not working on any peaceful solution which it must exhaust before resorting to violence.

I have already shown that by standard legal definition Gaza is not occupied. Apparently that thread went in one eye and out the other.

Nobody but you accepts that a blockade and control over what gets in and continual unlawful and deadly invasions is not an occupation.

The article you posted had no rulings on the situation in Gaza.

But even Israeli courts have ruled the settlements are illegal and Israel breaks the law every second of every day by maintaining them.

Bullshit on so any levels. There are no settlements in Gaza, blockades and invasions are not an occupation (or you'd have to admit that Hamas is occupying Israel, which would be ridiculous), the ruling not being done on situation in Gaza doesn't mean that the court's understanding of international law is wrong, and clearly Loren is not the only one who can see this.

The illegal blockade is most definitely an occupation. It is the presence of troops in waters that belong to the Palestinians and don't belong to Israel. This even meets the pathetic standard offered up by the sympathizers and supporters of Israeli oppression.

Hamas has no blockade against Israel. It is not invading Israel. It does not have one helicopter or tank.

A couple of criminals coming into Israel through a tunnel is not an invasion except in the upside down world of the supporters of Israeli oppression.

 

[Arctish]

The illegal blockade is most definitely an occupation. It is the presence of troops in waters that belong to the Palestinians and don't belong to Israel. This even meets the pathetic standard offered up by the sympathizers and supporters of Israeli oppression.

That's true. The Israeli naval forces patrolling Gazan territorial waters and keeping Gazan fishermen away from their own fishing grounds certainly qualifies as a military occupation of Gaza territory.

I think the reality of modern electronic surveillance, drone strikes, and long range weaponry is changing what military occupation means. Israel doesn't have to have boots on the ground inside Gaza City in order to exert the kind of control formerly associated with regular armed patrols. I suppose we need a more nuanced term to distinguish between old-fashioned Occupation, and the new-fangled method of maintaining control of a territory at a slightly greater distance.

 

[Jayjay]

I never said any such thing. I said it is resistance to oppression, which it is. Certain kinds of resistance to oppression can also be unjustified.

Such as firing rockets indiscriminately, which is what Hamas is doing. Most of what Hamas is doing to "resist" Israel is unjustified, unproductive and only harms Palestinians.

But Israel prevents Gaza from becoming normalized with it's illegal blockade and continual illegal invasions and incursions.

And Israel is not working on any peaceful solution which it must exhaust before resorting to violence.

Yes, it is. Last summer for example Israel's initial position was to respond to calm with calm. Hamas on the other hand wanted war and got it. According to the Nuremberg principles that you hold so dear, that means the casualties resulting from that war (including ones made by Israel) are on Hamas.

The continuing blockade on the other hand is justified by Hamas's proven track record of arming itself and attacking Israel. Israel isn't going to stop it unilaterally without Hamas proving that it is not going to start firing rockets at every time they have a bad hair day. The responsibility for seeking peaceful solutions isn't something you can burden only on one party of the conflict.

I have already shown that by standard legal definition Gaza is not occupied. Apparently that thread went in one eye and out the other.

Nobody but you accepts that a blockade and control over what gets in and continual unlawful and deadly invasions is not an occupation.

The article you posted had no rulings on the situation in Gaza.

But even Israeli courts have ruled the settlements are illegal and Israel breaks the law every second of every day by maintaining them.

Bullshit on so any levels. There are no settlements in Gaza, blockades and invasions are not an occupation (or you'd have to admit that Hamas is occupying Israel, which would be ridiculous), the ruling not being done on situation in Gaza doesn't mean that the court's understanding of international law is wrong, and clearly Loren is not the only one who can see this.

The illegal blockade is most definitely an occupation. It is the presence of troops in waters that belong to the Palestinians and don't belong to Israel. This even meets the pathetic standard offered up by the sympathizers and supporters of Israeli oppression.

Hamas has no blockade against Israel. It is not invading Israel. It does not have one helicopter or tank.

A couple of criminals coming into Israel through a tunnel is not an invasion except in the upside down world of the supporters of Israeli oppression.

A blockade is a blockade and an occupation is an occupation. Your childish refusal to understand well-defined and widely accepted meanings of words is irrelevant.

Where is the limit when something counts as an invasion? How is having a tank an invasion, but having an RPG or an AK-47 not an invasion? What international treaty specifies where the line is drawn? If Israeli forces were only armed with rifles and drove in with Jeeps, that wouldn't be an invasion in your book? And note that you only need these ridiculous special rules and conditions because you are trying to bend into a pretzel trying to justify a special definition for the word "occupation", which nobody else uses.

 

[Jayjay]

The illegal blockade is most definitely an occupation. It is the presence of troops in waters that belong to the Palestinians and don't belong to Israel. This even meets the pathetic standard offered up by the sympathizers and supporters of Israeli oppression.

That's true. The Israeli naval forces patrolling Gazan territorial waters and keeping Gazan fishermen away from their own fishing grounds certainly qualifies as a military occupation of Gaza territory.

I think the reality of modern electronic surveillance, drone strikes, and long range weaponry is changing what military occupation means. Israel doesn't have to have boots on the ground inside Gaza City in order to exert the kind of control formerly associated with regular armed patrols. I suppose we need a more nuanced term to distinguish between old-fashioned Occupation, and the new-fangled method of maintaining control of a territory at a slightly greater distance.

Can you point to a single legal source that would back up the contention that a naval blockade that limits a country's territorial waters qualifies as an occupation?

 

[untermensche]

Such as firing rockets indiscriminately, which is what Hamas is doing. Most of what Hamas is doing to "resist" Israel is unjustified, unproductive and only harms Palestinians.

It isn't justified. But it's roots are known and they are decades of oppression.

But Israel prevents Gaza from becoming normalized with it's illegal blockade and continual illegal invasions and incursions.

And Israel is not working on any peaceful solution which it must exhaust before resorting to violence.

Yes, it is. Last summer for example Israel's initial position was to respond to calm with calm. Hamas on the other hand wanted war and got it. According to the Nuremberg principles that you hold so dear, that means the casualties resulting from that war (including ones made by Israel) are on Hamas.

Israel breaks the law every second of every day with it's illegal blockade and support of illegal settlements.

When exactly has Israel said it will stop breaking the law so that progress can be made?

The continuing blockade on the other hand is justified by Hamas's proven track record of arming itself and attacking Israel.

Fears of potential future events do not justify blockades.

Israel fears paying a price for it's decades of abuse torture and crime.

Those fears do not justify an illegal blockade.

A blockade is a blockade and an occupation is an occupation.

The blockade is part of the occupation. And it is "troops on the ground".

Where is the limit when something counts as an invasion?

It needs at least a chance of taking ground and holding it for a while.

Otherwise it is no more than a fleeting nuisance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No nation has the right to invade other people and kill anyone who defends themselves from the invasion.

The status quo is there is no invasion of Gaza. Periodically Hamas attacks, they get bombed and sometimes invaded. Hamas is always the aggressor.

Israel is only permitted to use violence against the people actually firing the rockets. They are criminals just like any other criminal.

It has no right to harm anyone else.

The people commanding the rocketeers are just as much targets as the rocketeers.

Likewise, the hidden rockets are valid targets.

I have already shown that by standard legal definition Gaza is not occupied. Apparently that thread went in one eye and out the other.

Nobody but you accepts that a blockade and control over what gets in and continual unlawful and deadly invasions is not an occupation.

This thread certainly went in one eye and out the other.

The article you posted had no rulings on the situation in Gaza.

So now you admit you read the article. Apparently you didn't understand it.

But even Israeli courts have ruled the settlements are illegal and Israel breaks the law every second of every day by maintaining them.

There are no settlements in Gaza.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And Israel is not working on any peaceful solution which it must exhaust before resorting to violence.

They have tried peaceful approaches repeatedly--it always goes badly for them.

A couple of criminals coming into Israel through a tunnel is not an invasion except in the upside down world of the supporters of Israeli oppression.

One soldier would be an invasion. The plans were for hundreds to invade.

- - - Updated - - -

The illegal blockade is most definitely an occupation. It is the presence of troops in waters that belong to the Palestinians and don't belong to Israel. This even meets the pathetic standard offered up by the sympathizers and supporters of Israeli oppression.

That's true. The Israeli naval forces patrolling Gazan territorial waters and keeping Gazan fishermen away from their own fishing grounds certainly qualifies as a military occupation of Gaza territory.

I think the reality of modern electronic surveillance, drone strikes, and long range weaponry is changing what military occupation means. Israel doesn't have to have boots on the ground inside Gaza City in order to exert the kind of control formerly associated with regular armed patrols. I suppose we need a more nuanced term to distinguish between old-fashioned Occupation, and the new-fangled method of maintaining control of a territory at a slightly greater distance.

Spying and occupation are totally different things.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When exactly has Israel said it will stop breaking the law so that progress can be made?

Every time Israel tries to be peaceful things get worse for them. Hamas is the one that needs to make the first move.

Fears of potential future events do not justify blockades.

A state of de-facto war exists between Israel and Hamas. Blockades are perfectly legal in wartime. In fact, Israel could legally go much farther than they do now.

A blockade is a blockade and an occupation is an occupation.

The blockade is part of the occupation. And it is "troops on the ground".

Try posting in English rather than leftist delusion.

Where is the limit when something counts as an invasion?

It needs at least a chance of taking ground and holding it for a while.

Otherwise it is no more than a fleeting nuisance.

By this definition special forces actions are never invasions. That's not how the world sees it.