“serious stain on Israel law books, because it authorises theft and robbery“

[Eloy]

Indeed, there is an item on the table that is hardly a minor detail: The Palestinian Liberation Organization did not ratify the Oslo Accords after Arafat and Abbas signed the agreement on the White House lawn...

So you agree that agreements made with Palestinian "leadership" isn't worth the paper it is written on? I'll be sure to reference that fact in the future. Thanks.

It is the same as the US president who signs a treaty with other countries having to get subsequent senate approval for the terms of the treaty to take effect.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Indeed, there is an item on the table that is hardly a minor detail: The Palestinian Liberation Organization did not ratify the Oslo Accords after Arafat and Abbas signed the agreement on the White House lawn...

So you agree that agreements made with Palestinian "leadership" isn't worth the paper it is written on? I'll be sure to reference that fact in the future. Thanks.

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf​

 

[P F Tinmore]

No Area "C" settlement in the West Bank is actually in violation of the law. The concept is probably not the most politically astute action or financially a sound investment. The Arab Palestinians do not actually exercise sovereignty in Area "C" of the West Bank.

They are not in violation of Oslo but Oslo is an illegal document. They are in violation of international law.

 

[RoccoR]

Eloy, et al,

This is not totally accurate; at least from a certain perspective. Like signing on to the Rome Statutes (2015), the there is a serious question as to competence. There is a trickle down adverse impact if the "Tinmore Hypothesis" (pertaining to ratification) (Posting #83) were proven to be correct.

Indeed, there is an item on the table that is hardly a minor detail: The Palestinian Liberation Organization did not ratify the Oslo Accords after Arafat and Abbas signed the agreement on the White House lawn...

So you agree that agreements made with Palestinian "leadership" isn't worth the paper it is written on? I'll be sure to reference that fact in the future. Thanks.

It is the same as the US president who signs a treaty with other countries having to get subsequent senate approval for the terms of the treaty to take effect.

(COMMENT)

Treaty ratification in the US is a matter of "domestic law" (Article 2, Section 2, US Constitution). But there are many countries that do not have such a law. You will be very hard pressed to find such a similar corollary in the 2003 Amended Basic Law (current); of course the Oslo Accords were signed long before the Palestinian Basic Laws were created. In the days of the Oslo Accords, the Arab League and the Greater World At Large, considered the Palestinian Liberation Organization to be the sole representative of the Palestinians. So I suppose that the authority to enter into such an agreement met the basic requirements set forth in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Article 14 or Article 15). While the Law of Treaties makes allowances for Ratification, Acceptance or Approval; as well as, consent to be Bound by Accession, it does not require it unless the domestic law requires it as a matter of authority and competence. Certainly no major objection was ever ushered forward then; and no competent offers and objection new. There was not legal obstructions in 1993 and 1995.

In the Oslo Accord era, the PLO had no body to formally implement the ratification process; even if they has one. When in 2015, Palestine began signing treaties, the PA President was faced with the choice to either postpone the implementation process or implement the treaties by presidential decree. By signing treaties, the political ploy was to strengthens Palestine’s claim for statehood through recognition, which in turn increases pressure for independence on Israel as an occupation force.

HOWEVER, you and our friend "SAYIT" are correct (Posting #80). IF it were to be determined that the Oslo Accords were never sound and valid (however unlikely) (meaning invalid) then the political impact would work in reverse. It would be a very strong indication that the PLO/PA had not reach the status of "statehood."

That is not taking into account the civil restitution of claims involved. And of course the question of age! Just how far back can an Arab Palestinian claim that an agreement was not properly handled domestically. The Oslo Accords have stood unchallenged in the dispute process for more than two decades. And if the Oslo Accords are successfully nullified, who is the culpable party? Who owes who damages and compensation?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

Wow. Unbelievable. Outright and unabashed theft of private property.

So when are we going to hear your outrage about the EU/PA illegal settlements in the area.

Or is it a thing only when the Jews settle in Judea?

European Union is 'breaking international law by funding illegal West Bank building projects'

• 400 Palestinian homes have been built illegally, in 17 locations in areas of the West Bank supposed to be under Israeli control
• They fly the EU flag and put up EU signs, in contravention of the ‘Oslo Accords’, part of international law
• But EU and Oxfam say building is justified on humanitarian grounds
• One 'EU worker' pictured threatening soldiers with a rock

You are Talking about the 400 Tents I presume................compared to 100's of thousands of Illegal Zionist,houses made of concrete.on occupied Palestinian Land...Tossa

1. It says "homes", tents are not what you call homes, and the UN wouldn't send money and trucks to install tents.
2. The Jews in Judea mostly build light wooden homes that can be installed in a day. Then after the village develops they build real houses.
Wonderful what you can achieve with 0.001% of the budget balestinians get.
3.Jews in Judea are in no way illegal, they are home.
4. You mean the lands of Israel and Judea that Romans renamed, those were never owned by any govt, calling itself "Palestine"...they can't even pronounce it how can it be theirs?

Well, it certainly isn't owned by a bunch of racist invaders from another continent calling themselves Jews

Of course, you're right. It's the heritage of REAL Jews who were persecuted by European and Arab racists for merely being Jews, the same Jews who were given the land back and were invited to settle.

Get it right- Jews in Judea are home

 

[rylah]

Give the Pale

Wow. Unbelievable. Outright and unabashed theft of private property.

So when are we going to hear your outrage about the EU/PA illegal settlements in the area.

Or is it a thing only when the Jews settle in Judea?

European Union is 'breaking international law by funding illegal West Bank building projects'

• 400 Palestinian homes have been built illegally, in 17 locations in areas of the West Bank supposed to be under Israeli control
• They fly the EU flag and put up EU signs, in contravention of the ‘Oslo Accords’, part of international law
• But EU and Oxfam say building is justified on humanitarian grounds
• One 'EU worker' pictured threatening soldiers with a rock

You are Talking about the 400 Tents I presume................compared to 100's of thousands of Illegal Zionist,houses made of concrete.on occupied Palestinian Land...Tossa

1. It says "homes", tents are not what you call homes, and the UN wouldn't send money and trucks to install tents.
2. The Jews in Judea mostly build light wooden homes that can be installed in a day. Then after the village develops they build real houses.
Wonderful what you can achieve with 0.001% of the budget balestinians get.
3.Jews in Judea are in no way illegal, they are home.
4. You mean the lands of Israel and Judea that Romans renamed, those were never owned by any govt, calling itself "Palestine"...they can't even pronounce it how can it be theirs?

Give the Palestinians Freedom and their Land back and let them evolve in a two State Solution.....the world will support them,they are an intelligent race of people.....trouble here is that YOU WON"T LET THEM,THEIRIN LIES THE REAL PROBLEM.........have a UN buffer between the States(O I FORGOT,YOU DON'T WANT THAT EITHER)and things will resolve.

You all lie because you don't want to really negotiate with the Palestinians..steve

If balestinians want any freedom they should demand it from the representatives the elected- Hamas and PA.

If you want 2 states, give Gaza and Judea to Israel, and you've got yourself 2 states- Israel and Jordan.

The world actually gets tired of their never-ending demands, terror and nothing in return. And the UN are the first to run away when things get dangerous, when the terrorists they support decide it's time for a a new round of skirt hiding.

All you have are outdated slogans the fillastinians themselves don't believe.

 

[Shusha]

No Area "C" settlement in the West Bank is actually in violation of the law. The concept is probably not the most politically astute action or financially a sound investment. The Arab Palestinians do not actually exercise sovereignty in Area "C" of the West Bank.

They are not in violation of Oslo but Oslo is an illegal document. They are in violation of international law.

Not true. An international law is applied to them which is applied to no other country or conflict.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Eloy, et al,

This is not totally accurate; at least from a certain perspective. Like signing on to the Rome Statutes (2015), the there is a serious question as to competence. There is a trickle down adverse impact if the "Tinmore Hypothesis" (pertaining to ratification) (Posting #83) were proven to be correct.

Indeed, there is an item on the table that is hardly a minor detail: The Palestinian Liberation Organization did not ratify the Oslo Accords after Arafat and Abbas signed the agreement on the White House lawn...

So you agree that agreements made with Palestinian "leadership" isn't worth the paper it is written on? I'll be sure to reference that fact in the future. Thanks.

It is the same as the US president who signs a treaty with other countries having to get subsequent senate approval for the terms of the treaty to take effect.

(COMMENT)

Treaty ratification in the US is a matter of "domestic law" (Article 2, Section 2, US Constitution). But there are many countries that do not have such a law. You will be very hard pressed to find such a similar corollary in the 2003 Amended Basic Law (current); of course the Oslo Accords were signed long before the Palestinian Basic Laws were created. In the days of the Oslo Accords, the Arab League and the Greater World At Large, considered the Palestinian Liberation Organization to be the sole representative of the Palestinians. So I suppose that the authority to enter into such an agreement met the basic requirements set forth in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Article 14 or Article 15). While the Law of Treaties makes allowances for Ratification, Acceptance or Approval; as well as, consent to be Bound by Accession, it does not require it unless the domestic law requires it as a matter of authority and competence. Certainly no major objection was ever ushered forward then; and no competent offers and objection new. There was not legal obstructions in 1993 and 1995.

In the Oslo Accord era, the PLO had no body to formally implement the ratification process; even if they has one. When in 2015, Palestine began signing treaties, the PA President was faced with the choice to either postpone the implementation process or implement the treaties by presidential decree. By signing treaties, the political ploy was to strengthens Palestine’s claim for statehood through recognition, which in turn increases pressure for independence on Israel as an occupation force.

HOWEVER, you and our friend "SAYIT" are correct (Posting #80). IF it were to be determined that the Oslo Accords were never sound and valid (however unlikely) (meaning invalid) then the political impact would work in reverse. It would be a very strong indication that the PLO/PA had not reach the status of "statehood."

That is not taking into account the civil restitution of claims involved. And of course the question of age! Just how far back can an Arab Palestinian claim that an agreement was not properly handled domestically. The Oslo Accords have stood unchallenged in the dispute process for more than two decades. And if the Oslo Accords are successfully nullified, who is the culpable party? Who owes who damages and compensation?

Most Respectfully,
R

Not only was Oslo signed behind the backs of the Palestinians without anyone's approval, but it allowed for the abrogation of the Palestinian's rights. That in itself should nullify the accords.

 

[Hollie]

Eloy, et al,

This is not totally accurate; at least from a certain perspective. Like signing on to the Rome Statutes (2015), the there is a serious question as to competence. There is a trickle down adverse impact if the "Tinmore Hypothesis" (pertaining to ratification) (Posting #83) were proven to be correct.

Indeed, there is an item on the table that is hardly a minor detail: The Palestinian Liberation Organization did not ratify the Oslo Accords after Arafat and Abbas signed the agreement on the White House lawn...

So you agree that agreements made with Palestinian "leadership" isn't worth the paper it is written on? I'll be sure to reference that fact in the future. Thanks.

It is the same as the US president who signs a treaty with other countries having to get subsequent senate approval for the terms of the treaty to take effect.

(COMMENT)

Treaty ratification in the US is a matter of "domestic law" (Article 2, Section 2, US Constitution). But there are many countries that do not have such a law. You will be very hard pressed to find such a similar corollary in the 2003 Amended Basic Law (current); of course the Oslo Accords were signed long before the Palestinian Basic Laws were created. In the days of the Oslo Accords, the Arab League and the Greater World At Large, considered the Palestinian Liberation Organization to be the sole representative of the Palestinians. So I suppose that the authority to enter into such an agreement met the basic requirements set forth in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Article 14 or Article 15). While the Law of Treaties makes allowances for Ratification, Acceptance or Approval; as well as, consent to be Bound by Accession, it does not require it unless the domestic law requires it as a matter of authority and competence. Certainly no major objection was ever ushered forward then; and no competent offers and objection new. There was not legal obstructions in 1993 and 1995.

In the Oslo Accord era, the PLO had no body to formally implement the ratification process; even if they has one. When in 2015, Palestine began signing treaties, the PA President was faced with the choice to either postpone the implementation process or implement the treaties by presidential decree. By signing treaties, the political ploy was to strengthens Palestine’s claim for statehood through recognition, which in turn increases pressure for independence on Israel as an occupation force.

HOWEVER, you and our friend "SAYIT" are correct (Posting #80). IF it were to be determined that the Oslo Accords were never sound and valid (however unlikely) (meaning invalid) then the political impact would work in reverse. It would be a very strong indication that the PLO/PA had not reach the status of "statehood."

That is not taking into account the civil restitution of claims involved. And of course the question of age! Just how far back can an Arab Palestinian claim that an agreement was not properly handled domestically. The Oslo Accords have stood unchallenged in the dispute process for more than two decades. And if the Oslo Accords are successfully nullified, who is the culpable party? Who owes who damages and compensation?

Most Respectfully,
R

Not only was Oslo signed behind the backs of the Palestinians without anyone's approval, but it allowed for the abrogation of the Palestinian's rights. That in itself should nullify the accords.

Even by the standards of your usual, loopy, over the rainbow, ain't comin' back conspiracy theories, the above plumbs new depths of the absurd.

 

[Shusha]

Not only was Oslo signed behind the backs of the Palestinians without anyone's approval, but it allowed for the abrogation of the Palestinian's rights. That in itself should nullify the accords.

So, just to be clear here -- you are saying that Palestine has no government capable of acting on behalf of the people. And that no decisions the pretend government make are valid.

 

[montelatici]

No Area "C" settlement in the West Bank is actually in violation of the law. The concept is probably not the most politically astute action or financially a sound investment. The Arab Palestinians do not actually exercise sovereignty in Area "C" of the West Bank.

They are not in violation of Oslo but Oslo is an illegal document. They are in violation of international law.

Not true. An international law is applied to them which is applied to no other country or conflict.

You still can't get it through your thick head, the reason the UN has a special law for the Palestinians, is because they caused the problem.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Give me a break!

You still can't get it through your thick head, the reason the UN has a special law for the Palestinians, is because they caused the problem.

(COMMENT)

There are no unique laws for the benefit of the Arab Palestinians that do not apply to all. Not one single law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

montelatici, et al,

Give me a break!

You still can't get it through your thick head, the reason the UN has a special law for the Palestinians, is because they caused the problem.

(COMMENT)

There are no unique laws for the benefit of the Arab Palestinians that do not apply to all. Not one single law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ha! I was going to say the same thing. Starting with the same "give me a break!"

 

[Shusha]

You still can't get it through your thick head, the reason the UN has a special law for the Palestinians, is because they caused the problem.

Oh please! No other people or nation have ever "caused a problem".

The Moroccans illegally transferring their population, building settlements and walls in West Sahara -- no problem.

 

[Phoenall]

Give the Pale

Wow. Unbelievable. Outright and unabashed theft of private property.

So when are we going to hear your outrage about the EU/PA illegal settlements in the area.

Or is it a thing only when the Jews settle in Judea?

European Union is 'breaking international law by funding illegal West Bank building projects'

• 400 Palestinian homes have been built illegally, in 17 locations in areas of the West Bank supposed to be under Israeli control
• They fly the EU flag and put up EU signs, in contravention of the ‘Oslo Accords’, part of international law
• But EU and Oxfam say building is justified on humanitarian grounds
• One 'EU worker' pictured threatening soldiers with a rock

You are Talking about the 400 Tents I presume................compared to 100's of thousands of Illegal Zionist,houses made of concrete.on occupied Palestinian Land...Tossa

1. It says "homes", tents are not what you call homes, and the UN wouldn't send money and trucks to install tents.
2. The Jews in Judea mostly build light wooden homes that can be installed in a day. Then after the village develops they build real houses.
Wonderful what you can achieve with 0.001% of the budget balestinians get.
3.Jews in Judea are in no way illegal, they are home.
4. You mean the lands of Israel and Judea that Romans renamed, those were never owned by any govt, calling itself "Palestine"...they can't even pronounce it how can it be theirs?

Give the Palestinians Freedom and their Land back and let them evolve in a two State Solution.....the world will support them,they are an intelligent race of people.....trouble here is that YOU WON"T LET THEM,THEIRIN LIES THE REAL PROBLEM.........have a UN buffer between the States(O I FORGOT,YOU DON'T WANT THAT EITHER)and things will resolve.

You all lie because you don't want to really negotiate with the Palestinians..steve

What lands are those then as they never legally owned any did they.

The two state solution is already in place it is comprised of Israel and Jordan. So forced the arab muslims to relocate to the lands they were granted.

The other arab muslims detest them so how will the world support them. They do now and they squander the money on illegal weapons and palaces after creaming the top to line their swiss bank accounts

They are that intelligent that they start wars they know they can never win and watch as their children who they palce in the firing line are killed. They cant get Jobs anywhere else in the world as they dont have any recognisable qualifications, and fail the first year of any courses they sit because they dont understand that bombs and tunnels are not major building's

No one has ever stopped them but themselves as shown by the history books, they claim independence and then balk at declaring a nation and free determination because they cant afford the transition. How can they be expected to stand on their own if they cant raise taxes, cant build houses, cant provide health care, cant police their own people and cant negotiate without making threats of violence.

The last UN buffer was kicked out by the arab muslims, and Israel knows the UN is heavily biased and anti semitic so would not be much of a buffer.

YOU ARE THE LIAR AND I HAVE PROVEN THIS MANY TIMES

 

[Phoenall]

Indeed, there is an item on the table that is hardly a minor detail: The Palestinian Liberation Organization did not ratify the Oslo Accords after Arafat and Abbas signed the agreement on the White House lawn...

So you agree that agreements made with Palestinian "leadership" isn't worth the paper it is written on? I'll be sure to reference that fact in the future. Thanks.

It is the same as the US president who signs a treaty with other countries having to get subsequent senate approval for the terms of the treaty to take effect.

And the senate has already told him what to accept and what to refuse. Then left certain points that can be accepted if they can swing the deal, and other points that could sweeten the deal.

Are you saying the arab muslims are that illiterate that they didnt pre-warn arafat what he could not accept and what he could ?

 

[Phoenall]

Indeed, there is an item on the table that is hardly a minor detail: The Palestinian Liberation Organization did not ratify the Oslo Accords after Arafat and Abbas signed the agreement on the White House lawn...

So you agree that agreements made with Palestinian "leadership" isn't worth the paper it is written on? I'll be sure to reference that fact in the future. Thanks.

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf​

So what international law is this then as an ICRC school lesson is not an international law is it.


The C&P you use is not even in the link provided and is from a treaty that was never actually implemented or ratified so has no legal standing

 

[Phoenall]

No Area "C" settlement in the West Bank is actually in violation of the law. The concept is probably not the most politically astute action or financially a sound investment. The Arab Palestinians do not actually exercise sovereignty in Area "C" of the West Bank.

They are not in violation of Oslo but Oslo is an illegal document. They are in violation of international law.

Who or what says Oslo is an illegal document ?

Detail these alleged international laws giving dates and subject matter ?

 

[Phoenall]

Eloy, et al,

This is not totally accurate; at least from a certain perspective. Like signing on to the Rome Statutes (2015), the there is a serious question as to competence. There is a trickle down adverse impact if the "Tinmore Hypothesis" (pertaining to ratification) (Posting #83) were proven to be correct.

Indeed, there is an item on the table that is hardly a minor detail: The Palestinian Liberation Organization did not ratify the Oslo Accords after Arafat and Abbas signed the agreement on the White House lawn...

So you agree that agreements made with Palestinian "leadership" isn't worth the paper it is written on? I'll be sure to reference that fact in the future. Thanks.

It is the same as the US president who signs a treaty with other countries having to get subsequent senate approval for the terms of the treaty to take effect.

(COMMENT)

Treaty ratification in the US is a matter of "domestic law" (Article 2, Section 2, US Constitution). But there are many countries that do not have such a law. You will be very hard pressed to find such a similar corollary in the 2003 Amended Basic Law (current); of course the Oslo Accords were signed long before the Palestinian Basic Laws were created. In the days of the Oslo Accords, the Arab League and the Greater World At Large, considered the Palestinian Liberation Organization to be the sole representative of the Palestinians. So I suppose that the authority to enter into such an agreement met the basic requirements set forth in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Article 14 or Article 15). While the Law of Treaties makes allowances for Ratification, Acceptance or Approval; as well as, consent to be Bound by Accession, it does not require it unless the domestic law requires it as a matter of authority and competence. Certainly no major objection was ever ushered forward then; and no competent offers and objection new. There was not legal obstructions in 1993 and 1995.

In the Oslo Accord era, the PLO had no body to formally implement the ratification process; even if they has one. When in 2015, Palestine began signing treaties, the PA President was faced with the choice to either postpone the implementation process or implement the treaties by presidential decree. By signing treaties, the political ploy was to strengthens Palestine’s claim for statehood through recognition, which in turn increases pressure for independence on Israel as an occupation force.

HOWEVER, you and our friend "SAYIT" are correct (Posting #80). IF it were to be determined that the Oslo Accords were never sound and valid (however unlikely) (meaning invalid) then the political impact would work in reverse. It would be a very strong indication that the PLO/PA had not reach the status of "statehood."

That is not taking into account the civil restitution of claims involved. And of course the question of age! Just how far back can an Arab Palestinian claim that an agreement was not properly handled domestically. The Oslo Accords have stood unchallenged in the dispute process for more than two decades. And if the Oslo Accords are successfully nullified, who is the culpable party? Who owes who damages and compensation?

Most Respectfully,
R

Not only was Oslo signed behind the backs of the Palestinians without anyone's approval, but it allowed for the abrogation of the Palestinian's rights. That in itself should nullify the accords.

The PLO was appointed by the arab league, the same people that the palestinians look to for support and help. They also elected arafat as the mouthpiece in any negotiations until the arab muslims calling themselves balestinians were in a position to form a viable government. So under what laws was this illegal and how did it abrogate any rights ( and what rights were those as it reinforced their right to self determination and the right to territorial integrity ) Nullify the accords and you delet the nation of palestine leading to Israel being in a position to take all the land under existing international laws

 

[Phoenall]

Eloy, et al,

This is not totally accurate; at least from a certain perspective. Like signing on to the Rome Statutes (2015), the there is a serious question as to competence. There is a trickle down adverse impact if the "Tinmore Hypothesis" (pertaining to ratification) (Posting #83) were proven to be correct.

Indeed, there is an item on the table that is hardly a minor detail: The Palestinian Liberation Organization did not ratify the Oslo Accords after Arafat and Abbas signed the agreement on the White House lawn...

So you agree that agreements made with Palestinian "leadership" isn't worth the paper it is written on? I'll be sure to reference that fact in the future. Thanks.

It is the same as the US president who signs a treaty with other countries having to get subsequent senate approval for the terms of the treaty to take effect.

(COMMENT)

Treaty ratification in the US is a matter of "domestic law" (Article 2, Section 2, US Constitution). But there are many countries that do not have such a law. You will be very hard pressed to find such a similar corollary in the 2003 Amended Basic Law (current); of course the Oslo Accords were signed long before the Palestinian Basic Laws were created. In the days of the Oslo Accords, the Arab League and the Greater World At Large, considered the Palestinian Liberation Organization to be the sole representative of the Palestinians. So I suppose that the authority to enter into such an agreement met the basic requirements set forth in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Article 14 or Article 15). While the Law of Treaties makes allowances for Ratification, Acceptance or Approval; as well as, consent to be Bound by Accession, it does not require it unless the domestic law requires it as a matter of authority and competence. Certainly no major objection was ever ushered forward then; and no competent offers and objection new. There was not legal obstructions in 1993 and 1995.

In the Oslo Accord era, the PLO had no body to formally implement the ratification process; even if they has one. When in 2015, Palestine began signing treaties, the PA President was faced with the choice to either postpone the implementation process or implement the treaties by presidential decree. By signing treaties, the political ploy was to strengthens Palestine’s claim for statehood through recognition, which in turn increases pressure for independence on Israel as an occupation force.

HOWEVER, you and our friend "SAYIT" are correct (Posting #80). IF it were to be determined that the Oslo Accords were never sound and valid (however unlikely) (meaning invalid) then the political impact would work in reverse. It would be a very strong indication that the PLO/PA had not reach the status of "statehood."

That is not taking into account the civil restitution of claims involved. And of course the question of age! Just how far back can an Arab Palestinian claim that an agreement was not properly handled domestically. The Oslo Accords have stood unchallenged in the dispute process for more than two decades. And if the Oslo Accords are successfully nullified, who is the culpable party? Who owes who damages and compensation?

Most Respectfully,
R

Not only was Oslo signed behind the backs of the Palestinians without anyone's approval, but it allowed for the abrogation of the Palestinian's rights. That in itself should nullify the accords.

Even by the standards of your usual, loopy, over the rainbow, ain't comin' back conspiracy theories, the above plumbs new depths of the absurd.

He is clutching at straws now, and seeing just what new claims he can make before bombarding the boards with his usual LIES.