Why Is Israel’s Presence in the Territories Still Called “Occupation”?

[Mosby]

When an armed force holds territory beyond its own national borders, the term “occupation” readily comes to mind. However, not all the factual situations that we commonly think of as “occupation” fall within the limited scope of the term “occupation” as defined in international law. Not every situation we refer to as “occupation” is subject to the international legal regime that regulates occupation and imposes obligations upon the occupier.

The term “occupation” is often employed politically, without regard for its general or legal meaning. The use of the term “occupation” in political rhetoric reduces complex situations of competing claims and rights to predefined categories of right and wrong. The term “occupation” is also employed in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to advance the argument that Israel bears ultimate responsibility for the welfare of the Palestinians, while limiting or denying Israel’s right to defend itself against Palestinian terror, and relieving the Palestinian side of responsibility for its own actions and their consequences. The term is also employed as part of a general assault upon Israel’s legitimacy, in the context of a geopolitical narrative that has little to do with Israel’s status as an occupier under international law.

Iraq was occupied by the Coalition forces from the spring of 2003 until June 28, 2004, at which time authority was handed over to the Iraqi Interim Government. At that point, Coalition forces remained in Iraq, but Iraq was no longer deemed occupied. If handing over authority to a Coalition-appointed interim government ended the occupation of Iraq, would the same not hold true for the establishment of the Palestinian Authority and Israel?

Under the Interim Agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization of September 28, 1995, it would seem that at least those areas placed under the effective control of the Palestinian Authority, and from which Israel had actually withdrawn its military forces, could no longer be termed “occupied” by Israel. Moreover, since the continued presence of Israeli troops in the area was agreed to and regulated by the Agreement, that presence should no longer be viewed as an occupation.

Much more at:
http://www.globallawforum.org/ViewPublication.aspx?ArticleId=101

[endarkenment]

The PA is not considered, by Israel, a sovereign government.

Consequently, and ignoring the rest of the world, Israel's official position with respect to the quasi-government of the non-israeli citizens living in the occupied territories continues to qualify it as the occupying authority of an occupied territory.

[aquart]

2. And what does the PA consider Israel?

I'm bringing up that "right to exist" thing. Can you consider a government "sovereign" if you believe it has no right to exist?

Just wondering.

[endarkenment]

4. not relevant to the OP's question

as to why Israel is the occupying authority. But you knew that.

[aquart]

1. So? Nobody cares.

Especially about anything that reduces the victimhood of the poor suffering Palestinians.

[LeftishBrit]

3. Disagree with the implications of this

This is certainly an occupation in the sense that a group of people are living under the rule of another country, without having the rights of citizens of this country.

As long as Palestine is under Israel's jurisdiction, Israel does have some duties toward its welfare, and does not have unlimited rights to military action against it. And yes, my country HAS had to deal at times with serious terrorist threats and actions emanating from a place within our jurisdiction, namely Northern Ireland. Britain's actions in response were horrific in the 19th and early 20th century; and this laid down the roots of a great deal of bitterness and further violence - for a small example, see my post about IRA songs in the thread about Hamas miseducation of children. But eventually policies became saner (e.g one of the VERY few good things to be said about Maggie Thatcher is that she was relatively restrained on this particular issue and her government started the secret negotiations that eventually concluded in open multi-party negotiations and in peace.

Once Palestine becomes an independent state, then Israel has the right to treat it as an enemy if it acts like one; but they can't treat it both as an enemy state and part of their own jurisdiction.

I am not a kneejerking Israel-basher (and have some relatives there), and have often commented on the hypocrisy of people who attack Israel for its occupation while turning a blind eye to occupations elsewhere; but this article seems to be using any possible mechanism to justify what really isn't justifiable.

[Mosby]

6. Israel "occupies" parts of the West Bank

because they have to. General Dayton and the PA have been effective in areas a and parts of b lately but someone must maintain civilian control in area c and that responsibility falls to Israel and the IDF. Keep in mind LB that Israel tried to "give" the West Bank and Gaza back to the Jordanians and Egyptians in '67 so they clearly didn't want this responsibility in the first place but until there is a comprehensive agreement between the two sides or some progress is make WRT the Interim Agreement they are left with managing parts of the West Bank indefinitely.

[bemildred]

5. Try withdrawing all IDF soldiers from the West Bank and see if the term still fits or not.

Try agreeing to forgo unilateral access and hermetic control of the borders to the "Palestinian Controlled Areas" and see what happens.

But this is the usual desperate hair-splitting, the same people that will blather on about how Israel is at war and could be pushed into the sea at any time will then want to claim that the occupied areas are not really occupied, they are little buddies that really want "our help" to restore order and stuff.

[cali]

7. what an absolute steaming pile.

[Kurska]

8. What is weird to me is the Referring of the Golan as a "Occupied Territory"

It was annexed by Israel.

[shaayecanaan]

9. The Israelis don't claim to have annexed it...

and have carefully abstained from using the word "annexation".

Essentially, an attempted annexation of a territory does not affect its status as being occupied, at least post-1947, when the world agreed that it would be no longer admissible for territory to be acquired as the result of war.

There is also a Security Council resolution to the effect that Israel's passage of the Golan Heights Law is of no effect.

If you read the full article, you'll notice that mostly his argument depends on the lack of recognition for Jordan's annexation of the West Bank - only Britain recognised it as legitimate. That doesnt apply in relation to the Golan, which the world unanimously recognises as Syrian territory.