Billo_Really, Phoenall,
et al,
Well, I think there is a minor
(albeit important) mistake here.
Who says it isn't their land...
You don't occupy your own property, you own it.
(COMMENT)
This is only half right. Generally speaking, a nation does not "occupy" itself. Those cases are called the establishment of Martial Law; when the government extends its control by military authorities over the civilian population of a designated territory. Occupation is a lesser included form of Martial Law.
Ownership is a civil real estate issue. While there is such a thing as "Government Property" --- in general, the government exercises sovereignty and governance over territory; not ownership. There is no deed to sovereignty territory; but there is a deed for ownership. Sovereignty is a type of political authority over a geographic area or territory.
Definition of an
"occupation":
Under IHL, there is occupation when a State exercises an unconsented-to effective control over a territory on which it has no sovereign title.And Israel has no sovereign title to the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights or East Jerusalem.
(COMMENT)
Well, again, partly right.
Occupation and international humanitarian law said:
1. What is occupation?
Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a " territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. "
According to their common Article 2, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 apply to any territory occupied during international hostilities. They also apply in situations where the occupation of state territory meets with no armed resistance.
The legality of any particular occupation is regulated by the UN Charter and the law known as jus ad bellum. Once a situation exists which factually amounts to an occupation the law of occupation applies – whether or not the occupation is considered lawful.
Therefore, for the applicability of the law of occupation, it makes no difference whether an occupation has received Security Council approval, what its aim is, or indeed whether it is called an “invasion”, “liberation”, “administration” or “occupation”. As the law of occupation is primarily motivated by humanitarian considerations, it is solely the facts on the ground that determine its application.
SOURCE: Occupation IHL: ICRC Questions and Answers
Not all "occupations" are hostile. That is, the situation can be either "Benevolent"
(as in the post-War Occupations of Japan and Germany) or it can be "Belligerent"
(as in the Middle East oPt, or Post-War Iraq).
...and who says that the arab muslims have the right to it ?
That's none of your god-damn business!
The only thing you need to know, is that it isn't Israel's.
(COMMENT)
While this exchange sounds knowledgeable, it is flawed.
The West Bank and Gaza Strip were under several different kinds of civil administration, governance, and (in one case) sovereignty since 1947. What we call the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) today, experienced a multitude of change since the adoption of the Partition Plan, but only since 1988 has this affected self-governance.
I think it makes a great difference as to the status of the territory, as to which government claims what.
Most Respectfully,
R
