What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote

[toastman]

You bring this up a lot. This is where you play hopscotch with the law.

Before the war the West Bank (it wasn't called the West Bank then.) was Palestinian territory. After the war it was occupied by Jordan. It was occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank but since it is illegal to annex occupied territory, and occupations do not acquire sovereignty. most of the world did not recognize this attempt at annexation. It was still occupied Palestinian territory.

In 1967 Israel took that occupation from Jordan. It was still occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan could not give that territory to anyone. It was not theirs to give or to lose.

"Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning in this context. It does not mean what you intend to force it to mean which is "territory to be held indefinitely in anticipation of the emergence of an Arab government capable of sustaining the self-determination of Arab peoples currently and formerly resident in the territory labelled 'Palestine' while specifically preventing the Jewish peoples of the same territory from exercising their self-determination in the form of a State."

"Palestinian territory", the way you use it, is a nonsense word which attempts to give the illusion of something that doesn't exist. "Palestinian territory" is nothing more than a description of a place.

"Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning in this context.

Another bullshit Israeli talking point.

Link?

Another whiny non-response.

"Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning. It was not a State, nor was it any other type of legal entity. You are trying to insist the term "Palestinian territory" means "territory to be held aside pending the emergence of a legal sovereign which isn't Jewish". It isn't a thing.

No link?

Of course not.

RoccoR and P F Tinmore,

If you have anything at all which proves “Palestinian Territory” had some other legal meaning than a geographical descriptor prior to 1948, I’d kindly suggest you bring it to the thread.

Tinmore has LONG argued that the State of Palestine came into existence in 1924, in spite of failing to meet the criteria of Statehood right up to the present day.

I’m surprised you are agreeing with Tinmore here Rocco. Perhaps you can state your reasoning.

Ask Tinmore this: If Palestine was a state in 1924 , why did they need to declare Independence in 1948? I suspect there will be no answer

 

[P F Tinmore]

"Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning in this context. It does not mean what you intend to force it to mean which is "territory to be held indefinitely in anticipation of the emergence of an Arab government capable of sustaining the self-determination of Arab peoples currently and formerly resident in the territory labelled 'Palestine' while specifically preventing the Jewish peoples of the same territory from exercising their self-determination in the form of a State."

"Palestinian territory", the way you use it, is a nonsense word which attempts to give the illusion of something that doesn't exist. "Palestinian territory" is nothing more than a description of a place.

"Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning in this context.

Another bullshit Israeli talking point.

Link?

Another whiny non-response.

"Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning. It was not a State, nor was it any other type of legal entity. You are trying to insist the term "Palestinian territory" means "territory to be held aside pending the emergence of a legal sovereign which isn't Jewish". It isn't a thing.

No link?

Of course not.

RoccoR and P F Tinmore,

If you have anything at all which proves “Palestinian Territory” had some other legal meaning than a geographical descriptor prior to 1948, I’d kindly suggest you bring it to the thread.

Tinmore has LONG argued that the State of Palestine came into existence in 1924, in spite of failing to meet the criteria of Statehood right up to the present day.

I’m surprised you are agreeing with Tinmore here Rocco. Perhaps you can state your reasoning.

Ask Tinmore this: If Palestine was a state in 1924 , why did they need to declare Independence in 1948? I suspect there will be no answer

They were under British occupation during that time. When Britain left in 1948 the Palestinians declared independence.

I don't see a problem with that. It was a valid declaration.

 

[toastman]

Another bullshit Israeli talking point.

Link?

Another whiny non-response.

"Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning. It was not a State, nor was it any other type of legal entity. You are trying to insist the term "Palestinian territory" means "territory to be held aside pending the emergence of a legal sovereign which isn't Jewish". It isn't a thing.

No link?

Of course not.

RoccoR and P F Tinmore,

If you have anything at all which proves “Palestinian Territory” had some other legal meaning than a geographical descriptor prior to 1948, I’d kindly suggest you bring it to the thread.

Tinmore has LONG argued that the State of Palestine came into existence in 1924, in spite of failing to meet the criteria of Statehood right up to the present day.

I’m surprised you are agreeing with Tinmore here Rocco. Perhaps you can state your reasoning.

Ask Tinmore this: If Palestine was a state in 1924 , why did they need to declare Independence in 1948? I suspect there will be no answer

They were under British occupation during that time. When Britain left in 1948 the Palestinians declared independence.

I don't see a problem with that. It was a valid declaration.

If it was valid, then why did they not become an actual country after the declaration?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Another whiny non-response.

"Palestinian territory" has no legal meaning. It was not a State, nor was it any other type of legal entity. You are trying to insist the term "Palestinian territory" means "territory to be held aside pending the emergence of a legal sovereign which isn't Jewish". It isn't a thing.

No link?

Of course not.

RoccoR and P F Tinmore,

If you have anything at all which proves “Palestinian Territory” had some other legal meaning than a geographical descriptor prior to 1948, I’d kindly suggest you bring it to the thread.

Tinmore has LONG argued that the State of Palestine came into existence in 1924, in spite of failing to meet the criteria of Statehood right up to the present day.

I’m surprised you are agreeing with Tinmore here Rocco. Perhaps you can state your reasoning.

Ask Tinmore this: If Palestine was a state in 1924 , why did they need to declare Independence in 1948? I suspect there will be no answer

They were under British occupation during that time. When Britain left in 1948 the Palestinians declared independence.

I don't see a problem with that. It was a valid declaration.

If it was valid, then why did they not become an actual country after the declaration?

That depends on who you ask.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank and Lets Palestinians Vote
⁜→ Shusha, P F Tinmore, et al,

RoccoR and P F Tinmore,

If you have anything at all which proves “Palestinian Territory” had some other legal meaning than a geographical descriptor prior to 1948, I’d kindly suggest you bring it to the thread.

Tinmore has LONG argued that the State of Palestine came into existence in 1924, in spite of failing to meet the criteria of Statehood right up to the present day.

I’m surprised you are agreeing with Tinmore here Rocco. Perhaps you can state your reasoning.

(DOCUMENTATION)

The short answer:

◈ Palestine as a Legal Entity 1929 - 1948
• MEMORANDUM “A” LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE” •

◈ Memorandum: UN Under-Secretary General - Legal Affairs 11 December 2012
• Issues Relating to the General Assembly Resolution 67/19 on the Status of Palestine in the UN •


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

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

You've asked a "complex" question. So, I have to break it up into two parts:

✦ Conquest: Aggressor 'vs' Defensive

✦ The Matter of "Losses
​

Many have claimed that the "anti-conquest norm" and associated corollaries are so important that in the view is held → that even conquest through lawful self-defense (in this case Israel) against an aggressor (principally Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon) is forbidden. But the International Law does not say that.

International law makes no distinction between aggressive or defensive conquest. It is just illegal.

BTW, if the Arab countries lost the 1948 war:
What did Lebanon lose?
What did Syria lose?
What did Jordan lose?
What did Egypt lose?

(COMMENT)

Part One
On the Issue of Aggression as use in these discussions.

aggression This term fi rst acquired technical signifi cance by reason of the stipulation
of art. 10 of the Covenant of the League of Nations that members undertook ‘to respect
and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political
independence of all Members’. It was adopted by the U.N. Charter, art. 1(1) specifying
as a fi rst purpose of the Organization ‘[t]o maintain international peace and security, and
to that end: to take effective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the
peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression and other breaches of the peace’; and
art. 39 providing that ‘[t]he Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat
to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression and shall make recommendations
or decide what measures shall be taken … to maintain or restore international peace and
security’.

Article 1
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.

Article 2
The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.

On the Issue of Defense as Used in these Discussion:

self-defence (1) Under customary law, it is generally understood that the correspondence
between the United States and the United Kingdom of 24 April 1841 , arising out of the
Caroline Incident (Moore, Digest of International Law , Vol. 2, 25) expresses the rules
on self-defence: self-defence is competent only where the ‘necessity of that self-defense
is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation
. . . [and] the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by
that necessity, and kept clearly within it’. These principles were further elucidated in
the Corfu Channel Case 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4 . See Jennings , The Caroline and McLeod
Cases, 32 A.J.I.L. 82 ( 1938 ) ; Tucker , Reprisals and Self-Defense: The Customary Law,
66 A.J.I.L. 586 ( 1972 ) .
(2) Art. 51 of the U.N. Charter provides that ‘[n]othing in the present Charter shall impair
the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against
a Member of the United Nations . . .’. The relationship between the right under customary
international law and art. 51 of the U.N. Charter has caused considerable debate: see, e.g.,
Jessup , A Modern Law of Nations ( 1948 ), 166–167; Stone, Legal Controls of International
Confl icts (2nd imp. rev.), 245.

For the time being, I will avoid the issue of the entanglement between a "Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC)" and an "International Armed Conflict (IAC)." But there is an important distinction to be made about when dealing with the first use of an armed force. The Conflict started in May 1948 with the Arab League forces crossing the frontier into territory other then their own did NOT end until the Peace Treaties were signed 1979 in the case of Egypt (pertaining to the Gaza Strip) and 1994 in the case of Jordan (pertaining to the West Bank and Jerusalem). The Armistice Agreements did not bring an "end to the International Armed Conflicts between these nations; merely temporarily suspended military operations.

armistice The Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention with respect to the Laws and
Customs of War by Land of 29 July 1899 ( 187 C.T.S. 429 ) provide (art. 36) that an armistice
suspends military operations by mutual agreement between the belligerent parties. An
armistice is either general or local: art. 37. It must be notified in due time to the competent
authorities and to the troops: art. 38. What relations (rapports) are permissible between the
parties and with the population of the theatre of war affected are matters of agreement: art.
39. Any serious violation by one party gives the other the right of denunciation and even
of recommencement of hostilities at once in case of urgency: art. 40.

Under these considerations, the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kipper Surprise Attack were extensions of the original conflict with the Arab League Forces in 1948.
; in which the Arab League was the "aggressor" under the "first use rule." That makes Israel the "defender" under the "self-defense rule."

Part Two

claim Although the term ‘claim’ is utilized in a number of contexts in international law, its
proper meaning (cases involving direct damage to the State apart) is the intimation and possible
prosecution of a demand by one State for redress in respect of a breach of international
law by another State causing injury to one of the former State ’ s nationals. Only the State
of which the injured individual is a national can make an international claim ( see nationality
of claims ), although it has been decided by the I.C.J. that the United Nations can make
claims in respect of its officers and agents: Reparation for Injuries Case 1949 I.C.J. Rep.
174 . Before a claim may be taken up and prosecuted by a State at the international level,
the injured individual must have endeavoured to obtain redress in the courts and tribunals
of the offending State ( see local remedies, exhaustion of, rule ).

In addition to the loss of control over the Gaza Strip (Egypt) and the West Bank including Jerusalem (Jordan): {Note: Using Wiki Approximations in Numbers; and not including several conflicts that were in between those listed.}

◈ In terms of the 1948 War of Independence:

✦ Between +5,000 and 20,000 (inc civilians) among which 4,000 soldiers for Egypt, Jordan and Syria​

◈ 1967 Six-Day War

✦ Egypt: 10,000–15,000 killed or missing • 4,338 captured[14]
✦ Jordan: 696 killed or missing • 533 captured
✦ Syria: 2,500 killed • 591 captured
✦ Iraq: 10 killed • 30 wounded
✦ Lebanon: One aircraft lost
✦ Hundreds of tanks destroyed
✦ 452+ aircraft destroyed​

◈ 1973 Surprise Attack on Yom Kipper

Total casualties:

✦ 8,000 –18,500 dead
✦ 18,000 –3 5,000 wounded
✦ 8,783 captured
✦ 2,250 – 2,300 tanks destroyed
✦ 341 – 514 aircraft destroyed
✦ 19 naval vessels sunk​

Now, I have not mentioned the intangible losses (of which there were many), but as you can see, losses include much more than just the territorial control or the numbers in casualties.


Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[JoeB131]

No. You are just a piece of human filth who hates Jews.

It has been explained to you countless times that Zionism was a secular movement to create a home for the persecuted Jewish ethnicity.

Um, if was "secular", why not have that state in Europe or America? You know, places where people won't try to kill you because you stole their land.

Nope, it's about religion.

 

[JoeB131]

lol Are you Rip Van Winkle? Years ago what you say was true, but today Israel's foreign relations today improve everyday. Some European nations are considering moving their embassies to Jerusalem and several European countries are blocking the EU's anti Israel policies. Even Arab countries are seeking improved trade and diplomatic relations with Israel. Today, the Palestinians have no leverage at all to bargain with.

You keep telling yourself that.

How does the world feel about Israel/Palestine?

That being said, Israel is extremely unpopular worldwide. In one BBC poll of 22 countries, Israel was the fourth-most-disliked nation (behind only Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea).

It’s clear that West Bank settlements are a key cause of Israel’s poor global standing. Most of the world believes that Israel’s continued control of the West Bank is an unlawful military occupation, and that settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention. Though this view is supported by most legal scholars, Israel and pro-Israel conservatives dispute it. They argue that the West Bank isn’t occupied, and even if it were, the Fourth Geneva convention only prohibits “forcible” population transfers, not voluntary settlement.

 

[JoeB131]

International pariah? Really? My goodness you know even less about Israel than I thought! The opinion of you and your friends do not represent what most people think.

See above. Around the world, Israel is the world's fourth most hated nation.

 

[Hollie]

International pariah? Really? My goodness you know even less about Israel than I thought! The opinion of you and your friends do not represent what most people think.

See above. Around the world, Israel is the world's fourth most hated nation.

So.... basically...... you’re surprised that Arab-Islamist nations don’t like Israel. Arab-Islamist nations don’t even like each other. That’s why they’re at war with each other.

Your online gee-had is actually pretty funny.

You suffer from “Shaken Baby Syndrome”, right?

 

[RoccoR]

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

OK, What does International Law say? (Do you know?)

It’s clear that West Bank settlements are a key cause of Israel’s poor global standing. Most of the world believes that Israel’s continued control of the West Bank is an unlawful military occupation, and that settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention. Though this view is supported by most legal scholars, Israel and pro-Israel conservatives dispute it. They argue that the West Bank isn’t occupied, and even if it were, the Fourth Geneva convention only prohibits “forcible” population transfers, not voluntary settlement.

(COMMENT)

Well, it would appear that the argument by the Israelis has some merit... "(Israel and pro-Israel conservatives dispute it. They argue that the West Bank isn’t occupied, and even if it were, the Fourth Geneva convention only prohibits “forcible” population transfers, not voluntary settlement.)"

​

[LINK • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court}
"Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;

So, if the court went to the trouble to clarify the criminal definition, why is anyone still arguing about it.

I tend to think this is caused by people act like sheep and easily lead in the wrong direction. We call this the:

​

The Key Take-Away: As more people come to believe in something, others also "hop on the bandwagon" regardless of the underlying evidence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[JoeB131]

So.... basically...... you’re surprised that Arab-Islamist nations don’t like Israel. Arab-Islamist nations don’t even like each other. That’s why they’re at war with each other.

They aren't just hated in the Islamic World.

They are hated in Asia.
They are hated in Latin America
They are hated in Europe.

The only place they are "loved" is in the USA, where the Jews control the media and all these stupid Christians think they need Israel so Jesus can come back.

 

[JoeB131]

The Key Take-Away: As more people come to believe in something, others also "hop on the bandwagon" regardless of the underlying evidence.

You can keep smearing the shit all day, but most of the world realizes what the Zionist Entity is doing in Palestine is akin to what the Afrikaaners did in South Africa.

 

[Hollie]

So.... basically...... you’re surprised that Arab-Islamist nations don’t like Israel. Arab-Islamist nations don’t even like each other. That’s why they’re at war with each other.

They aren't just hated in the Islamic World.

They are hated in Asia.
They are hated in Latin America
They are hated in Europe.

The only place they are "loved" is in the USA, where the Jews control the media and all these stupid Christians think they need Israel so Jesus can come back.

Well gee. It doesn’t take much to launch you into your usual, flaming tirades.

Your keyboard gee-had is funny.

 

[Hollie]

The Key Take-Away: As more people come to believe in something, others also "hop on the bandwagon" regardless of the underlying evidence.

You can keep smearing the shit all day, but most of the world realizes what the Zionist Entity is doing in Palestine is akin to what the Afrikaaners did in South Africa.

Completely false, of course. But don’t let facts get in the way of your silly tirades.

 

[RoccoR]

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

The Key Take-Away: As more people come to believe in something, others also "hop on the bandwagon" regardless of the underlying evidence.

You can keep smearing the shit all day, but most of the world realizes what the Zionist Entity is doing in Palestine is akin to what the Afrikaaners did in South Africa.

(QUESTION)

So tell me, be specific about it, what is it that the Zionist Entity is doing in Palestine is akin to what the Afrikaaners did in South Africa?
The very basics to the interrogatives. Who • What • Where • When • How...

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[JoeB131]

So tell me, be specific about it, what is it that the Zionist Entity is doing in Palestine is akin to what the Afrikaaners did in South Africa?
The very basics to the interrogatives. Who • What • Where • When • How...

You are kidding, right?

Let's see now. You have the White European Jews living in the nice neighborhoods while the Arabs are all concentrated in slums... Just like South Africa. You have a militarized police state designed to keep them all in line.

Because if you had one person, one vote, they'd be gone.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

So.... basically...... you’re surprised that Arab-Islamist nations don’t like Israel. Arab-Islamist nations don’t even like each other. That’s why they’re at war with each other.

They aren't just hated in the Islamic World.

They are hated in Asia.
They are hated in Latin America
They are hated in Europe.

The only place they are "loved" is in the USA, where the Jews control the media and all these stupid Christians think they need Israel so Jesus can come back.

Well gee. It doesn’t take much to launch you into your usual, flaming tirades.

Your keyboard gee-had is funny.

He can't be accused of a gee-had because he's an anti-Semitic atheist.

 

[JoeB131]

He can't be accused of a gee-had because he's an anti-Semitic atheist.

Again, the Palestinians are as "Semitic" as the Zionists, probably more so since they haven't been interbreeding with Europeans for 1000 years.

I'm tired of young American boys coming home in boxes because the Zionists keep dragging us into their fights.

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol Are you Rip Van Winkle? Years ago what you say was true, but today Israel's foreign relations today improve everyday. Some European nations are considering moving their embassies to Jerusalem and several European countries are blocking the EU's anti Israel policies. Even Arab countries are seeking improved trade and diplomatic relations with Israel. Today, the Palestinians have no leverage at all to bargain with.

You keep telling yourself that.

How does the world feel about Israel/Palestine?

That being said, Israel is extremely unpopular worldwide. In one BBC poll of 22 countries, Israel was the fourth-most-disliked nation (behind only Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea).

It’s clear that West Bank settlements are a key cause of Israel’s poor global standing. Most of the world believes that Israel’s continued control of the West Bank is an unlawful military occupation, and that settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention. Though this view is supported by most legal scholars, Israel and pro-Israel conservatives dispute it. They argue that the West Bank isn’t occupied, and even if it were, the Fourth Geneva convention only prohibits “forcible” population transfers, not voluntary settlement.

Apparently the BBC poll hasn't affected the governments of these nations since most, including many Arab countries, are pushing ahead with plan for greater trade and better diplomatic relations with Israel. Even the EU's foreign minister is facing a backlash over his words about Israel's policies in Judea and Samaria. While there is still some sympathy for the Palestinian people, there is much less sympathy for the political leadership of the Palestinians. Today, even in Nigeria, the place where the Arab world convened to issue its famous three no's - no peace with Israel, not recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel - the leadership is seeking normalization of relations with Israel.