What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote

[Hollie]

You might want to take your thread spam elsewhere as this thread is not about your pointless slogans.

You might want to actually try answering a point...

The Palestinians lived in Palestine for hundreds of years. It was their land.

Then the Zionists started showing up from Europe and stole it.

What difference does it make. The stage was set for the establishment of a Jewish National Home by the authority of the Allied Powers on the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. It had nothing to do with population density in the region. The initial spark for the decisions which were to follow the Great War (World War I) was the arrangements agreed upon in the Syke-Picot Agreement (1916). This was well before the Armistice of Mudros (concluded - 30 October 1918); which ended the hostilities with the Ottoman Empire.

Again, what gave the allied powers the right to give away someone else's land?

So let's be honest, this was about a land grab by the British and French, using the Zionists as proxies to extend their imperial reach.

As for "stolen land " → the Arab Palestinian has no claim in terms of territorial integrity or sovereignty on the conclusion of the war in 1918 (private property being an entirely different matter). The Ottoman Empire relinquished the title to the territory by direct assignment to the Allied Powers by Treaty. Consider: It has been the "customary" protocol to adhere to the historical principles established and the decisions made by the world leaders; especially decision more than a hundred years old.

Here's the problem with that argument. One of the Fourteen Points the Allies agreed to was "Self-Determination" of nations after the war. Meaning that they were to encourage the national aspirations of Czechs, Poles, etc. in forming their own nations. In short, if the Allies were standing up for their own principles - or at least principles they adopted to rationalize the war after millions of people had died for nothing - then they should have recognized the rights of Arabs to self-determination.

But this was yet another case of "Silly Darkies, Rights are for White People". The Czechs get self-determination... but you Arabs, or you "wogs" living in Germany Colonies in Africa, then dammit, we're taking your land and setting up our own colonies. And we certainly don't want people living in British or French Colonies to get some silly idea that THEY get self-determination.

So, yes, the British STOLE Palestine, and used the Zionists as proxies to do so.

The above is nothing more than your usual slogans. You even expanded your usual conspiracy theories to include the Brits as co-conspirators.

You’re getting quite frantic.

I think those crafty Jews STOLE your argument.

 

[Hollie]

^ Palestinians lived in Palestine for hundreds of years. It was their land.

Yeah. Jews.

The boy has STOLEN LAND from the Ottoman Turks. Somebody call the UN.

 

[JoeB131]

What issue?

Seems you're setting the premise, and demanding others adhere to it.

We've established the issue. What the Zionists are doing would be considered unacceptable if ANYONE else in the world were doing it.

But the zionists whine "But, but, but, Hitler did a nasty to us 80 years ago."

 

[Mindful]

What issue?

Seems you're setting the premise, and demanding others adhere to it.

We've established the issue. What the Zionists are doing would be considered unacceptable if ANYONE else in the world were doing it.

But the zionists whine "But, but, but, Hitler did a nasty to us 80 years ago."

"We" have not established any issue.

Your issue is not my issue.


As for the rest; unintelligible babble.

 

[JoeB131]

We" have not established any issue.

Your issue is not my issue.


As for the rest; unintelligible babble.

Well, I can't use any smaller words for you.

The Zionists established an Apartheid Colonial State that most of the world considers unacceptable.

 

[Mindful]

We" have not established any issue.

Your issue is not my issue.


As for the rest; unintelligible babble.

Well, I can't use any smaller words for you.

The Zionists established an Apartheid Colonial State that most of the world considers unacceptable.

I'm not going to argue for the sake of it. And with you, I don't know what I'm arguing about.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm not going to argue for the sake of it. And with you, I don't know what I'm arguing about.

Oh, honey, you know EXACTLY what the argument is. The problem is that you like to pretend Israel is this wonderful bunch of people who made the "Desert Bloom", and not people who went in, stole someone else's land and can't possibly ever grant them equal rights out of sheer terror that they'd be looking for payback.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ ForeverYoung436, JoeB131, Hollie, et al,

What difference does it make. The stage was set for the establishment of a Jewish National Home by the authority of the Allied Powers on the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. It had nothing to do with population density in the region. The initial spark for the decisions which were to follow the Great War (World War I) was the arrangements agreed upon in the Syke-Picot Agreement (1916). This was well before the Armistice of Mudros (concluded - 30 October 1918); which ended the hostilities with the Ottoman Empire.

You’re never able to support your stolen land meme..

Palestine was not vacant when the Zionists started showing up.

That's a myth.

(COMMENT)

The key to take away here is that the decisions were made, as was customary in those days, between the parties in conflict. They were not made in consideration of which people were habitual residents, or upon who was considered an immigrant. It was not based on any particular ratio (ie Arab:Jew).

As for "stolen land " → the Arab Palestinian has no claim in terms of territorial integrity or sovereignty on the conclusion of the war in 1918 (private property being an entirely different matter). The Ottoman Empire relinquished the title to the territory by direct assignment to the Allied Powers by Treaty. Consider: It has been the "customary" protocol to adhere to the historical principles established and the decisions made by the world leaders; especially decision more than a hundred years old.


Most Respectfully,
R

"The Ottoman Empire relinquished the title to the territory by direct assignment to the Allied Powers by Treaty. Consider: It has been the "customary" protocol to adhere to the historical principles established and the decisions made by the world leaders; especially decision more than a hundred years old"

The above really speaks to the heart of the matter. In thread after thread, there are those tender souls who refuse to accept the events, circumstances and principles of the past and endlessly drive around the Cul-de-sac of their need to re-write history.

There is for some, an inability to accept the past and so they allow their hurt feelings to poison their day to day existence.

"The Ottoman Empire relinquished the title to the territory by direct assignment to the Allied Powers by Treaty.

The territories were transferred to the new states.

 

[Hollie]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ ForeverYoung436, JoeB131, Hollie, et al,

What difference does it make. The stage was set for the establishment of a Jewish National Home by the authority of the Allied Powers on the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. It had nothing to do with population density in the region. The initial spark for the decisions which were to follow the Great War (World War I) was the arrangements agreed upon in the Syke-Picot Agreement (1916). This was well before the Armistice of Mudros (concluded - 30 October 1918); which ended the hostilities with the Ottoman Empire.

You’re never able to support your stolen land meme..

Palestine was not vacant when the Zionists started showing up.

That's a myth.

(COMMENT)

The key to take away here is that the decisions were made, as was customary in those days, between the parties in conflict. They were not made in consideration of which people were habitual residents, or upon who was considered an immigrant. It was not based on any particular ratio (ie Arab:Jew).

As for "stolen land " → the Arab Palestinian has no claim in terms of territorial integrity or sovereignty on the conclusion of the war in 1918 (private property being an entirely different matter). The Ottoman Empire relinquished the title to the territory by direct assignment to the Allied Powers by Treaty. Consider: It has been the "customary" protocol to adhere to the historical principles established and the decisions made by the world leaders; especially decision more than a hundred years old.


Most Respectfully,
R

"The Ottoman Empire relinquished the title to the territory by direct assignment to the Allied Powers by Treaty. Consider: It has been the "customary" protocol to adhere to the historical principles established and the decisions made by the world leaders; especially decision more than a hundred years old"

The above really speaks to the heart of the matter. In thread after thread, there are those tender souls who refuse to accept the events, circumstances and principles of the past and endlessly drive around the Cul-de-sac of their need to re-write history.

There is for some, an inability to accept the past and so they allow their hurt feelings to poison their day to day existence.

"The Ottoman Empire relinquished the title to the territory by direct assignment to the Allied Powers by Treaty.

The territories were transferred to the new states.

Indeed, your usual nonsense that Treaty of Lausanne invented the "country of Pally'land (Where Dreams Come True), right?

Indeed, you're still pressing that nonsense?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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.

In theory this idea could work (maybe...) but there's a problem: the State of Palestine.
138 UN members recognize it and that State itself is a non member observer state in the UN
Annexation could be problematic...
Also many Palestinian politicians wouldn't be happy if their State disappeared

Link?

 

[Corazon]

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.

In theory this idea could work (maybe...) but there's a problem: the State of Palestine.
138 UN members recognize it and that State itself is a non member observer state in the UN
Annexation could be problematic...
Also many Palestinian politicians wouldn't be happy if their State disappeared

Link?

State of Palestine - Wikipedia

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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.

In theory this idea could work (maybe...) but there's a problem: the State of Palestine.
138 UN members recognize it and that State itself is a non member observer state in the UN
Annexation could be problematic...
Also many Palestinian politicians wouldn't be happy if their State disappeared

Link?

State of Palestine - Wikipedia

According to the link you provided, the State of Palestine, declared in 1988, encompasses only the West Bank and Gaza. So why does Tinmore claim that all of Israel is occupied territory?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

In theory this idea could work (maybe...) but there's a problem: the State of Palestine.
138 UN members recognize it and that State itself is a non member observer state in the UN
Annexation could be problematic...
Also many Palestinian politicians wouldn't be happy if their State disappeared

Link?

State of Palestine - Wikipedia

According to the link you provided, the State of Palestine, declared in 1988, encompasses only the West Bank and Gaza. So why does Tinmore claim that all of Israel is occupied territory?

Whenever I ask when Israel legally acquired the land it occupied in 1948 everybody starts dancing.

 

[Hollie]

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.

In theory this idea could work (maybe...) but there's a problem: the State of Palestine.
138 UN members recognize it and that State itself is a non member observer state in the UN
Annexation could be problematic...
Also many Palestinian politicians wouldn't be happy if their State disappeared

Link?

State of Palestine - Wikipedia

According to the link you provided, the State of Palestine, declared in 1988, encompasses only the West Bank and Gaza. So why does Tinmore claim that all of Israel is occupied territory?

Whenever I ask when Israel legally acquired the land it occupied in 1948 everybody starts dancing.

Indeed, that has been addressed repeatedly.

Indeed, you start dancing every time you get the answer you don't like.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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.

In theory this idea could work (maybe...) but there's a problem: the State of Palestine.
138 UN members recognize it and that State itself is a non member observer state in the UN
Annexation could be problematic...
Also many Palestinian politicians wouldn't be happy if their State disappeared

Link?

State of Palestine - Wikipedia

According to the link you provided, the State of Palestine, declared in 1988, encompasses only the West Bank and Gaza. So why does Tinmore claim that all of Israel is occupied territory?

Whenever I ask when Israel legally acquired the land it occupied in 1948 everybody starts dancing.

This insistence that all of Eretz Yisrael should become Palestine will eventually lead to the complete demise of any kind of Palestine at all, as we can see from Trump's peace plan that was laid out just last week.

 

[rylah]

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.

In theory this idea could work (maybe...) but there's a problem: the State of Palestine.
138 UN members recognize it and that State itself is a non member observer state in the UN
Annexation could be problematic...
Also many Palestinian politicians wouldn't be happy if their State disappeared

Link?

State of Palestine - Wikipedia

According to the link you provided, the State of Palestine, declared in 1988, encompasses only the West Bank and Gaza. So why does Tinmore claim that all of Israel is occupied territory?

Whenever I ask when Israel legally acquired the land it occupied in 1948 everybody starts dancing.

The one dancing is you.

Sovereignty over Palestine (in official administrative documents also called 'Eretz Israel') was vested with the Jewish nation under international law 20 years prior to that, with the San Remo resolution following the creation of the Mandate by the League of Nations and various other treaties.

It's a silly question, based on a false premise - like asking "when Leningrad legally acquired land it occupied in St. Petersburg?"

 

[Likkmee]

Can we for once talk about a tiny irrelevant country like Chile, Colombia or Bolivia ? Every time I go on the net it screams IsNtReal.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Let's look at this Question of Palestine...

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.

(COMMENT)

"As originally envisioned," the concept of creating a Jewish and Arab state in the territory formerly under the British Mandate of Palestine, comes in the Peel Commission Report of 1937. I think you are on the money. It was rejected (not just "waned") almost immediately.

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.

(COMMENT)

Yes, that is consistent with the customary practice at the time. In fact, offering citizenship was expected.

However, the Arab Palestinians rejected all invitations for nation building. And the steadfast adherence to the "All or Nothing" policy, is the beginning of the funeral procession of the Arab Sovereignty in the Question of Palestine today. The factors that cause the conflict to be prolonged this long (seven decades +) can be directly tied to the Arab Palestinian "All or Nothing Policy."

In theory this idea could work (maybe...) but there's a problem: the State of Palestine.
138 UN members recognize it and that State itself is a non member observer state in the UN
Annexation could be problematic...
Also many Palestinian politicians wouldn't be happy if their State disappeared

(COMMENT)

Again, recognition is NOT the same as having a functionally present state.

Article 3
Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States
• UiO UiO The Faculty of Law •

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.​

What the 138 UN members recognize is interesting, but irrelevant. A "state" is self evident. If you have a territory that looks like a state, acts like a state, and performs the functions of a "state."

◈ Does the Arab Palestinian leadership maintain the infrastructure to provide for the public order and safety of the citizenry?

◈ Does the Arab Palestinian leadership actually provide for the protection of support for a given territorial sovereignty?

◈ Does the Arab Palestinian leadership set the conditions for economic growth and material prosperity?

◈ Does the Arab Palestinian leadership set the direction and distribute the fruits of prosperity?

◈ Public goods are resources that Arab Palestinian leadership play a crucial role in providing.​

It must not only look like a duck (recognition), but it must act like a duck (performs functionally). And it is that part acting like a "state" that there is trouble. The State of Palestine (whatever you recognize that to be) does not act like a government. It cannot even come close to being able to stand on its own.

Most Respectfully,
R

The state of Palestine was established by international treaties in 1924. About 80 Palestinian officials declared independence on their own land and inside their own international borders in 1948.

Article 3
Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States
• UiO UiO The Faculty of Law •

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...

A people do not need permission to declare independence.

A country does not cease to exist while under military occupation. An occupying power does not acquire territory or sovereignty.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ JoeB131, et al,

At the outset here, let's make a certain point perfectly clear:

Don't confuse territorial control, sovereignty, or the right to self-determination - with - ownership of private property. They are two different claims (entirely!).

You might want to actually try answering a point...

The Palestinians lived in Palestine for hundreds of years. It was their land.

Then the Zionists started showing up from Europe and stole it.

(COMMENT)

Longevity as tenants on property:

• Does not necessarily establish it as → "their Land."

• Immigration and settlement by the Jewish People does not make a prima facie case for land theft (as in: "stole it"). As the plaintiff, the Arab Palestinian has not met the requirements for presenting a
the initial view of something, accepted as true until disproven, for a case to be made.
​

While the Arab Palestinians have made a tremendous amount of noise on these two issue, as a serious component set to the Question of Palestine, NOT ONCE has the Arab Palestinians attempted to seek early and just settlement of their international disputes (territorial sovereignty or personal and private property) by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. Even today, the Arab Palestinians have not used the Article XV of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (AKA: Oslo I September 13, 1993) to resolve the disputes. In fact, the Arab Palestinians continue to this very day, to instigate roadblocks in further negotiation, as if they were operating under the notion of the 1967 Khartoum Resolution (the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations). The reason for this is that the two issues you have here, while well known, have no substance → which would come to the public eyes of the world should some international monitor discover this in any negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement.

Again, what gave the allied powers the right to give away someone else's land?

So let's be honest, this was about a land grab by the British and French, using the Zionists as proxies to extend their imperial reach.

(COMMENT)

Well, let's answer this in the simplified order:

• (1) “Neither the British or the French authorized or directed the Zionists (or other Jewish parties) to act on their behalf in any fashion.”;
• (2) “Neither the British or the French granted authority by which the Zionists (or other Jewish parties) were place in a position of authority over the Arab Palestinian.”;
• (3) “There was no document granting the Zionists (or other Jewish parties) authority, except as authorized by the Palestine Order in Council and the Mandate for Palestine.”​

In fact, in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government in three distinct stages. The second stage would have been the creation of a Legislative Council. But without an Arab majority in participation, this proved to be impossible. No matter how many time the Arab Palestinians were invited to participate in government, the offers were categorically rejected by the Arab Higher Committee (Arab Palestinians). From 1922 until the termination of the Mandate, the High Commissioner governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials. There was NO PROXY.

Here's the problem with that argument. One of the Fourteen Points the Allies agreed to was "Self-Determination" of nations after the war. Meaning that they were to encourage the national aspirations of Czechs, Poles, etc. in forming their own nations. In short, if the Allies were standing up for their own principles - or at least principles they adopted to rationalize the war after millions of people had died for nothing - then they should have recognized the rights of Arabs to self-determination.

(COMMENT)

U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points was a Statement of Principles were in the background in the formulation of the Treaty of Versailles; not the Treaty of Lausanne. However, the concept of self-determination was introduced in another form and just as applicable to the Ottoman/Turkish Theater of War as it was in the War with the Central Powers. But the idea of self-determination is a


Self-determination is NOT a "positive right" require the Allied Powers to provide the Arab Palestinians with either a good or service (political, tangible or intangible). On the other hand, self-determination is a "negative right," and only requires the Allied Powers to NOT interfere with Arab Palestinians self-determination. The problem here is, that the Arab Palestinian "right to self-determination" does NOT mean that the Arab Palestinian can come in and just take the territory under the mandate with was lawfully relinquished to the Allied Powers by Treaty.

KEY: The Arab Palestinian rights cannot be used as a justification to override Jewish rights to self-determination.

The Arab Palestinians were neither a party to the Treaty of Versailles and Treaty of Lausanne. I don't know why they keep bringing that up. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties clearly states:

“treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;​

​

The Arab Palestinians did NOT have a state. The treaty was between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

But this was yet another case of "Silly Darkies, Rights are for White People". The Czechs get self-determination... but you Arabs, or you "wogs" living in Germany Colonies in Africa, then dammit, we're taking your land and setting up our own colonies. And we certainly don't want people living in British or French Colonies to get some silly idea that THEY get self-determination.

(COMMENT)

The British did not have any "colonies" in the Middle East.

I'm not sure what the rest of that means.

So, yes, the British STOLE Palestine, and used the Zionists as proxies to do so.

(COMMENT)

Nonsense...

Article 16 • Treaty of Lausanne

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
​

KEY: Treaty does NOT renounces all rights and title to the Arab Palestinian; but to the parties concerned (meaning parties to the Treaty).

Every nation in the civilized world understood what was said here. The Arab Palestinian can pretend that the Ottoman Sovereign renounced the rights and title to them, but it is simply NOT true.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

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

Let's look at this Question of Palestine...

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.

(COMMENT)

"As originally envisioned," the concept of creating a Jewish and Arab state in the territory formerly under the British Mandate of Palestine, comes in the Peel Commission Report of 1937. I think you are on the money. It was rejected (not just "waned") almost immediately.

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.

(COMMENT)

Yes, that is consistent with the customary practice at the time. In fact, offering citizenship was expected.

However, the Arab Palestinians rejected all invitations for nation building. And the steadfast adherence to the "All or Nothing" policy, is the beginning of the funeral procession of the Arab Sovereignty in the Question of Palestine today. The factors that cause the conflict to be prolonged this long (seven decades +) can be directly tied to the Arab Palestinian "All or Nothing Policy."

In theory this idea could work (maybe...) but there's a problem: the State of Palestine.
138 UN members recognize it and that State itself is a non member observer state in the UN
Annexation could be problematic...
Also many Palestinian politicians wouldn't be happy if their State disappeared

(COMMENT)

Again, recognition is NOT the same as having a functionally present state.

Article 3
Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States
• UiO UiO The Faculty of Law •

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.​

What the 138 UN members recognize is interesting, but irrelevant. A "state" is self evident. If you have a territory that looks like a state, acts like a state, and performs the functions of a "state."

◈ Does the Arab Palestinian leadership maintain the infrastructure to provide for the public order and safety of the citizenry?

◈ Does the Arab Palestinian leadership actually provide for the protection of support for a given territorial sovereignty?

◈ Does the Arab Palestinian leadership set the conditions for economic growth and material prosperity?

◈ Does the Arab Palestinian leadership set the direction and distribute the fruits of prosperity?

◈ Public goods are resources that Arab Palestinian leadership play a crucial role in providing.​

It must not only look like a duck (recognition), but it must act like a duck (performs functionally). And it is that part acting like a "state" that there is trouble. The State of Palestine (whatever you recognize that to be) does not act like a government. It cannot even come close to being able to stand on its own.

Most Respectfully,
R

The state of Palestine was established by international treaties in 1924. About 80 Palestinian officials declared independence on their own land and inside their own international borders in 1948.

Article 3
Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States
• UiO UiO The Faculty of Law •

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...

A people do not need permission to declare independence.

A country does not cease to exist while under military occupation. An occupying power does not acquire territory or sovereignty.

What country is under occupation?