Gaza isn't occupied

[Jayjay]

Hamas repeatedly has boots on the ground in Israel. Does that mean Hamas is occupying Israel also? And IDF is a resistance movement against said occupation?

Words have meanings. Twisting them to mean whatever supports your political opinion doesn't change what's actually happening.

Jayjay: Tell me more about this Hamas occupation of Israel. Let's see their checkpoints and night house searches...source please! When you isolate a population and control everything that happens to them you are occupying them. Israel is actually very much worse than occupying Gaza.

I was merely pointing out the absurdity that having "troops on the ground repeatedly" qualifies as an occupation. Hamas has some troops on Israeli ground at least during the flareups, and possibly covertly in between (via tunnels). If that's the criteria of an occupation, the word becomes meaningless.

Also: Israel does not conduct night time searches or have permanent checkpoints in Gaza. Whether the blockade is better or worse than an occupation is irrelevant to the question if it is, in fact, an occupation.

 

[Jayjay]

Hamas repeatedly has boots on the ground in Israel. Does that mean Hamas is occupying Israel also? And IDF is a resistance movement against said occupation?

Words have meanings. Twisting them to mean whatever supports your political opinion doesn't change what's actually happening.

Hamas is disputing land which the settlers are taking in the West Bank. Hamas is not taking Israeli land. So there is a difference.

West Bank is not Gaza.

- - - Updated - - -

Hamas repeatedly has boots on the ground in Israel. Does that mean Hamas is occupying Israel also? And IDF is a resistance movement against said occupation?

Words have meanings. Twisting them to mean whatever supports your political opinion doesn't change what's actually happening.

The actions of Hamas are reactions to decades of Israeli oppression and theft.

This doesn't mean that all actions of Hamas are justified only that they are the natural reaction to oppression.

You oppress long enough and something like Hamas is likely to arise.

Irrelevant to the question of whether Israel is occupying Gaza. Which it is not.

 

[untermensche]

Hamas is disputing land which the settlers are taking in the West Bank. Hamas is not taking Israeli land. So there is a difference.

West Bank is not Gaza.

- - - Updated - - -

Hamas repeatedly has boots on the ground in Israel. Does that mean Hamas is occupying Israel also? And IDF is a resistance movement against said occupation?

Words have meanings. Twisting them to mean whatever supports your political opinion doesn't change what's actually happening.

The actions of Hamas are reactions to decades of Israeli oppression and theft.

This doesn't mean that all actions of Hamas are justified only that they are the natural reaction to oppression.

You oppress long enough and something like Hamas is likely to arise.

Irrelevant to the question of whether Israel is occupying Gaza. Which it is not.

Constantly sending in troops is an occupation.

Preventing people from having an airport or port is an occupation.

Controlling what gets in is an occupation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hamas repeatedly has boots on the ground in Israel. Does that mean Hamas is occupying Israel also? And IDF is a resistance movement against said occupation?

Words have meanings. Twisting them to mean whatever supports your political opinion doesn't change what's actually happening.

The actions of Hamas are reactions to decades of Israeli oppression and theft.

This doesn't mean that all actions of Hamas are justified only that they are the natural reaction to oppression.

You oppress long enough and something like Hamas is likely to arise.

Something like Hamas only arises if someone puts up the billions needed to fund it.

Where are the terrorists fighting back against genocide of the Sudan? That's *FAR* worse than anything that's happened in Palestine yet there isn't a meaningful resistance, terrorist or not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Constantly sending in troops is an occupation.

Only while those troops are there.

Preventing people from having an airport or port is an occupation.

Controlling what gets in is an occupation.

Apparently the article went in one ear and out the other--the point is that these things are a blockade, not an occupation.

 

[Arctish]

Only while those troops are there.

Preventing people from having an airport or port is an occupation.

Controlling what gets in is an occupation.

Apparently the article went in one ear and out the other--the point is that these things are a blockade, not an occupation.

From the linked article:

"Article 42 of the Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (hereafter “the 1907 Hague Regulations”) defines belligerent occupation as follows:

“Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

Accordingly, occupation within the meaning of the 1907 Hague Regulations exists when a state exercises actual authority over the territory, or part of the territory, of an enemy state(1) . The requirement of actual authority is widely considered to be synonymous to that of effective control.

Military occupation is considered to exist in a territory, or part of a territory, if the following elements can be demonstrated: the presence of foreign troops, which are in a position to exercise effective control without the consent of the sovereign. According to widespread expert opinion physical presence of foreign troops is a sine qua non requirement of occupation(2) , i.e. occupation is not conceivable without “boots on the ground” therefore forces exercising naval or air control through a naval or air blockade do not suffice(3)."

I don't think there is anyone here who doubts that Israel exercises effective control over the Gaza Strip without the consent of the people of Gaza. The only questions are whether the presence of IDF boots on the Separation Barrier and the border crossings is the same thing as IDF boots on Gaza Territory, and whether this is just semantic quibbling over the difference between Occupation and Imprisonment.

 

[untermensche]

Only while those troops are there.

Bullshit. When you constantly send in troops you are an occupying power. The kind of occupying power that sits at the periphery and maintains a level of weakness in a population through periodic attacks and destruction.

Preventing people from having an airport or port is an occupation.

Controlling what gets in is an occupation.

Apparently the article went in one ear and out the other--the point is that these things are a blockade, not an occupation.

The article is not the final word on anything.

If you have control over what gets into an area you are an occupying power. Your power is occupying the space that should be controlled by other powers.

It is only the most deluded supporters of Israeli oppression that can't clearly see this.

Only deluded supporters of Israeli oppression would call the conditions in Gaza freedom. When you cannot freely trade with the world you are not free.

 

[bleubird]

On a funnier note.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/21/politics/judy-mozes-obama-tweet-apology/index.html
Who are these people?

 

[whichphilosophy]

West Bank is not Gaza.

- - - Updated - - -

Hamas repeatedly has boots on the ground in Israel. Does that mean Hamas is occupying Israel also? And IDF is a resistance movement against said occupation?

Words have meanings. Twisting them to mean whatever supports your political opinion doesn't change what's actually happening.

The actions of Hamas are reactions to decades of Israeli oppression and theft.

This doesn't mean that all actions of Hamas are justified only that they are the natural reaction to oppression.

You oppress long enough and something like Hamas is likely to arise.

Irrelevant to the question of whether Israel is occupying Gaza. Which it is not.

Constantly sending in troops is an occupation. During the time the troops are there

Preventing people from having an airport or port is an occupation. Blockade

Controlling what gets in is an occupation.

Blockade inasmuch as specific people and commodities are stopped from getting in and out.

I would say that blockade should also be used.

 

[Jayjay]

West Bank is not Gaza.

- - - Updated - - -

Hamas repeatedly has boots on the ground in Israel. Does that mean Hamas is occupying Israel also? And IDF is a resistance movement against said occupation?

Words have meanings. Twisting them to mean whatever supports your political opinion doesn't change what's actually happening.

The actions of Hamas are reactions to decades of Israeli oppression and theft.

This doesn't mean that all actions of Hamas are justified only that they are the natural reaction to oppression.

You oppress long enough and something like Hamas is likely to arise.

Irrelevant to the question of whether Israel is occupying Gaza. Which it is not.

Constantly sending in troops is an occupation.

Preventing people from having an airport or port is an occupation.

Controlling what gets in is an occupation.

No, that's a blockade. We have perfectly fine words to describe what is actually going on, so why try to twist the meaning of the word occupation to be something it isn't?

During July war, a rocket hit near Tel Aviv airport and briefly caused several airlines to avoid using it. By your ridiculous definition, that was an "occupation".

 

[Juma]

Israel is occuping large parts of palestine. Wether gaza is occupied or under blockade is irrelevant

 

[untermensche]

West Bank is not Gaza.

- - - Updated - - -

Hamas repeatedly has boots on the ground in Israel. Does that mean Hamas is occupying Israel also? And IDF is a resistance movement against said occupation?

Words have meanings. Twisting them to mean whatever supports your political opinion doesn't change what's actually happening.

The actions of Hamas are reactions to decades of Israeli oppression and theft.

This doesn't mean that all actions of Hamas are justified only that they are the natural reaction to oppression.

You oppress long enough and something like Hamas is likely to arise.

Irrelevant to the question of whether Israel is occupying Gaza. Which it is not.

Constantly sending in troops is an occupation.

Preventing people from having an airport or port is an occupation.

Controlling what gets in is an occupation.

No, that's a blockade. We have perfectly fine words to describe what is actually going on, so why try to twist the meaning of the word occupation to be something it isn't?

During July war, a rocket hit near Tel Aviv airport and briefly caused several airlines to avoid using it. By your ridiculous definition, that was an "occupation".

A blockade is what occupying powers do. It is part of the occupation of Gaza.

And I don't care what lame excuses Israel maintains for it's oppression and illegal blockade. It has a lame excuse for every crime it commits and only fools without an ounce of sense buy them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, that's a blockade. We have perfectly fine words to describe what is actually going on, so why try to twist the meaning of the word occupation to be something it isn't?

Exactly. There's an increasing trend these days to try to apply bad words to bad situations whether or not they actually fit.

Gaza isn't an occupation.

The recent shooter wasn't terrorism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A blockade is what occupying powers do. It is part of the occupation of Gaza.

And I don't care what lame excuses Israel maintains for it's oppression and illegal blockade. It has a lame excuse for every crime it commits and only fools without an ounce of sense buy them.

An occupation is an occupation.

A blockade is a blockade.

It's possible for both to exist at the same time but the existence of one doesn't mean the other exists.

 

[untermensche]

Gaza isn't an occupation.

You've claimed it.

Nobody buys it.

Words are most twisted by those wanting to justify oppression.

When you want to claim some oppressive power isn't occupying just look for something that isn't happening presently and pretend that is the key to occupations.

Some occupations are so severe the occupying power doesn't have to maintain troops continually. They merely have to invade and blow the place up now and then to keep the occupied undesirables in place.

They also have to control what gets in, which is the real key to occupation.

If you are not controlling what you can bring into your country then it is not your country, it is the country of the power controlling what gets in.

- - - Updated - - -

A blockade is what occupying powers do. It is part of the occupation of Gaza.

And I don't care what lame excuses Israel maintains for it's oppression and illegal blockade. It has a lame excuse for every crime it commits and only fools without an ounce of sense buy them.

An occupation is an occupation.

A blockade is a blockade.

It's possible for both to exist at the same time but the existence of one doesn't mean the other exists.

It is also possible that a blockade is part of an occupation.

As is currently happening in Gaza.

 

[KeepTalking]

Only while those troops are there.



Apparently the article went in one ear and out the other--the point is that these things are a blockade, not an occupation.

From the linked article:

"Article 42 of the Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (hereafter “the 1907 Hague Regulations”) defines belligerent occupation as follows:

“Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

Accordingly, occupation within the meaning of the 1907 Hague Regulations exists when a state exercises actual authority over the territory, or part of the territory, of an enemy state(1) . The requirement of actual authority is widely considered to be synonymous to that of effective control.

Military occupation is considered to exist in a territory, or part of a territory, if the following elements can be demonstrated: the presence of foreign troops, which are in a position to exercise effective control without the consent of the sovereign. According to widespread expert opinion physical presence of foreign troops is a sine qua non requirement of occupation(2) , i.e. occupation is not conceivable without “boots on the ground” therefore forces exercising naval or air control through a naval or air blockade do not suffice(3)."

I don't think there is anyone here who doubts that Israel exercises effective control over the Gaza Strip without the consent of the people of Gaza. The only questions are whether the presence of IDF boots on the Separation Barrier and the border crossings is the same thing as IDF boots on Gaza Territory, and whether this is just semantic quibbling over the difference between Occupation and Imprisonment.

Thanks Arctish. The full quote of Hague's definition of occupation and military occupation is very edifying. There is no doubt that Palestine is occupied by Israel, as Israel exercises authority over Palestine. Further, IDF forces are in a position to exercise effective control without the consent of the Palestinians, so according to the precise definition of military occupation, Israel also occupies Palestine militarily. There is apparently considerable expert opinion that a territory cannot be militarily occupied unless there are foreign troops present in the occupied territory at all times, so this European court has decided to make that opinion part of the definition, and of course Israel apologists have seized upon this court decision to prop up their case. They also gobble up the last bit that states "therefore forces exercising naval or air control through a naval or air blockade do not suffice", but unfortunately for the apologist crowd, Israel does have forces in position to exercise control of more than just the air and sea, they control the land whenever they like as well.

Sorry, Loren, it's an occupation, and a military occupation at that.