"Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."
The sole criterion for deciding the applicability of the law on belligerent occupation is drawn from facts: the de facto effective control of territory by foreign armed forces coupled with the possibility to enforce their decisions, and the de facto absence of a national governmental authority in effective control. If these conditions are met for a given area, the law on belligerent occupation applies. Even though the objective of the military campaign may not be to control territory, the sole presence of such forces in a controlling position renders applicable the law protecting the inhabitants. The occupying power cannot avoid its responsibilities as long as a national government is not in a position to carry out its normal tasks.
Je kunt hier tegenin brengen dat de Palestijnse Autoriteit geen volledige controle heeft over het gebied, want men heeft geen nationale soevereiniteit. Het gebied (althans A en B) is autonoom, niet onafhankelijk. In uitzonderlijke gevallen kan het Israelische leger Palestijnse steden binnengaan om daar terroristen van hun bed te lichten. In de praktijk is de controle van het leger in dit deel van de Westoever zeer beperkt: er zijn nog enkele checkpoints, maar het leger is vooral in het door Israel gecontroleerde deel van de Westoever aanwezig, waar maar 4% van de Palestijnen woont. Dit is wel gebied dat zij voor een eigen staat willen hebben en dat de verschillende autonome gebieden van elkaar scheidt.
Wat betreft de Gazastrook is een en ander een stuk eenduidiger. Volgens deze definitie is er geen sprake van een bezetting, want de enige Israelische soldaat die er zit is Gilad Shalit. Een blokkade (of belegering) kan wel of niet juist zijn, maar is geen vorm van bezetting.
RP
-----------
A quick poster
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/09/quick-poster.html
Just because people don't know the basics:
And by the way, Amnesty International wrote a very nice legal definition of "occupation" in 2003, a definition they themselves ignore in respect to Israel. They wrote:
The definition of belligerent occupation is given in Article 42 of the Hague Regulations:
"Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."
The sole criterion for deciding the applicability of the law on belligerent occupation is drawn from facts: the de facto effective control of territory by foreign armed forces coupled with the possibility to enforce their decisions, and the de facto absence of a national governmental authority in effective control. If these conditions are met for a given area, the law on belligerent occupation applies. Even though the objective of the military campaign may not be to control territory, the sole presence of such forces in a controlling position renders applicable the law protecting the inhabitants. The occupying power cannot avoid its responsibilities as long as a national government is not in a position to carry out its normal tasks.
So 96% of West Bank Arabs are not living under "occupation" according to the Hague - and Amnesty - definitions. (The same applies to 100% of Gaza's Arabs.)
