You scared me! I immediately started scanning news headlines, imagining that Israel had sent troops in again!
I don’t understand your point here; I had thought Gaza was not occupied.
Neither was the Warsaw Ghetto. And I’m well aware that the analogy has narrow limits.
I’m reminded of Gerald Ford’s claim that Poland and Czechoslovakia weren’t “dominated” by the Soviet Union.
The Warsaw Ghetto, along with all of Poland was occupied by the Nazis, under the rule of the Nazis.
You’re clearly misinterpreting some Jewish postwar propaganda that liked to claim that the Warsaw Ghetto held out longer than the rest of Poland.
That was false, and claiming that the Warsaw Ghetto wasn’t “occupied” would be like claiming that Amsterdam wasn’t “occupied”.
You should get better sources before attempting to Godwin the thread.
Yes, the SCoI considers Gaza to be non-occupied, but under legal precedent set by the Nazis’ actions (whereby the ability to affect absolute control of an area if one chooses is determined to count as occupation even if you don’t have boots on the ground), yes, it may be argued that Israel is in a state of belligerent occupation of Gaza.
Now, how closely the precedent fits and how much wiggle room there is (is/was Egypt a co-occupier? Is it, instead, a blockade carried out by two nations against Gaza, etc…) is another matter. But it’s hardly open and shut that Israel isn’t occupying Gaza just because there aren’t troops there at this moment.
True, but he Nazis did have “boots on the ground” in the Warsaw Ghetto.
That said, I certainly think that claiming that the Gaza Strip is “not occupied” is a pretty questionable statement.
Both Poland and Czechoslovakia hosted quite a number of Soviet Union military bases.
That’s another interesting term. “Refugee”. Is someone who was born of parents who were born of parents who were born of someone who used to live somewhere else a “refugee”?
Ah you see, ONLY in case of Palestinians that’s correct. Anyone else, and third-fourth etc. generations are not considered refugees. Ever wonder why others aren’t?
Oh, of course. I wasn’t very clear when I posted (took a 2 minute break while entering semester grades for my students…)
I admit that my brain is a bit fried right now so I can’t remember the exact precedent or country involved, but IIRC there were (war crimes?) trials against the Nazis for their treatment of people in a country which they controlled but did not continuously have a garrison in. The defendants argued that they were not bound by the rules of occupation as they were not an occupying force. The court, however, found that the ability to exercise absolute control over a territory, even if not exercised continuously, constituted occupation.
I split the issue into two.
First, does Israel have just cause for action at all? And second, if it does - is it carrying out the actions it has decided to take in a “just” manner?
My answer to the first has to be “yes”. No country on earth would refrain from acting if it was targeted by rocket attacks.
The answer to the second is to determine whether the action taken is in line with the international conventions governing just-ness in the course of conflict.
The further question would be who ultimately is “right” in the conflict. That is, however, really outside the bounds of the question. To my mind, a lot of people are allowing their opinions on this larger question to colour their approach to the specific conflict.
Brain started working again.It was the Hostages Trial that I was thinking of. I’m reasonably certain, although I can’t find the quotes in that cite, that the German defense was that their presence did not legally constitute occupation.
Once again, why does everybody keep assuming Israel can attack Iran’s nuclear plants successfully?
And what happens next. Successful or not.
I don’t think that is what Der trihs was saying at all. I think he was saying that you were trying to justify israel’s actions by saying"but its legal" Its legal in teh sense taht its not a war crime but thats setting a mighty low standard for yourself.
Oh OK so I see there IS still controversy on this board about whether or not Gaza is occupied.
Does this change your position at all on the issue of occupation, Terr? I suppose it depends on whether the definition of occupation requires soldiers patrolling the streets.
BTW, I don’t think it is well settled that the blockade has always been legal. I remember several international bodies declaring the blockade illegal (I think it was based on collective punishment and humanitarian principles).
Perhaps he feels that there is a standard of behaviour short of war crime that qualifies for scummy behaviour. Or perhaps Der Trihs was just referring to the notion of hiding behind legal technicalities to deflect criticism as scummy behaviour.
If it all happened in a refugee camp, then yes. You can’t wait for the refugees that you put in refugee camps to die and then ignore their children born in those camps in order to declare the refugee problem resolved. Children born of refugees in refugee camps are refugees.
Name another conflict that has gone on for so long. Name a situation where the children of refugees are not considered refugees as long as they live in those camps, even if its three or four generations removed from the original refugees?
No, but I’m sure you have a theory, lets hear it. Come on, don’t be coy, you have a theory don’t you?
I’m not excusing any violence on the part of the palestinians but do you think the rocket attacks happened first or the occupation? I suspect that a Palestinian might have a very different response than you, or are we supposed to only entertain one perspective in this conflict?
Now consider the blockade, which I believe almost everyone on this baord thought was being poorly executed and several international agencies considered to be illegal.
Depends on what you mean by “attack”. If you are asking if Israel could do unto Iran what it did unto Iraq - that is, physically bomb the works out of existence using missiles or bombers - I’d say the answer is almost certainly not; the Iranians would have to have their heads several feet up their asses to concentrate their works without protection from such attacks.
[Mind you, the Syrians were successfully attacked in just this way reasonably recently, and so having heads several feet up asses can’t be ruled out!]
OTOH, if by “attack” you mean disabled by use of other means … well, there is no proof that it was Israel, but what about assassination of key figures, blowing up key installations on the ground, introducing computer viruses targeted at Iranian operations … somebody has been doing that for some time now, allegedly quite successfully.
Can such attacks truly prevent Iran getting the bomb? I doubt it. Like physical bombing, you can slow development and throw spanners in the works, but if the target country has the resources and perseveres, you can’t stop them.
As I said, the issue of who is “right” in the larger sense is a totally seperate question. It is perfectly possible to address whether someone fought a war “justly” even if you happen to think, in the larger picture, that they were in the wrong.
To take an example from the same region - the '67 war as it affected Jordan. In the larger picture I am of the opinion that Jordan was ‘in the wrong’, because Jordan made the mistake of agreeing to coordinate attack plans with Egypt - and thus the Israelis had no choice but to fight them. But as far as I know, no-one has ever accused Jordan of having fought in that conflict ‘unjustly’. The Israelis I have talked to, though they deplore Jordainian actions between the '48 and '67 wars, all were of the opinion that Jordan fought honourably.
The problem here is the mixing-up of issues: that people, once they decide one side is in the big picture “wrong” and the other “right”, are willing to allow that decision to flavour their analysis of every other aspect of the conflict.
There is no controversy. It isn’t.
Does what change my position? There was no example given of an “occupation” without a military presence.
Define “refugee camp”. I have been to so-called “refugee camps” in Gaza. They are indistinguishable from cities. Is Gaza city also a “refugee camp”? How about Nablus? Ramalla? Are those “refugee camps”?
So, what does that leave for a workable “Operation Susa”?
Obviously, I don’t think Israel could just keep repeating the same tactic over and again - unless the Iranians are idiots, it will have small chance of success. I thought I made that clear in the part you quoted.
Doesn’t preclude using different tactics, though.
As already noted, no tactics can stop them forever. Just make it more difficult for Iran to obtain the bomb.
Ermm, did you read Finn’s post about what may constitute occupation? Or are you saying that occupation simply cannot exist without soldiers patrolling the streets despite what Finn and Ibn say?
So if they haven’t been swautting in tents for the last 70 years it doesn’t count?
Like I said, why do YOU think that Palestinian refugees are still considred refugees 3 or 4 generations out. You seemed to have a theory you wanted to share with us.
Well, there is.
Under the Hostages Trial’s precedent, having the capacity to exercise absolute authority, even if you allow the local government to do their thing as long as they don’t buck your orders, is still occupation.
Under the Additional Protocol [
](http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750054?OpenDocument)
But since Hamas rules Gaza, there is a legitimate question as to whether the Hostages Trial or the Additional Protocol is a better guide. Although the SCoI determined that Gaza wasn’t held in a state of belligerent occupation, they still held that Israel was responsible for following rules that, essentially, were the same as if Gaza was occupied. I tend to disagree with their ruling but agree with the upshot.
I do think that Israel’s (somewhat limited) control over Gaza plus the ability to impose overwhelming martial force at will puts them closer to the HT rather than the AP.