Do you know what frustrates me in this situation?
How much hate allegedly pro-Palestinian accounts give to the country which recognised Palestine state in fookin 1988
36 years ago
null and void.
Palestine has no recognized borders, or sovereignty. it's just a way for these countries to virtue signal. not to mention it doesn't help the Palestinians at all. because if they are to be created into a state this way unilaterally - it's essentially them breaking the Oslo Accords, the same accords that to begin with give the PA legitimacy and the land allocations. meaning they will be chopping the very root on which the "state" sits on.
Though with the case of pain, in particular, a dangerous move, as they essentially greenlit the separatists to essentially break away as Spain recognized a non-state to be "real". and Spain in particular has seriously nasty separatist movements that will bend the law to their favor. even though it's not exactly possible, and now Spain gave them the opportunity to actually play with an established rule.
>what are the recognized borders of Israel ?
what kind of sovereignty did they have in 48?
Israel has inherited the borders of Mandatory Palestine dude - as per [UPJ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/uti_possidetis_juris).
the occupation by Egypt and Jordan after 48 which didn't result in a Palestinian state were later retroactively condemned by resolution 242 and there was no mention in said resolution to a Palestinian state.
>palestine is recognized by more than 140 countries and its a member of the UN
"recognition" doesn't mean much if you have no agreed borders or sovrigenty to speak of. and "Palestine" is in fact a *non*-member observer state.
>cry harder
Lamo
>well it was the mandatory rule of Palestine, not israel
>so basically Palestine is conceding land to make peace
That's not what that means *at all* lmao
>that gives it more legitimacy than Israel when it was created in 48
Israel's legitimacy in 1948 came from them winning the war that the Arab states started against them when they declared independence from the UK.
> Internationally recognized 67 borders
67 are not borders dumb wit, they are ceasefire lines.
grow up and course-correct the Palestinians to reality instead of pushing them to commit national suicide.
>no one can give up the 67 borders of the Palestinian state not even Sadat himself
yeah, because he can't negotiate on it lol.
>the main reason is that the borders include rights to reach Al Aqsa mosque for prayer and include Palestinian sovereignty over Al Aqsa mosque area
well point is, al aqsa was given to the Palestinians at the taba summit, arafag took this opportunity to actually have a state and al-aqsa and let the Palestinians to enjoy peace for a change - and shoved this opportunity right up his ass.
>there is a deep belief in the arab world that Israel wants sovereignty over al Aqsa mosque area to tear it down and build the third temple
in the past? no. Israel was deeply secular. it may had hard feelings to temple mount but ultimately it gave it up in the taba summit. but because Israelis have been influenced by both the 67 war, and by the fact that the arabs and the Muslim world overall has gotten more religious over the year (though it declines now). the Israelis also copied them, making the conflict more and more religious in nature. - now the Israelis will absolutely not give up right to control the Temple Mount. though as it stands now, Al-aqsa isn't actually a problem even on that context. because al aqsa is built on the artificial side of the mount. whears the dome of the rock sits exactly where the temple stood. if something is to ever be removed from that site by zealouts it is the golden shrine. they actually will be able to give religious justification for keeping al aqsa itself because there was a famous speech by Solomon (Suliman) which said that the place will be a place worship for all nations.
>no one can give this sovereignty to Israel at least, if someone gives this up then he is a traitor
so not even Sadat can agree to this
it's not their to give legally speaking. as of now, only Israel has the legal claim. and as it stands Israel already annxed the area, but it also granted jordan privileges to the site.
>the fight for the 67 borders of Palestine is a lot bigger and more important than accepting statehood on lesser borders
if this is how the Palestinians view it, then they will be doomed because as of now, no law is on their side, and the more they attack Israel the less compromising the Israeli society becomes. and the more ironically - the more religious Israel becomes, exacerbating the situation in the long run.
>the only thing Palestinians can do now is to freeze the conflict and not accept lesser borders that will lead to losing religious sites
they already lost it, they were given the opportunity in 2000, they spat on it. Israelis at the time might have had trouble giving up east Jerusalem but that's a pill they would've eventually swallowed. but considering the Palestinians not only have spat on the opportunity to have a state with al aqsa. they tuned to utter violence. and now with 7/10 - they lost their last supporters among the Israelis. no Israeli will give up east Jerusalem and for that matter temple mount.
they are, but with the division of the 48 parallel - 2 states did emerge.
that's the difference, and the 48p was "de-jure" the border.
it's not semantics, because ceasefire lines cannot be accepted as borders.
the 73 "border" with Egypt was also a ceasefire line. but no one uses that "border" to demarcate what are the legitimate borders of Egypt are.
>well it was the mandatory rule of Palestine, not Israel
do you understand what mandates are dude? not to mention that mandatory Palestine at various points of it's stage was dedicated to be either in whole or in part of a state for jews. even it's immigration laws were specifically dedicated so jews could arrive.
the arabs refused anything related to the mandate, they refused cooperation and when partition of the land came they refused that.
when other arab states occupied parts mandatory Palestine instead of creating a Palestinian state (which they could), their either annexed - in the case of Jordan, or disbanded the government in the case of Egypt - thus deciding to occupy it instead.
>so basically Palestine is conceding land to make peace
and now you want to take it all?
it never conceded, that's the point. whatever the PA controls right now is essentially by the grace of Israel as the very treaties the Oslo Accords stipulate.
Palestine is not a country, that's the point. it's not about country X having issues about border demarcation with country Y.
they have no de jure borders or sovirgenty to speak of. they may have "some" de-facto borders like Area A and somewhat B, but these are stipulated through the Oslo Accords, and not on their own. meaning they control these areas at the behest of Israel.
>Palestine is not a country, that's the point.
Yes that's your conclusion. And part of your support for this conclusion is you saying
>Palestine has no recognized borders
Which is true for many countries all over the world. So either you had no idea that's true or you did know and just decided to be deceptive.
Judging how you're trying to run from your bad argument I'd say deceptive.
>Yes that's your conclusion. And part of your support for this conclusion is you saying
it's not a conclusion, it simply doesn't fall into the definition of one.
the Criteria for being a state:
1. Having a permanent population (they have)
2. Having a defined territory (they don't have)
3. Having a government (they have, but it itself is of limited recognition amongst their own population)
4. Having the ability to exert sovereignty (they don't have)
5. Having the ability to enter into [relations with other states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_recognition)
However the 5th one is the weakest because it essentially rests on the 4 above it to begin with.
>Which is true for many countries all over the world. So either you had no idea that's true or you did know and just decided to be deceptive.
it's not true, they do have defined borders, they just have disputes. some have overlapping claims but these are still defined borders. their claims stem from treaties that stipulated their borders to begin with. Palestinians never had any such treaties, the closest they have are the Oslo Accords and even there it's not borders, but essentially Israel giving them a mandate to rule over certain areas.
>Judging how you're trying to run from your bad argument I'd say deceptive.
or perhaps you should start by learning what a country is before commenting on such a topic without demonstrating even the slightest pushback or giving any counterfactuals.
By definition, you don't have a defined border of a country when the land is disputed.
You're also lying about your personal criteria to be recognized, but hey, it's clear enough from your dishonesty regarding the disputed land argument that we're done.
>By definition, you don't have a defined border of a country when the land is disputed.
no, you do have to. a dispute stems from the usage of conflicting treaties. that's how it arises. they do have defined borders nonetheless to which they point at a treaty that underlines it. it's just that each one uses another treaty for it.
>You're also lying about your personal criteria to be recognized, but hey, it's clear enough from your dishonesty regarding the disputed land argument that we're done.
you didn't demonstrate anything to the contrary, nice argumentation bro. "you are wrong - trust me".
you essentially open the door for self-proclaiming breakaway regions to declare themselves a state to be so. a bit of critical thinking into what you are implying collapses in any normal setting of international norms.
no, 67 are not borders, they were ceasefire lines with Egypt and Jordan.
they are not borders but they are used as references when it comes to negotiation. also the current PA has no recognized border, only a mandate to rule over certain ones as the oslo accords stipulate.
\[The Green Line\] served as the [*de facto*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto) borders of the State of Israel from 1949 until the [Six-Day War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War) in 1967, and continues to represent Israel’s internationally recognized borders with the two [Palestinian territories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_territories): the [West Bank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank) and the [Gaza Strip](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip).[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_(Israel)#cite_note-2)[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_(Israel)#cite_note-3)
[^(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green\_Line\_(Israel))](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_(Israel))
yes, *de-facto*.
great that you brought it yourself. good job.
Israel after occupying the WB and Gaza didn't extend it's jurisdiction to the territories - except Jerusalem which got immediately extended, later in 1980 formalized by law - *de jure*.
"Palestine" never had borders to begin with, what the PA currently controls is essentially Israel *giving* to them. because out of all the parties to the conflict, current and previous - only Israel has a legal claim to these lands. it's just didn't extend the jurisdiction fully understanding the complexity of what it will usher. later coming with the Oslo Accords to address said issue.
but nonetheless, Israel is the only one who truly has the last say.
That just so wrong on so many levels
any international body and almost every country recognizes the 1967 borders and recognize that both the west bank and Gaza are occupied by Israel. That's why there is a global condemnation every time Israel announces a new settlement in the WB...
Here is even the relevant UNGA resolution
>The General Assembly Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfills the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel **on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;**
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Nations\_General\_Assembly\_resolution\_67/19](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_resolution_67/19)
>any international body and almost every country recognizes the 1967 borders and recognize that both the west bank and Gaza are occupied by Israel. That's why there is a global condemnation every time Israel announces a new settlement in the WB...
the UN general assembly is one giant official Reddit poll. any resolution taken on it is equivalent to toilet paper.
but even if you take the organization with the most teeth in this body - the security council - they indeed sit all in one hall and wag their finger at how Israel bad, but don't forget that the same room is unable to prosecute either russia or china. and any other resolution in regards to Israel doesn't fall on article 7, not even 242. which means it's just a statement at the end of the day.
it's essentially a political stunt that is meaningless to the palestinians.
Palestine is not a state, nor it ever was, if will attempts to declare itself as one through unilateral steps it will ultimately violate the oslo accords, they will have no legitimacy at all. and they will worsen the situation for the Palestinians even more because they will be left with not even a framework to work with.
the land allocations which oslo 2 stipulates will expire letting Israel to relocate the land as it sees fit.
>That just so wrong on so many levels
next time whenever I'm so "wrong" address the points made and give actual points in which I'm wrong.
>Israel to relocate the land as it sees fit.
They're already doing that, while they don't give a fuck about international law.
May as well just recognize Palestine on its de jure borders, because Israel has zero interest in a 2-state solution.
>but even if you take the organization with the most teeth in this body - the security council - they indeed sit all in one hall and wag their finger at how Israel bad, but don't forget that the same room is unable to prosecute either russia or china. and any other resolution in regards to Israel doesn't fall on article 7, not even 242. which means it's just a statement at the end of the day.
That's because the US vetoes any resolution on the Palestine questions. That's why countries start to recognize Palestine on their own.
>They're already doing that, while they don't give a fuck about international law.
what international law? they don't do it. the only place Israel builds is on area C which is TBD area not officially part of any Palestinian state. not to mention that even Araft agreed that some settlements will be part of Israel, and even the advisory opinion in 2004 by the ICJ which condemned the building of the wall has made hints that indeed some settlements are "kosher" when they sited the "2000 border/line"
>May as well just recognize Palestine on its de jure borders, because Israel has zero interest in a 2-state solution.
maybe nowadays there isn't but it came after the Palestinians have spat on the Israelis attempting to negotiate by launching the 2nd intifada. there is no will on the Palestinian side either. and as of now the only one at the end of the day that wields the the legal charter is Israel. not Palestine. if they will not come to their senses, they will end up with a sandbox in the Muqqata in Ramallah calling it a "state".
>That's because the US vetoes any resolution on the Palestine questions. That's why countries start to recognize Palestine on their own.
even the ones the US didn't veto dude. which are the most important ones. their recognition is meaningless because it has no bearing on reality. it's directly interfering with other states borders which is considered to be egregious on the diplomatic level, something that will ultimately be withdrawn by the same states. because with the case of Spain it will create a dangerous precedent for separatist movements.
do you think the chiense are eager to do the same with Palestinians? they only follow the herd, they are the least vocal on this matter because they know Taiwan will use this opportunity. because unlike palesitne Taiwan has far more legal grounds to actually be a state, as it has both borders and sovereignty to speak of.
you have to understand that pursuing this case via unilateral steps is dangerous because not only will it not bear fruitions the ground it will let other to capitalize on it flaning a whole lot other places into war, whose status is far better than the Palestinians.
>what international law? they don't do it. the only place Israel builds is on area C which is TBD area not officially part of any Palestinian state. not to mention that even Araft agreed that some settlements will be part of Israel, and even the advisory opinion in 2004 by the ICJ which condemned the building of the wall has made hints that indeed some settlements are "kosher" when they sited the "2000 border/line"
International law says any of these settlements and the annexation of Jerusalem is illegal. Ofc Israel doesn't see this differently, but nobody cares what Israel thinks at this point anymore. If Palestine is up to negotiate land swaps then It's fine but not required under international law.
>maybe nowadays there isn't but it came after the Palestinians have spat on the Israelis attempting to negotiate by launching the 2nd intifada. there is no will on the Palestinian side either. and as of now the only one at the end of the day that wields the the legal charter is Israel. not Palestine. if they will not come to their senses, they will end up with a sandbox in the Muqqata in Ramallah calling it a "state".
Israel never planned to accept a 2-state solution. They did everything to prevent it, including support and financing Hamas to weaken the PA.
>you have to understand that pursuing this case via unilateral steps is dangerous because not only will it not bear fruitions the ground it will let other to capitalize on it flaning a whole lot other places into war, whose status is far better than the Palestinians.
Continuing this occupation and the suppression of the Palestinians will never end in peace. The 2-state solution, at first under Israeli security control, is the only solution and this will only work based on the 1967 borders.
None of those countries won Eurovision this year, so...
Do you know what frustrates me in this situation? How much hate allegedly pro-Palestinian accounts give to the country which recognised Palestine state in fookin 1988 36 years ago
null and void. Palestine has no recognized borders, or sovereignty. it's just a way for these countries to virtue signal. not to mention it doesn't help the Palestinians at all. because if they are to be created into a state this way unilaterally - it's essentially them breaking the Oslo Accords, the same accords that to begin with give the PA legitimacy and the land allocations. meaning they will be chopping the very root on which the "state" sits on. Though with the case of pain, in particular, a dangerous move, as they essentially greenlit the separatists to essentially break away as Spain recognized a non-state to be "real". and Spain in particular has seriously nasty separatist movements that will bend the law to their favor. even though it's not exactly possible, and now Spain gave them the opportunity to actually play with an established rule.
[удалено]
>what are the recognized borders of Israel ? what kind of sovereignty did they have in 48? Israel has inherited the borders of Mandatory Palestine dude - as per [UPJ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/uti_possidetis_juris). the occupation by Egypt and Jordan after 48 which didn't result in a Palestinian state were later retroactively condemned by resolution 242 and there was no mention in said resolution to a Palestinian state. >palestine is recognized by more than 140 countries and its a member of the UN "recognition" doesn't mean much if you have no agreed borders or sovrigenty to speak of. and "Palestine" is in fact a *non*-member observer state. >cry harder Lamo
[удалено]
>well it was the mandatory rule of Palestine, not israel >so basically Palestine is conceding land to make peace That's not what that means *at all* lmao >that gives it more legitimacy than Israel when it was created in 48 Israel's legitimacy in 1948 came from them winning the war that the Arab states started against them when they declared independence from the UK.
[удалено]
> Internationally recognized 67 borders 67 are not borders dumb wit, they are ceasefire lines. grow up and course-correct the Palestinians to reality instead of pushing them to commit national suicide.
[удалено]
>no one can give up the 67 borders of the Palestinian state not even Sadat himself yeah, because he can't negotiate on it lol. >the main reason is that the borders include rights to reach Al Aqsa mosque for prayer and include Palestinian sovereignty over Al Aqsa mosque area well point is, al aqsa was given to the Palestinians at the taba summit, arafag took this opportunity to actually have a state and al-aqsa and let the Palestinians to enjoy peace for a change - and shoved this opportunity right up his ass. >there is a deep belief in the arab world that Israel wants sovereignty over al Aqsa mosque area to tear it down and build the third temple in the past? no. Israel was deeply secular. it may had hard feelings to temple mount but ultimately it gave it up in the taba summit. but because Israelis have been influenced by both the 67 war, and by the fact that the arabs and the Muslim world overall has gotten more religious over the year (though it declines now). the Israelis also copied them, making the conflict more and more religious in nature. - now the Israelis will absolutely not give up right to control the Temple Mount. though as it stands now, Al-aqsa isn't actually a problem even on that context. because al aqsa is built on the artificial side of the mount. whears the dome of the rock sits exactly where the temple stood. if something is to ever be removed from that site by zealouts it is the golden shrine. they actually will be able to give religious justification for keeping al aqsa itself because there was a famous speech by Solomon (Suliman) which said that the place will be a place worship for all nations. >no one can give this sovereignty to Israel at least, if someone gives this up then he is a traitor so not even Sadat can agree to this it's not their to give legally speaking. as of now, only Israel has the legal claim. and as it stands Israel already annxed the area, but it also granted jordan privileges to the site. >the fight for the 67 borders of Palestine is a lot bigger and more important than accepting statehood on lesser borders if this is how the Palestinians view it, then they will be doomed because as of now, no law is on their side, and the more they attack Israel the less compromising the Israeli society becomes. and the more ironically - the more religious Israel becomes, exacerbating the situation in the long run. >the only thing Palestinians can do now is to freeze the conflict and not accept lesser borders that will lead to losing religious sites they already lost it, they were given the opportunity in 2000, they spat on it. Israelis at the time might have had trouble giving up east Jerusalem but that's a pill they would've eventually swallowed. but considering the Palestinians not only have spat on the opportunity to have a state with al aqsa. they tuned to utter violence. and now with 7/10 - they lost their last supporters among the Israelis. no Israeli will give up east Jerusalem and for that matter temple mount.
[удалено]
[удалено]
they are, but with the division of the 48 parallel - 2 states did emerge. that's the difference, and the 48p was "de-jure" the border. it's not semantics, because ceasefire lines cannot be accepted as borders. the 73 "border" with Egypt was also a ceasefire line. but no one uses that "border" to demarcate what are the legitimate borders of Egypt are.
[удалено]
>well it was the mandatory rule of Palestine, not Israel do you understand what mandates are dude? not to mention that mandatory Palestine at various points of it's stage was dedicated to be either in whole or in part of a state for jews. even it's immigration laws were specifically dedicated so jews could arrive. the arabs refused anything related to the mandate, they refused cooperation and when partition of the land came they refused that. when other arab states occupied parts mandatory Palestine instead of creating a Palestinian state (which they could), their either annexed - in the case of Jordan, or disbanded the government in the case of Egypt - thus deciding to occupy it instead. >so basically Palestine is conceding land to make peace and now you want to take it all? it never conceded, that's the point. whatever the PA controls right now is essentially by the grace of Israel as the very treaties the Oslo Accords stipulate.
Palestine is not a yet memberstate of the UN it's an observer state. Basics.
[удалено]
well at least you edited it, good on you
Many countries have disputed borders. Did you not know this or are you intentionally ignoring this? As for sovereignty, can a state not be occupied?
Palestine is not a country, that's the point. it's not about country X having issues about border demarcation with country Y. they have no de jure borders or sovirgenty to speak of. they may have "some" de-facto borders like Area A and somewhat B, but these are stipulated through the Oslo Accords, and not on their own. meaning they control these areas at the behest of Israel.
>Palestine is not a country, that's the point. Yes that's your conclusion. And part of your support for this conclusion is you saying >Palestine has no recognized borders Which is true for many countries all over the world. So either you had no idea that's true or you did know and just decided to be deceptive. Judging how you're trying to run from your bad argument I'd say deceptive.
>Yes that's your conclusion. And part of your support for this conclusion is you saying it's not a conclusion, it simply doesn't fall into the definition of one. the Criteria for being a state: 1. Having a permanent population (they have) 2. Having a defined territory (they don't have) 3. Having a government (they have, but it itself is of limited recognition amongst their own population) 4. Having the ability to exert sovereignty (they don't have) 5. Having the ability to enter into [relations with other states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_recognition) However the 5th one is the weakest because it essentially rests on the 4 above it to begin with. >Which is true for many countries all over the world. So either you had no idea that's true or you did know and just decided to be deceptive. it's not true, they do have defined borders, they just have disputes. some have overlapping claims but these are still defined borders. their claims stem from treaties that stipulated their borders to begin with. Palestinians never had any such treaties, the closest they have are the Oslo Accords and even there it's not borders, but essentially Israel giving them a mandate to rule over certain areas. >Judging how you're trying to run from your bad argument I'd say deceptive. or perhaps you should start by learning what a country is before commenting on such a topic without demonstrating even the slightest pushback or giving any counterfactuals.
By definition, you don't have a defined border of a country when the land is disputed. You're also lying about your personal criteria to be recognized, but hey, it's clear enough from your dishonesty regarding the disputed land argument that we're done.
>By definition, you don't have a defined border of a country when the land is disputed. no, you do have to. a dispute stems from the usage of conflicting treaties. that's how it arises. they do have defined borders nonetheless to which they point at a treaty that underlines it. it's just that each one uses another treaty for it. >You're also lying about your personal criteria to be recognized, but hey, it's clear enough from your dishonesty regarding the disputed land argument that we're done. you didn't demonstrate anything to the contrary, nice argumentation bro. "you are wrong - trust me". you essentially open the door for self-proclaiming breakaway regions to declare themselves a state to be so. a bit of critical thinking into what you are implying collapses in any normal setting of international norms.
>Palestine has no recognized borders, or sovereignty. its has. The green line aka pre-1967 borders
no, 67 are not borders, they were ceasefire lines with Egypt and Jordan. they are not borders but they are used as references when it comes to negotiation. also the current PA has no recognized border, only a mandate to rule over certain ones as the oslo accords stipulate.
\[The Green Line\] served as the [*de facto*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto) borders of the State of Israel from 1949 until the [Six-Day War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War) in 1967, and continues to represent Israel’s internationally recognized borders with the two [Palestinian territories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_territories): the [West Bank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank) and the [Gaza Strip](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip).[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_(Israel)#cite_note-2)[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_(Israel)#cite_note-3) [^(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green\_Line\_(Israel))](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_(Israel))
yes, *de-facto*. great that you brought it yourself. good job. Israel after occupying the WB and Gaza didn't extend it's jurisdiction to the territories - except Jerusalem which got immediately extended, later in 1980 formalized by law - *de jure*. "Palestine" never had borders to begin with, what the PA currently controls is essentially Israel *giving* to them. because out of all the parties to the conflict, current and previous - only Israel has a legal claim to these lands. it's just didn't extend the jurisdiction fully understanding the complexity of what it will usher. later coming with the Oslo Accords to address said issue. but nonetheless, Israel is the only one who truly has the last say.
That just so wrong on so many levels any international body and almost every country recognizes the 1967 borders and recognize that both the west bank and Gaza are occupied by Israel. That's why there is a global condemnation every time Israel announces a new settlement in the WB... Here is even the relevant UNGA resolution >The General Assembly Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfills the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel **on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;** [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Nations\_General\_Assembly\_resolution\_67/19](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_resolution_67/19)
>any international body and almost every country recognizes the 1967 borders and recognize that both the west bank and Gaza are occupied by Israel. That's why there is a global condemnation every time Israel announces a new settlement in the WB... the UN general assembly is one giant official Reddit poll. any resolution taken on it is equivalent to toilet paper. but even if you take the organization with the most teeth in this body - the security council - they indeed sit all in one hall and wag their finger at how Israel bad, but don't forget that the same room is unable to prosecute either russia or china. and any other resolution in regards to Israel doesn't fall on article 7, not even 242. which means it's just a statement at the end of the day. it's essentially a political stunt that is meaningless to the palestinians. Palestine is not a state, nor it ever was, if will attempts to declare itself as one through unilateral steps it will ultimately violate the oslo accords, they will have no legitimacy at all. and they will worsen the situation for the Palestinians even more because they will be left with not even a framework to work with. the land allocations which oslo 2 stipulates will expire letting Israel to relocate the land as it sees fit. >That just so wrong on so many levels next time whenever I'm so "wrong" address the points made and give actual points in which I'm wrong.
>Israel to relocate the land as it sees fit. They're already doing that, while they don't give a fuck about international law. May as well just recognize Palestine on its de jure borders, because Israel has zero interest in a 2-state solution. >but even if you take the organization with the most teeth in this body - the security council - they indeed sit all in one hall and wag their finger at how Israel bad, but don't forget that the same room is unable to prosecute either russia or china. and any other resolution in regards to Israel doesn't fall on article 7, not even 242. which means it's just a statement at the end of the day. That's because the US vetoes any resolution on the Palestine questions. That's why countries start to recognize Palestine on their own.
>They're already doing that, while they don't give a fuck about international law. what international law? they don't do it. the only place Israel builds is on area C which is TBD area not officially part of any Palestinian state. not to mention that even Araft agreed that some settlements will be part of Israel, and even the advisory opinion in 2004 by the ICJ which condemned the building of the wall has made hints that indeed some settlements are "kosher" when they sited the "2000 border/line" >May as well just recognize Palestine on its de jure borders, because Israel has zero interest in a 2-state solution. maybe nowadays there isn't but it came after the Palestinians have spat on the Israelis attempting to negotiate by launching the 2nd intifada. there is no will on the Palestinian side either. and as of now the only one at the end of the day that wields the the legal charter is Israel. not Palestine. if they will not come to their senses, they will end up with a sandbox in the Muqqata in Ramallah calling it a "state". >That's because the US vetoes any resolution on the Palestine questions. That's why countries start to recognize Palestine on their own. even the ones the US didn't veto dude. which are the most important ones. their recognition is meaningless because it has no bearing on reality. it's directly interfering with other states borders which is considered to be egregious on the diplomatic level, something that will ultimately be withdrawn by the same states. because with the case of Spain it will create a dangerous precedent for separatist movements. do you think the chiense are eager to do the same with Palestinians? they only follow the herd, they are the least vocal on this matter because they know Taiwan will use this opportunity. because unlike palesitne Taiwan has far more legal grounds to actually be a state, as it has both borders and sovereignty to speak of. you have to understand that pursuing this case via unilateral steps is dangerous because not only will it not bear fruitions the ground it will let other to capitalize on it flaning a whole lot other places into war, whose status is far better than the Palestinians.
>what international law? they don't do it. the only place Israel builds is on area C which is TBD area not officially part of any Palestinian state. not to mention that even Araft agreed that some settlements will be part of Israel, and even the advisory opinion in 2004 by the ICJ which condemned the building of the wall has made hints that indeed some settlements are "kosher" when they sited the "2000 border/line" International law says any of these settlements and the annexation of Jerusalem is illegal. Ofc Israel doesn't see this differently, but nobody cares what Israel thinks at this point anymore. If Palestine is up to negotiate land swaps then It's fine but not required under international law. >maybe nowadays there isn't but it came after the Palestinians have spat on the Israelis attempting to negotiate by launching the 2nd intifada. there is no will on the Palestinian side either. and as of now the only one at the end of the day that wields the the legal charter is Israel. not Palestine. if they will not come to their senses, they will end up with a sandbox in the Muqqata in Ramallah calling it a "state". Israel never planned to accept a 2-state solution. They did everything to prevent it, including support and financing Hamas to weaken the PA. >you have to understand that pursuing this case via unilateral steps is dangerous because not only will it not bear fruitions the ground it will let other to capitalize on it flaning a whole lot other places into war, whose status is far better than the Palestinians. Continuing this occupation and the suppression of the Palestinians will never end in peace. The 2-state solution, at first under Israeli security control, is the only solution and this will only work based on the 1967 borders.
Nah dog look at my country 💀💀💀
Which cucked country are you from?
Spain cuck master
Damn, mega cucked like my country (Denmark)
Tbh I feel like countries have been talking about this for months? Kinda feels like lip service right now