Disputed Occupation
Disputed Occupation
In "Israel Agrees To Demolish Its Settlers' Gaza Homes" Washington Post reporters Glenn Kessler and Scott Wilson write without qualification:
Under international law, Israel is required to return the property as it had been when it seized it during the 1967 war, which would mean a costly and time-consuming cleanup and leave Israeli soldiers vulnerable to attack for months. Moreover, indiscriminate destruction of the homes could ruin water and sewer lines necessary for future development.
Whether or not Judea, Samaria and Gaza are legally occupied is a matter of dispute. Yes, this is something accepted by most of the world and it is the claim of the Palestinians and the Arab world.
The truth is more complicated. Dr. Dore Gold explains:
The politically-loaded term "occupied territories" or "occupation" seems to apply only to Israel and is hardly ever used when other territorial disputes are discussed, especially by interested third parties. For example, the U.S. Department of State refers to Kashmir as "disputed areas."5 Similarly in its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the State Department describes the patch of Azerbaijan claimed as an independent republic by indigenous Armenian separatists as "the disputed area of Nagorno-Karabakh."6
Despite the 1975 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice establishing that Western Sahara was not under Moroccan territorial sovereignty, it is not commonly accepted to describe the Moroccan military incursion in the former Spanish colony as an act of "occupation." In a more recent decision of the International Court of Justice from March 2001, the Persian Gulf island of Zubarah, claimed by both Qatar and Bahrain, was described by the Court as "disputed territory," until it was finally allocated to Qatar.7
Of course each situation has its own unique history, but in a variety of other territorial disputes from northern Cyprus, to the Kurile Islands, to Abu Musa in the Persian Gulf -- which have involved some degree of armed conflict -- the term "occupied territories" is not commonly used in international discourse.8
Thus, the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip appears to be a special exception in recent history, for in many other territorial disputes since the Second World War, in which the land in question was under the previous sovereignty of another state, the term "occupied territory" has not been applied to the territory that had come under one side's military control as a result of armed conflict.
If the Post's reporters will make such a claim that according international law Israel must do somthing, they should back it up. Of course, it's possible that they just accept the Palestinian claim uncritically in which case they should make clear that they're writing propaganda not reporting news.
Crossposted on
Israpundit and
Soccer Dad.
Posted by David Gerstman at June 23, 2005 05:58 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/9035
1
.
BobW
said:
GOI can contract out the cleanup to 2 shiploads of Chinese workers. Leaflets should be distributed warning the barbarians not to fire on the 3d country workers.
The water and sewer lines require payment from the PLO for these improvements. When the US acquired the Phillippines, Spain received payment for relinquished government buildings.
When we get a Jewish Commonwealth, our diplomats can agree to treat Gaza similiar to how Egypt treats its acquisition of Sudanese territory and Egyptian overuse of Nile Basin water.
Stay on the defensive and plan for defeat. Transfer the battle to the enemy's home and watch us obtain victories and allies. Don't forget Bethlehem is soon to become part of the new Arab nation.
Kol tuv,
BobW
Posted by: BobW on June 23, 2005 04:22 PM
Disputed Occupation
In "Israel Agrees To Demolish Its Settlers' Gaza Homes" Washington Post reporters Glenn Kessler and Scott Wilson write without qualification:
Whether or not Judea, Samaria and Gaza are legally occupied is a matter of dispute. Yes, this is something accepted by most of the world and it is the claim of the Palestinians and the Arab world.
The truth is more complicated. Dr. Dore Gold explains:
If the Post's reporters will make such a claim that according international law Israel must do somthing, they should back it up. Of course, it's possible that they just accept the Palestinian claim uncritically in which case they should make clear that they're writing propaganda not reporting news.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.
Posted by David Gerstman at June 23, 2005 05:58 AM