General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by Thunder

Israel has ultimate soverignity and control over the Gaza Strip, its waters, and its airspace.

Guess who's responsibility it is to come save the day if there is a major natural or man-made disaster in Gaza. Yep, its Israel.

that would be because gaza is 'occupied' territory.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

that would be because gaza is 'occupied' territory.

from the legal standpoint and from the view of ultimate soveriegnity, yes..they are still Occupied territory.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

8600 rockets launched and 28 deaths? obviously, they are not much of a threat.

First, that's 8,599 more rockets than what is needed to justify a military response on the scale of Operation Cast Lead.

Second, consider the case of the Aum Shinrikyo terrorist cult in Japan:

Over the next week, the full scale of Aum's activities was revealed for the first time. At the cult's headquarters in Kamikuishiki on the foot of Mount Fuji, police found explosives, chemical weapons and biological warfare agents, such as anthrax and Ebola cultures, and a Russian Mil Mi-17 military helicopter. The Ebola virus was delivered from Zaire in 1994.[14] There were stockpiles of chemicals that could be used for producing enough sarin to kill four million people.

The general membership of Aum Shinrikyo is roughly 1600 members. The ones believed by Japanese law enforcement to have had direct involvement in the groups terrorist activities and WMD programs are about 150, and operated with virtually no support outside their organization. Hamas has a captive population of more than 1.6 million people, and the financial support of a major oil producing nation with its own WMD program.

The Qassam III rocket used by Hamas is 6 feet long, weighs 200 pounds, carries a twenty pound warhead and has a range of more than ten miles.

What do you get when you add Hamas's capability to that of a small band of Japanese hillbillies?

And before you say it, yes, I am aware that the 28 dead in Israel were "just jews".

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

in the 'gaza war of 2008, there were 13 israeli deaths, 10 soldiers (4 by friendly fire) and 3 civilians, while 1407 palestinians were killed, including several hundred children.

Kids at home, never launch 8,000 rockets at people who are better at war than you are.

Hamas is genocidal and stupid, this is not Israels fault.

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

i don't profess to know the answers, but these figures show that the israeli response is indeed not proportional.

If you load a rifle, aim it and fire a single bullet at me, I have the right to take you out.

Israel killed one palestinian for every 6 rockets launched.

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by truethat

There are many people on the Israeli and Palestinian side that just want some *********** peace. They just want to live their lives. Unfortunately when you have the equivalent of the West Boro Baptist church operating on both sides, it is not going to happen.

There are four wars going on now. Two are Israel's war for defensible borders and security and the Palestinians' war against occupation. If these were the only two wars a solution would be found long ago.

The problem is the other two, the "Allah / Jehovah mit uns" wars, which see the situation as a zero-sum game their god had (a) decreed they must fight without any compromise, and (b) promised they will win.

You'd think the fact that both side's god promised final victory would give some of these folks pause and make them think perhaps this "god promised we will win" thingy is less to be relied upon than they believe, but do they listen? Nooooooooooo.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

The problem is the other two, the "Allah / Jehovah mit uns" wars,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

[IDB87]

Originally Posted by Thunder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

Quote:

It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

I think it should be a fallacy to use 'Godwin' whenever anyone says anything about Nazis or Hitler.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by IDB87

I think it should be a fallacy to use 'Godwin' whenever anyone says anything about Nazis or Hitler.

it should be a fallacy when the only regime you EVER compare folks to, is the Nazis.

what, the Soviets, Chi-Coms, and East Germans weren't evil enough?

[FireGarden]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Who? The BBC doesn’t name anyone or any law. If your claim is that the internationals who set international law have made this determination, then please name these people and the laws they cite.

By 'has not been accepted internationally' I take the BBC to mean that no international body has accepted it. ie: Israel's claim does not stand and the status of Gaza is unchanged.

Quote:

I predict you will no more do that than you named the Hague Conventions and Geneva Conventions that define occupation.

I don't need to define occupation. If you think I'm going to have a legal debate with you, then you are mistaken. I will rely upon the authorities I have quoted. If you disagree, then poke holes in the authorities I have quoted and their ability to report on the matter.

Quote:

They don’t list anything at all, remember?

What is there to list?
Do you think that there are large parts of the international community who have agreed the occupation is over? But the BBC overlooks them?

Quote:

Touché.

So the CIA counts. But not enough, it seems

Quote:

Our State Department contradicts itself by simultaneously describing it as “occupied” while stating that the troops have been withdrawn. One would almost think it were a political organization trying to please both sides. Oh, wait…

One might. But another might think that removing troops is not enough to end the occupation. Take it up with the CIA. Ask them for definitions and such.

Quote:

It’s only relevant if you can cite the parts of the Hague Conventions and Geneva Conventions that name that as part of the legal definition of “occupation”. You have been challenged to do that, and so far you have failed.

I listed those things to show that Israel has not 'seperated from its enemies'. I've already clarified that to you.

I do not need to define 'occupation'. I trust the CIA to understand what the word means. I trust the international community to understand what 'occupation' means and I trust the BBC to report the understanding of that community. If this argument by authority is not good enough for you, and you prefer to argue legal definitions, then go find a lawyer.

Quote:

If they are all over the place then you should have no problem compiling a list. I’m not going to go through old threads trying to guess what you think the good parts are and try to build your argument for you, that’s your job. You made the claim, now back it up. If the points are as good as you seem to think they are, you should take special satisfaction in demolishing my arguments in open forum,

But I predict you will not be able to do that. Why? Because the same arguments back then only convinced you. There is no reason to believe they are any more convincing today.

Because the PA's recognition of Israel is a secret.
Just recently, Abbas (again) ruled out a return to armed struggle:
http://www.france24.com/en/20100524-...-boycott-hamas

ETA: he also reiterated acceptance of an international military force to keep peace on the borders of a two-state solution.

Quote:

Right, your argument here is based on taking a neutral term, “separation” and loading it up with as much of an emotional charge as you can.

No. My argument is based on the points I made regarding how the Israeli government controls the lives of people who have no vote in Israeli elections. You pretended that was something to do with the definition of 'occupation' so that you could say: 'that has nothing to do with occupation'.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Going with the "nuh-uh" rebuttal, I see.

No need when someone is claiming a mouse is really a horse.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by FireGarden

I don't need to define occupation. If you think I'm going to have a legal debate with you, then you are mistaken.

I applaud your refusal to get into useless and senseless debates over long established legal and political facts on the ground.

Israel recognizes the authority of the United Nations to make declarations over the legal status of various issues, like their demarcation of the Israel/Lebanon border and the status of the Shebaa Farms. Well, the UN also declares Gaza to still be under Israeli Occupation, and if the UN is right in regards to the Israel/Lebanon border and the Shebaa Farms, then they are most likely also right about the status of Gaza.

[FireGarden]

Mycroft,
Some more people you can accuse of being disgusting revisionists -- shame on them:

British government travel advice for Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories -- includes Gaza.
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-...srael-occupied


From 2005:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...135368,00.html

Originally Posted by YNet

Only an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians regarding the control over the land, air and sea passages in Gaza will permit the international community to acknowledge the end of Israel’s occupation in Gaza, Javier Solana, the EU High Representative for EU Common Foreign and Security, said Tuesday during a meeting with Meretz-Yahad Party leader Yossi Beilin in Jerusalem.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

And before you say it, yes, I am aware that the 28 dead in Israel were "just jews".

i would NEVER say something like that.
you are bound and determined to paint me as a 'jew-hater' and you are dead wrong.
so do you think that the hundreds of kids killed were 'just arabs'?

[FireGarden]

Originally Posted by WildCat

No need when someone is claiming a mouse is really a horse.

Truely eye-opening. I don't see why I didn't see it before. Thank you for your help shedding light on this complex matter.

Meanwhile, on planet Earth, I prefer to trust the BBC, CIA, UK goverment and EU representatives.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth
And before you say it, yes, I am aware that the 28 dead in Israel were "just jews".

I guess when facts, logic, reason, and history are NOT on your side, you might as well just play the "Jew-card".

Falsely and maliciously accusing folks of anti-Semitism, is petty pathetic and a disgrace to the millions of Jews who have died at the hands of REAL anti-Semitism.

I think you owe Bikerdruid an apology.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

i would NEVER say something like that.
you are bound and determined to paint me as a 'jew-hater' and you are dead wrong.

your position is easily deduced from your many posts and comments against jews.

that is why i was asking the question for further clarification.
it is not much of a secret that you do hold hatred for jews.
so....why do you hate jews so?

(See what I did there?)

[truethat]

Originally Posted by bigjelmapro

More of a double standard than anything. Cypriots overall are not nutjobs who employ suicide bombing, amongst a few worth mentioning, such as the PLO/Hamas/PFLP, and much more attention is given to the Israel-Palestinian conflict since its more news-worthy.

So not the same situation. Just people, the 'international community' or whatever you want to call it have become more complacent with the Turkish occupation (not as a result of war) whilst the Turks harp on about supposed Israel atrocities/occupation/etc.

More of a communal foot-in-mouth moment for the Turks than anything...

Most people are not nut jobs until you add religion to the case.


In addition your commentary on the Turkish is irrelevant!

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by FireGarden

Truely eye-opening. I don't see why I didn't see it before. Thank you for your help shedding light on this complex matter.

Meanwhile, on planet Earth, I prefer to trust the BBC, CIA, UK goverment and EU representatives.

How many IDF troops are occupying Gaza again? Just a rough estimate will do, thanks!

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by WildCat

How many IDF troops are occupying Gaza again? Just a rough estimate will do, thanks!

which member state of the United Nations has ultimate sovereignty over the Gaza Strip?

(cue Jeopardy theme)

[Virus]

Originally Posted by Thunder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

Palestinian factions collaborated with the Nazis, including the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who was Yasser Arafat's uncle.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Virus

Palestinian factions collaborated with the Nazis, including the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who was Yasser Arafat's uncle.

err...its 2011 NOT 1945.

just a friendly reminder.

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by truethat

Muslims don't have a problem with Jews unless they are waging war against Islam.

Historically Jews WERE treated with respect by Muslims as "people of the book." For example during the Ottoman empire Jews were welcomed.

All this is quite true, truethat, and, on the whole and historically speaking, Jews were certainly treated better in Islamic than in Christian countries.

The problem is twofold, however:

1). What was quite liberal and reasonable in 1200 -- non-Muslims being left in peace so long as they pay a special tax (as opposed to being expelled or killed) -- is no longer so in 2000.

2). The million dollar question is what counts as being "in peace" with Islam? To some Muslims the definition is the same as that of the western use of the word. To others, the mere fact that the other countries refused conversion is a declaration of war.

Unfortunately the latter seems rather popular. One of Muhammad's first -- probably the first -- international acts was to send to letters to the leaders of the two most important foreigners he heard of, the Persian monarch and the emperor of Byzantium, demanding conversion or death. Both ignored his letters -- and ever since they were "enemies of Islam" and their countries were targets, the war only stopping with their total defeat, as indeed occurred.

[Doctor Evil]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

All this is quite true, truethat, and, on the whole and historically speaking, Jews were certainly treated better in Islamic than in Christian countries.

By the way, treated better does not mean treated well. It is just that the standard set by Europe was so low, everything is better in comparison. At best, Jews were tolerated as a second class citizens who had to pay special taxes. At worst, Jews were either forced to convert (Almohads dynasty in 12th century Spain), expelled (Yemenite Jews were expelled to the desert in the 17th century, but were allowed to return later. Many did not survive), or killed (in 15th century Fez, and many more).

[a_unique_person]

If you read the general history of that time, wholesale killing, brutality and oppression were quite common. It was hardly a uniquely anti-Jewish thing. The Ottomans oppressed the Muslims they ruled quite ruthlessley. I'm not saying your claims are incorrect, but it was hardly just Jews who suffered during those times. Xian on Xian war was quite common, between the different branches. Even Buddhists were at it in Asia.

[Doctor Evil]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

If you read the general history of that time, wholesale killing, brutality and oppression were quite common. It was hardly a uniquely anti-Jewish thing. The Ottomans oppressed the Muslims they ruled quite ruthlessley. I'm not saying your claims are incorrect, but it was hardly just Jews who suffered during those times. Xian on Xian war was quite common, between the different branches. Even Buddhists were at it in Asia.

This is generally true. For instance, the Though there some animosity between Muslims and Jews stemming from Mohammad's fights against Jewish tribes. Some rulers treated the Jews as people of the book, namely second class citizens. Others treated them worse. You can find impressions of foreigners vising Jerusalem in the years it was ruled by Muhammed Ali, and commenting that Jews were treated worse than Christians.

Anyway, my main point was that we should not over romanticize the situation of Jews under Islamic rule. It was generally better than their trials under Christianity, but at times it was as bad as one can imagine.

[FireGarden]

Originally Posted by WildCat

How many IDF troops are occupying Gaza again? Just a rough estimate will do, thanks!

Irrelevent. The quote from the CIA should make that clear. They say both that Gaza is occupied territory and that Israeli troops left.

The quote from the EU representative should also make it clear.

The fact the UK still lists Gaza as occupied should make it clear.

The BBC says Israel claims the occupation of Gaza is over. And then goes on to say that this claim has not been accepted internationally.


Anonymous bod on the internet asking what he thinks are pertinent questions really has no impact to compare to that.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by FireGarden

Irrelevent. The quote from the CIA should make that clear. They say both that Gaza is occupied territory and that Israeli troops left.

The quote from the EU representative should also make it clear.

The fact the UK still lists Gaza as occupied should make it clear.

The BBC says Israel claims the occupation of Gaza is over. And then goes on to say that this claim has not been accepted internationally.

clearly, the views of the CIA, the EU, the UK, and the BBC are all Arab-loving pro-islamooNazi propaganda.

[Thunder]

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...ttack-1.348707

I am greatly saddened that these poor children were put directly in the line of fire, by their foolish and stupid parents.

Raising children in an illegal settlement should be considered child-abuse.

[bigjelmapro]

Originally Posted by IDB87

I think it should be a fallacy to use 'Godwin' whenever anyone says anything about Nazis or Hitler.

Its already a known fact that Parky has no idea what Godwin law really is. It is indeed a fallacy the way he uses it.

[bigjelmapro]

Originally Posted by Thunder

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...ttack-1.348707

I am greatly saddened that these poor children were put directly in the line of fire, by their foolish and stupid parents.

Raising children in an illegal settlement should be considered child-abuse.

Ta for this clarity. No condemnation for the muppet who stabbed a 3 year old and a 1 month old baby, but an allegation of child abuse for those residing in a region of disputed land, apparently amongst 'savages', eh?

But hey, stabbing a child and a baby is perfectly justifiable eh? Those evil joos!

Explain how the WB in its entirety is 'in the line of fire'?

Another post chock-full of misconceptions and utter stupidity. But whinge whinge about an infraction, just as long as you can continue posting this drivel.

[bigjelmapro]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

If you read the general history of that time, wholesale killing, brutality and oppression were quite common. It was hardly a uniquely anti-Jewish thing. The Ottomans oppressed the Muslims they ruled quite ruthlessley. I'm not saying your claims are incorrect, but it was hardly just Jews who suffered during those times. Xian on Xian war was quite common, between the different branches. Even Buddhists were at it in Asia.

Nobody is claiming the above. Glad we cleared that up.

[bigjelmapro]

Originally Posted by FireGarden

Irrelevent. The quote from the CIA should make that clear. They say both that Gaza is occupied territory and that Israeli troops left.
...

Perfectly relevant.

All branches of Gaza's government are controlled by Hamas. There are no foreign troops on the ground (besides the foreign jihadists, but they are mostly invited). Gaza is not occupied by any form of the term. Not being able to fish 5-8 km off shore is not a form of government. Airspace is also not a form of government (not that one would need it since Arafat and everybody after were more invested in weaponry than making an airport). Not being able to freely transport suicide bombers across a border or launch mortars/rockets is not a form of government.

Unless we want to create another special definition for Palestinians when it comes to the concept of 'occupation' as we did with 'refugee', its perfectly relevant.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by bigjelmapro

All branches of Gaza's government are controlled by Hamas.

really?
immigration? emmigration?
does hamas have a seat on any multi-lateral organization? the u.n.?

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

really?
immigration? emmigration?
does hamas have a seat on any multi-lateral organization? the u.n.?

its cute how the deniers love to debate the definition of terms like "occupation", "refugee", "border", etc etc....rather than actually facing the internationally recognized political facts.

no, Hamas nor Palestine is not a member state of the UN nor any other international organizations.

no, Hamas nor Palestine has no self-control over immigration or emigration.

they have no control over their airspace, their borders, their water, etc etc etc

they are no more an independent sovereign state than Alaska.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by FireGarden

Irrelevent.

Not irrelevant. It is impossible to occupy a country without, you know, occupying it. Israel is no more occupying Gaza than I am occupying your bathroom at the moment.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Not irrelevant. It is impossible to occupy a country without, you know, occupying it. Israel is no more occupying Gaza than I am occupying your bathroom at the moment.

Legal status:

The UN, Human Rights Watch and many other international bodies and NGOs consider Israel to be the occupying power of the Gaza Strip as Israel controls Gaza's airspace and territorial waters, and does not allow the movement of goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea.[16][17][18] Israel states that Gaza is no longer occupied, inasmuch as Israel does not exercise effective control or authority over any land or institutions in the Gaza Strip.[19][20]Foreign Affairs Minister of IsraelTzipi Livni stated in January, 2008: “Israel got out of Gaza. It dismantled its settlements there. No Israeli soldiers were left there after the disengagement.”[21]
After Israel withdrew in 2005, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas stated, "the legal status of the areas slated for evacuation has not changed."[19]Palestinian American attorney Gregory Khalil said “Israel still controls every person, every good, literally every drop of water to enter or leave the Gaza Strip. Its troops may not be there... but it still restricts the ability for the Palestinian authority to exercise control.”[22]
In his statement on the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict Richard Falk, United Nations Special Rapporteur wrote that international humanitarian law applied to Israel "in regard to the obligations of an Occupying Power and in the requirements of the laws of war."[23] In a 2009 interview on Democracy Now Christopher Gunness, spokesperson for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) called Israel an occupying power. However, Meagan Buren, Senior Adviser to the pro-Israeli media group Israel Project, contested that characterization.[24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_strip#Legal_status



...forgive me for deferring my views on highly sophisticated and controversial international events to long trusted and established entities, but I shall consider the Gaza Strip to be no longer Occupied by Israel, when the United States, the EU, and the UN says so.

[FireGarden]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Not irrelevant. It is impossible to occupy a country without, you know, occupying it. Israel is no more occupying Gaza than I am occupying your bathroom at the moment.

Perry Mason got nothing on you! What a sharp legal mind.

Meanwhile, on planet Earth...
The CIA, UK government, and EU disagree with you. Guess who I'm going to trust.

[applecorped]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...72B0B920110312

"In a televised speech, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed shock that the parents and three of their children -- including a baby -- were "brutally murdered on Sabbath eve while sleeping.""I instructed our security forces to make all efforts to find the murderers and we will not rest until we find them and bring them to justice," he said.
The office of President Barack Obama said: "There is no possible justification for the killing of parents and children in their home. We call on the Palestinian Authority to unequivocally condemn this terrorist attack."


Terrorist attack? Could be but since no one has been apprehended yet this may not be the case.

[FireGarden]

Jesus Christ! I've been teleported into the thread from hell!



It's not all one topic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by FireGarden

I don't need to define occupation. If you think I'm going to have a legal debate with you, then you are mistaken...

Of course not. Because you know darn well the legal definition doesn’t back you up.

And that’s really the crux of this debate. We have an international agreement called the Hague Conventions where these issues were discussed and agreed upon more than a century ago, but when it comes to Israel and [o]only[/i] Israel, we have revisionists who want to make up a different definition because the actual definition doesn’t suite their prejudices.

That’s the point I was making earlier about revisionism. You agreed that revisionism is disgusting, so can you tell me why it’s not disgusting when applied to Israel?

Originally Posted by FireGarden

I will rely upon the authorities I have quoted. If you disagree, then poke holes in the authorities I have quoted and their ability to report on the matter.

You will rely on everything…except the actual definition established by international agreement more than a century ago, that applies to every government everywhere. Even Israel.

Originally Posted by FireGarden

What is there to list?

For starters they could have listed the internationals who hold the opinion that Israel has not ended the occupation.

Originally Posted by FireGarden

Do you think that there are large parts of the international community who have agreed the occupation is over? But the BBC overlooks them?

Honestly, I haven’t checked. When we have a legally established definition that’s pretty easy to understand, I don’t personally think it’s necessary to compile a list of politicians who agree or not. But for the sake of argument, if you were to identify a significant list of politicians who agree with your point of view, I think all that would accomplish is to completely validate the claim that Israel is held to different standards than the rest of the world.

Can you think of any defensible reasons why Israel should be held to different standards than the rest of the world? I can’t.

Originally Posted by FireGarden

I listed those things to show that Israel has not 'seperated from its enemies'. I've already clarified that to you.

If you truly believe that then it’s bizarre that you’re trying to push the term “Hafrada”. Do you believe they are separated or not? Which is it? Or is it that they are separated when you want to manufactured an emotionally charged term to use for propaganda purposes, and they are not separated when saying so lends a little weight to your revisionist changing definitions?

See, those are the kind of tricky logical contradictions you fall into when you purposefully disregard the facts. It’s so much easier to just stick with what is factually true, then argue for how you think things should change from there.

Originally Posted by FireGarden

I do not need to define 'occupation'. I trust the CIA to understand what the word means. I trust the international community to understand what 'occupation' means and I trust the BBC to report the understanding of that community. If this argument by authority is not good enough for you, and you prefer to argue legal definitions, then go find a lawyer.

I don’t need a lawyer to read and understand the Hague Conventions. There is a legal definition of “occupation” and you’re not using it. Instead you’re choosing to make up a different definition and apply it exclusively to Israel. That’s revisionism.

Originally Posted by FireGarden

Because the PA's recognition of Israel is a secret.
Just recently, Abbas (again) ruled out a return to armed struggle:
http://www.france24.com/en/20100524-...-boycott-hamas

It’s good that Abbas did that, and that makes him way better than his predecessor, but it’s not an assurance of what would happen after a new state of “Palestine” is created.

Nice try, though.

Originally Posted by FireGarden

ETA: he also reiterated acceptance of an international military force to keep peace on the borders of a two-state solution.

Yeah…like the international military force that’s supposed to be keeping Hezbollah from rearming yet can’t ever seem to see any of the arms shipments coming in from Syria? It’s easy to see how being okay with that sort of deal may not be an assurance of peaceful intentions, and it’s easy to understand why Israel would have a problem with it.

Originally Posted by FireGarden

No. My argument is based on the points I made regarding how the Israeli government controls the lives of people who have no vote in Israeli elections. You pretended that was something to do with the definition of 'occupation' so that you could say: 'that has nothing to do with occupation'.

So…you’re claiming you want to take the Hebrew word for “separation” and use it to say they are not separated. And in order to do that you can’t just say, “They’re not really separated.” Oh yeah, and “separation” is worse than Apartheid…therefore Israel should be more in control of Palestinian government…?!

Surely you must see the logical problems with all that?

Wouldn’t it be so much easier to just say you believe Palestinians need more independence than they have right now, and that you believe that even though Israel is no longer occupying Gaza that they still have a moral obligation to the people of Gaza? You’d be saying the things you seem to believe, but you wouldn’t need to tie yourself up in logical knots trying to coin new terms and force old words into new definitions. Most of the time just saying what you think the truth is in simple terms is the best.

Granted, you run the risk of giving Israel credit for its policy of disengagement (I don’t know what the Hebrew word for “disengagement is, but at least it’s an actual policy, unlike “Hafrada”) and you would run the risk of saying Israel was right to withdraw from Gaza…but that might not be such a downside if it makes you come across as being a reasonable moderate and not just an anti-Israel kook.

So, to recap;

You have not only failed to cite a definition of “occupation” as defined by the Hague Conventions, but have asserted you have no intention of doing so. Bizarrely, you do cite snippets from travel websites.

You have failed to list the assurances given to the Israelis by the Palestinians that a new Palestinian state won’t be just a platform to wage war against Israel, but you have cited a statement by Abbas saying he rejects violence in the short-run.

You have actually named one international politician who claimed Gaza is still occupied, Javier Solana, but failed to notice his comments predate the withdrawal from Gaza and that Mr Solana has been retired for a couple of years now. It’s unclear from reading the article if the statement represents an official statement of policy from the post he held or a personal opinion. In any case, I’m going to assume that finding it indicated you put effort into looking, and that’s the best you found.