Bud I had my share of mid east history and world politics in college. I'm not going to redo the assigned reading, the post grad reading, or the extracurricular reading, because you think you know something that I don't know already. Let's assume I know the full history down to every detail you feel is important.
It still doesn't in any way help to address the present conflict and the present belligerents. So it seems like there's only one reason you'd bring it up and it very much has to do with who the belligerents are.and very little to do with what they've done, and it has nothing to do with interests in peace or humanity, if it's not complete vanity.
I understand there are diabolically evil war criminals in the IDF and Israeli government just as there are in Hamas, and plenty of hate to go around for anyone that wants to join in. My country, too. One side gives them prizes with biblical zeal and conviction, fail not, and the other tries to keep the crimes quiet, or tries them in court and convicts them, some of the time, and has as its current political leadership a party that is very likely to be voted out of office, possibly very soon. Oh no, I can't tell which one is worse, better pick the one that doesn't make the news so sad. 🤡
Give me a break. The time for Gaza to stop living in the ninth century and be a world citizen has passed. Willfully targeting civilians is not a legitimate means of resistance. I can understand it's motivation and understand that it is a criminal enterprise, incompatible with western concepts of representative government and civil rights, and in fact peoplemin Gaza who espouse such concepts get put to death as infidels by religious police. And yet you give Hamas a wholesale pass, not only all that, but also on using the entirety the population of Gaza as human shields and bargaining chips.
That's the starting point. I don't understand why you're looking backwards from here? Definitely not interested in arguing about semantics. But if you keep reading your article beyong the literal first sentence, you'll see I'm getting it from Article 43 of the Hague Convention.
Yet a multitude of international and human rights organizations have considered it occupation because Israel still controls Gaza through military force.
many prominent international institutions, organizations and bodies—including the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, UN General Assembly (UNGA), European Union (EU), African Union, International Criminal Court (ICC) (both Pre-Trial Chamber I and the Office of the Prosecutor), Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch—as well as international legal experts and other organizations, argue that Israel has occupied Palestinian territories including Gaza since 1967.1 While they acknowledge that Israel no longer had the traditional marker of effective control after the disengagement—a military presence—they hold that with the help of technology, it has maintained the requisite control in other ways.
Specifically, experts from the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory found “noting” positions held by the UN Security Council, UNGA, a 2014 declaration adopted by the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, the ICRC, and “positions of previous commissions of inquiry,” that Israel has “control exercised over, inter alia, [Gaza’s] airspace and territorial waters, land crossings at the borders, supply of civilian infrastructure, including water and electricity, and key governmental functions such as the management of the Palestinian population registry.” They also point to “other forms of force, such as military incursions and firing missiles.”
But I'll assume you know more about the conflict than all of them. After all, you did mention that you read some history books. I'm sure they weren't filled with revisionist history.
Bud I had my share of mid east history and world politics in college. I'm not going to redo the assigned reading, the post grad reading, or the extracurricular reading, because you think you know something that I don't know already. Let's assume I know the full history down to every detail you feel is important.
It still doesn't in any way help to address the present conflict and the present belligerents. So it seems like there's only one reason you'd bring it up and it very much has to do with who the belligerents are.and very little to do with what they've done, and it has nothing to do with interests in peace or humanity, if it's not complete vanity.
I understand there are diabolically evil war criminals in the IDF and Israeli government just as there are in Hamas, and plenty of hate to go around for anyone that wants to join in. My country, too. One side gives them prizes with biblical zeal and conviction, fail not, and the other tries to keep the crimes quiet, or tries them in court and convicts them, some of the time, and has as its current political leadership a party that is very likely to be voted out of office, possibly very soon. Oh no, I can't tell which one is worse, better pick the one that doesn't make the news so sad. 🤡
Give me a break. The time for Gaza to stop living in the ninth century and be a world citizen has passed. Willfully targeting civilians is not a legitimate means of resistance. I can understand it's motivation and understand that it is a criminal enterprise, incompatible with western concepts of representative government and civil rights, and in fact peoplemin Gaza who espouse such concepts get put to death as infidels by religious police. And yet you give Hamas a wholesale pass, not only all that, but also on using the entirety the population of Gaza as human shields and bargaining chips.
That's the starting point. I don't understand why you're looking backwards from here? Definitely not interested in arguing about semantics. But if you keep reading your article beyong the literal first sentence, you'll see I'm getting it from Article 43 of the Hague Convention.
Yet a multitude of international and human rights organizations have considered it occupation because Israel still controls Gaza through military force.
But I'll assume you know more about the conflict than all of them. After all, you did mention that you read some history books. I'm sure they weren't filled with revisionist history.