Two of the most incorrectly and misused words concerning the situation regarding Israel are “annexation” and “occupation.” They are continually highlighted in varying degrees by some in the anti-Israel and “Pro-Israel” and “Pro-Peace” camps, including some running for the Democratic nomination for president.
Israel is condemned by some for “annexations” that have and will take place. It is as if Israel is the only nation that has or will claim territory as a result of winning a defensive war. In point of fact, within UNSC resolution 242, adopted at the end of the Six Day War, Israel is foreseen and expected to acquire territory as a result of their victory. The resolution calls for “Withdrawal of Israeli military forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” Not to “the territories” or to “pre-June 4 territories” but just “territories.” The resolution also called for direct negotiations between the two parties to result in peace with “secure and recognized borders.” Certain areas were expected to be retained, or “annexed,” by Israel.
Regarding “occupation,” why is Israel occupying the disputed territories? The answer is very simple and straightforward. In 1967, Israel was attacked by the Jordanian occupiers of that territory. Israel won, and stationed troops there to maintain peace and order. They must remain there until a peace treaty is signed with the Palestinian Authority. Until that time, Israel must continue their “occupation.”
There is nothing nefarious in the two words, only in how they are being used by some.Howard J. Cohn