It is an inconvenient truth that under international law, it’s not illegal to win a territorial fight. Media rhetoric pummels hearts and minds and rallies a false cause, and the United Nations depicts the people of Israel to be a pariah, a hated “occupier,” and routinely takes steps to sanction the occupier. The Middle East, an area of 8,804.395 square miles – equivalent to about ninety percent of the contiguous United States – considers Israel undeserving of the right to exist on the original, tiny 10,875 square miles unanimously granted by the League of Nations and upheld by the U.N.
International laws of war, declared or undeclared, are ignored. Ignorance prevails around the globe. Pertinent laws are eye-opening – not a seductive read, but easy to understand and necessary for discovering truth, whatever your moral imperative, which fails to replace law.
Is Israel an “occupier,” and if the answer is yes, is the “occupation” legal according to international law? Consider the following:
1) Egypt has never held or claimed sovereignty (ownership) over the Gaza Strip.
2) Egypt has occupied (established authority over) the Gaza Strip.
3) Jordan has never been sovereign over the West Bank.
4) Jordan has occupied the West Bank.
5) Jordan claimed sovereignty over the West Bank but abandoned the quest after failing to convince Arab neighbors or any nations, other than Pakistan and Britain, of a legitimate claim.
6) Syria is sovereign over the Golan Heights, although Israel gained a portion of the territory in the 1967 war. That portion of the Golan remains under Israeli control. Syria accuses Israel of “illegal occupation” as Syria’s own Iranian-funded military occupies Lebanon. Israel shares a border with Lebanon, from which Hezb’allah, an internationally recognized terrorist organization, attacks Israel, forcing Israel to respond to protect its citizenry.
The definition of a territorial “occupier” has existed, unchanged, since the early 1900s. “Customary” warfare law is settled law.
1. The purpose of the 1907 Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land:
Hague Article 42, in part: The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
Hague Article 43, in part: The authority of the legitmate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
2. The Fourth Geneva Convention, August 1949: “After WWII this body examined “occupation” through a more focused lens and added to the Hague. The definition of occupation did not change. Hague remained and continues to be customary law. The Geneva purpose shifted from protecting the sovereign to protecting civilian populations.”
