Trending Topics:

Gantz vows to annex Jordan Valley after elections. Netanyahu asks: why not now?

News
on 50 Comments

Benny Gantz, the leader of the “centrist” Blue & White party and main challenger to the premiership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, vowed on Tuesday to annex the Jordan Valley if he wins the Israeli elections on March 2.

“We see this strip of land as an inseparable part of the State of Israel,” Gantz said on a tour of the region, highlighting the Jordan Valley’s strategic location as “Israel’s eastern defensive barrier in any future conflict.”

Gantz added that while Netanyahu seeks to unilaterally annex the Jordan Valley, which accounts for one-third of the occupied West Bank, he would do so “in coordination with the international community.”

With the exception of the current US administration, the consensus among the international community is that Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories is illegal.

Gantz went on to say he was “looking forward” to the release of U.S. President Donald Trump’s peace plan, saying “I hope that President Trump will hurry and release his plan.”

His comments on Tuesday regarding the U.S. peace plan marked a stark departure from his previously stated views, in which he expressed that the publication of the plan ahead of the elections would be an “outright intervention” in Israeli democracy, and only serve to further Netanyahu’s political agenda.

When asked about his change in opinion, Gantz told reporters “Several weeks have passed,” and “many dramatic things are happening in the Middle East.”

Netanyahu, who announced his plans to annex the Jordan Valley during last year’s election, hit back at Gantz, asking “why wait until after the election if we can apply sovereignty over the Jordan Valley right now with broad consensus in the Knesset?”

In a Likud campaign speech on Tuesday night, Netanyahu called the Blue and White party “left-wing” and vowed to apply Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley and all West Bank settlements “without exception,” the Times of Israel reported. 

Chairman of the Arab Joint List Ayman Odeh, who previously endorsed Gantz as the only chance to defeat Netanyahu, criticized Gantz’s announcement, tweeting “the citizens of the country deserve hope and not imitation – that’s not how a prime minister is replaced.”

“Annexation is the elimination of any chance of democracy and peace,” he said. “You’ve probably forgotten that there is life after the campaign, too.”

“The pathetic attempt to appease a few voices from the right is not worth the destruction of the future of us all.”

The Jordan Valley’s strategic geographical location, its vast swaths of fertile land, and unparalleled water supply have made it a target of the right-wing Israeli government and the settlement movement for years.

The Jordan Valley constitutes much of the agricultural wealth of Palestinians, with 42% of the Palestinian population in the area depending on agriculture and animal husbandry for their livelihoods.

Over the years, through settlement expansion and military confiscations, much of the land has become inaccessible to the Palestinians living there.

Israel’s right-wing has doubled down on its efforts to further its control the Jordan Valley in recent weeks, most recently with Defense Minister Naftali Bennet announcing the establishment of seven new nature reserves in the West Bank — the majority of them in the Jordan Valley.

Yumna Patel

Yumna Patel is the Palestine correspondent for Mondoweiss.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

50 Responses

  1. gamal on January 21, 2020, 5:19 pm

    “When asked about his change in opinion, Gantz told reporters “Several weeks have passed,” and “many dramatic things are happening in the Middle East.” ”

    Settlers are always living in a crisis, screaming, jumping at their own shadow, Dan I and the roots tribe have a pop song about it, Crisis

    https://youtu.be/1J2nWiOO1X0

    • Misterioso on January 22, 2020, 10:31 am

      @gamal, et al

      I have long since concluded that Zionism is a classic racist, fascistic ideology and the nature of its spawn, “Israel,” is analogous in many ways to Nazism. With Trump’s Washington looking the other way, Benny Gantz’s promise (with Netanyahu’s approval) to annex what is in fact, as enshrined in international law, the Palestinians’ Jordan Valley if he wins the election on March 2 leaves no doubt in my mind that I am correct. Indeed, I am reminded of what took place on September 30, 1938 when Hitler was given permission by Britain, France and Italy to annex the Sudentenland, a region of Czechoslovakia. As with today’s indigenous Palestinians, Czechoslovakian leaders’ objections to the Nazi’s annexation were ignored.

  2. RoHa on January 21, 2020, 7:54 pm

    Stop messing about and annex the whole lot. Then give everyone living there full citizenship.

    • Mooser on January 21, 2020, 10:00 pm

      ” full citizenship.”

      Israel doesn’t have that kind of citizenship. ‘Personal status’ is determined by the Rabbinate.

      • RoHa on January 21, 2020, 11:42 pm

        Time to start having it.

      • oldgeezer on January 22, 2020, 1:35 am

        @Mooser
        Do you have issues with the rabbinate? Why shouldn’t they have the final say as long as I get to decide what/who the rabbinate consists of? Seems like a win win win win when every term used is so amorphous

      • Mooser on January 22, 2020, 11:53 am

        “as long as I get to decide what/who the rabbinate consists of”

        Sorry. You must have a lot of influence on Israeli bureaucracy .

      • Mooser on January 22, 2020, 12:23 pm

        My fault, I should have been more specific, I meant Israel’s Chief Rabbinate.
        And, I guess, the Israeli Military Rabbinate.

    • Talkback on January 22, 2020, 10:25 am

      RoHa, what makes you think that any Nonjew will get full citizenship after this third illegal annexation? Not even the Nonjews of Israel have full citizenship as understood in wester democracy. Only Israel’s Jew only nationalshave full citizenship.

      • Mooser on January 22, 2020, 12:46 pm

        “Only Israel’s Jew only nationals have full citizenship.”

        And only Israel can determine who is a Jew, as such. By scientific methods, natch, so there’s no “religious test”. Take that, America’s First Amendment!

      • RoHa on January 22, 2020, 8:17 pm

        “what makes you think that any Nonjew will get full citizenship after this third illegal annexation? ”

        Because it’s the right thing to do. And Israel always does the right thing, doesn’t it?

  3. bcg on January 21, 2020, 9:09 pm

    Gosh, I guess when we finally get two states one of them will be tiny.

  4. Mooser on January 21, 2020, 9:57 pm

    ” Netanyahu asks: why not now?”

    Seems like an awful big step to take while in between governments. And it’ll be hard to know who should get the credit for it.

    • andrew r on January 22, 2020, 1:45 am

      If Israel’s Provisional Govt. of 1948-49 can commit massacres and ethnic cleansing, annexing the West Bank or any part of it shouldn’t be a tall order for Netanyahu’s caretaker administration.

      • Mooser on January 22, 2020, 12:24 pm

        “If Israel’s Provisional Govt. of 1948-49…”

        Exactly.

  5. andrew r on January 22, 2020, 1:37 am

    So, what exactly could Israel do in the settlement blocs/Jordan Valley after annexation it can’t do there already? Would Palestinians be under the same regime as in E. Jerusalem (where they have a dubious option to apply for citizenship and residency permits which can be arbitrarily revoked)? And since Israeli citizens in the West Bank still live under Israeli civil law, couldn’t their settlements be considered annexed all the same?

    https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/08/08/israel-jerusalem-palestinians-stripped-status

  6. eljay on January 22, 2020, 5:06 am

    Ben E. Gantz: I propose to do more evil in the near future.

    Bibi (King): Wuss. I’m prepared to do more evil right now.

  7. Nathan on January 22, 2020, 9:35 am

    The above article claims that there is a consensus in the international community that “Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories is illegal”. No, there is no such consensus. If it would have been argued that there is a consensus that the territory is occupied, that would have been a reasonable claim.

    In the realm of propaganda warfare, the anti-Israel side claims that “the occupation is illegal”. The intention is that the occupation must end unconditionally; i.e. the Palestinian side doesn’t have to negotiate, nor does it have to commit itself to living in peace with Israel. In short, the demand is to end the occupation, but the conflict continues.

    Right after the war in 1967, there was a long and dramatic debate in the UN. The Arab states and the Soviet bloc demanded immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Israel from the territory captured in the war. The western powers insisted that a solution be found for the conflict in its entirety. The occupation was, after all, the result of a conflict (not its cause). In the end, UNSC 242 was passed in Nov 1967, and it is a reflection of the western point of view. In other words, within the framework of establishing peace, there will be a withdrawal from occupied territories, a solution of the refugee issue AND the recognition of the right of all states in the area to live in peace in secure and recognized borders.

    Actually, the Palestinians agreed to negotiate borders, statehood, refugees, Jerusalem and settlements in the framework of “the final status” (the end of conflict). In the meanwhile it was agreed that the Palestine Authority rule Area A and Israel rule Area C. This agreement has the sanction of the international community, so it really is just propaganda to call an agreed arrangement “illegal”.

    There is no question of legality or illegality. There is a conflict that has to be resolved through negotiations. That is the consensus of the international community.

    • Misterioso on January 22, 2020, 10:58 am

      @Nathan

      Pure poppycock!!

      A brief look at reality:

      The ongoing occupation of Palestinian and other Arab lands “Israel” invaded during the war it launched on 5 June 1967 – yes, as is now common knowledge, “Israel” started the 1967 war – are in flagrant violation of the UN Charter, as reiterated in the preamble of UNSC Resolution 242 (which governs all that follows) – “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war…” The inclusion of this sentence in the opening paragraph reflects the fact that the Security Council must abide by the terms of the UN Charter, i.e., Chapter I Article 1 (1); Chapter I Article 2(4); and Chapter VII, Article 51, which reject territorial expansion by force of arms under any circumstances. The principal framer of the resolution, Lord Caradon of the United Kingdom, later noted that without this preambular statement “there could have been no unanimous vote” in the Security Council.

      On 15 September 1967, during Security Council discussions leading to the drafting of Resolution 242, UN Secretary-General U Thant announced that “everyone agrees that there should be no territorial gains by military conquest.” To state the obvious, “Israel” is also in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (e.g., “Collective Punishment”) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which are binding on all UN members.

      “Israel” argues that as the English version of article i of Paragraph 1 omits the definite article (i.e., “the”) before “territories,” Resolution 242 does not require it to withdraw completely from all lands it conquered and occupied in June 1967.

      Indeed, by calling for “withdrawal from territories occupied in the recent conflict,” Resolution 242 defines precisely what lands “Israeli armed forces” must vacate. To wit: All of East Jerusalem (along with its illegally extended boundaries) was “occupied in the recent conflict;” hence, Israel must withdraw completely. All of the West Bank was “occupied in the recent conflict;” hence, Israel must withdraw completely. All of the Gaza Strip was “occupied in the recent conflict;” hence, Israel must withdraw completely. All of Syria’s Golan Heights, Lebanon’s Shebaa Farms and Egypt’s Sinai were “occupied in the recent conflict;” hence Israel must withdraw completely. (“Israel” did eventually withdraw from Sinai, but in accordance with international law, it is still occupying the Gaza Strip, also in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention) BTW, the Russian and French versions of Resolution 242 do include the definite article, “the.”

      As Abba Eban, then foreign minister for “Israel” revealed at the time, he understood full well that Resolution 242 calls for complete withdrawal: “The words ‘in the recent conflict’ convert the principle of eliminating occupation into a mathematically precise formula for restoring the June 4 Map.” During negotiations to determine Resolution 242’s wording, Abba Eban failed in an attempt to delete the phrase “in the recent conflict.” (Comment by Foreign Minister of Israel and Telegram 3164, UK Mission in New York to Foreign Office, 12 Nov 1967)

      Moshe Dayan also realized that Resolution 242 calls for full withdrawal. During a closed session of the Labor Party, he counseled against endorsing Resolution 242 as “it means withdrawal to the 4 June [1967] boundaries, and because we are in conflict with the SC [Security Council] on that resolution.” (Daniel Dishon (ed.), Middle East Record, v. 4, 1968 (Jerusalem: 1973), p. 247)

      • RoHa on January 22, 2020, 7:23 pm

        “Israel” argues that as the English version of article i of Paragraph 1 omits the definite article (i.e., “the”) before “territories,” Resolution 242 does not require it to withdraw completely from all lands it conquered and occupied in June 1967.

        I’d call it “typical Zionist weaselling”, but that would be an insult to weasels.
        In English, when a plural is unmodified, we usually take it as referring to the entire class. “Cretans are liars” is usually understood to mean “all Cretans are liars”.

        the Russian and French versions of Resolution 242 do include the definite article, “the.”

        I know that the Russian language does not have definite or indefinite articles. I don’t know how the Russian version modifies the term “territories”. By a demonstrative, perhaps?

      • Talkback on January 23, 2020, 10:18 am

        Misterioso: ““Israel” argues that as the English version of article i of Paragraph 1 omits the definite article (i.e., “the”) before “territories,” Resolution 242 does not require it to withdraw completely from all lands it conquered and occupied in June 1967.”

        Israel also argues that “guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;” doesn’t mean that freedom of navigation through “all” waterways has to be guaranteed and Egypt is allowed to close the Straits of Tiran.

        Oh wait, Israel doesn’t. What a surprise.

        The author of 242 Lord Caradon wrote in his book “UN Security Council Resolution 242: A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity”:

        “It was from occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. . .East Jerusalem, The West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. It was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted.”

      • MHughes976 on January 23, 2020, 11:36 am

        a) If 242 created no absolute obligations – none there and then and none at any specifiable point in the future – on anyone to change the status quo it amounted to saying that the status quo is acceptable for ever, since that is the case with any situation that no one need ever change.
        b) If that is the true import of its words it has no moral authority since it was presented as doing something about the situation, yet in truth supports permanent inaction, so is not what it purports to be, therefore is morally unsound. But that cannot really be, since it has always been accepted as having at least some authority, some genuine commitment to justice.
        c) so it obliges Israel to do something to change things, not just enjoy the benefits and advantages that those things bring them.

    • Talkback on January 22, 2020, 11:21 am

      Nathan: “The above article claims that there is a consensus in the international community that “Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories is illegal”. No, there is no such consensus.”

      Wait what? “Since the occupation of the West Bank in 1967, numerous United Nations resolutions, including 446, 452, 465, 471 and 476 affirm unambiguously that Israel’s occupation is illegal, …”

      Why? For two reasons:
      1.) Illegal settlements
      2.) More than 50 years of belligerent occupation and therefore continuos violation of the right to self determination. An occupation has to be interim, not quasi permanent.

      Nathan: “In the realm of propaganda warfare, the anti-Israel side claims that “the occupation is illegal”.”

      In the realm of propaganda warfare, the anti-Nonjew racist side claims that a Jewish occupation is legal until Jews agree to end it.

      Nathan: “The intention is that the occupation must end unconditionally; i.e. the Palestinian side doesn’t have to negotiate, nor does it have to commit itself to living in peace with Israel. In short, the demand is to end the occupation, but the conflict continues.”

      In the realm of propaganda warfare, the anti-Nonjew side claims that the occupation by a Jewish state musn’t end unconditionally. But allready in 1980 Security Council resolution 471 “6. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;”.
      https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/aa73b02d9b0d8fdc852560e50074cc33?OpenDocument

      Nathan: “The occupation was, after all, the result of a conflict (not its cause).”

      The occupation was the result of Israel’s repeated aggression to take over land through war and expulsion. Begin admitted that the war was another war of choice like in 1956. And its obvious that Israel’s long term goal was and still is to illegally colonize and illegally annex occupied territories.

      Nathan: “In other words, within the framework of establishing peace, there will be a withdrawal from occupied territories, a solution of the refugee issue AND the recognition of the right of all states in the area to live in peace in secure and recognized borders.”

      In the realm of propaganda warfare, the anti-Nonjew side claims that there is an “AND” in resolution 242. This is just an anti-Nonjewish invention disproved by Sec Res 471.

      Nathan: “Actually, the Palestinians agreed to negotiate borders, statehood, refugees, Jerusalem and settlements in the framework of “the final status” (the end of conflict).”

      In the realm of propaganda warfare, the anti-Nonjew side claims the fact that the Palestinans agreed to negotiate peace means that the occupation is legal. It doesn’t even make sense.

      Nathan: “This agreement has the sanction of the international community, so it really is just propaganda to call an agreed arrangement “illegal”.”

      It is really propaganda to claim that anybody claims that the agreed arrangement is illegal. That’s another anti-Nonjewish invention in the realm of propaganda warfare.

      Nathan: “There is no question of legality or illegality.”

      In the realm of propaganda warfare, the anti-Nonjew side claims that there is no question of legality or illegality, justice or injustice when it comes to Nonjews and their rights. Israel and its belligerent occupation exists, that’s it.

      Nathan: “There is a conflict that has to be resolved through negotiations. That is the consensus of the international community.”

      Doesn’t change the consensuns that the occupation is illegal and has been illegal since the first illegal settlement.

      Sorry, Nathan, but not even Jews are allowed to oppress a people as long as they like, even if Jewish racists make this inherent claim.

      • Sovereign on January 22, 2020, 2:15 pm

        A lovely destruction of Nathan’s attempt to obfuscate reality with irrelevant trivialities. My guess is a response won’t soon be forthcoming.

      • Nathan on January 22, 2020, 4:13 pm

        Oh, cut the nonsense, Talkback. If you think that the UN has “unambiguously” determined that the occupation is illegal, then please be so kind as to give me the quote where it is stated unambiguously that “the occupation is illegal”. Such an unambiguous statement is not to be found in the UN resolutions that you were so kind to bring to my attention.

        The conflict will be resolved through an agreement. This agreement will include borders, refugees, settlements, Jerusalem and statehood. In the absence of an agreement, the status quo agreed upon at Oslo will continue to be in force (Area A, B and C).

        Of course, there is the option of going to war and ending the conflict through the total defeat of Israel. I have the feeling that such an option is totally unrealistic. Similarly, it’s seems unlikely that Israel will withdraw from the territory without an end-of-conflict agreement. So, we’re left with two more realistic scenarios: 1. The continuation of the status quo; 2. A negotiated end of conflict.

      • Mooser on January 22, 2020, 5:32 pm

        “but not even Jews are allowed to oppress a people as long as they like, even if Jewish racists make this inherent claim.”

        Notice we never question whether Jews have the will and the resources to oppress a people for as long as they like. That would be anti-semitic.

      • eljay on January 22, 2020, 6:25 pm

        || Nathan: Oh, cut the nonsense, Talkback. … ||

        Speaking of cutting the nonsense…

        || … there is the option of going to war and ending the conflict through the total defeat of Israel. I have the feeling that such an option is totally unrealistic. Similarly, it’s seems unlikely that Israel will withdraw from the territory without an end-of-conflict agreement. So, we’re left with two more realistic scenarios: 1. The continuation of the status quo; 2. A negotiated end of conflict. ||

        Your strawman notwithstanding, there is also the realistic scenario of going to war and ending the conflict through a partial defeat of Israel followed by a negotiated end of conflict.

        But I get how that’s not sufficiently dramatic or “victimhood” for a Zionist.

      • Talkback on January 23, 2020, 9:49 am

        Nathan: “If you think that the UN has “unambiguously” determined that the occupation is illegal, then please be so kind as to give me the quote where it is stated unambiguously that “the occupation is illegal”.”

        A quote from the UN site:
        “The international community has a responsibility and a legal obligation to compel #Israel to completely end its illegal occupation and remove its barriers to the fulfilment of Palestinian self-determination – UN expert says at #UNGA 👉 https://t.co/xB3nwylJyO pic.twitter.com/qMnlFnaARn
        — UN Special Procedures (@UN_SPExperts) ”
        https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/10/1049811

        Nathan: ” Such an unambiguous statement is not to be found in the UN resolutions that you were so kind to bring to my attention.”

        There’s nothing unambiguous about a resolution that reaffirms the “overriding necessity” [!] to end a prolonged occupation. And there’s nothing unambigous about a subsequent resolution (see end the end of my comment) which reaffirms in the same year (1980) again this overriding necessity and strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly;”.

        The International Red Cross which co-wrote the Geneva Conventions explains:
        “Under occupation law, the occupying power does not acquire sovereignty over the occupied territory and is required to respect the existing laws and institutions of the occupied territory as far as possible. It is presumed that occupation will be temporary and that the occupying power shall preserve the status quo ante in the occupied territory.”

        Do you think that Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem and the Golan did not acquire souvereignity over occupied territories, that its occupation is “temporary” and that its settlement did preserve the status quo ante in the occupied territories? All as required by occupation law? Do you really think that Israel has the right to occupy and therefore to violate the right of self determination of the Palestinians forever?

        Nathan: “This agreement will include borders, refugees, settlements, Jerusalem and statehood. In the absence of an agreement, the status quo agreed upon at Oslo will continue to be in force (Area A, B and C).”

        The Palestinians didn’t agree at Oslo that the occupation is legal and can exist forever, or that the settlements are legal, but to when and how the occupation would end within the next five years. And no “statehood” is not a part of these negotiations. Palestine is allready a recognized UN non-member state.

        Nathan: “So, we’re left with two more realistic scenarios: 1. The continuation of the status quo; 2. A negotiated end of conflict.”

        Sure, but 1.) isn’t legal only because it is Israel’s most practical and cheap scenario to colonize and illegally acquire more territory. Which is the reason why it wants to maintain this status quo.

        But since you are interested in Security Council resolutions, here’s another one from 1980, 456:
        “6. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;”
        https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5AA254A1C8F8B1CB852560E50075D7D5

        And another one from 1980, 476:
        “1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

        2. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly;”

        3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

        4. Reiterates that all such measures which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council;

        5. Urgently calls on Israel, the occupying Power, to abide by this and previous Security Council resolutions and to desist forthwith from persisting in the policy and measures affecting the character and status of the Holy city of Jerusalem;”
        https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/b86613e7d92097880525672e007227a7/6de6da8a650b4c3b852560df00663826?OpenDocument

        To put it short: Israel violated all Security Council resolutions that refer to
        1.) Israel’s withdrawal of troops from occupied territories,
        2.) the overriding necessity to end its prolonged occupation,
        3.) the dismantlement of all settlements and to stop establishing, planning and constructing them and
        4.) to rescind the illegal annexation of Jerusalem and all measures that alter the geographic, demographic and historical character of this city.

        But since all of these Security Council resolutions (and their follow ups) don’t work in your favor they are either ambiguos or legally irrelevant, correct? Cause Israel is going to violate them tommorow, too, and you find this thought relaxing.

      • Nathan on January 23, 2020, 2:40 pm

        Talkback – There’s no problem finding UN resolutions that criticize / condemn the occupation. I would imagine that there are a few new ones every year. And, yet, none of these resolutions define the occupation as illegal. The reason is very simple: There is no such thing as an illegal occupation. It wasn’t too surprising that you found a statement by a UN official who used the terminology “illegal occupation”. But this official wasn’t quoting some UN resolution. Notice in the resolutions that they refer to Israel as “the occupying power”. If the occupation were illegal, the resolutions would have said so. But they don’t. The resolutions only state that as the occupying power, Israel should or shouldn’t do “x” or “y”, and I’m quite sure that you understand that the UN has never defined the occupation as legal or illegal.

        You mention that an occupation is supposed to be temporary. Well, also the word “temporary” has never been defined. There is, however, a Security Council resolution (242) that speaks of withdrawal from territories conquered in the 1967 war, however this withdrawal is within the context of establishing peace and the recognition of the right of all states in the region to live in peace. In other words, it is self-evident that the end of occupation comes at the end of conflict. Actually, that’s what happened in the case of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty of 1979.

        I know that it’s a gigantic problem for an anti-Israel person to imagine that the conflict will come to its end, and the State of Israel (i.e. the present-day Jewish state) continues to exist AND this is a permanent fact of life. That’s why here at Mondoweiss the only real criticism of the Palestinians is their having signed the Oslo Accord. Today you hear that the occupation is illegal, because you believe that illegality obligates Israel to end the occupation unconditionally (i.e. the Palestinians won’t have to commit themselves to ending the conflict). In short, you envision the continuation of conflict even after the end of occupation.

        The issue is political, not legalistic. You can go to war, or you can negotiate. Going to war has been tried, and Israel seems quite capable of handling any coalition of enemies. She will not be defeated. So, we’re left with the option of negotiations. This means, at the very least, that Israel is being offered an end of conflict.

      • RoHa on January 23, 2020, 8:51 pm

        And there you go again.

        But why would the Palestinians attempt to negotiate an end to conflict with Israel, when experience has shown them that Israel will not keep an agreement and does not want an end to the conflict ?

        Israel wants to keep the conflict going as an excuse to expel all the Palestinians.

      • Talkback on January 23, 2020, 11:37 pm

        Nathan: “I know that it’s a gigantic problem for an anti-Israel person to …”

        Allow me to give you a taste of your own medicine, again, because you seem to be educationally impaired.

        I know that its a gigantic problem for an anti-Nonjew person to acknowledge that the UN website quoted an official statement by an UN official.

        I know that its a gigantic problem for an anti-Nonjew person to acknowledge that the co-creator of the Geneva conventions, the International Red Cross, described that occupation can be unlawful.

        I know that its a gigantic problem for an anti-Nonjew person to realize how stupid it is to simply claim after that quote that there is no such thing as an illegal occupation.

        I know that its a gigantic problem for an anti-Nonjew person to understand that allthough International law recognises the military occupation of an enemy’s territory as a legitimate method of warfare, the violation of the laws of occupation make an occupation as unlawful as the violation of acquisiton laws make the posession of property.

        I know that it’s a gigantic problem for an anti-Nonjew person to understand that under the law of occupation an occupier must, at all times, be able to justify its continued use of force to maintain the occupation on the basis of military necessity, which must be proportionate to its legitimate military objectives.

        I know that it is a gigantic problem for an anti-Nonjew person to understand that illegal annexations and illegal settlements violate the law of occupation, because they cannot be justified by military necessity which makes the occupation unlawful.

        I know that it is a gigantic problem for an anti-Nonjew person to conclude that an occupying power who illegaly annexes teritories and illegaly settles in them is not interested in ending their occupation, but to occupy them forever. which makes the occupation unlawful, because it is not longer temporal.

        I know that it is a gigantic problem for an anti-Nonjew person to understand that when an occupying power announces even more illegal annexations and more illegal settlements it is obvious that the occupying state has no interest in ending the occupation or keeping it temporal, which makes the occupation unlawful.

        I know that it is a gignantic problem for an anti-Nonjew person to underrstand that if an occupying power simply continues to prolong an occupation, because demands of the occupying power in peace negotiations are not met (demands, that violate international law and human rights) that this cannot be justified with military necessity and cannot justify a prolonged occupation which makes the occupation unlawful.

        I know that it is a gigantic problem for an anti-Nonjew person to accept that Security Council resolutions also unconditionally demand from Israel to rescind the illegal annexation of Jerusalem and dismantle all illegal settlements, not only because both illegal acts violate international law, but also because they are a “major obstacle to peace”.

        I know that it’s a gigantic problem for an anti-Nonjew person to acknowledge that the Security Council strongly deplored Israel’s contined refusal to comply with Security Council resolutions, including the overiding necessity to end the prolonged occupation.

        I know that it it it’s a gigantic problem for an anti-Nonjew person to accept the fact that a law obgliates a violator of law to end its violations unconditionally, whether it is illegal annexations, illegal settlements or prolonged occupations.

        I know that it’s a gigantic problem for an anti-Nonjew person to understand the difference between “temporal” and “prolonged”and that prolonged means that something is not longer temporal which was reaffirmed by the Security Council by choosing the word “prolonged”.

        I know that it’s a gigantic problem for an anti-Nonjew person to understand the US will veto any resolution that explicitely declares the occupation to be illegal.

        I know that it’s a gigantic problem for an anti-Nonjew person to conclude that if the occupation was not illegal, the Security Council had not declared it to be prolonged and reaffirmed that is an overriding necessity to end it.

        I know that it is a gigantic problem for an anti-Nonjew person to understand the difference between “overriding” and “conditional” and that “overriding” overrides “conditional”.

        I know that it is a gigantic problem for an anti-Nonjew person to understand that when a Security Council resolutions reaffirms the “overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation” the occupation is not longer temporal, but prolonged and therefore unlawful and this situation must end and that ending it is not based on conditions, because it is an overriding necessity.

        I know that it is a gigantic problem for an anti-Nonjew person to conclude that if 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israel troops and subsequent resolutions reaffirm the overriding necessity to end a prolonged occupation, then ending the occupation, which means withdrawing the troops, is an overriding necessity and unconditional.

        I know that it is a gigantic problem for an anti-Nonjew person to understand that the Security Council reaffimed the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupationallready in 1980, allthough there were no arrangements or peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, yet, and that the existence of arrangements, negotiations or a negotiated peace were obviosly not necessary to end the prolonged occupation, but that it was allready and overriding necessity to end it.

        I know that it is a gigantic problem for an anti-Nonjew person to understand that differences about Jerusalem, refugees, borders, etc. do not justify a prolonged occupation and that an occupation which is prolonged, because there are these diferences is unlawful and this collective exstortion and punishment a crime against humanity.

        I know that it is a gigantic problem for an anti-Nonjew person to recognize the hypocrisy and idiocy to claim that not ending the occupation, but the “recognition of the right of all states in the region to live in peace” is the overriding necessity, while it is only the occupying power that doesn’t recognizes the other state.

        I know that that it’s a gigantic problem for an anti-Nonjew person to accept that a legal issue is not a political issue and that it is only in the interest of the criminal to claim that it is one or to try to transform it into one.

        I know that it that it’s a gigantic problem for an anti-Nonjew person to understand that someone who argues that it would be legal to violate international law, the law of occupation, human rights and to occupy, to disenfranchise, to disposses and to deny the right to self determination of Nonjews FOREVER sounds pretty stupid and dishonest when he suggest thats it is up to the occupied to offer an ending to their oppression. The occupier’s announcements of Jerusalem as the eternal and undived capital of Israel and more illegal annexations and illegal settlements clearly prove beyond any doubt that neither the end of this conflict, nor the occupation, nor the end of illegaly annexions and settlement constructions have ever been the primary interest of the occupying state and it’s Nonjew disenfranchising and dehumanizing legislation and society.

      • Talkback on January 24, 2020, 12:50 am

        Addendum:

        Nathan: “There is no such thing as an illegal occupation.”

        Oh, cut the nonsense, Nathan.

        KSHENUKA SENEWIRATNE (Sri Lanka), Chair of the [UN] Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, said delegates have gathered today driven by compassion and concern for the people of Palestine. In June in Amman, civil society representatives, victims and witnesses briefed the Special Committee on the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territories and the occupied Syrian Golan. Their testimonies brought attention to the daily violence and hardship endured by Palestinians, where every aspect of life is affected by the unlawful occupation. The Special Committee noted with concern the uptick in settler violence and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza caused by the blockade.”
        https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/gapal1428.doc.htm

        “The legality of an occupation is determined by the underlying purpose of the occupier’s use of force: whether the occupier uses force to undertake an occupation with concrete military objectives, to annex parts of the territory, or otherwise seeks the transformation of the status of the territory. This prohibition covers any use of force that might affect the local population’s internationally recognised right to self-determination and sovereignty in the territory, by precluding its ability to resume control at the end of occupation.

        An occupation in which force is used to fulfil the goal of permanently acquiring a territory is unlawful and attracts consequences under the international law on the use of force. The emergence of such a situation also triggers the legal obligations of third states in international law to cooperate to bring the occupation to an end, while also ensuring that they do not give effect to internationally unlawful acts in their dealings with the occupying state.”
        https://www.ecfr.eu/publications/summary/israels_unlawfully_prolonged_occupation_7294

        “Occupation may be lawful, if it is a regime that maintains public order in a territory seized in war, in conformity with international humanitarian law and temporarily, until the territory is returned to the sovereign. Israel’s system of occupation, settlements and de facto annexation in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, however, is unlawful.

        Permanent conquest of territory through war and occupation is absolutely prohibited. It contradicts universally binding norms (jus cogens, peremptory norms) which are pillars of the modern international order, such as the prohibitions on aggression, acquisition of territory by force and colonialism and the right to self-determination of peoples. Gross and systematic violation of such norms by any state triggers a legal duty to act for all other states and their organizations: third states are to cooperate to bring to an end by lawful means such breaches of peremptory norms, and third states must not recognise as lawful the situation created with these breaches nor aid or assist in maintaining it.”
        https://eu.boell.org/en/2016/11/16/what-neighbourhood-policy-context-unlawful-occupation-israel-and-occupied-palestinian

      • Mooser on January 24, 2020, 1:04 pm

        “Nathan” has been at this a long time. He knows the loneliness of the long-distance tummler.

    • bcg on January 22, 2020, 11:34 am

      “negotiations” between the stateless, rightless peasants and the nuclear armed state! I love it!

      • Mooser on January 22, 2020, 12:49 pm

        And someday, Israel might even have a government to negotiate with!

      • Talkback on January 22, 2020, 2:24 pm

        It even gets better: If the oppressed don’t subjugate to the oppressor’s demands, sorry I meant “negotiate”, the oppressor has the right to oppress the oppressed forever, according to Nathan’s reasoning. And if you think that this is the most pathetic thing you have ever heard, it’s only because you are “anti-Israel”.

      • RoHa on January 22, 2020, 8:12 pm

        Talkback, there isn’t much point in arguing with Nathan. I have shown him several times how to write a counterfactual conditional, and yet we still see this:

        ” If it would have been argued that there is a consensus that the territory is occupied, that would have been a reasonable claim.”

        If he can’t learn simple grammar, anything more complicated is likely to escape him.

    • James Canning on January 22, 2020, 4:59 pm

      The “annexation” of Israeli-occupied territory is of course illegal under international law.

    • Talkback on January 23, 2020, 10:33 am

      RoHa: “Talkback, there isn’t much point in arguing with Nathan. I have shown him several times how to write a counterfactual conditional, and yet we still see this:

      ”If it would have been argued that there is a consensus that the territory is occupied, that would have been a reasonable claim.””

      Sorry, RoHa, but if it would have been argued that a poorly formulated argument is invalid, that would have been a fallacy. ;)

      It’s far more interesting that Nathan claims that it is only a “reasonable claim” that “the territory” is occupied and not a legal fact, confirmed by several Security Council resolutions and the International Court of Justice.

      • RoHa on January 23, 2020, 8:47 pm

        If I had argued that an ungrammatical argument was invalid, that would, indeed, have been a fallacy.

        But I didn’t argue that. I was simply pointing out that Nathan can’t learn.

        So, no matter how many times you point out his errors, or parody his bad grammar, he will just keep on repeating them.

  8. James Canning on January 22, 2020, 11:48 am

    Israel can purport to “annex” portions of the Israeli-occupied West Bank, in contravention to international law. Obviously, the arrogant ignoramus occupying the White House fosters the illegal ambitions of Israeli politicians. And we can expect Trump to pressure other countries to accede to Israel’s illegal actions.

    • oldgeezer on January 25, 2020, 12:24 am

      @talkback
      “Unfortunately you don’t understand what you are quoting out of context and you obviously haven’t read the whole document and even have to ommit the sentences that immediately follow. ”

      Yeah he does. He is toying with you. And getting his jollies out of doing so. Same as other zionists. Why play their game. Treat them with the utter contempt that they deserve. Utter contempt is actually a step above what they deserve. I refuse to play their stupid game anymore. They are vile and immoral racists and should not be treated as someone you merely disagree with. Zionist crimes are crimes that people were executed for. I don’t agree with capital punishment but they should be locked up for life.

      • Talkback on January 26, 2020, 11:32 am

        oldgeezer: “They are vile and immoral racists and should not be treated as someone you merely disagree with.”

        Be silent and watch! After I have asked Zionist test subject N. to formulate an argument based on universal principles that could legitimize the creation/existence of Israel he started with the premise “Israel exists”. That was astonishing, because I was trying to hide this fact in my question. So I had high hopes, but than he just added “That’s it”. I think we have to give him way more time.

        Which is the reason for my response, because I want to ask you, if you could donate some bananas. Or maybe a lot.

  9. Nathan on January 24, 2020, 10:38 am

    Talkback – It really is a very unusual situation. You seem to be very eager to spend time and energy to prove that my argument is correct. There’s no need for it. I already knew that there is no such thing as an illegal occupation. Thanks anyway.

    Here’s a quote fron the EU document that you bring to my attention:

    “Occupation law itself does not provide a measure for determining whether the continuation of an occupation is lawful or not. In international law, an occupation itself can neither be lawful nor unlawful; occupations are merely a matter of fact, and are regulated as such. The legality of maintaining an occupation, however, is determined according to the legality of the continued use or threat of force by the Occupying Power to maintain the occupation. This means that an occupation may be unlawfully prolonged and administered, but NOT UNLAWFUL in itself”.

    I suppose that this analysis is the reason that you can’t find a UN resolution that defines the occupation as illegal. Indeed, as you so kindly brought to my attention, there is no such thing as an illegal occupation. You can criticize an occupation, you can claim that certain actions are illegal, and you can find all kinds of statements by very learned officials who might claim that the occupation is illegal – but the occupation is not illegal, period.

    I understand from reading your comments that in your opinion the State of Israel shouldn’t even exist. So, it’s always quite puzzling that an anti-Israel person like you would be so keen on trying to prove that Israel is wrong about “x” or “y”. Just state your opinion that Israel should not exist no matter what she might do (even if the occupation were to end tomorrow morning).

    By the way, also the existence of a state is a matter of fact. It’s not lawful or unlawful. A state exists, period. But, as always, you may want to search the web to prove my case (but there’s no need to do so, since I already know that there is no such thing as an illegitimate state).

    • echinococcus on January 24, 2020, 12:47 pm

      TIme and again it’s fun to read the Propaganda Ministry (or Prime Minister’s Office) Zionist drudges who are trying to earn their keep by littering our discussion groups.

      Take that most egregious of all, the one that goes under “Nathan”:

      ” I already knew that there is no such thing as an illegal occupation. ”

      Except that aggression is illegal, colonial conquest is illegal, occupation as a result of either is illegal, alien presence against the express will of the owners of the country is illegal, and fighting against occupation by all means available is an imprescriptible right; all this according to international law as declared and confirmed again and again, last enshrined in the UN founding documents in 1945.

      “By the way, also the existence of a state is a matter of fact. It’s not lawful or unlawful. A state exists, period.”

      Except if that state is established by conquest following a formal declaration of intent of colonial takeover, against the express wish of it owners no less, it is defined as the most illegal thing in international law since 1945, i.e. colonial conquest. More illegal than that you simply can’t invent. Of course, if the very being of that state is committing the war crime of replacing the owner population by invaders, that’s one more count.

      “Just state your opinion that Israel should not exist no matter what she might do (even if the occupation were to end tomorrow morning)”

      Well, that is blindingly obvious from the two points above, no need even to mention it. Also, the government members of the colonial powers that allowed that state to exist and be recognized even in its theoretical 1947 borders, in stark violation of the UN Charter, should have been punished along with the invader bandits themselves.

      The problem with the propaganda criminals is not their activity. It’s the extremely upsetting fact that among humans as they ideally would like to see themselves, an atrocious absurdity doesn’t get repeated once shot down — whereas we’ve been at it nonstop since my grandpa’s youth. And confused minds still feel the need to discuss the long-adjudicated.

    • bcg on January 24, 2020, 1:55 pm

      Your words, my italics:

      In international law, an occupation itself can neither be lawful nor unlawful; occupations are merely a matter of fact, and are REGULATED as such. The legality of maintaining an occupation, however, is determined according to the legality of the continued use or threat of force by the Occupying Power to maintain the occupation. This means that an OCCUPATION MAY BE UNLAWFULLY PROLONGED and administered, but NOT UNLAWFUL in itself”.

      It is illegal under international law to transfer civilian populations, demolish their homes, torture them, etc, etc.

    • bcg on January 24, 2020, 2:09 pm

      Also, this is a quote from a recent article in The American Conservative, “Israel Is Not America’s Ally”:

      https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/israel-is-not-americas-ally/

      “Dozens of other states all over the world are better allies to the United States than the “most cherished ally” is, and they don’t preside over an illegal occupation that implicates the U.S. in decades of abuses and crimes against the Palestinian people living under that occupation, but none of them enjoys the lockstep, uncritical backing that this one state does. ”

      Is the Occupation itself legal or illegal? It’s a distinction without a difference – it’s the abuses and crimes against the Palestinian people that we need to consider.

    • Talkback on January 24, 2020, 9:44 pm

      Nathan: “It really is a very unusual situation. You seem to be very eager to spend time and energy to prove that my argument is correct. There’s no need for it. I already knew that there is no such thing as an illegal occupation. Thanks anyway.”

      Unfortunately you don’t understand what you are quoting out of context and you obviously haven’t read the whole document and even have to ommit the sentences that immediately follow. Your quote simply clarifies that 1.) an occupation isn’t lawful or unlawful per se and that 2.) occupation law cannot determine if it is lawful or not. Occupation law only deals with the question, if an occupation is justly conducted (ius in bello)

      But the main question here is when and if a state has the right to use force (ius ad bellum). Which is explained in the following sentences you are so eager to ommit which prove that my argument is correct and not yours. Thanks anyway.

      “The legality [sic!] of an occupation is determined by the underlying purpose [!] of the occupier’s use of force: whether the occupier uses force to undertake an occupation with concrete military objectives, to annex parts of the territory, or otherwise seeks the transformation of the status of the territory. This prohibition covers any use of force that might affect the local population’s internationally recognised right to self-determination and sovereignty in the territory, by precluding its ability to resume control at the end of occupation. An occupation in which force is used to fulfil the goal of permanently acquiring a territory is unlawful and attracts consequences under the international law on the use of force.”

      So this passage clearly and literally clarifies that an occupation is unlawful when the use of force THROUGH occupation is illegal and for example to permanently acquire territory. And the use of force THROUGH occupation is also illegal when the occupation is prolonged “solely to “impress upon the enemy the necessity of submitting to terms of peace.”” which is exactly what Israel does, too.

      To recapitulate:
      Occupation is a kind of use of force. In itself it is neither legal or unlawful. But it is illegal, if the use of force (through occupation) is illegal. For example if force (through occupation) is used to illegaly annex territory, to illegaly settle in it or to illegaly force the occupied to submit to the occupier’s terms of peace.

      The Security Council determined allready in 1980 (resolution 471) that Israel illegaly used force through occupation:
      “Reaffirming its resolution 465 (1980), by which the Security Council determined “that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East” and strongly deplored the “continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices”,”
      https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/aa73b02d9b0d8fdc852560e50074cc33?OpenDocument

      In the same resolution it reaffirmed therefore “the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;”

      In the subsequent resolution 476 it reaffirmed again the “overriding ecessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem” and this time it also “stongly deplored the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly;”
      https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/6DE6DA8A650B4C3B852560DF00663826

      Which brings us to the following quote from the same document regarding prolonged occupations and the illegality they create:

      “The ICJ assessed the legality of prolonging an occupation in its 1971 Advisory Opinion on South Africa’s continued presence in Namibia. The court concluded that the effect of prolonging the occupation of Namibia was that South Africa eroded the occupied people’s right to self-determination, thereby creating an “illegal situation”.”

      And finally:
      “Third, because Israel’s prolonged occupation is unlawful, many of its actions in the administration of the territory are deemed invalid as a result of them being predicated on its illegal use and threat of force, i.e. in violation of the peremptory norm of international law prohibiting the acquisition of territory by force.”

      So no, it really is not a very unusual situation at all, that you have to ommit everything that disproves your argument.

      Nathan:; “I understand from reading your comments that in your opinion the State of Israel shouldn’t even exist. So, it’s always quite puzzling that an anti-Israel person like you would be so keen on trying to prove that Israel is wrong about “x” or “y”. ”

      First of all I’m not an anti-Israel person, but an anti-Apartheid, anti-racist exclusivism, anti-institutionalized racism, anti-violations of international law and human rights, anti-expulsion and anti unlawfully prolonged occupation kind of person. So it is not puzzling at all that an anti-Nonjew person like you intuitively substitutes everything that I’m against with the anti-Nonjew state of “Israel”. To clarify. A state which has law that only views its Jewish citizens belonging to the nation of this state is obviously as anti-Nonjew as it’s society that supports that.

      Secondly, I’m dealing with questions of legitimacy regarding Israel’s foundation through force and expulsion, it’s existence as an Apartheid state, its institutionalized and (quasi-) constitionally enshrined racism or its prolonged occupation and iuse of force. You know, everything that neither an anti-Nonjew society and state nor an anti-Nonjew person like you can justify.

      Nathan: “Just state your opinion that Israel should not exist no matter what she might do (even if the occupation were to end tomorrow morning).”

      Just state your opinion that you can’t envision Israel without disenfranchising Nonjews and all I’m factually against (even if the occupation were to end tomorrow morning).

      Nathan: “A state exists, period.”

      Illegal regimes, too, period.

      I’m sure that you definetly know a case in which terrorists terrorized a goverment and its citizens to set up a n exclusive state for their own, took over a large part of a state through war and even expelled the majority, because of their faith and heritage. (Hint: I’m not talking about the “Islamic” state in the Levante, but the other one.)

    • Talkback on January 25, 2020, 11:55 am

      Part 2 of my response to Nathan.

      Nathan: “By the way, also the existence of a state is a matter of fact. It’s not lawful or unlawful. ”

      I know how important it is for an anti-Nonjew person to avoid legalities and simply claim that every fact on the gound that was created by Jews can’t be illegal.

      But you are wrong, again:
      “[…] a state indeed needs to possess ‘something physical’ in order to be a state. […] Allthough territory itself is a physical fact its delimitation is a a matter of law. […] Boundaries are thus confined, territories defined and states created on the basis of legal principles. For this reason, ‘a defined territory’ cannot be a purely factual concept. Even if one took the existence of ‘a defined territory’ as a physical fact, the concept of the state could still not be seen as such. No doubt, the (defined) territory of Kosovo exists physically. It is ambiguous whether or not Kosovo is a state under international law. […] Merely knowing that the territory exists physically is not enough to determining its legal status. Thus, a state cannot be understood as a physical fact. Statehood is an entirely legal construction; it is legal status. ” Jure Vidmar, Democratic Statehood in International Law: The Emergence of New States in Post-Cold War Practice, pages 48 – 49

      “Although Pakistan had already withdrawn from the eastern part by the end of 1971, the legal status of Bangladesh remained ambiguous for two years. It was not until recognition of Bangladesh was granted by Pakistan that universal recognition followed. […] Indeed, it is obvious that the international community did not see secession as an entitlement and Bangladesh became universally recognised only after Pakistan had given consent to its independence.”
      Jure Vidmar, Democratic Statehood in International Law: The Emergence of New States in Post-Cold War Practice, page 163

      And this is just a short response.

Leave a Reply