CAMERA Prompts NY Times Correction: Occupation is not "Illegal"

After correspondence between CAMERA staff and New York Times journalists, the newspaper today commendably corrected an inaccurate passage that had claimed Israel's presence in the Golan Heights and West Bank is an "illegal" occupation.
 
According to the story as originally written, "The United Nations Security Council condemned Israel's annexation of Golan, and most of the world officially considers the territory illegally occupied, just like the West Bank."
 
The corrected and updated story now asserts: "The United Nations Security Council condemned Israel's annexation of Golan, and most of the world officially considers the territory occupied and the settlements there illegal, just like the West Bank."
 
Indeed, occupations are not illegal. Several years ago Nicholas Kristof was correct when stating several years ago in The New York Times that "many international legal scholars suggest that Israel's occupation of the territories is not itself illegal." One such scholar, George P. Fletcher, the Cardozo Professor of Jurisprudence at Columbia University School of Law, also writing in The New York Times, asserted that"it is not illegal for victorious powers to occupy hostile territory seized in the course of war until they are able to negotiate a successful peace treaty with their former enemies."
 
Noam Lubell, formerly of B'tselem and currently a professor and Head of School at the University Essex School of Law, put it as follows in his BBC-commissioned report on international law in the Arab-Israeli conflict:"The term ‘unlawful occupation' can be a misguided and confusing term, as it conflates the question of the resort to force with the rules of conduct, and obscures the distinction between the two."
 
After critically exploring, and then rebutting, various arguments floated in favor of calling the occupation illegal, Lubell concluded that "the term ‘unlawful occupation' is not a helpful term, and while there may be reasoning for using it – particularly on account of the link to denial of self-determination – this term is highly debatable." (A couple of paragraphs earlier, Lubell quoted Alain Pellet, who Lubell calls "a notable expert on international law" and who, like Lubell, is a sharp critic of Israel, saying: "Even if the deprivation of its right to self-determination infringes an imperative norm of international law, occupation remains a legal institution, governed by the rules of law."
 
Along with the changes made to its story today, the New York Times appended to the story the following correction:
 
Correction: October 14, 2015 

An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the Golan Heights. While most of the world officially considers it to be occupied, and the settlements there illegal, there is no consensus that the occupation itself is illegal. The same error appeared in an earlier version of a caption with the accompanying slide show.


http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=35&x_article=3136

Speaking in very simplistic terms, why does Israel even want the West Bank?

If it was to become a completely independent country, what would happen? The Israelis could say - you got what you wanted, so as long as you don't try to attack Israel or cause trouble with us in any way, we won't need to come into your country at all.

There are Israeli settlers there, so they would become citizens of an independent country, and it would be the responsibility of the Government to make sure they weren't harassed in any way - or they could move to Israel I guess.

What would happen?
Well for one borders would be established, which at present there are none for the West Bank. They will either become part of Israel or will be withdrawn as part of the negoiation.
My view it will be some that become part of Israel and some that wll be withdrawn.

Cuchulain wrote:What would happen?
Well for one borders would be established, which at present there are none for the West Bank. They will either become part of Israel or will be withdrawn as part of the negoiation.
My view it will be some that become part of Israel and some that wll be withdrawn.

What's wrong with borders? If the border could be agreed upon, the Israelis could just guard their own border to make sure no troublemakers are intent on getting through.

The point is at present the West Bank has no offical border, again.
The point is to agree upon boders again as part of the negoatiations for a Palestinian state.
Which everytime proposals are put forward the PLO poll out of.
They keep stopping this from being a reality because they wrongly do not recognise Israel to exist and view the whole land as occupied.

Cuchulain wrote:The point is at present the West Bank has no offical border, again.
The point is to agree upon boders again as part of the negoatiations for a Palestinian state.
Which everytime proposals are put forward the PLO poll out of.
They keep stopping this from being a reality because they wrongly do not recognise Israel to exist and view the whole land as occupied.

There's the West Bank Barrier, so that would be a good starting point.

The Palestinians would have to be sensible of course, and stop this nonsense about wanting Israel to be destroyed or whatever. If they want their own state, I'm sure that most of them could control themselves.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:The point is at present the West Bank has no offical border, again.
The point is to agree upon boders again as part of the negoatiations for a Palestinian state.
Which everytime proposals are put forward the PLO poll out of.
They keep stopping this from being a reality because they wrongly do not recognise Israel to exist and view the whole land as occupied.

There's the West Bank Barrier, so that would be a good starting point.

The Palestinians would have to be sensible of course, and stop this nonsense about wanting Israel to be destroyed or whatever. If they want their own state, I'm sure that most of them could control themselves.

That is the point though, they have had chances to solve this and its obvious they wish to continue the conflict, as they do not recognise Israel's existance. This is why generations of Palestinians refugees in surrounding nations are kept in limbo and not made citizens. They are used as pawns and told false promises to keep the conflict alive. As I say there is nothing stopping PLO recognising Israel, denouncing violence and calling to negoatiate its Statehood. Hence the question should be why do they continue to deny this happenning. Until the world turns against Israel and it can be over taken and then cease to exist. Like I say this is the real reason why the PLO continues to stall.

I'd like to hear what Sassy thinks about it all - from the other side, so to speak.

Be my guest but ask yourself, what is stopping them.
3 times they could have had offical statehood

"...Indeed, occupations are not illegal. Several years ago Nicholas Kristof was correct when stating several years ago in The New York Times that "many international legal scholars suggest that Israel's occupation of the territories is not itself illegal." One such scholar, George P. Fletcher, the Cardozo Professor of Jurisprudence at Columbia University School of Law, also writing in The New York Times, asserted that"it is not illegal for victorious powers to occupy hostile territory seized in the course of war until they are able to negotiate a successful peace treaty with their former enemies."


A very important distinction!


It is often said that if the Palestinians lay down their arms there would be peace... but if the Israelis laid down their arms they would be dead!