Seek Peace, Pursue Justice in Israel-Palestine

[toastman]

NO, they do not. Words of noone will change that fact. The UN Charter tells us acquisitions of territory by force are not legitimate ways to gain sovereignty over land. AND Resolution 181 was not implemented. There are no acts that set borders for Israel under intl law. THE greatest Irony in all of this is that only a lawful and just peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians can give Israel true legitimacy as a nation and internationally recognized boundaries. And Israel refuses to embrace that option.

Obviously you did not read Roccos detailed posts with his documented facts. I've been to Israel over ten times, I've even seen the borders myself. Can you show some documents that says Israel has no borders, or are you just going to continue with your usual drivel ?

His words have no ability to give Israel borders she simply does not have. Let us hear you explain how Israel acquired borders and what those borders are.

They are not his words, they are documented facts. What documents facts do you have to support your claims ??

 

[Hossfly]

NO, they do not. Words of noone will change that fact. The UN Charter tells us acquisitions of territory by force are not legitimate ways to gain sovereignty over land. AND Resolution 181 was not implemented. There are no acts that set borders for Israel under intl law. THE greatest Irony in all of this is that only a lawful and just peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians can give Israel true legitimacy as a nation and internationally recognized boundaries. And Israel refuses to embrace that option.

Obviously you did not read Roccos detailed posts with his documented facts. I've been to Israel over ten times, I've even seen the borders myself. Can you show some documents that says Israel has no borders, or are you just going to continue with your usual drivel ?

His words have no ability to give Israel borders she simply does not have. Let us hear you explain how Israel acquired borders and what those borders are.

Just got done checking Google Earth and can't find Israel's borders. Need some help here.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

SherriMunnerlyn, et al,
Well, if you say so! But that is Not what the official position the Palestinian held. (That is actually an Israeli position. I did not know that you where an Israeli advocate!)

So Tinnie, NOW do you believe that Israel has borders????

NO, they do not. Words of noone will change that fact. The UN Charter tells us acquisitions of territory by force are not legitimate ways to gain sovereignty over land. AND Resolution 181 was not implemented. There are no acts that set borders for Israel under intl law. THE greatest Irony in all of this is that only a lawful and just peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians can give Israel true legitimacy as a nation and internationally recognized boundaries. And Israel refuses to embrace that option.

(OBSERVATION)

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

(Signed) Nasser AL-KIDWA
Ambassador
Permanent Observer of
Palestine to the United Nations​

SOURCE: A/53/879-S/1999/334 of 25 March 1999

Most Respectfully,
R

POSITIONS parties take do not give nations borders, they are even subject to change and frequently do, there is no principle such as you suggest in the law. About the law, we have The International Court of Justice Opinion that tells us the Palestinians have sovereignty rights in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza. What is left to determine is who has sovereignty rights in the rest of the land that was British Mandate Palestine.

 

[toastman]

SherriMunnerlyn, et al,
Well, if you say so! But that is Not what the official position the Palestinian held. (That is actually an Israeli position. I did not know that you where an Israeli advocate!)

NO, they do not. Words of noone will change that fact. The UN Charter tells us acquisitions of territory by force are not legitimate ways to gain sovereignty over land. AND Resolution 181 was not implemented. There are no acts that set borders for Israel under intl law. THE greatest Irony in all of this is that only a lawful and just peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians can give Israel true legitimacy as a nation and internationally recognized boundaries. And Israel refuses to embrace that option.

(OBSERVATION)

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

(Signed) Nasser AL-KIDWA
Ambassador
Permanent Observer of
Palestine to the United Nations​

SOURCE: A/53/879-S/1999/334 of 25 March 1999

Most Respectfully,
R

POSITIONS parties take do not give nations borders, they are even subject to change and frequently do, there is no principle such as you suggest in the law. About the law, we have The International Court of Justice Opinion that tells us the Palestinians have sovereignty rights in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza. What is left to determine is who has sovereignty rights in the rest of the land that was British Mandate Palestine.

Can you provide documented information that suggests ISrael has no borders??? Because if not, you clearly lost the argument, like usual

 

[RoccoR]

Hossfly,

There are two kinds of Google Earth Mapping systems; one that is open source and one that is restricted for government use. There are all sorts of imagery restriction on that segment of territory.

Just got done checking Google Earth and can't find Israel's borders. Need some help here.

(oBSerVAtiON)

SEPARATE GE LINK ---> Google Map of Israel - Nations Online Project

Partial Image with Treaty Borders​

Blacked-out areas are restricted.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Obviously you did not read Roccos detailed posts with his documented facts. I've been to Israel over ten times, I've even seen the borders myself. Can you show some documents that says Israel has no borders, or are you just going to continue with your usual drivel ?

His words have no ability to give Israel borders she simply does not have. Let us hear you explain how Israel acquired borders and what those borders are.

They are not his words, they are documented facts. What documents facts do you have to support your claims ??

WHAT documented facts do you speak of? YOU claim Israel has borders, explain it. ARE you capable of doing that?

 

[toastman]

His words have no ability to give Israel borders she simply does not have. Let us hear you explain how Israel acquired borders and what those borders are.

They are not his words, they are documented facts. What documents facts do you have to support your claims ??

WHAT documented facts do you speak of? YOU claim Israel has borders, explain it. ARE you capable of doing that?

See post #81 in this thread

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

SherriMunnerlyn, et al,
Well, if you say so! But that is Not what the official position the Palestinian held. (That is actually an Israeli position. I did not know that you where an Israeli advocate!)


(OBSERVATION)



Most Respectfully,
R

POSITIONS parties take do not give nations borders, they are even subject to change and frequently do, there is no principle such as you suggest in the law. About the law, we have The International Court of Justice Opinion that tells us the Palestinians have sovereignty rights in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza. What is left to determine is who has sovereignty rights in the rest of the land that was British Mandate Palestine.

Can you provide documented information that suggests ISrael has no borders??? Because if not, you clearly lost the argument, like usual

WHY should I prove your claim?

 

[toastman]

POSITIONS parties take do not give nations borders, they are even subject to change and frequently do, there is no principle such as you suggest in the law. About the law, we have The International Court of Justice Opinion that tells us the Palestinians have sovereignty rights in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza. What is left to determine is who has sovereignty rights in the rest of the land that was British Mandate Palestine.

Can you provide documented information that suggests ISrael has no borders??? Because if not, you clearly lost the argument, like usual

WHY should I prove your claim?

See post 81

 

[RoccoR]

SherriMunnerlyn; Tinmore; et al,

Just a coupe additional points I'd like to express.

NO, they do not. Words of noone will change that fact. The UN Charter tells us acquisitions of territory by force are not legitimate ways to gain sovereignty over land. AND Resolution 181 was not implemented. There are no acts that set borders for Israel under intl law. THE greatest Irony in all of this is that only a lawful and just peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians can give Israel true legitimacy as a nation and internationally recognized boundaries. And Israel refuses to embrace that option.

Obviously you did not read Roccos detailed posts with his documented facts. I've been to Israel over ten times, I've even seen the borders myself. Can you show some documents that says Israel has no borders, or are you just going to continue with your usual drivel ?

His words have no ability to give Israel borders she simply does not have. Let us hear you explain how Israel acquired borders and what those borders are.

(COMMENT)

The border of today are outline, officially and on the record, before the entire world. You (personally) may recognize them or not (makes no difference to me). I can only tell you what is (reality).

• SOUTHERN BORDER: The entire southern border is in no-contest. The treaty (effective law) establishes that segment in Article II. (LINK ---> Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt - Non-UN document (26 March 1979)) Together, with the unilaterial withdrawal from the Gaza Strip (LINK ---> S/2005/559 of 31 August 2005) the entire souther border is established.

• NORTHERN BORDER: The UN documents and the exchange between the SecGen & President of Lebanon establishes and reaffirms "international boundary between Israel and Lebanon" in Paragraph 13 of S/2000/460. (LINKS ---> A/54/914-S/2000/564 of 12 June 2000 AND S/2000/460 of 22 May 2000).

• EASTERN BORDER:
  • The Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994 (effective law) (LINKs ---> The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty OR A/50/73-S/1995/83 of 27 January 1995) establishes the "international boundary between Israel and Jordan" in Article 3.
  • There is a dispute between Syria and Israel along the border, in the Golan Heights region. Internationally, there is a small segment of Israel's borders that is in dispute which is covered by an Armistice Agreement (LINK ---> S/1353 of 20 July 1949)

How we get to this point is a long hard and arduous struggle. However you interpret those events that lead us to today's outcome --- we are here.

Relative to UNGA Resolution 181(II), while a matter for the record --- whether you agree or not, it happened. And Israel is admitted to the community of recognized states. You may hold to the opinion that it is not fair, that the Palestinians were treated unfairly, etc etc etc. The fact of the matter, it happened. And unless you have a time machine, you cannot change the past. Again, we are here.

As to who speaks officially for the Palestinian people, I differ to you. If you say that the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations (recently reaffirmed) has no voice, and his/her authority to speak is untrustworthy, I will of course take that under advisement. Under such an assumption, we could of course, disregard anything the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations says --- which simplifies the matter. Palestine has no official voice that is trustworthy; or --- there is no voice for the Palestinians.

(QUESTION)

In reality there are the treaties / armistice that we have, and the Gaza Strip which is very confused, and the West Bank that is not coherent, and Jerusalem --- fractured and chaotic. The question becomes:

• What is in the best interest of the people?

We can quibble all day long about borders you don't recognize, but at the end of the day, the question still remains:

• What is in the best interest of the people?

Now as I understand it, you and Paul Tinmore advocate the continuation of hostilities, in search of a lost Palestine. And you believe that this is in the best interest of the people we call today Palestinians. And you believe that this continuation of hostilities is the way that will best serve these Palestinians, even if it takes a half-century (oops, we've already passed that benchmark) --- let's say another half-century, and this is also in the best interest of the Palestinians. Is it fair to say that, in your position, endless war and hostilities is in the best interest of the Palestinian people?

• What is in the best interest of the people?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

SherriMunnerlyn; Tinmore; et al,

Just a coupe additional points I'd like to express.

Obviously you did not read Roccos detailed posts with his documented facts. I've been to Israel over ten times, I've even seen the borders myself. Can you show some documents that says Israel has no borders, or are you just going to continue with your usual drivel ?

His words have no ability to give Israel borders she simply does not have. Let us hear you explain how Israel acquired borders and what those borders are.

(COMMENT)

The border of today are outline, officially and on the record, before the entire world. You (personally) may recognize them or not (makes no difference to me). I can only tell you what is (reality).

• SOUTHERN BORDER: The entire southern border is in no-contest. The treaty (effective law) establishes that segment in Article II. (LINK ---> Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt - Non-UN document (26 March 1979)) Together, with the unilaterial withdrawal from the Gaza Strip (LINK ---> S/2005/559 of 31 August 2005) the entire souther border is established.

• NORTHERN BORDER: The UN documents and the exchange between the SecGen & President of Lebanon establishes and reaffirms "international boundary between Israel and Lebanon" in Paragraph 13 of S/2000/460. (LINKS ---> A/54/914-S/2000/564 of 12 June 2000 AND S/2000/460 of 22 May 2000).

• EASTERN BORDER:
  • The Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994 (effective law) (LINKs ---> The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty OR A/50/73-S/1995/83 of 27 January 1995) establishes the "international boundary between Israel and Jordan" in Article 3.
  • There is a dispute between Syria and Israel along the border, in the Golan Heights region. Internationally, there is a small segment of Israel's borders that is in dispute which is covered by an Armistice Agreement (LINK ---> S/1353 of 20 July 1949)

How we get to this point is a long hard and arduous struggle. However you interpret those events that lead us to today's outcome --- we are here.

Relative to UNGA Resolution 181(II), while a matter for the record --- whether you agree or not, it happened. And Israel is admitted to the community of recognized states. You may hold to the opinion that it is not fair, that the Palestinians were treated unfairly, etc etc etc. The fact of the matter, it happened. And unless you have a time machine, you cannot change the past. Again, we are here.

As to who speaks officially for the Palestinian people, I differ to you. If you say that the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations (recently reaffirmed) has no voice, and his/her authority to speak is untrustworthy, I will of course take that under advisement. Under such an assumption, we could of course, disregard anything the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations says --- which simplifies the matter. Palestine has no official voice that is trustworthy; or --- there is no voice for the Palestinians.

(QUESTION)

In reality there are the treaties / armistice that we have, and the Gaza Strip which is very confused, and the West Bank that is not coherent, and Jerusalem --- fractured and chaotic. The question becomes:

• What is in the best interest of the people?

We can quibble all day long about borders you don't recognize, but at the end of the day, the question still remains:

• What is in the best interest of the people?

Now as I understand it, you and Paul Tinmore advocate the continuation of hostilities, in search of a lost Palestine. And you believe that this is in the best interest of the people we call today Palestinians. And you believe that this continuation of hostilities is the way that will best serve these Palestinians, even if it takes a half-century (oops, we've already passed that benchmark) --- let's say another half-century, and this is also in the best interest of the Palestinians. Is it fair to say that, in your position, endless war and hostilities is in the best interest of the Palestinian people?

• What is in the best interest of the people?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians have consistently called for peace based on international law.

I agree with that.

It is Israel who refuses and wants to continue its war.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Tresties between two purported nations are simply agreements between the two of them. THEY cannot give sovereignty of land they never had to anyone else. THe Problem is sovereignty rights have never left the indigenous Palestinian peoples and only an agreement between them, that includes indigenous Jewish people in the land can give Israel legitimacy as a nation and borders.

 

[toastman]

Tresties between two purported nations are simply agreements between the two of them. THEY cannot give sovereignty of land they never had to anyone else. THe Problem is sovereignty rights have never left the indigenous Palestinian peoples and only an agreement between them, that includes indigenous Jewish people in the land can give Israel legitimacy as a nation and borders.

as a 'lawyer', you should know that you need to back up your claims. So please, back up your claims that ISrael has no borders

 

[member]

"The Palestinians have consistently called for peace based on international law. I agree with that. It is Israel who refuses and wants to continue its war."

"The Palestinians have consistently called for peace..."



i bet you typed that with a straight face........

 

[toastman]

SherriMunnerlyn; Tinmore; et al,

Just a coupe additional points I'd like to express.

His words have no ability to give Israel borders she simply does not have. Let us hear you explain how Israel acquired borders and what those borders are.

(COMMENT)

The border of today are outline, officially and on the record, before the entire world. You (personally) may recognize them or not (makes no difference to me). I can only tell you what is (reality).

• SOUTHERN BORDER: The entire southern border is in no-contest. The treaty (effective law) establishes that segment in Article II. (LINK ---> Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt - Non-UN document (26 March 1979)) Together, with the unilaterial withdrawal from the Gaza Strip (LINK ---> S/2005/559 of 31 August 2005) the entire souther border is established.

• NORTHERN BORDER: The UN documents and the exchange between the SecGen & President of Lebanon establishes and reaffirms "international boundary between Israel and Lebanon" in Paragraph 13 of S/2000/460. (LINKS ---> A/54/914-S/2000/564 of 12 June 2000 AND S/2000/460 of 22 May 2000).

• EASTERN BORDER:
  • The Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994 (effective law) (LINKs ---> The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty OR A/50/73-S/1995/83 of 27 January 1995) establishes the "international boundary between Israel and Jordan" in Article 3.
  • There is a dispute between Syria and Israel along the border, in the Golan Heights region. Internationally, there is a small segment of Israel's borders that is in dispute which is covered by an Armistice Agreement (LINK ---> S/1353 of 20 July 1949)

How we get to this point is a long hard and arduous struggle. However you interpret those events that lead us to today's outcome --- we are here.

Relative to UNGA Resolution 181(II), while a matter for the record --- whether you agree or not, it happened. And Israel is admitted to the community of recognized states. You may hold to the opinion that it is not fair, that the Palestinians were treated unfairly, etc etc etc. The fact of the matter, it happened. And unless you have a time machine, you cannot change the past. Again, we are here.

As to who speaks officially for the Palestinian people, I differ to you. If you say that the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations (recently reaffirmed) has no voice, and his/her authority to speak is untrustworthy, I will of course take that under advisement. Under such an assumption, we could of course, disregard anything the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations says --- which simplifies the matter. Palestine has no official voice that is trustworthy; or --- there is no voice for the Palestinians.

(QUESTION)

In reality there are the treaties / armistice that we have, and the Gaza Strip which is very confused, and the West Bank that is not coherent, and Jerusalem --- fractured and chaotic. The question becomes:

• What is in the best interest of the people?

We can quibble all day long about borders you don't recognize, but at the end of the day, the question still remains:

• What is in the best interest of the people?

Now as I understand it, you and Paul Tinmore advocate the continuation of hostilities, in search of a lost Palestine. And you believe that this is in the best interest of the people we call today Palestinians. And you believe that this continuation of hostilities is the way that will best serve these Palestinians, even if it takes a half-century (oops, we've already passed that benchmark) --- let's say another half-century, and this is also in the best interest of the Palestinians. Is it fair to say that, in your position, endless war and hostilities is in the best interest of the Palestinian people?

• What is in the best interest of the people?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians have consistently called for peace based on international law.

I agree with that.

It is Israel who refuses and wants to continue its war.

Do you believe your own lies ?

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Tresties between two purported nations are simply agreements between the two of them. THEY cannot give sovereignty of land they never had to anyone else. THe Problem is sovereignty rights have never left the indigenous Palestinian peoples and only an agreement between them, that includes indigenous Jewish people in the land can give Israel legitimacy as a nation and borders.

as a 'lawyer', you should know that you need to back up your claims. So please, back up your claims that ISrael has no borders

You claim Israel has borders, you prove it. That is how it works when people make claims like you are doing. You back them up or disclose your claim to be baseless.

 

[toastman]

Tresties between two purported nations are simply agreements between the two of them. THEY cannot give sovereignty of land they never had to anyone else. THe Problem is sovereignty rights have never left the indigenous Palestinian peoples and only an agreement between them, that includes indigenous Jewish people in the land can give Israel legitimacy as a nation and borders.

as a 'lawyer', you should know that you need to back up your claims. So please, back up your claims that ISrael has no borders

You claim Israel has borders, you prove it. That is how it works when people make claims like you are doing. You back them up or disclose your claim to be baseless.

Are you blind ???? I said look at post 81 !!

 

[toastman]

i was not making a claim, but stating a fact

 

[RoccoR]

SherriMunnerlyn; et al,

A partial opposing view.

Tresties between two purported nations are simply agreements between the two of them. THEY cannot give sovereignty of land they never had to anyone else. THe Problem is sovereignty rights have never left the indigenous Palestinian peoples and only an agreement between them, that includes indigenous Jewish people in the land can give Israel legitimacy as a nation and borders.

(COMMENT)

Of course you are the legal eagle here, so --- your opinion is valued on this issue.

A treaty is an express agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same.

SOURCE: Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Treaties are among the primary sources of international law.

SOURCE: The American Society of International Law

What is TREATY?
In international law. An agreement between two or more independent states. Brande. An agreement, league, or contract between two or more nations or sovereigns, formally signed by commissioners properly authorized, and solemnly ratified by the several sovereigns or the supreme power of each state. Webster; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 00, 8 L. Ed. 25; Edye v. Robertson, 112 U. S. 5S0, 5 Sup. Ct. 247, 28 L. Ed. 798; Holmes v. Jennison. 14 Pet. 571, 10 L. Ed. 579; U. S. v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407, 7 Sup. Ct. 234, 30 L. Ed. 425; Ex parte Ortiz (C. C.) 100 Fed. 902. In private law, “treaty” signifies the discussion of terms which immediately precedes the conclusion of a contract or other transaction. A warranty on the sale of goods, to be valid, must be made during the “treaty” preceding the sale. Chit. Cont. 419; Sweet.

Law Dictionary: What is TREATY? definition of TREATY (Black's Law Dictionary) What is TREATY? definition of TREATY (Black's Law Dictionary)

The treaties themselves, don't grant sovereignty. That is already recognizes as in the acceptance to the UN as a member nation. What the treaty does is codify with the UN the accepted boundaries. As you know, in Article 102 of the Charter, each Member must register the a treaty with the UN. And as you've seen, I supplied the UN archive address for each of the Treaties and Armistice agreement cited I've cited.

• Every treaty and every international agreement entered into by any Member of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it.
• No party to any such treaty or international agreement which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article may invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations.

SOURCE: Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XVI: Miscellaneous Provisions

What are the benefits of international law?​

Without it, there could be chaos. International law sets up a framework based on States as the principal actors in the international legal system. It defines the States’ legal responsibilities in their conduct with each other, within States’ boundaries, and in their treatment of individuals. International law encompasses many areas, including human rights, disarmament, transnational organized crime, refugees, migration, statelessness, the treatment of prisoners, the use of force, the conduct of war, the environment, sustainable development, the oceans, outer space, global communications and world trade.

Does international treaty law impinge
on a nation’s sovereignty?​

To become party to a treaty, a State must express, through a concrete act, its willingness to undertake the legal rights and obligations contained in the treaty – it must “consent to be bound” by the treaty.

How does a State express its “consent to be bound”?​

A State can express its consent to be bound by a treaty in several ways, as specifically set out in the final clauses of the relevant treaty. The most common ways are: definitive signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession.

The terms ratification, acceptance and approval all mean the same thing in international law, particularly when used following “signature subject to….” – the State has agreed to become a party and is willing to undertake the legal rights and obligations contained in the treaty upon its entry into force.

SOURCE: http://treaties.un.org/doc/source/events/2012/Press_kit/fact_sheet_1_english.pdf

I often wondered if any of this stuff, I had to know in my previous life, would ever again be useful to me.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[irosie91]

Tresties between two purported nations are simply agreements between the two of them. THEY cannot give sovereignty of land they never had to anyone else. THe Problem is sovereignty rights have never left the indigenous Palestinian peoples and only an agreement between them, that includes indigenous Jewish people in the land can give Israel legitimacy as a nation and borders.

the most important and sociopathic manipulation of terms ---used in the
above post by the above mendacious gobbellian propagandaist is the
word INDIGENOUS Keep in mind----it has declared that Jesus of
nazareth was an INDGENOUS PALESTINIAN JUST LIKE THE TERRORIST
PIG SAMER THE HUNGERKUNSTLER CIRCUS FREAK-----because both spoke
or speak arabic .

She actually seems to be making a claim for a class of persons she
does not actually know how to define ---to wit---"INDIGENOUS
PEOPLE" because in the past ----in feeble minds it evoked an
EMOTION of oppression. It is true that the indigenous people
of the americas were murdered and oppressed by her kith
and kin in the scores of millions-----but that is history---not a
general principle of contract law..
After an entirely mendacious and manipulative use of the word
"indigenous"----she then asserts---comically ---with pedantic idiocy--
that the only the contracts of these undefined 'indigenous" persons --
can be considered valid in law. poor thing ties herself in up in
absurd sophist knots asserting with absolute certainty ---her own
customized "PRINCIPLES OF CONTRACT LAW which IF APPLIED_--
in the psychotic manner she wishes to apply them-----would
delegitamize every country in the world.

I am reminded of a muslim from Lebanon---who argued that the
maronites of Lebanon have no legitimate rights in the country
because they are more "french" than "arab" ---there is no limit
to the absurdity of isa-respecting humor