Opinion
Occupation can't be erased
Boaz Okon
Published: 11.07.12, 11:02
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
85 Talkbacks for this article
31. #15 & #9 theologically (Torah) based
C.M.   (07.11.12)
Do you think the Jews just picked the land of Israel randomly out of the hat after WWII? If that were the case Israel which was a wasteland at that would probably have been the last country they'd go far. It's just that the Jews have 100% the legal right to the ENTIRE LAND OF ISRAEL - yes, based on Torah. The Arabs have 22 !!! - you hear that? 22 !!! - countries of their own and all they want is the tiny strip of Jewish land. Arabs are just a greedy unsatisfied nation. Whatever you'll give them, they won't be happy. About time they bug off and go back to their homeland.
32. The article is incorrect, the Levy report gives us...
ZionistBill ,   Israel   (07.11.12)
....justification to remove the so-called 'Palestinians' from our land. By force, if necessary (and I believe it will be.) The world's legal authorities have now spoken and we must follow their advice and move all non-Jews (men, women, children) to Jordon. The argument is over and now it's time to take action. If we don't, we are ignoring the teachings of G-d.
33. settler outposts
Ciaran ,   Dublin Ireland   (07.11.12)
Army withdraws next settlers start runing from angry Arabs Problem solved
34. I had to double-check that I wasn't reading Ha'aretz!
Amichai ,   Huntsville, US   (07.11.12)
35. To Number 7
Daniel ,   Barcelons, Spain   (07.11.12)
So you support a bi-national Israel don´t you?
36. Mr. Okon sir, you miss the essence.
Steve Klein   (07.11.12)
Boaz Okon, you wrote: "Asking whether the territories are occupied according to international law is twisted question and misses the essence. The question should not focus on the territories, but rather, on the people who live there..." Mr. Okon, you may be right, the question should focus on the people who live there but whether the territories are "occupied" according to international law does not miss the essence. Neither is it a twisted question to ask whether the territories are illegally occupied according to international law. Why? Because that is the focus of the United Nations and its European and (sadly) American allies; at least this administration. The essence of the question is this. Are Judea and Samaria, Jerusalem, illegitimately occupied territories as the United States State Department asserted in the past day or so? Focusing on the people who live there is a separate (important) issue from this all-important issue that you do not appear to address. Why? Why not address this central issue?
37. To No 27
Bertram ,   London, UK   (07.11.12)
You also disappoint me. That is precisely my point (my irony is clearly lost on you). Of course it is not about religion! My point is either there is an occupation or there is not. If there is an occupation then let us be honest about it and accept the consequences. If, on the other hand, we are to accept that Judea and Samaria' are are part of Israel, then how are those who lived there prior to the Six Day War - and their descendants - to be governed? If firm evidence can be provided that they hold Jordanian citizenship - which I doubt - then you may have a case. If no such evidence exists there is absolutely no reason why they should not be given Israeli citizenship (or are you arguing for enforced statelessness, or deportation to goodness knows where?). In which case, we are on the road to a 'one-state' solution. I am not sure there would be too many takers inside Israel!
38. Read my lips: There is NO occupation!!!!!!
Chris Rettenmoser ,   Bayerisch Gmain Germ   (07.11.12)
39. #9 jassi (and #6 salma)
solomon ,   bklyn   (07.11.12)
Ever think of reading some history? Hint: history begins well before WW2. In fact the history of Jews in the ME begins so much before WW2 that it even begins before arab history in the ME. The arabs came from arabia [get it?] in the 600's CE arab conquest, with many coming in the early 1900's in response to a better economy (due to the influx of additional Jews in the late 1800's), and even more in 1947 when Jordan wanted arabs to take the place of the Jews (who had been there for centuries) were kicked out. Read some history, then post.
40. #17 paul
solomon ,   bklyn   (07.11.12)
There is nothing in the Balfour Declaration that forces Israel to not show prejudice to those that do show Israel extreme prejudice (ie wanting to destroy it and kill all the Jews). This prejudice began well before 1948 and continues to do this day. Hamas and Hezbollah say as much, while the PA winks at them. Amazing, how you know, without the shadow of a doubt, that the British never intended for the word “homeland” to be a state. Therefore the terms “fatherland” and “motherland” also do not mean ‘state’, yes? (yea, right). Also: the UN Partition was not accepted by the arabs up until recently, in which duration of time they continually attacked Israel wanting to destroy it. The UN Partition is dead, much like many other agreements that involved the UN. Dead as a doorknob.
41. End the Arab MUSLIM OCCUPATION of Israel !
Linda Rivera ,   New York, USA   (07.11.12)
There NEVER was an Arab country of Palestine. Jerusalem was NEVER the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Once Muslims move to any country in sizable numbers, Muslims then claim the land belongs to Muslims. All over Europe and in Britain, there are now many no-go Muslim areas where it is too dangerous for non-Muslims to enter. The Muslims say these areas are MUSLIM land and that non-Muslims have no right to enter.
42. Hello PaulZion #16
FO ,   Belgium   (07.11.12)
I see you somewhat changed your opinion,and in fact why not ! We both are going to share perhaps the same views. I just wanted to reply to a previous post, if you don't mind where you wrote: " The 1922 British Mandate and the Anglo-American accord of 1924, refer to (please note, I think this is important) a HOMELAND for Jews. There is nothing explicit about it being part of a Jewish state...". May I remind you, PaulZion, that the Jewish National Home, together with Iraq and Syria-Lebanon, were put by the League of Nations in the A-Class Mandate system, and I quote: "subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone". Doesn't it mean INDEPENDENCE ???
43. #39
Jassi ,   New Delhi, India   (07.11.12)
Solomon, folks aren't as ignorant as you would love to think they are:) Can you kindly define what is arabia? is it saudi arabia just because there is an "arabia" to it? i can understand the mizrahi and to an extent the sephardim who have been not just in palestine but all arab countries since ages. can you explain how the ashkenazim got their ticket to palestine? Hint: read a few books on history:)
44. Legal Status
Abu Yussef al Yahudi ,   Bue_Aires-Argentina   (07.11.12)
Why Ynet, are you publishing this disgusting article? Clearly the author is showing either a blatant ignorance regarding the historical status of the so called "West Bank" or he is strongly biased against the Jewish People, or both of the above. Yehuda and Shomron were "de jure" property of the Jewish former Land of Israel, due to incontrovertible historical deeds, and now are both "de jure" and "de facto" part of the State of Israel, from now to the Ethernity (LE ORECH IAMIM Moreover, undoubtedly the State of Israel should have annexed these lands immediatly after the end of the Six Days War in 1967. Surely this action would have avoided the major problems that the Jewish State currently has with this issue. AM ISRAEL CHAI
45. WB Jordanians are occupying Jewish land.
Harry Wright ,   UK   (07.11.12)
That is the "occupation" at the moment - until the WB Jordanians can prove that the land belongs to......oops! Jordan, in which case they will be in their homeland.
46. #33. "Palestinian" poseurs would flee Judea/Samaria.
Chaim ,   Israel   (07.11.12)
#33. You've got it all wrong. Many of Israel's finest soldiers come from Judea and Samaria. Moreover, the vast majority of Israel strongly supports Judea and Samaria. If the I.D.F. withdrew from Judea and Samaria, it would be "Palestinian" poseurs who would flee.
47. #40, Solomon
PaulZion ,   Israel   (07.11.12)
You cannot claim a right based on the Balfour Declaration and not fulfill its conditions. There is no codicil about who shows prejudice or not. I CAN know without a shadow of a doubt that they had no intention of establishing a state, read the Wikipedia article on the Balfour Declaration , specifically the section denoted " Jewish National Home vs Jewish State". Yeah, Right!! Truly amazing - it is called doing research. International Law on the Partition was not conditional upon the Arabs accepting the Partition Plan. Otherwise, Israel would never have been accepted as a member of the UN. Use your head, man. The point is not if the Partition is dead or not, practically. The point is that it is the most recent decision under International Law which defines specific borders for Israel. Doorknobs are used to open doors. Use this one to open the door to improve your knowledge and do your research before you write.
48. Endless supply of leftist contributors won't change anything
trump   (07.11.12)
Jews are at home in any part of 1920 British palestinian mandate . This is the only valid "international law"on that topic.
49. To No 37 : Sarah B wants mass deportation
Palestine ,   Palestine   (07.11.12)
sarah is claiming that all Palestinians have Jordanian citizenship. I am a Palestinian with a jordanian travel documents. Jordanian citizenship is entirely different I know because I have friends that have it. Sarah B is also convinced that she can pack all Arab west bank residence and ship them to Jordan. Mass deportation. Like the Africans currently but on a larger , much larger scale. Good luck Sarah B
50. #37, allow me to clarify
Jake ,   USA   (07.11.12)
The Levy report does not deny the existence of Arabs in the West Bank. The report merely disputes the charge that Israel's presence in the West Bank is considered an occupation. The territory is not the sovereign territory of any state, so there can be no occupation. For the past 45 years, the world has been demanding that Israel cede "Palestinian territory" which doesn't exist. If Israel were to annex even parts of the West Bank, Area C for example, and grant citizenship to the 50,000 Arabs who live there, it would cause an uproar at the UN, even though such a move is 100% legal.
51. Hey, hey, wait a minute!
Sarah B ,   U.S.A. / Israel   (07.11.12)
Why should the ersatz "Palestinians" get a free pass? If they have a gripe, they need to find new leadership that might conceivably actually care more about the ersatz "Palestinian" people than about lining their own pockets. Wars CANNOT be erased or undone. The outcome of those wars are what they are. The ersatz "Palestinians" may not like the outcome of those wars (there have been six; all of them started by the Arabs), but that does not mean that they are entitled to another bite at the apple. Nor does it mean that the outcome can simply be ignored or overlooked. Israel should not be made to pay a price for having emerged victorious in six wars which they never wanted. It's over. Israel won. It is time for the ersatz "Palestinians" to move on with their lives -- somewhere that is not Eretz Israel, and that includes Judea and Samaria. Seven decades of war and endless terror have been more than enough. It is absurd for the international community to expect us to reward the ersatz "Palestinians" for their violence and their terror. They are a festering cancer in our midst, and must be excised. Now!
52. To: No. 43
Sarah B ,   U.S.A. / Israel   (07.11.12)
Easy. Jews are Jews. Wherever in the world they may reside, they have an inalienable right of return to their homeland. The Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah existed long before anyone even recognized the concept of "Arab." You are the one who needs to be schooled in history.
53. It is not about Occupy Law,
Shmuel Rosenfeld ,   Jupiter USA   (07.11.12)
They fought against Israel with weapons. They lost the wars. Why did they have to fight. Why did they not extend the hand in friendship and building a community of both. No, they wanted to fight with weapons against us. So stupid. Now they are wanting land with infrastructure. It is our Land. Period.
54. #47,Soloman
Moshe of Rockville ,   Rockville,MD USA   (07.12.12)
Since a Jewish homeland already existed in parts of Palestine at the time of the Balfour Declaration, its recognition by the Declaration became binding international law when the League of Nations made it part of its mandate. Jewish cities such as Jerusalem,Tel aviv and Safad and many kibbutzim and moshavim in western and northern Palestine created a de facto national home well before the Balfour Declaration.
55.  Occupation cannot be erased
Rabbi Nosan Neitslog ,   USA   (07.12.12)
Legalities cannot abscure the fact that there is a defacto ocuupation. Saying that the Palestinian leadership has passed up at least 3 opportunies to obtain their state. They continue to teach hate of Israel and Jews in their schools.
56. Rewarding scuff laws
Norman Gellman ,   Rehovot   (07.12.12)
Without regard to emotional and other consideration legitimizing the outposts is in fact rewarding the scuff laws who established these outposts. The basis for a democratic society is the rule of law (Law & Order) and legitimatizing these outposts is an act against law & order. There is no real choice, as seen by the world community, but to remove these outposts. If theses outposts are on Israeli soil they can be rebuilt after the area is declared as belonging to Israel..
57. #47 Research?
Gee ,   Zikron Yaakov   (07.12.12)
You did any research? That is totally impossible because you have gotten absolutely every fact WRONG. Article 22 Covenant League of Nations states: "To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant." Did you read the words INDEPENDENT NATIONS? So yes it was the intension to establish a state. Chapter II forbids conditioning membership on accepting resolutions. The Partition was illegal under Article 80 of the UN Charter. Conditioning membership on illegal RECOMMENDATIONS is not allowed and it was never an international law. In short every single thing you have written is an outright lie. Doorknobs are used to open doors. Use this one to open the door to improve your knowledge and do your research before you write.
58. #47 wrong across the board
Gee ,   Zikron Yaakov   (07.12.12)
You managed to every single item wrong. Balfour - is a declaration - not a law or a treaty. We claim nothing from it. Your statements about Balfour are lies and not germane in any way shape or form. It is a declaration not a law or treaty. Some research. Try Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory" Did you read INDEPENDENT NATIONS? That is an international law for your information. The Mandate for Palestine starts off with " Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations". So yes that does in fact state exactly what you claim it doesn't. Some research on your part. "International Law on the Partition was not conditional upon the Arabs accepting the Partition Plan." There is no such law. It simply is an invention on your part. The General Assembly RECOMMENDED the partition in direct violation of the UN Charter Article 80. But there is no such law. Use your head man and stop inventing nonexistent laws. The UN General Assembly condition Israel's admission into the UN on accepting an illegal General Assembly Resolution. Article 4 of the UN Charter "Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations." So conditioning any country's membership to anything more than that is illegal. Knowledge can be doorknobs. Doorknobs are used to open doors. Use this one to open the door to improve your knowledge and do your research before you write. You are totally ignorant and wrong.
59. #40 paul
solomon ,   bklyn   (07.12.12)
The Balfour Declaration resulted in the UN Mandate for Palestine. Arabs, who began attacking Jews in the 1920’s, intensified their attacks. The Jews fought back, decided the UN Mandate wasn’t working and declared a State. The UN Security Council voted and gave their approval. The arabs attacked immediately and were ultimately defeated by Israel. The Partition was conditioned on the Jews being able to settle in “Palestine”. The arabs didn’t allow this to happen. This alone would make the “International Law on the Partition” null and void. You can’t have it only one way. Israel was accepted as a member of the UN as they fulfilled the conditions required, showing they had a viable country. Unlike the “Palestinians”. The most recent decision under International Law to define specific limits of Israel not borders) are the armistice agreements. You cannot base anything on an agreement that is rejected by one side, time and time again. To cling to it is a delusional fantasy belonging in a debating society, not in the real world. Or is The Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union (aka the Nazi-Soviet Pact, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) still in effect? We’ve been through this before: you insist on keeping to written law which is no longer relevant given the rejection of the other side, time and again. That is like being shot at, shooting back, and being taken to court while your attacker is free. Doesn’t wash.
60. #43 jassi
solomon ,   bklyn   (07.12.12)
The Moslem invasion was fought by Berbers and Jews. The Moslems were the arabs. They swept all before them. The Jews of Palestina were either taken along with them, or were a result of the previous Kingdom of Israel’s (or Kingdom of Judah’s) economic voyages to far lands. These are the sephardim. Some “ashkenazim” are also related to this expansion, while most fled the Babylonian and Roman dispersal of the Jewish population. They then migrated as most populations do; little by little. The Romans renamed Judea and Samaria, Palestina, after the Philistines, a vanished Greek sea-people, They did it to try and eradicate the historical attachment of the Jews to the land. They didn’t have to eradicate any connection to arabs as there weren’t any arabs. Reminder: The Amorites, Canaanites, and Phoenicians don’t exist anymore. It is you who need to read quite a bit, as you show your “knowledge” is only wishful thinking. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Previous talkbacks
Next talkbacks
Back to article