Israel's LEGAL RIGHT to Judea and Samaria under International Law

Legal right, schmegal right. Unless Israel gives up the occupied territories and the toxic settlement movement, it will cease to be a Jewish and democratic state. The end of Zionism, End of.

C'mon Joe, you can't be THAT dense. If you read my words with an open mind, you'd see that my point is that there IS NO OCCUPATION precisely because Israel has exclusive (yes, exclusive)legal rights to the land. It's not my opinion but a legal fact. I can quote you chapter and verse why this is so. If you'd like to argue the point of a Jewish vs. a democratic state, then fine, we can debate that. But you can't dismiss ("legal right,schmegal right")the fact that the Jewish People were assigned, under the British Mandate, western Palestine as a national homeland. This international decision was ratified into law in 1923 and is binding to this day. You can't dance your way out of that.

There is an occupation. Plain and simple. Israel is militarily occupying the West Bank and placing there settlements. These settlements are toxic and have poisoned the debate within Israel and between Israel and world Jewry. It is because of these settlements that a growing number of Jews around the world are dissociating from Israel.
And a growing number of middle-class Israelis - you know, the productive sector in the society - are seeking the papers of their ancestors in order to get EU passports.
Israel is ceasing to be the state of all the Jewish nation, and becoming the state of the Orthodox and ultra-nationalist among the Jews. And quite frankly, the way it is going, Israel is beginning to lose the moral right to speak for the Jews.
And It is because of these settlements that Israel now controls the lives of more non-Jews than Jews, with most of the former not enjoying the same political and other rights of the latter.
That's the end of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. That's the end of Israel. End of.

Please permit me to respond by quoting from my blog:

"Occupation" Myth:

"OCCUPATION". How many times must we hear that again?! This harsh, loaded and damaging term has unfortunately
worked its way into the daily discourse about Israel to the point where people use it automatically and without considering its ramifications. Use of this expression serves the interests of Israel's enemies by not only delegitimizing the Jewish claim to Judea and Samaria (a.k.a. "occupied territories") but by also weakening the Jewish claim to all of Israel, in its entirety. It throws into question the legality and morality of Israeli sovereignty over pre-1967 Israel no less than it denies Israel's right to the "West Bank". More so, actually. Because when you think about it, if the Jewish People have no claim to ancient Biblical Shechem (Nablus), the principal Samarian city intimately linked to Jewish history ever since the time of Abraham, then a fortiori they certainly cannot claim Tel Aviv, a modern day creation of no historical, national or religious significance. From a legal standpoint, both Tel Aviv and Shechem clearly belong to the Jewish People. Yet the moral Jewish claim to Shechem is arguably stronger. This is a subtle but crucial point consistently missed by the Left. By bashing the settlements, the Left is actually shooting itself (and all the rest of us) in the foot. Claiming Tel Aviv while renouncing Shechem, as they do, is illogical, misguided and harmful. In fact, there's no difference between Israel proper and the "West Bank". There never was. Both were recognized, by international agreements subsequently ratified into law, to comprise the Homeland for the Jewish People. Ironically, it is the rest of the world which recognizes this inconsistency, albeit unconsciously. They sense that Israel is not being true to herself. They feel she is not living up to her true potential, not fulfilling her true role in the world. Maybe that's the real reason why Israel is universally held in such low regard.

Bottom line: there is no and never was any "occupation" of "Palestine". This patently false charge has NO BASIS in either fact or law and has been hugely damaging to Israel's morale, self-image, sense of purpose and of course its public image. Here's a direct quote from Stephen Schwebel, former head of the International Court of Justice in the Hague:

"Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully [Jordan's 1948-1967 occupation of Judea and Samaria], the state which subsequently takes that territory [Israel] in the lawful exercise of self-defense [1967 War] has, against that prior holder, better title." - Stephen Schwebel, "What Weight to Conquest," American Journal of International Law, vol. 64 (1970) pp. 345-347

If you do nothing else, be sure to click here: http://www.amisraelchai-eretz.com/occupation.htm

for this required reading.

Israel has no claim to the occupied territories, unless it wants to forfeit being a democratic state and be just the state of the Orthodox Jews. That's the bottom line.

There is no problem here. You have a legal right to the land, quit prevaricating. Just take it. You have the power. Ooops but then you would be stuck with the people too, and that wouldn't do at aall would it.

There is no problem here. You have a legal right to the land, quit prevaricating. Just take it. You have the power. Ooops but then you would be stuck with the people too, and that wouldn't do at aall would it.

But in fact nothing and no one can accrue legal rights before they existed. I cannot have accrued legal rights before I was born and Israel cannot have accrued loegal rights before it existed. But no matter take it be my guest. Good luck.

Jon,

The legal rights were given at San Remo and provided for by the Mandate for Palestine, to the Jewish People, recognizing their historic rights to their homeland. Israel (state) was a logical outgrowth. Of course Mr. Millis would probably consider tht growth as cancerous.

Israel is not the Jewish people. The outgrowth maybe logical but I am afraid Michael you are spouting crapola

no offence

And even if one accepts that various happenings entitled a future State of Israel to the west bank....Parliament is sovereign but no parliament can bind future parliaments. A present parliament is more sovereign then past parliaments. The stuff you refer to has been long overtaken by events and international law institutions. But like I say just take it, I know of loads of Palestinians that would love to live in Tel Aviv and will do so in exercise their democratic rights as citizens of Greater Israel to do just that.