Why isn't the world taking action against Israel??

"...If there is an element in particular you would like me to address feel free to point it out specifically, otherwise you just come across as using volumes of text you have the skills to paste instead of being able to articulate and defend a position.

OK .. considering the Text of Oslo.. which doesn't bar settelements and makes tham a 'Fianl Status Issue'.....

AND the Text and meaning of Resolution 242.. which always foresaw Israel taking some of the 1967 line to Achieve "Secure and Recognized" Boundaries...

and the fact that there was no 'Sovereign'/Soverignh nation 'occupied' to apply the Geneva Convention to..

Those are 3 points I would like you to address.

Since You asked. .. Go ahead.. show us your stuff.

abu afak wrote:

OK .. considering the Text of Oslo.. which doesn't bar settelements and makes tham a 'Fianl Status Issue'.....

1) Are you changing the subject from occupation to settlements? You do realize they are wholly different legal issues?

2) Oslo is a framework for resolution with a timeline. It is not a basis for any legality at all. You demonstrate your profound ignorance of international law by referencing Oslo agreements in the framework of a legal discussion.

See, it may surprise you, but Oslo is not law.

Quote:

AND the Text and meaning of Resolution 242.. which always foresaw Israel taking some of the 1967 line to Achieve "Secure and Recognized" Boundaries...

This sentence makes no sense. What the Devil do you mean to say by "taking some of the 1967 line"?

Quote:

and the fact that there was no 'Sovereign'/Soverignh nation 'occupied' to apply the Geneva Convention to..

You again demonstrate ignorance of law, as sovereignty is not a prerequisite to the stipulations on military occupation in Geneva.

Quote:

Those are 3 points I would like you to address.

I'd addressed the last one. You are simply not aware of law, and seem to thing that the territorial ambiguity negates the stipulations of Geneva.

Thing is, you have no basis upon which to do so because there is none.

Quote:

Since You asked. .. Go ahead.. show us your stuff.

Let's keep this PG-13 and on-topic.

No guy.. if you understand the Conflict .. the two issues are almost the same.

Settlements are not 'illegal' and there is NO 'Occupation' if the land is 'Disputed'.

Which it IS pending Final Staus negotiation under Oslo AND Resolution 242's similarly demanded talks.

Nice try at deflection tho.. I hope my posts/knowledge have at least given you some hints to answre with now.

The 3 stiull remain.

Galilite wrote:

Maybe because political rhetorics and legal terms do not always converge.

While this is certainly a possibility in general it is also certainly not the case here. It takes a special kind of blind ideologue to assert that Israel has not occupied territories and to ignore the clearly delineated legality in the particular case.

Quote:

Legal status of Israel and Palestinian authority is difficult to define.

Only for those with a weak understanding of international law.

Quote:

Some of these territories were parts of Jordan and Egypt, and later these countries refused to have those back.

This does not, in any way, reflect on whether Israel occupies illegally or not. It's just a feel-good argument meant to deflect from Israel's acts by bringing up string-for-a-backbone cowardice and passing the buck on the part of some Arab leaders.

Occupation refers to the military occupation of the territories and the authority over the population.

Quote:

Quote:

Legal status of Israel and Palestinian authority is difficult to define.

Only for those with a weak understanding of international law.

OK, I admit, I don't speak lawyerese.

Perhaps you'll enlighten me here.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:

Some of these territories were parts of Jordan and Egypt, and later these countries refused to have those back.

This does not, in any way, reflect on whether Israel occupies illegally or not. It's just a feel-good argument meant to deflect from Israel's acts by bringing up string-for-a-backbone cowardice and passing the buck on the part of some Arab leaders.

I'll pretend I didn't notice the last sentence.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Occupation refers to the military occupation of the territories and the authority over the population.

?
Again, I don't speak lawyerese. Is that how you define it or how it is defined by UN, ICJ, etc.

If a state A formerly possessed these lands, and now doesn't want them, while it is not very noble of a state B to use those if they are populated, but is it occupation in the regular sense?

You also mentioned "occupies illegally". Is there such thing as "legal occupation"?

If yes, wait, don't tell... that was the case with Egypt and Jordan, right?

Craven,
I have to take exception to this statement of yours..."It is occupation if it a state's military rules areas outside of their sovereign territory."

That is not entirely correct.
The USAF has bases in almost every country in the pacific rim.The USAF controls those bases,and "rules" those areas.Now,those bases are outside of US sovereign territory.Are you going to go so far as to say that EVERY US military base outside of the US is an occupation?
Judging by your definition of "occupation",then you have to answer the question yes.
Of course,that means you would have to ignore all of the treaties we have signed,the leases of the property those bases are on,and all of the other LEGAL ways we have established those bases,but if you wanna do that,I'll let you.

Basically, what I am alluding to is that the ambiguity of the territory issues is not something that eliminates the legal status of occupation.

Israel has occupied both ambiguously defined territory and non-ambiguous territory in the past.

Galilite wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:

It's just a feel-good argument meant to deflect from Israel's acts by bringing up string-for-a-backbone cowardice and passing the buck on the part of some Arab leaders.

I'll pretend I didn't notice the last sentence.

Not a slight on you, a slight on the Arab leaders you referenced. Their self-interests have often harmed the situation, and I assert that it is because of cowardice and feeble spines at those moments.

Military occupation is really straightforward. Perhaps if you can give a definition that you operate with I can clarify the differences.

It is occupation if it a state's military rules areas outside of their sovereign territory.

Israel does not include the Palestinian teritories in their sovereign terriotry under any criteria, you may note that the democratic state of Israel does not extend a vote to residents in those territories and other such clear examples of it being outside of their regular sovereign territory.

Quote:

You also mentioned "occupies illegally". Is there such thing as "legal occupation"?

Yes, there is. And Israel has legally occupied territories at times.

OK. As I understanding, occupation is military invasion into a sovereign country with explicitly defined borders and holding it under control.

In case of Taiwan, for example, I don't think Chinese invasion can be classified as occupation (because most countries don't recognize it as sovereign country), even though my personal sympathy would be on Taiwan's side (yes, I understand, the situation is very different there).

Craven de Kere wrote:

And Israel has legally occupied territories at times.

You mean, Sinai during the Six-Day War?

I found this site,its called "imagine"
Look at it and then tell me Israel is wrong in trying to protect themselves...
http://198.173.255.220/imagine/imagine_n.html