To Be "Occupied Territory", It Must Have Been Part of a State

Are the so-called "Palestinian territories", that is Judea and Samaria, "occupied"?

Here is a section from Principles of International Law, by Hans Kelsen, 1952

The principle that enemy territory occupied by a belligerent in course of war remains the territory of the state against which the war is directed, can apply only as long as this community still exists as a state within the meaning of international law. This is hardly the case if, after occupation of the whole territory of an enemy state, its armed forces are completely defeated to that no further resistance is possible and its national government is abolished by the victorious state. Then the vanquished community is deprived of one of the essential elements of a state in the sense of international law: an effective and independent government, and hence has lost its character as a state. If the territory is not to be considered a stateless territory, it must be considered to be under the sovereignty of the occupant belligerent, which—in such a case—ceases to be restricted by the rules concerning belligerent occupation. This was the case with the territory of the German Reich occupied in the Second World War after the complete defeat and surrender of its armed forces. In view of the fact that the last national government of the German Reich was abolished, it may be assumed that this state ceased to exist as a subject of international law. If a belligerent state ceases legally to exist as an effect of the defeat, as, e.g., the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy in the First World War, or the German Reich in the Second World War, no peace treaty or any other treaty can be concluded with this state for the purpose of transferring the territory concerned, or parts of it, to the victorious or any other state.

On the territory of the abolished state a new state or some new states may be established. This was the case with the territory of the defeated Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, which was the territory of two united states. On this territory the Czechoslovakian and the Austrian Republics, and part of Poland have been established. This is also the case with the territory of the German Reich on which two new states came into existence; the western German state, called the Federal Republic of Germany; and the eastern German State, called the German Democrat. Republic. But the new state or the new states, which have not been at war with the victorious state, cannot conclude a peace treaty and are not entitled to dispose of other territory but their own. That the Austrian Republic was forced to conclude a peace treaty with the Allied and Associated Powers, although this new state was not at war with the states which by their victory brought the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy to dismemberment, and that the Austrian Republic was forced to dispose in this treaty of territory of the disappeared state which never was territory of the Austrian Republic, was based on the fiction that the Austrian Republic was identical with the Austrian Monarchy. In the case of the German Reich, the governments of the occupant powers maintained the fiction; that it continued to exist even after the abolishment of its last national government, and on the basis of this fiction it was assumed that the territory of the German Reich occupied by the four victorious powers was not under their sovereignty, but remained under the sovereignty of the German Reich. But the administration of the occupied territory was in no way in conformity with the rules concerning belligerent occupation. 

It sounds like Kelsen is arguing that Israel wouldn't have had any legal reason to follow the Geneva Conventions laws of occupation in the territories. They were not considered Jordanian or Egyptian territory and they certainly weren't "Palestinian". To apply the humanitarian components of Geneva is proper, of course, and Israel voluntarily did so. But this sounds to me that even if you hold that the prohibition of "transfer" of a population to the territory includes voluntary relocation, that this would not apply to the West Bank or Gaza after 1967.

There was a discussion in the UN's Law Commission  in relation to the Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States about the whether all conquest is forbidden or not. James Brierly, the great American authority on international law, suggested making clear that the ban on territorial acquisition only applied to illegal war, and the motion was adopted by the drafting committee. I Yearbook Int law commission 143 (1949)

Similarly, when there were quibbles about whether annexation is always banned, or whether there might be various exceptions, the Secretary observed: “It might be suggested that in order to constitute a crime under international law an annexation must be carried out through the use of armed force, with a view to destroying the territorial integrity of another State”  I Yearbook 137 (1950)

It is not surprising France and other major countries wanted to make clear that annexation and title by conquest were not ALWAYS forbidden: most European frontiers were substantially revised 1947-50 in favor of the victors/victims of WWII, and against the loosers/other victims.

I don’t think you will find any pre-’67 international law treatise that says that the laws of belligerent occupation apply to non-sovereign territory. The question had not been raised so it was probably not addressed in many treatises, but that’s because the answer was blindingly obvious and it was exactly the opposite of what everyone says about Israel today.

^

Yes, Muslims Occupied Palestine

Just as I have been insisting.

Here:

HT=DChertoff

UPDATE

^

Thank You, New Zealand

I did not know this:-

New Zealand has one of the worst rates of family violence in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, an intergovernmental organisation with 36 member countries. Police attend a domestic violence incident every four minutes, with an estimated 80% of incidents going unreported.

I didn't know New Zealand was under an occupation.

I was under the impression, as informed by all sorts of interested parties, that Israel's "occupation" is guilty for family violence, both in the territories and Israel.  I read that

PA: It's Israel's fault Arab men beat their wives

For example, from the June 2017 Human Rights Council Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, on her mission to Israel:

the former Special Rapporteur on violence against women highlighted a number of issues of concerns related to violence against women that remains unaddressed and unresolved. Additionally  various UN bodies have expressed concern about the human rights, humanitarian and security issues that occupation brings, including with regard to the situation of women. While recognizing the imperatives related to security and stability in the region, the Rapporteur highlights the clear linkage between the prolonged occupation and VAW, and she notes, like her predecessor, that the occupation does not exonerate the State of Palestine from its due human rights obligation to prevent, investigate, punish and provide remedies for acts of gender-based violence (GBV) in the areas and for persons under its jurisdiction or effective control. The authorities in Gaza also bear human rights obligations, given their exercise of government-like functions and territorial control.

A year earlier, a report, issued for the 60th session of the Commission on the Status of Women during March 2016, highlighted the situation of Palestinian women for the period from October 1st 2014 to September 30th 2015.

According to the document, as reported,

Israeli occupation is to blame for domestic violence against Palestinian women.  It states that "overcrowded living conditions and a lack of privacy" in Palestinian refugee camps causes "psychological distress among camp residents" which combined with "the unstable political and security situation and discriminatory gender stereotypes and norms" leads to this type of violence.

Here's a 22-page report. 

As for internal Israel domestic violence, here's an article which discusses domestic violence as linked to the militarization of domestic violence in Israel:

the article explores how the centrality of the military, a pervasive ideology of militarism, and the militarization of society shape perpetration, understandings, and experiences of and responses to domestic violence in Israel. 

Arab women murdered in Israel are not "Arabs" but "Palestinians", by the way. 

I remember years ago the claim that husbands returning from their reserve duty were violent towards their spouses and children due to their service on behalf of the "occupation".

Thank you, New Zealand for providing some balance and perspective.

^

Okay, I'll Talk About Occupation

For all Birthright participants, past, present and future, who are worried they may not really be told anything on occupation when in Israel (or were told something on their campuses/from friends and were hoping to learn something to combat what they felt are lies), here's the nitty-gritty:

There is an occupation. Two, in fact. At least.

As a result of non-stop Arab terror throughout the 1950s and 1960s (heard of the fedayeen and the PLO's Fatah, all operational before 1967?), Israel was forced to defend itself in June 1967.  Yes, defend.  The administration of the territories taken in that war is a "belligerent occupation". That's the first occupation.

But don't be fooled.  The term "belligerent" doesn't mean that Israel's administration is belligerent (some will try to fool you and rewrite the definition like this: 'Military occupation occurs when a belligerent state invades the territory of another state'. Israel was not 'belligerent' in the way that is phrased. It was threatened, water route closed off, UN supervisors kicked out of Sinai and Jordan actually invaded Jerusalem and shelled Israeli locations. Oh, and there was no "state of Palestine"). The use of 'belligerent' was simply to indicate that it resulted from a war like in this definition: "belligerent occupation [is] established as a consequence of an armed conflict, that is to say through the conduct of hostilities".  And Israel fought a war that was defensive, against hostile countries.  And it was a just war. And justified. And moral.

Just by the way: "the 1949 Geneva Conventions do not contain a definition of belligerent occupation".

UPDATE: Some claim this - "The Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the West Bank, to the Gaza Strip, and to the entire City of Jerusalem, in order to protect the Palestinians living there." Others point to the fact that the Convention is between High Contracting Parties and as there never was a state called "Palestine", and no legal political sovereignty therein, Israel need protect anybody there but not because they are "Palestinians" but because they are humans who deserve humanitarian rights. What anti-occupationists do is to extend this misrepresentation and use humanitarian law to leverage political rights. That's cheating.

The second occupation could very well be the Arab occupation of Eretz-Yisrael but more on that later.

There is nothing wrong in using "Judea & Samaria".

Judea and Samaria (in Hebrew, Yehuda v'Shomron) is the correct name for the territory that Jordan occupied beginning in 1949 until Israel assumed its administration in 1967.  As regards who is the legal sovereign, there is a dispute. So, okay, it's "disputed territory". Some actually think it is "liberated territory".  For sure it was included in the area of the historic Jewish homeland that was to become the Jewish state as decided by the League of Nations in 1922.

The terms Judea & Samaria date back to Biblical times and appear numerous times in the Old and also the New Testament.  The 1947 partition plan borders of the UN used the terms Judea and Samaria. You can find them in many books from centuries ago.  And if we are discussing names, Throughout the 1920s, the Arabs of the Palestine Mandate requested to be termed Southern Syrians and that "Palestine", actually "Southern Syria" be joined to the French mandate over Syria.

About the use of 'West Bank': when the Kingdom of Jordan (remember, the illegal occupier of the territory, having conquered it in 1948) decided to annex the area, it created the tern 'West Bank'. That's it: April 1950.

Are Judea and Samaria "illegally occupied"?  No, Judea and Samaria are not "illegally occupied".

After the Balfour Declaration, the 1919 Versailles Peace Conference and the San Remo Accords of 1920, the League of Nations' decision to create the Mandate for Palestine recognized the Jewish right to settle and live in Judea & Samaria. Yes, here in Article 6:

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

And do not forget, the Mandate assured that recognition be given 

to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

Jordan denied Jews the right of living in Judea and Samaria after the Mufti-inspired pogroms of the 1920s and 1930s and then the 1948 war ethnically cleansed the area of thousands of its of its Jews, some families having resided therein for centuries, as in Hebron and Jerusalem's Old City.  Israel's is the most valid claim to the area.

Let's recall that the Oslo Accords established three geographical areas of jurisdiction in Judea and Samaria  – A, B and C – until a Israeli-Palestinian peace accord could be signed. Those accords did not prohibit Jews residing in Judea and Samaria?  Can you imagine Israel banning Arabs from living in Israel?

Let us borrow these conclusions:

Attempts to present Jewish settlement in ancient Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as illegal and "colonial" in nature ignores the complexity of this issue, the history of the land, and the unique legal circumstances of this case.

Jewish communities in this territory have existed from time immemorial and express the deep connection of the Jewish people to land which is the cradle of their civilization, as affirmed by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, and from which they, or their ancestors, were ousted.

The prohibition against the forcible transfer of civilians to territory of an occupied state under the Fourth Geneva Convention was not intended to relate to the circumstances of voluntary Jewish settlement in the West Bank on legitimately acquired land which did not belong to a previous lawful sovereign and which was designated as part of the Jewish State under the League of Nations Mandate.

Bilateral Israeli-Palestinian Agreements specifically affirm that settlements are subject to agreed and exclusive Israeli jurisdiction pending the outcome of peace negotiations, and do not prohibit settlement activity.

Judea and Samaria also possess security value as strategic military requirements.

The area encompasses the southern and northern suburbs of Jerusalem and those to the east of Tel Aviv and the Jordan River to its west.  It includes Israel's central mountain range, and at 1,100 meters above sea level, it overlooks Israel’s largest population center in Tel-Aviv, as well as Israel’s only international airport and as far south as Ashkelon and north to Hadera.

And you should know that Judea and Samaria includes approximately 21% of all territory west of the Jordan River which is a land mass of 3,438 square miles (5,500 square km).  Its length (North-South) is approximately 79 miles (125 km) and varies from 19-34 miles (30-55 km) wide (East-West). Approximately 8% of Judea and Samaria has been developed including all Israeli and Palestinian-Arab development. The built up areas of Israeli settlements cover approximately 1.7 percent of all the land there.

If you have been told there are 'apartheid roads' in Judea & Samaria, there aren't.  The roads are traveled by all, Jews and Arabs.  But, yes, when there is an upsurge in terror and other forms of Arab violence, there will be restrictions.  In the almost 40% of Judea & Samaria that is under the control of the Palestinian Authority, it is illegal for Jewish Israeli citizens to enter or use those roads.

Have I occupied your attention?

There's more to come.

^

Dealing with IfNotNow's "Facts"

I decided to take a closer look at IfNotNow's new Stay-After-Birthright campaign with its "Ask Us" theme:

So, I looked for their facts:

But now, I'll ask them a few questions before I get back to responding to their sheet. After all, fair is fair.  First, some general ones.

This "occupation" to which you keep referring, would that be the occupation by Arabs of the territory of the Jewish national home by any chance?  You do know that Arabs conquered and occupied the Land of Israel in 638CE, yes?

The Arabs who engaged in an ethnic cleansing operation between 1920-1948, expelling the Jews that survived the pogroms and murderous riots in Hebron, Gaza, Shchem (aka Nablus), Gush Etzion, Jerusalem's Old City, Neveh Yaakov, Atarot, Nahlat Shimon, Shimon HaTzaddik, Shiloach and other areas?

Arabs who called themselves Southern Syrians, not "Palestinians", into the 1920s and later and also demanded the Mandate be united with a Greater Syria?

Whose leaders aligned with Hitler in WW II? Who refused a territorial compromise suggested by the Peel Commission in 1937 (not to mention that of 1922 which separated Transjordan from the Jewish National Home) and again in 1947, that of the UN Partition? 

The same Arabs who went to war to eradicate the state of Israel? Who founded the PLO in 1964, three years before the Six Days War and prior to any "settlement" being constructed?

Why would retreating from territory work? Did it as a result of the 2005 Disengagement from Gaza?

I see you do not want to "allow [y]ourselves to be manipulated by right-wing donors".  Do you not realize that you are being both manipulative of Jewish youth and being manipulated by Israel's enemies? Or do you not care?

You call Israeli army’s use of violence against Palestinian protesters in Gaza as "unconscionable".  Why? Have you protested incendiary kites yet?

You demand "a chance at seeing the full picture" on Birthright tours.  Can I join one of yours and get a chance to have the real full picture seen?

And by the way, do you really think saying Kaddish for Hamas terrorists was a good idea?

Now, relating to you fact sheet:

1. You claim 3 million Arabs are in the West Bank and nearly 2 million in Gaza. All are under direct or indirect Israeli military control.

That's not at all factual. There are perhaps 2-2.2 million in Judea and Samaria. And Israeli's "indirect control of Gaza seems not to be able to prevent terror tunnels being built or rockets and mortars being fired.  Maybe there should be more control?

And if you are intimating a demographic problem, rest assure, Jews are already some 20% of the total population in that territory.

2. Israel has uprooted 800,000 Palestinian olive trees you claim as a fact.

That is just a number thrown into the wind.  In cases I have investigated, the police have indicated wildly exaggerated claims, by 100% at times, are made.

And by the way, you sources are quite unreliable in most cases.

3.  315 Palestinian children were being held in Israeli prison you write? Did they perhaps commit a crime? How old are those "children"?

Those children report physical and psychological distress you assert. Are those reports true?

4. 99% of all trials in military court result in conviction. And what does that imply? That Israel only arrests the guilty?

5.  Palestinians in Gaza only receive 8-12 hours of electricity per day and whose fault is that?  Perhaps Abbas? Perhaps Hamas? 

6.  Next is "250 settlements in Area C of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, in contravention of international law."

Maybe 150 communities actually. And quite not in contravention of international law.

7. And as for "Over 400 kilometers of West Bank roads are prohibited for Palestinian use and are exclusively for settlers". The only reason there is any prohibition, and most usually for fairly short periods, is the security situation, aka Arab terror. How many kilometers of roads are prohibited to Jews? And how come there is a claim of "apartheid roads" when Jews keep getting shot in drive-by shootings? Isn't that a contradiction of terms?

8.  "As of 2016, there were 96 permanent checkpoints". That's two years ago. How many today? Oh, and this from June 22 you read:

Border Police in Hebron defuse 2 bombs planted near Tomb of the PatriarchsDevices discovered near security checkpoints; 

and this from April 2

 Palestinian shot rushing West Bank checkpoint

9.    "212,000 Israeli settlers live in East Jerusalem"? Except for the 19 years of illegal Jordanian occupation and the annexation of Jerusalem's eastern area 1948-1967, the city was never divided for over three thousand years.

I didn't touch on every claim but I think my message is clear: you really have no idea of what you are talking or promoting.

You people are the real danger to the Jewish community ion the United States.

P.S.

Previous blog posts on IfNotNow:

here

here

here

here


^

Will An Israeli Win By Getting Beaten?

Leafing through Haaretz from a week ago, I spotted an interesting story of Israeli cinema (at the JPost, they have the wrong trailer up, for some reason, but no real story of the film).

According to Haaretz's report, an Israeli film won a Golden Bear award as the best short film in Berlin. Based on this, that makes the film an automatic candidate for next year's Oscars.

The festival site included this description of her film, "The Men Behind the Wall":

Woman seeks men. Man seeks women. Everything could be so simple if she weren’t in Israel and the guys nearby that the app suggests in search mode weren’t in the West Bank. Israeli filmmaker Ines Moldavsky makes herself the subject of her investigation...time and again the talk comes back to their needs, their lust, the possibility of sharing that lust. The filmmaker’s aesthetic strategy is that of a double exposure in her search – she experiences the personally unfamiliar physical space in Palestine as well. The conversations oscillate between virtual phone calls and concrete encounters. The artist stands provocatively at an intersection in downtown Ramallah, dressed in a red spaghetti strap dress, outstretched arms balancing a microphone boom in the air.                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                           Violence resonates – in the search for a violation of boundaries.

Haaretz was a bit more, er, explicit:

The idea for the short seems simple, but her highly experimental documentary actually touches on a multitude of complex themes.

“Every morning, I woke up in my Jerusalem apartment and thought about what it would be like to target Palestinian men that live behind the wall for dates on my dating app,” Moldavsky explains, referring to the West Bank separation barrier.

The 28-minute short shows the filmmaker soliciting Palestinian men in Gaza and the West Bank for BDSM sex via the dating apps Tinder and OkCupid, and then getting in touch with them on the phone and via Skype. It also documents their candid, explicit conversations about lust, hard-core sexual practices and the desire for casual dating.

This reminded me, in a backwards fashion, of a something written in 1977 about Zionism, which I blogged in 2007,  That since the word zayin in Hebrew is the male penis, Zionism is actually the Jews screwing the Arabs.

The filmmaker, Ines Moldavsky, 

said she

wanted to show young Palestinians simply as men; as gentle, sexy, handsome, nice guys who think about the mundane things in life like sex and dating.

She is a graduate of Bezalel. On its site the film's description reads:

זהו מסע פטישיסטי של אישה, ספק מרגלת, ספק אומנית, ספק נימפומנית בשטחים הכבושים. 

which translates as

This is a woman's trip of fetishism - perhaps a spy, perhaps an artist, perhaps a nymphomaniac - into the occupied territories.

As I do not know if actual sex was engaged in, what I do know is that this is at her Facebook page:

and she's been thinking about "occupation" since at least October 2012.

Going back to Hazelton, after reading her, Henry Makow understood her so:

According to Hazleton -- whose analysis overlaps significantly with that of Jay Gonen, the Israeli-born author of A Psychohistory of Zionism -- Zionism's predominant impulse is an acting out of son-mother incest. 

While I am willing to yield that once the area of psychology becomes a dominant element of analysis, there really are no borders.  What was an Arab woman doing exploding herself on a Jerusalem street?  Participating in an orgy? Is that Arab sexual activity?  When an Arab stabbed a Jew near the Ariel junction was he exhibiting homosexual aggressiveness?

These theories are not only outrageous, but, in my opinion, reveal more about the perversions of those who suggest them.

Again, I do not know from the film's descriptions whether or not Ines actually did get physical, whether her sex was violent against her or against the males or whether she was just a talker, and that is none of my business.

What I do think is that she should keep any perverse thoughts about the conflict Arabs have with Israel to herself and what she does with the award is for her private pleasure.

But next year's Oscars will be Israel-centered again.

___________

Cross-post version here. ^

Amira Hass: BDS Promoter in Ramallah

Here are extracts from a piece by Haaretz's Amira Hass, who resides in Ramallah, that illustrate the total nonsensible nature of the columnist/reporters there and their agenda-driven "journalism".

another thing I wonder about: Why must Palestinian men show their manhood by driving fast with their blinding bright headlights on, right in the middle of a narrow road, and not move aside for an oncoming vehicle? It’s clear. They know that the oncoming driver will move to the shoulder at the last minute praying that he or she won’t end up down in the wadi. The occupation is clearly to blame. Israel plans, built and builds separate roads in the West Bank so the Palestinians will be diverted from the wide roads (that gobble up private and public land), and Gush Etzion will be a neighborhood of Jerusalem on the south and Beit-El on the north. All the drivers – especially taxi drivers – have to make up for lost time and the length of the road by speeding, and to hell with fatal accidents. But why in God’s name in the middle of the road, and why blind the oncoming traffic at night?

Why the hell are some of my neighbors...too lazy to walk a few dozen meters up or down the street and throw their garbage in the bins that the municipality empties every dawn? Instead, they befoul the still open ground between the buildings...Too many people, here in the Palestinian enclave, treat the street, the roadsides, the area around the springs that the settlers haven’t yet stolen and the open fields as their private garbage can...I’ve read and heard theories, especially about the Palestinian alienation from the public sphere because of Israel’s domination (in 1948 and 1967 areas). But, as the owner of my neighborhood grocery store put it regarding the garbage bags rolling around in the street: “Not everything is because of the occupation.”

How is it that a young woman – a member of the Military Police or a security company – is stationed at a checkpoint and her line of cars is always longer than the nearby line, where a young man is stationed? The young women do everything intentionally more slowly. The most politically incorrect thing to say is that when the young woman checking the cars is of Ethiopian origin, the line gets even longer...The soldiers and security people stationed at the checkpoints must develop skills in the realm of racial doctrine and a canine sense of smell to distinguish between a Jew and an Arab...But leave it to the young women at the checkpoints. They’ll check the accent, slowly open the trunk or send the car for a check for explosives, stare with hostility at the occupants, all the while chewing gum with their mouths open, talking on their cellphone and giggling.

And the best one:

Why in blazes do the fine stores in Ramallah (I haven’t checked other cities) sell products from the settlement of Tekoa? I brought this up with a salesman. I said: “The settlement of Tekoa is stealing water and land from the neighboring villages.” He answered: “The Palestinians steal too, and I have customers who ask for these products.”...And how is it that the BDS and local anti-normalization activists, who are so good at scaring the municipality of Ramallah such that it cancels the screening of a Lebanese film, skip over the mushrooms from Tekoa? How is it that the Palestinian Agriculture Ministry, which from time to time comes to the markets and confiscates products from the settlements, misses these prestige stores? Because their customers are from the elite classes?

^

Occupation or Retention?

Here

Certainly some prolonged occupations are the result of colonialist or annexationist aims. But this is not inevitably the case. The Allied occupation of West Berlin lasted forty-five years, and had the then-dominant views about the duration of the Soviet empire been correct, it could have lasted forever. This was not an occupation of choice but of expedience. Similarly, with Israel’s capture of the West Bank, the situation was even more contingent. Jordan only entered the Six Day War half-way through, and the West Bank was entirely outside of Israel’s original war aims.

Israel retained the territory because immediate attempts at a settlement with the Arab states were rejected, as were numerous internationally-backed good-faith offers of statehood to the Palestinians after the end of the Cold War. Indeed, it is these repeated and rejected offers of statehood that prominently distinguish Israel’s situation from any of the others discussed in the book.

This leads us back to the question of temporariness. Maintaining a status quo over many decades is an impossible task, as nothing in the world stands still. Demographics and migrant flows, as Europe’s recent experience has shown, is one of those things. No one can stop the clock at 1967. Of course, Gross’s position is more nuanced, as it would forbid only changes that benefit the occupier. But this itself is a monumental task, as it effectively burdens the occupier.

Limiting one’s trade and movement with an adjacent territory is a high cost. That which burdens the occupier reduces the other side’s incentives to accept an amicable deal. And indeed, one reason the Geneva Convention may not have anticipated prolonged occupations is that its drafters did not conceive of situations where occupation would not promptly lead to annexation, or a peace deal on terms acceptable to both parties.

Thus an alternative normative occupation regime might, for example, terminate all restrictions on the occupier upon the failure of the other side to accept a good faith diplomatic arrangement that would leave them better off than they were before.

^

Jordan, An Occupier

As reported:

In 1950, after the fighting between the Arab States and Israel had been brought to an end, King Abdullah formally incorporated within his kingdom that part of Palestine which bordered on Jordan and which was still occupied by his troops. 

"Occupied".

^ 

What Would Be the Reaction?

This was reported:-

The final communique of the Arab Summit, concluded Wednesday in Amman...read by Secretary-General of the Arab League Ahmed Aboul Gheit,...voiced rejection of all unilateral Israeli measures aimed at altering the legal and historical status of Muslim and Christian holy shrines in occupied Jerusalem.

And there was this, as well:

King Abdullah, whose dynasty has custodianship over Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem, said any unilateral Israeli move to change the status quo in the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque would have "catastrophic" consequences for the future of the region.

I am just wondering.

What would be the reaction if Israel, say, at a Zionist Congress (not at AIPAC, they'd never go for this), would declare:

Israel rejects all unilateral Arab actions and measures that were aimed at altering the legal and historical status of Jewish holy shrines in Jerusalem they occupied after invading and conquering the country in 638 CE?

What do you think would be the reaction?

^

'But Israel's Supreme Court Declared Israel A "Belligerent Occupier"'

We've heard that charge.

Naftali Bennet was subjected to it (and inadequately responded).

Me, too:

Before we start, let's not be afraid of words.

I am occupying my time writing this and you are occupying your time reading this.  Both of us are probably occupying a chair while reading this.  Your occupation maybe doctor, lawyer or bottle-washer.

First of all, actually there is nothing wrong or illegal in being a belligerent occupier. That's what America was after WW II. It simply means that one country who is administrating territory gained as a result of military action.  In itself, it is not a value judgment but simply a description.

Secondly, that military action of Israel was defensive. 

Thirdly, the territory held now by Israel was part of the original area set aside to become the "reconstituted Jewish national home".  The right of Jews to that territory is certainly no less than Arabs and I would add, more so.

Fourthly, the Arabs of the Mandate area rejected the partition options twice, in 1937 and again in 1947, and in the latter case actually violated UN resolutions to stop their aggression, so Israel is not obliged to respect those dead letters.

Fifth, no Arab state of Palestine ever existed.  No independent "Palestine" was conquered and occupied in 1967 (or in 1948 for that matter).

Sixth, even UN resolution 242 never mentions a "Palestinian people" or a state or whatever.

Seventh, the only reason no Jews resided in the presumed "occupied" territory of Judea, Samaria and formerly Gaza prior to 1967 was an ethnic cleansing campaign carried out violently by riots, pogroms, murders, rapes and other assorted means by local Arabs, many of whom emigrated to the area from other Middle Eastern countries (Jordan's Hashemite family only arrived in Transjordan, itself part of the original mandate area until 1922, from Saudi Arabia in November 1920), as well as Arab states during 1947-1949.

Eight, during 1948-67, the Arabs continued their terror campaign, first as fedayeen and then as the PLO, against Israel that did not possess Judea, Samaria and Gaza in acts of war and aggression thereby displaying a total inability to claim protection as a "conquered people".

Ninth, there are many more real illegal occupations existing that few pay attention to or treat with equal fervor or get that excited over as they do Israel's case.

Tenth, that ICJ judgment was not made on the issue of Israel's legality of possession but the justices simply accepted the presentation made to them.  It was never defended directly.  The "illegality" charge is baseless.

There are more points but ten is a nice figure and I'll stop here.

^

Is It "Disputed" or "Occupied" Territory?

No, not here in Israel.

Western Sahara referendum key to peace: pro-independence groupA referendum on the future of the disputed territory of Western Sahara holds the key to peace and stability in North Africa, the pro-independence Polisario Front said Wednesday.  The former Spanish territory has been back in the spotlight after UN chief Ban Ki-moon angered Morocco by using the word "occupation" to describe its status.

"There will be no peace or stability in the region so long as the Sahrawi people are denied the right to self-determination," Mohamed Salem Ould Salek, a leader of the Algeria-backed Polisario Front, told a news conference in Algiers.  He said that Morocco "knows full well that the Sahrawi people will choose independence if a referendum is held".  "We are not Moroccans and we refuse to become Moroccans," he said.

The resources-rich Western Sahara is at the centre of a four-decade-old dispute.  Morocco considers the territory to be part of the kingdom and insists its sovereignty cannot be challenged.

Any BDS there?

^ 

Terror Is The Real Occupation

Here is Marwan Barghouti last month

The real problem is that Israel has chosen occupation over peace

In March, Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Denis McDonough, told a conference of liberal activists in Washington

“An occupation that has lasted for almost 50 years must end...Israel cannot maintain military control of another people indefinitely.”

Here is Richard Falk, the UN's Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories in 2012:

In the light of the General Assembly’s recognition of Palestine as a nonmember observer State in Assembly resolution 67/19 of 29 November 2012, it seems appropriate to refer to territory under Israeli occupation as “Palestine” rather than as “Occupied Palestinian Territories”. Such a shift in language also emphasizes the inadequacy of the international law framework available to address a condition of prolonged occupation that has now extended for more than 45 years.

There's even a video "It's the Occupation".


Here is one Michael Kramer, which pushes back the date of the start of the "occupation":

Occupation of Palestine started in 1948

And an Arab site writes of

 within the Green Line—the territories under Israeli occupation since 1948

The official site of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, asks

Which Came First - Terrorism or "Occupation"?

Despite all this, the real occupation that occupies the Arabs, and consequentially Jews and their supporters, is terror.  That is their occupation.

Since 1920, terror is the political tool of violence of the Arab residents of Eretz-Yisrael.  Not negotiations.  Not diplomacy.

There is no compromise.  No coexistence.  They will not yield.

If anyone reading this seeks to assist those Arabs-who-refer-to-themselves-as-'Palestinians', liberate them from their terror mindset.  Free them from their self-imposed occupation of death and murder.

^

Yachad and Occupation, Of A Sort

I know many are upset at the term 'occupation' when discussing Israel and Zionism.

I am not.

After all, "...but words will never harm me."

I am occupied typing this blog post.

You are occupied now reading it.

You are occupying space in a room while reading this.

Your occupation could be educator, doctor, lawyer or pensioner.

And to the point.  Yachad is an anti-occupation British Jewish group.

Their address I note is

Phoenix Yard

65 Kings Cross Road

London

WC1X 9LW

Not far from Sadler's Wells Theatre.

I checked out the premises (I can be so associatively curious).  And what did I find?

Rental fees are

costs & availability
Work station monthly licence fees from £280 per person per work station, including broadband. 

and 

at 65 (VAT not applicable):
ground floor: All occupied.
first floor: All occupied.
second floor: All occupied.
at 69 (plus VAT):
ground floor: All occupied.
first floor: All occupied.
second floor: All occupied.

Yachad is surrounded by occupation.

Of course, it's all in the linguistics.

^