I know you don’t need to be reminded that the “human-rights community” is full of fanatics and crackpots, but this example could be considered dark comedy. Abbott and Costello, anyone?
Q. Is an exit by the Navy from Gaza’s waters an end to the occupation?
Q. Is opening the border crossings with Israel ending the occupation?
A. That’s a step towards ending the occupation….
Q. So what actions must Israel take? You say that the occupation ends if Israel opens the crossings, so if the occupation ends, Israel needs to close the borders since Gaza is defined as an enemy state. There’s a logical contradiction here.
A. I don’t understand where the contradiction is.
Q. The border between Israel and Lebanon is closed since Lebanon is an enemy state. You’re claiming that Israel needs to open the borders to Gaza and then the occupation will end. And then Israel will have to close the crossings.
A. I’ll ask you another question. Can Lebanon control the transfer of goods and people to Lebanon not opposite Israel but opposite other countries?
Q. So the problem is with the control by sea and air. If the seas are open there is no occupation?
A. Of course, had it been possible to enter Gaza freely through the air, by sea and land, that would certainly be one component of the occupation ending.
Q. What are all the components to end the occupation? Amnesty does not present a plan in which Israel stops the occupation. It says that Israel needs to stop the occupation and deepen the occupation by opening the borders. I don’t comprehend that.
A. Amnesty International does not deal with solving conflicts.
It goes on. Read it all.