So I got a little feedback on my
Tweet of Hanna Katancho’s statement that the Occupation is a sin:
Mr X: Does thatr include the sin of US occupying Mexican territories? How about Muslim occupying the Temple Mount?
@MideastMC: Q1, possibly; Q2, category error. Should Isr leave WB and be Jewish democracy; annex it, and forget J majority; or ditch dem claim?
Mr X: So also Occupation Of Scotland and Wales by English, Elzas by France, And almost every other nation on earth...Why Q2 differnt?
I’m hoping one of us is misunderstanding the other, so thought I’d bring this off Twitter for the sake of space.
It seems that the word ‘Occupation’ here is being applied to several different things.
- Conquest, in which territory from one sovereign entity is taken by force by another (7th Century Islamic conquest, England-Wales, US-Mexico).
- Building within a newly conquered land but on unused property (Al Aqsa Mosque built on Byzantine rubbish dump, itself built on Hadrian’s temple on site of Jewish temple).
- Political union with a disparity of power (Britain [i.e. England and Wales] and Scotland to form Great Britain according to 1707 treaty).
To this list we should add the various Israeli activities which have been called Occupation:
- The assertion of sovereignty by force over a land in which the majority of people reject that sovereignty (as in 1948).
- The political and military control of a territory not fully annexed wherein the inhabitants lack recourse in the political apparatus of the occupying power (as in 1967-present).
- Forced displacement of people from land to which they have prior legal claim (as in 1948-present).
Although these are all (except perhaps for category two) injustices per se, with category two being a function of category one injustice, I think Katanacho was referring to categories five and six. This matters because the reason we ought not to call for Jewish immigrants to leave who have settled in the land with the legal cover afforded by category four, is because category six is a moral imperative rather than a legal one.
In material terms it matters little whether the West Bank is run by a Palestinian ‘Authority’ or an Israeli Government. What matters is that people who live in this land have the freedom to live, move, work, tend their land, be secure in their homes, and have the ability to hold the power to which they are subject to account and change the regime and government which controls its apparatus.
The Israeli Occupation (category five proceeding through category six) is to be resisted in so much as there is a population subject to a power without having equal rights as subjects/citizens. Israel has to make a choice, will it assert its sovereignty over the West Bank fully and give its residents full and equal rights within the polity, or will it cede sovereignty to a fully sovereign Palestinian state with a fully autonomous Palestinian Government?
Does that answer your question Mr X? Please feel free to Tweet me if you want to remain anonymous on this thread.