Reply #52: A Couple Of Small Points, Mr. Lawne [View All]

There is a difference between whether a person is guilty of violating a law, and whether a law applies to a particular circumstances. You are to a degree conflating arguments here. Israel has not been convicted of violating the Geneva conventions in a court, and so by traditions of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, strictly applied, is only alleged to have violated the conventions. Whether these conventions apply to the current situation of the lands overrun in '67 is a different matter than whether Israel has violated them. This may not require a judge to decide, though certainly, if a case alleging Israel in violation of the Geneva convention in those territories were ever brought before a competent international court, judges would have to decide that to hear the case. The High Contracting Bodies are competent to declare the conventions applicable, because it is a compact among them, and there was no regular judicial body in operation to which that decision is refered by their compact.

Military occupation is not sovereignty, and permitting military occupation to continue is not tantamount to recognizing sovereignty. The "commonly accepted idea that land acquired in a defensive war is the sovereignty of the defender until a peaceful resolution is brought about" is unknown in law: such territory is simply under military occupation by the victor, who is responsible for its administration so long as it remains. The ability unchallenged to enforce martial law is far from legitimate sovereignty. It is quite insufficient to render this thing a mere internal matter of Israel's. Israel itself has foregone any declatation of annexation of this territory, with the exeption of a portion of Jerusalem, and having done so, could hardly expect to be taken seriously if it came before a tribunal to argue as you do, that this is just an internal matter.