Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 13,219
- 2,253
- 290
"Oslo is not a legal agreement. It goes against the law of treaties and the rules of belligerent occupation."
The above statement was claimed on another thread.
The context is that since there is an existing treaty between the PA and Israel, there is no occupation. An occupation, by definition, is military control of another sovereign's territory, without the permission of the offended party. A treaty, by definition, is a mutual agreement over the conditions which apply in the territory. Thus the existence of a treaty, of itself, ends the occupation.
Of course, either party can be in violation of a treaty. BUT that was not the claim above. The claim above is that the treat is not valid. How so?
The above statement was claimed on another thread.
The context is that since there is an existing treaty between the PA and Israel, there is no occupation. An occupation, by definition, is military control of another sovereign's territory, without the permission of the offended party. A treaty, by definition, is a mutual agreement over the conditions which apply in the territory. Thus the existence of a treaty, of itself, ends the occupation.
Of course, either party can be in violation of a treaty. BUT that was not the claim above. The claim above is that the treat is not valid. How so?