But the favorite term is 'occupation'--which, like 'disproportionate force', is taken out of context.
In reaction to a New York Times op-ed by George Bisharat of the University of California Hastings College of the Law, attacking Israel, Noah Pollak debunks Bisharat's anti-Israel claims--starting with the cornerstone of his attack:
In reaction to a New York Times op-ed by George Bisharat of the University of California Hastings College of the Law, attacking Israel, Noah Pollak debunks Bisharat's anti-Israel claims--starting with the cornerstone of his attack:
Bishara doesn’t explain how it is conceivable under international law that Israel is still occupying Gaza, but consistency has never been the hobgoblin of international law fetishists. He cites the Fourth Geneva Convention elsewhere in his piece, so he must be familiar with its definition of occupation: “the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory.” As Dore Gold wrote in an analysis after the Gaza disengagement [Legal Acrobatics: The Palestinian Claim that Gaza is Still "Occupied" Even After Israel Withdraws],The way Noah Pollak takes apart Basharat's claims is instructive.what creates an “occupation” is the existence of a military government which “exercises the functions of government.” This is a confirmation of the older 1907 Hague Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which state, “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.” The Hague Regulations also stipulate: “The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” What follows is that if no Israeli military government is exercising its authority or any of “the functions of government” in the Gaza Strip, then there is no occupation.
No comments:
Post a Comment