We disagree strongly with your recent editorial, “Call it what you want – it’s still an occupation.” The word “occupation” clearly implies something immoral or illegal; however, in fact, Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria is neither.
Judea and Samaria are not “occupied territories.” The 1922 British Mandate, authorized by the League of Nations, defined Judea and Samaria as part of the Jewish national home. The right of Jews to settle there is stated in Article 6 of the Mandate. Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, former president of the International Court of Justice, stated that the basis of Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria is self defense, and therefore did not constitute “occupation.” Eugene Rostow, former U.S. Undersecretary of State and co-author of UN Resolution 242, stated that Resolution 242 entitles Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria. Finally, the 1993 Oslo Accords did not prohibit Jews from settling there.
Under the circumstances, people who support Israel and care about the truth are certainly justified to be upset by the word “occupation.”