Which countries should the UN demand return land taken by military conquest?

US should evict UN from NY ... they cost and they give nothing to American people.

Are the UN able to finance themselves? Great!

No? Oh well, no one will cry if UN go bankrupt!

To make clear my thought: UN are a parasitic organization which eats money, which suffers of corruptions and total lack of usefulness.

P.S. May be now it's clear that I don't like UN that much ...

 

Where does it say that it's a state? As requested.

You can't produce that because it's not a state, it's a territory.

 

It doesn't. There is no such state.
He knows that, of course.

 

I'm not so sure he does...

 

This is a map of the West Bank. Says to right on the map.
The WB has been part of Israel since 1988.
Feel free to try again..

- - - Updated - - -

You have been proven correct.

 

Israel never annexed most of the West Bank.

it is merely Occupied Territory

 

Wait, let's go back to you calling Palestine a "state". Why is it that you said this, when it's not the case? How can we assume what you say is credible, when you say something like that?

 

the UN calls it a state.

most of the nations on Earth call it a state

 

Please show us where Palestine is a state. It's by law, a territory until given permanent statehood. It does not have that. LOL

 

A sovereign state, by definition, is neither dependent on nor subjected to any other power or state.
Settles that.
Palestine is not a state.

 

Can't be more clearer than that

 

a state can exist in exile

 

It's your diversion.

That doesn't disprove ethnic cleansing. Can you put up the definition of it? Thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

The UN says it is, since they recognize it as such. Well over a 100 nations do as well. That is indisputable.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. When the UN says that there is a state because the majority of the world says there is, means that there is such a thing.

- - - Updated - - -

The world has ruled that it is not the case.

 

None of these things make it a state in fact, however - fact is, the West Bank was ceded to Israel in 1988; it cannot be part of any state until Israel agrees to it.

You do understand that the UN's version of international law is not the only valid international law - correct?

The world has no say in an agreement between Israel and Jordan on the disposition of Jordanian territory held by Israel; the cession of the territory to Israel is a far stronger statement of international law than any declaration or recognition by the UN.

 

It wasn't ceded to Israel. Israel occupies it. So it's not part of Israel.

it's not just the UN version of the international law. This is also the opinion of the ENTIRE world and their version of international law. There really is no country on this planet who views this differently, placing Israel as a paria state.

 

You have not shown us where Palestine is considered a state. Please cite your sources so we can verify your claims.

 

It was. Jordan gave up clam on territory once part of Jordan but held by Israel. This make it Israeli territory.
Said cession as confirmed in 1991 when Jordan and Israel cemented their border; the WB was fully within Israel.
At this point, international law no longer applies.

It is,.Treaties between states held more power under international law than a UN resolution.

Tell me -- and be honest -- if the UN declared Puerto Rico a sovereign state and 136 countries agreed, does that make PR an independent sovereign state?

 

That is a nope, cause the UN and UNSC aka all the countries of the world, say so.
Your opinion is nill and void.

You fail to realize that the "UN" means the opinion of the entire world. Your argument so far is about, my opinion trumps the opinion of the entire world, and you think I'm impressed by that. I'm not at all.

 

Correct, but the Egyptians are not claiming the land, its the Muslims, and Palestinians.

My main point is, you can't say its the Palestinians territory because they were there first. Because its absolutely BS.

 

Your correct, however, Israelis were there before that Arab Culture, so you can't argue that Arabs were there first.

 

I've never claimed they were there 1st. Only the people claiming it is there's was a bit absent for 1500 or so years.
BS - is thinking after 1500 yrs, that any land should go back to who had it.
What about the people who had it 1600, 1700, 1800 2900 yrs ago. Should the world say they can have it back?
Should the USA give back the land to the native Americans?

 

Me thinks this just another bash Israel thread. By the way if the UN is absolutely necessary( which I think it isn't) move the UN to the West Bank.

 

The entire world is made up of 2/3rds dictators and despots why would the UN hold any sway?