What You Should Know: Current Confict
What is this occupation?
Occupation is a consequence of war, not a cause of war
The occupation of lands formerly controlled by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan was a consequence of Arab aggression in 1967. The closing of the straits of Tiran 23 May, 1967 was a casus belli. The violation of the 1956 armistice by removal of the UN peacekeepers and the mobilization of Egyptian military forces into Sinai was a casus belli. The war commenced at 06:00, 5 June, 1967 with an artillery barrage by Egyptian forces in Gaza on surrounding Israeli villages, a casus belli.
The war of 1967 was an act of aggression initiated and carried forth by the surrounding Arab States, and the occupation of territories used by the Arab forces in carrying out their aggression is legal and appropriate under international law.
Some of these territories were recognized as territory of the attacking Arab States-Sinai, and portions of Golan.
Other territories-Judea, Samaria, Eastern Jerusalem, Gaza, were not recognized as territory of the surrounding states. The status of these territories was still indeterminate, as there had never been a legal cessation to the hostilities initiated by the Arabs in 1948.
Israel has agreed to negotiate the final status of these territories in accordance with UN resolution 242, which requires that the belligerency of the surrounding Arab States cease before any territory is ceded to Arab control. The resolution requires that secure borders be established, and there is no requirement to set those borders at the 1949 Armistice line. In fact, those who wrote the resolution never contemplated that the 1949 Armistice line would be a permanent border
In 1967, the Arab States rejected outright the provisions of UN 242 at the Khartoum Summit. For 12 years, no Arab State accepted the principles of UN 242 until in 1979 Egypt agreed to a peace treaty. It was another 15 years before any other Arab State accepted UN 242 when Jordan agreed to a peace treaty in 1994. Syria still rejects UN 242.
During these long years of rejection of UN 242 by the Arab States, Israel was under no obligation to not utilize territories under her control within the bounds of international law:
After many years of rejection, the acceptance of UN 242 led to territories being ceded to Egypt and Jordan as part of the overall peace settlement between these Arab States and Israel.
Similarly, Israel agreed to negotiate the final status of the indeterminate territories with the Palestinian Authority, established by the Arabs as the representative for those territories. Israel in the negotiations offered 95% of the remaining territories in Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, and another 5% within the 1949 Armistice line.
The Palestinian Authority response was to reject the path of negotiated peace and plan and launch a low intensity guerilla war, or intifada.
After more than a year of intifada war, the territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority is in economic and political ruin, while it's leaders continue to line their pockets with billions in assets stolen from the Palestinian Arab people. An end to the state of Arab belligerency against Israel is not in sight, nor is an end to legal Israeli control of disputed territories captured as a consequence of Arab aggression.
Occupation is a consequence of war, not a cause of war.
Why is Israel building Settlements?
Israel's Settlements Legal?
Historical Approach to the Issue of Legality of Jewish Settlement Activity by The Late Eugene W. Rostow
From the version posted at Yale's Avalon project (you can also find UNSCR 242 there), from Article 2:
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
A High Contracting Party is a state. Both Jordan and Egypt, who illegally took control of the WB&G in 1948, have renounced all claims to the territories. Ergo, by the definitions in the Geneva Conventions, the territory is not considered "occupied". These are "disputed territories".
Furthermore, one of the Annexes reads
This Protocol shall not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence and other acts of a similar nature, as not being armed conflicts.
What happened at Sabra and Chatilla?
AFTER, that is the key word, AFTER the PLO BLEW UP President Bashir Gemayel and 25 of his followers the Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia was allowed to enter the camps at Sabra and Chatilla. They ended up killing 400-700 people. Yes Sharon was in command of the Israeli army at the time in the area, but it was the Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia who did the killing. Once again the PLO started it, other Arabs did the killing, but the PLO have brainwashed everyone to believe Sharon was responsible.
Have the Israeli's offered the Palestinians their own homeland?
In 1947, the UN offered Israel and the Palestinians a homeland - Israel accepted, Palestinians refused
In 1968, Israel offered the Palestinians a State - Palestinians refused.
In 1978, Sadat and Israel offered the Palestinians a State - Palestinians refused.
In 2000 Israel and Barak offered Palestinians a State - Palestinians refused.
Here is the Taba Map proposal.
The little triangles all over the map that are outside the proposed border were to be abandoned.
Where can I read the Wye Agreement?
Where can I read the full text of the Oslo II Interim Accord?
Minnesotans Against Terrorism