US says Israeli courts determine legality of settlements

[P F Tinmore]

RE: US says Israeli courts determine legality of settlements
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This could apply to some circumstances; or any controversial situations.

Indeed, but nonaggression and territorial integrity will get you there.

(COMMENT)

The Charter protections on the matters of aggression and territorial integrity really do not apply to the territories:

◈ Since the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (26 March 1979).

◈ Since the The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994).​

As you are so proud to point out to me (often), the Arab Palestinians were not a party to the conflict [either an International Armed Conflict (IAC) or a Non-International Armed Conflict (NAIC)] involved. The Israels assumed control of the West Bank and Jerusalem from the control of Jordan. The Israels assumed control of the Gaza Strip from Egypt. As you can see, Israel has a permanent peace treaty with both Jordan and Egypt.

The Armistice and the demarcations along with them were nullified by the permanent peaceful settlement between the Parties, and the new international boundary between the parties delimited. In NO CASE were the Arab Palestinians a victim of Israeli acts of aggression in which territory under Arab Palestinian sovereign control was overtaken by Israel.


Most Respectfully,
R

The Israels assumed control of the West Bank and Jerusalem from the control of Jordan. The Israels assumed control of the Gaza Strip from Egypt. As you can see, Israel has a permanent peace treaty with both Jordan and Egypt.

What does this have to do with Palestine?

I know, I know, the Palestinians don't have any rights.

 

[Shusha]

In fact, the Israeli settlements were never illegal.

The old effort to legitimize Palestinian claims to the land with a false historical account erases Jews' right to their ancestral terroritory won in a modern defensive war.


The West Bank city of Ariel.

In reversing the Obama administration’s shameful acceding to the UN Security Council’s 2016 resolution that Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria were illegal under international law, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo finally stated what was obvious to many legal scholars and others who have assessed the facts on the ground; namely, as Pompeo put it, “The establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law.” Additionally, as he noted, while the decision “does not prejudice or decide legal conclusions regarding situations in any other parts of the world,” the secretary emphasized that the affirmation of the settlements’ legality “is based on the unique facts, history, and circumstances presented by the establishment of civilian settlements in the West Bank.”

In fact, the Israeli settlements were never illegal

The old effort to legitimize Palestinian claims to the land with a false historical account erases Jews' right to their ancestral terroritory won in a modern defensive war.

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war..

The Avalon Project : United Nations Security Council Resolution 242​

Let's not get distracted by this. Israel's claim to sovereignty over Judea and Samaria has nothing at all to do with defensive wars or territories "gained" through them. This is a false red herring which leads to incorrect assumptions about the meaning of armistice lines and other artificial boundaries, none of which exist anymore as they were dissolved in the peace treaty when Jordan unilaterally abandoned all claims to any territory in Western Palestine.

Jordan never had any legitimate claim on the West Bank. It was occupied Palestinian territory.

We agree. So let's not get bogged down in pointless discussions about defensive wars or territories "gained" through them, and any boundaries or boundary changes because of them. Its irrelevant.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In fact, the Israeli settlements were never illegal.

The old effort to legitimize Palestinian claims to the land with a false historical account erases Jews' right to their ancestral terroritory won in a modern defensive war.


The West Bank city of Ariel.

In reversing the Obama administration’s shameful acceding to the UN Security Council’s 2016 resolution that Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria were illegal under international law, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo finally stated what was obvious to many legal scholars and others who have assessed the facts on the ground; namely, as Pompeo put it, “The establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law.” Additionally, as he noted, while the decision “does not prejudice or decide legal conclusions regarding situations in any other parts of the world,” the secretary emphasized that the affirmation of the settlements’ legality “is based on the unique facts, history, and circumstances presented by the establishment of civilian settlements in the West Bank.”

In fact, the Israeli settlements were never illegal

The old effort to legitimize Palestinian claims to the land with a false historical account erases Jews' right to their ancestral terroritory won in a modern defensive war.

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war..

The Avalon Project : United Nations Security Council Resolution 242​

Let's not get distracted by this. Israel's claim to sovereignty over Judea and Samaria has nothing at all to do with defensive wars or territories "gained" through them. This is a false red herring which leads to incorrect assumptions about the meaning of armistice lines and other artificial boundaries, none of which exist anymore as they were dissolved in the peace treaty when Jordan unilaterally abandoned all claims to any territory in Western Palestine.

Jordan never had any legitimate claim on the West Bank. It was occupied Palestinian territory.

Jordan never had any legitimate claim on the West Bank.

Who did Jordan take it from?

 

[Shusha]

What does this have to do with Palestine?

I know, I know, the Palestinians don't have any rights.

On the contrary, I would suggest the Arab Palestinian peoples, like all peoples, have the right to form a government, declare independence and enter into treaties and agreements with other Parties, such as States. Which they did.

The most current agreement, the ONLY agreement, between the Arab Palestinians, through their government, which is the only way to do such a thing, and the State of Israel gives Arab Palestinians limited jurisdiction (but not sovereignty) over Areas A, B and Gaza. The Arab Palestinian government has absolutely no jurisdiction or control or sovereignty over any other areas. Israel RETAINS sole control and sovereignty over everything in the territory labelled Palestine EXCEPT Jordan, Areas A, B and Gaza.

At this time, this is the ONLY agreement between the Parties to work from. Everything else is irrelevant.

Further, this agreement states that the issue of borders and "settlements" (broadly interpreted to mean Jewish communities) are reserved to be resolved in a bi-lateral treaty between the representatives of the Arab Palestinians (their government) and the State of Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

What does this have to do with Palestine?

I know, I know, the Palestinians don't have any rights.

On the contrary, I would suggest the Arab Palestinian peoples, like all peoples, have the right to form a government, declare independence and enter into treaties and agreements with other Parties, such as States. Which they did.

The most current agreement, the ONLY agreement, between the Arab Palestinians, through their government, which is the only way to do such a thing, and the State of Israel gives Arab Palestinians limited jurisdiction (but not sovereignty) over Areas A, B and Gaza. The Arab Palestinian government has absolutely no jurisdiction or control or sovereignty over any other areas. Israel RETAINS sole control and sovereignty over everything in the territory labelled Palestine EXCEPT Jordan, Areas A, B and Gaza.

At this time, this is the ONLY agreement between the Parties to work from. Everything else is irrelevant.

Further, this agreement states that the issue of borders and "settlements" (broadly interpreted to mean Jewish communities) are reserved to be resolved in a bi-lateral treaty between the representatives of the Arab Palestinians (their government) and the State of Israel.

Arafat signed Oslo behind the backs of the Palestinians without their knowledge or approval.

Nelson Mandella warned Arafat not to sign that agreement because it was a trap.

Oslo was, point by point, virtually the same as the bantustan constitutions in South Africa.

Any agreement between an occupying power and an occupied people is void if it does not conform to international law.

I don't see Oslo as legitimate.

 

[Hollie]

What does this have to do with Palestine?

I know, I know, the Palestinians don't have any rights.

On the contrary, I would suggest the Arab Palestinian peoples, like all peoples, have the right to form a government, declare independence and enter into treaties and agreements with other Parties, such as States. Which they did.

The most current agreement, the ONLY agreement, between the Arab Palestinians, through their government, which is the only way to do such a thing, and the State of Israel gives Arab Palestinians limited jurisdiction (but not sovereignty) over Areas A, B and Gaza. The Arab Palestinian government has absolutely no jurisdiction or control or sovereignty over any other areas. Israel RETAINS sole control and sovereignty over everything in the territory labelled Palestine EXCEPT Jordan, Areas A, B and Gaza.

At this time, this is the ONLY agreement between the Parties to work from. Everything else is irrelevant.

Further, this agreement states that the issue of borders and "settlements" (broadly interpreted to mean Jewish communities) are reserved to be resolved in a bi-lateral treaty between the representatives of the Arab Palestinians (their government) and the State of Israel.

Arafat signed Oslo behind the backs of the Palestinians without their knowledge or approval.

Nelson Mandella warned Arafat not to sign that agreement because it was a trap.

Oslo was, point by point, virtually the same as the bantustan constitutions in South Africa.

Any agreement between an occupying power and an occupied people is void if it does not conform to international law.

I don't see Oslo as legitimate.

Nothing supportable and nothing factual.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: US says Israeli courts determine legality of settlements
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The Israels assumed control of the West Bank and Jerusalem from the control of Jordan. The Israels assumed control of the Gaza Strip from Egypt. As you can see, Israel has a permanent peace treaty with both Jordan and Egypt.

What does this have to do with Palestine?

(COMMENT)

Ha, ha, ha, ha, --- haaa →

I responded to your comment about "non-aggression" and "territorial integrity."

I assumed you understand that before the Arab Palestinians can make the claim focused on an act of "aggression (or non-aggression) by the Israelis, the Arab Palestinians MUST first physically have some territorial sovereignty, some territorial integrity, or political independence (like every other real country).

Secondly, in order to claim that Israel took an act of aggression against the Arab Palestinians, the act had to be against the Arab Palestinians as a party to the conflict. Israel was a party in conflict with the Egyptians and the Jordanians. But Israel has never been a party to a conflict in which the Arab Palestinians represented a nation having the characteristics identified in Article 1 (Montevideo Convention 1933). For these many decades, Israel has been entangled with a number of organizations that have been designated as "terrorist organizations." But the Israelis have NOT been entangled with some territorial integrity or political independence established by the Arab Palestinians.

I know, I know, the Palestinians don't have any rights.

(COMMENT)

You often make this claim that the → "Palestinians don't have any rights" → as if I or any other participants in these discussions made this claim. This is completely absurd. I do not know of anyone in these discussions that have said, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) does not apply to the Arab Palestinians. This is just a crafty comment made to draw political sympathy.



Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: US says Israeli courts determine legality of settlements
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The Israels assumed control of the West Bank and Jerusalem from the control of Jordan. The Israels assumed control of the Gaza Strip from Egypt. As you can see, Israel has a permanent peace treaty with both Jordan and Egypt.

What does this have to do with Palestine?

(COMMENT)

Ha, ha, ha, ha, --- haaa →

View attachment 291235​

I responded to your comment about "non-aggression" and "territorial integrity."

I assumed you understand that before the Arab Palestinians can make the claim focused on an act of "aggression (or non-aggression) by the Israelis, the Arab Palestinians MUST first physically have some territorial sovereignty, some territorial integrity, or political independence (like every other real country).

Secondly, in order to claim that Israel took an act of aggression against the Arab Palestinians, the act had to be against the Arab Palestinians as a party to the conflict. Israel was a party in conflict with the Egyptians and the Jordanians. But Israel has never been a party to a conflict in which the Arab Palestinians represented a nation having the characteristics identified in Article 1 (Montevideo Convention 1933). For these many decades, Israel has been entangled with a number of organizations that have been designated as "terrorist organizations." But the Israelis have NOT been entangled with some territorial integrity or political independence established by the Arab Palestinians.

I know, I know, the Palestinians don't have any rights.

(COMMENT)

You often make this claim that the → "Palestinians don't have any rights" → as if I or any other participants in these discussions made this claim. This is completely absurd. I do not know of anyone in these discussions that have said, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) does not apply to the Arab Palestinians. This is just a crafty comment made to draw political sympathy.



Most Respectfully,
R

Oh jeese, you are back on Israel's "there is no Palestine" bullshit.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

What does this have to do with Palestine?

I know, I know, the Palestinians don't have any rights.

On the contrary, I would suggest the Arab Palestinian peoples, like all peoples, have the right to form a government, declare independence and enter into treaties and agreements with other Parties, such as States. Which they did.

The most current agreement, the ONLY agreement, between the Arab Palestinians, through their government, which is the only way to do such a thing, and the State of Israel gives Arab Palestinians limited jurisdiction (but not sovereignty) over Areas A, B and Gaza. The Arab Palestinian government has absolutely no jurisdiction or control or sovereignty over any other areas. Israel RETAINS sole control and sovereignty over everything in the territory labelled Palestine EXCEPT Jordan, Areas A, B and Gaza.

At this time, this is the ONLY agreement between the Parties to work from. Everything else is irrelevant.

Further, this agreement states that the issue of borders and "settlements" (broadly interpreted to mean Jewish communities) are reserved to be resolved in a bi-lateral treaty between the representatives of the Arab Palestinians (their government) and the State of Israel.

Arafat signed Oslo behind the backs of the Palestinians without their knowledge or approval.

Nelson Mandella warned Arafat not to sign that agreement because it was a trap.

Oslo was, point by point, virtually the same as the bantustan constitutions in South Africa.

Any agreement between an occupying power and an occupied people is void if it does not conform to international law.

I don't see Oslo as legitimate.

The fact that you don't see Oslo as legitimate means nothing. You aren't the King of the world. Palestinians see Arafart as their George Washington, though his hands dripped with Jewish blood.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

What does this have to do with Palestine?

I know, I know, the Palestinians don't have any rights.

On the contrary, I would suggest the Arab Palestinian peoples, like all peoples, have the right to form a government, declare independence and enter into treaties and agreements with other Parties, such as States. Which they did.

The most current agreement, the ONLY agreement, between the Arab Palestinians, through their government, which is the only way to do such a thing, and the State of Israel gives Arab Palestinians limited jurisdiction (but not sovereignty) over Areas A, B and Gaza. The Arab Palestinian government has absolutely no jurisdiction or control or sovereignty over any other areas. Israel RETAINS sole control and sovereignty over everything in the territory labelled Palestine EXCEPT Jordan, Areas A, B and Gaza.

At this time, this is the ONLY agreement between the Parties to work from. Everything else is irrelevant.

Further, this agreement states that the issue of borders and "settlements" (broadly interpreted to mean Jewish communities) are reserved to be resolved in a bi-lateral treaty between the representatives of the Arab Palestinians (their government) and the State of Israel.

Oslo was supposed to be temporary, though.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

RE: US says Israeli courts determine legality of settlements
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The Israels assumed control of the West Bank and Jerusalem from the control of Jordan. The Israels assumed control of the Gaza Strip from Egypt. As you can see, Israel has a permanent peace treaty with both Jordan and Egypt.

What does this have to do with Palestine?

(COMMENT)

Ha, ha, ha, ha, --- haaa →

View attachment 291235​

I responded to your comment about "non-aggression" and "territorial integrity."

I assumed you understand that before the Arab Palestinians can make the claim focused on an act of "aggression (or non-aggression) by the Israelis, the Arab Palestinians MUST first physically have some territorial sovereignty, some territorial integrity, or political independence (like every other real country).

Secondly, in order to claim that Israel took an act of aggression against the Arab Palestinians, the act had to be against the Arab Palestinians as a party to the conflict. Israel was a party in conflict with the Egyptians and the Jordanians. But Israel has never been a party to a conflict in which the Arab Palestinians represented a nation having the characteristics identified in Article 1 (Montevideo Convention 1933). For these many decades, Israel has been entangled with a number of organizations that have been designated as "terrorist organizations." But the Israelis have NOT been entangled with some territorial integrity or political independence established by the Arab Palestinians.

I know, I know, the Palestinians don't have any rights.

(COMMENT)

You often make this claim that the → "Palestinians don't have any rights" → as if I or any other participants in these discussions made this claim. This is completely absurd. I do not know of anyone in these discussions that have said, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) does not apply to the Arab Palestinians. This is just a crafty comment made to draw political sympathy.



Most Respectfully,
R

Oh jeese, you are back on Israel's "there is no Palestine" bullshit.

And America's "there is no Palestine".

And the World's "there is no Palestine".

 

[Shusha]

What does this have to do with Palestine?

I know, I know, the Palestinians don't have any rights.

On the contrary, I would suggest the Arab Palestinian peoples, like all peoples, have the right to form a government, declare independence and enter into treaties and agreements with other Parties, such as States. Which they did.

The most current agreement, the ONLY agreement, between the Arab Palestinians, through their government, which is the only way to do such a thing, and the State of Israel gives Arab Palestinians limited jurisdiction (but not sovereignty) over Areas A, B and Gaza. The Arab Palestinian government has absolutely no jurisdiction or control or sovereignty over any other areas. Israel RETAINS sole control and sovereignty over everything in the territory labelled Palestine EXCEPT Jordan, Areas A, B and Gaza.

At this time, this is the ONLY agreement between the Parties to work from. Everything else is irrelevant.

Further, this agreement states that the issue of borders and "settlements" (broadly interpreted to mean Jewish communities) are reserved to be resolved in a bi-lateral treaty between the representatives of the Arab Palestinians (their government) and the State of Israel.

Arafat signed Oslo behind the backs of the Palestinians without their knowledge or approval.

Nelson Mandella warned Arafat not to sign that agreement because it was a trap.

Oslo was, point by point, virtually the same as the bantustan constitutions in South Africa.

Any agreement between an occupying power and an occupied people is void if it does not conform to international law.

I don't see Oslo as legitimate.

In what possible way does Oslo not comply with international law?

 

[José]

The fact that you don't see Oslo as legitimate means nothing. You aren't the King of the world.

​

Why are you pointing your finger at Tinmore?

You don't believe Oslo had any legitimacy either:

I never called it a "dog and pony show", although I don't believe that either side
has ever negotiated in good faith. It was Tinmore who called it a "dog and pony show."​

 

[ForeverYoung436]

The fact that you don't see Oslo as legitimate means nothing. You aren't the King of the world.

​

Why are you pointing your finger at Tinmore?

You don't believe Oslo had any legitimacy either:

I never called it a "dog and pony show", although I don't believe that either side
has ever negotiated in good faith. It was Tinmore who called it a "dog and pony show."​

Ok, you got me. I don't believe Arafart or Abbas ever negotiated in good faith. I do believe that Rabin and Peres negotiated in good faith until Netanyahu took over. Netanyahu has not negotiated in good faith. Since he has been PM for so long, I almost forgot how it was before him.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The fact that you don't see Oslo as legitimate means nothing. You aren't the King of the world.

​

Why are you pointing your finger at Tinmore?

You don't believe Oslo had any legitimacy either:

I never called it a "dog and pony show", although I don't believe that either side
has ever negotiated in good faith. It was Tinmore who called it a "dog and pony show."​

Ok, you got me. I don't believe Arafart or Abbas ever negotiated in good faith. I do believe that Rabin and Peres negotiated in good faith until Netanyahu took over. Netanyahu has not negotiated in good faith. Since he has been PM for so long, I almost forgot how it was before him.

Israel's primary goal has always been all of Palestine without the Palestinians. All Israeli governments have worked toward that goal.

 

[rylah]

The fact that you don't see Oslo as legitimate means nothing. You aren't the King of the world.

​

Why are you pointing your finger at Tinmore?

You don't believe Oslo had any legitimacy either:

I never called it a "dog and pony show", although I don't believe that either side
has ever negotiated in good faith. It was Tinmore who called it a "dog and pony show."​

Ok, you got me. I don't believe Arafart or Abbas ever negotiated in good faith. I do believe that Rabin and Peres negotiated in good faith until Netanyahu took over. Netanyahu has not negotiated in good faith. Since he has been PM for so long, I almost forgot how it was before him.

Israel's primary goal has always been all of Palestine without the Palestinians. All Israeli governments have worked toward that goal.

Seriously?
Israeli coalition talks include a whole list of Arab parties,
while the term "Palestinian" is used to specifically exclude and Jews.
You don't even assume anything but their removal from any territory Arabs control.

In fact it's the only consistent Arab political demand.

 

[rylah]

Surprising cooperation in Samaria: "Finding an Alternative to Oslo"
Arab Sheikhs and Bahraini Conference Attendees Succeeded by the Head of the Samaria Council to Have a Holiday Feast with Yossi Dagan

An extraordinary meeting in the suzerainty of Samaria Regional Council head Yossi Dagan. Members of the Palestinian delegation to the Bahrain conference arrived last night to greet Samaria Regional Council head Yossi Dagan in his Sukkah, along with Arab leaders.

Four members of the Palestinian delegation to Bahrain, as well as Israeli Arabs and Palestinian leaders including: Sheikh Abu Halil al-Tamimi of Ramallah, Qais Mazarib of Zarzir No. 9 on the Democratic Camp List, Ibrahim Ahmed Dabash and Mohammad Ali Mazarib a local councilor in Zarzir.

Both sides discussed developing new alternatives for creating regional coexistence between the settlers and the State of Israel and the local Palestinians and an alternative to the way of Oslo.

According to Dagan: "The best way to make a living together side by side is in the discourse of local leaders who know the real needs of the local population, both Israeli and Arab. And not by experiments by distant politicians from Europe or the United States, politicians who have never stepped foot here, the road of Oslo failed, and that is unquestionable. It is time to find an alternative to the terrorism of the hypocritical Palestinian Authority, and his is what we going to do. Both here and now during Sukkot and throughout the year. We respect each other. Creating a reality of mutual respect in Judea and Samaria. "

Some members of the Palestinian delegation asked not to be exposed for fear of their lives, because of the PA that directly threatens them. Among other things, members of the Palestinian delegation to Bahrain raised the issue of the threat to their lives on the part of the Palestinian Authority, and on the other hand, they do not receive support from the State of Israel even though they are working for coexistence. Dagan promised to work to help them and continue their cooperation.

Sheikh Tamimi congratulated the cooperation: "Cooperation is important, for a better future for our children and future generations, and this dialogue is very important. We need to continue to do this and ask all Israeli leaders to listen to us and cooperate."

Sizar Khoury of Bethlehem who attended Bahrain conference wished Samaria Council "happiness, good year and lots of success in this way" which he outlines.

Most of the delegation has been in contact for years with the head of Samaria Dagan Regional Council. Dagan hosted them in Samaria over the past week, and he hosted them at the Iftar dinner at the end of Ramadan in Hebron. For some time, talks have been under the radar between leadership of the settlers in Judea and Samaria and the local Arab leaders, in order to solve common regional problems and to create collaborations and coexistence on the ground.

Yossi Dagan with Sheikh Tamimi - Oct. 16 2019

 

[Hollie]

The fact that you don't see Oslo as legitimate means nothing. You aren't the King of the world.

​

Why are you pointing your finger at Tinmore?

You don't believe Oslo had any legitimacy either:

I never called it a "dog and pony show", although I don't believe that either side
has ever negotiated in good faith. It was Tinmore who called it a "dog and pony show."​

Ok, you got me. I don't believe Arafart or Abbas ever negotiated in good faith. I do believe that Rabin and Peres negotiated in good faith until Netanyahu took over. Netanyahu has not negotiated in good faith. Since he has been PM for so long, I almost forgot how it was before him.

Israel's primary goal has always been all of Palestine without the Palestinians. All Israeli governments have worked toward that goal.

Actually, you’re a bit befuddled. It is the Arabs-Moslems who have a written charter with a stated goal to colonize all of the geographic area of Pal’istan while destroying the Jews.

Why do you post here when you know so little?

 

[Hollie]

What does this have to do with Palestine?

I know, I know, the Palestinians don't have any rights.

On the contrary, I would suggest the Arab Palestinian peoples, like all peoples, have the right to form a government, declare independence and enter into treaties and agreements with other Parties, such as States. Which they did.

The most current agreement, the ONLY agreement, between the Arab Palestinians, through their government, which is the only way to do such a thing, and the State of Israel gives Arab Palestinians limited jurisdiction (but not sovereignty) over Areas A, B and Gaza. The Arab Palestinian government has absolutely no jurisdiction or control or sovereignty over any other areas. Israel RETAINS sole control and sovereignty over everything in the territory labelled Palestine EXCEPT Jordan, Areas A, B and Gaza.

At this time, this is the ONLY agreement between the Parties to work from. Everything else is irrelevant.

Further, this agreement states that the issue of borders and "settlements" (broadly interpreted to mean Jewish communities) are reserved to be resolved in a bi-lateral treaty between the representatives of the Arab Palestinians (their government) and the State of Israel.

Arafat signed Oslo behind the backs of the Palestinians without their knowledge or approval.

Nelson Mandella warned Arafat not to sign that agreement because it was a trap.

Oslo was, point by point, virtually the same as the bantustan constitutions in South Africa.

Any agreement between an occupying power and an occupied people is void if it does not conform to international law.

I don't see Oslo as legitimate.

Your usual retreat to conspiracy theories.