Annexing West Bank

[rylah]

On Saturday, Netanyahu said he would annex the West Bank (or Judea and Samaria, as they are known in the Bible) to Israel if he would be re-elected Prime Minister on Tuesday. Do y'all think that this is a good idea?

He said he would annex the "illegal" Jewish settlements. He did it.

He did not at all say "illegal", and it has not yet happened.

Wrong on all accounts.

Bibi doesn't like brown people.

Netanyahu doesn't like the majority of his voters?

I meant arabs. Jews aren't brown.

No You meant to define people by skin color,
that's all I need to know.

 

[Shusha]

Israel seems to be the only one with that peculiar definition of occupied.

No, its the standard definition of occupied. It is the same definition used everywhere in the world and by all nations. Oh, except when it comes to Israel. Because, you know, Israel.

Territory either belongs to a State or it is terra nullius (belonging to no State). There has never been a category of "territory to be held indefinitely under sovereignty of a state which doesn't exist but might be there one day".

There is absolutely no legal provision in any documents for any territory recognized under the reconstitution of the Jewish Homeland (Israel) to be removed and placed under the sovereignty of another state. The international boundaries were set in the Mandate for Palestine, just exactly as they were for Jordan and Syria and Iraq and Lebanon. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is the Jordan River. Legally, its one territorial unit. (And yes, Tinmore, you can call the whole territory Palestine, if it makes you feel better.) It is one territorial unit under Israeli sovereignty with defined international boundaries recognized as the Jewish Homeland (Israel). This was true right up until Oslo.

Then Oslo came about, due to the expressed wish of the Arab people for self-determination. It divided the territory into three temporary zones and recognized the impending sovereignty of the Arab Palestinian people. Areas A and Gaza are under full control of the government(s) of Palestine. Area C is under the full control of the government of Israel. By treaty. Israel has effectively ceded the territory of Area A and Gaza (and Area B) to Palestine. Israel has not ceded Area C, and it remains under her control. It is legally impossible to call Area C "occupied".

The eventual international border between Israel and the impending State of Palestine was to be determined in negotiations between the governments of Israel and Palestine, with Israel ceding the territory to Palestine in a treaty. The border can end up falling anywhere, though the likely assumption is that it will be somewhere in Area C. But it still hasn't been determined.

Here's the problem. A peace treaty is highly unlikely and growing more unlikely every day. But a state has every right to exert sovereignty over her own territory and has every right to abandon territory. So, since there isn't going to be a negotiated border, Israel is going to force one by exerting sovereignty over much of Area C and by abandoning Areas A, B and Gaza. (At least that is what I assume Netanyahu plans. He would be CRAZY to try to take Area A and Gaza.) There are absolutely no legal impediments to this. And no annexation. Israel is not exerting sovereignty over territory to which she has no legal right or claim. Indeed she is doing exactly what was expected to happen in a peace treaty. She's just doing it unilaterally. Which she has every legal right to do.

Now, of course the Arab Palestinians are going to complain. But there are no legal grounds for saying that Area C is sovereign Arab Palestine. Thus, no grounds for saying it is occupied.

If you, or RoccoR , have anything at all to contradict this, please show me.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Hone

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

​

Without saying it, I believe that MG Efroni may be eluding to the recently passed "Nation-State Law," which in my opinion does not do anything to clarify the status of the (non-Jewish) inhabitants in territory subject to Annexation.

I think this does little (at least as I see it) to clarify the concept of "defensive annexation." And although the law does not specifically deny the (non-Jewish) inhabitants their "right to self-determination," in the absence of expressions to the contrary, it certainly circumvented the question of their autonomous destiny.

(COMMENT)

The answer I usually get when I ask this question is that the Act of Annexation extends the Basic Laws of Israel into the territory annexed. And the inhabitants that become subject to the law are de facto citizens to that law.

It will be very important as to how the nation of Israel applies those laws. The answer is nowhere near obvious.

Most Respectfully,
R
ANNEX (As I understand it from The Time of Israel)
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People

First of all the Nation Law does define all citizens of Israel as subjects of the Jewish state, specifically mentioning self determination. Jewish settlement is as well defined a national priority to be encouraged, promoted and its establishment strengthened.

Second, all lexicon of "Annexation" is wrong, and has a false connotation that Judea is not land belonging to the Jewish nation. Though media uses that term, the policies discussed in the Knesset refer to application of Israeli law, in terms of Sovereignty, International Law and Indigenous Rights.

Liberation forward.

I absolutely agree that the term "annexation" is incorrect. You can not annex what is already legally yours. Israel is simply going to apply Israeli law to territory it has legal right to and control of.

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”.

Let’s have some honesty for a change and call it what AND what Israeli leaders are calling it. Annexation.

That is not a bad thing. And it finally brings a light on to the fact that for a certain portion of Israeli leadership...a two state solution was never going to happen. And not because of security reasons.

So let’s call it what is, annexation, and move on from there.

The only time it was occupied territory is when the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan crossed their international boundary into the Territory of the Jewish Homeland (Israel). It has never ever been Territory which belonged to any other State. Time for the lies to end. It is part of the Jewish homeland. Always has been.

We spent a hundred years trying to give parts of it away to the Arab Palestinians. Peace deal after peace deal after peace deal. Still the Arab Palestinians absolutely refuse to do what it takes to accept a two state solution.

Time is up. Israel is going to make a unilateral decision to force a boundary. Good.

Israel seems to be the only one with that peculiar definition of occupied.

The term, occupied, as it is applied to Israel is an expression of bias, nothing more.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Hone

First of all the Nation Law does define all citizens of Israel as subjects of the Jewish state, specifically mentioning self determination. Jewish settlement is as well defined a national priority to be encouraged, promoted and its establishment strengthened.

Second, all lexicon of "Annexation" is wrong, and has a false connotation that Judea is not land belonging to the Jewish nation. Though media uses that term, the policies discussed in the Knesset refer to application of Israeli law, in terms of Sovereignty, International Law and Indigenous Rights.

Liberation forward.

I absolutely agree that the term "annexation" is incorrect. You can not annex what is already legally yours. Israel is simply going to apply Israeli law to territory it has legal right to and control of.

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”.

Let’s have some honesty for a change and call it what AND what Israeli leaders are calling it. Annexation.

That is not a bad thing. And it finally brings a light on to the fact that for a certain portion of Israeli leadership...a two state solution was never going to happen. And not because of security reasons.

So let’s call it what is, annexation, and move on from there.

The only time it was occupied territory is when the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan crossed their international boundary into the Territory of the Jewish Homeland (Israel). It has never ever been Territory which belonged to any other State. Time for the lies to end. It is part of the Jewish homeland. Always has been.

We spent a hundred years trying to give parts of it away to the Arab Palestinians. Peace deal after peace deal after peace deal. Still the Arab Palestinians absolutely refuse to do what it takes to accept a two state solution.

Time is up. Israel is going to make a unilateral decision to force a boundary. Good.

Israel seems to be the only one with that peculiar definition of occupied.

The term, occupied, as it is applied to Israel is an expression of bias, nothing more.

How would you describe it then? As of now, Judea and Samaria are still not officially a part of Israel, yet Israel collects the taxes, patrols the area, supplies them with electricity, etc. It doesn't only apply to Israel though. Turkey occupies Northern Cyprus, China occupies Tibet, Syria occupied Lebanon for about 30 years, etc.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Hone

I absolutely agree that the term "annexation" is incorrect. You can not annex what is already legally yours. Israel is simply going to apply Israeli law to territory it has legal right to and control of.

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”.

Let’s have some honesty for a change and call it what AND what Israeli leaders are calling it. Annexation.

That is not a bad thing. And it finally brings a light on to the fact that for a certain portion of Israeli leadership...a two state solution was never going to happen. And not because of security reasons.

So let’s call it what is, annexation, and move on from there.

The only time it was occupied territory is when the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan crossed their international boundary into the Territory of the Jewish Homeland (Israel). It has never ever been Territory which belonged to any other State. Time for the lies to end. It is part of the Jewish homeland. Always has been.

We spent a hundred years trying to give parts of it away to the Arab Palestinians. Peace deal after peace deal after peace deal. Still the Arab Palestinians absolutely refuse to do what it takes to accept a two state solution.

Time is up. Israel is going to make a unilateral decision to force a boundary. Good.

Israel seems to be the only one with that peculiar definition of occupied.

The term, occupied, as it is applied to Israel is an expression of bias, nothing more.

How would you describe it then? As of now, Judea and Samaria are still not officially a part of Israel yet, yet Israel collects the taxes, patrols the area, supplies them with electricity, etc. It doesn't only apply to Israel though. Turkey occupies Northern Cyprus, China occupies Tibet, Syria occupied Lebanon for about 30 years, etc.

I'd describe it as the US State department does, Judea and Samaria are under Israeli control.

For hundreds of years it was under Ottoman control and then under British (UN) control and then under Jordanian control and now it is under Israeli control. When Jordan had control annexed Judea and Samaria, only two countries, the UK and Pakistan recognized the annexation so when Israel took the land in the Six Day War, it could hardly be called an occupation since no one recognized Jordan's right to it. All the examples you provided of occupations arose from one country invading and holding the land of another, but Jordan had no more right tot the land than Israel has and since the Palestinians have never had a state on that land, there is no rational basis in history, logic or law for calling Israel's control of the land an occupation.

Calling it an occupation implies you think the land should belong to some one else, but that is just an expression of bias.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Hone
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”.

Let’s have some honesty for a change and call it what AND what Israeli leaders are calling it. Annexation.

That is not a bad thing. And it finally brings a light on to the fact that for a certain portion of Israeli leadership...a two state solution was never going to happen. And not because of security reasons.

So let’s call it what is, annexation, and move on from there.

The only time it was occupied territory is when the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan crossed their international boundary into the Territory of the Jewish Homeland (Israel). It has never ever been Territory which belonged to any other State. Time for the lies to end. It is part of the Jewish homeland. Always has been.

We spent a hundred years trying to give parts of it away to the Arab Palestinians. Peace deal after peace deal after peace deal. Still the Arab Palestinians absolutely refuse to do what it takes to accept a two state solution.

Time is up. Israel is going to make a unilateral decision to force a boundary. Good.

Israel seems to be the only one with that peculiar definition of occupied.

The term, occupied, as it is applied to Israel is an expression of bias, nothing more.

How would you describe it then? As of now, Judea and Samaria are still not officially a part of Israel yet, yet Israel collects the taxes, patrols the area, supplies them with electricity, etc. It doesn't only apply to Israel though. Turkey occupies Northern Cyprus, China occupies Tibet, Syria occupied Lebanon for about 30 years, etc.

I'd describe it as the US State department does, Judea and Samaria are under Israeli control.

For hundreds of years it was under Ottoman control and then under British (UN) control and then under Jordanian control and now it is under Israeli control. When Jordan had control annexed Judea and Samaria, only two countries, the UK and Pakistan recognized the annexation so when Israel took the land in the Six Day War, it could hardly be called an occupation since no one recognized Jordan's right to it. All the examples you provided of occupations arose from one country invading and holding the land of another, but Jordan had no more right tot the land than Israel has and since the Palestinians have never had a state on that land, there is no rational basis in history, logic or law for calling Israel's control of the land an occupation.

Calling it an occupation implies you think the land should belong to some one else, but that is just an expression of bias.

I don't think it matters if Jordan's annexation was recognized by the world community or not, since Jordan renounced all of its rights to that territory in 1988. I say this because I recognized Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, though the international community does not, and I will recognize Israel's annexation of Judea and Samaria in the future, though I'm sure that will not be the case by the international community.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The only time it was occupied territory is when the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan crossed their international boundary into the Territory of the Jewish Homeland (Israel). It has never ever been Territory which belonged to any other State. Time for the lies to end. It is part of the Jewish homeland. Always has been.

We spent a hundred years trying to give parts of it away to the Arab Palestinians. Peace deal after peace deal after peace deal. Still the Arab Palestinians absolutely refuse to do what it takes to accept a two state solution.

Time is up. Israel is going to make a unilateral decision to force a boundary. Good.

Israel seems to be the only one with that peculiar definition of occupied.

The term, occupied, as it is applied to Israel is an expression of bias, nothing more.

How would you describe it then? As of now, Judea and Samaria are still not officially a part of Israel yet, yet Israel collects the taxes, patrols the area, supplies them with electricity, etc. It doesn't only apply to Israel though. Turkey occupies Northern Cyprus, China occupies Tibet, Syria occupied Lebanon for about 30 years, etc.

I'd describe it as the US State department does, Judea and Samaria are under Israeli control.

For hundreds of years it was under Ottoman control and then under British (UN) control and then under Jordanian control and now it is under Israeli control. When Jordan had control annexed Judea and Samaria, only two countries, the UK and Pakistan recognized the annexation so when Israel took the land in the Six Day War, it could hardly be called an occupation since no one recognized Jordan's right to it. All the examples you provided of occupations arose from one country invading and holding the land of another, but Jordan had no more right tot the land than Israel has and since the Palestinians have never had a state on that land, there is no rational basis in history, logic or law for calling Israel's control of the land an occupation.

Calling it an occupation implies you think the land should belong to some one else, but that is just an expression of bias.

I don't think it matters if Jordan's annexation was recognized by the world community or not, since Jordan renounced all of its rights to that territory in 1988. I say this because I recognized Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, though the international community does not, and I will recognize Israel's annexation of Judea and Samaria in the future, though I'm sure that will not be the case by the international community.

Ok, so let's scratch all of that and in answer to your question, I would describe Judea and Samaria being under Israeli control and not under Israeli occupation.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Hone

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

​

Without saying it, I believe that MG Efroni may be eluding to the recently passed "Nation-State Law," which in my opinion does not do anything to clarify the status of the (non-Jewish) inhabitants in territory subject to Annexation.

I think this does little (at least as I see it) to clarify the concept of "defensive annexation." And although the law does not specifically deny the (non-Jewish) inhabitants their "right to self-determination," in the absence of expressions to the contrary, it certainly circumvented the question of their autonomous destiny.

(COMMENT)

The answer I usually get when I ask this question is that the Act of Annexation extends the Basic Laws of Israel into the territory annexed. And the inhabitants that become subject to the law are de facto citizens to that law.

It will be very important as to how the nation of Israel applies those laws. The answer is nowhere near obvious.

Most Respectfully,
R
ANNEX (As I understand it from The Time of Israel)
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People

First of all the Nation Law does define all citizens of Israel as subjects of the Jewish state, specifically mentioning self determination. Jewish settlement is as well defined a national priority to be encouraged, promoted and its establishment strengthened.

Second, all lexicon of "Annexation" is wrong, and has a false connotation that Judea is not land belonging to the Jewish nation. Though media uses that term, the policies discussed in the Knesset refer to application of Israeli law, in terms of Sovereignty, International Law and Indigenous Rights.

Liberation forward.

I absolutely agree that the term "annexation" is incorrect. You can not annex what is already legally yours. Israel is simply going to apply Israeli law to territory it has legal right to and control of.

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”.

Let’s have some honesty for a change and call it what AND what Israeli leaders are calling it. Annexation.

That is not a bad thing. And it finally brings a light on to the fact that for a certain portion of Israeli leadership...a two state solution was never going to happen. And not because of security reasons.

So let’s call it what is, annexation, and move on from there.

The only time it was occupied territory is when the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan crossed their international boundary into the Territory of the Jewish Homeland (Israel). It has never ever been Territory which belonged to any other State. Time for the lies to end. It is part of the Jewish homeland. Always has been.

We spent a hundred years trying to give parts of it away to the Arab Palestinians. Peace deal after peace deal after peace deal. Still the Arab Palestinians absolutely refuse to do what it takes to accept a two state solution.

Time is up. Israel is going to make a unilateral decision to force a boundary. Good.

I don't know what you find so funny, Tinmore. It was you and your Palestinian friends continuously refusing every peace deal that led us to this. So now all of Eretz Israel will become the State of Israel. Gd's plan, perhaps?

They haven't been offered peace. They have only been offered partition.

 

[Shusha]

They haven't been offered peace. They have only been offered partition.

Yeah. Because until the Arab Palestinians, no peoples wanting self-determination have ever demanded self-determination over the entire sovereign territory that they found themselves in.

It would be like Catalonia demanding sovereignty over all of Spain. Or First Nations demanding all of Canada. Pakistan demanding all of India. Serbia demanding all of Yugoslavia. Its ridiculous.

Partition is the NORM.

 

[rylah]

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

Yeah, I thought I would get some pushback here.

]

First of all the Nation Law does define all citizens of Israel as subjects of the Jewish state, specifically mentioning self determination. Jewish settlement is as well defined a national priority to be encouraged, promoted and its establishment strengthened.

(COMMENT)

I totally understand what you are saying. I was addressing the "Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People → 1 — Basic principles:

A. The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established.
B. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination.
C. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.​

It goes out of its way to specifically state "Jewish People;" not Israeli People and not inhabitance of a non-Jewish status.

This is what some people are afraid of.

Second, all lexicon of "Annexation" is wrong, and has a false connotation that Judea is not land belonging to the Jewish nation. Though media uses that term, the policies discussed in the Knesset refer to application of Israeli law, in terms of Sovereignty, International Law and Indigenous Rights.

(COMMENT)

Yes, that is what the conflict is all about. It is a territorial dispute.

• The Arab Palestinians say that Judea belongs to them.

• So when the Israelis extend Israeli Basic Law to cover that territory, it is a case of "Annexation" by sovereign extention by other means.​

It should be noted that many Arab Palestinians argue that the same territory is their territory and constitutes part of their state.

I absolutely agree that the term "annexation" is incorrect. You can not annex what is already legally yours. Israel is simply going to apply Israeli law to territory it has legal right to and control of.

(COMMENT)

This is only one perspective. The State of Israel, pre-1948 did not exist. I know that both sides have claims of history in depth of time; but neither claim is any more valid then if the Shawnee, the Chippewas, or the Ojibwa natives, attempt some claim to territory in Ohio. Ancient history simply does not figure into the matter. If Israel expects to defend itself in any legal confrontation → here → in the 21st Century it can not expect to win using 21 BC history.

(NOTE)

I support Israel on the basis of the need for such a state as having such sovereign laws that would insure the protection and preservation of the Jewish people and their culture from further abuse under the color of law.

Most Respectfully,
R

I appreciate Your point of view, but let me clarify several things.

Our line of discussion is international law, and I think that I've made it clear that one of main legal arguments lay directly in both the UN Charter and US Constitution.

Ancient history was not brought up at this stage, yet, but let's not exaggerate or oversimplify that argument as well. Historic and indigenous rights are indeed recognized in this conflict as well, one can say a precedent, therefore the more significant from a legal point.

What You referred regarding the term "Jewish people", from any applicable legal point of view is the same potato-potato. The 'people' there is the same as nation, it's singular in Hebrew. As well there's no distinction or mention of ones ethnicity in the Israel ID's/passports exactly to prevent distinction. Israel is the Jewish nation, all citizens of Israel are subjects of the Jewish nation and Israelis.
This is done so specifically to give Israel a backup for the possibility of eventually providing another 800,000 - 1.2 Arabs in Judea with Israeli citizenship, without endangering the future of the whole community, from downgrading to anything like we see in the region.

How this could be implemented is discussed in a variety of political plans suggested.
From architects of the Greater Jerusalem, to the Decisive Plan of Bezalel Smotrich, Emirates of Dr. Mordechai Kedar etc, and of course don't forget what Netanyahu might suggest and the Trump Plan.

Until those are actually on the table, we cannot be specific, but I think I have already discussed my idea of application of Sovereignty and the process of providing citizenship, quiet in detail.

What we are lacking is a discussion on obligations upon receiving Israeli citizenship.

 

[Shusha]

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.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Let's try to find out where we are :

​

If you, or RoccoR , have anything at all to contradict this, please show me.

(COMMENT)

As you can see by the timeline (supra) the on 1 August 1988, the Jordan relinquished all ties to the West and (including Jerusalem) and there was no Palestinian Government (the All Palestine Government dissolved and reincorporated into the Military Governorship by the Egyptians in 1959) and the Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt (1974) set a new International Border that encapsulates the Gaza Strip inside the sovereignty of Israel.

I ask you to notice that during the period 1 August → 15 November 1988, there was no actual government in either a claimant standing with any International Agency or the United Nations for that territory left to the last government standing, Israel.

​

• I submit to you → that in 1988, the only sovereignty holding authority over the West Bank was Israel.

• I submit to you → that the prior sovereignty extending governmental claim to the territory, relinquished that claim on 31 July 1988.

• I submit to you → that Israel is, the only sovereign nation since the departure of the Jordanians, to oversee governmental activity in the West Bank.​

I think, that Israel is quit benevolent in its agreement with the Oslo Accord. And since the Palestinian Authority, by a public announcement:

The Oslo Accords are dead and the Palestinian Authority leadership is about to ask the UN Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state in the pre-1967 lines, a senior Fatah official said on Tuesday.
SOURCE: Jerusalem Post •
The Palestinian leadership is about to ask the UN Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state and says there will be no return to the previous peace process with Israel. By Khaled Abu Toameh April 1, 2015

This means that, if the Arab Palestinians ever had a real functioning government, it again sets the conditions back to a time before the Oslo Accords when the government of record was the Israelis.

But maybe I'm wrong. But what I've presented here are very hard facts etched into the history of the region.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

Hone

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

​

Without saying it, I believe that MG Efroni may be eluding to the recently passed "Nation-State Law," which in my opinion does not do anything to clarify the status of the (non-Jewish) inhabitants in territory subject to Annexation.

I think this does little (at least as I see it) to clarify the concept of "defensive annexation." And although the law does not specifically deny the (non-Jewish) inhabitants their "right to self-determination," in the absence of expressions to the contrary, it certainly circumvented the question of their autonomous destiny.

(COMMENT)

The answer I usually get when I ask this question is that the Act of Annexation extends the Basic Laws of Israel into the territory annexed. And the inhabitants that become subject to the law are de facto citizens to that law.

It will be very important as to how the nation of Israel applies those laws. The answer is nowhere near obvious.

Most Respectfully,
R
ANNEX (As I understand it from The Time of Israel)
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People

First of all the Nation Law does define all citizens of Israel as subjects of the Jewish state, specifically mentioning self determination. Jewish settlement is as well defined a national priority to be encouraged, promoted and its establishment strengthened.

Second, all lexicon of "Annexation" is wrong, and has a false connotation that Judea is not land belonging to the Jewish nation. Though media uses that term, the policies discussed in the Knesset refer to application of Israeli law, in terms of Sovereignty, International Law and Indigenous Rights.

Liberation forward.

I absolutely agree that the term "annexation" is incorrect. You can not annex what is already legally yours. Israel is simply going to apply Israeli law to territory it has legal right to and control of.

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”.

Let’s have some honesty for a change and call it what AND what Israeli leaders are calling it. Annexation.

That is not a bad thing. And it finally brings a light on to the fact that for a certain portion of Israeli leadership...a two state solution was never going to happen. And not because of security reasons.

So let’s call it what is, annexation, and move on from there.

The only time it was occupied territory is when the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan crossed their international boundary into the Territory of the Jewish Homeland (Israel). It has never ever been Territory which belonged to any other State. Time for the lies to end. It is part of the Jewish homeland. Always has been.

We spent a hundred years trying to give parts of it away to the Arab Palestinians. Peace deal after peace deal after peace deal. Still the Arab Palestinians absolutely refuse to do what it takes to accept a two state solution.

Time is up. Israel is going to make a unilateral decision to force a boundary. Good.

I don't know what you find so funny, Tinmore. It was you and your Palestinian friends continuously refusing every peace deal that led us to this. So now all of Eretz Israel will become the State of Israel. Gd's plan, perhaps?

Baruch Hashem Jerusalem is growing in all directions and densely populated.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Let's try to find out where we are :

View attachment 255349
​

If you, or RoccoR , have anything at all to contradict this, please show me.

(COMMENT)

As you can see by the timeline (supra) the on 1 August 1988, the Jordan relinquished all ties to the West and (including Jerusalem) and there was no Palestinian Government (the All Palestine Government dissolved and reincorporated into the Military Governorship by the Egyptians in 1959) and the Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt (1974) set a new International Border that encapsulates the Gaza Strip inside the sovereignty of Israel.

I ask you to notice that during the period 1 August → 15 November 1988, there was no actual government in either a claimant standing with any International Agency or the United Nations for that territory left to the last government standing, Israel.

View attachment 255350
​

• I submit to you → that in 1988, the only sovereignty holding authority over the West Bank was Israel.

• I submit to you → that the prior sovereignty extending governmental claim to the territory, relinquished that claim on 31 July 1988.

• I submit to you → that Israel is, the only sovereign nation since the departure of the Jordanians, to oversee governmental activity in the West Bank.​

I think, that Israel is quit benevolent in its agreement with the Oslo Accord. And since the Palestinian Authority, by a public announcement:

The Oslo Accords are dead and the Palestinian Authority leadership is about to ask the UN Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state in the pre-1967 lines, a senior Fatah official said on Tuesday.
SOURCE: Jerusalem Post •
The Palestinian leadership is about to ask the UN Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state and says there will be no return to the previous peace process with Israel. By Khaled Abu Toameh April 1, 2015

This means that, if the Arab Palestinians ever had a real functioning government, it again sets the conditions back to a time before the Oslo Accords when the government of record was the Israelis.

But maybe I'm wrong. But what I've presented here are very hard facts etched into the history of the region.

Most Respectfully,
R

Again you base your conclusion on false premise.

A state or a government are not required for a people to have the right to self determination and sovereignty.

 

[Shusha]

A state or a government are not required for a people to have the right to self determination and sovereignty.

A government is absolutely required to HAVE sovereignty.

 

[Shusha]

This means that, if the Arab Palestinians ever had a real functioning government, it again sets the conditions back to a time before the Oslo Accords when the government of record was the Israelis.

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting:

1948 to 1967 Sovereignty was held by Israel and by Jordan
1967 to 1988 Sovereignty was held by Israel and by Jordan, with Israel occupying Jordanian territory
1988 to present Sovereignty is held by ?Israel?

 

[Shusha]

A state or a government are not required for a people to have the right to self determination and sovereignty.

Also, again, NO ONE is claiming Arab Palestinians have no rights to self-determination and sovereignty.

 

[Ria_Longhorn]

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

Let's try to find out where we are :

View attachment 255349
​

If you, or RoccoR , have anything at all to contradict this, please show me.

(COMMENT)

As you can see by the timeline (supra) the on 1 August 1988, the Jordan relinquished all ties to the West and (including Jerusalem) and there was no Palestinian Government (the All Palestine Government dissolved and reincorporated into the Military Governorship by the Egyptians in 1959) and the Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt (1974) set a new International Border that encapsulates the Gaza Strip inside the sovereignty of Israel.

I ask you to notice that during the period 1 August → 15 November 1988, there was no actual government in either a claimant standing with any International Agency or the United Nations for that territory left to the last government standing, Israel.

View attachment 255350
​

• I submit to you → that in 1988, the only sovereignty holding authority over the West Bank was Israel.

• I submit to you → that the prior sovereignty extending governmental claim to the territory, relinquished that claim on 31 July 1988.

• I submit to you → that Israel is, the only sovereign nation since the departure of the Jordanians, to oversee governmental activity in the West Bank.​

I think, that Israel is quit benevolent in its agreement with the Oslo Accord. And since the Palestinian Authority, by a public announcement:

The Oslo Accords are dead and the Palestinian Authority leadership is about to ask the UN Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state in the pre-1967 lines, a senior Fatah official said on Tuesday.
SOURCE: Jerusalem Post •
The Palestinian leadership is about to ask the UN Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state and says there will be no return to the previous peace process with Israel. By Khaled Abu Toameh April 1, 2015

This means that, if the Arab Palestinians ever had a real functioning government, it again sets the conditions back to a time before the Oslo Accords when the government of record was the Israelis.

But maybe I'm wrong. But what I've presented here are very hard facts etched into the history of the region.

Most Respectfully,
R

Again you base your conclusion on false premise.

A state or a government are not required for a people to have the right to self determination and sovereignty.

"Palestine" meets none of the four requirements under international law for a state. Under the Montevideo Convention (1933), a state "should possess the following qualifications": (1) a defined territory; (2) a government; (3) capacity to enter into relations with the other states; and (4) a permanent population.
"Palestine" lacks a "defined territory." To have a defined territory, "Palestine" has to negotiate it with Israel; until then, its self-definition of territory is not a "defined territory" under the law; it is simply a negotiating position.

"Palestine" lacks a "government." It is ruled half by a terrorist group and half by an unelected administrative entity whose last election [was thirteen] years ago. The government of each half considers the government of the other half illegitimate, and both are correct.
"Palestine" lacks the "capacity to enter into relations with the other states." Abbas has no capacity to bind the rulers of Gaza, nor even to implement his own commitments in the area in which he rules, with no capacity to bind "Palestine" to anything.
"Palestine" lacks a "permanent population." Most of the population considers themselves perennial "refugees" who seek to "return" to a different state, not to be permanent residents where they currently live.

“Palestine” Does Not Qualify as a “State” - Commentary

 

[RoccoR]

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

At the current time, with the exception of Area "A" no sovereignty has been established. And even Area "A" is arguably only a drone of a nation. Many do not see even Area "A" as having a fully functioning Government.

This means that, if the Arab Palestinians ever had a real functioning government, it again sets the conditions back to a time before the Oslo Accords when the government of record was the Israelis.

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting:

1948 to 1967 Sovereignty was held by Israel and by Jordan
1967 to 1988 Sovereignty was held by Israel and by Jordan, with Israel occupying Jordanian territory
1988 to present Sovereignty is held by ?Israel?

(COMMENT)

OK, I could do better in explaining this.

The Oslo Accords (the titles say a lot):

◈ Oslo I → Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (1993)
◈ Oslo II → Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip (1995)​

Just looking at the titles, you can tell that the Arab Palestinians (for all intent and purposes → it means the Palestine Liberation Organization) did not have sovereignty (meaning they did not have exclusive authority to rule → the authority of a state to self-governance) otherwise they would not need the agreements.

Now, this means that for all the meaning aspects of Israel is in the driver's seat.

• 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.

• The counter-argument is that political condition, the belligerent nature of the population, the unacceptable risk of just turning over control to the inhabitants are simply to complicated to expect anything but desaster.​

The glue that kept the conditions for an emerging country was an effective control.

While the people of Palestine have the "right to sovereignty," they have yet been skillful and savvy enough to achieve it.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Let's try to find out where we are :

View attachment 255349
​

If you, or RoccoR , have anything at all to contradict this, please show me.

(COMMENT)

As you can see by the timeline (supra) the on 1 August 1988, the Jordan relinquished all ties to the West and (including Jerusalem) and there was no Palestinian Government (the All Palestine Government dissolved and reincorporated into the Military Governorship by the Egyptians in 1959) and the Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt (1974) set a new International Border that encapsulates the Gaza Strip inside the sovereignty of Israel.

I ask you to notice that during the period 1 August → 15 November 1988, there was no actual government in either a claimant standing with any International Agency or the United Nations for that territory left to the last government standing, Israel.

View attachment 255350
​

• I submit to you → that in 1988, the only sovereignty holding authority over the West Bank was Israel.

• I submit to you → that the prior sovereignty extending governmental claim to the territory, relinquished that claim on 31 July 1988.

• I submit to you → that Israel is, the only sovereign nation since the departure of the Jordanians, to oversee governmental activity in the West Bank.​

I think, that Israel is quit benevolent in its agreement with the Oslo Accord. And since the Palestinian Authority, by a public announcement:

The Oslo Accords are dead and the Palestinian Authority leadership is about to ask the UN Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state in the pre-1967 lines, a senior Fatah official said on Tuesday.
SOURCE: Jerusalem Post •
The Palestinian leadership is about to ask the UN Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state and says there will be no return to the previous peace process with Israel. By Khaled Abu Toameh April 1, 2015

This means that, if the Arab Palestinians ever had a real functioning government, it again sets the conditions back to a time before the Oslo Accords when the government of record was the Israelis.

But maybe I'm wrong. But what I've presented here are very hard facts etched into the history of the region.

Most Respectfully,
R

Again you base your conclusion on false premise.

A state or a government are not required for a people to have the right to self determination and sovereignty.

"Palestine" meets none of the four requirements under international law for a state. Under the Montevideo Convention (1933), a state "should possess the following qualifications": (1) a defined territory; (2) a government; (3) capacity to enter into relations with the other states; and (4) a permanent population.
"Palestine" lacks a "defined territory." To have a defined territory, "Palestine" has to negotiate it with Israel; until then, its self-definition of territory is not a "defined territory" under the law; it is simply a negotiating position.

"Palestine" lacks a "government." It is ruled half by a terrorist group and half by an unelected administrative entity whose last election [was thirteen] years ago. The government of each half considers the government of the other half illegitimate, and both are correct.
"Palestine" lacks the "capacity to enter into relations with the other states." Abbas has no capacity to bind the rulers of Gaza, nor even to implement his own commitments in the area in which he rules, with no capacity to bind "Palestine" to anything.
"Palestine" lacks a "permanent population." Most of the population considers themselves perennial "refugees" who seek to "return" to a different state, not to be permanent residents where they currently live.

“Palestine” Does Not Qualify as a “State” - Commentary

Palestine is a State: A Horse with Black and White Stripes is a Zebra - viewcontent.cgi