Abkhazia and South Ossetia are not "Georgian-occupied." They are parts of Georgia, occupied by Russia.

Please don't forget the bloody mess that is Indonesian occupied Papua.

yeah. You forgot the Kurds

Gibraltar, Northern Ireland, Kashmir, Ceuta, Melilla, Perejil Island, Olivenza, Spratly Islands, Kuril Islands, Chinese Turkestan, etc.

The residents of the Falkland Islands are British settlers who do not consider themselves to be occupied by a foreign power. Neither Abkhazia nor South Ossetia are occupied by Georgia; they are both breakaway enclaves protected by the Russian military.

On the other hand, the USSR/Russia has been occupying (and settling) the South Kuril islands since August 1945, while Japan has never signed a treaty conceding their loss.

Of course, however, Israel is not in any way a "colonial occupier". Odd that even CAMERA didn't catch that out although your Hebrew site, Presspectiva, got it right by pointing out the theme of disputed sovereignty in many areas which could parallel the case with the "disputed territories" of Judea and Samaria. I consider those regions as part of the Land of Israel which were included in the original intent of the nations where the Jewish national home was to be reconstituted.

http://bit.ly/dOqszf

You could argue that Australia is in occupation of the land they stole from the Aborigines; Canada in occupation of Indians and Inuit land; America certainly stole the Indians and there is a movement in Hawaii reasserting native claims. Even England can be considered in occupation of Wales and Northern Ireland. Don't think so? Ask the Catholics.

Distance from the homeland doesn't seem to be an issue. Consider Britain's continuing claim on Gibraltar and the Falklands.

However the biggest occupation is probably still Arab/Muslim occupation of the Eastern Roman Empire to this day. That one is complicated by Islamic insistence that anything conquered for Allah remains part of the Ummah even if they are not currently in control.

Where do you draw the line?

The United States and NATO occupy Afghanistan and Iraq.

He would, or course, defend his statement as hinging on the word "colonial," so the argument is really over the false idea that Israel is colonizing a separate country, rather than building/rebuilding in disputed territory. I'm not a proponent of the settlement enterprise in general, but Jews were ethnically cleansed from Hebron, Kfar Etzion, and elsewhere. It is unjust for the area to have been rendered Judenrein by force. Also, a foothold in the strategic high ground is important for a country whose neighbors have repeatedly gone to war against it. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this is the Jewish ancestral home, regardless of whether or not parts of it should eventually become a peaceful state of Palestine. You can't really colonize your home where your descendants are from and where your co-religionist/co-nationals continued to live practically uninteruptedly.