when did the US occupation of Japan begin

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
ding, ding, ding!

Actually I was hoping to get MORE people, especially certain select individuals, to sign on before giving the twist away.

And the territory in question, of course, is the Gaza Strip, where the question of whether Israel is still the occupier, and has responsibilities of an occupier, is a matter of dispute and a very live issue. Note this is not the occupied/disputed debate, but a seperate debate occupied/no longer occupied.

You mean -- someone thinks Gaza is still occupied by Israel?

I think their opinions can confidently be disregarded if they do...they'd probably lie about other things, too.

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by PLATO
The occupation of Japan started when Dad got there. It ended when he left.

Now, when did the occupation of The South begin -- that's the real question....

[PLATO]

Originally posted by jkp1187


Now, when did the occupation of The South begin -- that's the real question....

hehe...


The real question is: When is it going to end?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by PLATO
The occupation of Japan started when Dad got there. It ended when he left.

My Dad was also in the occupation but only for a few days, IIUC, before his destroyer was sent back to SF (or San Diego?)for mothballing.

[Cyclotron]

I would agree that, since the withdrawal in 2005, Gaza is not technically occupied. Given the growth of Hamas power there, however, I do not expect it to remain that way.

So, now what? This seems like a rather pedantic argument to me. Is there more substance to this than simply pointing out that the Gaza strip is currently not occupied, and that people who say it is are using incorrect terminology?

Now, when did the occupation of The South begin -- that's the real question....

Duh, when the Europeans arrived.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
I would agree that, since the withdrawal in 2005, Gaza is not technically occupied. Given the growth of Hamas power there, however, I do not expect it to remain that way.

So, now what? This seems like a rather pedantic argument to me. Is there more substance to this than simply pointing out that the Gaza strip is currently not occupied, and that people who say it is are using incorrect terminology?

There ARE some folks saying Israel is responsible, as occupier, for the well being of the people of Gaza, and that this in particular obligates them wrt to the shipment not only of humanitarian supplies, but opening up the crossings sufficiently to allow normal economic life. And of course, that IF they face missille attacks, they cant simply respond from the air with all attendant dangers to civilians, but are obligated to respond with the concern for civilian life and property that would be entailed by status as an occupier.

Israel rejects that, and has since 2005, but it effects the hearts and minds battle in the West, where Israel is subject to boycotts for being an 'occupier', not only of the West Bank, but of Gaza.

[jkp1187]

Duh, when the Europeans arrived.

Fools! Shed your cultural blinders!

The occupation of "The South" began at least 10,000 years ago.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Actually I was hoping to get MORE people, especially certain select individuals, to sign on before giving the twist away.

They already knew there would be a Jewish twist coming.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by lord of the mark




But meanwhile I can add you to the list of folks who think blockade and air space control are not occupation?

You can add me LOTM, because one of my favorite books was the plight of the Russian peoples at Leningrad, now St Petersburg.

900 days was blockaded of course minus the road of ice, but effectively all but blockaded.

This is only example that comes to mind, just sharing is all.

Grandpa Troll

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


There ARE some folks saying Israel is responsible, as occupier, for the well being of the people of Gaza, and that this in particular obligates them wrt to the shipment not only of humanitarian supplies, but opening up the crossings sufficiently to allow normal economic life. And of course, that IF they face missille attacks, they cant simply respond from the air with all attendant dangers to civilians, but are obligated to respond with the concern for civilian life and property that would be entailed by status as an occupier.

Israel rejects that, and has since 2005, but it effects the hearts and minds battle in the West, where Israel is subject to boycotts for being an 'occupier', not only of the West Bank, but of Gaza.

Israel is in part responsible for the well being of the people of Gaza, but not qua occupier. Nations engaging in blockades and sanctions can have responsibility despite no occupation, just as the United States has considerable responsibility for the deaths of many Iraqis during the sanctions on Iraq after the Gulf War. Occupation is not the only situation in which states have responsibilities toward others.

Likewise, Israel cannot "simply respond" to attacks, "but [is] obligated to respond with concern for civilian life and property," not because they are an occupier but because they, presumably, are decent human beings.

[Blaupanzer]

Gaza is no longer occupied, apparently to the detriment of its residents. Israel is still responsible for some of the suffering, due to the blockade.

Per the Western way of war as practiced by the developed world, civilian casualties are not a consideration worthy of concern in formulating responses to attacks. Not sure I agree totally with that ethically, but that's been the practice for the last 900 years.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Not sure I agree totally with that ethically, but that's been the practice for the last 900 years.

Are you seriously proposing that the status of civilian casualties in the "western way of war" has been consistent in the last 900 years?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
So the mere fact of an effective US sea blockade and total US control of the airspace did NOT constitute occupation?

No, but if you have local proxies do your work for you, yes. Gaza is not occupied . . . well, parts are. Teh West Bank is, however.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No, but if you have local proxies do your work for you, yes. Gaza is not occupied . . . well, parts are. Teh West Bank is, however.

The West Bank is indeed a different situation. I was simply making the point about Gaza.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cyclotron

Likewise, Israel cannot "simply respond" to attacks, "but [is] obligated to respond with concern for civilian life and property," not because they are an occupier but because they, presumably, are decent human beings.

Of course, but the level of responsibility is far lower than for an occupier.

When I drop my bombs, I should TRY to avoid hitting civilians, versus I should arrest people instead of dropping bombs.

Or when I blockade, at sea, I should give sailors on civilian ships time to get off the ship, versus I should not blockade at all because Im responsible for economic well being.