What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote

[Hollie]

(COMMENT)

✪ The Korean Conflict has not ended. The Conflict is in a perpetual ceasefire (cessation of hostilities) along the Armistice Lines; administratively maintained by the established the UN Military Armistice Commission. While we refer to the Armistice Line as a Border, but it is not a true Border. It is generall assumed that the Armistice Line will be managed under • Paragraph 1(1)(5) • A/RES/26/2625 (XXV) • as general demarcation roughly along the 38th Parallel.

✪ The Iron Curtain (ie of which the East Germany and West German segment) was established by the Allied Powers under the authority of the military governments of the Western occupying powers (France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States) separating the "Soviet Occupation Zone of Germany" from the adjacent Allied Occupation Zones [British Army of the Rhine (BOAR) and the US Army Occupation Force]. It was dissolved 1989 when the Soviets Occupation Force and the East German Border Guards collapsed as a functioning organization. Ther German reunification Plan was activated on 1990 Article 23 in the Basic Law of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG).

✪ The Vietnamese Demiliterized Zone was also a demarcation that collapsed after the US withdrawal. The a separation along the 17th Parallel at the end of the Indochina War. It was also similar in nature to the to an Armistice Line.

✪ For instance - the permanent boundary between Australia and East Timor for the first time, and set down a formula for sharing billions of dollars in future oil and gas revenues from the Timor Sea.​

The character of boundaries and demarcations are a thing of their own. There is no one single set of protocols that govern the establishment of demarcations.

The Green Line, which outlined the separation between occupation forces (Israeli, Jordanian, Egyptian) dissolved and is only a historical demarcation. It remained in force until the peaceful settlement between the Parties was established (the Peace Treaties).


Most Respectfully,
R

I agree that demarcation lines serve as temporary borders until either conflicts end or circumstances demand.

So all of the above are not counter arguments to what I have said imo , just a more detailed explanation

So to the green line. The Israelis , Jordanians and Egyptians can all agree to settle their differences along lines they agree to but they cannot , imo , decide what the borders of the Palestinan state can be. That's why I wish the US would just stop blocking a resolution of it at the UNGA with its veto power that is solely preventing negotiations between all parties and the UN in accordance with international law

You might be shocked to discover that the Israelis, Jordanians and Egyptians have already agreed to lines that demarcate their borders.

I’m not clear that Israel is going to extinguish its borders to accommodate the Hamas charter and its claim to the entirety of the land area of the State of Israel as an Islamist waqf.

 

[toomuchtime_]

It's naive, (maybe deliberate), to suggest that the Israeli attack aimed the Egyptians was an "initial violation". Had you researched the matter, you would have learned that there were Arab provocations that lead to the Israeli actions. The Egyptians had blocked the Strait of Tiran (to be considered an act of war), while a week earlier Nasser had ordered the removal of the peace keeping force. As the Egyptians were massing troops and artillery near their border, those actions were a strategic preparation for war.

As to UN opinions, we're left to understand that such opinions have no effective force of law as those opinions have no effective means of enforcement.

I have already researched the events up to and including the six day war so you assumption that I am ignorant of it is a false one. The reason Nasser decided to mass forces near the Israeli border was down to the fact that the Russians had told the Egyptians that Israel was massing troops near the Syrian border and planned to attack it. Egypt was in a mutual defence pact with Syria and Jordan so.

Do you want me to cite a whole host of quotes from the Israeli leadership/military of the time that will rubbish your claims about the lead up and prosecution of the six day war ?

That Moshe Dayan admitted that around 80% of the border skirmshes with Syria prior to the war and were a cause of the rising tensions were initiated by Israelis ?
That the Israelis had sought a green light from the US for the attack and had been told that if they attacked they would whoop all the Arabs in next to no time ?

That according to the UN observer of the Straits the blockade wasn't even being enforced ?

My guess is you will have the Israeli propaganda systems rewriting of the history after the event , also admitted by a top Israeli of the time so if you want to go for it feel free but don't expect an easy ride of it

I have also read that the Soviets misled Nasser into believing Israel was about to attack but regardless of the reason Nasser violated the armistice by removing the UN observers from the border and again by massing more troops than the armistice allowed on the border. Under international law, a preemptive strike is legal and considered an act of defense but a preventive strike is not, meaning that if someone is pointing a gun at you, you don't have to wait for him to fire before you start defending yourself, but you cannot take his gun away to prevent him from someday pointing it at you, so despite the fact that Israel struck first, in the Six Day War, Israel fought a defensive war under international law.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ Spartacactcus, et al,

This is a hard concept.

I agree that demarcation lines serve as temporary borders until either conflict end or circumstances demand.

(COMMENT)

All boundaries fall under the general heading of "demarcations." Some permanent and some temporary. Some are established to end hostilities and some are ceasefires.

So all of the above are not counter-arguments to what I have said IMO , just a more detailed explanation

(COMMENT)

The extrapolation of the information places any boundary claimed by the Arab Palestinians is questionable... The one thing that damn near any demarcation line has is that they are agreed upon by the parties thereto. What the treaties, that include the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, have in common is that they are signed by the parties to the original conflict (Jordanians and Egyptian). But on one representing the Arab Palestinians.

So to the green line. The Israelis, Jordanians, and Egyptians can all agree to settle their differences along lines they agree to but they cannot, IMO , decide what the borders of the Palestinian state can be.

(COMMENT)

No, the Arab Palestinians did not enter into any agreement that stipulated what the PLO Negotiation Department (NAD) claims is the boundary.

"The 1967 border, which is defined as the 1949 Armistice Line along with all legal modification thereto up to June 4th 1967, is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine. A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967."​

The 1949 Armistice Lines (Green Line) are not borders.

That's why I wish the US would just stop blocking a resolution of it at the UNGA with its veto power that is solely preventing negotiations between all parties and the UN in accordance with international law

(COMMENT)

In general, the UN General Assembly Resolution does NOT constitute "international Law." I cannot overemphasize this point. The UN does NOT make law.

While the Charter is often considered "International Law, it really is a pledge that amounts to nations to abide by the same protocols. This is similar to a Covenant.

The Covenant ( pacte ) of the League of Nations is believed to be the fi rst use of the term “Covenant” to describe a treaty, and probably owes its existence to the Presbyterian origin of President Woodrow Wilson . It has also been applied to the draft Covenant of Human Rights’: McNair , Law of Treaties (2nd ed.), 25. See also the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights ( 993 U.N.T.S. 3 ; see Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, International Covenant on ) and the International Covenant on Civiland Political Rights ( 999 U.N.T.S. 171 ; see Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on ) both of 16 December 1966 .​

International law may be defined as ‘The standard of conduct, at a given time for states and other entities subject thereto’: Whiteman , Digest of International Law (1963 ), Vol. 1, 1. Or as ‘the body of rules which are legally binding on states in their intercourse with each other … International organizations and, to some extent, also individuals may be subjects of rights conferred and duties imposed by international law’:
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[gtopa1]

Many years ago I suggested that Israel take over the West Bank and Egypt take over Gaza. Any who weren't happy could go to Jordan; the original Palestinian Homeland. Arafat stuffed up Pals in Jordan and that option is out. Could it work?? Who knows? Worth the risk?? Probably not.

Greg

 

[Shusha]

It's not denying Israels right it is trying to defend Palestinian rights that also have their roots in the treaties/agreements you cite to justify Israeli actions and policies.

Actually, Arab Palestinians have no rights entrenched in the treaties and agreements. They are not even mentioned. (Which is not to say they have no rights, just that their rights do not arise from existing treaties and agreements).

But it is absolutely an infringement of Israeli rights to pretend an international border where there is none.

 

[Shusha]

The only thing you have shown is that your anti semitism is so passionate that you cannot understand the very documents you cite. No reasonable person would claim that Israel violated the UN Charter or 242 or the Geneva Conventions.

UNSC 242 cites the 4th GC and the UN Charter as the reason Israel was deemed to have violated international law. It is yourself that cannot understan the document for the very reason you are trying to project onto me , complete bias

UNSC 242 was resolved in 1994 with the Jordan Israel Peace Treaty, in which Jordan abandoned all claims to the territory. Whether you look at it as Israel occupying Jordan or Jordan occupying Israel (which is the correct legal way to look at it), the occupation ended with the Peace Treaty between the two Parties.

 

[Shusha]

but they cannot , imo , decide what the borders of the Palestinan state can be.

Oh. Bingo! There we go.

Now. Who CAN decide what the borders of a Palestinian State will be?

 

[Ethos Logos Pathos]

Why not?...

Same reason Netanyahu recently kicked all of the Negro (African) refugees out of Israel;

Too darkskinned!

 

[JoeB131]

Can't you focus on the positive implications, and not the negative?

Our involvement in the Middle East HAS no positive implications. We are spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives playing hall monitor, mostly because the Zionists have the whole region in turmoil playing "God Loves Us the Very Best!".

We need to wash our hands of the whole region and spend our money on DOMESTIC energy production.

 

[Mindful]

Can't you focus on the positive implications, and not the negative?

Our involvement in the Middle East HAS no positive implications. We are spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives playing hall monitor, mostly because the Zionists have the whole region in turmoil playing "God Loves Us the Very Best!".

We need to wash our hands of the whole region and spend our money on DOMESTIC energy production.

Rubbish! All of it.

Calm down.

 

[Mindful]

but they cannot , imo , decide what the borders of the Palestinan state can be.

Oh. Bingo! There we go.

Now. Who CAN decide what the borders of a Palestinian State will be?

None of this was even mentioned during the Jordanian occupation.

 

[Hollie]

Can't you focus on the positive implications, and not the negative?

Our involvement in the Middle East HAS no positive implications. We are spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives playing hall monitor, mostly because the Zionists have the whole region in turmoil playing "God Loves Us the Very Best!".

We need to wash our hands of the whole region and spend our money on DOMESTIC energy production.

Your conspiracy theory about the Zionists (The Zionists) having the whole region in turmoil is silly. The Arab, Moslem, Persian tribes use the Zionists (The Zionists) as only one of many reasons to slam away at one-another.

 

[Spartacactcus]

Still more ignorant bigotry from you. No one has a veto in the UNGA and since the UNSC is limited by the UN Charter to only dealing with issues among member states except for issue like genocide, no resolution passed by the UNSC concerning the Israel-Palestinian conflict can be binding on any member state.
The resolution Abbas will seek from the UNSC will have only propaganda value.

The UNGA consensus is a dead letter because of the US veto in the UNSC where it would be going if it were allowed to. I might have phrased it awkwardly but your attempt to try to exploit it is aknowledged and ignored seeing as there are many many posts here where it is beyond doubt that I understand the only veto power lies in the security council and not just in the UNSC but limited only to the 5 permanent members

The UNSC has the right to use the full force of themselves and all other member states against any state within the UN itself. That's how it threatened force against Iraq in 2002 if it didn't disarm. They can force issues if there is a threat to international peace , read the Charter and admit you are talking rubbish

As ever you are talking complete nonsense from a position of ignorance

 

[RoccoR]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ gtopa1, et al,

Yes, in the eyes of many, this is a viable alternative. ("Israel take over the West Bank and Egypt take over Gaza")

But! Is it really?

Many years ago I suggested that Israel take over the West Bank and Egypt take over Gaza. Any who weren't happy could go to Jordan; the original Palestinian Homeland. Arafat stuffed up Pals in Jordan and that option is out. Could it work?? Who knows? Worth the risk?? Probably not.

Greg

(COMMENT)

Once Israel annexes "any territory" → it has committed itself to the acceptance and support of (as full and absolute full citizenship) the "habitual" inhabitance → every single pair of boots on the ground. That is one hell of a commitment given:

West Bank and another 2 Million in the Gaza Strip. This 4 Million people is a very significant number given that it represents 50% of Israels current population [8,675,475 (includes populations of the Golan Heights or Golan Sub-District and also East Jerusalem, which was annexed by Israel after 1967) (July 2020 est.)].
CIA Factbooks: • Israel • • West Bank • • Gaza Strip •

Israel's Unemployment Rate .......................... ≈ . 7.3%
West Bank & Gaza Strip Unemployment Rate ≈ 46,9%

If Israel were to accept that responsibility included in the Annexation, that would increase the unemployment rate by nearly a factor of 7 (7 x 7 = 49 → 49 = 7²). A huge influx.​

By extrapolation of the GDP ratio, you would expect to see that the West Bank and Gaza would be in and about 50% of that seen in Israel. But that is not the case. The difference in the GDPs you see a separation of 10 times or greater. The GDP and the unemployment rate are indicators of self-abuse in the population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Israeli GDP (purchasing power parity):

$317.1 billion (2017 est.)
$307 billion (2016 est.)
$295.3 billion (2015 est.)​

West Bank GDP (purchasing power parity):

$21.22 billion (2014 est.)
$20.15 billion (2013 est.)
$19.95 billion (2012 est.)​

GDP (official exchange rate):

$2.938 billion (2014 est.)​

These are just a couple of factors that Israel would have to contend with in a hostile environment in which the Arab Palestinian cannot see any improvements without their active cooperation and citizenry contributions in labor and productivity. This is an inspiration set which is not present in the Arab Palestinian population and has not been in the population for more than a hundred years. And there are many more thresholds which make the Annexation a very bad (wrong) decision.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Spartacactcus]

That was quite an impassioned rant but it changes nothing related to the Egyptian preparations for war or facts of the Egyptian announcement to blockade the Strait, Nasser’s removal of the peacekeeping force and the massing of Egyptian troops.

All of the above was in the context of the Arab-Moslem refusal to accept a Jewish State in an Islamist waqf. With the history of Arab-Moslem intentions to drive the Jews into the sea by machine gun fire, the IsraelI government would have foolish not to understand the intentions and strategic maneuvering by the Egyptians.

Actually it does change , significantly, what you claimed to be the case. That you choose to dismiss it doesn't come as a surprise either

 

[Spartacactcus]

You might be shocked to discover that the Israelis, Jordanians and Egyptians have already agreed to lines that demarcate their borders.

I’m not clear that Israel is going to extinguish its borders to accommodate the Hamas charter and its claim to the entirety of the land area of the State of Israel as an Islamist waqf.

Why would I be shocked seeing as I am fully aware of the above ?

So far all you have done is assume you know more about the subject than I do without even having the foggiest about what I know and/or don't know

So do you know what quotes were coming your way regarding the events of 1967 and who I would be quoting ?

Why don't you just try to discuss the matter without the arrogance to assume you know more ?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ Spartacactcus, et al,

Like many such dreams, the UN Charter is idealistic. It may take another hundred years before the nations of the world come together as a force for peace.

....
They can force issues if there is a threat to international peace, read the Charter and admit you are talking rubbish

As ever you are talking complete nonsense from a position of ignorance

(COMMENT)

There are a number of unmentioned factors that come together and generate energy for a major conflict. The least of which was the nature of the Charter. The least of which was the ambiguous way in which Washington and Baghdad presented themselves. And of course, the truth behind the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Much of the facts that Scott Ritter, former UNSCOM Inspector, were not given the consideration that should have been shown. And the saga of Ambassador Joseph Wilson and CIA Officer Valerie (Plame) Wilson and the boldness in which they challenged the pre-War Intelligence were only to be vindicated after the war and the discovery of Zero WMD.

Much of the synergy that perpetuates the Arab-Israeli Conflict is the self-destructive nature of the various adjacent Arab League members.

The charters and covenants on peace and rights are only as valid as the people that follow the ideals. The fact that such documents came into existance is only evidence that (at one time) the ideals existed once.




Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Spartacactcus]

I have also read that the Soviets misled Nasser into believing Israel was about to attack but regardless of the reason Nasser violated the armistice by removing the UN observers from the border and again by massing more troops than the armistice allowed on the border. Under international law, a preemptive strike is legal and considered an act of defense but a preventive strike is not, meaning that if someone is pointing a gun at you, you don't have to wait for him to fire before you start defending yourself, but you cannot take his gun away to prevent him from someday pointing it at you, so despite the fact that Israel struck first, in the Six Day War, Israel fought a defensive war under international law.

Are you going for some sort of record for BS claims here ?

Quick on the heels of your BS claim that the UNSC/UN cannot force anything on a member state, we are subjected to a pre emptive strike being deemed legal by the UN Charter. The only time it is deemed legal is when the UN/UNSC have decided it is legal as per a threat to international peace as per the Iraq situation in 2002 etc. Your claim is ,oncemore , complete BS

So, admit that the UNSC/UN CAN intervene ,including the use of force , against any member state of the UN or retract it for the nonsense it has shown itself to be.

Show where it states in the UN Charter that a unilateral attack , without UNSC authority is ever deemed to be legal under the UN Charter.

And we can add to the list that Nassers troop movement and/or its kicking out of the UNEF Peacekeepers was a violation of precisely zero . Recall why they were there in the first place ?

Because Israel had attacked Egypt in 1956 in a real and clear violation of the 49 armistice demarcation line.

The UNEF were positioned entirely on the Egyptian side of the line because Israel refused to have them on their side. At the discretion and permission of the Egyptian govt we should add

So, the troop movements were on Egyptian sovereign territory and never violated the line drawn up in 1949 and their removal was legitimate.

How many BS claims are you actually going for here ?

 

[Spartacactcus]

(COMMENT)

There are a number of unmentioned factors that come together and generate energy for a major conflict. The least of which was the nature of the Charter. The least of which was the ambiguous way in which Washington and Baghdad presented themselves. And of course, the truth behind the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Much of the facts that Scott Ritter, former UNSCOM Inspector, were not given the consideration that should have been shown. And the saga of Ambassador Joseph Wilson and CIA Officer Valerie (Plame) Wilson and the boldness in which they challenged the pre-War Intelligence were only to be vindicated after the war and the discovery of Zero WMD.

Much of the synergy that perpetuates the Arab-Israeli Conflict is the self-destructive nature of the various adjacent Arab League members.

The charters and covenants on peace and rights are only as valid as the people that follow the ideals. The fact that such documents came into existance is only evidence that (at one time) the ideals existed once.

You are one of the few here who actually discusses issues without the recourse to insult first and I fully respect that approach

I agree with you regarding the failures of and dubious uses of international law but recall what the UN Charter starts off with ?

The UN Charter starts with " we the people " , note , not " we the governments" of the world and that's why I would like to see more people being aware of the laws , because I think they are reasonable enough , and having the integrity to try to hold their own governments to account with regards to their abiding by them.

I agree it is an idealistic and naive suggestion but that HAS to be the point of departure for every caring citizen around the globe if we are ever going to reach that point you mentioned




Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Spartacactcus]

It's not denying Israels right it is trying to defend Palestinian rights that also have their roots in the treaties/agreements you cite to justify Israeli actions and policies.

Actually, Arab Palestinians have no rights entrenched in the treaties and agreements. They are not even mentioned. (Which is not to say they have no rights, just that their rights do not arise from existing treaties and agreements).

But it is absolutely an infringement of Israeli rights to pretend an international border where there is none.

Stop it !!

The Balfour declaration, which was included in the Mandate , recognizes the rights of the non Jewish citizens of Palestine and demands they be respected.

Your wish to endow all " treaties and agreements " rights onto Jews and none onto others is sadly instructive and could be considered bigoted in and of itself