What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote

[jillian]

Why not?

A two state solution, as originally envisioned, is in a zombie state of perpetual propping up by diplomats. It's support has drastically waned among both Palestinians and Israelis.

With a one state solution (Israel + West Bank) - assuming a scenario where ALL residents are offered the opportunity of citizenship up front, the plus side for Palestinians would be the potential of better representation, political stability, assumption of rights guaranteed by citizenship and funding for infrastructure, education, etc. that is in perpetual shortage with their Palestinian leadership.


Here's what happens if Israel annexes the West Bank and lets Palestinians vote

Your terrorists have had ample opportunity to make peace. They only want to destroy the only Jewish state

how many Muslim countries do you need? Jordanian bedouins certainly aren’t entitled to Israel

 

[toomuchtime_]

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?

That agreement was settled prior to Israel consenting to be constrained by the UN Charter/4th GC. So when it decided it would violate that treaty and stake a claim for sovereignty it was already contractually bound by both the conventions mentioned and thus their applicability is surely legally correct.

Thus the territory acquired via warfare in 1967 was in contravention of both as is reflected in UNSC 242 which calls for the Israeli withdrawal from those territories. Why ? On the grounds that it is illegal to acquire territory through warfare. The experts , or the majority of them at least , agree that the UN Charter and the 4th GC are applicable to that conflict.

The Palestinian were not party to the treaties because they were in complete disarray prior to even the Partition Plan vote in the UNGA. They lost the battle for self determination in the years between 1936-39

The Zionists agreed to the partition plan and even referred to resolution 181 in it's declaration of independence statement conveying a wish to see it implemented. Then they conquered more territory and refused to go back to the PP lines. Then during the amistice talks they stated a view that they had no wish to try to claim the Jordanian occupied WB. Then , crucially , it agreed to be bound by treaties that would negate any legitimacy in trying to acquire territory via warfare.

That 's how I see it and that's what I see the others making the case on

More ignorant bullshit from you. The fourth Geneva Convention only applies to land taken from on signatory tot he Convention by another, and since Jordan's annexation of Judea and Samaria was recognized only by Pakistan and the UK, it was not legally part of Jordan, therefore when Jordan lost it to Israel in 1967 it did not qualify as occupied territory under the Geneva Conventions.

242 addresses only the nations that participated in the Six Day War so it has no application to the Palestinians; further, it calls for Israel to withdraw to safe and secure borders which was impossible without first making peace with the warring Arab nations. All of which means the term "occupied Palestinian territory" no more than a propaganda term with no basis in fact, law or logic.

At no point did Israel acquire any land through an aggressive war, and when it did capture land from enemies that attacked it, it offered to return it in exchange for peace. Your posts show nothing but a deep seated anti semitism you try to defend with lies.

 

[Spartacactcus]

Keep dodging.

Israel is not acquiring territory through warfare. Israel makes a legal claim to the territory.

The purpose of this thread is not to discuss the military actions of Jordan and Israel in breach of their mutual 1949 Armistice Agreement.

The purpose of this thread, and its relevance to today, is establishing Israel's claims of sovereignty over territory which you label the OPTs. You can not use the Green Line to limit Israel's claim to sovereignty of that territory. You can not use the Green Line to claim that Israeli citizens have been transferred to "occupied territory".

Of course Israel is guilty of

A Breaching the armistice agreement

B Breaching the 4th GC

C Violating both as a means to acquire territory

It got away with it's territorial gains in 1947-49 , THEN it decided to join the UN and sign the 4th GC and as such has tried to acquire territory through warfare

 

[toomuchtime_]

You are wildly dodging the point here.

The Green Line can not be used to prejudice the rights, claims and positions of Israel. Its considerations were military only. It can not in any way be used as a border for Israel. Period.

So...this (again) brings us back to exactly WHERE Israel claims sovereignty. You are trying to argue that Israel has no claim to sovereignty over the Green Line. But you can not use that line as a claim for sovereignty, nor as a denial of sovereignty. Nor can you use UN resolutions as they have no authority to create boundaries lines between States. So, WHAT line are you using instead? And make a case for that line being the international boundary of Israel beyond which she has no further claims.

It's pretty obvious that when you sign a contract saying you agree not to try to acquire territory through warfare and then try to acquire territory through warfare you are in breach of that contract regardless of what you agreed to prior to that point in time. Even the armistice agreements committed both sides to desist from military actions beyond that point.

So on both counts Israel was in breach of its contractual obligations. A feature of it's existence and the reason , imo , why it is seen by many as a pariah state.

Still more lies from you. At no time did Israel try to acquire land through warfare. In each case when it did capture land it was in the course of defending itself against attacks from the Arabs and in each case Israel offered to return the land in exchange for peace.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Well he was clearly wrong and that doesn't make you any less of a Jew hater.

He's the expert in international and humanitarian law and you are a troll on an anonymous board , call me a radical but I'm going to defer to his expertize over yours all day long

lol Clearly you agree with everything you've read or heard that is negative about Israel or Jews.

 

[Mindful]

Of course it makes perfect sense.

And it's no secret.

You won't know this but judge representing the USA in the 2004 ICJ regarding the wall agreed with his co judges that the Israeli settlements in the OPTs were a violation of international law.

You won't know either that he is of German Jewish-Polish Jewish origin and was one of the youngest people to be liberated from the Nazi death camps.

So when you blanket smear people who disagree with Israeli policies and/or actions with the " Jew hater " card you are actually smearing the likes of him and others that either survived themselves or were born of parents who survived the death camps.

His humanity survived the camps , yours doesn't even survive the discussion

Just so you know and can never plead ignorance in the future

So we're done then?

We were never anything else imo but you can maybe reflect on calling a holocaust survivor a Jew hater akin to those who concocted the abomination of the camps . My guess is you haven't the tiniest bit of introspection required to see how gross that actually is and will remain lost

I shouldn't let it bother you.

 

[Spartacactcus]

More ignorant bullshit from you. The fourth Geneva Convention only applies to land taken from on signatory tot he Convention by another, and since Jordan's annexation of Judea and Samaria was recognized only by Pakistan and the UK, it was not legally part of Jordan, therefore when Jordan lost it to Israel in 1967 it did not qualify as occupied territory under the Geneva Conventions.

242 addresses only the nations that participated in the Six Day War so it has no application to the Palestinians; further, it calls for Israel to withdraw to safe and secure borders which was impossible without first making peace with the warring Arab nations. All of which means the term "occupied Palestinian territory" no more than a propaganda term with no basis in fact, law or logic.

At no point did Israel acquire any land through an aggressive war, and when it did capture land from enemies that attacked it, it offered to return it in exchange for peace. Your posts show nothing but a deep seated anti semitism you try to defend with lies.

I referred them to not only the 4th GC but the UN Charter in which under chaapter 7 it states

"starting or waging a war against the territorial integrity, political independence or sovereignty of a state, or in violation of international treaties or agreements"

The " violation of international treaties or agreements " clearly refers to the Armistice Agreements of 1949

UN 242 reiterates the inadmissibility of acquiring territory through warfare and calls for an Israeli "withdrawal from the territories in the recent conflict "

Keep trolling

 

[Spartacactcus]

I shouldn't let it bother you.

It doesn't but the awful thing is it clearly doesn't bother you

 

[Shusha]

Keep dodging.

Israel is not acquiring territory through warfare. Israel makes a legal claim to the territory.

The purpose of this thread is not to discuss the military actions of Jordan and Israel in breach of their mutual 1949 Armistice Agreement.

The purpose of this thread, and its relevance to today, is establishing Israel's claims of sovereignty over territory which you label the OPTs. You can not use the Green Line to limit Israel's claim to sovereignty of that territory. You can not use the Green Line to claim that Israeli citizens have been transferred to "occupied territory".

Of course Israel is guilty of

A Breaching the armistice agreement

B Breaching the 4th GC

C Violating both as a means to acquire territory

It got away with it's territorial gains in 1947-49 , THEN it decided to join the UN and sign the 4th GC and as such has tried to acquire territory through warfare

Wow. You are still massively dodging the point.

Israel claims sovereignty over those territories. She claims that she is not acquiring territory - it already belongs to her.

Your job is to make an argument that the territories do not belong to her and you can’t use either the Green Line or UN solutions to do it because those are not authoritative in setting boundaries.

 

[Indeependent]

I shouldn't let it bother you.

It doesn't but the awful thing is it clearly doesn't bother you

It doesn’t bother me either.
Now back to 2004, which is year N of Syria invading Lebanon and building thousands of underground terrorist structures under the watchful eye of the Jew hating UN, whose members employed there never uttered a peep.


How do you feel about Lebanese people being held hostage by Syria?
How do you feel about Israel telling Syria that the next attack on Israel will result in Syria becoming a parking lot.

You are so full of shit.

 

[Spartacactcus]

lol Clearly you agree with everything you've read or heard that is negative about Israel or Jews.

I know the Jew card is all a lot of you people have to rely on but it is amusing to see that reliance being played out

My view is that there are good and bad in all groups of people , you come across as one of those Jews that makes those bigoted stereotypes all the more believeable to some by ticking the boxes.

I have much to say that is negative about some members of other groups but I refuse to tar them all with the broad brush stroke of the bigot

 

[Indeependent]

lol Clearly you agree with everything you've read or heard that is negative about Israel or Jews.

I know the Jew card is all a lot of you people have to rely on but it is amusing to see that reliance being played out

My view is that there are good and bad in all groups of people , you come across as one of those Jews that makes those bigoted stereotypes all the more believeable to some by ticking the boxes.

I have much to say that is negative about some members of other groups but I refuse to tar them all with the broad brush stroke of the bigot

Because they won’t give you the time of day after all the evil they’ve done.

 

[Spartacactcus]

I shouldn't let it bother you.

It doesn't but the awful thing is it clearly doesn't bother you

It doesn’t bother me either.
Now back to 2004, which is year N of Syria invading Lebanon and building thousands of underground terrorist structures under the watchful eye of the Jew hating UN, whose members employed there never uttered a peep.


How do you feel about Lebanese people being held hostage by Syria?
How do you feel about Israel telling Syria that the next attack on Israel will result in Syria becoming a parking lot.

You are so full of shit.

When you put on the charm , full blast , it's really easy to ignore your rants

 

[Indeependent]

I shouldn't let it bother you.

It doesn't but the awful thing is it clearly doesn't bother you

It doesn’t bother me either.
Now back to 2004, which is year N of Syria invading Lebanon and building thousands of underground terrorist structures under the watchful eye of the Jew hating UN, whose members employed there never uttered a peep.


How do you feel about Lebanese people being held hostage by Syria?
How do you feel about Israel telling Syria that the next attack on Israel will result in Syria becoming a parking lot.

You are so full of shit.

When you put on the charm , full blast , it's really easy to ignore your rants

The fact is that everything you post is out of context and you’re unwilling to admit such.

 

[Shusha]

More ignorant bullshit from you. The fourth Geneva Convention only applies to land taken from on signatory tot he Convention by another, and since Jordan's annexation of Judea and Samaria was recognized only by Pakistan and the UK, it was not legally part of Jordan, therefore when Jordan lost it to Israel in 1967 it did not qualify as occupied territory under the Geneva Conventions.

242 addresses only the nations that participated in the Six Day War so it has no application to the Palestinians; further, it calls for Israel to withdraw to safe and secure borders which was impossible without first making peace with the warring Arab nations. All of which means the term "occupied Palestinian territory" no more than a propaganda term with no basis in fact, law or logic.

At no point did Israel acquire any land through an aggressive war, and when it did capture land from enemies that attacked it, it offered to return it in exchange for peace. Your posts show nothing but a deep seated anti semitism you try to defend with lies.

I referred them to not only the 4th GC but the UN Charter in which under chaapter 7 it states

"starting or waging a war against the territorial integrity, political independence or sovereignty of a state, or in violation of international treaties or agreements"

The " violation of international treaties or agreements " clearly refers to the Armistice Agreements of 1949

UN 242 reiterates the inadmissibility of acquiring territory through warfare and calls for an Israeli "withdrawal from the territories in the recent conflict "

Keep trolling

Key point: against the territorial integrity, political independence or sovereignty of another state.

Which State is Israel violating?

 

[Indeependent]

More ignorant bullshit from you. The fourth Geneva Convention only applies to land taken from on signatory tot he Convention by another, and since Jordan's annexation of Judea and Samaria was recognized only by Pakistan and the UK, it was not legally part of Jordan, therefore when Jordan lost it to Israel in 1967 it did not qualify as occupied territory under the Geneva Conventions.

242 addresses only the nations that participated in the Six Day War so it has no application to the Palestinians; further, it calls for Israel to withdraw to safe and secure borders which was impossible without first making peace with the warring Arab nations. All of which means the term "occupied Palestinian territory" no more than a propaganda term with no basis in fact, law or logic.

At no point did Israel acquire any land through an aggressive war, and when it did capture land from enemies that attacked it, it offered to return it in exchange for peace. Your posts show nothing but a deep seated anti semitism you try to defend with lies.

I referred them to not only the 4th GC but the UN Charter in which under chaapter 7 it states

"starting or waging a war against the territorial integrity, political independence or sovereignty of a state, or in violation of international treaties or agreements"

The " violation of international treaties or agreements " clearly refers to the Armistice Agreements of 1949

UN 242 reiterates the inadmissibility of acquiring territory through warfare and calls for an Israeli "withdrawal from the territories in the recent conflict "

Keep trolling

Key point: against the territorial integrity, political independence or sovereignty of another state.

Which State is Israel violating?

The State of Existence.

 

[Indeependent]

I figured it out!
Cactus is Humanity!!!!

 

[Spartacactcus]

Wow. You are still massively dodging the point.

Israel claims sovereignty over those territories. She claims that she is not acquiring territory - it already belongs to her.

Your job is to make an argument that the territories do not belong to her and you can’t use either the Green Line or UN solutions to do it because those are not authoritative in setting boundaries.

Of course they are authoriatative in setting boundaries. The amistice agreement/green line set bounderies beyond which military activity was prohibited. Israel violated it in violation of chapter 7 UN Charter. Even if we were/are to accept that they were provisional bounderies, the Israeli violation of them was illegal

 

[Shusha]

Wow. You are still massively dodging the point.

Israel claims sovereignty over those territories. She claims that she is not acquiring territory - it already belongs to her.

Your job is to make an argument that the territories do not belong to her and you can’t use either the Green Line or UN solutions to do it because those are not authoritative in setting boundaries.

Of course they are authoriatative in setting boundaries. The amistice agreement/green line set bounderies beyond which military activity was prohibited. Israel violated it in violation of chapter 7 UN Charter. Even if we were/are to accept that they were provisional bounderies, the Israeli violation of them was illegal

No, neither Armistice Agreements nor UN resolutions can create international boundaries between States.

Try again.

 

[toomuchtime_]

More ignorant bullshit from you. The fourth Geneva Convention only applies to land taken from on signatory tot he Convention by another, and since Jordan's annexation of Judea and Samaria was recognized only by Pakistan and the UK, it was not legally part of Jordan, therefore when Jordan lost it to Israel in 1967 it did not qualify as occupied territory under the Geneva Conventions.

242 addresses only the nations that participated in the Six Day War so it has no application to the Palestinians; further, it calls for Israel to withdraw to safe and secure borders which was impossible without first making peace with the warring Arab nations. All of which means the term "occupied Palestinian territory" no more than a propaganda term with no basis in fact, law or logic.

At no point did Israel acquire any land through an aggressive war, and when it did capture land from enemies that attacked it, it offered to return it in exchange for peace. Your posts show nothing but a deep seated anti semitism you try to defend with lies.

I referred them to not only the 4th GC but the UN Charter in which under chaapter 7 it states

"starting or waging a war against the territorial integrity, political independence or sovereignty of a state, or in violation of international treaties or agreements"

The " violation of international treaties or agreements " clearly refers to the Armistice Agreements of 1949

UN 242 reiterates the inadmissibility of acquiring territory through warfare and calls for an Israeli "withdrawal from the territories in the recent conflict "

Keep trolling

However Israel never started started or waged war against any nation except in its own defense, so it has broken no treaties however much you want it to.