Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support -- click here to help us keep going

Analysis News

'Nonexistent occupation' memes go viral in social media

As soon as the news about the Levy committee findings hit the web, social media networks in Israel were swamped with memes making fun of the fact that apparently there was no occupation to begin with. Here are a select few (I might add some more later if I find any good ones).

Levy: "Where's the occupation?"

You see? I told you there's no occupation!

(Nitay Peretz)

 

 

top: We hereby declare a Jewish state in the land of Israel. bottom: we hereby declare a bi-national state in the land of Israel

Golda: We're lucky there's no Palestinian people to complain about the fact that there's no occupation (John Brown)

 

Eden Abergil: "Listen, I'm gonna take off the blindfold. Tell me if you still see the occupation" (Ami Kaufman)

 

Levy: "If it beats like an occupation, if it oppresses like an occupation, if it kills like an occupation, it's a..." Bibi: "A duck!" (John Brown)

 

"Dad, what's beyond that wall?" "I don't see any wall, dear son" "Come on, it's right there" "Just shut up" (Amir Schiby)

 

Kibush = occupation (Amir Schiby)

 

It is not the occupation you are looking for

(Daniel Sieradski)

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • COMMENTS

    1. Danny

      That Levy guy sure does have one big kippah on that noggin of his, doesn’t he? It nearly covers his entire head like a baseball cap! Or, is it actually an optical illusion? Maybe it’s not so much the large kippah as it is his small head.

      Reply to Comment
    2. Afaf

      is he serious!

      Reply to Comment
    3. Aaron

      Ha-ha, golly, these are just so funny. They’re all examples of blatantly willful stupidity and bad faith, but gosh, they’re just hilarious.
       
      To say “this does not fit the juridical definition of belligerent occupation” is not to say that it’s just, or that it’s moral, or that it’s humane. Only that it doesn’t fall within a certain juridical category.

      Reply to Comment
    4. The second one from the top made me laugh painfully.
      .
      “My plantation darkies are well off! They like their lives!”
      .
      It’s happened before, it will happen again. And, as before, it will come down.

      Reply to Comment
    5. noam

      The John Lennon one is the sharpest, most clever. Others are funny too.

      Reply to Comment
    6. AYLA

      the one that made me laugh painfully (as Gregpollack said) the most is actually Ami’s–the blindfold. I also cracked up over the highlighter where it’s funny to use Golda’s accent. Anyway, I’d been seeing these all day on Facebook and appreciate the translation!

      Reply to Comment
    7. Philos

      Whoopa! @ Aaron, so if it’s not occupation, then what is it?

      Reply to Comment
    8. shongalolla

      Gaza has been returned. NO OCCUPATION, therefore. As for Judea and Samaria – they are Jewish lands, taken away by force, and re-captured after the 1967 war which the Arabs started. According to international law- Israel must return this land WHEN they sit down and discuss it. Israel has held our the hand of peace NINE times. How many more times do you want her to try?

      Reply to Comment
    9. Kolumn9

      These are great. Yeah, the one with the blindfold is the best.
      .

      @Philos, control of disputed territory pending determination of its future status.

      Reply to Comment
    10. Philos

      @Kolumn9, “control of disputed territory pending determination of its future status”? OK, so under what laws does one control this disputed territory pending determination of its future status that is inhabited by several million people who are not part of the controlling authority’s citizenry?

      Reply to Comment
    11. Is Israel annexing the West Bank?…

      A committee hand picked by Bibi came back with exactly the result Bibi wanted. Shocker. I’ve not read the report yet, as I’m sure I’ve read several like it before, but from what I understand it relies on what’s known as the ‘missing reversioner’ …

      Reply to Comment
    12. Aaron

      Philos, good question. Noam Sheizaf asked it in his article, and I echoed it in the comments. I have no idea what the name is, if it’s not “occupation.” Maybe it’s such a new kind of thing that there’s no juridical name for it. And remember, I’m saying that maybe I’m wrong and it *is* an occupation. I’m not a jurist.

      Reply to Comment
    13. Kolumn9

      @Philos, that is an excellent question. Since the PA was established it has administered the legal system of the population under its control pending final status negotiations on the ultimate fate of the territory and its population. If you are asking under what legal context Israel controls the territory, then you are reaching the core of the issue in that the territory itself is a legal grey area pending its final disposition. The territory is neither occupied nor owned by any state. There has been a general rejection of this ambiguous reality by people embracing the relative simplicity of the fiction of occupation.

      Reply to Comment
    14. Kathleen

      All above so funny so sad

      As Groucho Marx used to say “Who are you going to believe the Levy Commission, me or your lying eyes?”

      Reply to Comment
    15. David

      The findings of the Levy Commission would be laughable if they did not demonstrate what a completely screwed up racist country Israel is.
      Up is down, left is right, there is one law for Jews and another for Goyem.

      No wonder that with each passing day, increasing numbers of people around the world, including Jews, see Israel for what it is: a power mad fascist state, little Nazis, pure and simple. It is also doomed.

      Reply to Comment
    16. David

      In an opinion presented to the U.S. Congress on 21 April 1978 regarding the legal status of Israeli settlements, the Legal Adviser of the State Department declared that “the civilian settlements in the territories occupied by Israel do not appear to be consistent with [the] limits on Israel’s authority as belligerent occupant in that they do not seem intended to be of limited duration or established to provide orderly government of the territories and, though some may serve incidental security purposes, they do not appear to be required to meet military needs during the occupation.”

      The contention on the part of Israel’s supporters that “the principles of belligerent occupation, including Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, may not apply to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip because Jordan and Egypt were not the respective legitimate sovereigns of these territories” is without foundation.

      As the Legal Adviser of the Department of State advised the Congress, in its opinion “…those principles [of belligerent occupation] appear applicable whether or not Jordan and Egypt possessed legitimate sovereign rights in respect of those territories. Protecting the reversionary interest of an ousted sovereign is not their sole or essential purpose; the paramount purposes are protecting the civilian population of an occupied territory and reserving permanent territorial changes, if any, until settlement of the conflict.”

      In conclusion, the Legal Adviser of the Department of State declared: “While Israel may undertake, in the occupied territories, actions necessary to meet its military needs and to provide for orderly government during the occupation, for the reasons indicated above the establishment of the civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law.”

      Reply to Comment
    17. Kolumn9

      The intention or purpose of the Fourth Geneva Convention is not relevant if it doesn’t apply. The quoted opinion doesn’t even bother to argue that it does apply except by arguing that its intentions are noble if it did apply. It then goes on to assume that it should apply and judges accordingly.
      .

      The argument that Israeli military control of an area changes the underlying nature of the area as being disputed to being one that is ‘occupied’ is just simply illogical. It is like pointing to a wall and agreeing that it is a wall, then painting it red and arguing whether it is red or a wall.

      Reply to Comment
    18. Philos

      @Kolumn9, you didn’t answer my question but I wasn’t really expecting you to. Up is down and black is white and there is no occupation. La, la, la, the State of Israel has lost its mind… la, la, la

      Reply to Comment
    19. Marco

      Hi, I’m laughing with the memes…that’s still better to cry…

      But I wanna remembre the Resolution 242:

      http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un242.htm

      I think that’s pretty clear, it talks about OCCUPIED TERRITORIES. No “disputed”.

      Otherwise, the resolution says: “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. Wow, I think that the “Judea & Samaria” was taken by this way, not for a game or another type of deal.

      In fact, these territories never belongs to Israel, nor 1947 -ONU partition-, nor 1949 -peace accords-. ¿Where in hell are the arguments to negate the occupation?

      It really looks like a type a 1984 doublethink, i’s really scary. But hold on,in Argentina happens with peronism and democracy…al last they lose.

      Reply to Comment
    20. Click here to load previous comments

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    Name (Required)
    Mail (Required)
    Website
    Free text

© 2010 - 2014 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website empowered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel