Cite? Okay, see Wikipedia, Name of Iran - Wikipedia already.
Yes, Iran means “Land of Aryans” or something like that, and yes, the Shah chose to use that name instead of “Persia”. But no, the Shah didn’t invent the name. According to this wiki, it derives from ancient historic forms.
The other metrics fail on the same grounds (like the “controlling the imports” metric).
They definitely are your definitions. Those are your inferences from some legal decisions that are irrelevant to the Gaza matter.
So - you still didn’t address this. Was Kennedy “occupying” Cuba when he “controlled its imports”?
Except of course I’ve proven that they don’t fail and you only have a pretense of an argument by cherrypicking quotes out of context, claiming that the cited and quoted text of the Additional Protocol is my words, claiming that cited opinions of the tribunal of the Hostages Trial are my words, and by claiming that a posted cite wasn’t posted (whiich you later changed to a claim that you were correct to say that a posted cite wasn’t posted because you didn’t agree with the analysis of it).
Rather obviously, when your argument consists of cherrypicking, goalpost shifting and a casual disregard for factual accuracy, you’re doing my work for me by showing that your argument is bankrupt. And all because you can not or will not simply admit that the status of Gaza is hardly cut and dry.
Except you certainly haven’t. That metric of “controlling the imports is occupation” you seem to apply only for Israel/Gaza and refuse to apply in the US/Cuba case. Fail.
I see you’ve now added strawmanning services alongside goalpost relocation and cherry pickage.
Of course, I pointed out that there is a complex of factors that, in context, fit with the actual definitions (which you have claimed I somehow invented, after you claimed I didn’t post them at all, even though I’ve cited and quoted 'em). I pointed out that, in context, controlling the import/export situation of an area is one of the functions of government. As I’m correct and you can’t respond to the facts, your argument must perforce use the sorts of tactics it’s been based on up to this point. Which is, of course, exactly why your argument now consists of nothing but a strawman coupled with a false analogy fallacy.
Speaking of nonsense that you’ve posted to rationalize your refusal to simply admit that Gaza’s status isn’t cut and dried, have you found an actual definition for “disputed” which means that no sovereign state has claimed it? How about a cite, anywhere, where Israel has claimed Gaza’s coastal waters as its own possession? I mean, we both know that neither is true and you simply let your argument get away from you because you’re arguing backwards from a conclusion and trying to justify it… but you could choose to begin to elevate your argument (rather than digging faster) by admitting your errors and fixing them. Or not, I suppose.
But you apply this criteria to mean “occupation” only in case of Israel. Not in case of US. Or in any other cases.
Yet again, there is a whole constellation of factors that have to be present, and as I’ve been pointing out, the case in Gaza is nuanced and not cut and dried as you erroneously presented in a threadbare rhetorical gambit. You are, again, deliberately ignoring the context and instead cherrypicking individual bits in order to fallaciously draw analogies.
Of course. “Nuanced” as in “different standards for Israel than for anyone else”. That kind of nuance.
Give me one “factor” in the constellation that I could not find you an equivalent of somewhere else where you would not consider the situation an “occupation”.
Ladies and gentlemen, he don’t know me very well, do he?
I have no idea who you are. You may be one of the biggest pro-Israeli posters. I can only judge you by your wrong-headed posts in this thread.
Oh and I wonder whom exactly you’re addressing with the “ladies and gentlemen” there. Trust me, people have stopped reading this tedious exchange a long time ago.
I haven’t stopped reading it. Finn clearly has command of the issues. Reminds me of a “Finklestein light”. Terr, you should fall on your sword.
I keep reading, hoping that it will be something besides you two guys hollering at each other. 
And the pope might be Catholic:p. Oh lord, this one made me laugh.
The funny thing is I think they’re both on the same side! (both pro-Israel) But all Israel threads degenerate into endless sniping over the definition of occupation et cetera.
Way back when this thread started out as something along the lines of:
Should Israel bomb Iran?
Can Israel bomb Iran effectively? (can they destroy Iran’s nuclear capability in a single series of strikes?)
Is now the right time to do it?
My two cents:
Should- yes. Iran could use a black eye.
Could- not really. Iran is not going to fall for the same “all our eggs are in this one little basket!” trick Iraq fell for twenty years ago. Bombing Iran is not going to be a picnic.
Now- no rush. As I’ve said in other Iran-nuke threads, Iran can build one but ceases to exist as a nation the day they use it. Let them be a mustache-twirling villain for a minute. It would be a lot easier for the rest of the world to accept Israel bombing Iran if Iran already had a nuke. Otherwise they can just carry on with the endless “we only want nuclear energy for peaceful purposes” shtick and there will always be some suckers out there who will buy it.
Well, as far as I’m concerned there is only one real ‘side’, that of factual accuracy. From that flows just about everything else. And as I’ve stated before, it’s critically important that we call folks on their bullshit, even when they agree with us on some points.
Letting an absurd claim stand unchallenged, such as the claim that there’s no debate at all over the status of Gaza, is tacit acceptance. And far too many people strive for echo chamber perfection when they decide that posters are on their ‘side’.