Right. They weren't consulted after they fought the Turks.The Palestinians weren't a party to any of those agreements.
Who cares if they claim, well after the fact, that they agree? DURR
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Right. They weren't consulted after they fought the Turks.The Palestinians weren't a party to any of those agreements.
Who cares if they claim, well after the fact, that they agree? DURR
Unless and until the Palestinians give up their stated goal of the genocide of Jews and Israel, perpetual warfare it is.I understand that a "two-state solution" is a dirty word to most Israelis, but what other description can fit the current situation? Unless Israel really wants to incorporate the entire area and a huge hostile population with it, what is the alternative? Perpetual warfare?
Palestinian's international borders are uncontested by any of its neighbors.
The Arabs fought with the British to expel the Turks.
Right. They weren't consulted after they fought the Turks.
Correct. There were no implications for sovereignty or territorial integrity. Therefore, it was NOT divided, but remains one contiguous territory.The armistice agreements were interesting. Nowhere in the agreements was there any mention of occupation of territory. The armistice lines simple limited troop movements. Since they were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries, there was no land or sovereignty implications. Palestine was divided into three areas.
But then the UN and many countries recognized the state of Israel within those new borders. Even more importantly, Israel was able to defend itself within those borders. When the Arabs attacked the new state of Israel in 1948, they weren't thinking about any laws or treaties, they were going to get what they could by force of arms. Regardless of what the diplomats say at the UN, each country has only the borders it can defend.The armistice agreements were interesting. Nowhere in the agreements was there any mention of occupation of territory. The armistice lines simple limited troop movements. Since they were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries, there was no land or sovereignty implications. Palestine was divided into three areas.
Link?Palestinian's international borders are uncontested by any of its neighbors.
Twenty plus years of of being dormant and not enacted says something ...The Saudi peace initiative has been on the table since 2003. It guarantees Israel's security.
But not with indication that the Balfour Agreement/Plan would follow and Jewish immigration would be one of the end results.The Arabs fought with the British to expell the Turks.
Israel has peace treaties with both Jordan and Egypt which mutually recognize their international borders. Not contested. Syria and Israel remain in a state of war, and that border is contested.Link?
Proof?
Palestine is non-Jewish and not Israel.
It is Israel's existence and borders that remain contested by Palestinians/Muslims and most "neighbors" in that region.
I know that.Israel has peace treaties with both Jordan and Egypt which mutually recognize their international borders. Not contested. Syria and Israel remain in a state of war, and the borders are contested.
Sure. Peace treaties may indeed be broken in the future. As of right now, Israel has clear and defined borders which are not contested by either Jordan or Egypt.I know that.
Which is why I said "most", not "all".
I also know that history of the past century or two is filled with "peace treaties" broken and violated.
Nazi Germany attack upon Soviet Russia in June 1941, with whom both shared a "non-aggression pact" is one of many recent and 'classic' examples.
The Palestinians recognize the armistice line. It divides 1948 occupied Palestine from 1967 occupied Palestine.