Interesting premise.Incorrect.Again with the land transfer? That is a Tinmore pre requisite. Where does it say that land needs to be transferred in order to be able to declare independence on it ?ARTICLE 1
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
The Avalon Project Convention on Rights and Duties of States inter-American December 26 1933
For Israel to be a state, it must have some place for it to be. Israel has no territory. It sits inside Palestine. That is an occupation.
You completely failed at answering my question. YOU are the one that claims Israel has no territory because no land was transferred to it. I asked you where it says that land transfer is a pre requisite for declaring independence.
For Israel to be a state? Is that what you just said ??![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Israel IS a sovereign state. Who are you to claim otherwise?
I feel stupid just talking about this with you. You have no clue what you're talking about.
BTW, Palestine in INSIDE Israel, not the other way around. Palestine has no borders, Israel does.
Palestine has borders. Israel does not.
Other way around. Remember, I have valid links showing the treaties between Israel and Egypt and Jordan clearly identifying the international boundaries between Israel and the 2 states, maps from valid links that clearly identify the boundaries. You have nothing except a partition map that shows PROPOSED borders.
So, Palestine has no borders , Israel does.
If Germany and Spain sign a treaty saying that they have a mutual border in the middle of France, what does that mean?
Nice deflection, again. You cannot argue with things like this. No matter how hard you try, facts are facts. Israel has internationally recognized borders and 'Palestine' doesn't.
Just because Israel doesn't meet the Tinmore requirements, it doesn't change anything in real life.