As the UN is about to vote on the Palestinian resolution condemning Israel's settlement activities, and calling the jewish settlements in judea and Samaria illegial. so instead of attacking the Palestinians and thier allies, here are the FACTS on the so called occupied territories:
Ambassador Dore Gold wrote in Jan. 2002:
"Occupation" as an Accusation
Here are some facts according to Dore Gold:“The use of "occupied Palestinian territories" denies any Israeli claim to the land: had the more neutral language of "disputed territories" been used, then the Palestinians and Israel would be on an even playing field with equal rights. Additionally, by presenting Israel as a "foreign occupier," advocates of the Palestinian cause can delegitimize the Jewish historical attachment to Israel.The politically-loaded term "occupied territories" or "occupation" seems to apply only to Israel and is hardly ever used when other territorial disputes are discussed, especially by interested third parties. For example, the U.S. Department of State refers to Kashmir as "disputed areas."Despite the 1975 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice establishing that Western Sahara was not under Moroccan territorial sovereignty, it is not commonly accepted to describe the Moroccan military incursion in the former Spanish colony as an act of "occupation." In a more recent decision of the International Court of Justice from March 2001, the Persian Gulf island of Zubarah, claimed by both Qatar and Bahrain, was described by the Court as "disputed territory," until it was finally allocated to Qatar.7The case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip appears to be a special exception in recent history, for in many other territorial disputes since the Second World War, in which the land in question was under the previous sovereignty of another state, the term "occupied territory" has not been applied to the territory that had come under one side's military control as a result of armed conflict.
*Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign."
*In fact, prior to 1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip; their presence in those territories was the result of their illegal invasion in 1948, in defiance of the UN Security Council. Jordan's 1950 annexation of the West Bank was recognized only by Great Britain (excluding the annexation of Jerusalem) and Pakistan, and rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including the Arab states.
*The 1949 Armistice Agreement specifically stated: "no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations".
*Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title."9
*Under UN Security Council Resolution 242 from November 22, 1967 -- that has served as the basis of the 1991 Madrid Conference:Israel is only expected to withdraw "from territories" to "secure and recognized boundaries" and not from "the territories" or "all the territories" captured in the Six-Day War.
Britain's foreign secretary in 1967, George Brown, stated three years later that the meaning of Resolution 242 was "that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories."11
*In 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, recognized Jewish national rights in the whole of the Mandated territory: "recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."
*The 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 6) states that the Occupying Power would only be bound to its terms "to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory." Under the earlier 1907 Hague Regulations, as well, a territory can only be considered occupied when it is under the effective and actual control of the occupier. Thus, according to the main international agreements dealing with military occupation, Israel's transfer of powers to the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo Agreements has made it difficult to continue to characterize the West Bank and Gaza as occupied territories.
* U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright stated in March 1994: "We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 War as occupied Palestinian territory."
* * *
And now to my opinion: The truth is why complain when out own brothers and sisters turn this issue into a political bashing bag, when attacks on the right, on settlers, on an elected Prime minister, on the Legal justice dep. led by groups funded by foreign anti Israel countries, but here is my thing: argue, debate, disagree, offer alternatives, yes ur more then welcome, but for crying out loud, why LIE? why call urself fair and balanced, when the reports u write up, the voice u utter , comes from a bias, unjustified , maybe even a destructive mean, to undermine Israel’s sovereignty, to deny Israel’s historical right to this land, and give legitimacy to terror attack, to hatred and contribute to carry out Ahmedinjad’s call for the destruction of Israel.
This reminds me a story with a jew facing a trail against a gentile, going to the judge a day before, handing him over a envelope of cash money, the Judge looked up to him in shock, how come? it says in ur Torah-bible that giving bribe is not permitted, il explain yu says the jew, by us our minds are usually straight, therefore when I give bribe I intend to sway and bend the Judge’s mind towards my opnion, but you , ur mind is already bended towards the other side that is against me, so my bribe intensions are only to bend it back to the middle.