I didn't make it up.It is part of the final status negotiations.When Israel occupied Palestine is not disputed.They have won more than the arab muslims have just by looking at the size holdings now compared to 1948. And I am not talking about the occupied territories from 1967 either. Who has a seat in the UN as a full member, who has a viable economy, who has shown full free determination and who has a proper nation.
But when Israel won (legally acquired) land has not been proven.
That's because acquiring land is not and has never been the issue. It's something you made up and you yourself have yet to prove that it is pre requisite for statehood.
Keep it up with your usual lies Tinmore, keep it up.
You did make up the 'acquiring land' crap and claim it was needed for Israel to declare independence.
"It is part of the final status negotiations" Can you post it ?WTF.P F Tinmore, et al,
You are so close to being right, I almost hate to jump in. But...
(COMMENT)I didn't make it up.It is part of the final status negotiations.That's because acquiring land is not and has never been the issue. It's something you made up and you yourself have yet to prove that it is pre requisite for statehood.
Keep it up with your usual lies Tinmore, keep it up.
Clarification #1: The "Permanent Status of Negotiations" is a diplomatic aspect agreed upon in the Oslo Accords (I and II). It only applies to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) after June 1967 (Six Day War).
Clarification #2: The binding Charter, Article 2(4) (1945), stipulates that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." The Hostile Arab Palestinian use this as their justification:
These claims have yet to be litigated or negotiated.
- Arab Claim: In violation of the UN Partition Plan, Israel took an extra 15% of the land in 1948, and then, following the 1967 war, Israel confiscated East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
- Arab Claim: That the occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem since 1967 violate the Charter.
The first is consequence of unconditional War reparations for the 1948/49 unsuccessful attempt by the Arab League to collapse the Israeli Government. Such are payments in kind intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war that the Arab League initiated. While such war reparations usually refers to money or goods means of settlement, since Lebanon and Syria refused to negotiate a permanent peace arrangement (and Egypt and Jordan settled separately) than such occupation and inclusion of land was considered acceptable given the Armistice Lines acceptance which enclosed the lands. Should Lebanon and Syria at some later date wish to open negotiations for peace, the issue can be reopened. (Most informed observers think that neither Lebanon or Syria will ever negotiate for peace as long as Hezbollah remains the dominant Hostile actor in the region. Israel will have to wait for the collapse of both nations; which could happen given Iranian and ISIS/DEASH advances and the inability for the Arab League to render any meaning opposition. Once these two nations fall to a new regime, the matter of the territorial dispute will become no practical value or diplomatic meaning --- as the new regime can only claim sovereignty over that which they control.)
- In the first case, the Arab League was the aggressor. The first use of force was the attack by the Coalition of the Arab Forces.
- In the second case, Egypt was the aggressor and the first use of force was the closure of the Tiran Strait (which separate the Gulf of Aqaba from the Red Sea) to commercial traffic on the high seas --- in violation of the Armistice and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
The later was settled by Treaty in 1979 with Egypt and support by the 1994 Treaty with Jordan.
Most Respectfully,
R
Youir argument has just been taken apart and proven false, is what