Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Garden Rose who wrote (272329)	12/30/2009 9:25:29 AM
From: Hawkmoon	2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

The international community (under UN international laws) considers Israel an occupying power, Show me the binding Chapter VII UNSC resolution against Israel related to the Palestinians. That's what represents "International Law" with punishments that can be inflicted. Anything else the UN does is not enforceable. It's merely arbitration and conflict resolution. So (NOT THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO COMPREHEND THE FOLLOWING).. just because the international community wants to attempt to dictate terms to the parties involved, doesn't mean that they have the right to declare something to be legal or not. The Palestinian leadership CHOSE to become part of Jordan in 1948 at the Jericho Conference. That was "self-determination" and the UN had no business failing to acknowledge Jordan's annexation of the West Bank. But hey.. the international community failed to recognize the annexation of the West Bank by Jordan, so effectively it never became the "sovereign territory" of Jordan. Thus, how can you "occupy" land that was never part of a state? That's the Israeli stance and has been since 1967 (I believe). Israel considers the West Bank and Gaza Strip to be disputed rather than occupied territories. This opinion is based on the claim that a territory can be occupied only if prior to the entry of military forces that territory was part of a sovereign state. Because the West Bank and Gaza Strip were not recognised internationally as being an integral part of a sovereign state prior to the entry of Israeli military forces into them in June 1967, these territories logically cannot be regarded as occupied.[citation needed] en.wikipedia.org But I look at it this way. There is no longer a state of hostilities between the Jordanians and Israelis, and Jordan has relinquished sovereignty over the West Bank. Therefore, it's no longer "occupied territory", but what the Israelis refer to as "disputed territory", for which the final status is YET to be determined. And that final status can only be determined if the parties involved recognize one another as legitimate negotiating partners, something the Palestinians are unwilling to do. They refuse to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state, even though they demand to be recognized as a Palestinian state. Thus, there is no basis for negotiations until that fundamental issue is resolved. Now.. some international "authorities" would claim that the Palestinians were never subjects of the Jordanian state. But that's readily determined by researching how many 1948 residents of the West Bank actually declared themselves to be loyal subjects of the Hashimite Kingdom, either by declaring their fealty by obtaining official documents declaring them to be subjects, or by declarations rejecting such status. Furthermore, over 1/2 of the Jordanian Parliament members in 1988 were from the West Bank (which is why King Hussayn dissolved that parliament when he ceded control to the West Bank). palestinefacts.org I would venture to suggest that every Arab living on the West Bank became Jordanian subjects during that period. And they did it WILLINGLY. That's the definition of "self-determination", IMO. Thus, it stands to reason that, in the aftermath of the relinguishment of Jordanian Sovereignty over the West Bank, the UN no longer has any authority to determine the status of the West Bank or it's boundaries. This authority was neutralized by the residents of the West Bank accepting Jordanian citizenship between 1948 and 1967. It's up to the Palestinian people, who asserted clearly during the period of post 1967 occupation that they desired autonomy rather than a return to Jordanian sovereignty. The Hashimites wisely concurred and left the mess to be resolved between the Palestinians and Israelis. So.. where does the UN have authority to interject itself into negotiations related to self-determination between a secessionist population (former Jordanian subjects) demanding territory ceded by the Jordanians to Israeli control? Thus, it can be argued that the 4th Geneva Convention no longer applies, and that the UN has no authority to impose a solution that involved issues of self-determination between the residents of the West Bank and the controlling authority, the Israelis. And it also stands to reason that the Israelis have EVERY RIGHT to build settlements that DO NOT forcibly displace the present population. If they find an unoccupied plot of land, there's no legal basis for stopping those settlements since the territory was ceded to Israeli control. Admittedly it's a mess. But it's a mess that's not going to be cleaned up if the Palestinians are unwilling to acknowledge Israel's right to exist in the manner in which the Israelis desire (as a Jewish State). Now.. I know you won't understand any of this. And even if you do, you won't agree. But facts are facts GR.. These people accepted Jordanian sovereignty until after 1967 and THEN decided they wanted autonomy and independence. And they have the opportunity to achieve that independence if they are willing to compromise with the Israelis. And to the Israeli's credit, they have ALREADY ceded control over all of Gaza to the Palestinians (and look what's resulted). The Palestinians have screwed themselves over and over again through the poor decision making process they have engaged in. Hawk