What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote

[Spartacactcus]

Uh...no.
It’s an opinion; you just said so yourself.[/QUOTE]

I was talking about multiple thing

1 UNSC resolutions are legally binding

2 The " opinion " of the ICJ judges regarding the applicability of the laws to the territories and the wall , along with the settlements. I tend to take their opinion more seriously than some random anonymous poster on an internet forum

 

[Hollie]

As you might expect, the Arabs-Moslems are promoting conspiracy theories. Similarly, two of the most Jew haten'est places on the pkanet; Iran and Turkey, are engaging in some world class whining.



Hamas: 'All options open' following Trump 'conspiracies' with Israel


Hamas: 'All options open' following Trump 'conspiracies' with Israel
Terror group says provisions for Jerusalem are 'nonsense', while Jordan warns against 'annexation of Palestinian lands'; Iran, Turkey blast what they say is one-sided proposal, as Egypt urges both sides to 'carefully study' the plan.

 

[Indeependent]

Uh...no.
It’s an opinion; you just said so yourself.

I was talking about multiple thing

1 UNSC resolutions are legally binding

2 The " opinion " of the ICJ judges regarding the applicability of the laws to the territories and the wall , along with the settlements. I tend to take their opinion more seriously than some random anonymous poster on an internet forum[/QUOTE]
UN Resolutions are Dear John letters.
If they are legally binding then the Muslim world has violated them left and right.
But you go right ahead with whatever floats your boat.

 

[Indeependent]

Uh...no.
It’s an opinion; you just said so yourself.

I was talking about multiple thing

1 UNSC resolutions are legally binding

2 The " opinion " of the ICJ judges regarding the applicability of the laws to the territories and the wall , along with the settlements. I tend to take their opinion more seriously than some random anonymous poster on an internet forum[/QUOTE]
I presume you haven’t Googled this matter.
I did and I’m correct.
Google is your friend if you’re interested in the truth.

 

[Spartacactcus]

It is difficult to tell whether your ignorance is the result of your bigotry or your bigotry is the result of your ignorance. Egypt's claim to Sinai is at best dubious since it was never a part of Egypt in modern times until the British attached it to their Egyptian colony. Nevertheless, Egypt was powerless to take Sinai back from Israel, and it was only Israel's desire for peace that led it to trade Sinai for peace with Egypt.

Your claim that the land Israel gave to Jordan in return for peace was sovereign Jordanian land is simply false. Jordan had no legitimate claim on any land west of the river, yet Israel's desire for peace with the Arab nations was so great that Israel gave some of the land west of the river to Jordan anyway.

Nowhere is your ignorance and bigotry more evident than in your discussion of Oslo. Israel offered 93% of the land in Judea and Samaria and jurisdiction over Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem to the PA and all water resources in Judea and Samaria were under the control of the Joint Water Resources Commision which was made up of an equal number of Israelis and Palestinians. Nearly the entire world, including most Arab countries, thought this was an offer Arafat couldn't refuse, and huge sums of money were pledged to help build the economy of the new Palestinian state, but Arafat did reject it and instead launched the second intifada and in doing so ended the possibility of a Palestinian state.

Shaon gave Gaza to the PA in exchange for a promise that the PA would maintain peace there, and he also closed some of the Israeli settlements in in Samaria. In a letter to President Bush, Sharon explained that he wanted to try again to negotiate peace with the PA, but the PA quickly lost control of Gaza to Hamas, demonstrating it was not a credible partner for peace,

In every case, Israel has offered to give up the land you claim it is scheming to keep for peace, proving conclusively that in all your posts you are expressing nothing but bigotry.

Let's see what the facts say and they will shed light on who is " ignorant "

The peninsula was governed as part of Egypt under the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt from 1260 until 1517, when the Ottoman Sultan, Selim the Grim, defeated the Egyptians at the Battles of Marj Dabiq and al-Raydaniyya, and incorporated Egypt into the Ottoman Empire. From then until 1906, Sinai was administered by the Ottoman provincial government of the Pashalik of Egypt, even following the establishment of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty's rule over the rest of Egypt in 1805.

Sinai Peninsula - Wikipedia


Thus your claim that it was " never part of Egypt in modern times until the British attached it to their Egyptian colony" clearly shows a damning ignorance of how the Sinai has been governed as part of Egypt for at least the last 800 years. If that's your idea of a " dubious claim " WRT it's status as part of Egypt you might have a dictionary all of your own , who knows.

On Jordan

The area "given back" is east of the river Jordan. It is East of the river Jordan and West of the river Yarmouk. That's why its occupation was challenged by Jordan in the aftermath of 1947-49

Although the 1949 Israel-Jordan armistice agreement did not explicitly mention this region, the map attached to the agreement showed the armistice line cutting off a corner of Jordan between the two rivers (the present day Island of Peace).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naharayim#cite_note-Weissberg-16https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naharayim#cite_note-Weissberg-16[16] When Israel sent military forces into this corner in August 1950, Jordan filed a complaint with the United Nations Security Council.[17][18

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naharayim#cite_note-Complaint-18

Naharayim - Wikipedia

So not only were you completely wrong about the Sinai you apparently have no idea where the Jordan river is , not knowing that the land in question was east of the river , not west of the river as you claimed.

Two in , two down already. I have done enough to show already that it is yourself that has shown the true ignorance and is trying to project that ignorance onto others along with false claims of bigotry.

In other words I have humoured you more than I think you deserve already.

If you really have " toomuchtime" I suggest you start spending it on researching the subject instead of showing your ignorance of it whilst claiming the factually accurate comments of others are based on ignorance and/or bigotry because it just highlights your own

 

[Spartacactcus]

I presume you haven’t Googled this matter.
I did and I’m correct.
Google is your friend if you’re interested in the truth.

I probably " googled it " 10 years before you ever heard of it

Just to be clear, what are you challenging ?

I said UNSC resolutions are legally binding ? What did google say ?

I said the opinion of the ICJ was that the wall where it strays from the green line is illegal and should be dismantled. That all of the settlements are illegal under international law? What did google say ?

 

[Shusha]

Trump unilaterally screwed the Palestinians: with Jerusalem, closing their consulate, cutting all aid.

The US Embassy is in WEST Jerusalem. Jerusalem "proper". Israel "proper". Israel "proper" is NOT disputed territory and is not subject to negotiation. States traditionally have sovereignty over their own capital. Embassies are typically located in a State's capital. (In fact, to my knowledge, Israel is the only country in the world who has been prevented from exercising this mark of sovereignty). All the US did was accept existing fact. Full stop. The idea that accepting this existing and inviolable fact is somehow a cause for Arab Palestinian temper tantruming is evidence of how surreal this conflict is.

They were also excluded from the negotiation process. We have always said it needs to be settled with both sides. Now suddenly, no? .

This Vision is not a negotiation. This Vision is a framework for negotiations. Its an offer. Palestinians were invited to participate. They declined. You can lead a horse to water....and all that.

When one Party to the conflict refuses to participate in mutual negotiations and refuses to meet with negotiators and refuses to even READ THE DAMN PAPER, what next? The obligation is to invite the Parties to dinner. Its up to them to eat.

What if we set up a deal excluding Israel, and unilaterally cut all funding to her and closed her embassy?

What, you mean like BDS?!

That said, there are some good possibilities in this idea depending what economic opportunities can be developed ...

Its Trump. The economic opportunities are ... well ... EXTRAVAGANT.

Palestine is completely surrounded by Israel, which would keep it vulnerable to Israel who could shut of trade or water for any reason.

Ah...the "for any reason" argument. You know, because Israel. Its Tuesday, let's shut off water to Bethlehem. That'll be fun. You probably didn't mean it, but the implication is that Israel will arbitrarily harm Arab Palestine because ... reasons. You aren't using the apartheid word, but you are making the exact same implication. So, dive into "reasons" and tell me WHY Israel would shut off trade or water to the a sovereign State of Palestine.

 

[Shusha]

78%, to be exact.

So that's 22% less than what they are entitled to under international law

Up until now, you have been quoting the "1967 lines" (in error as that is). NOW you seem to indicate that the Jewish people are entitled to NOTHING in international law (also in error).

Please clarify your position.

 

[Spartacactcus]

Deconstructing The Deal of the Century from Trump to Israel and the Palestinians
by Brian of London

My opening opinion on the plan as a whole: this is a great deal and Israel will accept it in a way that is more unified than I have ever seen from Jews before. And you can even include many Israeli Arabs who will quietly go along with this. The Palestinian leadership, tied as it is to enriching itself from perpetual war and keeping their people back, will reject this. They have no interest in a state or good conditions for their people.

I was intending to read the whole thing but I stopped at the last paragraph on the 2nd page when I read a very important section which demonstrates exactly how Jared Kushner thinks (I know it is his point of view because of the interview he gave CNN included below).

The conflict between the State of Israel and the Palestinians has kept other Arab countries from normalizing their relationships and jointly pursuing a stable, secure, and prosperous region. One reason for the intractability of this problem is the conflation of two separate conflicts: a territorial, security and refugee dispute between Israel and the Palestinians and a religious dispute between Israel and the Muslim world regarding control over places of religious significance. The absence of formal relations between Israel and most Muslim and Arab countries has only exacerbated the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. We believe that if more Muslim and Arab countries normalize relations with Israel it will help advance a just and fair resolution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, and prevent radicals from using this conflict to destabilize the region.

Page 2 Read the rest:


Deconstructing The Deal of the Century from Trump to Israel and the Palestinians

Why didn't you say ?

Brian of London !!! shut down the I/P subforum and send Brian of London to the ME and we can all sick back reassured that justice will be served where everyone else failed.

We can maybe spend our time learning about the fight for Kurdish nationhood instead

He can take Tommy Robinson with him too if he is out of jail. Maybe they can do what they do best ?

I will add, appears to have no shame to the list

 

[Spartacactcus]

78%, to be exact.

So that's 22% less than what they are entitled to under international law

Up until now, you have been quoting the "1967 lines" (in error as that is). NOW you seem to indicate that the Jewish people are entitled to NOTHING in international law (also in error).

Please clarify your position.

Where is the " indication " that the Jewish people are entitled to nothing ?

Israel is recognized as the sovereign in around 78% of the partition plan area and the rest is recognized by most groups/HRs groups , the UN , ICJ, a whole host of legal experts as ?............. Occupied Palestinian territory which constitutes the remaing 22 % and that's what those people recognize as the state of Palestine.

That's the position , and that's the mainstream position imo as per those mentioned above that also support it

 

[Shusha]

78%, to be exact.

So that's 22% less than what they are entitled to under international law

Up until now, you have been quoting the "1967 lines" (in error as that is). NOW you seem to indicate that the Jewish people are entitled to NOTHING in international law (also in error).

Please clarify your position.

Where is the " indication " that the Jewish people are entitled to nothing ?

Israel is recognized as the sovereign in around 78% of the partition plan area and the rest is recognized by most groups/HRs groups , the UN , ICJ, a whole host of legal experts as ?............. Occupied Palestinian territory which constitutes the remaing 22 % and that's what those people recognize as the state of Palestine.

That's the position , and that's the mainstream position imo as per those mentioned above that also support it

Clearly there is a misunderstanding. We were discussing that the Arab Palestinians got 78% of the Mandate (Jordan) and the Jewish people, therefore, would have the remaining 22%. By suggesting that the Jewish people were not entitled to the remaining 22% well .... you see, yes?

But apparently you are discussing different numbers. So, to clarify you DO agree that the Jewish people are entitled to some form of self-determination in some portion of their homeland?

 

[Spartacactcus]

The entire thrust of your Islamist apologia here is based upon two logical fallacies, namely, the appeal to authority and the appeal to popularity. Just because representatives of nation states with an animus towards Jews are allowed to persecute them through their collective might, that does not make such persecution valid or fair.

If you put 198 members of the kkk with 2 black people and had them vote on various resolutions, the resulting resolutions would target blacks. That does not make the resolutions either fair or just, however.


Now, I realize you despise liberalism, but here in our country liberal political philosophy recognizes the notion of the tyranny of the majority. Recognizing the rights of minorities against persecution by the majority is a liberal position, and the United States has stood up for such a tradition against the inherent antisemitism so obviously evident in the U.N.

I, for one, am glad we have.

There is no " Islamist apologia" in what I wrote but when you are clutching at straws I understand why you people try to bring these ridiculous notions to the table.

You are ridiculously claiming that everyone that supports the two state solution , which is the de facto support for the continuance of the Israeli state too , using international law ( the law specifically written for disputes between states/peoples ) are doing so because the all hate Jews.

My guess is you don't even know how the voting on Palestinian self determination goes in the UN. In 2017 it was 176 - 7 ( see link )

So what you are actually saying is that virtually the whole world is antisemitic and the US , were the most recent mass slayings of Jews has occured outside of the conflict zone , is somehow a bastion of moral supremacy.

The appeal to authority is justified. If you have a problem with electics you seek an electricians view/opinion. If you want an opinion on international law you seek the opinion of those who have spent their lives studying it. That you seem to be somehow opposed to this is quite bizarre. Let's hope you don't suffer a gas leak and ask the window cleaner what to do about it.

Please don't try to lecture me about " liberalism " when you are supporting the subjugation and mass human rights abuses of millions of people on a daily basis.

Cheering as one people are enjoying their rights and the other are denied them and then claiming you understand liberalism. Supporting the view that a people should be ruled over and denied their right to self governance. That 2.7 million people in the WB are subjected to a military court system tried by occupiers whilst the illegal settlers of the military occupiers enjoy civil courts tried by their own and claim you understand liberalism

The trouble with people like you is you are too quick to believe the BS your own propaganda system feeds to you everyday

176 nations at UN call for Palestinian statehood

 

[Indeependent]

I presume you haven’t Googled this matter.
I did and I’m correct.
Google is your friend if you’re interested in the truth.

I probably " googled it " 10 years before you ever heard of it

Just to be clear, what are you challenging ?

I said UNSC resolutions are legally binding ? What did google say ?

I said the opinion of the ICJ was that the wall where it strays from the green line is illegal and should be dismantled. That all of the settlements are illegal under international law? What did google say ?

Are you willingly stupid or is your Mullah standing behind you?
You posted several times that UNRs are legally binding.
Who gives a damn about the ICJ’s opinion?

 

[Spartacactcus]

Clearly there is a misunderstanding. We were discussing that the Arab Palestinians got 78% of the Mandate (Jordan) and the Jewish people, therefore, would have the remaining 22%. By suggesting that the Jewish people were not entitled to the remaining 22% well .... you see, yes?

But apparently you are discussing different numbers. So, to clarify you DO agree that the Jewish people are entitled to some form of self-determination in some portion of their homeland?

The misunderstanding is that you are ascribing to me comments made on two different regions.

Read back and you will find that I only ever discuss in this thread the area the UN were given to control after the British wanted out of the mandate , the area given up for partition , note not Jordan.

imo the Jewish people have around 78% of that area as sovereign Israeli territory , the other 22% imo should be given to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

The 78% mentioned above is the territory where Israelis enjoy self determination and I have no issue with that remaining that way from now until eternity. The same should be applied to Palestinian self determination ( not what you allow them ) in the remaining 22%

That is where negotiations should start , not where an idiot like Trump claims they should

 

[Spartacactcus]

Are you willingly stupid or is your Mullah standing behind you?
You posted several times that UNRs are legally binding.
Who gives a damn about the ICJ’s opinion?

Read what people write not what you think ( maybe too much credit here ) they write

I said UNSC resolutions are legally binding UNGA resolutions are not. There's a difference that even you might understand

The reason why they haven't been implemented against Israel , and I wrote this waaay back , is due to the US veto power in the UNSC

If you want to dismiss the opinion of the ICJ panel of experts regarding the legality of things applicable to the conflict feel free but it makes you look stupid yourself imho

 

[Shusha]

Clearly there is a misunderstanding. We were discussing that the Arab Palestinians got 78% of the Mandate (Jordan) and the Jewish people, therefore, would have the remaining 22%. By suggesting that the Jewish people were not entitled to the remaining 22% well .... you see, yes?

But apparently you are discussing different numbers. So, to clarify you DO agree that the Jewish people are entitled to some form of self-determination in some portion of their homeland?

The misunderstanding is that you are ascribing to me comments made on two different regions.

Read back and you will find that I only ever discuss in this thread the area the UN were given to control after the British wanted out of the mandate , the area given up for partition , note not Jordan.

imo the Jewish people have around 78% of that area as sovereign Israeli territory , the other 22% imo should be given to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

The 78% mentioned above is the territory where Israelis enjoy self determination and I have no issue with that remaining that way from now until eternity. The same should be applied to Palestinian self determination ( not what you allow them ) in the remaining 22%

That is where negotiations should start , not where an idiot like Trump claims they should

Trumps plan has a pretty fair allocation of territory, imo. 70% of the "WB", all of Gaza, plus expansive territory in the Negev.

Good starting place, yes?

 

[Mindful]

The legendary Israeli diplomat Abba Eban once said about relations between the Arabs and Israel, “The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity,” and there have been many statehood opportunities that Palestinian leaders have wilfully missed.

Three so far?

 

[Mindful]

Clearly there is a misunderstanding. We were discussing that the Arab Palestinians got 78% of the Mandate (Jordan) and the Jewish people, therefore, would have the remaining 22%. By suggesting that the Jewish people were not entitled to the remaining 22% well .... you see, yes?

But apparently you are discussing different numbers. So, to clarify you DO agree that the Jewish people are entitled to some form of self-determination in some portion of their homeland?

The misunderstanding is that you are ascribing to me comments made on two different regions.

Read back and you will find that I only ever discuss in this thread the area the UN were given to control after the British wanted out of the mandate , the area given up for partition , note not Jordan.

imo the Jewish people have around 78% of that area as sovereign Israeli territory , the other 22% imo should be given to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

The 78% mentioned above is the territory where Israelis enjoy self determination and I have no issue with that remaining that way from now until eternity. The same should be applied to Palestinian self determination ( not what you allow them ) in the remaining 22%

That is where negotiations should start , not where an idiot like Trump claims they should

Trumps plan has a pretty fair allocation of territory, imo. 70% of the "WB", all of Gaza, plus expansive territory in the Negev.

Good starting place, yes?

Don't hold out much hope. Look what happened last time.

 

[Indeependent]

Are you willingly stupid or is your Mullah standing behind you?
You posted several times that UNRs are legally binding.
Who gives a damn about the ICJ’s opinion?

Read what people write not what you think ( maybe too much credit here ) they write

I said UNSC resolutions are legally binding UNGA resolutions are not. There's a difference that even you might understand

The reason why they haven't been implemented against Israel , and I wrote this waaay back , is due to the US veto power in the UNSC

If you want to dismiss the opinion of the ICJ panel of experts regarding the legality of things applicable to the conflict feel free but it makes you look stupid yourself imho

So a valid US vote bothers you?
You’re looking dumber with every post.

 

[Spartacactcus]

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