Dylan: The UN is not an arbiter of International Law. Courts rule on law, not the General Assembly ((the Security Council can only refer cases to The Hague, its Resolutions do not effect the Rule of Law). Therefore, the UN cannot "decide" ANYTHING is "illegal." As for a fictitious "occupation," you may want to acquaint yourself with a principle in IHL/LOAC (International Humanitarian Law/Law of Armed Conflict) known as "Terra Nulius." To legally occupy a land that land must have had its sovereignity subverted. The so called "West Bank" was illegaly annexed by Jordan whose sovereignity went unrecognised by every nation except Great Britain, the entity that created Jordan illegaly in the first place. Be that as it may, Jordan relinquished its claim on the so called "West Bank" in 1988 having done so informally in the 1967 Armistice Negotiations.
As for Gaza, it was illegaly occupied by Egypt in 1948 but never formally annexed and so it has always existed as Terra Nulius, at least since its last organic sovereignity which of course was that of Judaea nearly 2 millenia ago. Ergo Israel has every right under IHL/LOAC to control both territories but for pragmatic reasons has opted not to annex either one. Indeed, in 2005 Israel abandoned Gaza with the hope that "Palestinians" would finally found the nation they claim to desire.
'The Peace Process is a smokescreen to further Israel's expansionist plans vis a vis the so called "Settlements".': "Settlements" are merely being manipulated by the PA as it tries to deflect attention- internally AND externally- away from its inability to co-exist with Israel. Both Israel and the PA have agreed on a "Palestinian" state that will consist of 100 percent of Gaza and 93 percent of the so called "West Bank." The 7 percent of the "West Bank" to be retained by Israel contains all the largest "Settlment" blocs. The 7 percent differential is to be offset by 7 percent of Israel proper so that in the end "Palestinians" end up with an area equal to 100 percent of the so called "West Bank."
The sticking point has been the 7 percent differential. Before Talks broke down in 2010 Israel had offered successive tracts, all contigious to either Gaza or the so called "West Bank." The PA refused each and everyone without pushing for alternatives as if unable to actually close the deal which would of course be a tacit acceptance that "Palestinians" will end their push for the entire former British Mandate of Palestine. PA President Abbas knows that IF the PA closes the deal it is the end of the PA and his grip on power.
Still, since both sides have agreed that Israel will retain its extant "Settlements" the existence of "Settlements" is in no way an impediment to peace. So called "Settlement Expansion" is merely "Natural Expansion," the additional units going to current residents who come of age and marry. This sort of expansion does not significantly alter boundries and was factored into the tacit agreement that fell apart in 2010.
CTN36: Why do you care what Chomsky thinks? I have a barber who also holds political opinions. I do not let him shape my geopolitical outlook. Chomsky is a brillant Linguist and nothing else. Morally he is bankrupt. What do you rhink about the Irrevocable Trust he established for his daughter? Such a basic hypocrisy ("Fuc* the rich...except me because I am special" or "Capitalism is inherently evil and I can tell you all about it at $12,000 for a 1 hour speech") is a tad bit troubling, don't you think?
Nylock: 'The UN Vote means nothing.': Indeed it means only that the PA can now put member states to sleep with hyperbolic speeches that bounce from one fantasy to the next. It simply converted the PA's status from Non State Entity Observer to Non Member Stte Observer. The PA still cannot vote or table Resolutions. It can however engage in debate and join UN bodies (in addition to UNESCO which it joined this past summer).
(Edited for spelling)
As for Gaza, it was illegaly occupied by Egypt in 1948 but never formally annexed and so it has always existed as Terra Nulius, at least since its last organic sovereignity which of course was that of Judaea nearly 2 millenia ago. Ergo Israel has every right under IHL/LOAC to control both territories but for pragmatic reasons has opted not to annex either one. Indeed, in 2005 Israel abandoned Gaza with the hope that "Palestinians" would finally found the nation they claim to desire.
'The Peace Process is a smokescreen to further Israel's expansionist plans vis a vis the so called "Settlements".': "Settlements" are merely being manipulated by the PA as it tries to deflect attention- internally AND externally- away from its inability to co-exist with Israel. Both Israel and the PA have agreed on a "Palestinian" state that will consist of 100 percent of Gaza and 93 percent of the so called "West Bank." The 7 percent of the "West Bank" to be retained by Israel contains all the largest "Settlment" blocs. The 7 percent differential is to be offset by 7 percent of Israel proper so that in the end "Palestinians" end up with an area equal to 100 percent of the so called "West Bank."
The sticking point has been the 7 percent differential. Before Talks broke down in 2010 Israel had offered successive tracts, all contigious to either Gaza or the so called "West Bank." The PA refused each and everyone without pushing for alternatives as if unable to actually close the deal which would of course be a tacit acceptance that "Palestinians" will end their push for the entire former British Mandate of Palestine. PA President Abbas knows that IF the PA closes the deal it is the end of the PA and his grip on power.
Still, since both sides have agreed that Israel will retain its extant "Settlements" the existence of "Settlements" is in no way an impediment to peace. So called "Settlement Expansion" is merely "Natural Expansion," the additional units going to current residents who come of age and marry. This sort of expansion does not significantly alter boundries and was factored into the tacit agreement that fell apart in 2010.
CTN36: Why do you care what Chomsky thinks? I have a barber who also holds political opinions. I do not let him shape my geopolitical outlook. Chomsky is a brillant Linguist and nothing else. Morally he is bankrupt. What do you rhink about the Irrevocable Trust he established for his daughter? Such a basic hypocrisy ("Fuc* the rich...except me because I am special" or "Capitalism is inherently evil and I can tell you all about it at $12,000 for a 1 hour speech") is a tad bit troubling, don't you think?
Nylock: 'The UN Vote means nothing.': Indeed it means only that the PA can now put member states to sleep with hyperbolic speeches that bounce from one fantasy to the next. It simply converted the PA's status from Non State Entity Observer to Non Member Stte Observer. The PA still cannot vote or table Resolutions. It can however engage in debate and join UN bodies (in addition to UNESCO which it joined this past summer).
(Edited for spelling)
