Is it time for Israel to re-take Gaza?

[Shusha]

Stop controlling air, land and sea... It really isn't difficult and, to be honest, it get's seriously boring to keep repeating this to zionists who have short memories when they choose.

As I have heard so many times, Israel can do whatever she wishes so, if Israel wants to close borders with Gaza then she can. The rest of your comments don't even warrant a response Shusha.

Okay, so since you agree that the land border is fair for Israel to control, all Israel has to do to end her occupation of Gaza is to remove the sea blockade and permit use of air space.

Those BOTH have serious repercussions with respect to Israel's security and the safety of her citizens. So again, WHY should Israel do that? In particular, why should Israel do that without requiring Gaza and her government to cease the hostilities completely and entirely and permanently?

So the occupation will continue.

At least be honest enough to admit that Gaza is occupied by Israel.

Its not occupied. Its blockaded. This whole thread is about the possibility of re-occupying it. In order to do that Israel has to do something different that it already is doing.

The blockade is a direct result of violence against Israel. Like what we are witnessing this week and the INTENT of that violence. It will end when the violence ends. Why is security NOT taking front and center here? Why is that so unreasonable?

Its like, you are trying to argue that if only Gaza had access to more weapons, the violence against Israel would stop.

 

[Shusha]

Its fundamentally a question of why Israel does not have the right to security.

 

[rylah]

You poor idiot...
Because it's impolite to refuse Jihadi weddings invitations?

Spare me your hasbara BS. You think it is okay to target wedding party's?

Of course it's impolite to refuse Jihadi wedding ceremonies.
You plan on attending one?

 

[Humanity]

The blockade is a direct result of violence against Israel

Like what we are witnessing this week

So you are worried that Hamas will start importing rocks and stones from? Egypt? Syria? Iran?

 

[Humanity]

Its fundamentally a question of why Israel does not have the right to security.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that Israel does not have the right to defend herself.

It's the way she defends herself.

No other country would EVER get away with what we have had to witness from Israel these past weeks.

It's just lucky that Israel has that magic word protecting her. It is ONLY that that stops firmer international condemnation. Once upon a time I would have also included the US as another reason there is not firmer international condemnation but, as we have seen, the US is isolating itself and becoming a laughing stock worldwide.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The OP is crazy.

Nobody, including those living there, want Gaza.

 

[Shusha]

The blockade is a direct result of violence against Israel

Like what we are witnessing this week

So you are worried that Hamas will start importing rocks and stones from? Egypt? Syria? Iran?

Oh come on, really? You think with open waterways that Gaza and Hamas and Iran and ISIS are going to restrain themselves and that there is no danger to Israel?

 

[Shusha]

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that Israel does not have the right to defend herself.

It's the way she defends herself.

With a blockade? While providing uncounted amounts of humanitarian aide for over a decade to her enemy? What do you suggest? Is there a gentler way of defending yourself from those who claim to want to kill you?

 

[Humanity]

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that Israel does not have the right to defend herself.

It's the way she defends herself.

With a blockade? While providing uncounted amounts of humanitarian aide for over a decade to her enemy? What do you suggest? Is there a gentler way of defending yourself from those who claim to want to kill you?

So you don't have the decency of honesty to admit that Gaza is occupied by Israel?

 

[Sixties Fan]

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that Israel does not have the right to defend herself.

It's the way she defends herself.

With a blockade? While providing uncounted amounts of humanitarian aide for over a decade to her enemy? What do you suggest? Is there a gentler way of defending yourself from those who claim to want to kill you?

So you don't have the decency of honesty to admit that Gaza is occupied by Israel?

You do not even know the definition of Occupied.

What does it entail? How many Israelis are living in Gaza, compared to how many Turks are living in Northern Cyprus?

 

[Shusha]

Israel is permitted to defend herself against a foreign government who expresses the desire to remove all territory from her sovereignty while killing her citizens as long as she doesn't use: lethal force, injuring force, non-lethal force, riot control methods, law-enforcement, economic sanctions, blockades, restrictions on weapon importation, humanitarian aide, free electricity and fuel, provision of medical care to foreign nationals or provide employment.

 

[Shusha]

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that Israel does not have the right to defend herself.

It's the way she defends herself.

With a blockade? While providing uncounted amounts of humanitarian aide for over a decade to her enemy? What do you suggest? Is there a gentler way of defending yourself from those who claim to want to kill you?

So you don't have the decency of honesty to admit that Gaza is occupied by Israel?

Its not occupied. Not by any normative legal use of the term. It IS blockaded.

Your definition of "occupied", provided by you in a previous post, is the control of territorial waters and airspace. That does not meet the legal requirement of "occupation". It certainly meets the broad legal definition of a blockade.

Why is it so important to you that I adopt the term "occupation" if it doesn't fit? Is it because "occupation" sounds more evil than "blockade"? Or is because you can expand the definition of "occupation" at will?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Stop controlling air, land and sea... It really isn't difficult and, to be honest, it get's seriously boring to keep repeating this to zionists who have short memories when they choose.

As I have heard so many times, Israel can do whatever she wishes so, if Israel wants to close borders with Gaza then she can. The rest of your comments don't even warrant a response Shusha.

Okay, so since you agree that the land border is fair for Israel to control, all Israel has to do to end her occupation of Gaza is to remove the sea blockade and permit use of air space.

Those BOTH have serious repercussions with respect to Israel's security and the safety of her citizens. So again, WHY should Israel do that? In particular, why should Israel do that without requiring Gaza and her government to cease the hostilities completely and entirely and permanently?

Indeed, Israel must defend its settler colonial project.

 

[Hollie]

Stop controlling air, land and sea... It really isn't difficult and, to be honest, it get's seriously boring to keep repeating this to zionists who have short memories when they choose.

As I have heard so many times, Israel can do whatever she wishes so, if Israel wants to close borders with Gaza then she can. The rest of your comments don't even warrant a response Shusha.

Okay, so since you agree that the land border is fair for Israel to control, all Israel has to do to end her occupation of Gaza is to remove the sea blockade and permit use of air space.

Those BOTH have serious repercussions with respect to Israel's security and the safety of her citizens. So again, WHY should Israel do that? In particular, why should Israel do that without requiring Gaza and her government to cease the hostilities completely and entirely and permanently?

Indeed, Israel must defend its settler colonial project.

Indeed not. Quite clearly, Israel is defending its border from the Islamist terrorists.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Stop controlling air, land and sea... It really isn't difficult and, to be honest, it get's seriously boring to keep repeating this to zionists who have short memories when they choose.

As I have heard so many times, Israel can do whatever she wishes so, if Israel wants to close borders with Gaza then she can. The rest of your comments don't even warrant a response Shusha.

Okay, so since you agree that the land border is fair for Israel to control, all Israel has to do to end her occupation of Gaza is to remove the sea blockade and permit use of air space.

Those BOTH have serious repercussions with respect to Israel's security and the safety of her citizens. So again, WHY should Israel do that? In particular, why should Israel do that without requiring Gaza and her government to cease the hostilities completely and entirely and permanently?

Indeed, Israel must defend its settler colonial project.

Indeed not. Quite clearly, Israel is defending its border from the Islamist terrorists.

There is no border there. That is just Israel's cage around Gaza. The Palestinians have the right to take down their cage.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Yes, I'm being provocative. (I'm bored with all the ridiculous discussion of people trying to demonize Israel for defending her borders from violent rioters talking about marching to Jerusalem ripping the hearts out of Jews. Ugh.)

So let's talk about the future of Gaza.

There are real humanitarian concerns here. There are real security concerns here. Neither are being addressed by Hamas or the citizens of Gaza. Can Israel step in? Should Israel step in?

Now, I'm not necessarily suggesting that Israel incorporate Gaza into Israel. My thinking is more that if everyone is saying Israel is occupying Gaza anyway -- why doesn't she actually go back to occupying it? Temporarily. Preferrably with the support of the at least some of the Gazan people. Possibly as a Mandate overseeing an economic revival, a re-building of infrastructure, a reduction in violence and a re-education of the next generation.

Is it possible for Israel to offer some carrots here? In the form of clean water, improved medical care, economic trade?

Yes, I'm being provocative. (I'm bored with all the ridiculous discussion of people trying to demonize Israel for defending her borders from violent rioters talking about marching to Jerusalem ripping the hearts out of Jews. Ugh.)

So let's talk about the future of Gaza.

There are real humanitarian concerns here. There are real security concerns here. Neither are being addressed by Hamas or the citizens of Gaza. Can Israel step in? Should Israel step in?

Now, I'm not necessarily suggesting that Israel incorporate Gaza into Israel. My thinking is more that if everyone is saying Israel is occupying Gaza anyway -- why doesn't she actually go back to occupying it? Temporarily. Preferrably with the support of the at least some of the Gazan people. Possibly as a Mandate overseeing an economic revival, a re-building of infrastructure, a reduction in violence and a re-education of the next generation.

Is it possible for Israel to offer some carrots here? In the form of clean water, improved medical care, economic trade?

Judea and Samaria are quieter than Gaza because the IDF operates throughout that area and does not operate in Gaza. Back in 2014, Liberman argued that Israel should retake Gaza and manage it the way it manages Judea and Samaria. Hamas is now saying the riots will continue until all the Arabs in Gaza are allowed to "return" to Israel, and of course that cannot be allowed to happen, so if the riots continue, retaking Gaza may be the only viable option.

When Sharon was southern commander between the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War, he quieted Gaza by dividing it in several sections and appointing dedicated military units to each section. Within a few months they had arrested of killed all the major terrorists and Gaza was quiet, but Sharon knew it wouldn't last, and he argued that the only way to maintain the quiet long term was for Israel to make significant investments in Gaza to improve living conditions, but the government rejected the idea.

Today, Gaza is far more radicalized than it was in 1969 and there is no chance of winning the hearts and minds of the Arabs there, so if Israel has to retake it and stay there long term, it will be purely a security operation. The only benefit the Arab or Israelis will get from it will be less violence. This will certainly benefit the Israelis who live near to Gaza, but the price for this quiet will be increasingly harsh criticism that will cause problems diplomatically. If he riots continue and set off those kinds of problems anyway, then retaking Gaza may be preferable.

 

[montelatici]

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that Israel does not have the right to defend herself.

It's the way she defends herself.

With a blockade? While providing uncounted amounts of humanitarian aide for over a decade to her enemy? What do you suggest? Is there a gentler way of defending yourself from those who claim to want to kill you?

So you don't have the decency of honesty to admit that Gaza is occupied by Israel?

Its not occupied. Not by any normative legal use of the term. It IS blockaded.

Your definition of "occupied", provided by you in a previous post, is the control of territorial waters and airspace. That does not meet the legal requirement of "occupation". It certainly meets the broad legal definition of a blockade.

Why is it so important to you that I adopt the term "occupation" if it doesn't fit? Is it because "occupation" sounds more evil than "blockade"? Or is because you can expand the definition of "occupation" at will?

Gaza is legally occupied as determined by the International Court of Justice:

"26. Israel maintains that following the 2005 disengagement, it is no longer an occupying power in Gaza as it does not exercise effective control over the area.

27. However, the prevalent view within the international community is that Israel remains an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. In general, this view is based on the scope and degree of control that Israel has retained over the territory of Gaza following the 2005 disengagement – including, inter alia, Israel’s exercise of control over border crossings, the territorial sea adjacent to the Gaza Strip, and the airspace of Gaza; its periodic military incursions within Gaza; its enforcement of no-go areas within Gaza near the border where Israeli settlements used to be; and its regulation of the local monetary market based on the Israeli currency and control of taxes and customs duties. The retention of such competences by Israel over the territory of Gaza even after the 2005 disengagement overall supports the conclusion that the authority retained by Israel amounts to effective control.

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

 

[Hollie]

Stop controlling air, land and sea... It really isn't difficult and, to be honest, it get's seriously boring to keep repeating this to zionists who have short memories when they choose.

As I have heard so many times, Israel can do whatever she wishes so, if Israel wants to close borders with Gaza then she can. The rest of your comments don't even warrant a response Shusha.

Okay, so since you agree that the land border is fair for Israel to control, all Israel has to do to end her occupation of Gaza is to remove the sea blockade and permit use of air space.

Those BOTH have serious repercussions with respect to Israel's security and the safety of her citizens. So again, WHY should Israel do that? In particular, why should Israel do that without requiring Gaza and her government to cease the hostilities completely and entirely and permanently?

Indeed, Israel must defend its settler colonial project.

Indeed not. Quite clearly, Israel is defending its border from the Islamist terrorists.

There is no border there. That is just Israel's cage around Gaza. The Palestinians have the right to take down their cage.

You can certainly entertain yourself with your denials of the reality but you can’t really deny the islamo-dead people who were denied the ability to cross a border you are in denial of.

It’s a no gee-had zone.

 

[Hollie]

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that Israel does not have the right to defend herself.

It's the way she defends herself.

With a blockade? While providing uncounted amounts of humanitarian aide for over a decade to her enemy? What do you suggest? Is there a gentler way of defending yourself from those who claim to want to kill you?

So you don't have the decency of honesty to admit that Gaza is occupied by Israel?

Its not occupied. Not by any normative legal use of the term. It IS blockaded.

Your definition of "occupied", provided by you in a previous post, is the control of territorial waters and airspace. That does not meet the legal requirement of "occupation". It certainly meets the broad legal definition of a blockade.

Why is it so important to you that I adopt the term "occupation" if it doesn't fit? Is it because "occupation" sounds more evil than "blockade"? Or is because you can expand the definition of "occupation" at will?

Gaza is legally occupied as determined by the International Court of Justice:

"26. Israel maintains that following the 2005 disengagement, it is no longer an occupying power in Gaza as it does not exercise effective control over the area.

27. However, the prevalent view within the international community is that Israel remains an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. In general, this view is based on the scope and degree of control that Israel has retained over the territory of Gaza following the 2005 disengagement – including, inter alia, Israel’s exercise of control over border crossings, the territorial sea adjacent to the Gaza Strip, and the airspace of Gaza; its periodic military incursions within Gaza; its enforcement of no-go areas within Gaza near the border where Israeli settlements used to be; and its regulation of the local monetary market based on the Israeli currency and control of taxes and customs duties. The retention of such competences by Israel over the territory of Gaza even after the 2005 disengagement overall supports the conclusion that the authority retained by Israel amounts to effective control.

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

Someone’s cut and paste opinion.

Duly noted and ignored.

 

[jillian]

Yes, I'm being provocative. (I'm bored with all the ridiculous discussion of people trying to demonize Israel for defending her borders from violent rioters talking about marching to Jerusalem ripping the hearts out of Jews. Ugh.)

So let's talk about the future of Gaza.

There are real humanitarian concerns here. There are real security concerns here. Neither are being addressed by Hamas or the citizens of Gaza. Can Israel step in? Should Israel step in?

Now, I'm not necessarily suggesting that Israel incorporate Gaza into Israel. My thinking is more that if everyone is saying Israel is occupying Gaza anyway -- why doesn't she actually go back to occupying it? Temporarily. Preferrably with the support of the at least some of the Gazan people. Possibly as a Mandate overseeing an economic revival, a re-building of infrastructure, a reduction in violence and a re-education of the next generation.

Is it possible for Israel to offer some carrots here? In the form of clean water, improved medical care, economic trade?

Israel doesn’t want Gaza. They are ungovernable terrorost supporters. Why would Israel want them?