US Coups - Out with the elected, in with the dictators

Discussion in 'The Political/Current Events Coffee House' started by D3VIL, Nov 13, 2011.

  1. matthewchris Guest

    Member Since:
    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Woah, hold up honky. Your saying that we occupy them, and then cite sources that name it as a blockade (which it is). Well, here's the thing about all that. We control Gaza's air space, blockade their waters, and maintain a air tight security perimeter. Nothing enters or leaves without us knowing. However, that doesn't mean it's a occupation. A occupation would mean that IDF forces would be in Gaza, like they are in East Jerusalem, and the West Bank. However, there are no such forces there, and haven't been since January of 09. Trust me, I walked out with the rest of the IDF as Cast Lead was declared ended. That was the last Israeli ground presence there, and the occupation ended in 2005, which I was also a part of. I was there as we walked out that time, as well. A blockade does not equate with occupation.

    Also, since your using wikipedia, I will drop some as well.

  2. D3VIL Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Message Count:
    885
    Likes Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    UK
    That 'quote' is nowhere near specific enough. I'll give you a more specific one:
    http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/a...ac-4f93-be36-a9813be1922d/mde210032011en.html
  3. matthewchris Guest

    Member Since:
    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A claim of occupation is not the same as definitively occupying something. They are claiming, that because of the power we exert over Gaza, that it's pretty much a occupation. Well, I hate to break it to them, but that's not how a occupation works. We don't have boots on the ground, and encircling someone isn't the same as occupying them. The occupation was officially ended in 2005, and that's officially recognized. Now it's only claims of de facto occupation that remain.
  4. D3VIL Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Message Count:
    885
    Likes Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    UK
    You at the very least are illegally occupying the 'buffer zone'.
  5. matthewchris Guest

    Member Since:
    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The whole point of the buffer zone is to be occupied. It's essentially the same concept of the DMZ in Korea. It keeps us separated. You can dispute where it should be located, but not why it exist, or why it's occupied.
  6. D3VIL Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Message Count:
    885
    Likes Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    UK
    http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/2010/07/13/inside-israels-buffer-zone
    I dispute it existing in the Gaza Strip, in Israel, fine.
  7. matthewchris Guest

    Member Since:
    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  8. D3VIL Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Message Count:
    885
    Likes Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    UK
    I've already made my point, backed up by Amnesty International. You reject its validity. Oh well I'll give you another (from a UN spokesman):
    http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-06/...israeli-troops-arab-israeli-war/2?_s=PM:WORLD
    So Amnesty International and the United Nations secretary-general agree it's occupied. But they're wrong, right?
  9. matthewchris Guest

    Member Since:
    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's a disputed issue. Israel claims to not be occupying. Some organizations agree, some do not. I agree with Israel. We have no ground presence, and it is not the territory of any sovereign nation.
  10. D3VIL Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Message Count:
    885
    Likes Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    UK
    Yes but you're disputing the validity of the UN secretary-general and Amnesty International's stance. And why are you disputing it? Because you believe they're incorrect. Ergo you think they're wrong. Unless you think they're right?
    Cool. So it was OK for American settlers to occupy Native American territory? Because they weren't a sovereign state? I think even you recognise that just because it's not a sovereign nation it does not make it OK (especially when Israel & the US are the primary reason they don't have a nation yet.) It's the occupation of territory that does not belong to them. Under international law occupation is supposed to be temporary but it has continued for 44 years.
  11. pedro3131 Running the Show While the Big Guy's Gone

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,949
    Likes Received:
    633
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Tempe, Az
    He is disputing their definition of occupation. Basically, he contends that to occupy something you need to actual be there, not just around it. Looking at the definition of the word occupation, I'm inclined to agree.
  12. D3VIL Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Message Count:
    885
    Likes Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    UK
    So Amnesty International and the secretary-general of the United Nations aren't using the right definition? I find that hard to believe. I think they have a better understanding of international law and its terms than you or MatthewChris, and I'm sure you'd agree.
  13. pedro3131 Running the Show While the Big Guy's Gone

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,949
    Likes Received:
    633
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Tempe, Az
    It's an academic argument though. Our argument is that an occupation involved actually having people occupying a territory. To me autonomy, and a foreign military presence are the determinant in any occupation. Gaza is autonomous, it is self governing, it secures it's own borders, administers it's own people, does all the things a normalized state would. Israel is not involved in the government in the Gaza strip, thus is fails the autonomy test. In terms of a foreign military presence, as Matt has noted, Israel is engaged in a robust blockade of the region. However, a blockade is not the same thing as a foreign military presence within an autonomous state. If this were the case, you could say that the United States is "occupying" northern Mexico due to it's robust border security posture. Obviously, Mexico is a self-governing country and the fact that there is a military presence along her border is not indicative of a military presence within her borders, nor that her autonomy is in any way abridged. Israel does not have boots on the ground in Gaza, ergo it fails the foreign military presence qualification of an occupation. By my estimation, having failed both qualifications of an occupation, Israel is not occupying Gaza.

    The argument put forth by certain international organizations would be that Israel creates an environment which prevents Gaza from being autonomous. While I would rate this claim as false, as I demonstrated, it by itself is not indicative of an occupation. Regardless of the nature of a state's autonomy, it cannot be considered occupied unless there is a robust foreign military presence within her borders. The opposing argument offers an incomplete definition of an occupation. You could certainly argue that Gaza's position is not ideal, or that the blockade is unjust, but neither of those facts mean that Gaza is being occupied.

    As an aside though, as one of the last Israeli boots on the ground in Gaza, I'd say Matt is a pretty reliable source. As for myself, I've been offered internships at more prestigious think tanks then Amnesty, am in the final stages of getting an article approved for a prestigious foreign relations journal, and am persuing a graduate's degree in this stuff so I'd say I'm more then qualified to compile an argument here.
  14. D3VIL Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Message Count:
    885
    Likes Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    UK
    Mine was from the perspective of international law but to each his own.

    OK, so a 'territory' which doesn't have control over its own airspace, its own waters and has very limited land trade is autonomous. Gaza is at the mercy of Israel. Israel is the occupying power. I'm going to have to side with the UN secretary-general and Amnesty International.

    The Mexico hypothetical you presented is not an equivalent. In your example they're not blockaded or suffering restricted air space. And your interpretation is not shared by international law.

    I could argue that the blockade is illegal and that it's collective punishment but I wouldn't bother as Amnesty International isn't well respected here. I could also mention the panel of 5 UN human rights experts that found the blockade is a flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law. Gaza is under siege from Israel therefore Israel is responsible for Gazan civilians as the occupying power.

    I didn't say you weren't qualified. Just that Amnesty International and the secretary-general of the UN are two sources I would trust. I'd love to know why you think they don't use the correct definition. I'm not saying boots on the ground isn't a fair definition, all I'm saying is that under international law which Amnesty International and the secretary-general of the UN are likely to be well versed with, Gaza is under occupation.
  15. noelsoong This machine does not require caffeine to operate.

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Let's talk about k/d ratios it's funner.
  16. D3VIL Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Message Count:
    885
    Likes Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    UK
    That's nice noelsoong.

    I wonder if anyone would care to look at the following video on the Gaza 'War'? I'd like to know your opinions:


    EDIT:
    One last thing, you know how Goldstone revised his opinion? And that meant that the Report was completely nullified? Well the other three co-writers did not and firmly stand by the Report.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...atement_issued_by_other_members_of_UN_mission
  17. slydessertfox Total War Branch Head

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    11,853
    Likes Received:
    1,425
    Trophy Points:
    373
    Location:
    Mars
    So you are occupying a territory if you control the airspace and are blockading them, but they have their own government... yup. And 2+2=fish.

    definition from wikipedia: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
  18. D3VIL Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Message Count:
    885
    Likes Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    UK
    So wikipedia vs UN secretary-general, Amnesty International and now by the United Nations Special Rapporteur For Human Rights In The Occupied Territories:
    http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/F1EC67EF7A498A30C125752D005D17F7?opendocument

    I've bolded and red-ed the important bit. You'll also notice that he mentions collective punishment, targeting civilians and a disproportionate military response.
  19. D3VIL Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Message Count:
    885
    Likes Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    UK
    A 1976 UN Security Council draft resolution stated:
    If you'll look at the bolded text you'll notice that it called for the right of return, Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory to pre June 1967 borders and that Palestinians should have a state.

    Here was the voting for the resolution:
    The voting was 9-1, but the one vote which mattered and which always matters was the vote of the United States. They voted against peace and a state for Palestinians.

    http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/696D540FD7821BCE0525651C00736250

    (Credit to Noam Chomsky for bringing this to my attention (via a lecture, I don't know him personally (a lecture on YouTube.)))

    Just look at the amount of US vetoes:
    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

    (Double posting to separate a reply and another point I want to make, posts become huge otherwise)
  20. stupified619 Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    609
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Walking on air.

Share This Page

Facebook: