24 thoughts on “Christie”

  1. Maybe he could better explain himself by pointing out that all the houses he saw from the helicopter were obviously occupied by somebody, otherwise they’d be standing vacant, and then go on to give Antarctica as an example of what an unoccupied territory looks like. I don’t think anyone would buy it though.

    Odd fact: Chris Christie’s mother’s folks once occupied all of Israel, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Galatia, Thrace, Hispania, Gaul, Numidia, Britania, …

  2. Israel’s Supreme Court routinely calls the territories occupied, but that’s trivial. What’s more important is that it treats them as occupied territories in its judicial decisions.

    As uninvolved bystanders, you and I can call them disputed, or “Judea and Samaria” or whatever we want, but the Israeli Supreme Court has the important task of seeing that justice is done, and to do so, it looks for precedents. Since the territories were obtained in wartime and since the territories are administered by the military rather than by the civilian system that exists within Israel’s borders, the court looks at other examples of occupied territories: in particular, it uses the United States’ behavior after WWII as an example of how to carry out a just occupation.

    See for yourself: here are some Israeli Supreme Court cases in which the members of the court ruled that people living in the territories who posed security risks could be deported. The case is not some bleeding-heart leftwing excuse undermine the status quo — on the contrary, the case maintained the status quo, and preserved the ability of the military, not the civilian system, to deport people in the territories.

    I’m no legal scholar, and I haven’t read the cases in full, so I’m very open to correction. I did ignore the editor’s synopsis (which does call the territories occupied) because I wanted to see what the Supreme Court had to say, not the editor.

    Here’s the link:
    http://www.hamoked.org/files/2011/280_eng.pdf

    Here are the names of the cases:
    ABD AL NASSER AL AZIZ ABD AL AZIZ ABD AL
    v.
    AFFO ET AL
    COMMANDER OF I.D.F. FORCES IN THE WEST BANK

    ABD AL AZIZ ABD ALRACHMAN UDE RAFIA ET AL
    v.
    COMMANDER OF I.D.F. FORCES IN THE GAZA STRIP

    J’MAL SHAATI HINDI
    v.
    COMMANDER OF I.D.F. FORCES IN THE JUDEA AND SAMARIA REGION

    1. Not so amazingly, not once in the Israel Supreme Court opinion you provided did the justices refer to the West Bank as the Occupied Territory, despite about a hundred references to territories occupied by Germany or the US, or in the abstract under UN articles 48 and 49.

      1. See page 99, which quotes an earlier Supreme Court case where it refers to: “Israel’s belligerent occupation in Judea and Samaria”.

        Or, see the judgement itself, on page, 5, where it says “According to the argument, an absolute prohibition exists, with regard to a resident of one of the territories occupied by the I.D.F., against the application of Article 112 of the Defence (Emergency) Regulations, 1945 or of any other legal provision (if such exists) whose subject is deportation.” The court goes on to complain that previous cases have already resolved that there is no absolute prohibition.

        But the references and the nomenclature don’t matter — my point is that the court treats the West Bank as occupied territory when it refers, exclusively, to other examples of occupied territories and the laws surrounding them to figure out what is lawful in the West Bank. That’s the relevance of the “about a hundred” references to occupied territories in Germany, etc. Why go on for 100+ pages about other occupied territories to look for precedents?

      2. But that’s the point. Despite the obvious fact that in 1967 the IDF took over the area, referring to the West Bank as”The Occupied Territories” is a code word used by Israel’s enemies and one scrupulously avoided by the Israeli Supreme Court. Prior to 1967 the area was occupied by Jordan, whose claim was largely unrecognized, and before that it was occupied by the British, who took it over after the Ottoman Empire collapsed. During the Ottoman occupation it was considered part of Syria.

        1. On May 26 2003, prime minister Ariel Sharon also very deliberately called it “occupation” (he used the Hebrew word kibush) while addressing fellow lawmakers in the Knesset (the Israeli parliament).

          “You might not like the word, but what is happening is an occupation — to hold 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation. I believe that is a terrible thing for Israel and for the Palestinians”

          You can google to read about the context.

          1. You are focusing too much on the word occupied and too little on history.

            What is Israel supposed to do and how will that convince Muslims to change their culture regarding what they think about the Jews?

            I don’t think anything Israel can do will change Muslim or Democrat culture. Those changes have to come from within.

          2. Wodun,

            On the contrary! This thread about Christie’s use of the word “occupied”, and more importantly, whether he *thinks* the territories are occupied.

            I say they are. The Supreme Court acts (and says!) that they are. Right Wing Legendary War Hero/War Criminal (depends who you ask) Super Brave (doesn’t matter who you ask) Ariel Sharon said that they are.

            I’m not talking about how to fix the middle east in this thread. I’m just talking about being honest about what is happening there. Christie, not unlike Sharon in his bluntness, spoke the truth, and for reasons I really can’t understand, there is a certain flavor of Zionist who can’t handle the truth. You can find plenty of left wing folks in America and in Israel who are extremely pro-Israel (like me!) but who are wiling to say that it is, very obviously, a military occupation.

          3. Kibush doesn’t mean “occupied.” You can’t “kibush” a stall in a public restroom, or a couch.

          4. I assume you’re joking, but someone is going to take you seriously to doubt what kibush means. Such a person is encouraged to google it. It, roughly, means “military occupation” or “conquest”

            Here’s the word used by Israeli peace activists:
            http://www.kibush.co.il/about.asp?lang=1

            And anyone using google can confirm that Ariel Sharon very deliberately used the word kibush at least four times in his speech before the Knesset.

          6. I *knew* it! I almost said “and the person who actually believes George will be Leland.”

            Leland, George was joking. Look up the word.

          7. I don’t need to look it up.

            First you said kibush means occupation, an activity in which one engages.

            Now that you claim kibush means either military occupation (perhaps like infantry soldier or tank commander?) or conquest, an act of taking control.

            Careful on that wall.

    2. Wasn’t the West Bank originally awarded to Israel after WWI and the fall of the Ottoman Empire? Trans Jordan was set aside for Arabs and Israel for the Jews. Then Israel lost the West Bank through invasion and regained it later. Now, it is called occupied.

      Jews were expelled from Arab lands and some Arabs from Israel. Arabs want their refugees to return but they won’t let the Jews back in their countries. There is currently a world wide effort to exterminate all of the Jews, Christians, and other religious minorities in Arab countries. Many of these populations predate the existence of Islam.

      That is really the heart of the problem. The Arabs and Persians want to kill all the Jews. Israel giving up the West Bank would turn into another Gaza. It will be run by Islamic militants that are proxies for Iran. There will never be peace as long as one side has the goal of exterminating the other. I don’t get why Democrats side with the exterminators. Democrats don’t share any values with them other than hatred for Jews. Maybe they like the totalitarian control Islamic militants have over every aspect of the populace’s lives?

      It only takes one side to wage war, it takes two to have peace.

      1. Sorry, but no. Israel was never given control of the West Bank. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the area fell under the British Mandate, then was assigned to the proposed Arab state in 1948. During the 1948 war Jordan captured the area, after which Israel returned the favor in 1968.

  3. I don’t think “Occupation” implies that the land belongs to another country. It simply indicates that the military is sitting on the land and running the show in lieu of civilian control. I agree that Jordan doesn’t have a claim to the West Bank (nor does it want it), but that has nothing to do with the fact that the Palestinian areas of the West Bank are under Israeli military control. Israel doesn’t want to annex the land and put it under the democratic and civil laws of Israel (because it doesn’t want the Palestinians to vote in Israeli elections), it doesn’t want to kick out the Palestinians (too evil), and it doesn’t want the military to leave (too dangerous) — so Israel occupies the West Bank. You can play games with words all day long, but that’s what’s happening,

    1. What is Israel supposed to do, especially considering the Obama administration’s position that any Palestinian state be contiguous? Israel has no true friends and too many people support their extermination. Sad to see that from the same Americans who thought we needed to unilaterally go to war in Libya on humanitarian grounds.

  4. “Kibush” means conquered. There is no implication in the word that the land needs to be given back. Certainly Sharon didn’t think so. He may have felt that it was _wise_ to give some of it back, as with the Gaza Strip.

    I don’t understand the relevance of the American occupation of Germany. Germany is not an existential threat to the United States, and holding pieces of its territory wouldn’t help if it were. Israel, on the other hand, cannot afford to give back (part of) the West Bank, as it makes its own territory pretty much indefensible, with a big hole in the middle of it.

    Israel made a big mistake after 1967. They decide to hold onto to the PR “high ground” and leave the West Bank mostly to itself. The original plan had been to leave even the Old City of Jerusalem alone! Over the years, this mostly drifted away, and they got more involved: in Jerusalem very soon after, in the West Bank bit by bit as settlers moved into various parts. But it was too late.

    What they absolutely should have done, and would be completely justified in doing IMHO, would have been to decide immediately in 1967 that such-and-such an area of the West Bank was essential to Israel security – and annex it immediately. They should have immediately offered West Bank inhabitants a choice: 1) Become loyal citizens to Israel, following citizenship procedures including a loyalty oath – but with full rights as citizens afterwards. Or, as many Palestinians would quite understandably refuse that, 2) Leave the annexed area. Only people loyal to Israel could stay in Israeli territory, even if they were born there. You can’t run a country any other way.
    This is more-or-less (actually they were less nice about it) what India and Pakistan did after their partition. Painful, but absolutely necessary. Lots of people (millions) had to move, Moslems to Pakistan, Hindus to India.

    1. “Kibush” means conquered. There is no implication in the word that the land needs to be given back.

      Yes, and similarly, the English word “occupied”, in the context of what an army does, involves no implication that the land needs to be given back. That’s a separate question.

      Sharon, a soldier as well as a political leader , was making the point that Israel is engaging in a military occupation. And Sharon’s audience was unhappy that was using the word “kibush” just as Christie’s audience was unhappy with Christie’s use of the English equivalent. But both audiences were either delusional or engaging in Orwellian double-speak while Sharon and Christie were being blunt about the truth. I’m no fan of either guy’s rightwing politics, but I respect their refusal to engage in double-speak.

        1. Dopes like Bob, of course, Rand, for whom all Republicans are extremist right-wing fundamentalist Christofascists (except when they’re badmouthing other Republicans (see McCain, John.))

        2. I’m looking for as short as a one word answer to the following question: what adjective could I have used to describe how the politics of Christie and Sharon are similar when compared to either Obama or Ehud Barak?

  5. For all the angst and hand-waving, Christie was not incorrect in his use of the word. The West Bank was never accorded to Israel, and was conquered during the 1968 war. AFAIK Israel has never formally annexed the territory, which would make it “occupied.”

    I know this disturbs a lot of pet theories and/or emotional allegiances, but facts are inconvenient things.

    Yes, I know, progs like to use the term as a code for “evil things Zionists do,” but let’s leave that sort of Newspeak to the progressives, as such behavior is more congenial to their beliefs.

    Given that Israel has been excoriated and pilloried for literally decades over the territory, I don’t know why they don’t annex the area. Might as well be hung for sheep as for lamb, no?

    1. They don’t annex the area because they don’t want to offer the 2,600,000 Palestinians who live there citizenship.

Comments are closed.