Official UN transcript. I know it looks like something from the Onion, but honestly, it's even on the UN website.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There's no way I'm plowing through that trying to guess what you're commenting on.
Why don't you quote something relevant?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It's less than two screens long. But here:
quote:Question: You read a statement about the situation in Gaza before and I know it's difficult to change terminology, but we have a new Secretary-General now, so let me try it again. A year and half after the last Israeli withdrew from Gaza, the UN system still refers to Gaza as an Occupied Palestinian Territory. The only people who are not Palestinian in Gaza currently are UN people. Do you mean that Gaza is occupied by the UN?
Spokesperson: Definitely not.
Question: So who is it occupied by?
Spokesperson: Well…
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's interesting. Does the UN still refer to it that way today?
There's certainly some issues to discuss about Israel's relationship to Gaza, but if they're out, they're out. Still refering to it as occupied isn't right, so long as it isn't.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Lyr, nonsense like this is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the UN and Israel. (To answer a question you asked the other day.)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Followed by:
quote: Spokesperson: Well…
Correspondent: I think there are some Israeli soldiers on the border…
Question: Not borders, who is Gaza occupied by?
Spokesperson: Traditionally, this is the terminology we have used. Yes?
Question: But the situation on the ground changed since Israel withdrew from Gaza.
Spokesperson: I will look into this.
Correspondent: Thank you.
Whats the issue? Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What'd I ask the other day?
I don't pretend to know all the details of the relationship between the UN and Israel. I know it's a long convoluted history, and some of the specifics, but mostly that I know just enough to know that there's a lot I don't.
Mucus - I think the issue is: Why is the UN referring to Gaza as occupied when there aren't Israeli troops stationed in Gaza.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Gaza is being occupied by itself, kind of. I agree, it's surreal. I haven't followed what has happened since the coup several months ago. I guess there was violence between Hamas and the PA? People were trying to get out and Israel was enforcing the border from which Israel itself had been expelled. I seem to recall that they finally started letting through a few critically wounded.
I mean, it depends so much on one's view of the situation, but I'm definitely on the side of looking at Gaza and saying "You wanted Israel out and now you want out. What is your problem?"
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Whats the issue?
That it took 1.5 years and a new SG to finally get the UN to admit there even was a problem in their terminology? That this is far from an isolated incident?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That's interesting. Does the UN still refer to it that way today?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What'd I ask the other day?
Why I don't consider the UN to be an adequate news source.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
pooka - I'm mixed on that one. With regards to what appears to be a sort of civil war in Gaza, it's sort of hard to shake your fist at Israel and say they should be nicer to Gazans who need help as a result of the civil war. On the other hand, there are plenty of people trapped in the cross fire that are deserving of help, and that frequently have no say in what happens to them thanks to the leadership of corrupt and dangerous organizations, like Hamas and the PA.
rivka -
That's odd. I mean, there ARE circumstances where I would consider calling Gaza occupied even if there weren't actually troops permanantly stationed there, but, their inability to answer what reasoning they are using to continue calling it that certainly looks fishy to me. I'd like to see an explanation.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
So information in a bureaucracy travels slowly? What happened after the spokesperson looked into it?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Apparently the Earth rotated another 375 times, give or take a day, and not much else.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm reminded of one of the Chinese conceptions of Hell as a bloated, corrupt, and dysfunctional bureaucracy Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Let's try a different comparison. Have you ever heard a southerner insist that reconstruction is still being inflicted on them? It's kind of like that.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That's odd. I mean, there ARE circumstances where I would consider calling Gaza occupied even if there weren't actually troops permanantly stationed there,
Huh? First of all, there aren't any Israeli troops stationed there, period. "Permanently" is a weasel word you stuck in there.
Bottom line, they've been in control of that piece of land for a year and a half and have refused to declare statehood. That's because they don't want a state; they want to destroy Israel. They've been engaging in armed warfare against Israel since the moment Israel moved out, and yet you whine when Israel blockades them temporarily, because the poor babies lost some power. Bummer. Why does Israel have any obligation to help people who are currently engaged in hostile military action against us?
When it's terrorists running around bombing people, you and people like you make the excuse that they're individuals, and that you can't put the blame on a group, because that's just wrong. What would they actually have to do for you to finally admit that they, as a group, as a nation, as a concerted policy, are trying to destroy Israel and have absolutely no interest whatsoever in living in a civilized world where people don't spend their time trying to murder other people?
I don't think there is anything. I think that there is absolutely nothing they can possibly do that would sway you from your determinedly blind insistence on seeing this as "everyone is a little right, everyone is a little wrong". It's pathetic.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: There's no way I'm plowing through that trying to guess what you're commenting on.
Why don't you quote something relevant?
Plowing? I don't understand. The quote would have been the entire page. It's like a dozen lines of text.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't like it when people just post a link and we are supposed to follow the link, guess what the person thought was relevant, guess what they think about that relevant bit, and then actually start the conversation.
It's better when the person starting the thread starts the conversation as well. Less lazy, anyway, and less presumptious - doing it the first way seems to imply that everyone 1) knows what you care about, and 2) knows exactly how you feel about what you care about. That's a lot of assumptions for a fluid message board not entitled Lisarack.
For the topic, it looks like the person speaking either didn't know what he was talking about or failed to update his rhetoric in light of the altered situation.
Guesses as to the motivations behind the failure to update the rhetoric, it seems, the possible topic of the thread. But for all the indication from the first post, it might be terrible design of the linked page.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Lisa, I'm not going to get into it with you again. Suffice to say you don't understand me, at all. And you don't appear to understand, or care about, Gaza either.
Even in a thread where I've spoken about how I think someone is treating Israel unfairly you not only attack me, but lay it on thick. Get over it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Let's try a different comparison. Have you ever heard a southerner insist that reconstruction is still being inflicted on them? It's kind of like that.
I can honestly say that I've never heard that sentiment, being from Canada is probably a big factor in that.
If I am to interpret though, you're proposing that the situation is similar to, oh, I don't know ... a hypothetical Quebecqois claiming that Quebec is being occupied to gain sympathy from the the international community? That they picked the name specifically for the emotional appeal?
Pro-life, pro-death, pro-choice, anti-choice and all that?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Let's try a different comparison. Have you ever heard a southerner insist that reconstruction is still being inflicted on them? It's kind of like that.
I can honestly say that I've never heard that sentiment, being from Canada is probably a big factor in that.
The reconstruction was a bloody period following the American Civil War, when the armies of the northern states occupied the southern states.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I know about the events obviously. I just don't know what mindset pooka implied that a Southerner would have when bringing up the reconstruction today.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oh, alright. I wasn't sure, what with you being Canadian and all. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That's odd. I mean, there ARE circumstances where I would consider calling Gaza occupied even if there weren't actually troops permanantly stationed there, but, their inability to answer what reasoning they are using to continue calling it that certainly looks fishy to me. I'd like to see an explanation.
What in the world would those circumstances be, Lyrhawn? I really don't understand. 'Occupied' defines a rather specific military relationship between two parties.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Rakeesh and Lyrhawn: Actually it seems that "occupied" has a rather unclear definition (while the motives behind using the term seem to be clear, at least in this person's view):
quote: With this fast-changing, increasingly ominous state of affairs, the word "occupation" is meaningless, a State Department official told me recently. Definitions in various, at times conflicting, sets of international treaties and agreements known as "international law" are also inconclusive. In the read of some legal scholars, the fact that the Israelis control Gaza's air, sea, and telecommunications indicates that their occupation there is not over. Opponents cite a 1907 Hague treaty that defines occupied territory as one "actually placed under the authority of the hostile army"; and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which holds that occupation ends when the controlling power no longer "exercises the functions of government" over the territory in question.
Like religious scriptures, so-called international law requires much wise interpretation, and, unlike in the case of the American Constitution, there is no credible world Supreme Court to determine a correct reading.
Its meaning deeply rooted in times before such powers as Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah became major international players, all that is left of the "O Word" today is an empty political tool, used mostly to demonize Israel.
Dan_Frank: Sorry, I guess if I was to elaborate I've read about the reconstruction but I have little or no personal interaction with people with a personal stake in it than many other international events. The closest I've been to "The South" in the last 15 years was Indianapolis for a scientific trade show (so not very) and the topic did not come up.
Thus that particular sentiment is as foreign to me as well, my personal situation would be to a southerner of that mindset (probably), hence my guess and comparison.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)