What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote

[Spartacactcus]

The source documents are clear. Perhaps you can be convinced to read a single sentence:

It is also recognised that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

The Palestinians were not involved in the drawing up of these lines and the above clearly states that a peaceful resolution of the " Palestinian question " remains the ultimate goal.

They served as a de facto border with all Arab attempts at annexation being rejected along with the Israeli annexation attempts. I don't see the above as a cut and dry case that assures the " peaceful " resolution of the I/P conflict

 

[Spartacactcus]

Notice the spelling of honour.

If it's so important to you , which is really kinda sad , I have the name and number of a good private investigator you can call

 

[Shusha]

The source documents are clear. Perhaps you can be convinced to read a single sentence:

It is also recognised that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

The Palestinians were not involved in the drawing up of these lines and the above clearly states that a peaceful resolution of the " Palestinian question " remains the ultimate goal.

They served as a de facto border with all Arab attempts at annexation being rejected along with the Israeli annexation attempts. I don't see the above as a cut and dry case that assures the " peaceful " resolution of the I/P conflict

The above CLEARLY states that the Green Line exists only for military considerations. It can not be used in any way to prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party.

Black. And. White. It can not be used to prejudice the rights, claims and positions of Israel. Period. Full Stop.

And ask yourself WHY the Arab Palestinians were not involved in the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan. Nor why Arab Palestinians were not differentiated or mentioned at all.

And, let's talk about "Israeli annexation". You claim equivalence between Jordan crossing its own established international borders and taking land which does not belong to it AND Israeli annexation. This implies that Israel had an international boundary PRIOR to the 1949 Armistice and that it was attempting to cross that international border and take land which does not belong to it. So, where was Israel's border prior to the 1949 Armistice Agreement? And what agreement or treaty provided the legal parameters for that border?

 

[Spartacactcus]

Cool. You have "some knowledge" of them, but refuse to actually read them, or to engage in discussion about them.

Seems your contribution is to amplify opinions which agree with your set of biases, refuse to engage with opinions which do not and hope someone else debates this for you.

When someone tells you who they are, believe them.

I will remind you again that I am wishing for the debate whereas you don't even admit there is one to be had. So you are actually describing your own position in the above.

I am prepared to admit to having biases because I am human , you appear to believe you are somehow a bias free humanoid.

When someone tells you that you are human , believe them

 

[Shusha]

I will remind you again that I am wishing for the debate whereas you don't even admit there is one to be had. So you are actually describing your own position in the above.

I'm not having a discussion based on deliberate ignorance. My stand that there is no debate is based on knowledge.

I argue that there is no debate to be had, because the law is clear and unambiguous and can be put to rest with one sentence.

 

[Mindful]

Notice the spelling of honour.

If it's so important to you , which is really kinda sad , I have the name and number of a good private investigator you can call

No thanks. No need to overdo it.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
※→ Spartacactcus, et al,

The various relevant entities of the United Nations (including the two International Courts) are fallible. They are slow to grow and develop along political lines. They are not shielded from the influence and the effects of emotionally driven contentious confrontations.

The "politics", "facts" and the "opinion" must be valid; and not a Kangaroo Court. Each side of the presentation must argue from the Rule of Law and not just on the basis of fairness. The claimants must have some legal stance under the Rule of Law, in support of the conclusion in the application for the court's determination.

It’s obvious that you prefer opinions over facts.

Projection central

(COMMENT)

I believe that the influence of propaganda and opinion are very important. It is from the opinion that ruling is issued. The International Criminal Court (ICC) neither the UN General Assembly (through the many resolutions) or the International Court of Justice (Advisory opinion) make clear that the borders of Palestine remain undefined. This is not to say that the boundary by which Israel uses to determine its exercise of sovereign authority has been tacitly approved by the international community every time the international community defers to Israel on matters of travel, immigration, and border control.

There is a matter that, the ICC cannot stretch its authority.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court • 18 PART 3 • GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW • Article 22 • Nullum crimen sine lege:

1. A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.

2. The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

"The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;

"Today, 28 January 2020, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court ("ICC" or "Court") issued an order setting the procedure and the schedule for the submission of observations on the Prosecutor's request, resubmitted on 22 January 2020, under article 19(3) of the Rome Statute related to the scope of the Court's territorial jurisdiction in the Situation in the State of Palestine."
​

3. This article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal under international law independently of this Statute. ​

It is my OPINION that the ICC does not have the legal authority to determine and resolve the question of boundaries pertaining to the State of Palestine. Nor do I believe that the ICC has the authority on such questions relative to non-signatories. Given that Israel is a non-signatory to the ICC, determining the borders for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction, especially when the Oslo Accords give Israel exclusive criminal jurisdiction over Israelis Area "C" in the West Bank.

And there is the question as to whether Palestine can delegate jurisdiction over territory that the State of Palestine does not possess.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The source documents are clear. Perhaps you can be convinced to read a single sentence:

It is also recognised that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

The Palestinians were not involved in the drawing up of these lines and the above clearly states that a peaceful resolution of the " Palestinian question " remains the ultimate goal.

They served as a de facto border with all Arab attempts at annexation being rejected along with the Israeli annexation attempts. I don't see the above as a cut and dry case that assures the " peaceful " resolution of the I/P conflict

The above CLEARLY states that the Green Line exists only for military considerations. It can not be used in any way to prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party.

Black. And. White. It can not be used to prejudice the rights, claims and positions of Israel. Period. Full Stop.

And ask yourself WHY the Arab Palestinians were not involved in the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan. Nor why Arab Palestinians were not differentiated or mentioned at all.

And, let's talk about "Israeli annexation". You claim equivalence between Jordan crossing its own established international borders and taking land which does not belong to it AND Israeli annexation. This implies that Israel had an international boundary PRIOR to the 1949 Armistice and that it was attempting to cross that international border and take land which does not belong to it. So, where was Israel's border prior to the 1949 Armistice Agreement? And what agreement or treaty provided the legal parameters for that border?

So, where was Israel's border prior to the 1949 Armistice Agreement? And what agreement or treaty provided the legal parameters for that border?

The never answered question.

This is where everybody starts dancing.

 

[Mindful]

The source documents are clear. Perhaps you can be convinced to read a single sentence:

It is also recognised that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

The Palestinians were not involved in the drawing up of these lines and the above clearly states that a peaceful resolution of the " Palestinian question " remains the ultimate goal.

They served as a de facto border with all Arab attempts at annexation being rejected along with the Israeli annexation attempts. I don't see the above as a cut and dry case that assures the " peaceful " resolution of the I/P conflict

The above CLEARLY states that the Green Line exists only for military considerations. It can not be used in any way to prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party.

Black. And. White. It can not be used to prejudice the rights, claims and positions of Israel. Period. Full Stop.

And ask yourself WHY the Arab Palestinians were not involved in the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan. Nor why Arab Palestinians were not differentiated or mentioned at all.

And, let's talk about "Israeli annexation". You claim equivalence between Jordan crossing its own established international borders and taking land which does not belong to it AND Israeli annexation. This implies that Israel had an international boundary PRIOR to the 1949 Armistice and that it was attempting to cross that international border and take land which does not belong to it. So, where was Israel's border prior to the 1949 Armistice Agreement? And what agreement or treaty provided the legal parameters for that border?

So, where was Israel's border prior to the 1949 Armistice Agreement? And what agreement or treaty provided the legal parameters for that border?

The never answered question.

This is where everybody starts dancing.

Go on then. Tell us.

 

[Shusha]

Spartacactcus

And I would also like to add why this particular issue is both relevant and important to the thread and to the conflict. (flacaltenn will be asking soon, grin).

The entrenchment of the idea that anything less than the "1967 lines including East Jerusalem" is a loss or unfair for the Arab Palestinians is an obstacle to peace. It is a fable which insists that this is the minimum acceptable to Arabs for ... reasons.

At best, it limits creative solutions.

At worst, (and we are definitely operating in this domain), it is an excuse for Arab Palestinians to turn down, well ... anything.

 

[Shusha]

The source documents are clear. Perhaps you can be convinced to read a single sentence:

It is also recognised that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

The Palestinians were not involved in the drawing up of these lines and the above clearly states that a peaceful resolution of the " Palestinian question " remains the ultimate goal.

They served as a de facto border with all Arab attempts at annexation being rejected along with the Israeli annexation attempts. I don't see the above as a cut and dry case that assures the " peaceful " resolution of the I/P conflict

The above CLEARLY states that the Green Line exists only for military considerations. It can not be used in any way to prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party.

Black. And. White. It can not be used to prejudice the rights, claims and positions of Israel. Period. Full Stop.

And ask yourself WHY the Arab Palestinians were not involved in the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan. Nor why Arab Palestinians were not differentiated or mentioned at all.

And, let's talk about "Israeli annexation". You claim equivalence between Jordan crossing its own established international borders and taking land which does not belong to it AND Israeli annexation. This implies that Israel had an international boundary PRIOR to the 1949 Armistice and that it was attempting to cross that international border and take land which does not belong to it. So, where was Israel's border prior to the 1949 Armistice Agreement? And what agreement or treaty provided the legal parameters for that border?

So, where was Israel's border prior to the 1949 Armistice Agreement? And what agreement or treaty provided the legal parameters for that border?

The never answered question.

This is where everybody starts dancing.

Hard eyeroll. Answered dozens of times. You just don't like the answer. Let's see if Spartacactcus is going to be as obstinate and willfully ignorant as you.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Cool. You have "some knowledge" of them, but refuse to actually read them, or to engage in discussion about them.

Seems your contribution is to amplify opinions which agree with your set of biases, refuse to engage with opinions which do not and hope someone else debates this for you.

When someone tells you who they are, believe them.

I will remind you again that I am wishing for the debate whereas you don't even admit there is one to be had. So you are actually describing your own position in the above.

I am prepared to admit to having biases because I am human , you appear to believe you are somehow a bias free humanoid.

When someone tells you that you are human , believe them

I am biased as well toward logic.

 

[Shusha]

It is a fable which insists that this is the minimum acceptable to Arabs for ... reasons.

Actually, let's try *ahem cough* to have a discussion about those ... reasons.

Why are the "1967 lines" important and relevant to the future of Arabs in a future State of Palestine? What is accomplished by having those particular boundaries legitimized as the international border between Israel and Palestine?

Are there natural resources near those lines which are necessary to the economic health of Palestine?
Do those lines represent the largest possible incorporation of Arab Palestinians into Palestine?
Are they necessary for Palestinian security?
Are they necessary for trade and transportation of goods?
Are they necessary to preserve Palestinian historical monuments?


Or are they just ... reasons?

 

[Indeependent]

There is no argument because context proves the argument is based on fiction.

So these raft of legal experts all have the same fault and have a complete disregard for their credibillty because sercretly they must all just hate Jews

Makes perfect sense now

You must be young.
International Jew hatred was alive and well until about less than 10 years ago when most nations realized Israel could wipe the Middle East map clean.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The source documents are clear. Perhaps you can be convinced to read a single sentence:

It is also recognised that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

The Palestinians were not involved in the drawing up of these lines and the above clearly states that a peaceful resolution of the " Palestinian question " remains the ultimate goal.

They served as a de facto border with all Arab attempts at annexation being rejected along with the Israeli annexation attempts. I don't see the above as a cut and dry case that assures the " peaceful " resolution of the I/P conflict

The above CLEARLY states that the Green Line exists only for military considerations. It can not be used in any way to prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party.

Black. And. White. It can not be used to prejudice the rights, claims and positions of Israel. Period. Full Stop.

And ask yourself WHY the Arab Palestinians were not involved in the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan. Nor why Arab Palestinians were not differentiated or mentioned at all.

And, let's talk about "Israeli annexation". You claim equivalence between Jordan crossing its own established international borders and taking land which does not belong to it AND Israeli annexation. This implies that Israel had an international boundary PRIOR to the 1949 Armistice and that it was attempting to cross that international border and take land which does not belong to it. So, where was Israel's border prior to the 1949 Armistice Agreement? And what agreement or treaty provided the legal parameters for that border?

So, where was Israel's border prior to the 1949 Armistice Agreement? And what agreement or treaty provided the legal parameters for that border?

The never answered question.

This is where everybody starts dancing.

Go on then. Tell us.

Both questions. There were none.

 

[Indeependent]

Because you (and OL) get up close and personal. Demanding that I argue on your terms.

The I/P discussions follow a circular direction, always the same old, same old. Personal bias. And no interest in facts, historical and otherwise.

I'm sure OL doesn't need anyone to talk for her here so I will just address the above as I see it

I have given a lot of facts and information that supports the views I hold and you chose to dismiss it as antisemitism. Then you claim others get " up close and personal ". You calling someone a bigot musn't count as being up close and personal I take it ?

WE all have biases and we are all not truly/perfectly objective on any given subject, it's a human thing we all suffer from but you are doing precisely what you accuse others of doing.

Asking you what information is supporting/influencing your opinions is legitimate behaviour in a discussion, that you seem to see this as " arguing on your terms " seems really odd to me.

You don't have to reply if it's so damaging ,no worries, just try to resist the urge to call people bigots if you don't want a negative response. Common sense really

When you study the history of the entire Middle East between all the Arab countries and then post WWII Balkans and post WWII Pakistan/India relations and learn the hypocrisy of the UN’s anti-Jew stance, get back to us.

Is that person a reincarnation? Or a sock?

Grammar is good; facts out of context.
I think it’s someone new.

Notice the spelling of honour.

Poor little cactus...

 

[Spartacactcus]

... the subjugation of and the mass HR violations of millions of people on a daily basis ...

Mass human rights violations of MILLIONS of people on a daily basis?

Oh please. Back that nonsense up with facts. What human rights are being violated on a daily basis? Be specific.

Obviously the ongoing denial of the entire population of the OPTs , currently totalling nearly 5 million people, their right to self determination. A right denied to all of them every day for over half a century

The ongoing denial of thousands of people the right to return and their descendents living in squalor all over the ME

Restriction of movement of millions of people every day in Gaza and the WB is a mass human rights violation.

Denying people the right to fair judicial systems is a mass human rights violation affecting thousands of Palestinians. Recall the judges of Palestinians in the WB are Israeli military/judicialpeople. Allegations leading to convictions against Israelis abusing Palestinians there are embarrassingly transparent and thus constitute violations of their human rights.

Masses of people spending months or years in " administrative detention " read detention without trial , a violation of due process

The torture over years of Palestinian detainees including children at the hands of Israeli military/prison personnel

Extrajudicial executions of suspects over many years and the raft of innocent people killed along with them

The people of Gaza cannot leave or enter Gaza without Israeli say so, that's 1.8 million people every day being denied ther HR to leave and enter their territory.

The massive disparity in planning permission given to Israelis over Palestinians in Palestinian land is also a mass violation. Destruction of Palestinian homes and driving them out of area C

The deprivations on economic and social aspects of life with the building of the annexation wall which is built 85% of the time in Palestinian territory.

Guilty as charged , that's why people , normal people , want to put an end to it

 

[Mindful]

I'm sure OL doesn't need anyone to talk for her here so I will just address the above as I see it

I have given a lot of facts and information that supports the views I hold and you chose to dismiss it as antisemitism. Then you claim others get " up close and personal ". You calling someone a bigot musn't count as being up close and personal I take it ?

WE all have biases and we are all not truly/perfectly objective on any given subject, it's a human thing we all suffer from but you are doing precisely what you accuse others of doing.

Asking you what information is supporting/influencing your opinions is legitimate behaviour in a discussion, that you seem to see this as " arguing on your terms " seems really odd to me.

You don't have to reply if it's so damaging ,no worries, just try to resist the urge to call people bigots if you don't want a negative response. Common sense really

When you study the history of the entire Middle East between all the Arab countries and then post WWII Balkans and post WWII Pakistan/India relations and learn the hypocrisy of the UN’s anti-Jew stance, get back to us.

Is that person a reincarnation? Or a sock?

Grammar is good; facts out of context.
I think it’s someone new.

Notice the spelling of honour.

Poor little cactus...

He's playing us.

 

[Indeependent]

... the subjugation of and the mass HR violations of millions of people on a daily basis ...

Mass human rights violations of MILLIONS of people on a daily basis?

Oh please. Back that nonsense up with facts. What human rights are being violated on a daily basis? Be specific.

Obviously the ongoing denial of the entire population of the OPTs , currently totalling nearly 5 million people, their right to self determination. A right denied to all of them every day for over half a century

The ongoing denial of thousands of people the right to return and their descendents living in squalor all over the ME

Restriction of movement of millions of people every day in Gaza and the WB is a mass human rights violation.

Denying people the right to fair judicial systems is a mass human rights violation affecting thousands of Palestinians. Recall the judges of Palestinians in the WB are Israeli military/judicialpeople. Allegations leading to convictions against Israelis abusing Palestinians there are embarrassingly transparent and thus constitute violations of their human rights.

Masses of people spending months or years in " administrative detention " read detention without trial , a violation of due process

The torture over years of Palestinian detainees including children at the hands of Israeli military/prison personnel

Extrajudicial executions of suspects over many years and the raft of innocent people killed along with them

The people of Gaza cannot leave or enter Gaza without Israeli say so, that's 1.8 million people every day being denied ther HR to leave and enter their territory.

The massive disparity in planning permission given to Israelis over Palestinians in Palestinian land is also a mass violation. Destruction of Palestinian homes and driving them out of area C

The deprivations on economic and social aspects of life with the building of the annexation wall which is built 85% of the time in Palestinian territory.

Guilty as charged , that's why people , normal people , want to put an end to it

I agree...Egypt, Syria and Jordan should allow these Arabs to enter their countries.
Egypt and Jordan pay Israel to stop them.

 

[Indeependent]

When you study the history of the entire Middle East between all the Arab countries and then post WWII Balkans and post WWII Pakistan/India relations and learn the hypocrisy of the UN’s anti-Jew stance, get back to us.

Is that person a reincarnation? Or a sock?

Grammar is good; facts out of context.
I think it’s someone new.

Notice the spelling of honour.

Poor little cactus...

He's playing us.

When you study the history of the entire Middle East between all the Arab countries and then post WWII Balkans and post WWII Pakistan/India relations and learn the hypocrisy of the UN’s anti-Jew stance, get back to us.

Is that person a reincarnation? Or a sock?

Grammar is good; facts out of context.
I think it’s someone new.

Notice the spelling of honour.

Poor little cactus...

He's playing us.

He’s trying; very trying.
He’s not clever enough and he’s boring.