i like your analysis, but i need you to explain one thing to me. according to the zionist narrative, israel has legal title to the occupied territories because, in a defensive war, it occupied them out of concerns for safety, and took them from a state (jordan/egypt) that occupied them illegally.
As they say, “Where the prior holder of the territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.” thus legal, defensive occupation of land that was previously illegally occupied produces legal title to the land. legal title = no real occupation.
i know the UN stresses that land acquired by force is inadmissible, but how do you reconcile these two seemingly contradictory principles?
as one zionist explains it:
“Israel becomes then a state in lawful control of territory in respect of which no other state can show better (or, indeed, any) legal title. The general principles of international law applicable to such a situation, moreover, are well-established. The International Court of Justice, when called upon to adjudicate in territorial disputes, for instance in the Minquires and Echrehos case between the United Kingdom and France, proceeded “to appraise the relative strength of the opposing claims to sovereignty”. Since title to territory is thus based on a claim not of absolute but only of relative validity, the result seems decisive in East Jerusalem. No other state having a legal claim even equal to that of Israel under the unconditional cease-fire agreement of 1967 and the rule of uti possidetis, this relative superiority of title would seem to assimilate Israel’s possession under international law to an absolute title, valid erga omnes”
can you please address this? pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease.
LOL… You will not convince them of anything. They do not want to know. Facts/truth do not serve their purpose. Their purpose is a Greater Israel, at any cost.
I’ve given you mainly internal links which will have further links to reputable sites or primary source documents. They should be self explanatory (if not, ask further). In a lot of places I’ve tried to give questions you might ask. Most of which the zioninnies won’t dare answer honestly.
Rip their arguments to shreds in front of other people in order that other folk become better informed. It’ll grow.
The reason the phrase does not include an ‘aggressive/illegal’ or ‘defensive/legal’ qualification is because it means ANY war. The inhabitants might not have voted for or even been able to vote for the regime in power at the start of the conflict. The UN Charter stipulates ‘self determination’. Not the determination of a conquering power. It would also amount to collective punishment
The important word is ‘acquired’. Territory can only be ‘acquired’ by legal annexation. Legal annexation requires agreement by the citizens of the territory being annexed. It is covered by the 1) UN notions of self determination and 2)Trustees over non-state entities
BTW – Preemptive wars, of which the Israelis are so proud, are STARTED by the preemptor. Before the first salvo, there is no war. Therefore the UNSC does not recognize preemptive war as defensive.
“…it occupied them out of concerns for safety”
Then they should not have civilians there. A state cannot use it’s civilians for security. They become legitimate military targets. The GC’s are to protect all civilians. It is illegal to settle in “territories occupied” for the safety of the civilians of the Occupying Power.
Answer to the common “Why can’t Jews build in their homeland” Non-Jewish Israelis are also not allowed to settle in “territories occupied”
“.. and took them from a state (jordan/egypt) that occupied them illegally”
Two things to throw back at ’em.
A) If it was between states, then the GC’s apply
B) But they were not the territory of states. Egypt and Jordan were both Occupying Powers AS AGREED in the armistice AGREEments WITH Israel. Not illegal if Israel agreed.
AND … The wars were between states according to the UNSC Resolutions, ceasefires, armistice agreements and peace agreements, so the GC’s DO apply …
“i know the UN stresses that land acquired by force is inadmissible, but how do you reconcile these two seemingly contradictory principles?”
UNSC Resolutions reflect the law. The other is justification for not adhering to the law. They will likely come back saying the UNSC Res 242 does not say the acquisition of territory by war is illegal. Answer: It is inadmissible because it IS illegal.
“as one zionist explains it:”
@ mondoweiss? It’s Julian Stone’s opinion – after he’d left office, no peer review. It’s littered with lies and in places compares oranges with clogs. You could spend hours countering every point. In fact I almost did.
I really appreciate you taking the time to reply. thanks :) since i would like to be satisfactorily convinced of your argument, i hope you won’t take my response as endorsement of zionism. i’m just playing devil’s advocate to make sure that i can argue your point effectively to others.
2 things immediately stand out to me.
1) your explication of the term “acquire”
If to acquire means to legally annex, then it would be logically impossible to “acquire” territory illegally. one could “take” territory illegally, but the utilization of the term “acquire”, if i am to accept your definition, presupposes legality, and thus can never be illegal. seems like there’s something wrong here.
2) the link http://www.jcpa.org/art/knesset6.htm seems to have been taken over by an ad. do you have an alternate source for the knesset document? the fact that jordan’s annexation was actually a trusteeship is absolutely fantastic, and destroys the idea of illegal occupation in the west bank (assuming it covered all of the west bank including east jerusalem, which i can’t seem to find out since i’m having trouble finding another source).
having said that, what about gaza? can the same be said, namely that egypt’s occupation of gaza was legal? if it isn’t it seems like there’s a slight hiccup, which you attempt to address with the armistice agreements. however, even if the armistice agreements draw a line indicating where israeli territory ends, how can that construe egypt’s occupation as legal if the palestinians didn’t consent to it? i’m also wondering about the definition of occupation itself. does occupation require that territory be occupied FROM a country or BY a country? essentially, on what does occupation hinge? if mexico overran its border into the US, would the designation of occupation be conferred because the territory was occupied FROM the US, a state, or BY mexico? This is extremely important because, as you clearly say, palestine is a non-state entity, and if occupation is defined by which state (sovereign or not) the territory is being occupied FROM, then how can one consider palestine occupied?
However all of that isn’t terribly important if what you say about there being no legal precedent for the concept of “better title” is indeed true. if it has no legal basis, then the principle of territory being inadmissible when acquired by force precludes the legality of israel’s settlement. every time i search for it i can only find hasbara sources citing Stone’s work. where did the concept come from?
one more thing i wanted to point it. if the armistice agreements did in fact state that israel consented to the occupation of gaza/the west bank, isn’t that completely irrelevant considering israel didn’t own that territory? you go to great pains to explain that israel declared its borders along the partition. how then could israel consent to occupation of these territories by egypt/jordan? canada could theoretically consent to mexico’s occupation of the united states, but what weight does that consent actually hold? only palestinians can consent to occupation of their own land…right?
The image used in the overlay is the same as map on the left. The blue dotted line (my addition) are the partition boundaries 1947 according to the exact details of UNGA Res 181 as best as I could fathom. The 1949 armistice line (Green Line) on the overlay image, is the thick blackish line.
You can use Google Earth by itself without the overlay .. make sure you switch on the ‘borders and labels’ option in Google Earth.
This will bring up a RED line Google Earth calls the 1950 Armistice Agreement Line.
If you use both the overlay and the ‘borders and labels’ option, you will see the Google Earth lines do not follow the map exactly.
“what about gaza? can the same be said, namely that egypt’s occupation of gaza was legal?”
Yes the Israeli /Egypt Armistice AGREEment
“.. even if the armistice agreements draw a line indicating where israeli territory ends”
Armistice lines do not indicate ‘territory’. Israeli ‘territory’ is only within it’s borders. Armistice lines are not borders unless they were borders before the armistice. However, in places armistice lines might follow borders.
“..what about gaza?….how can that construe egypt’s occupation as legal if the palestinians didn’t consent to it?
They were allied. At the time the Arab States represented the non-state entity of Palestine. Egypt and Jordan occupied per the UN Charter Chapter 11 by agreement with Israel. Occupation is under Military rule, Egypt did not try to annex the territory for itself, did not institute it’s own civil law, did not dispossess the Palestinians, did not build illegal settlements. Quite the opposite of Israel.
“.. the definition of occupation itself. does occupation require that territory be occupied FROM a country or BY a country?”
The Palestinians are occupied by Israel. Territory might be annexed from a country.
“.. if what you say about there being no legal precedent for the concept of “better title” is indeed true. if it has no legal basis, then the principle of territory being inadmissible when acquired by force precludes the legality of israel’s settlement….”
The legal precedent cited by Stone applied to already Sovereign states over disputed territory. A non-state entity is not a Sovereign state. Bottom line —- UNSC Resolutions reflect the law. Stone’s work is an opinion trying to justify Israel’s claims, quite poorly at that. When did the UNSC change it’s resolutions to fit Stone’s opinion?
“..every time i search for it i can only find hasbara sources citing Stone’s work..”
Jokes aside, it comes from legal argument between ‘sovereigns’ over ‘disputed’ territory. It is not discussion of the UN or the UNSC…it has absolutely no bearing on the matter. Only the UNSC resolutions apply.
“if the armistice agreements did in fact state that israel consented to the occupation of gaza/the west bank, isn’t that completely irrelevant considering israel didn’t own that territory?”
about being very hasbara…haha! that’s hilarious. i’ll take a look at all of this stuff tomorrow..it’s 4am now! i’m just glad you’re engaging me. the more you talk the better i feel about this. thanks for your time