So, let's go ahead and go back to the '1967' borders and end the 'occupation'

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, of course this is accurate.

So good it was worth posting twice!

[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

The WARSAW Ghetto was ≈ 400,000 Jews residing in an area of 3.4 sq km (1.3 sq mi). In contrast, the West Bank is ≈ 3.3 million 5,655 sq km (2,183 sq mi). Everyone in the Warsaw Ghetto was earmarked for the Death Camps (Treblinka, Poniatowa, Majdanek,Trawniki). No one is earmarked for death in the West Bank. There are no "Death Camps" anywhere under Israeli Control.

TRI-BORDER AREA
ISRAEL - WEST BANK - JORDER​

In the 31 July 1988 Disengagement Address, HM King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank.


The 1949 Armistice Line is an unofficial reference line that PLO wants to establish as a Border. This segment of the 1949 Armistice Line was dissolved under Article XII(2), Armistice Agreement by the 10/26/1994

A/50/73 S/1995/83 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty with the delimitation of the international border in Article 3 --- International Boundary.

The State of Palestine never established borders by Treaty in the relative to Jordan, Israel or Egypt in the near three decades it has had since the proclamation of declaring Independence (1988).

The question of borders will probably remain in quest for two or three more generations.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

In 2-3 generations borders won't matter, with a large Gentile majority in the land controlled by Israel.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici,

I'm not sure I understand.

In 2-3 generations borders won't matter, with a large Gentile majority in the land controlled by Israel.

(COMMENT)

In fact, I know I don't understand.

v/r
R

 

[montelatici]

montelatici,

I'm not sure I understand.

In 2-3 generations borders won't matter, with a large Gentile majority in the land controlled by Israel.

(COMMENT)

In fact, I know I don't understand.

v/r
R

If all goes well and peacefully, it will transform itself into a secular, democratic state with equal rights for all the people in the lands that are now under the control of Israel.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al

What is the actual probability of that happening. Would you bet the life of you loved-ones on it?

B ≥ p(L) where it describes a process for determining whether a legal duty of care has been breached; where the 'B' is greater than or equal to the 'p' probability that it will occur, times, the 'L' cost or liability. Put another way, is your argument so certain that you would be willing to risk the lives of you family and/ or the future development of a nation.

I don't think that there is any Arab State that has. in the last Century, demonstrated that they are capable of protecting the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness --- OR --- establish a set of conditions that would make the country first amound nations to develop a standard of living that is the envy of the world.

montelatici,

I'm not sure I understand.

In 2-3 generations borders won't matter, with a large Gentile majority in the land controlled by Israel.

(COMMENT)

In fact, I know I don't understand.

v/r
R

If all goes well and peacefully, it will transform itself into a secular, democratic state with equal rights for all the people in the lands that are now under the control of Israel.

(COMMENT)

I've seen the Middle East and the Muslim up close and personal. I don't have much faith in them. I certainly don't see and recent history that would lead me to believe that they are trustworthy. Look at every Arab State that surrounds Israel. Which one is the kind of state that you would want your kids to grow-up in?

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and income per capita indicators. A country scores higher HDI when the life expectancy at birth is longer, the education period is longer, and the income per capita is higher. It is used to distinguish whether the country is a developed, a developing or an underdeveloped country.

Why should anyone put their faith in such hands; especially the Jewish people who have suffered at the hands of people like yourself that preach the level of law and fairness, yet have taken every opportunity to suppress the Jewish people.

Of the 4 principle aggressors under which a Armistice was arranged in 1949, here are the rankings in comparison to Israel #18:

• Lebanon is #67
• Jordan is #80
• Egypt is #108
• Syria is #134

BTW: Palestine ranked #113. Of all the Islamic Countries in the world, none made it into the top 25, despite their riches.

• Qatar #32
• Saudi Arabia #39
• UAE # 41
• Bahrain #45
• Kuwait #48

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

It's unfortunate, but you can't maintain control, rule over a population and hold that population (now equal to the Jews in Israel) in virtual containment areas and consider that population not part of your own. Both ethnic cleansing and genocide are war crimes. The South Africans created the Bantustans for that purpose but eventually they were obliged to enfranchise the people under their control. In Apartheid South Africa the whites had an even higher HDI relative to its black-ruled neighbors than Israel has now vis-a-vis its neighbors.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, of course this is accurate.

So good it was worth posting twice!

(COMMENT)

The WARSAW Ghetto was ≈ 400,000 Jews residing in an area of 3.4 sq km (1.3 sq mi). In contrast, the West Bank is ≈ 3.3 million 5,655 sq km (2,183 sq mi). Everyone in the Warsaw Ghetto was earmarked for the Death Camps (Treblinka, Poniatowa, Majdanek,Trawniki). No one is earmarked for death in the West Bank. There are no "Death Camps" anywhere under Israeli Control.

View attachment 59516 TRI-BORDER AREA
ISRAEL - WEST BANK - JORDER​

In the 31 July 1988 Disengagement Address, HM King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank.


The 1949 Armistice Line is an unofficial reference line that PLO wants to establish as a Border. This segment of the 1949 Armistice Line was dissolved under Article XII(2), Armistice Agreement by the 10/26/1994

A/50/73 S/1995/83 Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty with the delimitation of the international border in Article 3 --- International Boundary.

The State of Palestine never established borders by Treaty in the relative to Jordan, Israel or Egypt in the near three decades it has had since the proclamation of declaring Independence (1988).

The question of borders will probably remain in quest for two or three more generations.

Most Respectfully,
R

The State of Palestine never established borders by Treaty in the relative to Jordan, Israel or Egypt in the near three decades it has had since the proclamation of declaring Independence (1988).​

What treaties with Palestine changed their international borders from 1922?

 

[Shusha]

It's unfortunate, but you can't maintain control, rule over a population and hold that population (now equal to the Jews in Israel) in virtual containment areas and consider that population not part of your own. Both ethnic cleansing and genocide are war crimes. The South Africans created the Bantustans for that purpose but eventually they were obliged to enfranchise the people under their control. In Apartheid South Africa the whites had an even higher HDI relative to its black-ruled neighbors than Israel has now vis-a-vis its neighbors.

If we take out all the BS talk about containment areas (open air prisons), ethnic cleansing and genocide, Bantustans and apartheid, all of which is nonsense demonization of Israel, I actually more or less agree with the premise of your post here, Monte.

Now the reason why Israel has not claimed this territory is that she, quite understandably, does not want to keep a hostile population under her sovereignty and that hostile population keeps saying (while acting to the contrary) that they want their own sovereignty.

One solution is for Israel to unilaterally abandon Areas A and B and Gaza and annex large portions of Area C.

 

[montelatici]

It's unfortunate, but you can't maintain control, rule over a population and hold that population (now equal to the Jews in Israel) in virtual containment areas and consider that population not part of your own. Both ethnic cleansing and genocide are war crimes. The South Africans created the Bantustans for that purpose but eventually they were obliged to enfranchise the people under their control. In Apartheid South Africa the whites had an even higher HDI relative to its black-ruled neighbors than Israel has now vis-a-vis its neighbors.

If we take out all the BS talk about containment areas (open air prisons), ethnic cleansing and genocide, Bantustans and apartheid, all of which is nonsense demonization of Israel, I actually more or less agree with the premise of your post here, Monte.

Now the reason why Israel has not claimed this territory is that she, quite understandably, does not want to keep a hostile population under her sovereignty and that hostile population keeps saying (while acting to the contrary) that they want their own sovereignty.

One solution is for Israel to unilaterally abandon Areas A and B and Gaza and annex large portions of Area C.

What do you call the areas surrounded by Israeli troops? What do you call areas patrolled by Israeli troops? I can't understand how you can possibly claim that the Occupied territories are any different than the Bantustans.

Area C has 300,000 Palestinians in it, are you going to ethnically cleanse them or exterminate them? As long Israel controls the borders, air space and territorial sea of an area it is occupied.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

I'm not at all sure if you're correct here! But it is a very good question.

It's unfortunate, but you can't maintain control, rule over a population and hold that population (now equal to the Jews in Israel) in virtual containment areas and consider that population not part of your own.

(COMMENT)

I don't believe this is a matter of any concern beyond that of the presumption of risk. Countermeasures are incrementally increased as the imposition of the seriousness threshold in the threat elevates. The question becomes is that risk something we can calculate accurately - which means we're assessing life and death risks that are ultimately imponderable.

Containment is one of the least intrusive countermeasures. Today, there is a confrontation between Israeli Security and regional terrorist movements that must confront the radical ideology that justifies the use of violence against innocents in the name of religion. Effective broad brush strokes at the sallow end of the effort to deny weapons to organizations and activities which seek to use them against throughout the region consistent with the threats they have made.

It is considerably more important to act in a responsible manner but denying organizations that have a history of coercion, kidnapping and murder, assaults and ambushes, and attacks on innocent civilians, among other things that fix the profile of a terrorist culture.

It would be irresponsible for any country, having the capacity to quarantine such organization that have an established history of committing or inciting unlawful acts of violence, intimidates governments or or their citizens, in an effort to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives. The quarantine effort is to remove the opportunity and ability from such activities to do further harm.

Anyone that has a relatively sophisticate computer anti-virus program know that once the harmful virus has been put in quarantine, it can remain their for the life of the computer. The quarantine of organizations and activities with such histories of past criminal behaviors and jihadist activities can be contained in a similar fashion.

Both ethnic cleansing and genocide are war crimes. The South Africans created the Bantustans for that purpose but eventually they were obliged to enfranchise the people under their control. In Apartheid South Africa the whites had an even higher HDI relative to its black-ruled neighbors than Israel has now vis-a-vis its neighbors.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this constant attempt to associate the Palestinian terrorist activities and Islamic Resistance terrorist movements with the history of South Africa is becoming old and irrelevant. The Palestinians are an insurgency --- purely a asymmetric struggle to overthrow a lawfully installed government through the use of force; to achieve that which they could not achieve through political and diplomatic means a half century ago.

The Israelis are not an institutionalized regime which is systematically applying oppression and techniques of domination by one racial group over any other racial group and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime anything other than the Chapter I, Article 2(4) territorial integrity or political independence established through the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, found in Article I(2) of the Charter.

The Jewish Agency, following the UN General Assembly Recommendations as best they could, under constant attack by Hostile Arab Palestinians, formed a government and Declared Independence, to which the Arab League launch an immediate multi-national attack against. Having successfully defended the State, form Arab Aggression, the Palestinians have since tried every conceivable approach to achieve their political agenda and jihadist objectives except "peaceful means." It is not a matter of "ethnic Cleansing." It is an attempt by powerful Arab interests, to defy the resolution of the General Assembly that set the conditions for independence and engaged in a deliberate effort jihadism, terrorism and insurgent measures to alter by force the outcome of the conflict from seven decades ago.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

What do you call the areas surrounded by Israeli troops?

A sovereign nation? Canada does just fine surrounded by the USofA. Of course, the US doesn't shoot rockets at us.

Area C has 300,000 Palestinians in it, are you going to ethnically cleanse them or exterminate them?

Hey. Here's a thought. Why doesn't she keep them? They will be the lucky ones.

As long Israel controls the borders, air space and territorial sea of an area it is occupied.

How about we make sure that Gaza has a border with Egypt. And Palestine has a border with Jordan. Problem solved.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

I'm not at all sure if you're correct here! But it is a very good question.

It's unfortunate, but you can't maintain control, rule over a population and hold that population (now equal to the Jews in Israel) in virtual containment areas and consider that population not part of your own.

(COMMENT)

I don't believe this is a matter of any concern beyond that of the presumption of risk. Countermeasures are incrementally increased as the imposition of the seriousness threshold in the threat elevates. The question becomes is that risk something we can calculate accurately - which means we're assessing life and death risks that are ultimately imponderable.

Containment is one of the least intrusive countermeasures. Today, there is a confrontation between Israeli Security and regional terrorist movements that must confront the radical ideology that justifies the use of violence against innocents in the name of religion. Effective broad brush strokes at the sallow end of the effort to deny weapons to organizations and activities which seek to use them against throughout the region consistent with the threats they have made.

It is considerably more important to act in a responsible manner but denying organizations that have a history of coercion, kidnapping and murder, assaults and ambushes, and attacks on innocent civilians, among other things that fix the profile of a terrorist culture.

It would be irresponsible for any country, having the capacity to quarantine such organization that have an established history of committing or inciting unlawful acts of violence, intimidates governments or or their citizens, in an effort to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives. The quarantine effort is to remove the opportunity and ability from such activities to do further harm.

Anyone that has a relatively sophisticate computer anti-virus program know that once the harmful virus has been put in quarantine, it can remain their for the life of the computer. The quarantine of organizations and activities with such histories of past criminal behaviors and jihadist activities can be contained in a similar fashion.

Both ethnic cleansing and genocide are war crimes. The South Africans created the Bantustans for that purpose but eventually they were obliged to enfranchise the people under their control. In Apartheid South Africa the whites had an even higher HDI relative to its black-ruled neighbors than Israel has now vis-a-vis its neighbors.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this constant attempt to associate the Palestinian terrorist activities and Islamic Resistance terrorist movements with the history of South Africa is becoming old and irrelevant. The Palestinians are an insurgency --- purely a asymmetric struggle to overthrow a lawfully installed government through the use of force; to achieve that which they could not achieve through political and diplomatic means a half century ago.

The Israelis are not an institutionalized regime which is systematically applying oppression and techniques of domination by one racial group over any other racial group and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime anything other than the Chapter I, Article 2(4) territorial integrity or political independence established through the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, found in Article I(2) of the Charter.

The Jewish Agency, following the UN General Assembly Recommendations as best they could, under constant attack by Hostile Arab Palestinians, formed a government and Declared Independence, to which the Arab League launch an immediate multi-national attack against. Having successfully defended the State, form Arab Aggression, the Palestinians have since tried every conceivable approach to achieve their political agenda and jihadist objectives except "peaceful means." It is not a matter of "ethnic Cleansing." It is an attempt by powerful Arab interests, to defy the resolution of the General Assembly that set the conditions for independence and engaged in a deliberate effort jihadism, terrorism and insurgent measures to alter by force the outcome of the conflict from seven decades ago.

Most Respectfully,
R

1. "The Palestinians are an insurgency --- purely a asymmetric struggle to overthrow a lawfully installed government through the use of force"

What were the ANC?

2. "The Israelis are not an institutionalized regime which is systematically applying oppression and techniques of domination by one racial group over any other racial group and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime ..."

Of course they are, only a fool with a severe case of cognizant dissonance would deny that the Israelis are systemically applying oppression and techniques of domination.

3. The European Zionists attacked the native inhabitants, committed genocide and ethnic cleansing to remove hundreds of thousand of the native inhabitants from the land they lived on. The Arab neighbors rightfully attempted to prevent the Jewish war crimes as the British confirmed in recently de-classified intelligence from the period.

"Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'....
After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists.
There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is a mistake. There was no real international borders as you suggest.
(You ask this every other week.)

The Paulet–Newcombe Agreement, also known as the Franco-British Boundary Agreements, were a sequence of agreements signed between 1920-23 between theBritish and French governments regarding the position and nature of the boundary between the Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia, attributed to Great Britain, and the Mandate of Syria and theLebanon, attributed to France.
​

It was a set of boundary established by the French and British Government, as the Allied Power that had the authority to establish territories within such boundaries as may be fixed.

There was no treaty that established Palestine or its borders. There were separation boundaries.

What treaties with Palestine changed their international borders from 1922?

(COMMENT)

10/26/1994

Article 3 --- International Boundary A/50/73 S/1995/83 Israel-Jordan peace treaty
03/26/1979

Article 2 --- permanent boundary Egypt-Israel peace treaty / "Camp David"

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is a mistake. There was no real international borders as you suggest.
(You ask this every other week.)

The Paulet–Newcombe Agreement, also known as the Franco-British Boundary Agreements, were a sequence of agreements signed between 1920-23 between theBritish and French governments regarding the position and nature of the boundary between the Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia, attributed to Great Britain, and the Mandate of Syria and theLebanon, attributed to France.
​

It was a set of boundary established by the French and British Government, as the Allied Power that had the authority to establish territories within such boundaries as may be fixed.

There was no treaty that established Palestine or its borders. There were separation boundaries.

What treaties with Palestine changed their international borders from 1922?

(COMMENT)

10/26/1994

Article 3 --- International Boundary A/50/73 S/1995/83 Israel-Jordan peace treaty
03/26/1979

Article 2 --- permanent boundary Egypt-Israel peace treaty / "Camp David"

Most Respectfully,
R

There was no treaty that established Palestine or its borders. There were separation boundaries.​

The UN calls them international boundaries.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is a mistake. There was no real international borders as you suggest.
(You ask this every other week.)

The Paulet–Newcombe Agreement, also known as the Franco-British Boundary Agreements, were a sequence of agreements signed between 1920-23 between theBritish and French governments regarding the position and nature of the boundary between the Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia, attributed to Great Britain, and the Mandate of Syria and theLebanon, attributed to France.
​

It was a set of boundary established by the French and British Government, as the Allied Power that had the authority to establish territories within such boundaries as may be fixed.

There was no treaty that established Palestine or its borders. There were separation boundaries.

What treaties with Palestine changed their international borders from 1922?

(COMMENT)

10/26/1994

Article 3 --- International Boundary A/50/73 S/1995/83 Israel-Jordan peace treaty
03/26/1979

Article 2 --- permanent boundary Egypt-Israel peace treaty / "Camp David"

Most Respectfully,
R

What treaties with Palestine changed their international borders from 1922?
(COMMENT)

10/26/1994

Article 3 --- International Boundary A/50/73 S/1995/83 Israel-Jordan peace treaty
03/26/1979

Article 2 --- permanent boundary Egypt-Israel peace treaty / "Camp David"​

Got nothing huh?

 

[Kondor3]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is a mistake. There was no real international borders as you suggest.
(You ask this every other week.)

The Paulet–Newcombe Agreement, also known as the Franco-British Boundary Agreements, were a sequence of agreements signed between 1920-23 between theBritish and French governments regarding the position and nature of the boundary between the Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia, attributed to Great Britain, and the Mandate of Syria and theLebanon, attributed to France.
​

It was a set of boundary established by the French and British Government, as the Allied Power that had the authority to establish territories within such boundaries as may be fixed.

There was no treaty that established Palestine or its borders. There were separation boundaries.

What treaties with Palestine changed their international borders from 1922?

(COMMENT)

10/26/1994

Article 3 --- International Boundary A/50/73 S/1995/83 Israel-Jordan peace treaty
03/26/1979

Article 2 --- permanent boundary Egypt-Israel peace treaty / "Camp David"

Most Respectfully,
R

What treaties with Palestine changed their international borders from 1922?
(COMMENT)

10/26/1994

Article 3 --- International Boundary A/50/73 S/1995/83 Israel-Jordan peace treaty
03/26/1979

Article 2 --- permanent boundary Egypt-Israel peace treaty / "Camp David"​

Got nothing huh?

The Palestinians HAD no borders.

They were a vacuum contained by the sea and within a series of borders defined for REAL nation-states.

They were a non-polity surrounded by REAL polities.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

The African National Congress (ANC) is of target here. The Palestinians cannot fly on the laurels of a different organization fighting a completely different issue.

1. "The Palestinians are an insurgency --- purely a asymmetric struggle to overthrow a lawfully installed government through the use of force"

What were the ANC?

2. "The Israelis are not an institutionalized regime which is systematically applying oppression and techniques of domination by one racial group over any other racial group and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime ..."

Of course they are, only a fool with a severe case of cognizant dissonance would deny that the Israelis are systemically applying oppression and techniques of domination.

3. The European Zionists attacked the native inhabitants, committed genocide and ethnic cleansing to remove hundreds of thousand of the native inhabitants from the land they lived on. The Arab neighbors rightfully attempted to prevent the Jewish war crimes as the British confirmed in recently de-classified intelligence from the period.

"Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'....
After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists.
There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948

(COMMENT)

Have you actually seen this document (Declassified UK reports ) you keep citing. Having worked in the field, I can tell you that Classified Reports are not any more reliable, and sometime less reliable, then Unclassified Documents. There are many diplomats and Intelligence Officers that are completely unreliable.

But if you have seen the reports, I would like the office symbol and date so I call it up from the archive. I suspect that very few people have seen it, if it at all implies this 70 year old report. I will say that by 1946, the Arabs of Palestine had already threatened to fight the Jewish. And by May of 1947, the UN was calling for restraint in the use of threatening language.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You will have to show me a treaty to which you refer.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is a mistake. There was no real international borders as you suggest.
(You ask this every other week.)

The Paulet–Newcombe Agreement, also known as the Franco-British Boundary Agreements, were a sequence of agreements signed between 1920-23 between theBritish and French governments regarding the position and nature of the boundary between the Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia, attributed to Great Britain, and the Mandate of Syria and theLebanon, attributed to France.
​

It was a set of boundary established by the French and British Government, as the Allied Power that had the authority to establish territories within such boundaries as may be fixed.

There was no treaty that established Palestine or its borders. There were separation boundaries.

What treaties with Palestine changed their international borders from 1922?

(COMMENT)

10/26/1994

Article 3 --- International Boundary A/50/73 S/1995/83 Israel-Jordan peace treaty
03/26/1979

Article 2 --- permanent boundary Egypt-Israel peace treaty / "Camp David"

Most Respectfully,
R

There was no treaty that established Palestine or its borders. There were separation boundaries.​

The UN calls them international boundaries.

(COMMENT)

I've showed you the Franco-British Boundary Agreements on the separation of territories under mandate. I have also shown you the two principle treaties that are in effect today.

I am having trouble with your elusive question. What is it that you are asking.

The UN does not call the international Boundaries, anything. They don't write or sign treaties. Treaties are legal arrangements between competent parties under the Vienna Convention.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

What do you call the areas surrounded by Israeli troops?

A sovereign nation? Canada does just fine surrounded by the USofA. Of course, the US doesn't shoot rockets at us.

Area C has 300,000 Palestinians in it, are you going to ethnically cleanse them or exterminate them?

Hey. Here's a thought. Why doesn't she keep them? They will be the lucky ones.

As long Israel controls the borders, air space and territorial sea of an area it is occupied.

How about we make sure that Gaza has a border with Egypt. And Palestine has a border with Jordan. Problem solved.

I think a sovereign nation has control over air space and territorial sea, does not have foreign troops patrolling its land and does not have walled citadels inhabited with armed foreign citizens.

 

[Hollie]

What do you call the areas surrounded by Israeli troops?

A sovereign nation? Canada does just fine surrounded by the USofA. Of course, the US doesn't shoot rockets at us.

Area C has 300,000 Palestinians in it, are you going to ethnically cleanse them or exterminate them?

Hey. Here's a thought. Why doesn't she keep them? They will be the lucky ones.

As long Israel controls the borders, air space and territorial sea of an area it is occupied.

How about we make sure that Gaza has a border with Egypt. And Palestine has a border with Jordan. Problem solved.

I think a sovereign nation has control over air space and territorial sea, does not have foreign troops patrolling its land and does not have walled citadels inhabited with armed foreign citizens.

Neither of the Islamic terrorist encampments of Gaza'istan or fatah'istan are sovereign nations or have made attempts at sovereignty.

Israel has made the determination that controlling the Islamic terrorist encampment of Gaza is required to keep the islamic terrorists occupying that strip of land under control.