Settlements only "illegal" for Jews

[flacaltenn]

OK then... HAd to close this because I could not moderate fast enough to keep up with the smashing furniture and breaking glass... I got hit with a couple stinky red herrings just sticking my "ample" nose in here..

Thread was NEVER ABOUT --

1) Rape statistics or rape trials..
2) Nuking them all...
3) ANCIENT BRAWLS BETWEEN MEMBERS
4) Jewish or Muslim family issues and facial features..
5) Ancient history BEFORE the 67 war..


Let me remind ALL of you... There is a sticky thread (or 2 or 3) at the top of this forum for all never-ending brawls about the history of this region PRIOR TO (about) the 67 war... USE IT...

Do NOT make this personal and stop honoring the SPECIFIC TOPIC of each thread... You got other "issues"? If it's PERSONAL --- take it to the Flame Zone and Badlands and get it all out.. If it's HISTORY -- take it to the sticky threads I mentioned... ALL OTHER comments and diversions should be in new or existing threads on THAT topic...

We're not doing brawls in this forum.. Thread has to close.. Because apparently NO ONE CARES about pondering any solutions or ways to get resolution to the 60 year old occupation of land...

 

[Shusha]

The OPTs belonged to JORDAN.. Where Palestinians lived PRIOR to the war.. And they shared (largely) in the govt of Jordan.. Not as an autonomous entity.. In fact, the Pali "leadership" of Yasser Arafat and the Black September arouse against the Jordanian leadership and got their asses kicked out of Jordan after the 67 war...

Israel did not have to negotiate with Jordan for the OPTs.. Jordan RENOUNCED their claim over 25 years ago... So arguing that the "Palestinians" have title to the OPTs is also extremely debatable...

Some clarification is needed because the above is wholly inaccurate

Prior to the 1967 war

Gaza was administered by Egypt , nothing to do with Jordan. Egypt had never tried to annexe it either AFAIK

The West Bank , including East Jerusalem was under Jordanian control. Jordans attempted annexation of it was rejected by everyone , uncluding the UN , apart from the UK and Pakistan IIRC.

With the growth of the Palestinian national liberation movement and the moves afoot to sign a peace treaty with Israel the Jordanians decided to renounce all claims to the territory and recognized the Palestinian right to it. They dissolved parliament , thus seperating the Palestinian representatives and turned passports into visas etc etc

So Jordan never " owned " the West Bank so couldn't hold negotiations about its status or sovereignty. Just like the Jordanian attempted annexation was rejected so has the Israeli one

When it renounced its claim it recognized the Palestinian leadership as the rightful inheritors

I agree with you that Jordan had no rightful legal claim to sovereignty in the territories beyond her international borders. As such it had no right to declare an inheritor, (nor, in fact, did it do so). Recognition, at any rate, does not confer legal rights.

With the conclusion of the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan, the 1949 Armistice Lines were dissolved and NO LONGER have any legal value or meaning. (And they were prohibited from being interpreted or used as political boundaries at any rate). Any mention of the 1949 Armistice Lines or Green Line should therefore be eliminated from discussion of current events.

Here's why it matters and why it is relevant to this thread topic (and isn't just a re-hashing of history):

ALL claims that Israel's settlements are "illegal" use this boundary line. Since this boundary line is legally both prohibited and irrelevant, it CAN NOT constitute a legal claim that Israel is building outside her sovereign territory.

There is no boundary line between the State of Israel and an (as yet imaginary) State of Palestine. It simply doesn't exist. (Until we begin discussing the Oslo Accords).

The conflict today is between the aspiring Palestinian nationalism and the State of Israel. That conflict can only end when a Peace Treaty is signed between those two Parties. A Peace Treaty must include the demarcation of a boundary line between the two Parties. That is the only way for a boundary line, in international law, to have permanent legal validity.

Until then, Israel is well within her rights to administer her territory as she sees fit and in accordance with her security needs, values and to the benefit of her people. Just as all other countries are.

 

[flacaltenn]

The OPTs belonged to JORDAN.. Where Palestinians lived PRIOR to the war.. And they shared (largely) in the govt of Jordan.. Not as an autonomous entity.. In fact, the Pali "leadership" of Yasser Arafat and the Black September arouse against the Jordanian leadership and got their asses kicked out of Jordan after the 67 war...

Israel did not have to negotiate with Jordan for the OPTs.. Jordan RENOUNCED their claim over 25 years ago... So arguing that the "Palestinians" have title to the OPTs is also extremely debatable...

Some clarification is needed because the above is wholly inaccurate

Prior to the 1967 war

Gaza was administered by Egypt , nothing to do with Jordan. Egypt had never tried to annexe it either AFAIK

The West Bank , including East Jerusalem was under Jordanian control. Jordans attempted annexation of it was rejected by everyone , uncluding the UN , apart from the UK and Pakistan IIRC.

With the growth of the Palestinian national liberation movement and the moves afoot to sign a peace treaty with Israel the Jordanians decided to renounce all claims to the territory and recognized the Palestinian right to it. They dissolved parliament , thus seperating the Palestinian representatives and turned passports into visas etc etc

So Jordan never " owned " the West Bank so couldn't hold negotiations about its status or sovereignty. Just like the Jordanian attempted annexation was rejected so has the Israeli one

When it renounced its claim it recognized the Palestinian leadership as the rightful inheritors

I agree with you that Jordan had no rightful legal claim to sovereignty in the territories beyond her international borders. As such it had no right to declare an inheritor, (nor, in fact, did it do so). Recognition, at any rate, does not confer legal rights.

With the conclusion of the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan, the 1949 Armistice Lines were dissolved and NO LONGER have any legal value or meaning. (And they were prohibited from being interpreted or used as political boundaries at any rate). Any mention of the 1949 Armistice Lines or Green Line should therefore be eliminated from discussion of current events.

Here's why it matters and why it is relevant to this thread topic (and isn't just a re-hashing of history):

ALL claims that Israel's settlements are "illegal" use this boundary line. Since this boundary line is legally both prohibited and irrelevant, it CAN NOT constitute a legal claim that Israel is building outside her sovereign territory.

There is no boundary line between the State of Israel and an (as yet imaginary) State of Palestine. It simply doesn't exist. (Until we begin discussing the Oslo Accords).

The conflict today is between the aspiring Palestinian nationalism and the State of Israel. That conflict can only end when a Peace Treaty is signed between those two Parties. A Peace Treaty must include the demarcation of a boundary line between the two Parties. That is the only way for a boundary line, in international law, to have permanent legal validity.

Until then, Israel is well within her rights to administer her territory as she sees fit and in accordance with her security needs, values and to the benefit of her people. Just as all other countries are.

Same people (Palestinians) lived in an area previously OCCUPIED by Jordan.. Let's try it that way... Global recognition of annexation really does not matter as much as the fact that the Palestinians APPROVED this arrangement.. $$$Bills were sunk into infrastructure.. Palis got token representation in the Kings court.. Pali GOVERNORS were appointed for each major city center in the West Bank... NEVER WAS true "state status", but it was "a good deal"...

Same occupation lines on the map AFTER the 67 war.. Different occupier.. But now, no Palis WANT recognized Israeli rights or representation... If Jordan had CARED -- they would have negotiated on the part of the Palis.. With the help of the Arab League and much of the world. They just did not CARE enough and walked away from it...

WHY????

Because they had to literally go to war with "pali leadership" and ended up exiling them all.. Yasser Arafat/Black September was not a reliable "partner in peace"...

 

[P F Tinmore]

The OPTs belonged to JORDAN.. Where Palestinians lived PRIOR to the war.. And they shared (largely) in the govt of Jordan.. Not as an autonomous entity.. In fact, the Pali "leadership" of Yasser Arafat and the Black September arouse against the Jordanian leadership and got their asses kicked out of Jordan after the 67 war...

Israel did not have to negotiate with Jordan for the OPTs.. Jordan RENOUNCED their claim over 25 years ago... So arguing that the "Palestinians" have title to the OPTs is also extremely debatable...

Some clarification is needed because the above is wholly inaccurate

Prior to the 1967 war

Gaza was administered by Egypt , nothing to do with Jordan. Egypt had never tried to annexe it either AFAIK

The West Bank , including East Jerusalem was under Jordanian control. Jordans attempted annexation of it was rejected by everyone , uncluding the UN , apart from the UK and Pakistan IIRC.

With the growth of the Palestinian national liberation movement and the moves afoot to sign a peace treaty with Israel the Jordanians decided to renounce all claims to the territory and recognized the Palestinian right to it. They dissolved parliament , thus seperating the Palestinian representatives and turned passports into visas etc etc

So Jordan never " owned " the West Bank so couldn't hold negotiations about its status or sovereignty. Just like the Jordanian attempted annexation was rejected so has the Israeli one

When it renounced its claim it recognized the Palestinian leadership as the rightful inheritors

I agree with you that Jordan had no rightful legal claim to sovereignty in the territories beyond her international borders. As such it had no right to declare an inheritor, (nor, in fact, did it do so). Recognition, at any rate, does not confer legal rights.

With the conclusion of the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan, the 1949 Armistice Lines were dissolved and NO LONGER have any legal value or meaning. (And they were prohibited from being interpreted or used as political boundaries at any rate). Any mention of the 1949 Armistice Lines or Green Line should therefore be eliminated from discussion of current events.

Here's why it matters and why it is relevant to this thread topic (and isn't just a re-hashing of history):

ALL claims that Israel's settlements are "illegal" use this boundary line. Since this boundary line is legally both prohibited and irrelevant, it CAN NOT constitute a legal claim that Israel is building outside her sovereign territory.

There is no boundary line between the State of Israel and an (as yet imaginary) State of Palestine. It simply doesn't exist. (Until we begin discussing the Oslo Accords).

The conflict today is between the aspiring Palestinian nationalism and the State of Israel. That conflict can only end when a Peace Treaty is signed between those two Parties. A Peace Treaty must include the demarcation of a boundary line between the two Parties. That is the only way for a boundary line, in international law, to have permanent legal validity.

Until then, Israel is well within her rights to administer her territory as she sees fit and in accordance with her security needs, values and to the benefit of her people. Just as all other countries are.

With the conclusion of the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan, the 1949 Armistice Lines were dissolved and NO LONGER have any legal value or meaning. (And they were prohibited from being interpreted or used as political boundaries at any rate). Any mention of the 1949 Armistice Lines or Green Line should therefore be eliminated from discussion of current events.

So then, why does every map of Israel show these as its borders?

 

[Indeependent]

The OPTs belonged to JORDAN.. Where Palestinians lived PRIOR to the war.. And they shared (largely) in the govt of Jordan.. Not as an autonomous entity.. In fact, the Pali "leadership" of Yasser Arafat and the Black September arouse against the Jordanian leadership and got their asses kicked out of Jordan after the 67 war...

Israel did not have to negotiate with Jordan for the OPTs.. Jordan RENOUNCED their claim over 25 years ago... So arguing that the "Palestinians" have title to the OPTs is also extremely debatable...

Some clarification is needed because the above is wholly inaccurate

Prior to the 1967 war

Gaza was administered by Egypt , nothing to do with Jordan. Egypt had never tried to annexe it either AFAIK

The West Bank , including East Jerusalem was under Jordanian control. Jordans attempted annexation of it was rejected by everyone , uncluding the UN , apart from the UK and Pakistan IIRC.

With the growth of the Palestinian national liberation movement and the moves afoot to sign a peace treaty with Israel the Jordanians decided to renounce all claims to the territory and recognized the Palestinian right to it. They dissolved parliament , thus seperating the Palestinian representatives and turned passports into visas etc etc

So Jordan never " owned " the West Bank so couldn't hold negotiations about its status or sovereignty. Just like the Jordanian attempted annexation was rejected so has the Israeli one

When it renounced its claim it recognized the Palestinian leadership as the rightful inheritors

I agree with you that Jordan had no rightful legal claim to sovereignty in the territories beyond her international borders. As such it had no right to declare an inheritor, (nor, in fact, did it do so). Recognition, at any rate, does not confer legal rights.

With the conclusion of the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan, the 1949 Armistice Lines were dissolved and NO LONGER have any legal value or meaning. (And they were prohibited from being interpreted or used as political boundaries at any rate). Any mention of the 1949 Armistice Lines or Green Line should therefore be eliminated from discussion of current events.

Here's why it matters and why it is relevant to this thread topic (and isn't just a re-hashing of history):

ALL claims that Israel's settlements are "illegal" use this boundary line. Since this boundary line is legally both prohibited and irrelevant, it CAN NOT constitute a legal claim that Israel is building outside her sovereign territory.

There is no boundary line between the State of Israel and an (as yet imaginary) State of Palestine. It simply doesn't exist. (Until we begin discussing the Oslo Accords).

The conflict today is between the aspiring Palestinian nationalism and the State of Israel. That conflict can only end when a Peace Treaty is signed between those two Parties. A Peace Treaty must include the demarcation of a boundary line between the two Parties. That is the only way for a boundary line, in international law, to have permanent legal validity.

Until then, Israel is well within her rights to administer her territory as she sees fit and in accordance with her security needs, values and to the benefit of her people. Just as all other countries are.

With the conclusion of the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan, the 1949 Armistice Lines were dissolved and NO LONGER have any legal value or meaning. (And they were prohibited from being interpreted or used as political boundaries at any rate). Any mention of the 1949 Armistice Lines or Green Line should therefore be eliminated from discussion of current events.

So then, why does every map of Israel show these as its borders?

Who’s publishing the maps of Israel that offend you?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The OPTs belonged to JORDAN.. Where Palestinians lived PRIOR to the war.. And they shared (largely) in the govt of Jordan.. Not as an autonomous entity.. In fact, the Pali "leadership" of Yasser Arafat and the Black September arouse against the Jordanian leadership and got their asses kicked out of Jordan after the 67 war...

Israel did not have to negotiate with Jordan for the OPTs.. Jordan RENOUNCED their claim over 25 years ago... So arguing that the "Palestinians" have title to the OPTs is also extremely debatable...

Some clarification is needed because the above is wholly inaccurate

Prior to the 1967 war

Gaza was administered by Egypt , nothing to do with Jordan. Egypt had never tried to annexe it either AFAIK

The West Bank , including East Jerusalem was under Jordanian control. Jordans attempted annexation of it was rejected by everyone , uncluding the UN , apart from the UK and Pakistan IIRC.

With the growth of the Palestinian national liberation movement and the moves afoot to sign a peace treaty with Israel the Jordanians decided to renounce all claims to the territory and recognized the Palestinian right to it. They dissolved parliament , thus seperating the Palestinian representatives and turned passports into visas etc etc

So Jordan never " owned " the West Bank so couldn't hold negotiations about its status or sovereignty. Just like the Jordanian attempted annexation was rejected so has the Israeli one

When it renounced its claim it recognized the Palestinian leadership as the rightful inheritors

I agree with you that Jordan had no rightful legal claim to sovereignty in the territories beyond her international borders. As such it had no right to declare an inheritor, (nor, in fact, did it do so). Recognition, at any rate, does not confer legal rights.

With the conclusion of the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan, the 1949 Armistice Lines were dissolved and NO LONGER have any legal value or meaning. (And they were prohibited from being interpreted or used as political boundaries at any rate). Any mention of the 1949 Armistice Lines or Green Line should therefore be eliminated from discussion of current events.

Here's why it matters and why it is relevant to this thread topic (and isn't just a re-hashing of history):

ALL claims that Israel's settlements are "illegal" use this boundary line. Since this boundary line is legally both prohibited and irrelevant, it CAN NOT constitute a legal claim that Israel is building outside her sovereign territory.

There is no boundary line between the State of Israel and an (as yet imaginary) State of Palestine. It simply doesn't exist. (Until we begin discussing the Oslo Accords).

The conflict today is between the aspiring Palestinian nationalism and the State of Israel. That conflict can only end when a Peace Treaty is signed between those two Parties. A Peace Treaty must include the demarcation of a boundary line between the two Parties. That is the only way for a boundary line, in international law, to have permanent legal validity.

Until then, Israel is well within her rights to administer her territory as she sees fit and in accordance with her security needs, values and to the benefit of her people. Just as all other countries are.

With the conclusion of the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan, the 1949 Armistice Lines were dissolved and NO LONGER have any legal value or meaning. (And they were prohibited from being interpreted or used as political boundaries at any rate). Any mention of the 1949 Armistice Lines or Green Line should therefore be eliminated from discussion of current events.

So then, why does every map of Israel show these as its borders?

Who’s publishing the maps of Israel that offend you?

Everybody. Find a map of Israel that uses its real borders.

 

[Indeependent]

The OPTs belonged to JORDAN.. Where Palestinians lived PRIOR to the war.. And they shared (largely) in the govt of Jordan.. Not as an autonomous entity.. In fact, the Pali "leadership" of Yasser Arafat and the Black September arouse against the Jordanian leadership and got their asses kicked out of Jordan after the 67 war...

Israel did not have to negotiate with Jordan for the OPTs.. Jordan RENOUNCED their claim over 25 years ago... So arguing that the "Palestinians" have title to the OPTs is also extremely debatable...

Some clarification is needed because the above is wholly inaccurate

Prior to the 1967 war

Gaza was administered by Egypt , nothing to do with Jordan. Egypt had never tried to annexe it either AFAIK

The West Bank , including East Jerusalem was under Jordanian control. Jordans attempted annexation of it was rejected by everyone , uncluding the UN , apart from the UK and Pakistan IIRC.

With the growth of the Palestinian national liberation movement and the moves afoot to sign a peace treaty with Israel the Jordanians decided to renounce all claims to the territory and recognized the Palestinian right to it. They dissolved parliament , thus seperating the Palestinian representatives and turned passports into visas etc etc

So Jordan never " owned " the West Bank so couldn't hold negotiations about its status or sovereignty. Just like the Jordanian attempted annexation was rejected so has the Israeli one

When it renounced its claim it recognized the Palestinian leadership as the rightful inheritors

I agree with you that Jordan had no rightful legal claim to sovereignty in the territories beyond her international borders. As such it had no right to declare an inheritor, (nor, in fact, did it do so). Recognition, at any rate, does not confer legal rights.

With the conclusion of the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan, the 1949 Armistice Lines were dissolved and NO LONGER have any legal value or meaning. (And they were prohibited from being interpreted or used as political boundaries at any rate). Any mention of the 1949 Armistice Lines or Green Line should therefore be eliminated from discussion of current events.

Here's why it matters and why it is relevant to this thread topic (and isn't just a re-hashing of history):

ALL claims that Israel's settlements are "illegal" use this boundary line. Since this boundary line is legally both prohibited and irrelevant, it CAN NOT constitute a legal claim that Israel is building outside her sovereign territory.

There is no boundary line between the State of Israel and an (as yet imaginary) State of Palestine. It simply doesn't exist. (Until we begin discussing the Oslo Accords).

The conflict today is between the aspiring Palestinian nationalism and the State of Israel. That conflict can only end when a Peace Treaty is signed between those two Parties. A Peace Treaty must include the demarcation of a boundary line between the two Parties. That is the only way for a boundary line, in international law, to have permanent legal validity.

Until then, Israel is well within her rights to administer her territory as she sees fit and in accordance with her security needs, values and to the benefit of her people. Just as all other countries are.

With the conclusion of the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan, the 1949 Armistice Lines were dissolved and NO LONGER have any legal value or meaning. (And they were prohibited from being interpreted or used as political boundaries at any rate). Any mention of the 1949 Armistice Lines or Green Line should therefore be eliminated from discussion of current events.

So then, why does every map of Israel show these as its borders?

Who’s publishing the maps of Israel that offend you?

Everybody. Find a map of Israel that uses its real borders.

If there are no maps that match reality, even in the Arab world, what makes you think you’re correct?

 

[Shusha]

So then, why does every map of Israel show these as its borders?

False premise as every map of Israel does not show these lines, let alone as borders.

Arabs show the map without Israel at all because that represents their aspirations.

The international community shows these lines as "lawfare" against Israel.

Israel shows these lines as representative of Israel's willingness to cede territory for peace. That time is coming to an end now.

 

[Shusha]

Everybody. Find a map of Israel that uses its real borders.

 

[Indeependent]

So then, why does every map of Israel show these as its borders?

False premise as every map of Israel does not show these lines, let alone as borders.

Arabs show the map without Israel at all because that represents their aspirations.

The international community shows these lines as "lawfare" against Israel.

Israel shows these lines as representative of Israel's willingness to cede territory for peace. That time is coming to an end now.

Naftali Bennett has already mixed any land surrender.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

So then, why does every map of Israel show these as its borders?

False premise as every map of Israel does not show these lines, let alone as borders.

Arabs show the map without Israel at all because that represents their aspirations.

The international community shows these lines as "lawfare" against Israel.

Israel shows these lines as representative of Israel's willingness to cede territory for peace. That time is coming to an end now.

Naftali Bennett has already mixed any land surrender.

Do you mean nixed? Yeah, Bennett is a great guy, his parents made Aliyah from America.

 

[Spartacactcus]

I agree with you that Jordan had no rightful legal claim to sovereignty in the territories beyond her international borders. As such it had no right to declare an inheritor, (nor, in fact, did it do so). Recognition, at any rate, does not confer legal rights.

With the conclusion of the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan, the 1949 Armistice Lines were dissolved and NO LONGER have any legal value or meaning. (And they were prohibited from being interpreted or used as political boundaries at any rate). Any mention of the 1949 Armistice Lines or Green Line should therefore be eliminated from discussion of current events.

Here's why it matters and why it is relevant to this thread topic (and isn't just a re-hashing of history):

ALL claims that Israel's settlements are "illegal" use this boundary line. Since this boundary line is legally both prohibited and irrelevant, it CAN NOT constitute a legal claim that Israel is building outside her sovereign territory.

There is no boundary line between the State of Israel and an (as yet imaginary) State of Palestine. It simply doesn't exist. (Until we begin discussing the Oslo Accords).

The conflict today is between the aspiring Palestinian nationalism and the State of Israel. That conflict can only end when a Peace Treaty is signed between those two Parties. A Peace Treaty must include the demarcation of a boundary line between the two Parties. That is the only way for a boundary line, in international law, to have permanent legal validity.

Until then, Israel is well within her rights to administer her territory as she sees fit and in accordance with her security needs, values and to the benefit of her people. Just as all other countries are.

Jordanian attempts at annexation of the WB were rejected for the same reason Israeli attempts at annexation have been rejected. How many countries support the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem or the Golan ?

As you will know the UN asked the ICJ for an advisory opinion on the legality of the annexation wall/security wall between Israel and the WB and where it strayed from the green line it was declared illegal, as were the settlements themselves.

So we have a panel of international experts on international law , with access to and knowledge of all of the agreements/treaties/laws/resolutions etc etc applicable to the conflict and they gave that verdict.

I gave you the Israeli legal advisor to the Israeli government at the time ( 1967-68) comments about how to avoid " legalistic " confrontations that would run the risk of the applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention to events and his recommendation NOT to allow civilian settlement of the " administered territories".

Given the above and the mass of other groups and experts that have viewed the Israeli presence in the OPTs as an occupation and the settlements as being illegal , all using the very same information available to all parties, I am going to take their word over yours and leave people to believe what they want to.

I wish to see the day when the US veto that prevents ,imo, that very much needed legal debate from happening and the chance of a just , and it does have to be a just , resolution of the conflict whereby both peoples can finally realize self determination and mutual recognition in international recognized borders

 

[Shusha]

So then, why does every map of Israel show these as its borders?

False premise as every map of Israel does not show these lines, let alone as borders.

Arabs show the map without Israel at all because that represents their aspirations.

The international community shows these lines as "lawfare" against Israel.

Israel shows these lines as representative of Israel's willingness to cede territory for peace. That time is coming to an end now.

Naftali Bennett has already mixed any land surrender.

Yeah, well, that depends on what one considers to be already under Israeli sovereignty.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So then, why does every map of Israel show these as its borders?

False premise as every map of Israel does not show these lines, let alone as borders.

Arabs show the map without Israel at all because that represents their aspirations.

The international community shows these lines as "lawfare" against Israel.

Israel shows these lines as representative of Israel's willingness to cede territory for peace. That time is coming to an end now.

Naftali Bennett has already mixed any land surrender.

Do you mean nixed? Yeah, Bennett is a great guy, his parents made Aliyah from America.

Ah, must be one of those indigenous Israelis that Israel is always talking about.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Everybody. Find a map of Israel that uses its real borders.

Where does it say that that is Israel?

 

[Shusha]

Jordanian attempts at annexation of the WB were rejected for the same reason Israeli attempts at annexation have been rejected.

Impossible.

There is an international boundary which delineates Jordanian sovereign territory. Hence, if Jordan attempts to control territory outside this boundary -- it is a violation of international law.

There is NO SUCH international boundary between the State of Israel and the (as yet imaginary) State of Palestine. Thus there can be no such thing as annexation of "Palestinian" territory by Israel. There is no "same" here.

 

[Shusha]

As you will know the UN asked the ICJ for an advisory opinion on the legality of the annexation wall/security wall between Israel and the WB and where it strayed from the green line it was declared illegal, as were the settlements themselves.

Yes. I am aware. I've read the opinion.

The advisory (!) opinion took on say-so that the Green Line is a legal boundary between the State of Israel and the (as yet imaginary) State of Palestine. There is no legal basis for this. None. It is a discriminatory misuse of law.

 

[Shusha]

Everybody. Find a map of Israel that uses its real borders.

Where does it say that that is Israel?

International law says it is Israel.

 

[Hollie]

Everybody. Find a map of Israel that uses its real borders.

Where does it say that that is Israel?

Your islamic terrorist heroes in Gaza say it’s Israel. They’re trying to get there to kill Jews.

 

[Hollie]

So then, why does every map of Israel show these as its borders?

False premise as every map of Israel does not show these lines, let alone as borders.

Arabs show the map without Israel at all because that represents their aspirations.

The international community shows these lines as "lawfare" against Israel.

Israel shows these lines as representative of Israel's willingness to cede territory for peace. That time is coming to an end now.

Naftali Bennett has already mixed any land surrender.

Do you mean nixed? Yeah, Bennett is a great guy, his parents made Aliyah from America.

Ah, must be one of those indigenous Israelis that Israel is always talking about.

There are 51 references to Israel in your Koran.