"there is no occupation of the Gaza Strip or Areas A & B in the West Bank since Israel no longer excersises the functions of government there. . An occupation ends when the occupying power ceases to exercise the functions of government in the area in question." - Jeff N Jeff takes his "definition" of "occupation" from article 6 of the 4th Geneva Convention. In fact, the article says the opposite of what Jeff thinks. I tried to explain it to Jeff a few times, but came up with no understanding. Let the reader judge: Art. 6: "the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles" The article implies the following: A. There exists a state of "occupation", with some force being called an "Occupying Power". B. If that Occupying Power exercises the functions of government, then it is bound by the following articles. C. If that force does not exercise the functions of government, then it is not bound by the following articles. CONCLUSION: An Occupying Power need not exercise the functions of government. One cannot conclude from the article that exercising function of government is a definition of occupation. A CALL FOR JEFF: Please go through the logical steps A,B,C above, and answer True or False to each one of them. Let the public know the result. A CALL FOR HELP: Dear reader, will you please let Jeff know your opinion on the matter? Please do not take into consideration any political attitude. This is strictly an attempt to understand what the Convention actually says, not what it should say.
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Details of secret talks for Israeli unity government revealed (Haaretz)
from the article: Ehud Olmert rejects Hamas' offer of cease-fire in Gaza Strip