Israel offers to end the blockade; Hamas refuses

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore , I think you are perfectly representing the Palestinian mentality here. It is more important to maintain the ability to attack Israel then it is to be at peace with Israel and live prosperously.

Of course I do not agree with your assessment.

Feel free to elaborate. What is (or should be) the priority of the government of Gaza with respect to Israel? If peace is important, what steps Gaza must take in order to achieve peace with Israel?

Peace is not the absence of conflict. It is the presence of justice.

About 80% of the people in Gaza are refugees. Where is their justice?

 

[toomuchtime_]

P F Tinmore , I think you are perfectly representing the Palestinian mentality here. It is more important to maintain the ability to attack Israel then it is to be at peace with Israel and live prosperously.

Of course I do not agree with your assessment.

Feel free to elaborate. What is (or should be) the priority of the government of Gaza with respect to Israel? If peace is important, what steps Gaza must take in order to achieve peace with Israel?

Peace is not the absence of conflict. It is the presence of justice.

About 80% of the people in Gaza are refugees. Where is their justice?

In other words these people are just political abstractions to you and you have no interest in whether the Israeli offer would make their lives better.

 

[montelatici]

People have a right to resist occupation.

Even assuming this is true, and I am in no way saying it is, if the goal is to END THE OCCUPATION and the occupying power offers to END THE OCCUPATION, why would you insist on continuing to resist?

The occupying power has never offered to end the occupation. It has offered permanent military occupation and the occupied people have said no.

 

[Shusha]

Peace is not the absence of conflict. It is the presence of justice.

About 80% of the people in Gaza are refugees. Where is their justice?

And a large percentage of the people of Israel are refugees, by that definition. Where is their justice?

You have to define both "refugees" and "justice" for your premise to work here. Has an Israeli citizen whose father was ethnically cleansed from Iraq, but is now living in comfort in Israel received "justice" or not? Has an American citizen of Palestinian heritage now living in the US in comfort received "justice" or not?

So tell me, what is your measure of "justice"? Be objective and detailed.

 

[Shusha]

The occupying power has never offered to end the occupation. It has offered permanent military occupation and the occupied people have said no.

Define what you mean by "permanent military occupation".

 

[montelatici]

The occupying power has never offered to end the occupation. It has offered permanent military occupation and the occupied people have said no.

Define what you mean by "permanent military occupation".

Explained clearly by a Republican Senator in questioning the future ambassador to Israel. at about 2:40. Israel proposes a permanent occupation and a Republican senator confirms that this is what makes a 2-state solution impossible.

Israeli Ambassador Nominee David Friedman | Video | C-SPAN.org

 

[Shusha]

The occupying power has never offered to end the occupation. It has offered permanent military occupation and the occupied people have said no.

Define what you mean by "permanent military occupation".

Explained clearly by a Republican Senator in questioning the future ambassador to Israel. at about 2:40. Israel proposes a permanent occupation and a Republican senator confirms that this is what makes a 2-state solution impossible.

Israeli Ambassador Nominee David Friedman | Video | C-SPAN.org

His words are "vision of military presence forever". But he doesn't seem to give a clear definition of what that means. Can you tell me, specifically, what you mean by "permanent military occupation."

I'll give you an example. Canada has a clear border with the US (minor disputes aside). Canada has sovereignty over what happens within her territory. The US has sovereignty over what happens in her territory. There is considerable interaction and co-operation between the two states. The two states are not at war. Yet the US has a clear military advantage over Canada. Would it be fair to say that the US has a ""permanent military occupation" over Canada? Why or why not? I'll be clear -- is military might enough to establish a "permanent military occupation"?

What does constitute "permanent military occupation"?

 

[montelatici]

The occupying power has never offered to end the occupation. It has offered permanent military occupation and the occupied people have said no.

Define what you mean by "permanent military occupation".

Explained clearly by a Republican Senator in questioning the future ambassador to Israel. at about 2:40. Israel proposes a permanent occupation and a Republican senator confirms that this is what makes a 2-state solution impossible.

Israeli Ambassador Nominee David Friedman | Video | C-SPAN.org

His words are "vision of military presence forever". But he doesn't seem to give a clear definition of what that means. Can you tell me, specifically, what you mean by "permanent military occupation."

I'll give you an example. Canada has a clear border with the US (minor disputes aside). Canada has sovereignty over what happens within her territory. The US has sovereignty over what happens in her territory. There is considerable interaction and co-operation between the two states. The two states are not at war. Yet the US has a clear military advantage over Canada. Would it be fair to say that the US has a ""permanent military occupation" over Canada? Why or why not? I'll be clear -- is military might enough to establish a "permanent military occupation"?

What does constitute "permanent military occupation"?

Exactly what the Senator said and the ambassador select confirmed. Israeli troops permanently within an eventual Palestine's borders.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Team Palestine (I'm talking to you montelatici ) keeps saying that all Gaza wants is the end of the blockade.

So, Israel offered a seaport, an airport and an industrial zone, 40,000 new jobs and to invest in Gaza. In return, all Israel wants is the return of three Israeli hostages, the bodies of two IDF soldiers, demilitarization and to erase the article in the Hamas covenant which calls for the destruction of Israel.

Hamas refused.

What gives?

What Israeli Students Learn at American Colleges

Appeasement is a road map for truck bombs. Quit praising the Israeli ruling class for putting concern about feralphile world opinion before concern about its own citizens and soldiers.

 

[Hollie]

The occupying power has never offered to end the occupation. It has offered permanent military occupation and the occupied people have said no.

Define what you mean by "permanent military occupation".

Explained clearly by a Republican Senator in questioning the future ambassador to Israel. at about 2:40. Israel proposes a permanent occupation and a Republican senator confirms that this is what makes a 2-state solution impossible.

Israeli Ambassador Nominee David Friedman | Video | C-SPAN.org

His words are "vision of military presence forever". But he doesn't seem to give a clear definition of what that means. Can you tell me, specifically, what you mean by "permanent military occupation."

I'll give you an example. Canada has a clear border with the US (minor disputes aside). Canada has sovereignty over what happens within her territory. The US has sovereignty over what happens in her territory. There is considerable interaction and co-operation between the two states. The two states are not at war. Yet the US has a clear military advantage over Canada. Would it be fair to say that the US has a ""permanent military occupation" over Canada? Why or why not? I'll be clear -- is military might enough to establish a "permanent military occupation"?

What does constitute "permanent military occupation"?

Exactly what the Senator said and the ambassador select confirmed. Israeli troops permanently within an eventual Palestine's borders.

So... understanding that the ambassador select never used the term you ascribed to him and further understanding that a US senator does not set Israeli political policy, you still see fit to attribute comments to those individuals that they never spoke.

I think we are forced to issue a Monty'ism Alert!

 

[Shusha]

Exactly what the Senator said and the ambassador select confirmed. Israeli troops permanently within an eventual Palestine's borders.

Alright, then. We can definitively say that Gaza is NOT under "permanent military occupation", then. And hasn't been for a dozen years. So your entire point in bringing it up is a strawman.

 

[montelatici]

Exactly what the Senator said and the ambassador select confirmed. Israeli troops permanently within an eventual Palestine's borders.

Alright, then. We can definitively say that Gaza is NOT under "permanent military occupation", then. And hasn't been for a dozen years. So your entire point in bringing it up is a strawman.

Gaza is occupied, de juris and de facto, as determined by the International Court of Justice, but they were talking about the West Bank. So making things up, as you are wont to do, doesn't change the facts.

 

[Shusha]

Gaza is occupied, de juris and de facto, as determined by the International Court of Justice, but they were talking about the West Bank. So making things up, as you are wont to do, doesn't change the facts.

The thread is about Gaza.

You said that Gaza can not accept "permanent military occupation".

I asked you to define your term.

You responded with "Israeli troops permanently within the borders of "Palestine"".

Using that as a definition of "permanent military occupation", we can determine that Gaza is NOT "permanently militarily occupied" since there are NO Israeli troops within Gaza.

Therefore, it is not a reason to reject the Israeli proposal.

Try to keep up here. Its a very simple line of reasoning.

 

[montelatici]

International Court of Justice:

"28. Although it no longer maintains a military presence in Gaza, Israel has not only shown the ability to conduct incursions into Gaza at will, but also expressly reserved the right to do so as required by military necessity. This consideration is potentially significant considering that there is support in international case law for the conclusion that it is not a prerequisite that a State maintain continuous presence in a territory in order to qualify as an occupying power. In particular, the ICTY has held that the law of occupation would also apply to areas where a state possesses “the capacity to send troops within a reasonable time to make the authority of the occupying power felt.” In this respect, it is also noted that the geographic proximity of the Gaza Strip to Israel potentially facilitates the ability of Israel to exercise effective control over the territory, despite the lack of a continuous military presence.

29. Overall, there is a reasonable basis upon which to conclude that Israel continues to be an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. The Office has therefore proceeded on the basis that the situation in Gaza can be considered within the framework of an international armed conflict in view of the continuing military occupation by Israel."

Opinio Juris » Blog Archive The OTP Concludes Israel Is Still Occupying Gaza - Opinio Juris

 

[Eloy]

People have a right to resist occupation.

Even assuming this is true, and I am in no way saying it is, if the goal is to END THE OCCUPATION and the occupying power offers to END THE OCCUPATION, why would you insist on continuing to resist?

Once the occupation is ended there will be no longer a justification for resistance.

 

[Shusha]

Once the occupation is ended there will be no longer a justification for resistance.

THANK YOU! That is what this thread is about.

Israel is offering not only to end the occupation, but to provide financial and political assistance to help the Gazan people thrive. Since Israel is offering to end the occupation, wouldn't you say that resistance is no longer justified?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Once the occupation is ended there will be no longer a justification for resistance.

THANK YOU! That is what this thread is about.

Israel is offering not only to end the occupation, but to provide financial and political assistance to help the Gazan people thrive. Since Israel is offering to end the occupation, wouldn't you say that resistance is no longer justified?

The limited information we have does not necessarily say that.

 

[Shusha]

Once the occupation is ended there will be no longer a justification for resistance.

THANK YOU! That is what this thread is about.

Israel is offering not only to end the occupation, but to provide financial and political assistance to help the Gazan people thrive. Since Israel is offering to end the occupation, wouldn't you say that resistance is no longer justified?

The limited information we have does not necessarily say that.

Only if you keep trying to change and expand the definition of "occupation" (only with respect to the Jews, though, of course).

I asked monte this, or a version of this, I'll ask you. How will we know when the "occupation" of Gaza is ended?

 

[montelatici]

Once the occupation is ended there will be no longer a justification for resistance.

THANK YOU! That is what this thread is about.

Israel is offering not only to end the occupation, but to provide financial and political assistance to help the Gazan people thrive. Since Israel is offering to end the occupation, wouldn't you say that resistance is no longer justified?

The limited information we have does not necessarily say that.

Only if you keep trying to change and expand the definition of "occupation" (only with respect to the Jews, though, of course).

I asked monte this, or a version of this, I'll ask you. How will we know when the "occupation" of Gaza is ended?

The Hostages Decision from the Nuremburg trials was the decision that the ICJ used as precedent for the decision on Gaza. The occupation of Gaza will end when Israel no longer controls the air space, the territorial sea and the land borders of Gaza, especially Israeli's control of land area within Gaza that is considered an Israeli security zone. The Hostages Decision was decided when the Court determined that though the Germans had left some of the Balkan states their control of the borders and their ability to return and attack the resistance fighters was the same as occupation of those states.

 

[Hollie]

Once the occupation is ended there will be no longer a justification for resistance.

THANK YOU! That is what this thread is about.

Israel is offering not only to end the occupation, but to provide financial and political assistance to help the Gazan people thrive. Since Israel is offering to end the occupation, wouldn't you say that resistance is no longer justified?

The limited information we have does not necessarily say that.

Only if you keep trying to change and expand the definition of "occupation" (only with respect to the Jews, though, of course).

I asked monte this, or a version of this, I'll ask you. How will we know when the "occupation" of Gaza is ended?

The Hostages Decision from the Nuremburg trials was the decision that the ICJ used as precedent for the decision on Gaza. The occupation of Gaza will end when Israel no longer controls the air space, the territorial sea and the land borders of Gaza, especially Israeli's control of land area within Gaza that is considered an Israeli security zone. The Hostages Decision was decided when the Court determined that though the Germans had left some of the Balkan states their control of the borders and their ability to return and attack the resistance fighters was the same as occupation of those states.

Islamic terrorists are not "resistance fighters". Such silly slogans are pointless.

The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).


The Hamas charter is a statement of offensive gee-had.