Occupied territories?

Submitted by David Lewis (United Kingdom), Apr 4, 2014 at 11:47

On what basis does Mr Pipes assume that Judea and Samaria are not occupied? (a) The High Court of Israel says they are in belligerent occupation. (b) It is possible to occupy territory to which one has a claim of sovereignty, so calling it "occupied" doesn't mean giving up Jewish claims. (c) The occupation is lawful, and neither the international community nor any serious legal commentator has suggested otherwise. (d) The fact that Israel has not annexed the territories tends to suggest occupation.

I'm not defending Governor Christie's inconsistent behaviour, and maybe Mr Pipes is right to doubt his credentials as a friend of the Jewish state, but I don't think we should get hung up about the expression "occupied".

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".