Reply #26: Israel's right to occupy the Palestine . . .

[Jack Rabbit]

. . . is based on the 1967 war. We may disagree, but I do reagrd the war as having been fought for Israel's survival as a nation. I had no problem at the time with Israel defending herself and nothing has been put forward since to convince me that I am wrong in that judgment.

The territory was taken in the conflict and occupied by Israel for the purpose of security. The idea, as enbodied in UN Resolution 242, is to exchanged the occupied territory for peace agreements. Resolution 242 also reiterates the post-World War II convention of the sanctity of national territory. Specifically, it emphasizes "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". That Israel was in a defensive posture in 1967 is irrelevant; that gives her no right to make a permanent claim on any of the territory taken.

Now, are there elements among the Palestinians who would push Israel into the sea? Yes. Let's not kid ourselves about that. Has any Palestinian authority been effective in preventing attacks on Israel by those elements? No. Does Israel have the right of self-defense? Yes. She may occupy the Palestine (which I regard as a de facto state) for the purpose of controlling those elements.

However, that does not give Israel the right to use the land to settle her own population in the territories. That, in fact, is a war crime. The settlements are in violation of both Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and of Article 8, paragraph 2(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute. Israel has no right to either establish or maintain them.

The presence of the settlements complicates the issue of Israeli/Palestinian relations. Their presence and the support the Israeli has given to encourage their growth comes very close to being, if it is not in fact, an annexation of foreign territory. They make it very difficult for Israel to eventually withdraw from Palestine. That is just wrong.