What is Sup Forums's solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

What is Sup Forums's solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_separatum_(Jerusalem)
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_Switzerland
alex.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/alex?aid=rgb&datum=18760004&seite=00000145
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Genocide the palestinians, and deport all the mizrahim.

Follow international law.

1967 borders etc.

If a group of people can't defend what's theirs, then they don't deserve it.

They're all shit 2bh

Cede the Gaza strip to Egypt, cede the West Bank and East Jerusalem to Jordan.

Unsolvable.

Let god sort em out

Un protectorate in Palestine

Un occupation of Israeli borders

Bait someone into nuking Jerusalem, watch everyone unite against the common enemy.

Death to Palestine

Alternatively, just leave it like it is.

gas all the jews
hitler did nothing wrong

>all these people providing their unique meme solutions instead of just following the agreed solution by the entire international community that is set in INTERNATIONAL LAW
How difficult is it for you retards to understand there's a thing called international law?

Israel-Palestine discussion always exposes how little people on Sup Forums actually know about politics.

>by the entire international community
Yeah, but the international community can get fucked t.bh

The solution is simple: a Christian State in the Holy Land. Millions of Christians from all over the world invade Israel-Palestine on a whim. Muslim Palestinians sent to Jordan, Egypt or Syria, Jews relegated to Tel Aviv and some cities along the coast. Everything else belongs to the Christian Palstinians and new settlers

That's the place for enlighted gentlemen such as yourself.

Crusader state of Jerusalem

Like your border, Jose?

GZ becomes Egyptian
WB becomes Jordanian
GH becomes israeli

>implying Egypt and Jordan even want those shitholes

>GH becomes israeli
Oh gee thanks for letting us keep our own fucking turf.

>Palestinians spend decades fighting for independence to be absorbed to the Islamic shitholes of Jordan and Egypt
You don't get it. Palestinians don't want that. That's why the whole Arab League are against Palestine.

Stop fighting and become one united state
Palisreal

So what DO Palestinians want, then?

>GH is israeli
The law has a different view.

>The law doesn't apply to me because of my feelings
Fuck off woman.

Which law?

>Implying palestinians aren't the most backwards out off all the mussies
Really goes to show how little you know about politics, enlighted one.

The law can fuck off, we conquered it fair and square and it's our military that is present in the area - not the syrians.

Already happened desu en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_separatum_(Jerusalem)

The one that takes away the basic Right of Conquest because of "muh feelings"

Honestly, it's yours at this point. Nobody is going to want to return any land to the Syrian regime anytime soon, and anybody living in GH is better off under Israel's wing.

Palestinians want secular democracy not Islamist shit (inb4 muh Hamas, different thing entirely).

The Arab League fear the idea of a "good example" because if Palestinians get it, every Muslim country will start demanding more.
>>Implying palestinians aren't the most backwards out off all the mussies
That's exactly what I'm implying. Palestinians are literally the LEAST backward.
>The law can fuck off
Yea, no. Go sell crack to kids if you don't care about laws. Civilised human beings follow the law.
International Law.

a nuke

It's not realistic or reasonable to return a strategic piece of land to a failed state filled with hostile actors.

fuck borders fuck countries. full communism for the workers of the world

>take all jews around the world
>put them on israel
>move israel to another galaxy
>???
>profit

You don't get to make it up as you go along. The law is the law. What don't you understand?

>Israel-Palestine
Follow the law
>Morocco-Western Sahara
Follow the law
>China-Tibet
Follow the law
>Russia-Chechnya
Follow the law
>wanting to deal drugs
Follow the law
>wanting to rob a bank
Follow the law

Following the law is how it works. Everything else is a meme for Liberals.

Bernie aren't you supposed to be dropping out right now

remove both

Why does the UN have any authority over the area again?

>Palestinians are literally the LEAST backward.
86% are for strict sharia law you fucking retard, look it up.
Also, the GH aren't a topic of debate in the U.N so once again it proves that the enlighted supreme gentleman doesn't know shit about the region and it's politics.

Don't you have other thread to shill for russia in?

oh no i just fixed the middle east

>The law is the law. What don't you understand?
And when does the law require the Israelis to return the Golan Heights?

Laws are only as useful as their ability for enforcement.

Communists need to be publically hung to show an example so they won't spread their faggotry to others.

Mediterranean + Red Sea needs to swallow all of Egypt

>International Law.
Does this even exist?

Why couldn't the Allies have let you retain control of that shithole

I don't like russia neither. tell your people to take their hands off the patagonia

First for all, Israel is a member state of the UN. It has voluntarily joined the UN and therefore must keep the UN's law.

The UN's authority is unquestioned.
>The GH aren't a topic of debate in the U.N
Multiple resolutions have said that Israel illegally occupied GH. I don't know where you get your information from.
No, the law requires Israel to stop occupying GH not return it.

Do you have any idea how much oil happens to be there? Plus suez and Israel.

...

>Do you have any idea how much oil happens to be there?
Oh well. It's worth it you could have kept the Mudshits from spontaneously exploding all the time

Yeah like that is something not wanted by its former owners as an excuse to intercept constantly.

>No, the law requires Israel to stop occupying GH not return it.
Ignoring whether or not this is true, when does Israel need to stop occupying the Golan?
Is there a date at which point the occupation becomes illegal? A moment at which time runs out?

If only the Nazis had limited their extermination camps to Communists instead of wasting it on racial faggotry
Think of what a wonderful world we would live in

>The law is the law
Go to bed, Dredd.
International law is just gentlemanly deals. There's no way to enforce it, it's only really binding as long as it satisfies both sides. You can make individuals comply with a law by applying force, you can't really do the same with entire states. International law is an extension of politics, not the be-all and end-all

Well you can start by looking at UN Security Council Resolution 497 which says Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights is "null and void and without international legal effect" and that Israel must immediately return cancel it's annexation.

That was in 1981.
>The law doesn't matter
Are you a nigger? You must literally be a nigger to think laws don't matter.

Go rob an old lady's purse with your typical nigger behaviour.

It seems like no one respects nearly any UN demand without a proportionate enforcement behind the order (usually supplied by the us).

Let's see the UN has no power in the area, participates minimally in its affairs, and it's issuers often have little tie to the land.

Their authority is a joke and unfounded. Yes, Israel is a member, but honestly they should leave.

>>The law doesn't matter
International law doesn't matter unless an entity has the power to enforce it. Without that force, international is little more than whining about countries that hurt your feelings, and it has about the same effect as whining

>Well you can start by looking at UN Security Council Resolution 497 which says Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights is "null and void and without international legal effect" and that Israel must immediately return cancel it's annexation.
And now starts the slow moving of goalposts. Because the reality is beginning to dawn on you.
That resolution refers to the illegal annexation of the Golan. But illegal annexation and legal occupation are two different things.

Again, when is Israel legally required to end the occupation of the Golan? When is it "too long"?
Show your work.

Mass conversion of Palestinians to Judaism

>What is Sup Forums's solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Israel should take more clay on the southern border until it forms the shape of a circumcised penis pointing into the red sea

minus some communities in Iran, this would result in a more unified Kurdistan. the turk is his own worst enemy.

>You don't have to follow laws if you think you can get away it :)
This level of Liberal degeneracy is phenomenal. Literally fuck off to /r/politics.
>"too long"
Why did you put something you wrote in quotation marks? I never said anything about Israel and Golan Heights being "too long", you did.

Israel's annexation of Golan Heights is illegal according to the UN and must be cancelled.

If a territory was illegally annexed, it has to be returned.

Or what? Contract law has clauses for failure to comply. As far as I can tell they don't have to do shit. Especially since you basically have to join the UN if you want to participate in global trade and relations. It's as voluntary as joining Hitlers party during the third reich.

>Contract law has clauses for failure to comply.
As does International Law. The UN has taken action against Israel on many, many different occasions.

I assume you don't learn any of this because le special best friend XD status you have in America.

>>You don't have to follow laws if you think you can get away it :)
>This level of Liberal degeneracy is phenomenal. Literally fuck off to /r/politics.
A constitution only postulates that it is true but at least is has democratic legitimacy. What legitimates international law?

Explain to me why you think that unenforceable international laws would incentivise Israel to stop being cunts

>If a territory was illegally annexed, it has to be returned.
Oh? I thought
>"the law requires Israel to stop occupying GH not return it"

But inconsistency aside. The occupation needs to end irrespective of annexation.
At what time does it need to end?

...

Realisticly impossible to solve.

this

>the law is the law

shut, this law is just set to people think someone did something. Nobody moved a finger to Israelis and Palestinians. They are there to kill each other, while the whole world watch it setting by micro-violence assaults.
Congratz, you're there to be a massive raw reality show.
Stop taking this further, kill yourselves or kill them both.

ps.: the law is shit.

You're conflating international law with criminal law as Poland stated. Not really law. They're agreements. Calling him a nigger is a bad analogy.

Yeah, there you go. It's not Israels wrong doing for not fulfilling idiotic orders from the UN. It's the UN's problem for not having decent fall back clauses.

The member states of the UN have consented to following the law.
The laws are enforceable by the Security Council.
I already gave you the date. It's 1981 and in the resolution it says:

>"2 Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, should rescind forthwith its decision;

>"Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the implementation of this resolution within two weeks...."

Give the Gaza strip to Egypt and the arab majority west bank to Jordan.

>What is Sup Forums's solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
>solution

fuck off shlomo your jewing of the west bank made sure no solution would ever be reached

pic elated 90% of west bank is under kike control

>It's the UN's problem for not having decent fall back clauses.
It does have decent fall back clauses: It has the right to authorise sanctions and military action.

The "problem" is the USA veto. This doesn't change the fact that the UN openly says Israel is in violation of the law or that the UN tries repeatedly to punish Israel, it just shows how corrupt the USA is.

It's like saying that because the Mafia has friends in the FBI that nullifies the Mafia killing, stealing etc. Of course it doesn't.

You seem to have trouble understanding there's a world of difference between what should happen and what CAN actually plausibly happen. Nobody, ever, will comply with shitty, unenforceable international laws if something truly great is at stake - in Israel's case, national security. Arbitrate courts or ICoJ are fine and dandy as long as the cases are about things that are in mutual interest of everyone - eg. settling the reach of a country's jurisdiction or fairly negligible - small fishing territories or shitty uninhabited islands in the middle of nowhere. There is no way a country will ever give out a strategically critical piece of land away just because a guy in a toga told him to.

Give the Jews Tasmania take it or leave it faggots.

>"2 Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, should rescind forthwith its decision
To annex the territory.
You are again conflating occupation with annexation. Two distinct concepts in international law.

So again,
When is Israel legally required to end its occupation of the Golan?

>>The laws are enforceable by the Security Council.
>The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations... Its powers include... the authorization of military action through Security Council resolutions; it is the only UN body with the authority to issue binding resolutions to member states.
Except that the Security Council will never pass a military resolution against Israel because of America's veto. The laws are essentially unenforceable.

>The member states of the UN have consented to following the law.
Proof? Also still, any member state can have national laws that contradict international law.

Do it then. Bring sanctions.

Are you just trying to be difficult now? I've given you the exact UN resolution that says Israel must rescind it's annexation and then you bait and switch to the differences between annexing and occupying. It's pointless to talk to you.
When you join the UN, you promise to follow the laws of the UN. And no, you can't create your own laws that contradict them.

>When you join the UN, you promise to follow the laws of the UN. And no, you can't create your own laws that contradict them.
You can. A state can also decide that the national law has a priority. An example:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_Switzerland
> Article 190 of the Swiss Federal Constitution states that federal statutes and international law are binding on the Federal Supreme Court. In consequence, the courts are not empowered to review the constitutionality of federal statutes, but will, where possible, construe statutes so as not to create a conflict with the Constitution. The courts can suspend the application of federal statutes that conflict with international law, but tend to exercise this power cautiously and deferentially: In Schubert (BGE 99 Ib 39), the Federal Supreme Court refused to do so because Parliament had consciously violated international law in drafting the statute at issue.

International law is irrelevant given there's noone to enforce it senpai

>And no, you can't create your own laws that contradict them.
You absolutely can, actually. It depends on the law hierarchy established in a country's constitution. Whether the UN will like it is a whole other matter entirely.

Friend, when people talk about international law they basically always mean the legal obligations between countries, not internal laws.

Literally no country in the world could follow the internal laws of the UN because that would mean every child would have to be fed and have a bed to sleep in. Not your country (which is very rich) does that.

He's actually trolling but I reply to his posts anyway because I wish to make him speechless.

>And no, you can't create your own laws that contradict them.
You can. The US does this all the time. It's the international law of "Fuck you, got mine"

>b-but you p-promised!!

Learn 2 Machiavelli, nigga. Sovereign entities do break their promises, and there's nothing you can do about it.

>then you bait and switch to the differences between annexing and occupying
Here's Concepts in International Law 101.
>Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the political transition of land from the control of one entity to another.
And
>Military occupation is effective provisional control of a certain ruling power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign.

The UNSC demanded that Israel stop the application of civic Israeli law on the Golan, and refused to recognize its de jure sovereignty over the Golan. The annexation was deemed illegal.

They never required, in this course, that Israel end its "effective provisional control" of military occupation. Hence, your claimed proof for a timeframe to end the occupation, isn't. The resolution doesn't address the occupation in any way, only annexation.

Now that we've cleared that up:
At what time are the Israelis required to end their occupation of the Golan?

>Friend, when people talk about international law they basically always mean the legal obligations between countries, not internal laws.
The court decides against a treaty between Switzerland and Austria-Hungary: alex.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/alex?aid=rgb&datum=18760004&seite=00000145
>Literally no country in the world could follow the internal laws of the UN because that would mean every child would have to be fed and have a bed to sleep in. Not your country (which is very rich) does that.
Proof that this law exists?

I honestly don't understand why you think I'm trolling and don't care either. If you think it's viable to live in a world where 200 countries do whatever the fuck they want without respect for the law you are delusional.
>The UN demanded Israel end it's annexation......but not it's occupation!!!
Please stop talking shit. Annexation predepends on military force. By demanding Israel to rescind it's annexation, it's demanding an end to the military occupation.

Last post because you guys are actual retards.

>Proof that this law exists?
I think it's in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but don't quote me on that

>implying there is anyone willing to take gaza

>If you think it's viable to live in a world where 200 countries do whatever the fuck they want without respect for the law you are delusional.
Like the entirety of human history until the last 70 years? Unthinkable

>a brit being an orwelian tier statist
LOL

>I honestly don't understand why you think I'm trolling
You forgot this smiley:
:^)
>without respect for the law
Strawman, because I was telling that national laws prevail.