Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: boris_a who wrote (35009)	7/25/2002 2:43:27 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So we agree about "occupation". International law prohibits settlements in occupied territory. But international law defines "occupied territory" as territory that is internationally recognized as belonging to Country A that is now occupied by Country B, so no, we don't agree about "occupation", not by that definition. (Nor, for that matter does UN Resolution 242 call it an illegal occupation) Even those who do call it "illegal occupation" say the territory belongs to "Palestine", not to Jordan (or Egypt), from whom it was taken. "Palestine" is an entity which does not now and has never yet existed. Legally, occupying a non-existent entity is a rather tricky concept. But, let's supply the precendent, the Kurds are waiting to use it!