Toddsterpatriot, Victory67,
et al,
There is a lot of confusion in this discussion.
First, in order to answer some of the questions, you have to be specific about:
- What period of time we are discussion?
- What land or territory we are specifically addressing?
There is no rule in the 4th Geneva Convention that Occupied Land can only be land that was formally belonging to another state by legal annexation or older form of confiscation.
So it didn't belong to anyone.
No state to give it back to, I think they should keep it.
(COMMENT)
Secondly, there is also a difference between confiscation
(real-estate land ownership as a civil matter), and annexation
(having nothing to do with civil land ownership, but alters sovereignty).
I notice that in a number of Arab-Israeli discussions, this two concepts
(land ownership and sovereignty) are often confused or thought to be one and the same thing. They are not. Sovereignty does not alter land ownership.
For instance, the entire West Bank, while under occupation, is sovereign Palestinian territory. And while there are Israeli Settlements inside the West Bank, the land ownership has not changed unless the original Palestinian Owners have been duly compensated, or the land in question changed hands according to local real property laws.
- Private property cannot be confiscated without just cause and proper compensation.
- Destruction of real or personal property is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
Now clearly, the Israeli Settlement Programs in the West Bank must be address as a matter of restitution and reparation in any formal Peace Negotiation. I think nearly everyone knows this.
Currently, such legal settlements and compensation are being held hostage to a good faith outcome of such negotiation.
Most Respectfully,
R