While it is true that victorious powers can legally occupy hostile territories seized in the course of conflict – an example of which is the Allies’ occupation of the territory of Nazi Germany during World War II, foreign occupation should nevertheless be a temporary situation, pending a political settlement or solution. During the interim, the occupying Power must comply with relevant instruments of international humanitarian law with regard to its conduct in the territory it has occupied.

International law is very clear on two basic principles: the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the prohibition of the transfer of civilians of the occupying Power to the occupied territory. Both are intended to prevent expansionism and the colonization of occupied territories. Both compliment another explicit principle of international law, namely the right of peoples to self-determination, a right that a colonial or occupying Power is obliged to respect. The Israeli occupation has clearly violated all three of these principles of international law. In fact, throughout its prolonged occupation, Israel has persistently and aggressively breached international law.

Thus, what makes the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land illegal is not the fact that it occurred during the war of 1967 (regardless of the narrative concerning the causes of the war). What makes the Israeli occupation illegal is that it has existed for 42 years, during which time it transformed into a form of colonialism and suppressed and oppressed an entire people for decades, preventing them from the exercise of their right to self-determination and the establishment of their State, Palestine. To claim that an objection to the growth of an activity that's so blatantly illegal is an interference in Israel's domestic affairs is high chutzpah.

It's like a bank robber saying that since he has encured financial expenses when preparing for the heistt, i:e: weapons, explosives and drill buying, recruiting a getaway driver, etc, he's entitled to blast every single safe deposit box to make up for his expenses. The Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are fucking ILLEGAL, and the argument that Israel is entitled to "settlement natural growth" is grotesquely absurd.

It's just that despite your denials, you spout Likud propaganda. Unfortunately for you and unlike you, I am a former IDF officer. There's no doubt that the Palestinian resistance has been at times extremely violent, but everything is relative. The Israelis, as a matter of policy, have been targeting civilians since the beginning of their occupation, combining massive killings of civilians through the use ultra-modern weapons, mostly US made, weapons the Palestinians have no chance of ever acquiring, collective punishment- strictly illegal under the Geneva Convention, lend theft and illegal settlements, all prohibited under the Geneva Convention. As far as proportionality, far more people are killed on israeli roads in one year than Palestinian terror has managed to kill since 1948, wonder if you are aware of that.

Mandate for Palestine was a League of Nations Mandate drafted by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War and formally approved by the League of Nations in 1922. By the power granted under the mandate, Britain ruled Palestine between 1920 and 1948, a period referred to as the "British Mandate." So the Irgun attack on KD Hotel was a gratuitous act of terrorism, since the British forces presence in Palestine was not illegal, but authorized by the Leadue of Nations. Very much unlike the Israeli illegal settlements in the land occupied in 1967, clearly illegal under international law, which also makes the Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation legitimate.

It's true that the King David Hotel also served as the headquarters of British military authority in Palestine. However, when the Irgun blew it up, they were well aware that the majority of the occupants had been civilians unaffiliated with the British Mandate rule, yet they still blew the hotel up, killoing many innocent civilians. The Pentagon however is a legitimate military target. How exactly is the attack on the Pentagon an act of terrorism while the Irgun attack on the KD Hotel an act of resistance?

The settlements also happen to be a violation of international law. Isn't a refusal by Israel to stop their expansion similar to a bank robber refusing to stop blasting open additional safe deposit boxes?

For those who forgot or never knew:the israeli military (IDF) was on the verge of collapse and catastrophic defeat in the early stages of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Then defense minister Moshe Dayan told his General Staff in the Tel Aviv central command bunker that Israel is facing the "second holocaust". Only a massive transfer of US military hardware saved Israel from defeat. I would think that this by itself entitles the US to a lifetime of say about the Israeli policies that have direct consequences for the US, disregarding for a moment decades of massive financial, military and diplomatic support to israel.

Just think about it:the pro-birth terrorists would kill a doctor for terminating the existence of a bunch of cells residing inside a woman's body but fight tooth and nail against programs that would provide affordable healthcare for children who already exist. The christofascists are vehemently against stemcell research that would help save the lives of many sick children. The christofascist who consider abortion murder shrug when small children face a decreased life expectancy because of poverty caused malnutrition and insufficient healthcare. Chrisofascists are notorious for being fond of the killing of animals for sport and for supporting the death penalty. The christofascists shrugged at the mass carnage in Iraq caused by the Bush and Cheney lies. Why should we treat the pro-birth/ anti-life christojihadists any different than we treat Al Qaeda, when they are just as bad or worse.