Trump Peace Plan

[oneworld2]

See, under international law (which Israel dismisses as non-applicable to Israel), states clearly than a people (Palestinians), under Belligerent Occupation (a legal term), are entitled to resist the occupier (Israel). That's what the Palestinians are doing. That's what the French Resistance did under Nazi occupation, and likewise the Poles.

The examples you gave were based on white Europeans , of course they have have the right to free themselves from a foreign occupation and enjoy their right to self determination. The Palestinians are Arabs and predominantly Muslim , obviously that will factor into some peoples views and the subsequent double standard will be shown/apply.

 

[snakestretcher]

The examples you gave were based on white Europeans , of course they have have the right to free themselves from a foreign occupation and enjoy their right to self determination. The Palestinians are Arabs and predominantly Muslim , obviously that will factor into some peoples views and the subsequent double standard will be shown/apply.

Yes, and with breathtaking irony, right-wing Israeli Jews view Arabs as untermenschen. Where have I heard that description used before?

 

[oneworld2]

I agree completely. They can call their eventual state whatever they want. But the territory on which they claim it includes some territory that is now called "Israel" by everyone except them and the Iranians and also includes some territory in the area westerners currently call the West Bank but used to call Judea and Samaria. But yes, when they have worked out suitable arrangements and demonstrated they have really turned a page on their underlying nationalist agenda (which at its core was anti-zionist more than genuinely nationalist), they will be free to call their state whatever they want and leave the rest of it alone (recognizing that the Jews, not the Palestinians, have sovereign control and rights there, just like nthe Jews should be expected to recognize that Palestinian sovereignty rights will exist on territories that form part of Bravenewworld).

Isn't it funny how the world consensus that supports the two state solution is now suddenly useful and being used by you to undermine Palestinian claims to the entirety of mandate Palestine. The cherrypicking and somersaults are breathtaking.

The support is for the two state solution and everyone understands what territory is being discussed and how it is divided using international law. That consensus rejects the Palestinian claim to all of historic Palestine as well as the Israeli claim over the remaning 22% currently making up the OPTs.

That is the point of negotiation and international law should be the tool/ arbiter of those negotiations. If that offends people on both sides then so be it but that is what offers the fairest resolution in the views of most people.

 

[oneworld2]

More countries "recognize" Palestine. Fine. Doesn't mean anything at all. Also has nothing to do with "justice", since more countries recognize China than Taiwan, so obviously recognition and justice are not causally related.

And there you are drifting off into normative assessments of what you want, rather than objective analyses of what is possible ad what is actually necessary to satisfy legitimate Palestinian national aspirations. Those are different things.

And the reality of it is that the "pro-Palestinian" side has never adopted a reality-based approach to anything. It is all about denying reality until you get what you want. Almost worked too, then Arafat threw it away and launched a terror war. Now middle Israel understands the Palestinians' game once and for all and won't play it anymore. So a reality-based approach would take that into account as well.

These are the realities and I suggest you start paying attention.

I always say the same thing , judge things on a case by case basis but as a rule of thumb there are reasons why we see consensuses. I maintain that the consensus surrounding the support for the state of Palestine, finally , is grounded in law and justice.

The two state solution is the only solution that will ensure Israels continuance as a Jewish democratic state. You are demanding too much imo and if the status quo continues the only game in town will be the one state solution that currently enjoys virtually no international support at state level. You should maybe consider in whose interest is the two state solution that is fast becoming, if it hasn't already, something of a dead letter due to the facts on the ground being created by Israeli expansionism

 

[CJ 2.0]

I always say the same thing , judge things on a case by case basis but as a rule of thumb there are reasons why we see consensuses. I maintain that the consensus surrounding the support for the state of Palestine, finally , is grounded in law and justice.

The two state solution is the only solution that will ensure Israels continuance as a Jewish democratic state. You are demanding too much imo and if the status quo continues the only game in town will be the one state solution that currently enjoys virtually no international support at state level. You should maybe consider in whose interest is the two state solution that is fast becoming, if it hasn't already, something of a dead letter due to the facts on the ground being created by Israeli expansionism

Can't be. There is no consensus about independence for the Kurds or the dozens of other distinct minority groups in the Arab world, the various minority groups in distinct territory in China, etc., many of which have a stronger claim at law and in "justice" to sovereignty.

The "consensus" about the Palestinians, such that it is, is a result of a dozen or more complex factors. I recall setting out a whole bunch of them in a post pretty recently that I'm pretty sure you ignored, but a "sense of justice" certainly isn't one of them.

And I am not demanding continuation of the status quo. I have been advocating, for a very long time, that the key to all of this is for the Palestinians to despair of the core objective of their national movement - the destruction of the State of Israel/the 'liberation of Historic Palestine and the 'right of return' of Palestinian 'refugees'". If they despair of and abandon those goals, which necessarily requires them to recognize Israel as a Jewish State (which is why that is so important here where it wasn't for, e.g., Egypt), we have a great window of opportunity to secure for them a viable state which can be used to advance the legitimate national aspirations of the people. In 50 years we could easily see a confederation with Jordan or something like that where the borders are more natural, but in the meantime they would get massive investment and could engage in genuine nation building instead of fixating on their fight against Israel above all else.

And that doesn't mean they get all the territory they want or that you feel they are entitled to. It means they get enough to make a legitimate go of it while protecting legitimate Israeli security and national interests once the Palestinians have demonstrated that they do not intend to trojan horse this like they did Oslo.

Or not, in which case Israel implements Trump's plan, annexes territory it plans on holding on to while maintaining a caretaker control over the territory the Palestinians will end up getting for as long as it takes until they come to terms with reality. That does not pose the risks you suggest anymore than Israeli control over its border with Gaza.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Isn't it funny how the world consensus that supports the two state solution is now suddenly useful and being used by you to undermine Palestinian claims to the entirety of mandate Palestine. The cherrypicking and somersaults are breathtaking.

The support is for the two state solution and everyone understands what territory is being discussed and how it is divided using international law. That consensus rejects the Palestinian claim to all of historic Palestine as well as the Israeli claim over the remaning 22% currently making up the OPTs.

That is the point of negotiation and international law should be the tool/ arbiter of those negotiations. If that offends people on both sides then so be it but that is what offers the fairest resolution in the views of most people.

No, it isn't. It is useful to explain to you your point about language makes no sense, but just like "the world" would do nothing if the surrounding countries and the Palestinians ever "won" a war against Israel, the consensus is meaningless if it doesn't reflect reality. Taiwan didn't go away because countries stopped recognizing it anymore than the Chinese communists did not run China when the world consensus was that the Taiwanese government was the legitimate government of China.

This struggle with a reality-based approach has been the hallmark of Arab dealings with Israel. The rest of the Arab world is slowly pulling itself out of that. What we have left is the Palestinians and their continued rejectionism and their western "supporters" who insist on the Palestinians clinging to fictions as their lifeboat sinks. It doesn't do anyone, including the Palestinians, any favours, but boy does it make you folks feel morally superior. But of course that is consistent with leftist philosophy generally, where the intellectuals feel really, really good about themselves advocating for supremely moral positions that have universally bad outcomes for actual people.

Easy example. As terribly horrible you thought the Camp David proposal was (based on whatever distortions you feel like imposing on them), in retrospect can't you recognize that the Palestinian rejection of that proposal had a distinctly negative impact on millions of Palestinians and on the Palestinian "cause"? So that in retrospect, if you could change things, you would acknowledge that the people you purport to care about would clearly be better off if you could go back in time and change Arafat's "no" to a "yes" and changed the Palestinian attitude of rejection and terrorism into one of taking what they could get and making the best of it?

Cause that is obviously the moral viewpoint. And it is equally obvious that you would not support it.

 

[oneworld2]

Can't be. There is no consensus about independence for the Kurds or the dozens of other distinct minority groups in the Arab world, the various minority groups in distinct territory in China, etc., many of which have a stronger claim at law and in "justice" to sovereignty.

The "consensus" about the Palestinians, such that it is, is a result of a dozen or more complex factors. I recall setting out a whole bunch of them in a post pretty recently that I'm pretty sure you ignored, but a "sense of justice" certainly isn't one of them.

And I am not demanding continuation of the status quo. I have been advocating, for a very long time, that the key to all of this is for the Palestinians to despair of the core objective of their national movement - the destruction of the State of Israel/the 'liberation of Historic Palestine and the 'right of return' of Palestinian 'refugees'". If they despair of and abandon those goals, which necessarily requires them to recognize Israel as a Jewish State (which is why that is so important here where it wasn't for, e.g., Egypt), we have a great window of opportunity to secure for them a viable state which can be used to advance the legitimate national aspirations of the people. In 50 years we could easily see a confederation with Jordan or something like that where the borders are more natural, but in the meantime they would get massive investment and could engage in genuine nation building instead of fixating on their fight against Israel above all else.

And that doesn't mean they get all the territory they want or that you feel they are entitled to. It means they get enough to make a legitimate go of it while protecting legitimate Israeli security and national interests once the Palestinians have demonstrated that they do not intend to trojan horse this like they did Oslo.

Or not, in which case Israel implements Trump's plan, annexes territory it plans on holding on to while maintaining a caretaker control over the territory the Palestinians will end up getting for as long as it takes until they come to terms with reality. That does not pose the risks you suggest anymore than Israeli control over its border with Gaza.

The example of using the Kurds isn't a legitimate comparison nor that of China. The Kurds are dispersed in four countries that I know of and even between themselves seem split on having autonomy within their own states ( IE Iraq )and fighting for a reconstitution of the old Kurdistan region. They certainly have some issues in their respective countries right the way up to attacks of state terrorism ( Turkey ) but they are not living under a foreign military occuaption that viloates their every right every day. Nor has there ever been a vote at the UN regarding the creation of a Kurdish state

Don;t get me wrong I have a lot of sympathy for the Kurds and how they have fared since the last European / Turkish colonial carve up occured. But is it the same as the Palestinian situation ? Not in my book.

Same with China. The fact that a revolution /civil war took place doesn't see a people without a state and self determination or living under a foreign occupation that violates all of their rights.

I don't recall any list but don't think I willfully ignore anything you have put up here. I did have a time out recently but can't recall seeing a list. I'm happy to respond to anything should you cite it again.`

I think your obsession with the Palestinians being forced to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people is an unnecessary obstacle because I don't think should a just reolution of the conflict be reached along the green line consensus that Israel would have anything top fear about the reality of a Palestinian state.

I can see a day when the Palestinian tire of seeking a state of their own or being cobstantly forced into a state lite with nothing like self determination and then the question becomes a one state civil rights battle for all Arab people living under Israeli domination. I could be wrong but that's what I see in the pipeline. Or what you suggest which will see Israel annexing, illegally , territory of another people and the continuance of the cycle of violence we see now.

Gaza is unliveable now and will only get worse. You might think all is quiet for the forseeable there but thatplace , if things stay as they are , will explode in the not too distant imo causing who knows what moving forward.

 

[oneworld2]

No, it isn't. It is useful to explain to you your point about language makes no sense, but just like "the world" would do nothing if the surrounding countries and the Palestinians ever "won" a war against Israel, the consensus is meaningless if it doesn't reflect reality. Taiwan didn't go away because countries stopped recognizing it anymore than the Chinese communists did not run China when the world consensus was that the Taiwanese government was the legitimate government of China.

This struggle with a reality-based approach has been the hallmark of Arab dealings with Israel. The rest of the Arab world is slowly pulling itself out of that. What we have left is the Palestinians and their continued rejectionism and their western "supporters" who insist on the Palestinians clinging to fictions as their lifeboat sinks. It doesn't do anyone, including the Palestinians, any favours, but boy does it make you folks feel morally superior. But of course that is consistent with leftist philosophy generally, where the intellectuals feel really, really good about themselves advocating for supremely moral positions that have universally bad outcomes for actual people.

Easy example. As terribly horrible you thought the Camp David proposal was (based on whatever distortions you feel like imposing on them), in retrospect can't you recognize that the Palestinian rejection of that proposal had a distinctly negative impact on millions of Palestinians and on the Palestinian "cause"? So that in retrospect, if you could change things, you would acknowledge that the people you purport to care about would clearly be better off if you could go back in time and change Arafat's "no" to a "yes" and changed the Palestinian attitude of rejection and terrorism into one of taking what they could get and making the best of it?

Cause that is obviously the moral viewpoint. And it is equally obvious that you would not support it.

I agree that the Arabs have accepted the reality, if not the legitimacy of the state of Israel ( thus underscoring my point about it being unnecessarily obstructive on Palestinians ) and that bodes well for the two state solution if a viable Palestinian state is actually born out of it.

I know you hate the Left but it matters not here imo. If it were not for the left dragging people like yourself forward for the last couple of centuries you wouldn't have the moral superiority to even lecture people about the Arab/Islamic treatment of gays and/or women in the first place. People on the left want a just resolution because they think , not unreasonably imo , that only a just resolution with a viable Palestinian state will offer the best hope of a lasting peace.

That's actually a significant departure from many right wingers views which ,imo , just want to get the Arabs out of the way using any means possible and don't care how that pans out so long as they are out of sight out of mind etc That's a recipe for disaster in my view and willonly lead to , not peace, but an ongoing conflict.

Us brokered " peace deals " should be treated for what they are in reality, which is Israeli peace deals on their terms wrapped up in a stars and stripes package and shoved onto desperate Palestinian leaders on a take it or leave it basis. People might think that is reasonable but I say it isn't.

The correct method is to use international law so the Palestinians don't have to foreit their rights just so as to enter into any negotiations. The racism in that alone ensures that nothing like justice will be ground out. Also rejectionism and terrorism are found on both sides but you only want the one side to commit to desisting from it. Again the racism in that view is palpable.

People who support might being right, which is the actual essence of your view , are the last people to try to lecture others on justice or morals imo It's hard not to feel a little superior , morally , to those that hold these racist might is right attitudes that seem to be a relic of the old colonial days the people of the world have tried to free thenselves from.

 

[CJ 2.0]

I agree that the Arabs have accepted the reality, if not the legitimacy of the state of Israel ( thus underscoring my point about it being unnecessarily obstructive on Palestinians ) and that bodes well for the two state solution if a viable Palestinian state is actually born out of it.

I know you hate the Left but it matters not here imo. If it were not for the left dragging people like yourself forward for the last couple of centuries you wouldn't have the moral superiority to even lecture people about the Arab/Islamic treatment of gays and/or women in the first place. People on the left want a just resolution because they think , not unreasonably imo , that only a just resolution with a viable Palestinian state will offer the best hope of a lasting peace.

That's actually a significant departure from many right wingers views which ,imo , just want to get the Arabs out of the way using any means possible and don't care how that pans out so long as they are out of sight out of mind etc That's a recipe for disaster in my view and willonly lead to , not peace, but an ongoing conflict.

Us brokered " peace deals " should be treated for what they are in reality, which is Israeli peace deals on their terms wrapped up in a stars and stripes package and shoved onto desperate Palestinian leaders on a take it or leave it basis. People might think that is reasonable but I say it isn't.

The correct method is to use international law so the Palestinians don't have to foreit their rights just so as to enter into any negotiations. The racism in that alone ensures that nothing like justice will be ground out. Also rejectionism and terrorism are found on both sides but you only want the one side to commit to desisting from it. Again the racism in that view is palpable.

People who support might being right, which is the actual essence of your view , are the last people to try to lecture others on justice or morals imo It's hard not to feel a little superior , morally , to those that hold these racist might is right attitudes that seem to be a relic of the old colonial days the people of the world have tried to free thenselves from.

- The difference between the rest of the Arab world and the Palestinians is that the Palestinians' entire national identity was born out of opposing zionism - i.e., Jewish sovereignty in Israel. That is why it is fundamental for a real peace with the Palestinians but not with the Saudis.

- I don't really hate the left, but the radical left is poison and always has been. On both social (see intersectionality and radical identity politics; antifa) and economic (see Venezuela) criteria. I'm not a particularly conservative guy, socially centrist liberal, economic centrist conservative, but the radical left is IMO more of a threat to future civilization than the radical right, though both seem to have a massive hate on for the Jews.

- The leftist view of the Palestinian issue is coloured by decades of propaganda associating Israel with the capitalist, imperialist United States and the corruption of intersectionality. If we dropped the extremism I don't think our end games are that far apart, except I don't think the Palestinians need or should get as much land as you do, you don't think Israel's security concerns are as real as I do, and I apply a reality-based lens to understanding how things are likely to play out over time and you apply a sort of lefty myopic idealism that allows you to advocate positions which should fine in theory but have no chance of playing out well in real life.

- the correct way of reaching a peace agreement is to recognize reality, have the Palestinians change their objectives, and hammer out an optimal deal within the confines of past experience and the reality of bargaining position right now. International law has only ever been honoured selectively in the breach and isn't worth anything here other than a crutch for the pro-Palestinians to lean on to avoid making the concessions we know need to be made for a peace to be both achievable and sustainable. Cause for example telling the Jews they need to give up Jerusalem is a non-starter. And if you have never been there you can't possibly understand it. So reality vs your principles. You only get to choose one.

- The moral situation here is clear. Supporting Israel is and always has been the moral position. It was in 1948 and it is today. Advocating a position that sounds fine in theory but has objectively been horrible for the Palestinians while doing no good for anyone else except for those who monetize Palestinian victimhood is as immoral today as it was in 2000 and 1967 and 1948.

 

[oneworld2]

- The difference between the rest of the Arab world and the Palestinians is that the Palestinians' entire national identity was born out of opposing zionism - i.e., Jewish sovereignty in Israel. That is why it is fundamental for a real peace with the Palestinians but not with the Saudis.

- I don't really hate the left, but the radical left is poison and always has been. On both social (see intersectionality and radical identity politics; antifa) and economic (see Venezuela) criteria. I'm not a particularly conservative guy, socially centrist liberal, economic centrist conservative, but the radical left is IMO more of a threat to future civilization than the radical right, though both seem to have a massive hate on for the Jews.

- The leftist view of the Palestinian issue is coloured by decades of propaganda associating Israel with the capitalist, imperialist United States and the corruption of intersectionality. If we dropped the extremism I don't think our end games are that far apart, except I don't think the Palestinians need or should get as much land as you do, you don't think Israel's security concerns are as real as I do, and I apply a reality-based lens to understanding how things are likely to play out over time and you apply a sort of lefty myopic idealism that allows you to advocate positions which should fine in theory but have no chance of playing out well in real life.

- the correct way of reaching a peace agreement is to recognize reality, have the Palestinians change their objectives, and hammer out an optimal deal within the confines of past experience and the reality of bargaining position right now. International law has only ever been honoured selectively in the breach and isn't worth anything here other than a crutch for the pro-Palestinians to lean on to avoid making the concessions we know need to be made for a peace to be both achievable and sustainable. Cause for example telling the Jews they need to give up Jerusalem is a non-starter. And if you have never been there you can't possibly understand it. So reality vs your principles. You only get to choose one.

- The moral situation here is clear. Supporting Israel is and always has been the moral position. It was in 1948 and it is today. Advocating a position that sounds fine in theory but has objectively been horrible for the Palestinians while doing no good for anyone else except for those who monetize Palestinian victimhood is as immoral today as it was in 2000 and 1967 and 1948.

Of course the Palestinians are going to be more avid in their opposition to Zionism considering it was,predominently , their territory that Zionism had in it's crosshairs. It would be odd if that wasn't the case tbh. Regardless I don't see the demand you insist on as resonable or necessary even for the Palestinians.

I disagree that criticism of Israeli actions or policies towards the Palestinians / Arabs is built on " hatred of Jews ". Don't get me wrong there will certainly be a percentage within the ranks of the pro Palestinian rights people that are their because they are genuine antisemites but I think the same applies to the , alleged , " pro Israel" folk wrt it's ranks having their share of anti Arab/Muslin bigots using it as cover.



Obviously , I disagree about the , what I consider to be, the hyperbole over the " radical left ". Sure there are some strange people with strange views but the same is true of all groups. Recall Israel , in no small part , was founded by people who were none believing leftists and I still disagreed with some of their views actions even if I find them , at least privately , more understanding of the Palestinians than the modern crowd of , allegedly , " pro Israel " folk.

The correct way ,imo , at least for a just resolution of the conflict, is to apply the laws that were written for these very purposes , international laws and conventions. Demanding , because of the power disparity the weaker side give up their rights to get a place at the table is both ridiculously immoral and sure to lead to nothing but trouble later on. Oslo is a classic example. Israel knew Arafat was going down the drain and decided to throw him a lifeline that involved him and his group becoming little more that subcontractors for the occupation. When the terms of Oslo filtered out to the Palestinian people they knew that the group negotiating had sold them out for VIP status .

Only a just and reasonable settlement will have any longevity imo. Stitch ups that lock in a lot of the worst aspects of life under occupation don't offfer a reasonable chance of peace but just a postponement of a violent reaction to ongoing sevitude.

We will disagree on what is " moral " because we have very different views on what is wrong and how and what is required to try to fix things.

 

[NO1]

Israel has no legal rights over 'Judea and Samaria' whatsoever (renaming a region doesn't make it yours), unless you can link me to the statutes permitting occupation of land won through war. You can continue to deny that Israel is an Occupying Power for as long as you wish to keep ignoring International Law, UN laws and the Geneva Conventions (all of which Israel is signatory to, by the way, and in violation of).

Wrong, again.
Israel have legal rights in Judea and Samaria according the Mandate which approved by the League of Nations and still valid to this day. I already told you that, but you ignore that. The palestinian have no legal rights in these lands. I asked in other thread for any proof that shows the legal rights of the palestinians in Judea and Samaria and they couldn't find any. So I'll ask you, can you show any piece of evidence which shows the legal rights of palestinians in these lands?

 

[NO1]

Israel has no title to the WB, East Jerusalem or Gaza, they constitute the Palestinian territories so yes Israel is occupying Palestine and illegally settling it.

You wrong. Already answer it.

 

[NO1]

yeah been over that a bunch of times very recently. The short short version is the Mandate for Palestine and all international law that flowed from that. And a proper interpretation rather than a gerrymandering of the Geneva conventions.

Indeed.
Even Abbas know the importance of the Mandate and Balfour Declaration regarding Israel legal rights in Judea and Samaria, and that is the reason he trying to fight it time and again- Palestinians gear up to sue the UK – over 1917 Balfour Declaration | The Times of Israel

The Palestinian Authority is preparing a lawsuit against the British government over the issuing of the 1917 Balfour Declaration that paved the way for the creation of the State of Israel.

Abbas knows that he have no legal claim to these lands unlike Israel, so he doing all he can to negate Israel legal rights but it won't happen.

 

[snakestretcher]

Wrong, again.
Israel have legal rights in Judea and Samaria according the Mandate which approved by the League of Nations and still valid to this day. I already told you that, but you ignore that. The palestinian have no legal rights in these lands. I asked in other thread for any proof that shows the legal rights of the palestinians in Judea and Samaria and they couldn't find any. So I'll ask you, can you show any piece of evidence which shows the legal rights of palestinians in these lands?

No, you are wrong; only two Articles of the Mandate are guaranteed in perpetuity in the event of the Mandate terminating, which it did in 1948. Those Articles are #13 and #14 and have no bearing on your fictitious legal 'rights' over 'Judea and Samaria'. Here:

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

Read Article #28 and all will be made clear.

 

[oneworld2]

You wrong. Already answer it.

How do they have a legitimate claim on the OPTs ?

Snakestretcher has shown how the Mandate was scrapped in 1948 and doesn't support your claim

 

[snakestretcher]

How do they have a legitimate claim on the OPTs ?

Snakestretcher has shown how the Mandate was scrapped in 1948

They of course do not but hasbara apparatchiks lie shamelessly, believing that people are too stupid to find stuff out for themselves.

 

[Fledermaus]

:roll:

It's OPT and belongs to the state of Palestine, that's the world consensus on it. You don't want to accept it ? That's fine.

And Gaza?

 

[oneworld2]

And Gaza?

Guess or actually see what the world consensus at the UN refers to.

 

[Fledermaus]

Guess or actually see what the world consensus at the UN refers to.

And Gaza belongs to?

 

[NO1]

How do they have a legitimate claim on the OPTs ?

Snakestretcher has shown how the Mandate was scrapped in 1948 and doesn't support your claim

Wait so now the Mandate is legitimate for you now?

 

[oneworld2]

Wait so now the Mandate is legitimate for you now?

:lamo

The Mandate has had no legitimacy for either side since 15th May 1948

You claim it has validity/legitimacy today

 

[CJ 2.0]

:lamo

The Mandate has had no legitimacy for either side since 15th May 1948

You claim it has validity/legitimacy today

Which it does. It was the last legal regime over the territory. Absent that, legitimate control would flow to possession, which doesn’t help you either.

 

[oneworld2]

Which it does. It was the last legal regime over the territory. Absent that, legitimate control would flow to possession, which doesn’t help you either.

And possession would be defined as legal possession and illegal possession which makes the OPTs most definitely Palestinian and that's why the world consensus supports that view

 

[CJ 2.0]

And possession would be defined as legal possession and illegal possession which makes the OPTs most definitely Palestinian and that's why the world consensus supports that view

You have no time for legal possession by the Palestinians so that doesn’t work.

 

[oneworld2]

You have no time for legal possession by the Palestinians so that doesn’t work.

How do you work that out ?