Or, as many Israelis hold out that the British Mandate signed by the League of Nations and the Arabs give the Jews all of Mandate Palestine and Transjordan, only to have the British take back Transjordan under Arab threat of terrorism or to protect their imperialistic designs?
Was Mandate Palestine divided not once but twice then fought over not once but 5 times?
And was Resolution 242 thrust upon Israel who had the wording changed from the occupied terrorities to occupied territories?
And some would argue that Geneva 49 would only referred to the forced transfer of popultion. Something that is not happening (technically) here since the settlers are volunteers. (which if you bought that you would have to strain the gnat and swallow the camel)
Just questions that I have heard attached to the West Bank "occupation."
I guess international law is on their side if Israel is an occupier. But... that's where the debate breaks down. Did Israel aggressively occupy territory? Or, did they, in the course of being attacked, win territory? Did the Arabs gamble away their state in 1947, 1948, 1949, 1967, and 1973?As undoubtedly annoyed as Bush was with the PA yesterday, he still used the word "occupied". There's no doubt that that word was not blithely chosen.
Or, as many Israelis hold out that the British Mandate signed by the League of Nations and the Arabs give the Jews all of Mandate Palestine and Transjordan, only to have the British take back Transjordan under Arab threat of terrorism or to protect their imperialistic designs?The Balfour Declaration supported a Jewish state in Palestine but not in all of Palestine, and specifically states that the rights of non-Jews are to be preserved.
Was Mandate Palestine divided not once but twice then fought over not once but 5 times?There was the 1947 division and the 1949 cease fire lines. The latter have been recognzied as the borders of the Nation of Israel. The Golan Heights was added when that captured territory was annexed, IMO correctly. There's no reason Israel should leave such a strategic location in the hands of an implacable enemy.
And was Resolution 242 thrust upon Israel who had the wording changed from the occupied terrorities to occupied territories?Regardless, it was adopted as written.
And some would argue that Geneva 49 would only referred to the forced transfer of popultion. Something that is not happening (technically) here since the settlers are volunteers. (which if you bought that you would have to strain the gnat and swallow the camel)The "forced transfer" argument is the one I hear most often and the one with the least behind it. Not only does the word "forced" appear nowhere in Article 49, but the text says "deport or transfer". A forced transfer would be a deportation.
Indeed, I've maintained that the current situation is an illustration of why that stipulation was added.
-Eric