Annexing West Bank

[Shusha]

• Israel assumed effective control or Occupation Authority (even though no government likes to be stuck with the title of "Occupation Power") in 1967. But the Hague Regulation is quite clear on the matter. That is to say that the applicability of "occupation law" definitely covers conditions of effective foreign control over territory.​

So here is where I'm having trouble with your argument. You say that "occupation" is defined (through Hague Regulation) as "foreign control over territory".

If Israel is the "foreign control" then who is the "local" control? One Party to the "occupation" is Israel. Who is the other Party? Who is Israel occupying?



Edited to add: as an example to make my point: is Spain occupying Catalonia?​

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Annexing West Bank
⁜→ Shusha, et al,

The

First, the Hague Regulation says (to be exact):

​

I sincerely apologize if I did not accurately quote the Hague Regulation or expressed myself clearly.

Israel was a "foreign Army" in June 1967 relative to the Jordanian sovereignty; up and until the end of July 1988. Then it became an Army in a non-self-governing territory involved in a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) with Jihadists, Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Troublemakers, Adherents, Guerrillas and Asymmetric Fighter.

​

So here is where I'm having trouble with your argument. You say that "occupation" is defined (through Hague Regulation) as "foreign control over territory".

If Israel is the "foreign control" then who is the "local" control? One Party to the "occupation" is Israel. Who is the other Party? Who is Israel occupying?

(ANSWER)

Actually, the control has two components to be an occupation:

• It must be a Hostile Army (it is not necessily a foreign Army).

Example: If a country is subject to a military coup d'état, and the national Army is used.​

• The Army must be "hostile."

• The occupation extends to "direct" territorial control ("where such authority has been establish").

Extended Example: If the Army used by the coup d'état only controls the Capitol City and not the entire Province, then only the Capitol City is under Occupation.​

​

So here is where I'm having trouble with your argument. You say that "occupation" is defined (through Hague Regulation) as "foreign control over territory".

If Israel is the "foreign control" then who is the "local" control? One Party to the "occupation" is Israel. Who is the other Party? Who is Israel occupying?

(ANSWER)

Israel is attempting to maintain full civil and security control over Area "C." Israel has some responsibility for Security Control in Area "B." In contemporary times it is generally construed that, Occupation Law → "applies in all cases of total or partial occupation of foreign territory," whether or not the occupation meets with armed resistance.

It should be said here that in June 1967, the West Bank was under total effective control by the Israelis. That control has been unilateral reduced and restraints lifted base on Israeli discretionary powers.

◈ The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) includes:

• The Hague Regularion (1907) (HR), Section III;

• Geneva Convention (GC) IV, Part III, Sections I, III and IV;

• Addition Protocal I;

• The Human Rights activist have also incerted themselfs in the mix.​

The Occupation ends when effective control by the Army is released back to the National Authority → or lesser local authorities Provincial, District, Municipal, etc.

One Party to the "occupation" is Israel. Who is the other Party? Who is Israel occupying?

(ANSWER)

It can be the elements of the prior sovereign of the territory, or some lesser authority down to the level of non-self-governing.

In the case of Israel and Palestine, on 1 August 1988, the territory was non-self-governing; falling to the responsibility of the Occupation Power.

(OTHER)

This leads directly into the question of: When is a Government → a Government → in the West Bank and Gaza Strip? What constitutes a government? And what are the liabilities and responsibilities when releasing authorities to known terrorist organizations.



Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Annexing West Bank
⁜→ Shusha, et al,

The

First, the Hague Regulation says (to be exact):

View attachment 255411
​

I sincerely apologize if I did not accurately quote the Hague Regulation or expressed myself clearly.

Israel was a "foreign Army" in June 1967 relative to the Jordanian sovereignty; up and until the end of July 1988. Then it became an Army in a non-self-governing territory involved in a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) with Jihadists, Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Troublemakers, Adherents, Guerrillas and Asymmetric Fighter.

​

So here is where I'm having trouble with your argument. You say that "occupation" is defined (through Hague Regulation) as "foreign control over territory".

If Israel is the "foreign control" then who is the "local" control? One Party to the "occupation" is Israel. Who is the other Party? Who is Israel occupying?

(ANSWER)

Actually, the control has two components to be an occupation:

• It must be a Hostile Army (it is not necessily a foreign Army).

Example: If a country is subject to a military coup d'état, and the national Army is used.​

• The Army must be "hostile."

• The occupation extends to "direct" territorial control ("where such authority has been establish").

Extended Example: If the Army used by the coup d'état only controls the Capitol City and not the entire Province, then only the Capitol City is under Occupation.​

​

So here is where I'm having trouble with your argument. You say that "occupation" is defined (through Hague Regulation) as "foreign control over territory".

If Israel is the "foreign control" then who is the "local" control? One Party to the "occupation" is Israel. Who is the other Party? Who is Israel occupying?

(ANSWER)

Israel is attempting to maintain full civil and security control over Area "C." Israel has some responsibility for Security Control in Area "B." In contemporary times it is generally construed that, Occupation Law → "applies in all cases of total or partial occupation of foreign territory," whether or not the occupation meets with armed resistance.

It should be said here that in June 1967, the West Bank was under total effective control by the Israelis. That control has been unilateral reduced and restraints lifted base on Israeli discretionary powers.

◈ The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) includes:

• The Hague Regularion (1907) (HR), Section III;

• Geneva Convention (GC) IV, Part III, Sections I, III and IV;

• Addition Protocal I;

• The Human Rights activist have also incerted themselfs in the mix.​

The Occupation ends when effective control by the Army is released back to the National Authority → or lesser local authorities Provincial, District, Municipal, etc.

One Party to the "occupation" is Israel. Who is the other Party? Who is Israel occupying?

(ANSWER)

It can be the elements of the prior sovereign of the territory, or some lesser authority down to the level of non-self-governing.

In the case of Israel and Palestine, on 1 August 1988, the territory was non-self-governing; falling to the responsibility of the Occupation Power.

(OTHER)

This leads directly into the question of: When is a Government → a Government → in the West Bank and Gaza Strip? What constitutes a government? And what are the liabilities and responsibilities when releasing authorities to known terrorist organizations.



Most Respectfully,
R

So, what about the 1948 occupation?

Edit
Or should question be moved here?
The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

 

[ForeverYoung436]

RE: Annexing West Bank
⁜→ Shusha, et al,

The

First, the Hague Regulation says (to be exact):

View attachment 255411
​

I sincerely apologize if I did not accurately quote the Hague Regulation or expressed myself clearly.

Israel was a "foreign Army" in June 1967 relative to the Jordanian sovereignty; up and until the end of July 1988. Then it became an Army in a non-self-governing territory involved in a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) with Jihadists, Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Troublemakers, Adherents, Guerrillas and Asymmetric Fighter.

​

So here is where I'm having trouble with your argument. You say that "occupation" is defined (through Hague Regulation) as "foreign control over territory".

If Israel is the "foreign control" then who is the "local" control? One Party to the "occupation" is Israel. Who is the other Party? Who is Israel occupying?

(ANSWER)

Actually, the control has two components to be an occupation:

• It must be a Hostile Army (it is not necessily a foreign Army).

Example: If a country is subject to a military coup d'état, and the national Army is used.​

• The Army must be "hostile."

• The occupation extends to "direct" territorial control ("where such authority has been establish").

Extended Example: If the Army used by the coup d'état only controls the Capitol City and not the entire Province, then only the Capitol City is under Occupation.​

​

So here is where I'm having trouble with your argument. You say that "occupation" is defined (through Hague Regulation) as "foreign control over territory".

If Israel is the "foreign control" then who is the "local" control? One Party to the "occupation" is Israel. Who is the other Party? Who is Israel occupying?

(ANSWER)

Israel is attempting to maintain full civil and security control over Area "C." Israel has some responsibility for Security Control in Area "B." In contemporary times it is generally construed that, Occupation Law → "applies in all cases of total or partial occupation of foreign territory," whether or not the occupation meets with armed resistance.

It should be said here that in June 1967, the West Bank was under total effective control by the Israelis. That control has been unilateral reduced and restraints lifted base on Israeli discretionary powers.

◈ The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) includes:

• The Hague Regularion (1907) (HR), Section III;

• Geneva Convention (GC) IV, Part III, Sections I, III and IV;

• Addition Protocal I;

• The Human Rights activist have also incerted themselfs in the mix.​

The Occupation ends when effective control by the Army is released back to the National Authority → or lesser local authorities Provincial, District, Municipal, etc.

One Party to the "occupation" is Israel. Who is the other Party? Who is Israel occupying?

(ANSWER)

It can be the elements of the prior sovereign of the territory, or some lesser authority down to the level of non-self-governing.

In the case of Israel and Palestine, on 1 August 1988, the territory was non-self-governing; falling to the responsibility of the Occupation Power.

(OTHER)

This leads directly into the question of: When is a Government → a Government → in the West Bank and Gaza Strip? What constitutes a government? And what are the liabilities and responsibilities when releasing authorities to known terrorist organizations.



Most Respectfully,
R

So, what about the 1948 occupation?

Edit
Or should question be moved here?
The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

Enough about the supposed 1948 "occupation.' No one cares about that anymore. The only debate now is about Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The more you continue to beat that dead horse, the more of the remaining land of your beloved "Palestine" you will continue to lose. Hmmm, on the other hand, continue on with that, so soon all of Eretz Israel will be ours!

 

[USAF 2023]

RE: Annexing West Bank
⁜→ Shusha, et al,

The

First, the Hague Regulation says (to be exact):

View attachment 255411
​

I sincerely apologize if I did not accurately quote the Hague Regulation or expressed myself clearly.

Israel was a "foreign Army" in June 1967 relative to the Jordanian sovereignty; up and until the end of July 1988. Then it became an Army in a non-self-governing territory involved in a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) with Jihadists, Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Troublemakers, Adherents, Guerrillas and Asymmetric Fighter.

​

So here is where I'm having trouble with your argument. You say that "occupation" is defined (through Hague Regulation) as "foreign control over territory".

If Israel is the "foreign control" then who is the "local" control? One Party to the "occupation" is Israel. Who is the other Party? Who is Israel occupying?

(ANSWER)

Actually, the control has two components to be an occupation:

• It must be a Hostile Army (it is not necessily a foreign Army).

Example: If a country is subject to a military coup d'état, and the national Army is used.​

• The Army must be "hostile."

• The occupation extends to "direct" territorial control ("where such authority has been establish").

Extended Example: If the Army used by the coup d'état only controls the Capitol City and not the entire Province, then only the Capitol City is under Occupation.​

​

So here is where I'm having trouble with your argument. You say that "occupation" is defined (through Hague Regulation) as "foreign control over territory".

If Israel is the "foreign control" then who is the "local" control? One Party to the "occupation" is Israel. Who is the other Party? Who is Israel occupying?

(ANSWER)

Israel is attempting to maintain full civil and security control over Area "C." Israel has some responsibility for Security Control in Area "B." In contemporary times it is generally construed that, Occupation Law → "applies in all cases of total or partial occupation of foreign territory," whether or not the occupation meets with armed resistance.

It should be said here that in June 1967, the West Bank was under total effective control by the Israelis. That control has been unilateral reduced and restraints lifted base on Israeli discretionary powers.

◈ The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) includes:

• The Hague Regularion (1907) (HR), Section III;

• Geneva Convention (GC) IV, Part III, Sections I, III and IV;

• Addition Protocal I;

• The Human Rights activist have also incerted themselfs in the mix.​

The Occupation ends when effective control by the Army is released back to the National Authority → or lesser local authorities Provincial, District, Municipal, etc.

One Party to the "occupation" is Israel. Who is the other Party? Who is Israel occupying?

(ANSWER)

It can be the elements of the prior sovereign of the territory, or some lesser authority down to the level of non-self-governing.

In the case of Israel and Palestine, on 1 August 1988, the territory was non-self-governing; falling to the responsibility of the Occupation Power.

(OTHER)

This leads directly into the question of: When is a Government → a Government → in the West Bank and Gaza Strip? What constitutes a government? And what are the liabilities and responsibilities when releasing authorities to known terrorist organizations.



Most Respectfully,
R

So, what about the 1948 occupation?

Edit
Or should question be moved here?
The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

Yawn...,, Here we go again. He’s never heard of the U.N.

 

[Coyote]

Honestly I think you are just playing with words here trying to make it sound righteous.

It was first occupied territory. Then it was white washed into “disputed” territory. Now the final phase....”it is rightfully ours”.

I'd argue it is you playing with words. It was not "first" called occupied territory. It was first called "the reconstitution of the Jewish Homeland'. Then it was the Jewish State and (another) Arab State in the failed partition plan. Then it was "Israel" and "Jordan". Then "occupied territories" (which should have ended with the 1994 peace treaty between Israel and Jordan). But then it morphed into "Occupied Palestinian Territories". Now its "Occupied Palestinian Territories including East Jerusalem". There was a fascinating article I read a few years ago about how the language of the territory has changed over time, especially in UN documents. I can't seem to find it now.

But let's do go back to what it was first called, in modern times: the Jewish Homeland.

I am not playing with words in the least. I am using long established terms. It is you who are creating new definitions.

 

[Coyote]

Annexation is the appropriate term, it is time to quit trying make something through a form of "political correctness". Killers of civilians are murderers not martyrs, and annexation is annexation not reclamation.

I DO think it is the only path forward at this and not only because the Palestibians have been incapable of forming a functional government or promoting peace but because the Israeli's under Netanyahu never had any intention of allowing for a Palestinian state.

IMO, in order for annexation to work (among many other factors) everyone must have a vested interest in the state. They must feel a part of it and they have a stake in its future. It is the difference between the renter and the home owner.

One reasons I think this could be problematic is the Basic Law defining Israel exclusively as the nation state of the Jewish people with its detailed points.

 

[Shusha]

I am not playing with words in the least. I am using long established terms. It is you who are creating new definitions.

Not so. One can easily trace the changes in language used in the UN documents over time.

 

[Shusha]

Annexation is the appropriate term, it is time to quit trying make something through a form of "political correctness".

It not "political correctness", its a legal truth. Israel is not annexing territory. It is laying claim to territory already under her sovereignty. There is absolutely no legal argument to be made that Area C is sovereign territory belonging to any State but Israel.

And using terms like annexation supports the incorrect idea that Israel is stealing someone else's land. Which is just demonizing Israel and minimizing a complicated issue. All Israel is doing is unilaterally setting a boundary which should have been set in negotiations.

I DO think it is the only path forward at this and not only because the Palestibians have been incapable of forming a functional government or promoting peace but because the Israeli's under Netanyahu never had any intention of allowing for a Palestinian state.

Again, I think that is unnecessarily claiming that Israel always intended to "pig the place" for itself. I don't think Israel, including under Netanyahu, had any reason to show the restraint it has with respect to the "West Bank" if it just intended to exert sovereignty over the whole area.

The reason Netanyahu couldn't imagine a Palestinian State is because the incapability of forming a functional government was pretty clear. The lack of a negotiating partner was pretty clear. The motivations were simply that there wasn't anyone to create a Palestinian State. Not some plan for "Greater Israel".

IMO, in order for annexation to work (among many other factors) everyone must have a vested interest in the state. They must feel a part of it and they have a stake in its future. It is the difference between the renter and the home owner.

As I've said before, Israel would be crazy to try to take in 4 million (hostile) Arabs. But taking in the couple hundred thousand in Area C would not be a problem.



What do you think Israel's goal is in exerting its sovereignty over Area C?

 

[Coyote]

Analysis: Does Netanyahu's Win Maintain Status Quo Or Push Israel Further Right?

The 69-year-old Netanyahu won even though he has already been in office for 10 years straight, on top of serving an earlier term in the 1990s. And he won despite expectations that his own attorney general will indict him for alleged bribery and fraud.

Most attribute his success to the expanding Israeli economy, his tough reputation on security, his ties with President Trump and other world leaders, and his comfortable fit with the right-wing direction the country has taken.

A decade under Netanyahu has seen the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict become more remote. Religious Jewish lawmakers hold more sway over law and society as they block initiatives to expand LGBT rights and allow for secular marriage ceremonies. And democracy has been put to the test with a new law that could weaken the standing of non-Jewish citizens and Netanyahu himself saying the country is the nation state "not of all its citizens, but only the Jewish people."

Now the question is, what Netanyahu will do with his new term? Here's what to watch.

 

[Coyote]

Annexation is the appropriate term, it is time to quit trying make something through a form of "political correctness".

It not "political correctness", its a legal truth. Israel is not annexing territory. It is laying claim to territory already under her sovereignty. There is absolutely no legal argument to be made that Area C is sovereign territory belonging to any State but Israel.

And using terms like annexation supports the incorrect idea that Israel is stealing someone else's land. Which is just demonizing Israel and minimizing a complicated issue. All Israel is doing is unilaterally setting a boundary which should have been set in negotiations.

Israeli-occupied territories - Wikipedia

The International Court of Justice,[3] the UN General Assembly[4] and the United Nations Security Council regards Israel as the "Occupying Power".[5] UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk called Israel's occupation "an affront to international law."[6] The Israeli High Court of Justice has ruled that Israel holds the West Bank under "belligerent occupation".[7] According to Talia Sasson, the High Court of Justice in Israel, with a variety of different justices sitting, has repeatedly stated for more than four decades that international law applies to Israel's presence in the West Bank.[8] Israeli governments have preferred the term "disputed territories" in the case of the West Bank.[9][10] Officially Israel maintains that the West Bank is disputed territory.[11]

Occupied or Disputed.

Annexation: the act of annexing something or the state of being annexed : the addition of an area or region to a country, state, etc.

I think those terms are accurate. The problem is, there is a concerted effort to "soften" what Israel is doing - not demonize it. It is annexation.

If we are going to play with words to make harsh realities sound "nice" and "righteous" then hell, let's call the Pali terrorist "freedom fighters" and "martyrs".

I DO think it is the only path forward at this and not only because the Palestibians have been incapable of forming a functional government or promoting peace but because the Israeli's under Netanyahu never had any intention of allowing for a Palestinian state.

Again, I think that is unnecessarily claiming that Israel always intended to "pig the place" for itself. I don't think Israel, including under Netanyahu, had any reason to show the restraint it has with respect to the "West Bank" if it just intended to exert sovereignty over the whole area.

The reason Netanyahu couldn't imagine a Palestinian State is because the incapability of forming a functional government was pretty clear. The lack of a negotiating partner was pretty clear. The motivations were simply that there wasn't anyone to create a Palestinian State. Not some plan for "Greater Israel".

I totally disagree with you on Netanyahu. Look at the people he's partnered with, look at his rhetoric - sure, he's said it's about "security" but he has said a hell of a lot else that is not about security. More important - name one thing Netanyahu has done towards realizing a 2-state solution. Seems to me most of his actions are provocative. You ignore the fact that there is a significant group - not a majority - but a politically powerful minority - that feels the entire region belongs by right to the Jews and Israel. Netanyahu's terms in office have seen a gradual realization of that ideal whether it's the expansion of (primarily) Jewish only settlements or the erosion of a two state solution. That erosion has long been blamed in entirety on the Palestinians, and while I think they take some significant responsibility, Israel and Netanyahu's government certainly bears some as well.

So what has Netanyahu done to support, promote peace or move towards a two state solution?

IMO, in order for annexation to work (among many other factors) everyone must have a vested interest in the state. They must feel a part of it and they have a stake in its future. It is the difference between the renter and the home owner.

As I've said before, Israel would be crazy to try to take in 4 million (hostile) Arabs. But taking in the couple hundred thousand in Area C would not be a problem.

That doesn't really address what I said.

What do you think Israel's goal is in exerting its sovereignty over Area C?

Consolodating it's hold on the area, bringing it under one law and governmental services, ending any possibility of a two state solution and alleviating the severe housing crunch it suffers from. At least for the Jews. The Arabs are not allowed much lee way in building.

 

[P F Tinmore]

1) It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

2) How are the Palestinians going to live when they are stuck in bantustans cut off from the required resources to develop an economy?

 

[Hollie]

1) It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

2) How are the Palestinians going to live when they are stuck in bantustans cut off from the required resources to develop an economy?

The dictatorships that the Arabs-Moslems currently live in have done quite nicely with their dedicated, exclusive UN sponsored welfare fraud.

What makes you think the Arabs-Moslems want to change that?

 

[P F Tinmore]

1) It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

2) How are the Palestinians going to live when they are stuck in bantustans cut off from the required resources to develop an economy?

The dictatorships that the Arabs-Moslems currently live in have done quite nicely with their dedicated, exclusive UN sponsored welfare fraud.

What makes you think the Arabs-Moslems want to change that?

More proof that we need a stupid post button.

 

[USAF 2023]

1) It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

2) How are the Palestinians going to live when they are stuck in bantustans cut off from the required resources to develop an economy?

Yawn.., Something they should have thought of before 1967

 

[Hollie]

1) It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

2) How are the Palestinians going to live when they are stuck in bantustans cut off from the required resources to develop an economy?

The dictatorships that the Arabs-Moslems currently live in have done quite nicely with their dedicated, exclusive UN sponsored welfare fraud.

What makes you think the Arabs-Moslems want to change that?

More proof that we need a stupid post button.

You’re using up your usual catalog of pointless slogans.

But really, Chuckles, when you consider that the Arabs-Moslems masquerading as “Pal’istanians” have managed to con the UN into providing a dedicated welfare fraud for their exclusive use and abuse and when you consider that the Arabs-Moslems parading around as “Pal’istanians” are, per capita, the highest paid “refugees” on the planet, well yeah, why do you think these laggards and layabouts would want to change that?

 

[P F Tinmore]

1) It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

2) How are the Palestinians going to live when they are stuck in bantustans cut off from the required resources to develop an economy?

Yawn.., Something they should have thought of before 1967

What did the Palestinians do in 1967?

 

[P F Tinmore]

1) It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

2) How are the Palestinians going to live when they are stuck in bantustans cut off from the required resources to develop an economy?

The dictatorships that the Arabs-Moslems currently live in have done quite nicely with their dedicated, exclusive UN sponsored welfare fraud.

What makes you think the Arabs-Moslems want to change that?

More proof that we need a stupid post button.

You’re using up your usual catalog of pointless slogans.

But really, Chuckles, when you consider that the Arabs-Moslems masquerading as “Pal’istanians” have managed to con the UN into providing a dedicated welfare fraud for their exclusive use and abuse and when you consider that the Arabs-Moslems parading around as “Pal’istanians” are, per capita, the highest paid “refugees” on the planet, well yeah, why do you think these laggards and layabouts would want to change that?

Where is that stupid post button?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Annexing West Bank
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, I know that we all have heard this claim several hundred times if we heard it once. Most people, sloppy in the way they interpret the Law, condense it to this phrase as written here. But that is not what the International Law actually says.

1) It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

(COMMENT)

Here is the Law...

“Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.”
SOURCE: Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. ••

It does not say that the Occupied Territory cannot be annexed. It says that the Occupying Power cannot use "Annexation" to change the rights of the protected person.

Let's bring this down to the lowest common denominator:

Protected persons → shall not be deprived, → of the benefits of the present Convention → by any annexation → of the occupied territory.
​

This makes it a bit more clear.

I have yet to see any International Law that clearly states that "occupied Territory cannot be annexed." I would appreciate it if, someone who makes this claim, knows that actual citation. Yes, I would be very interested.

2) How are the Palestinians going to live when they are stuck in bantustans cut off from the required resources to develop an economy?

(COMMENT)

How is this part of the question (I'm not sure)?

It takes at least 2 countries to completely cut-off either the West Bank or Gaza Strip.

To cut-off the West Bank requires the cooperation with Israel and an overt act on the part of Jordan.

To cut-off the Gaza Strip requires the cooperation with Israel and an overt act on the part of Egypt.

IF Israel is an obstructionist in this manner (cut off from the required resources to develop an economy) THEN so are the cooperating Arab League Members.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I support anything and everything that angers terror states like “Palestine”. Bibi won because Israel knows that “Palestine “ doesn’t want peace. They want all Jews dead. Which is fine. Stop whining and attack and see what happens?