Economic solution to the Gaza conflict?

[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
I don’t think you understand. Occupation does not mean the absence of resistance. You can have control and still have guys taking pot shots at you.
[/QUOTE]

Certainly…look at Iraq or Afghanistan for instance. However, the Israeli’s have NO control in Gaza, which is why they are constantly reacting to what Hamas et al are doing, and need things like blockades in place.

To paraphrase, guilty man flees when no one pursueth…

I didn’t say anything about anti-Semitism or that you were an anti-Semite, those are your words. If you need me to spell out what I was saying there, it’s that you don’t know much about this subject yet you have strong opinions and make assertions that underscore your ignorance.

I don’t see any realistic way to do so, especially since this isn’t a black and white stance for people in that region, but more shades of gray. I don’t believe the OPs attempt to bribe Palestinians to leave is workable or realistic.

I don’t know about that. Heck, I know people who’d move to Gaza for $50,000.

Most reasonable people would conclude Gaza is occupied?

I’m not sure what a “Godwin” is, but I’m sure it’s occurred to many people that the treatment of the Palestinians by Israel bares some similarity to the treatment of the Jews by Germany. But I realize Israel has no final solution to the Palestinian problem. I mean they’re not systematically killing them. So it’s not a great comparison.

If you build a wall around a strip of desert, control everything that does in and out - including food, water, medicine or electricity - and everyone who goes in and out, would you consider that a form of occupation?

You claimed that the Wiki definition of Zionism was not “(t)he belief that the Jews are a nation and that Israel is their homeland”. The problem is that your assertion is wrong - the Wiki defintion does, in fact, say the same thing.

We were talking about the Wiki definition of Zionism. Which is why you and I mentioned the Wiki definition of Zionism. Your claim about the defnition of Zionism is wrong. Itis, in fact, the belief that the Jews are a nation and that Israel is their homeland. And that belief existed many centuries before the movement towards founding the modern state of Israel.

Regards,
Shodan

Bolding mine.

Let me try this sentence: “It was raping and stealing that blacks preferred, until they decided dealing crack and killing people was more fun.”

What you’re doing is prejudice and collective punishment: taking the acts of a few individuals, and making everyone responsible for them. Approximately 75% of the population of Gaza is women and children. Are they responsible for everything that Hamas does? Or for that matter, are they responsible for anything any angry Palestinian does?

Before they made peace, the IRA carried out dozens, if not hundreds of attacks in London and the rest of the UK. Would the British government have been entitled to blow up apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, in response?

By that logic, the US doesn’t control the US, because terrorist attacks (and other crimes) occur here.

Gentile? How do you know?

And once again. Its not a very persuasive form of argument to counter cites to wikipedia and the dictionary about the definition of Zionism and the Zionist Movement with your assurances that the dictionary is wrong and that Zionism actually means what you think it means.

Yeah, 'cause that’s an every day events here in the states and all. :stuck_out_tongue: You might have noticed that these things happen between Hamas and Israel a touch more frequently than they do between, oh, say Texas and Oklahoma…or the US and Mexico/Canada for that matter. Or, well, anywhere else that isn’t a total freaking war zone.

Once again, I don’t think gaza is occupied but the argument cannot be waved away as having no merit. When was Gaza really free from control after the pullout? And if it is not occupied then what is it? Is it a sovereign nation? In that case isn’t the blockade an act of war? I am not an expert on international relations but IIRC, Gaza is either occupied by virtue of the continued control over gaza as exemplified by the blockade and Israel is saddled with a set of obligations towards gazans or Gaza is sovereign and the blockade is an act of war.

And you’re not saying anything about anti-semitism here either.

Maybe not.

[QUOTE=LinusK]
Let me try this sentence: “It was raping and stealing that blacks preferred, until they decided dealing crack and killing people was more fun.”
[/QUOTE]

Um…this is a total strawman.

They voted Hamas into power. Your blacks stawman in no way is analogous to me saying (correctly) that the Palestinians were responsible for what is happening between Hamas and Israel. A better (and less ridiculous and deliberately inflaming) analogy would be saying that Americans were responsible for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. True, not all Americans are or were responsible for that (there are, in fact, women and children in the US too, contrary to popular belief), but the statement is still not false.

Your logic is truly dizzying. This would be analogous to saying that Israel is responsible for the attacks Hamas is doing, so not seeing your point here.

[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
And you’re not saying anything about anti-semitism here either.
[/QUOTE]

Nope, I didn’t…again. You were the one who opened that can of worms, not I.

The PNA was given full control of the Gaza strip when Israel pulled out under the Oslo Accords. Subsequent events are what imposed the blockade (and the split between Hamas and Fatah further mucked things up wrt West Bank verse Gaza). I could only find a quick Wiki article on this but it doesn’t seem bad:

You have in the past identified yourself as “a non-Jew” so I’ll assume your question is genuine and not an attempt to stir the pot.

A “gentile” is a “non-Jew” unless Mormons are using the term in which case it’s a non-Mormon.

Certainly the Israeli blockade is an Israeli Act of War - or would be, if Israel was ever at peace with Hamas. However, it is a fundamental aspect of the Hamas Charter to reject the very notion of peace with Israel.

The canard is often circulated that Israel still “occupies” Gaza (even after its 2005 withdrawal) because Israel allegedly has “effective contol” over Gaza. This claim is, on its face, nonsense. Israel has no “effective control” over Gaza - a fact somewhat proven by the fact that Israel just fought a war with Gaza. The whole point of having such a status as “occupied territory” was to tag the “occupier” with governmental and humanitarian duties towards the “occupied”, exactly because they did not have an armed force or authority of their own. The notion that Israel must somehow deliver such rights and services to folks living in a territory at war with them simply defies reality.

Israel is not, in any way that makes meaningful sense, “occupying” Gaza. Certainly, it is subjecting it to a blockade, but that does not an “occupation” make - or (say) Germany could be said to have “occupied” England during WW2 (and vice versa), as both subjected the other to a blockade.

Actually Israel is trying rather hard to spare civilians and not make them take the brunt of the actions of Hamas. Hamas itself is doing what it can to shift the danger away from their cowardly and despicable selves, and onto their own people, by firing their rockets from schools and hospitals. So it is actually the acts of a few individuals - Hamas - who are making everyone “responsible” for them.

Regards,
Shodan

So your quote doesn’t imply that I am seeing accusations of anti-semitism because I am anti-semitic?

OK, I think you’re right. Gaza is not occupied and the folks who make an argument based on the blockade for occupation are missing a couple of years of history.

I think that the argument is that a blockade does not make an occupation but a blockade can extend an occupation after the occupier physically leaves the land.

That is indeed the argument, but it doesn’t make any sense.

For one, the Israeli blockade did not occur simultaneous with Israel leaving. It was imposed after Hamas came into power and started attacking.

For another, imposing “occupation” status on a situation in which the “occupier” lacks any physical ability to carry out the duties that “occupation status” by international law imposes on an “occupier” (because, in fact, they aren’t physically “occupying” and so cannot provide any protection or governmental duties) simply. Makes. No. Sense.

The law of “belligerent occupation” presumes that the “occupier” IS the SOLE military authority in the area- in effect, that the war in that territory is over and the “occupier” has won, and rules over a (more or less) supine population.

I think you’re missing the point. You can control territory without controlling what every person in that territory does.

And you don’t punish everyone for the actions of a few.

It’s not a strawman. I replaced your word with another one to show you regard “the Palestinians” as some sort of monolithic group of people, and to show your prejudice.

Who I’d “they”? Does that include the children? The women? Does it include the people who voted against Hamas?

If you vote for a president, or a party, in your country, does that make you personally responsible for everything the president or the party does?

It is false. I voted against George Bush, and demonstrated against those wars. If you’re a Republican, you can hold yourself responsible, if you want.

In any case, the US did not hold all Iraqis responsible for the actions of Sadaam Husein, or for the Taliban. That would be stupid. It would be like holding all Gazans responsible for the handful who are firing rockets.

It’s immoral, illegal, stupid, and counter-productive.

I think the problem is you see this as a war between two countries. This is not a war between two countries. This is a war between one country, Israel, and a group of refugees, mostly women and children, living in a strip of desert, where literally everything that goes in and out is controlled by the same country that made them refugees in the first place. It’s mostly not even a war. It’s mostly just a slaughter.