• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:3] Gaza Occupation or Not

oneworld2 said:
Nope the level of control the Israelis wield over Gazans is at a level whereby boots on the ground would only put the soldiers in harms way without achieving much more.

The points about buffer zones is valid . As is the total control of the airspace and maritime territory . That the IDF can take out cars and blow houses up with complete impunity shows the true level of control
Click to expand...

Can do the same in Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere. Not a military occupation and already debunked throughout this thread.
A military enforced no-go zone is not a military occupation of the lands of Gaza, and the same goes for the "total control of airspace and maritime territory".
Notice the complete lack of logical basis for any such assertions.
 
oneworld2 said:
Nope the level of control the Israelis wield over Gazans is at a level whereby boots on the ground would only put the soldiers in harms way without achieving much more.

The points about buffer zones is valid . As is the total control of the airspace and maritime territory . That the IDF can take out cars and blow houses up with complete impunity shows the true level of control
Click to expand...

By your reasoning North Korea "occupies" South Korea.... East Germany "occupied" West Berlin.
 
Fledermaus said:
By your reasoning North Korea "occupies" South Korea.... East Germany "occupied" West Berlin.
Click to expand...

Fledermaus:

In order to be considered militarily occupied the occupier must exert "effective control" over the occupied territory. Neither North Korea nor East Germany were able to do this because of the presence of US and international troops in South Korea and Berlin. There is no military in Gaza capable of checking Israel's "effective control" over the territory so your parallels cited don't hold water.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Fledermaus:

In order to be considered militarily occupied the occupier must exert "effective control" over the occupied territory. Neither North Korea nor East Germany were able to do this because of the presence of US and international troops in South Korea and Berlin. There is no military in Gaza capable of checking Israel's "effective control" over the territory so your parallels cited don't hold water.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

It's fun watching standards get developed in real time, particularly where the purpose of developing them is to gerrymander certain things into the definitions and other things out of them.

Look forward to the next iteration, but remember Israel can't do anything if Egypt decides to unseal its border.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
It's fun watching standards get developed in real time, particularly where the purpose of developing them is to gerrymander certain things into the definitions and other things out of them.

Look forward to the next iteration, but remember Israel can't do anything if Egypt decides to unseal its border.
Click to expand...

The legal meaning and importance of effective control was described and cited in post # 72 and has not changed since then in this thread. There is no emerging development nor any drift of meaning on my part. I have been consistent throughout this thread with the exception of my mistake about Golda Meir which I publicly corrected when Apocalypse pointed out my error.

If Egypt opens the border and Israel strenuously objects to it, then Israel could just move in and physically reoccupy the security zone it handed over to Egyptian and EU authorities years ago in order to interdict movement across the Egyptian border into Gaza. This security zone, like the ones on the eastern and northern sides of Gaza, is on Palestinian territory so it would not trigger conflict with Egypt over the territorial sovereignty of Egypt.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
The legal meaning and importance of effective control was described and cited in post # 72 and has not changed since then in this thread. There is no emerging development nor any drift of meaning on my part. I have been consistent throughout this thread with the exception of my mistake about Golda Meir which I publicly corrected when Apocalypse pointed out my error.

If Egypt opens the border and Israel strenuously objects to it, then Israel could just move in and physically reoccupy the security zone it handed over to Egyptian and EU authorities years ago in order to interdict movement across the Egyptian border into Gaza. This security zone, like the ones on the eastern and northern sides of Gaza, is on Palestinian territory so it would not trigger conflict with Egypt over the territorial sovereignty of Egypt.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

lol. yes and if the US didn't like Canada's foreign policy it could just move the physically occupy all of our population centres. Nothing we could do about it and no one would come and rescue us.

I guess Canada is occupied by the United States then?

Incidentally, post 72 was a link dump...

So here's a better one, which involves actual legal analysis:

Israel, Gaza, and the End of ?Effective Control? - Opinio Juris

which draws on the analysis published in The American University International Law Review at

https://digitalcommons.wcl.american....com/&httpsredir=1&article=1689&context=auilr
 
Last edited:
Rising Sun said:
Agreed.

OTOH, sometimes I wonder if it'd be better the world cut off all funding to Israel so the Arabs would be emboldened to attack and the Israelis would nuke their capitals. It would solve a lot of issues.
Click to expand...

Gee, why stop there? Nuke the entire Middle East. Sure you'd kill immense numbers of innocent people, but hey, it'd solve some issues!

:roll:
 
Rising Sun said:
More likely they attacked because they believed the Israelis didn't have a deliverable weapon yet and that it was their last chance to attack before they did.

Still, what is your point? That the Egyptians are so ****ing stupid they'd attack a nuclear power and all die as martyrs?
Click to expand...

That may be your fantasy, but you've made it pretty clear you are clinging to prejudice.

The Egyptians wanted the Sinai back. That was the entire basis of their then current government being in power. Had the Israelis used nukes as anything other than a last resort, they would have become instant pariahs and could kiss all that US support goodbye. Even as a last resort they'd still become pariahs to much of the world.

By scaring the crap out of the Israelis and coming very close to winning the war outright the Egyptians were able to get them to return the Sinai eventually, which was all they wanted.
 
Evilroddy said:
The legal meaning and importance of effective control was described and cited in post # 72 and has not changed since then in this thread. There is no emerging development nor any drift of meaning on my part. I have been consistent throughout this thread with the exception of my mistake about Golda Meir which I publicly corrected when Apocalypse pointed out my error.

If Egypt opens the border and Israel strenuously objects to it, then Israel could just move in and physically reoccupy the security zone it handed over to Egyptian and EU authorities years ago in order to interdict movement across the Egyptian border into Gaza. This security zone, like the ones on the eastern and northern sides of Gaza, is on Palestinian territory so it would not trigger conflict with Egypt over the territorial sovereignty of Egypt.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

And look, case law:

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights


From Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan:

94. Article 42 of the Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (hereafter “the 1907 Hague Regulations”) defines belligerent occupation as follows:

“Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

Accordingly, occupation within the meaning of the 1907 Hague Regulations exists when a state exercises actual authority over the territory, or part of the territory, of an enemy state(1) . The requirement of actual authority is widely considered to be synonymous to that of effective control.

Military occupation is considered to exist in a territory, or part of a territory, if the following elements can be demonstrated: the presence of foreign troops, which are in a position to exercise effective control without the consent of the sovereign. According to widespread expert opinion physical presence of foreign troops is a sine qua non requirement of occupation(2) , i.e. occupation is not conceivable without “boots on the ground” therefore forces exercising naval or air control through a naval or air blockade do not suffice(3) .

...

143. At this point the Court considers it useful to reiterate that Azerbaijan has deposited a declaration with its instrument of ratification expressing that it was “unable to guarantee the application of the provisions of the Convention in the territories occupied by the Republic of Armenia” (see paragraph 93 above). In its decision on the admissibility of the present case, the Court has held that the declaration was not capable of restricting the territorial application of the Convention to certain parts of the internationally recognised territory of Azerbaijan (Sargsyan (dec.), cited above, §§ 63-65) nor did it fulfil the requirements of a valid reservation (ibid., §§ 66-70).

144. The Court notes that under international law (in particular Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations) a territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of a hostile army, “actual authority” being widely considered as translating to effective control and requiring such elements as presence of foreign troops, which are in a position to exercise effective control without the consent of the sovereign (see paragraph 94 above). On the basis of all the material before it and having regard to the above establishment of facts, the Court finds that Gulistan is not occupied by or under the effective control of foreign forces as this would require a presence of foreign troops in Gulistan.


So there you go. Unless we have one standard for Israel and another for everywhere else (which in all honesty is pretty common), Gaza is not occupied. Cause watch this:

144. The Court notes that under international law (in particular Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations) a territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of a hostile army, “actual authority” being widely considered as translating to effective control and requiring such elements as presence of foreign troops, which are in a position to exercise effective control without the consent of the sovereign (see paragraph 94 above). On the basis of all the material before it and having regard to the above establishment of facts, the Court finds that [GAZA] is not occupied by or under the effective control of [ISRAELI FORCES] as this would require a presence of [ISRAELI] troops in [GAZA].
 
Evilroddy said:
The legal meaning and importance of effective control was described and cited in post # 72 and has not changed since then in this thread. There is no emerging development nor any drift of meaning on my part. I have been consistent throughout this thread with the exception of my mistake about Golda Meir which I publicly corrected when Apocalypse pointed out my error.

If Egypt opens the border and Israel strenuously objects to it, then Israel could just move in and physically reoccupy the security zone it handed over to Egyptian and EU authorities years ago in order to interdict movement across the Egyptian border into Gaza. This security zone, like the ones on the eastern and northern sides of Gaza, is on Palestinian territory so it would not trigger conflict with Egypt over the territorial sovereignty of Egypt.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Your assertions as a whole were debunked throughout this thread;

1) It was pointed that you were basing them on opinions of others in post #100. You post links to an opinion article or to the view of the UN and act as if you quoted a dictionary. Later you would go and claim "I backed my words with evidence" referring to the same opinion articles of random individuals. Meaningless propagnada nonsense.

2) It was shown that you base your claims on completely made up assertions you created out of thin air. For example in order to claim Israel has an effective control over the territory of Gaza you claimed it could willingly construct a checkpoint within Gazan territory. I pointed out that it cannot do so unless entirely defeating first the Islamist militants in the territory, as otherwise fire exchanges between the forces creating the checkpoint and the Islamist militants would prevent such checkpoint from operating, you were left without the ability to respond and thus did not respond. Other examples were previously shown as well.

3) It was shown that the standards for a military occupation you created yourself without any dependency on the relevant facts or logic, if applied to other scenarios, would be considered military occupation where there is no real argument that such exist. Israel occupying Syria, Israel occupying Lebanon, the US occupying Mexico, etc. Your standards created for the purpose of empty propagnada and to serve your wish to define Gaza as Israeli-occupied have in their radical detachment from reality exposed the lack of logic hiding behind each of your claims. Needless to say but you are in no such place to declare such standards to begin with, regardless of how much you find it necessary for the purpose of empty propaganda. You're not an authority to decide that if a country's citizens are observed it equals a military occupation, that if the airspace is controlled it equals a military occupation, etc.

Considering the above, you're simply repeating debunked assertions time after time and as such it's safe to label your words empty lies.
 
Tigerace117 said:
That may be your fantasy, but you've made it pretty clear you are clinging to prejudice. ....
Click to expand...

Thanks for the insults. Disagreed, but obviously you are pro-Palestinian...or are you just Anti-Semitic Anti-Zionist Anti-Israel?
 
Rising Sun said:
Thanks for the insults. Disagreed, but obviously you are pro-Palestinian...or are you just Anti-Semitic Anti-Zionist Anti-Israel?
Click to expand...

The historical record bears me out...... as does the actions of Israel in the years following the war.
 
Tigerace117 said:
The historical record bears me out...... as does the actions of Israel in the years following the war.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it's the Palestinian historical record. You are free to support Palestinians, Jihadists, antisemitism, antizionism, whatever you like. I'm free to disagree. OTOH, if you live in the US, supporting terrorism may cause you some legal issues.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
And look, case law:

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights


From Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan:

94. Article 42 of the Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 (hereafter “the 1907 Hague Regulations”) defines belligerent occupation as follows:

“Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

Accordingly, occupation within the meaning of the 1907 Hague Regulations exists when a state exercises actual authority over the territory, or part of the territory, of an enemy state(1) . The requirement of actual authority is widely considered to be synonymous to that of effective control.

Military occupation is considered to exist in a territory, or part of a territory, if the following elements can be demonstrated: the presence of foreign troops, which are in a position to exercise effective control without the consent of the sovereign. According to widespread expert opinion physical presence of foreign troops is a sine qua non requirement of occupation(2) , i.e. occupation is not conceivable without “boots on the ground” therefore forces exercising naval or air control through a naval or air blockade do not suffice(3) .

...



144. The Court notes that under international law (in particular Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations) a territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of a hostile army, “actual authority” being widely considered as translating to effective control and requiring such elements as presence of foreign troops, which are in a position to exercise effective control without the consent of the sovereign (see paragraph 94 above). On the basis of all the material before it and having regard to the above establishment of facts, the Court finds that Gulistan is not occupied by or under the effective control of foreign forces as this would require a presence of foreign troops in Gulistan.


So there you go. Unless we have one standard for Israel and another for everywhere else (which in all honesty is pretty common), Gaza is not occupied. Cause watch this:
Click to expand...

Nope , all you have done is supported Evilroddys case by showing that the key to it all is whether Israel has a military effective control of Gaza and it clearly does

The Hague Regulations were written up in 1907 and as such are only valid in the context of a historic guideline seeing as how technology has made it possible for there to be now no actual need for boots on the ground


144. The Court notes that under international law (in particular Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations) a territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of a hostile army, “actual authority” being widely considered as translating to effective control and requiring such elements as presence of foreign troops, which are in a position to exercise effective control without the consent of the sovereign (see paragraph 94 above). On the basis of all the material before it and having regard to the above establishment of facts, the Court finds that [GAZA] is not occupied by or under the effective control of [ISRAELI FORCES] as this would require a presence of [ISRAELI] troops in [GAZA].
Click to expand...

Wow, that's a piece of pure spin going on there. You are comparing a completely different case , with differing " material " in a bid to fool the reader that the verdict would be the same
 
oneworld2 said:
Nope , all you have done is supported Evilroddys case by showing that the key to it all is whether Israel has a military effective control of Gaza and it clearly does

The Hague Regulations were written up in 1907 and as such are only valid in the context of a historic guideline seeing as how technology has made it possible for there to be now no actual need for boots on the ground




Wow, that's a piece of pure spin going on there. You are comparing a completely different case , with differing " material " in a bid to fool the reader that the verdict would be the same
Click to expand...

Wow. Seriously laughed out loud at this.

"seeing as how technology has made it possible for there to be now no actual need for boots on the ground"

Like seriously, that's your "analysis"?

When was the case decided incidentally? 1907? You guys are flat out making crap up as you go along, all the time adjusting to make sure that your conclusion is pre-ordained by the definition, facts or other applications of the law be damned.

And I thought you pretended to be a lawyer at some point? All I did was take a ratio and swap out names. Unless there is an underlying difference in the FACTS in the paragraph which formed the ratio, changing the names changes nothing of substance. And the FACTS relevant in that paragraph do not involve the silliness in your stretched arguments nor to they differ in any meaningful way in the two examples.

Here's "the law": "the Court notes that under international law (in particular Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations) a territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of a hostile army, “actual authority” being widely considered as translating to effective control and requiring such elements as presence of foreign troops, which are in a position to exercise effective control without the consent of the sovereign"

I get that to the radical left there is a standard for Israel and a standard for everyone else, but seriously, what a joke.

What a joke.
 
Last edited:
CJ 2.0 said:
lol. yes and if the US didn't like Canada's foreign policy it could just move the physically occupy all of our population centres. Nothing we could do about it and no one would come and rescue us.

I guess Canada is occupied by the United States then?

Incidentally, post 72 was a link dump...

So here's a better one, which involves actual legal analysis:

Israel, Gaza, and the End of ?Effective Control? - Opinio Juris

which draws on the analysis published in The American University International Law Review at

https://digitalcommons.wcl.american....com/&httpsredir=1&article=1689&context=auilr
Click to expand...

CJ 2.0:

Good post. The kind I had hoped to get from apocalypse, but never did. So, well done, sir.

I read the Elizabeth Samson paper but have not had time to read the digital commons article nor the European court decision which you cited in a later post. I will get back to you when I've read them all and when I've done more research to find legal opinions and legal decisions in opposition to Ms. Samson and the other authorities which you have offered.

I look forward to continuing the debate on the weekend.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
CJ 2.0:

Good post. The kind I had hoped to get from apocalypse, but never did. So, well done, sir.

I read the Elizabeth Samson paper but have not had time to read the digital commons article nor the European court decision which you cited in a later post. I will get back to you when I've read them all and when I've done more research to find legal opinions and legal decisions in opposition to Ms. Samson and the other authorities which you have offered.

I look forward to continuing the debate on the weekend.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

You can find an opinion saying X and you can find one saying Y about literally anything.
It's significantly more helpful to take my approach of using logic and reason as well as facts all combined being the basis for one's view on a given subject.
As long as you choose the former approach over the latter you're merely arguing for a position you wish was true rather than arguing for what is true. These type of arguments called "arguing through Google" (since one is Googling what he wants to find and posts the first result regardless of our ridiculous the source or the explanation provided by the source is) are becoming really tiring and contribute nothing at all.

As already pointed in post #100 in this thread by the way.
 
Evilroddy said:
Fledermaus:

In order to be considered militarily occupied the occupier must exert "effective control" over the occupied territory. Neither North Korea nor East Germany were able to do this because of the presence of US and international troops in South Korea and Berlin. There is no military in Gaza capable of checking Israel's "effective control" over the territory so your parallels cited don't hold water.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is without the US both nations would be effectively "occupied"...
 
oneworld2 said:
Nope , all you have done is supported Evilroddys case by showing that the key to it all is whether Israel has a military effective control of Gaza and it clearly does

The Hague Regulations were written up in 1907 and as such are only valid in the context of a historic guideline seeing as how technology has made it possible for there to be now no actual need for boots on the ground

Wow, that's a piece of pure spin going on there. You are comparing a completely different case , with differing " material " in a bid to fool the reader that the verdict would be the same
Click to expand...

Spin.... Is that what you call truth?
 
Fledermaus said:
So what you are saying is without the US both nations would be effectively "occupied"...
Click to expand...

Fledermaus:

That is true for South Korea if one also included UN troops other than US troops into the equation. Although Berlin was not a nation, the presence of occupation troops including Americans there protected Berlin from falling under Soviet occupation in 1946-47. Since the US armed forces were the largest military contingents in both territories, I think your summation is for the most part correct and accurate.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
Wow. Seriously laughed out loud at this.

"seeing as how technology has made it possible for there to be now no actual need for boots on the ground"

Like seriously, that's your "analysis"?

When was the case decided incidentally? 1907? You guys are flat out making crap up as you go along, all the time adjusting to make sure that your conclusion is pre-ordained by the definition, facts or other applications of the law be damned.

And I thought you pretended to be a lawyer at some point? All I did was take a ratio and swap out names. Unless there is an underlying difference in the FACTS in the paragraph which formed the ratio, changing the names changes nothing of substance. And the FACTS relevant in that paragraph do not involve the silliness in your stretched arguments nor to they differ in any meaningful way in the two examples.

Here's "the law": "the Court notes that under international law (in particular Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations) a territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of a hostile army, “actual authority” being widely considered as translating to effective control and requiring such elements as presence of foreign troops, which are in a position to exercise effective control without the consent of the sovereign"

I get that to the radical left there is a standard for Israel and a standard for everyone else, but seriously, what a joke.

What a joke.
Click to expand...

As Evilroddy has already pointed out , you don't have to control an entire territory to be deemed as an occupier. That said , Israel does control ( militarily ) all of the territory that makes up the " buffer zone " which is Gazan territory. This zone contracts and expands as and when Israel decides .

Recall too that the IDF can and does kill Palestinians all over the territory with complete impunity. The drones and the Apaches etc etc are targeting individual people in cars and blowing up individual houses as and when the opportunity arises. Often striking just after a targeted strike so as to kill the people trying to help.

And you seriously believe that that level of control , that level of military freedom , doesn't constitute an effective control of a territory ?

That's the real joke being put out here imo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom