The following article on Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian land was written in response to an opinion piece that appeared in The New York Times on 21 March 2002. That piece, entitled 'Annan's Careless Language' and written by Mr George P. Fletcher, contended that the Israeli occupation is not illegal, as was stated by UN Secretary-General [Kofi] Annan. This article, which was submitted to The New York Times for publication but regrettably declined, confronts this contention with a concise explanation regarding the undeniably illegal nature of the Israeli occupation.

Israel's Illegal Occupation
By Nasser Al-Kidwa

Bringing an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is as much a prerequisite for peace in the Middle East as is the Palestinian recognition of Israel. The Israeli occupation is not only inhuman and the cause of extreme suffering for the 3.5 million Palestinians living under its subjugation, but it is also illegal under international law. Attempts to claim otherwise have no legal validity and are morally bankrupt and politically dangerous since they basically preclude the achievement of peace.

While it is true that victorious powers can legally occupy hostile territories seized in the course of conflict - an example of which is the Allies' occupation of the territory of Nazi Germany during World War II, foreign occupation should nevertheless be a temporary situation, pending a political settlement or solution. During the interim, the occupying Power must comply with relevant instruments of international humanitarian law with regard to its conduct in the territory it has occupied.

International law is very clear on two basic principles: the inadmissibility of the acquisition of  territory  by  war  and  the  prohibition  of  the  transfer  of  civilians of  the occupying Power to the occupied territory. Both are intended to prevent expansionism and the colonisation of occupied territories. Both complement another explicit principle of international law, namely the right of peoples to self-determination, a right that a colonial or occupying Power is obliged to respect.

The Israeli occupation has clearly violated all three of these principles of international law. In fact, throughout its prolonged occupation, Israel has persistently and aggressively breached international law.

Thus, what makes the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land illegal is not the fact that it occurred during the war of 1967 (regardless of the narrative concerning the causes of the war). What makes the Israeli occupation illegal is that it has existed for 35 years, during which time it transformed into a form of colonialism and suppressed and oppressed an entire people for decades, preventing them from the exercise of their right to self-determination and the establishment of their State, Palestine.

Israel, as an occupying Power, has undertaken countless measures attempting to change the legal status, demographic composition and character of the territory by confiscating land, exploiting natural resources, building more than 250 settlements, transferring more than 400,000 Israelis to the occupied territories, establishing a dual system of law and even annexing part of the territory.

These actions have been carried out in direct contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, which, among other things, defines the rules of conduct and the obligations of the occupying Power. Clearly then, the active intent of the Israeli occupation has been to negate Palestinian rights, to create new facts on the ground and to illegally expand Israel's borders.

Security Council resolution 242 (1967), which is the bedrock of the peace process and of any future peace settlement, is anchored in the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. The old and deceptive argument that the resolution calls for withdrawal from 'territories' and not 'the territories' not withstanding (in fact, the French text of the resolution does contain the article 'the'). The call in the resolution for the withdrawal of Israel can only be read within the context of the above-mentioned principle.

Since the onset of the Israeli occupation in 1967, and in response to established, illegal policies and practices of the occupying Power, the Security Council has adopted 26 resolutions that affirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories occupied by Israel. Of those resolutions, several deal directly with the issue of Israeli settlements and several also specifically deal with Israeli violations in Occupied East Jerusalem.

The resolutions clearly address the illegality of Israel's policies and practices with regard to both issues. For example, some of the resolutions affirm that the Israeli settlements 'have no legal validity'; call upon the government and people of Israel 'to dismantle the existing settlements'; and call upon 'all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories'.

(cont'd next post)

The Jews have lived there for at least 3000 years, probably longer, whereas the Arabs are recent blow ins.

wombatwoody wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2021 at 4:44pm:

The persistence of (collective) memory has an indefinite upper limit.

Bertie wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2021 at 5:09pm:


What's this, a rehash of the argument that Palestine was an uninhabited land?

Belgarion wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2021 at 4:39pm:


And therefor?

It may be illegal but good luck trying to kick the Jews out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option




In 2003, a military historian, Martin van Creveld, thought that the Al-Aqsa Intifada then in progress threatened Israel's existence.[34] Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's The Gun and the Olive Branch (2003) as saying:

    We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third.

We have the capability to take the world down with us.

And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.[35]

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2021 at 5:33pm:

Yes-ish.
Islam is a patchwork of leftovers and misunderstandings, badly thrown together.  Mohammed went to the moon and back on a horse  from Jerusalem - so now Jerusalem is holy to Muslims??  You wouldn't  tolerate this nonsense in a 9 year old, even if you made her your wife......

Frank wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2021 at 5:54pm:

And the Foundation Stone (sacred to Judaism, Christianity and Islam) in Jerusalem (under the Dome of the Rock) was where god created the world and Adam?

Jerusalem - where a dead man came back to life?