Since there seems to be some confusion and jerking of knees, let me be crystal clear here…I’m not fucking accusing you or anyone else in this thread or any other of being anti-Semitic. I don’t know how to say that any more clearly. Are you still confused in any way? Do you wish me to parse what I wrote for more clarity?
I agree that this doesn’t apply to Gaza…
But, in theory, I don’t think you need a supine population to have an occupation. The fact that there is ineffectual military resistance that is easily overcome or dispersed does not really overcome occupation status, does it?
Sorry if I’m confused but when I protest that you are accusing people of anti-semitism and you reply with:
"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."
what exactly is the guilty man guilty of? What is he running from? Isn’t this another way of saying The lady doth protest too much, methinks - Wikipedia
If you meant to apologize for making statements that could easily be interpreted as an accusation of anti-semitism, then you did a horrible job.
If it is in fact overcome and/or dispersed.
The ‘typical’ occupation scenario is where a country invades another and takes over its territory. Now, there is an armed member of Country A on every streetcorner. There may be guerrillas fighting against them, but essentially the levers of power are in the hands of Country A, the occupier. That being the case, the convention has grown up (supported by various sources of that collection of anecdote and treaty that passes for ‘international law’) that Country A, having assumed that position, now has the positive duty to use its power to keep the ‘occupied’ population supplied with governmental services (such as police, fire, and other basic services), and not to abuse them; it may, however, also impose taxes and the like - as long as these are not deliberately onerous. It cannot wantonly seize or destroy public property.
One can see the temptation, on the part of Israel’s enemies, to classify Israel as an “occupier” in this sense. It would place Israel in an impossible dilemma, as it cannot, physically, supply Gaza with governmental services - Israelis cannot step foot in Gaza without an army.
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
"To paraphrase, guilty man flees when no one pursueth…
[/QUOTE]
So, the REAL issue here is you don’t understand the reference. Well hell man…why didn’t you say so? Let me translate…I’m not calling you an ant-Semite or anything else. You, however, are jerking your knee about it anyway. And jerking. And jerking again. Even when I flat out said I wasn’t, you are still jerking that knee. Now, perhaps you are overly sensitive about this because…
I wouldn’t know why you keep jerking your knee about this…but me-thinks you are looking to be called an anti-Semite for some reason. Whereas, to be blunt, I was calling you clueless on this subject. Which has nothing to do with how you feel or don’t feel about Jews. For which I don’t give two shits, since I’m not Jewish (hell, I’m not even Catholic anymore) and just don’t care. What I DO care about is you weighing in on a subject that you are, well, clueless on.
Why would I apologize because you can’t follow what I’m saying? Seems that’s YOUR look out. If you feel strongly enough about it, feel free to flag the post for a Mod to look at. If they also fail to understand what I was saying (i.e. you are clueless on this subject) and think I was saying what you seemingly wanted me to say (i.e. that I think you are an anti-Semite and eat babies and drown kittens for all I know) then they will slap me down and you can feel vindicated.
Ok so then explain the paraphrase? Is the paraphrase referring to knee jerking because if so then I don’t get it?
Well, obviously I’m not clueless and you undermine your own credibility in debate by insisting that I am.
I think its subtle enough that combined with your insistence that you are not calling me an anti-semite after I call you on it makes it grey area.
Getting back to economics - one issue I have been considering is this: how much of a game-changer will the recent discovery of vast reserves of natural gas off the coast of Israel be?
Assuming it can be turned into money, it would certainly lessen any imperative for the US to provide military subsidies.
Assuming it can be piped to Europe, it may also change the official attitudes of European governments. As we have seen in the Russia/Ukraine case, they are very suceptible to such ‘arguments’.
OTOH, if Israel has a big wack of cash, perhaps it makes more practical an ‘economic solution’ that essentially allows Israel to buy off Palestinian claims - assuming this can be sold to Palestinians.
Well the last offer was a $30 billion fund to compensate the Palestinians which comes to something like $3000 to $6000 per Palestinian depending on how you count Palestinians and right of return for 100,000 Palestinians. So you are about 45 billion short to reach the goal of buying off just the Gazans and about $270 billion short to buy off all the Palestinians are $50,000/head.
There might be enough there for a $50 billion windfall to Israel but I don’t think there is enough there at today’s prices and given reasonable assumptions to come up with an extra $270 billion.
Can you really offer $50,000 to the Gazans and then $5000 to the other Palestinians?