I don’t think blasting them with marching band music is going to work.
There’s plenty of worse music . . .
Klezmer can be pretty vicious. And there is always my favorite, Wagner.
Um… I don’t know what those terms mean, and I simply don’t agree with your definition of “occupation.” I’m dropping out now, because I don’t speak the language of the thread.
FWIW, in reading these threads over the years, I tend to agree with you (FinnAgain) more than with any of the others. But the discussions have become so intricate and involute, a newbie simply doesn’t have a prayer.
Much like Middle Eastern politics itself.
And Finn couldn’t find the example he was talking about.
No need to patrol the streets per se. But military presence is required.
According to UN, it doesn’t count. Unless you’re a Palestinian.
The “local government” in Gaza doesn’t listen to orders from Israel.
Found it, and cited it.
They are not required to listen to an occupying power. The requirement is that an occupying power be able to engage in “the exercise of governmental authority to the exclusion of the established government”, to engage in “the destruction of organized resistance and the establishment of an administration to preserve law and order” and that “[t]o the extent that the occupant’s control is maintained and that of the civil government eliminated, the area will be said to be occupied.”
Stating, via a blanket statement, that there is simply no nuance or controversy over whether or not to consider Gaza occupied does the debate a disservice. The situation in I/P is quite nearly unique in modern human history and tests the boundaries of numerous categories and metrics. Abandoning the complexity of the situation for soundbites is not conducive to accuracy.
What you found has nothing to do with Gaza.
Give an example of that in Gaza.
Give an example of that in Gaza.
There is no “civil government eliminated” or “occupant’s control maintained” within Gaza.
Try finding another example.
Readers will note that you have switched your claim from me not providing a cite, to a new claim that, okay sure I provided a cite, but it’s not applicable. The goalposts, they are a shiftin’.
As for your questions, the answers are quite simple.
Example of using governmental authority include but are not limited to policing the Gazan coastline at 2+ miles from the shore, regulating imports, attempting to maintain a monopoly on force and using deadly force to counter threats to Israeli security, etc.
That you’re actually asking for examples that Israel has engaged in the destruction of resistance forces or has instituted martial law in order to preserve law and order, well…
Providing a cite that is irrelevant is equivalent to not providing a cite.
Israel polices its territorial waters. Not “Gazan coastline”.
That’s the blockade. Has nothing to do with “governmental authority”. Unless you think US was “occupying” Cuba under Kennedy.
Again, that’s just exercizing Israeli sovereignty.
Well? Is there Israeli “martial law” in Gaza?
I see you have motorized goalposts, that is useful.
As for Israel policing “its” coastline and not the Gazan coastline, that’s simple fiction. Unless, of course, you’re claiming that Gaza’s coastline is Israeli territory, in which case you’ve gone beyond the claim that Gaza is occupied to the claim that it’s defacto *annexed. *
Your claim that controlling imports has nothing to do with exercising governmental authority is an absurdity.
Your claim that Israel attempting to maintain a monopoly on the use of force is an exercise of Israeli sovereignty yet again goes beyond the claim that Gaza is occupied to the claim that it is defacto annexed.
Your question about martial law is another absurdity. Of course when Israel feels that Hamas is not operating properly they have imposed martial law. That’s what Cast Lead was all about.
You’re not making your position look at all good here. Beginning by acting as if the question as not even debatable as a mistake, handwaving away the complexities of the situation just compounds error with folly.
The territory is disputed. The waters are Israeli waters.
Did Kennedy “occupy” Cuba?
I don’t know what “monopoly on the use of force” means in this context. Israel defends Israeli security when attacked. Yes, Israel has a “monopoly” on defending Israeli security. Just like US has a “monopoly” on defending US security. Is that the “monopoly” you’re talking about?
Yes, during “Cast Lead” Israel was occupying Gaza. When it withdrew, the “occupation” stopped.
Here, I provided a cite to refute you.
Now your argument is just silly and contrarian. Gaza is disputed territory? Perhaps between Fatah and Hamas, but Israel does not claim it nor does it claim Gaza’s waters as its own.
And as already cited, occupation does not depend on having boots on the ground in an area. It consists of the capability to exercise authority, not in the continued exercise of that authority.
Sorry, let me amend “silly and contrarian” to auto-caricature
There is no sovereign country that has a claim on Gaza. Thus it is disputed.
According to this logic, US is occupying the whole world.
By the way, you keep evading this - was Kennedy “occupying” Cuba when he controlled its imports?
Ah now you’re moving goalposts.
You have now made up a definition for “disputed”. And you are shifting the goalposts again, as you claimed that they were not Gazan waters but Israeli, which means that Israel would have had to have claimed them. Shown that you are wrong on that silly bit, you’ve just gone right along and shifted your argument.
You are also drastically misusing the word “logic” when you claim that the precedent which helps to define what occupation is means that the US is occupying every country on the planet. There are no parallels between the Hostages Trial and the fact that the US has the ability to project military force.
Yes. Since Gaza is not a sovereign country, Israel claims the waters as its own.
You’re moving the goalposts. Here’s what you wrote:
"And as already cited, occupation does not depend on having boots on the ground in an area. It consists of the capability to exercise authority, not in the continued exercise of that authority. "
So - does US have the “capability to exercise authority” pretty much anywhere in the world? If you answer in the affirmative, by YOUR definition, it is “occupying” those places. Or maybe you would like to take that statement back?
And you’re still refusing to answer: by controlling Cuba’s imports, was Kennedy “occupying” Cuba?
:rolleyes:
Cite?
You also rather obviously do not understand what “shifting the goalposts” means. You have now cherrypicked the fact that it is not boots on the ground but the capability to exercise control that determines whether or not something a situation counts as occupation and you have ignored that I have already provided, elaborated on and clarified the fact that that metric is one out of several in context.
You also seem drastically confused about the very basic substance of this discussion. Either that of your argument is markedly disingenuous. The definition and precedents provided are not “my” definitions, although the rhetorical gambit you are attempting by naming them that way is rather transparent.
And all this nonsense rather than simply admit that you were wrong and the issue of Gaza’s legal status is nowhere near cut and dried.