It has been a while since I posted. I wrote something, but was hesitant because it was borderline inappropriate, and used some language that I wrote in the heat of the moment. I set it aside for a week before reviewing it. Then I decided it was really not something I should say. So I scrapped it.
In a previous post I covered some reasons why the claim that Israel is an “occupying” power are incorrect. The language of the law that is claimed to support that claim is interesting. Here is article 2.
Art. 2. The provisions contained in the Regulations referred to in Article 1, as well as in the present Convention, do not apply except between Contracting powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.
And in the annex of regulations we find:
Art. 2. The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war.
Art. 42. 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.
But for me, the real bottom line is that the original League of Nations Mandate gave ALL Palestine for the establishment of a Jewish homeland. It’s simply absurd to say you are an occupying power in your own country.
Wetherhorn 