In a previous posting, I told you some of what I know about the Palestinians. I laughed uproariously at your use of WorldNetDaily.com as a source of "information."
Now I'll tell you some of what I know about Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Maybe you won't sound so ignorant the next time you open your mouth.
Status of territories captured by Israel--Occupied
The ICJ outlined the legal rationale for the supporters of this view in its advisory opinion of 9 July 2004. It noted:
On the application of the fourth Geneva Convention, the Court noted:
“In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance."
(...) the Court notes that, according to the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that Convention is applicable when two conditions are fulfilled: that there exists an armed conflict (whether or not a state of war has been recognized); and that the conflict has arisen between two contracting parties. (...) The object of the second paragraph of Article 2 is not to restrict the scope of application of the Convention, as defined by the first paragraph, by excluding therefrom territories not falling under the sovereignty of one of the contracting parties. It is directed simply to making it clear that, even if occupation effected during the conflict met no armed resistance, the Convention is still applicable.
In its June 2005 ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Gaza disengagement, the Israeli High Court determined that "Judea and Samaria" [West Bank] and the Gaza area are lands seized during warfare, and are not part of Israel."
The international consensus, excepting the U.S. in some cases, is that
o They were captured by force of arms and against the will of their populations.
o The residents in these areas were stateless.
o Israel has put the territories under military rather than civilian administration, creating a de facto state of occupation.
Deconstructing Stephen's claims
"Israel "occupies" the West Bank."
The more accurate description of the territories in Judea and Samaria is "disputed" territories.
Even the Israeli High Court agrees that "Judea and Samaria" [West Bank] and the Gaza area are lands seized during warfare, and are not part of Israel." Do you have anything to say to that?
If most of the world preferred the term "disputed" to "occupied," you might have a point. But most of the world prefers "occupied" to "disputed." Your claim is stupid semantics at best, false or misleading rubbish at worst.
In short, the status of Israel's occupied territories isn't "hotly disputed" by anyone except Israel. Therefore, the word "occupied" is more appropriate than "disputed."
Conquest = self-defense?!
Anything else you need to know? Next time, do some research on something other than your rabidly right-wing websites. Then you'll learn there are plenty of arguments you've missed. Anyone who thinks there's a clearcut answer to any aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is even stupider than he seems.
Here's a clue, bright boy: If you don't want to look like a total intellectual fraud, present both sides of the issue next time. Don't waste my time telling me how much smarter you are when you're too prejudiced to acknowledge the "occupation" controversy. I'm willing to note both sides because I'm interested in the truth. Other than sheer stupidity, what's your excuse for your ideological blindness?
For more on the subject, see The Indian-Palestinian Connection.
P.S. I've disabled comments on this and the previous posting because of your obvious penchant for inundating me with irrelevant arguments. As I told you before, you're not cluttering my blog with your insults and attacks. If you have something to say, start your own blog and post your rebuttal there. Or e-mail your comments and I'll consider whether they're relevant to my mission.
You know, the mission I stated at the top of the blog? The one you're apparently too stupid to understand? Yes, the intersection of Native America and pop culture...that mission.