I was asking why the post-1948 ceasefire lines are more legal than the post-1967 lines ?
If you decide to go after the 1947 UN partition, keep the 1947 lines as the only legal border.
If the 1948 war can redefine what's legal, then the 1967 war can do it as well.
I personally think the borders should be decided between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
The only agreement to date between them has been the 1991 Oslo accords, with A, B and C zones.
Further talks about definitive borders stopped with the Second Intifada in 2000.
Legality ends up following the de-facto reality.
What's the future of the legality of Golan annexion ? With the new Syria, its soon going to become legal.
Jewish people coming back to live on its ancient homeland has no legal basis; It's their collective will which allowed its coming into existence (continuous immigration from other countries since the 1840s).
The legality of its existence wouldn't help it survive even one second.
> Israel was literally born out of political scheming
Its more of a popular jewish movement that over 100 years changed the ethnic composition of the Palestine region from 1-2% in the 1840s up to 30% in the 1940s.
Political scheming is secondary and was born well after the 1840s.
Israel: Surrender or we'll destroy your city
Hamas: Only if you let us rebuild and prepare the next war
Israel: Starts destroying the city by bombing emptied buildings, these having received warning from Israel beforehand
UN: Oh look, a genocide
I personally think the borders should be decided between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The only agreement to date between them has been the 1991 Oslo accords, with A, B and C zones. Further talks about definitive borders stopped with the Second Intifada in 2000.