The territories under question are not occupied, but disputed. Each side has legitimate claims to them, and their status can only be resolved through negotiations, which is what the sides themselves agreed to in the Oslo Accords [1].
Furthermore, by what is the claim that Israel smashes every attempt of Palestinian economic development supported? Over a decade, Israel ceded territory and control to the Palestinian government, aided in tax collection, and continues to supply electricity to the Gaza strip, a hostile territory from which missiles are routinely fired into Israeli population centers.
The term 'Occupied' is often used loosely, even in Israel itself.
The version of 'Occupied' that I'd like to address means: Israel has no claim to any part of the West Bank, is hence illegally present in all parts of it, and should, by international law, withdraw.
This version of 'Occupied' is not supported, as far as I know, by either the US, the EU or the UN security council. If you think it is, I'd be interested in seeing some supporting data.
Even if it were supported by these bodies though, I don't see how that would be enough to make the territories occupied in the sense quoted above. The position of international bodies is, regrettably, often driven more by interests than principle. Ninety years ago, for example, major international organisations (The League of Nations, European powers, the Ottoman Empire) supported Israel's (to be) claim to all British Mandate territories, which includes the West Bank. Agreements were signed [1], and ratified by the UN at its founding.
What I am saying is, that each side in this conflict has legitimate claims to the territory, and that both sides' claims are supported by past international resolutions and treaties, by a historical presence in the land, and perhaps most importantly, by an agreement between the sides themselves - the Oslo Accords.
No reasonable Israeli, including myself, is interested in prolonging Israeli rule over the Palestinian population. I even believe, as I think do most Israelis, that within a comprehensive solution to this conflict, it is in Israel's strategic interest to treat the West Bank as largely Palestinian territory, regardless of any claims and rights Israel might have to it.
Israel has, several times in the past, agreed to withdraw from most of the West Bank, most notably during the Camp David accords of 2000, and the succeeding peace plan put forward by Clinton ("The Clinton Parameters"), which were rejected by the Palestinians at the time. A comprehensive account of events is given by Dennis Ross in his book "The Missing Peace", which I can warmly recommend to any student of the conflict.
Israel's current military presence in most of the West Bank, is, as I see it, largely a security issue. After Israel's 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, a Palestinian civil war ensued that resulted in Hamas rule over Gaza. Hamas openly calls for Israel's destruction, and backs it up with routine rocket fire into Israeli population centers.
Israel is a liberal democracy, largely driven by western values of equality and prosperity. Our neighbors are, sadly, not. Along with most Israelis, I hope that a peaceful resolution to this conflict can be found, and take no issue to with eventual Palestinian control over nearly the entire West Bank and East Jerusalem.
PS. If anyone would like to continue this discussion by email, I'd be happy to do that - david [at] skillsapp [dot] com
United Nations Security Council Resolution 446, adopted on March 22, 1979: ... Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. ... Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_...)
I don't see how any other conclusion can be drawn from the use of "occupy" in referring to the 4th Geneva Convention than that Israel is illegally present.
As a practical matter, you may be right that no one today realistically expects Israel to withdraw from the entire West Bank, but 40 years ago people pretty clearly felt differently.
I'd probably disagree, and I'll try give you two points to support my position:
POINT ONE
45 years ago, right at the end of the six day war, when Israel took control over the West Bank, the UN security council passed resolution 242, which required:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
At the time, as far as I know, Arab states lobbied heavily to include the world 'all' before 'territories' in point (i), and the wording was not accepted by the Security Council. Furthermore, point (ii) can be (and often has been) read to mean that Israel has serious and legitimate concerns which need to be addressed, and that any withdrawal should only happen within a peace agreement which deals with these legitimate concerns. After all, 20 years earlier, Israel's neighbors tried to destroy it, although Israel claimed sovereignty over solely those territories deemed acceptable by the UN partition plan of 1947.
I think another important point is, that the ambiguity in language of the resolution is by design. You could imagine a much clearer resolution, a resolution with unequivocally deems the occupation illegal and calls for immediate withdrawal. Something which would read like a judge's ideas on what needs to be done, for example, with money a thief robbed from a bank ("give it back right now, no ifs buts and whens").
POINT TWO
Even the resolution you quote, 446, as far as I can tell, does not deal with the illegality of an Israeli military presence in the territories, but with the illegality of the treatment of civillian populations. Check out this part of 446:
2. [The resolution] Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to abide by Security Council resolutions 237, 252 and 298...
Now think about this. Twelve years had passed since the 1967 war, and Israel had still not withdrawn from the territories. The above part of the resolution, very conspicuously, is missing a reference to resolution 242, which I discussed above. The UN security council then, twelve years after the 1967 war, with Israel still present in the West Bank, could not agree that 242 was violated, and, as far as I know, has not deemed 242 violated since. If I'm right on this point, it would seem to strongly support the view that 242 (and the UN security council since then) did not, and does not deem Israeli military presence in the entire West Bank illegal, and does not support the view that Israel needs to unilaterally withdraw to 1967 lines, but rather, that Israel still has legitimate concerns which need to be addressed, and rights to at least part of the territory.
The are occupied from the point of view of the people living there. If your family lives there for hundreds of years then a new government comes in and takes over your house and evicts you, or demolishes your house under some "license" or "permit clause" and then evicts you, it is not unreasonable to call that an occupation.
Well, there is strong evidence that "The Exodus" (forming the basis of the claim to Canaan) in fact did not happen. So if you take this into consideration, it is in fact an illegal occupation. So I would take the "legitimate claims" statement with a grain of salt (or more).
Really? Invoking the U.N is "intellectual hipsterism"? So what is considered a valid political argument in your parts of the world? FOX News?
Also, regarding the "go back to reddit" insult. Funny that it comes from an account created just 10 hours ago just to reply to my comment --and that was downvoted to gray-death at that.
Good point, but you can also probably get the permits far more easily than a Palestinian living in the West Bank who doesn't speak the language of the government that he does not recognize.
