|
See also Notes in the
Margin
It never ceases to amaze me when apologists for Israel deny there is a
military occupation of Gaza, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and the West
Bank. What is their purpose in denying it is an occupation? The meaning of
an occupation is well defined by Hague V, the Treaty on Land Warfare. Far
from giving rights to the occupied people it does in fact give rights to the
occupying power. The powers are limited so as to avoid might makes right, to
make the rights equitable, and avoid making them a cause for rebellion. They
were conceived with both being an occupier and being occupied in mind.
Without these recognized rights of the occupying power all actions against
the occupied people are criminal acts by individuals upon other individuals.
These provisions grant immunity to individual soldiers and government
officials of all ranks and positions from ordinary criminal charges. In
return it simply limits their powers to what a reasonable official of the
occupied country would do in day to day affairs. It is little more than how
one would wish to be treated if the roles were reversed and granted the
situation is unpleasant for the occupied and dangerous for the occupier.
If there is no occupation by what right does any individual Israeli have the
right to tell any Palestinian what to do or what not to do? The only
mitigating case would be action to prevent one Palestinian from harming
another under the good Samaritan provisions of common law. There would be no
mitigation in preventing the harm of a non-resident as non-residents have no
right to be in the "unoccupied" territory. Neither the government nor the
military of Israel has the power to grant such a right as there is no
Israeli sovereignty over these territories.
If there is no occupation the members of the IDF are nothing more than armed
thugs and officials of the government of Israel are no more than the
henchmen of warlords. The Israeli civilians are nothing more than criminal
squatters as there is no one to grant them the right to live within the
territories.
If there were a military occupation then the military and the government of
Israel would have explicit though limited rights in the occupied lands. They
would have the right to maintain peace and order and see to the ordering of
the internal affairs of the people. Without a formal occupation they have
only the power of armed thugs.
If there were an occupation the squatters could retreat to their role as
military defenders of Israel which they enjoyed through the 70s and 80s and
into the pre-Oslo 90s. As they are no longer military outposts for the
defense of Israel they are literally no different from squatters and all of
them criminals in common law. No one has the unrestricted right to set up
housekeeping wherever they choose. Without an occupation there is no one to
grant such a right even if the granting is simply the absence of objection.
Far from being intended as limitations the terms and conditions of
occupation are a means of making the reasonable and necessary actions of the
occupying power lawful. Simply, someone has to keep the peace but foreigners
have no right to assume that responsibility. Necessary public works need
continue but foreigners have no right to assure they continue. The occupying
power has no right to draw from the public coffers even to pay wages that
are lawfully due. The occupation provisions of Hague V grant these powers as
just and necessary.
In return the occupied people are expected to abide by the rules set down by
the occupying power and are not permitted to rebel against them. Without
these rules of occupation the occupied people have every right to kill off
any person who is a citizen of or acting at the behest of or on behalf of
the occupying power. Without these rules the people have no obligation to
obey the occupying power and cannot be convicted of disobedience in a court
of law as the occupying power has no right to conduct a court of law without
these provisions.
The right to kill the foreigners in the absence of a formal occupation
arises from them being no different from armed thugs if they do not act
under color of the provisions of a lawful occupation. They have no
protection under the laws of the occupied people nor do the laws of the
occupying power extend to the occupied land. Only extending sovereignty over
the occupied lands or establishing a formal military occupation can extend
the rule of law to the land.
There is a certain purity in Israel attempting to turn back the clock at
least a thousand years by invoking a divine right granted to them by a god.
At least it attempts to put their actions on a level higher than those of a
street gang. That the world has never been comfortable with such claims and
as the west in particular has centuries of bloodshed as a legacy of attempts
to enforce the conflicting wills of the same god on each other makes this a
most undesirable invocation. This is in addition to the Crusades fought over
this exact same lands and in deed over the exact same city, Jerusalem. Of
all the mistakes of the past these are among the least desirable to repeat.
In being so afraid of the limitations imposed upon an occupying power (and
accepted by Israel as a signatory) Israel has placed itself in a position
where it has no lawful authority at all in the occupied territories. No
attempt to put the color of law upon its actions is possible. It is also not
possible for the Palestinians to acquiesce to Israeli law by using its courts
as its courts have no lawful jurisdiction in in territories which are not
occupied.
Compounding this is Israel's insistence that this is a totally new situation
which is not governed by any precedent while at the same time making no
attempt to establish an equitable regime for this supposedly unique
condition. Rather it behaves in a manner which were the reasons for the
development of the provisions for occupation in Hague V. Instead of working
to create an equitable situation its actions serve to illustrate the causes
which necessitated the treaty provisions.
When I read just the paid and volunteer apologists for Israel on the
internet denying there is an occupation I am at most annoyed. When I read Israel's deputyl foreign minister Danny Ayalon
making the same claim in the Wall Street Journal I wonder how the
stereotype of smart Jews got started. Is bringing up a stereotype in the
negative sense antisemitic or am I to expect the stereotype to be false?
|