Quote:
Originally posted by SLM3
Ok.
The Geneva Convention explicitly forbids the occupying power from transfering its population into the land it occupies. Furthermore, the UN and pretty much every other int'l legal entity has applied this to Israel's settlements.
As the belligerent occupier, Israel is required to defer to the pre-belligerency political identity of the occupied territory. Belligerent occupation connotes only a temporary, provisional circumstance and implicit duty to withdraw once hostilites have been brought to an end. Contemporary legal notion reinforces the idea that war no longer provides a foundation to grab land. This right to territory as a part of conquest no longer exists the way you're thinking of it. The whole freakin point of belligerent occupation is to fascilitate a peaceful settlement. Do you think illegal Israeli settlements are doing that?
SLM3
|
What you say is correct but there's a big hangup in there: Israel did offer back the lands almost immediately after winning it in return for full peace. Go google the Khartoum Conference for the Arab states' response. I'll give you a hint... "No peace, No Recognition, No Negotiations". They didn't enjoy being humiliated by the war and weren't about to go along with Israel's plan of obtaining land and using it to get peace.
If no one is there to take the land back, Israel is under no responsibility to give it up. I happen to disagree with the settlements but IMO they're such a tiny piece of pie that are used as an easy scapegoat. While I disagree with the settlements, I do agree with keeping the land until negotiations for peace are finalized. And the UN (including Resolution 242) agrees with that policy.