Wednesday, January 03, 2018

With What Is The State Department Occupying Itself?

From US State Department's Spokeswoman Heather Nauert's Press Briefing on January 2, 2018

QUESTION: I’m not asking you to. But do you still – does the administration believe that the West Bank is occupied by Israel?
MS NAUERT: I can only say that our position has not changed. Our position on that hasn’t changed.
QUESTION: Well, does that mean that – does that mean that you still regard the West Bank as being occupied?
MS NAUERT: Matt, I can just tell you our position hasn’t changed. I’m going to be very careful with the words because anything related to this region, as many others --
QUESTION: Exactly.
MS NAUERT: -- is extremely sensitive.
QUESTION: Exactly.
MS NAUERT: Our position has not changed, and I won’t budge from that.
QUESTION: Okay. At some point it would be nice to find out exactly what that position is. You shouldn’t be afraid – precisely because it is so sensitive, you shouldn’t be afraid, unless you’re embarrassed by what the policy is. Not you personally, but whoever. You shouldn’t be afraid to say what it is instead of just saying it hasn’t changed.
MS NAUERT: I don’t think – Matt, as you have seen, when America speaks about a matter, it is taken very seriously.
MS NAUERT: And so that is why it’s important for the United States to be careful with its words. And you may not get all the words that you were hoping to get, but I’m going to be careful with the words. Okay?
QUESTION: Okay. Well, does that include tweeting stuff about “little Rocket Man” and things like that?
QUESTION: Be careful with your words? Or “fire and fury” is going to rain down on North Korea?
MS NAUERT: I’m not even going to go there, Matt. Okay?
QUESTION: If you’re saying that the position hasn’t changed, why won’t you just state the position?
MS NAUERT: Michele, the position hasn’t changed. I’m not going there, okay? You’ve got all --
QUESTION: Just – okay.
MS NAUERT: That’s it on that. Okay? Let’s move on.

So, is Judea and Samaria "occupied"?
P.S.  It is, but quite legally, as a result of Israel's defense against armed aggression.  It is termed "belligerent occupation" which means that it has occurred as a result of hostilities. It does not mean the occupation is illegal:
The term "belligerent occupation" is frequently used to describe the establishment of military government in enemy territory (p. 2 note 5)

As we all know:
Israel refuses to acknowledge the Convention's de jure application to any of the Occupied Territories. Israel has, however, said it will comply de facto with the Convention's humanitarian provisions in administering the West Bank and Gaza (but the applicable provisions have never been specified).


No comments: