What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote

[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

 

[Spartacactcus]

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?

The UN , ICJ , in conjunction with the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships

 

[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.

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

You just complimented Rocco on his ability to discuss the topics without personal insult. Why don't you try to do the same?

Perhaps I was not clear enough, and so for that I apologize. I am in NO WAY saying that Arab Palestinians have no human rights. Of course they do. And yes, civil and religious rights according to the Mandate documents.

We are discussing the treaties and agreements with respect to sovereignty. There is no sovereignty for Arab Palestinians in any of the documents we have been discussing. (After Palestinian declaration of independence in 1988, with Oslo, this changes). I am in NO WAY saying that Arab Palestinians have no rights to sovereignty and self-determination, they do. Those rights do not arise from any of the documents we've been discussing thus far.

For clarity: I support the full sovereignty and self-determination for BOTH the Jewish people and for the Arab Palestinian people and always have.

 

[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?

The UN , ICJ , in conjunction with the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships

Neither the UN nor the ICJ can determine the borders, though they may have influence to enforce the borders. The only way to determine borders is a Peace Treaty or other agreement between the government of the State of Israel and the government of the State of Palestine.

 

[Shusha]

Spartacactcus

You seem to be suggesting that the UN should enforce something with respect to Israel/Arab conflict. What do you want them to enforce and how do you think it will end the conflict?

 

[Spartacactcus]

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.

How was UNSC resolved when it stated the inadmisibility of acquiring territory through warfare ?

It never withdraw from the WB or the Golan and has served to annexe both

The Jordanian attempts at annexation of the WB / East Jerusalem were rejected and so have the Israeli ones by the UN

 

[Spartacactcus]

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?

The UN , ICJ , in conjunction with the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships

Neither the UN nor the ICJ can determine the borders, though they may have influence to enforce the borders. The only way to determine borders is a Peace Treaty or other agreement between the government of the State of Israel and the government of the State of Palestine.

The first sentence appears contradictory

And the above is what I support and what I proposed when you asked the question

 

[rylah]

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 ?

Ridiculous misinformation.
The Suez Canal war wasn't poor Arabs reacting to Israel attack,
that demarcation was violated for months by that time, with the Arab govts sending Fadayeen incursions.

How much more can your revisionism be detached?

 

[Shusha]

How was UNSC resolved when it stated the inadmisibility of acquiring territory through warfare ?

It never withdraw from the WB or the Golan and has served to annexe both

The Jordanian attempts at annexation of the WB / East Jerusalem were rejected and so have the Israeli ones by the UN

UNSC 242 was a call to end belligerency and respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their rights to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries without threat or use of force.

The belligerency by all States has come to an end, the boundaries have been recognized and all material and territorial matters between the States have been settled. There is nothing in 242 which is still relevant. Thus, its resolved.

You continue to miss the claim Israel is making. She is ALREADY sovereign in the territory. Thus, she is not annexing anything. She is applying sovereignty to her own territory. (With exception to Golan Heights which is a separate matter).

 

[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?

The UN , ICJ , in conjunction with the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships

Neither the UN nor the ICJ can determine the borders, though they may have influence to enforce the borders. The only way to determine borders is a Peace Treaty or other agreement between the government of the State of Israel and the government of the State of Palestine.

The first sentence appears contradictory

And the above is what I support and what I proposed when you asked the question

The first sentence is not contradictory. There is a difference between create and enforce.

The important question on the table between us is whether or not a border between Israel and Palestine has already been created. Has it? If so, how?

 

[Spartacactcus]

Spartacactcus

You seem to be suggesting that the UN should enforce something with respect to Israel/Arab conflict. What do you want them to enforce and how do you think it will end the conflict?

As the body responsible , allegedly , for the maintenance of international peace and security it is wholly reasonable imo to wish to see the UN/ ICJ and the relevant parties coming together to end/resolveto the conflict .

IMO the reps/lawyers of all three should first thrash out the appropriate framework for the negotiations and then facilitate and oversee those negotiations with the UN , in case of stalemate , having the capacity to enforce a just resolution of the conflict based on international law and pragmatic considerations on both parties

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Why not?

They are not Israelis. They are enemies of israel

 

[rylah]

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.

How was UNSC resolved when it stated the inadmisibility of acquiring territory through warfare ?

It never withdraw from the WB or the Golan and has served to annexe both

The Jordanian attempts at annexation of the WB / East Jerusalem were rejected and so have the Israeli ones by the UN

On the top of it, two words - 'defensive war'.

But in more depth, article 80 of The UN charter: "No right gained by a country through a mandate will expire as a result of the expiration of the mandate." This is further supported by article 70(1)(b) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Basically the UN cannot vary treaties it inherited from the League of Nations, and constitutionally bound by, that vest sovereignty over the land in the Jewish Nation.

 

[Shusha]

...in case of stalemate , having the capacity to enforce a just resolution of the conflict based on international law and pragmatic considerations on both parties

To be clear, are you suggesting the UN should have its powers greatly increased by being able to force States into binding agreements? That is a violation of the very underpinnings of conventional and customary international law, whose principle is one of voluntary agreements, freely entered into by States recognized as equal and self-determining.

How would you suggest such a system work? Specifically, how would you temper large voting blocs in the UN from enforcing their will on other States?

 

[Spartacactcus]

The first sentence is not contradictory. There is a difference between create and enforce.

If you see the UN as being able to enforce a border that is the de facto recognition than they can also determine that border , so the original comment is contradictory

[/quote]

The important question on the table between us is whether or not a border between Israel and Palestine has already been created. Has it? If so, how?

I see the green line as the enforceable border between the state of Palestine and the state of Israel but feel that this should only serve as the guide irrespective of past lines/historical lines/agreements etc etc. The two sides should be forced to use these as the point of departure for negotiations and both sides should be entitled to a VIABLE state at the end of it

 

[Shusha]

If you see the UN as being able to enforce a border that is the de facto recognition than they can also determine that border , so the original comment is contradictory

No, it is not. There is a difference between creating a border and enforcing an existing, legal border. By creating a border in violation of Treaty Agreements, you are 1. undermining the entire idea of Treaties being binding documents and 2. stripping sovereignty from existing States.

I see the green line as the enforceable border between the state of Palestine and the state of Israel

Yes, I know you see this. And while it may have practical applications, it would be ILLEGAL to enforce such a border. See above. It undermines the entire foundation of binding Treaties and strips both Israel and Palestine of their sovereign right to negotiate and make a Treaty.

both sides should be entitled to a VIABLE state at the end of it

We agree. On a practical note, the Green Line as an international boundary will not be VIABLE for Israel.

 

[Hollie]

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

Actually, there was nothing in your comment to support what you claim. The Egyptian preparations for war were clear. The intended blockade of the Strait was defined by Israel as an act of war and that act was carried out with the blockade and claimed mining of the waterway by the Egyptians.

 

[Hollie]

...in case of stalemate , having the capacity to enforce a just resolution of the conflict based on international law and pragmatic considerations on both parties

To be clear, are you suggesting the UN should have its powers greatly increased by being able to force States into binding agreements? That is a violation of the very underpinnings of conventional and customary international law, whose principle is one of voluntary agreements, freely entered into by States recognized as equal and self-determining.

How would you suggest such a system work? Specifically, how would you temper large voting blocs in the UN from enforcing their will on other States?

It’s both impractical and undesirable to have the all-knowing, all-seeing UN as a global law making body. There would be a requirement then for an enforcement arm of the UN.

The idea largely dismantles the notion of autonomous nations with the UN as some kind of global police force, judge and jury.

 

[ph3iron]

It is a terrible idea for Israel. They would just end up being the next Lebanon.

Lebanon was formed as the Christian country of the Middle east, and despite the precautions set into place to try to protect that, Muslims simply bred themselves into a position of dominance and the country has suffered. Beirut was called the Paris of the middle east when I was young, but now it is just another Islamic shit hole.

Jewish Israelis are fooling themselves if they don't understand the same thing will happen to them as happened to the Lebanese Christians. Within a generation or two they would be a persecuted minority.

An absolute hoot.
The Palestinians had been there for 2000 years and supported us in wwii.
Rothschild and his money created Israel.
It’s been like apartheid SA ever since.
Now they are stealing more Palestinian lands and expect the Ps to agree?
i hear god gave the uk to the romans 2000 years ago and now the brits areclaiming ownership?

 

[Mindful]

It is a terrible idea for Israel. They would just end up being the next Lebanon.

Lebanon was formed as the Christian country of the Middle east, and despite the precautions set into place to try to protect that, Muslims simply bred themselves into a position of dominance and the country has suffered. Beirut was called the Paris of the middle east when I was young, but now it is just another Islamic shit hole.

Jewish Israelis are fooling themselves if they don't understand the same thing will happen to them as happened to the Lebanese Christians. Within a generation or two they would be a persecuted minority.

An absolute hoot.
The Palestinians had been there for 2000 years and supported us in wwii.
Rothschild and his money created Israel.
It’s been like apartheid SA ever since.
Now they are stealing more Palestinian lands and expect the Ps to agree?
i hear god gave the uk to the romans 2000 years ago and now the brits areclaiming ownership?

This is standup at the Apollo, is it not?