What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote

[toomuchtime_]

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

It is gratifying to see I've been able to help you to understand no one has a veto in the UNGA, but clearly there are many other issues you still need help to understand. Most importantly, you seem to think the UN is a world government; it is not. The UN is a treaty organization that was formed primarily to prevent another WW. A WW would require the participation of the major military powers which is why the main allies from WWII and later China were given veto power. The UNGA is responsible for internal matters of the UN and the UNSC deals with issues between member countries and issues that rise to the level of genocide.

The first Gulf war was between Iraq and Kuwait, so the UNSC had the authority to intervene,The UN never threatened military force against Iraq in 2003 and the UN has no military force of its own to speak of. Furthermore, the UN has no authority for compel member states to provide military forces. The UN has no effective military force at all unless the US chooses to provide it. If you didn't limit your reading to anti semitic propaganda sites, you would know this.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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 ?

The authority of the UNSC is strictly limited to relations between member states and acts that rise to the levels of genocide. Your confusion continues to stem from the belief that the UN is a world government and not merely a treaty organization with very limited jurisdiction. While the UNSC may authorize military action against a member state because of an act of aggression by a member state against another member state, it cannot compel member states to provide military force, and that determination of aggression is always made after the act has already occured, not before as you erroneously claimed. If you were capable of rational thought, you would realize no nation would want to be a member of the UN if it meant it waiting for a UNSC debate to determine if it could take action against an imminent threat before taking action. Your bizarre argument that if someone is pointing a gun at you you must wait until he shoots before taking action betrays the alarming extent of your ability to think rationally.

Your argument that Egypt is allowed to violate the armistice agreement after arguing that is not brings into question our mental health. Surely this is the result of some serious mental deficit on your part.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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

Israel did not acquire land through warfare. Immediately after the Six Day War, Israel offered to return the land it had captured while pursuing Arab armies in exchange for peace. 242 only required Israel withdraw to safe and secure borders, not to the pre war border, and safe and secure borders means either a credible peace or keeping some of the captured land as a buffer zone since Israel has no strategic depth to protect it against an attack.

So Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt but only on condition that Egypt severely restrict the military forces it stationed in Sinai. Judea adn Samaria did not fall under the terms of 242, nonetheless Israel offered to turn over to the PA 93% of Judea and Samaria but only with conditions that would protect Israel from continuing Palestinian terrorist attacks and against a military force that might come through Jordan and Judea and Samaria. The Palestinians responded with the second intifada. For at least the last thirty years every Israeli PM, including Netanyahu, has been in negotiations with Syria offering to return the Golan in exchange for peace, but Syria has rejected all offers, which by any reasonable standard means Syria has abandoned its claim to the Golan.

 

[Shusha]

For at least the last thirty years every Israeli PM, including Netanyahu, has been in negotiations with Syria offering to return the Golan in exchange for peace, but Syria has rejected all offers, which by any reasonable standard means Syria has abandoned its claim to the Golan.

THIS is a very very interesting concept which I had not thought of. At what point does a refusal to take up the mantle of self-determination and control over territory and peaceful agreements with your neighbors constitute a rejection of those rights?

Could one make a legal argument that the rejection of self-determination by one Party is a valid choice which releases other claimants from their responsibilities to continue to advance self-determination for that Party?

If Palestine continues to reject self-determination, is Israel obligated to withhold her own claim over the territory and physically and militarily hold territory in limbo for an eventual Palestine?

 

[JoeB131]

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.

It's not a conspiracy when they do it pretty much in the open.

Again, why is this our problem again?

 

[Mindful]

Israel-hating dumbassery of the day:

In a now-deleted tweet, an Israel hater points out what he calls an “absurdity” of Trump’s peace plan



You can’t make this stuff, alright. I guess the hater did not get the memo: Israel is mostly desert.

It of course didn’t stop the Jews from “making the desert bloom” using our ingenuity to invent things like drip irrigation. Then again, we weren’t expecting everything to be given to us on a silver platter.

Israel-Hating Dumbassery of the Day

 

[JoeB131]

It of course didn’t stop the Jews from “making the desert bloom” using our ingenuity to invent things like drip irrigation. Then again, we weren’t expecting everything to be given to us on a silver platter.

You did nothing of the sort. That region has been known as the "Fertile Crescent" since ancient times... You didn't make the desert bloom, you just stole someone else's land.

 

[Mindful]

It of course didn’t stop the Jews from “making the desert bloom” using our ingenuity to invent things like drip irrigation. Then again, we weren’t expecting everything to be given to us on a silver platter.

You did nothing of the sort. That region has been known as the "Fertile Crescent" since ancient times... You didn't make the desert bloom, you just stole someone else's land.

 

[rylah]

It of course didn’t stop the Jews from “making the desert bloom” using our ingenuity to invent things like drip irrigation. Then again, we weren’t expecting everything to be given to us on a silver platter.

You did nothing of the sort. That region has been known as the "Fertile Crescent" since ancient times... You didn't make the desert bloom, you just stole someone else's land.

Was it why this the was most neglected and impoverished of lands under the Caliphate rule?

The Fertile Crescent, by the way, is not associated with the Arabs, neither were they those who made the region actually the fertile nest of civilization.

 

[Hollie]

It of course didn’t stop the Jews from “making the desert bloom” using our ingenuity to invent things like drip irrigation. Then again, we weren’t expecting everything to be given to us on a silver platter.

You did nothing of the sort. That region has been known as the "Fertile Crescent" since ancient times... You didn't make the desert bloom, you just stole someone else's land.

He we have the stereotypical Stolen Land slogan barfed out by the slogan’istas. There’s just never any actual facts to identify what land was “stolen”.

 

[Spartacactcus]

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?

No it wasn't, you people just cannot ever admit that Israelis also start wars and engaged in border/demarcation line violations. For sure there were MINOR violations by BOTH SIDES prior to the Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1956 but to try to make out that they are a justification for the invasion of an entire country just about sums up the Israeli mentality and propensity to kill and and cry that they were forced into it. Ongoing

The people who were responsible were/are far more honest about this than the people on this board including yourself ,so to be claiming " revisionism " is just a pathetic ruse imo

Here's a letter from the UN archives that supports what Moshe Dayan admitted years later about Israeli forces initiating around 80% of the border skirmishes with Syria

6. The aggressive policy of Israel with respect to the demilitarized zone is clearly indicated by the fact that Israel has committed no less than 259 aggressive acts in the said zone since 1 January 1960, regarding which the United Arab Republic Government has submitted complaints to the Israel-Syrian Mixed Armistice Commission.

Israeli violation of Syria/Israel Armistice Agreement - Letter from UAR - Question of Palestine

So now that we have found out who is actually engaging in the revisionism here some points

How did Nassers movement of troops in the Sinai , Egyptian sovereign territory btw , " violate " the armistice line ?

And, isn't it true that the UNEF were on the Egyptian side of the line at the invitation of the Egyptian government after Israel had refused them any access to their own territory ?

The were no troop movement violations of the 49 armistice agreement by Nasser and he had every right to ask the UNEF to leave. So the poster I was responding to was just plain wrong and your jumping in with accusations of revisionism after engaging in it yourself changed nothing and wasn't even a response worthy of reply imo[/quote]

 

[Spartacactcus]

...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?

They already have the power to take actions including the use of force against any member state and that's what I was referring to , so no new powers are required.They don't have to be forced into it but refusal to cooperate in the spirit of good faith negotiations could and should bring into play the very mechanisms some other states have had to endure for their violations. You don't get away with it just because you are the Jewish state and that's what you people really do believe should be the case imo

The UN could choose to impose sanctions , embargoes , the use of peace keeping forces. To think pariah states are ever going to be dealt with without some consequences for their lawbreaking and/or unwillingness to commit to peace agreements in a reasonable way should have consequences and do have consequences. Even when it's the Jewish state , shock horror!!

 

[rylah]

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?

No it wasn't, you people just cannot ever admit that Israelis also start wars and engaged in border/demarcation line violations. For sure there were MINOR violations by BOTH SIDES prior to the Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1956 but to try to make out that they are a justification for the invasion of an entire country just about sums up the Israeli mentality and propensity to kill and and cry that they were forced into it. Ongoing

The people who were responsible were/are far more honest about this than the people on this board including yourself ,so to be claiming " revisionism " is just a pathetic ruse imo

Here's a letter from the UN archives that supports what Moshe Dayan admitted years later about Israeli forces initiating around 80% of the border skirmishes with Syria

6. The aggressive policy of Israel with respect to the demilitarized zone is clearly indicated by the fact that Israel has committed no less than 259 aggressive acts in the said zone since 1 January 1960, regarding which the United Arab Republic Government has submitted complaints to the Israel-Syrian Mixed Armistice Commission.

Israeli violation of Syria/Israel Armistice Agreement - Letter from UAR - Question of Palestine

So now that we have found out who is actually engaging in the revisionism here some points

How did Nassers movement of troops in the Sinai , Egyptian sovereign territory btw , " violate " the armistice line ?

And, isn't it true that the UNEF were on the Egyptian side of the line at the invitation of the Egyptian government after Israel had refused them any access to their own territory ?

The were no troop movement violations of the 49 armistice agreement by Nasser and he had every right to ask the UNEF to leave. So the poster I was responding to was just plain wrong and your jumping in with accusations of revisionism after engaging in it yourself changed nothing and wasn't even a response worthy of reply imo

[/QUOTE]

By sending Fadayeen fighters beyond that line to massacre Israelis.
Can't you read your own links?

Maybe that's why you rely so much on cheap demagoguery.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

You mean Judea and Samaria? There is a proposal on the table, and a damned good one.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wait. Why?

How would Israel benefit from this?

Nothing Coyote supports would benefit Jews or Israel, quite the opposite.

 

[Spartacactcus]

The authority of the UNSC is strictly limited to relations between member states and acts that rise to the levels of genocide. Your confusion continues to stem from the belief that the UN is a world government and not merely a treaty organization with very limited jurisdiction. While the UNSC may authorize military action against a member state because of an act of aggression by a member state against another member state, it cannot compel member states to provide military force, and that determination of aggression is always made after the act has already occured, not before as you erroneously claimed. If you were capable of rational thought, you would realize no nation would want to be a member of the UN if it meant it waiting for a UNSC debate to determine if it could take action against an imminent threat before taking action. Your bizarre argument that if someone is pointing a gun at you you must wait until he shoots before taking action betrays the alarming extent of your ability to think rationally.

Your argument that Egypt is allowed to violate the armistice agreement after arguing that is not brings into question our mental health. Surely this is the result of some serious mental deficit on your part.

You're such a dishonest BS artist and troll

Your claims outstanding without the strawmen in the above

The UN Charter permits a member state to attack another member state that it feels poses an imminent threat without UNSC approval, without an armed attack having taken place and doesn't count that attack as a violation after the event. That's BS and clearly BS. That you expect anyone to believe that tells me it is your own mental ability that is lacking.

Nassers removal of the UNEF in the Sinai breached the armistice agreement. BS

 

[Spartacactcus]

By sending Fadayeen fighters beyond that line to massacre Israelis.
Can't you read your own links?

Maybe that's why you rely so much on cheap demagoguery.

I already stated that both sides were guilty of violating the line and have shown , from two different sources , the UN and Moshe Dayan , that the Israelis violated more than anyone else.

I showed the UN evidence of attacks ( " aggression " ) by Israelis and the fact the Israeli claims about Arab forces were shown to be false and also that they never even bothered to attend the meetings themselves

You want people to believe the BS / lie that the opposite was true and have provided precisely zilch to back it yet here you are trying to criticize others lol

 

[rylah]

By sending Fadayeen fighters beyond that line to massacre Israelis.
Can't you read your own links?

Maybe that's why you rely so much on cheap demagoguery.

I already stated that both sides were guilty of violating the line and have shown , from two different sources , the UN and Moshe Dayan , that the Israelis violated more than anyone else.

I showed the UN evidence of attacks ( " aggression " ) by Israelis and the fact the Israeli claims about Arab forces were shown to be false and also that they never even bothered to attend the meetings themselves

You want people to believe the BS / lie that the opposite was true and have provided precisely zilch to back it yet here you are trying to criticize others lol

No you just say that, but your own links show otherwise,
nowhere you brought a comparison including these facts.

Cheap demagoguery.

 

[Spartacactcus]

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.

Why wouldn't Egypt prepare for a war in the face on an impending attack against another Arab state by Israel to which it was in a mutual defence pact ?

That state was Syria of which none other than Moshe Dayan has since claimed that the Israeli side were responsible for initiating around 80% of the border skirmishes with Syria that led to the tension prior to the movement of Egyptian troops.

The Israelis might have claimed the closure of the Straits of Tiran constituted an at of war but the right of passage in the law only refers to right of " innocent " passage. No country has the legal right to use the waterways of another country it is threatening or intends to attack, so the seizure/searching of vessels by the navy of a country within its territorial waters is wholly reasonable.

I could show you a whole raft of other data that undermines the claim that the leaders of the state of Israel thought the Egyptian preparations were not indicative of an impending attack but you have already made your mind up , clearly. It's those pesky Arabs , it's always those pesky Arabs.

That bigotry was never reasoned in so will not be reasoned out

 

[Spartacactcus]

By sending Fadayeen fighters beyond that line to massacre Israelis.
Can't you read your own links?

Maybe that's why you rely so much on cheap demagoguery.

I already stated that both sides were guilty of violating the line and have shown , from two different sources , the UN and Moshe Dayan , that the Israelis violated more than anyone else.

I showed the UN evidence of attacks ( " aggression " ) by Israelis and the fact the Israeli claims about Arab forces were shown to be false and also that they never even bothered to attend the meetings themselves

You want people to believe the BS / lie that the opposite was true and have provided precisely zilch to back it yet here you are trying to criticize others lol

No you just say that, but your own links show otherwise,
nowhere you brought a comparison including these facts.

Cheap demagoguery.

I have supplied one link on this and that is from the UN. I can supply a link to the Moshe Dayan comments about Israel initiating around 80% of the border skirmishes with Syria prior to the 67 war.

You have provided FA and have lied about the one link I supplied

Try again and show where the UN link doesn't state what I claimed it stated or just admit you are making it up as you go along . Spouting " foul " because you don't like the content is pathetic and not even worthy of the term discussion