What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote

[Picaro]

These are no more legally binding than the UN Declaration of Human Rights which IRONICALLY has a "rights kill switch" embedded in it for the benefit of those many DICTATORSHIPS that SIT in the UNGA or UNSC.... Besides, many of those resolutions applied to JORDAN as well in that Israel had to negotiate with Jordan (and Egypt) for land acquired from the 1967 war..

UNSC resolutions are legally binding and if it were not for the US veto standing in the way of the international consensus there would most likely have been a resolution of the conflict already.

I have stated that there are definitely frustrating weaknesses/contradictions with the UN , namely the UNSC veto power of the big 5, which are incidentally most of the biggest arms dealer nations around, how's that for a conflict of interests ? But support for international laws that are there to aim to keep the peace should be supported by all decent people of the world imo

The UN Charter doesn't start off with " we the governments of the world " , it starts off with " we the peoples of the world " and we , each of us in our own nations , need to stop our governments from flouting international laws and conventions.

Progress is slow with obvious periods of regression but people need to stick with it imo

Resolutions are “Binding”?
An opinion is Binding?!
Really?

These parrots have no idea what they're talking about, especially when babbling about the ICJ, who has never once ruled on any actual cases involving settlers. The reason why that is is because despite all the noise making and propaganda they know they have no real case, so they rely on presenting little biased scenarios to some of the justices for their opinions on cases based on the 'what if' facts presented, always fake premises and made up nonsense for 'evidence', and then proclaim these opinions as if they're actual rulings on real cases.

 

[Spartacactcus]

Yet you keep ignoring the one relevant factor in the debate: that the Green Line forms some sort legal territorial demarcation between Israel and ... something labelled the "Occupied Palestinian Territories".

Without that crucial point, all further debates are operating on false premises.

Recall that is I that welcomes the debate and it is you that states there is no debate to be had , correct ?

Recall too I gave you the words of the legal advisor to the 1967 Israeli government who urged them not to illegally settle the territories captured with civilian settlers and warned not to get into a legal battle

And, I am sure that all of the experts are aware of such things as the green line and still they rule that there are OPTs

I welcome the debate , you appear not to but claim I am somehow the pigheaded one here

I have given detailed reasons why the Green Line never did and still does not represent a legal boundary between Israel and the "OPT"s, with quotes from relevant treaties. I've not received a response from you, beyond, well, "all of the experts are aware of such things".

So here's the thing. If the experts are "aware of such things" -- why do they continue to argue something which is blatantly incorrect?

Tbh I find reading through the likes of the ICJ advisory opinion , and following all of the links to the Hague Convention of 1907, the UN charter , UNSC res this and that etc etc ,on the wall to be well tedious and beyond my willingness to give in the time and that's why I refer to what those people THAT HAVE spent the time have concluded.

If it were such a cut and dry case as you claim they simply wouldn't hold the view they hold, it's just that simple

 

[Picaro]

lol being 'recognized' by a UN packed with a majority of assorted criminal syndicates, crime families, and Muslim terrorist regimes doesn't impress anybody. The UN actually put Qaddaffy Duck's Libya in charge of its 'Human Rights', and worse. lol

It's not meant to impress you , it's just a fact . And if you think that " Muslim terrorist regimes " are a " majority " you could maybe do with some extra study in maths


Maybe they should have put the USA leadership in charge of the HR Council and turn a blind eye to Guantanimo Bay and those it sent to Assads regime to be tortured to name just two of many............people in glass houses and all

Maybe you should just quit pretending you know anything at all about any of this, since you've done nothing but babble rubbish that was exploded and laughed out of any serious discussion even before Kennedy was elected President. Some of us are old enough to remember when you whiney little Commies were all in love with Israel and then changed your propaganda overnight in 1967 and started pretending your little terrorist scumbags were 'victims of Da Evul Jooos N Stuff' because LBJ took up where the French left off and the Israelis decided they didn't want to be Kruschev's client state. See, we know exactly where your stupid 'talking points' come from, while you obviously don't; that's because you much prefer fashion to facts.

 

[Spartacactcus]

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

 

[Hollie]

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

It is the solitary single vote that has stopped the overwhelming world consensus for application of international law and a resolution of the conflict , it should bother people. That it doesn't bother you doesn't come as a surprise either.

I'm not clear on what "application of international law", means. If you're suggesting the UN issuing opinions as law, that doesn't make sense. The UN ha no authority that would override domestic law. Further, you seem to be suggesting that if Israel complied with UN opinions, the islamic terrorist attacks would magically end. One of the glaringly obvious realities, in my opinion, is that the UN has become a biased, political entity with little concern for its original goals.

Where has the UN taken a position on islamic terrorist attacks from Gaza or the actions of Fatah and its promotion and enabling of mass murder / suicide aimed at israelis?

Does International Law have any jurisdiction?

Without any means of enforcement, no. And I know of no "international law" that would override Israel's domestic law or how Israel responds to islamic terrorist attacks, acts of war.

I've never seen the UN react to rocket fire from Gaza as an act of war.

Why does the UN condemn Israel for responding to an act of war?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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

So not only have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the two logical fallacies I mentioned , you have added in some straw men just to make sure, and to make certain that people understand that you also know nothing about liberalism, you repeat various cliches crafted by those who kill their daughters and call it honor

Is there anything else you were hoping to convey about yourself?

 

[Spartacactcus]

lol being 'recognized' by a UN packed with a majority of assorted criminal syndicates, crime families, and Muslim terrorist regimes doesn't impress anybody. The UN actually put Qaddaffy Duck's Libya in charge of its 'Human Rights', and worse. lol

It's not meant to impress you , it's just a fact . And if you think that " Muslim terrorist regimes " are a " majority " you could maybe do with some extra study in maths


Maybe they should have put the USA leadership in charge of the HR Council and turn a blind eye to Guantanimo Bay and those it sent to Assads regime to be tortured to name just two of many............people in glass houses and all

Maybe you should just quit pretending you know anything at all about any of this, since you've done nothing but babble rubbish that was exploded and laughed out of any serious discussion even before Kennedy was elected President.

I am the one that has supplied virtually all of the links here in case you hadn't noticed and have used them to back my points

Maybe everyone should just listen to your , as yet, unsubstantiated " babble "

 

[Picaro]

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

I read an article awhile back that said there are more Palestinians in Israel than Israeli's, and therefore, Israel would cease to exist if Palestinians were allowed to vote.

There are no such people as 'Palestinians'; they were made up by Arafat as a propaganda gimmick in the mid-1950's. they considered themselves Syrians before that, except for the illegal migrants who came from Egypt, Iraq, Turkey, and other points outside the region.

 

[Picaro]

lol being 'recognized' by a UN packed with a majority of assorted criminal syndicates, crime families, and Muslim terrorist regimes doesn't impress anybody. The UN actually put Qaddaffy Duck's Libya in charge of its 'Human Rights', and worse. lol

It's not meant to impress you , it's just a fact . And if you think that " Muslim terrorist regimes " are a " majority " you could maybe do with some extra study in maths


Maybe they should have put the USA leadership in charge of the HR Council and turn a blind eye to Guantanimo Bay and those it sent to Assads regime to be tortured to name just two of many............people in glass houses and all

Maybe you should just quit pretending you know anything at all about any of this, since you've done nothing but babble rubbish that was exploded and laughed out of any serious discussion even before Kennedy was elected President.

I am the one that has supplied virtually all of the links here in case you hadn't noticed and have used them to back my points

Maybe everyone should just listen to your , as yet, unsubstantiated " babble "

Nobody gives a shit about your 'links', they're rubbish, and you can't refute a thing I said with any legitimate source, in case you haven't noticed. Why not post 'links' to Charles Manson's fan club as well?

 

[Mindful]

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

Of course it makes perfect sense.

And it's no secret.

 

[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

So not only have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the two logical fallacies I mentioned , you have added in some straw men just to make sure, and to make certain that people understand that you also know nothing about liberalism, you repeat various cliches crafted by those who kill their daughters and call it honor

Is there anything else you were hoping to convey about yourself?

The only straw men have been your own inclusion, the first being " Islamic apologia " the latest BS about "honour killings "........ you might need a whole lot more introspection imo


Three of the cornerstones of liberalism are government by consent , equality before the law and individual freedom

You support the subjugation of and the mass HR violations of millions of people on a daily basis , by an occupying force and government they never elected , living under a system of justice where the illegals living in their country are given civilian courts and they are given military courts judged by people from the occupying nation.

Listening to you trying to preach on liberalism to others who oppose the above has only comedic value to any rational person viewing

 

[Shusha]

Yet you keep ignoring the one relevant factor in the debate: that the Green Line forms some sort legal territorial demarcation between Israel and ... something labelled the "Occupied Palestinian Territories".

Without that crucial point, all further debates are operating on false premises.

Recall that is I that welcomes the debate and it is you that states there is no debate to be had , correct ?

Recall too I gave you the words of the legal advisor to the 1967 Israeli government who urged them not to illegally settle the territories captured with civilian settlers and warned not to get into a legal battle

And, I am sure that all of the experts are aware of such things as the green line and still they rule that there are OPTs

I welcome the debate , you appear not to but claim I am somehow the pigheaded one here

I have given detailed reasons why the Green Line never did and still does not represent a legal boundary between Israel and the "OPT"s, with quotes from relevant treaties. I've not received a response from you, beyond, well, "all of the experts are aware of such things".

So here's the thing. If the experts are "aware of such things" -- why do they continue to argue something which is blatantly incorrect?

Tbh I find reading through the likes of the ICJ advisory opinion , and following all of the links to the Hague Convention of 1907, the UN charter , UNSC res this and that etc etc ,on the wall to be well tedious and beyond my willingness to give in the time and that's why I refer to what those people THAT HAVE spent the time have concluded.

If it were such a cut and dry case as you claim they simply wouldn't hold the view they hold, it's just that simple

You are unwilling to read and research the source documents. Noted.

Even when the relevant particular Articles or paragraphs are presented to you by posters on this board (like me). Noted.

But you are willing to read lengthy ICJ opinions. And opinion letters. Noted.

Seems like a case of deliberate, willful, ignorance so as to remain entrenched in your existing biases. It also reeks of, "the only opinions which matter are those which I agree with".

Your response that they "simply wouldn't hold the view they hold" is, frankly, a cop-out.

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.

 

[Shusha]

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

Out of curiosity, have you read the legal opinions of those who do not agree with your position? Or would you be willing to read these opinions. I can make suggestions. I will even provide links.

 

[Spartacactcus]

Nobody gives a shit about your 'links', they're rubbish, and you can't refute a thing I said with any legitimate source, in case you haven't noticed.

The links have refuted a lot of what people have said and claimed. I don't recall you even giving any. Maybe you are just so special that we should all just eat your words and doff our caps in your honour

Why not post 'links' to Charles Manson's fan club as well?

Because they are not relevant ? Radical isn't it !!

 

[Spartacactcus]

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

Out of curiosity, have you read the legal opinions of those who do not agree with your position? Or would you be willing to read these opinions. I can make suggestions. I will even provide links.

I have some knowledge of them , like I have some knowledge of the counter arguments and THAT'S why I want there to be a lifting of the US veto to allow that debate to take place.

Reading the cases of both sides requires that tedious referencing I told you is beyond my commitment to the subject , so thx but no thx as regards any links

 

[Shusha]

... 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.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Every majority Islam country is not safe for women, gays or Jews. This is not a coincidence. Israel has a separation of church and state. I do not see any peace plan that would work until those in Palestine accepted this way of life as well.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

... 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.

Millions and billions, don't you know.

Every majority Islam country is not safe for women, gays or Jews. This is not a coincidence. Israel has a separation of church and state. I do not see any peace plan that would work until those in Palestine accepted this way of life as well.

Not to mentioned that we have had three generations of these Arabs being indoctrinated from birrh to see the mass murder of Jews as their highest purpose in life.

 

[Shusha]

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

Out of curiosity, have you read the legal opinions of those who do not agree with your position? Or would you be willing to read these opinions. I can make suggestions. I will even provide links.

I have some knowledge of them , like I have some knowledge of the counter arguments and THAT'S why I want there to be a lifting of the US veto to allow that debate to take place.

Reading the cases of both sides requires that tedious referencing I told you is beyond my commitment to the subject , so thx but no thx as regards any links

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.

 

[Mindful]

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.