I disagree with some of the statements made in this, and with the basic premise. One of the statements I disagree with most is that Israel was the only sovereign nation there in 1948. After World War I, the British ruled the area that had been part of the Great Arab Uprising against the Ottomans. But they did create some other sovereign nations before Israel. In 1947 they created what is now Jordan (then Transjordan). It border was what became the border to Israel. Jordan owned and controlled the land on the West Bank area that is now claimed to be Palestinian. The other side of the country was the Gaza Strip, which was controlled by Egypt.Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 4:12 pmThe occupation myth again,Unfortunately that is nonsensical and false. The entire argument rests upon the false premise that Israel is "occupying" Palestinian land and that Israel has no legitimate claims to the lands in question.
At the risk of: Has there ever been a legitimate, sovereign state of "Palestine"? The answer is no. Before 1948, the region commonly known as Palestine did not have a sovereign nation controlling the territory. Instead, the British Empire controlled the territory as part of its mandate following the First World War. In 1948, the only sovereign nation that was established in the land was Israel. However, Israel did not possess Judea, Samaria, or Eastern Jerusalem by then and it never had control over the territory until 1967. Instead, that territory was illegally occupied by Jordan, who annexed the territories despite widespread international rejection of its decision. There was no sovereign state of "Palestine" in those lands. In fact, the Palestine Liberation Organization, a terrorist group now masquerading as the representative of the Palestinian-Arab population, was not founded until 1964, three years before Israel captured the disputed territories in a defensive war against Jordan.
Since there has never been a sovereign state of "Palestine" prior to 1948 or 1967 and since there is still no legitimate state of "Palestine" today, there cannot legally be an "occupation of Palestinian lands" by Israel according to the Hague Convention of 1907. Since there was no legitimate Palestinian state and Israel already has legal claim to Judea, Samaria, and Eastern Jerusalem, Israel has the right to build Jewish communities in disputed territory in Area C until a final peace agreement is signed with the Palestinian Authority, if that is still possible at this point...
Since both the West Bank area and the Gaza Strip were captured in war, occupation is a correct term for what is going on. As much as I support Israel, I feel it is doing the argument a disservice when we do not use the proper term and argue about what is going on. I will freely stipulate that there was no nation of Palestine and it is not Palestinian territory that is being occupied. I will even agree that since Jordan and Egypt have formally ceded the land to Israel, it might not be considered occupied right now. I still think of it as occupied because Israel has not formally brought the land into Israel and made the residents citizens.
This makes occupation a debatable term but not something to be dismissed as an old myth.