posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 08:25 AM
Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
During the June-1967 war Israel seized land from Egypt (which it later retreated from), Syria and Jordan. The land which it seized from Jordan has
long been recognized by many as the Palestinian territories. So are you denying there is an occupation now?
This is not part of my point, but a rabbit trail that could use some following. Anyone feel free to address it, or not. Whatever.
If Israel captured the land in 1967, and Jordan renounced ownership of it in 1988 (while it was still occupied by Israel), wouldn't logic dictate
Israel would become the owner of the land?
Of course there was the declaration of independence made by the PNC, four moths later. But that meant (and technically still means nothing) as the
Palestinians are not truly a sovereign state, according to the Montevideo Convention of 1933. Statehood without independence is not possible
(Creation of States in International Law, Oxford, 2nd ed., 2006, p. 62.).
So If I was going to take that route, then you would be correct. There is no occupation. 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. Jordan relinquished the captured land, giving it to Israel in the process. Therefore it no long became
territory occupied during international hostilities or an occupation of state territory that meets with no armed resistance. It DID become the
grounds for a defacto civil war, since legally, Israel owned the land. The Laws of Land do not come into effect unless Israel recognizes the the
Palestinian rebels as belligerents.
I do not know if Israel has done that yet.
edit on 7/14/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)