Without accepting or disputing both of the aspects that (one and two) that you listed, I have a problem with your answer. In two words: You are NOT CONSISTENT with your interpretation of international laws.Originally Posted by curlyg
With the Israeli population, you claim that their previous international rights (as stated by the League of Nations and ratified by the UN) get negated by the fact that Israel gets labelled as an occupier following a defensive war.
However, your standard changes when the shoe is on the other foot and Jordan allows it's population to move to the West Bank. I hear what you say that according to International laws, they may have a claim. But why don't those laws get negated by the fact that Jordan would be considered an occupier? If you are negating other relevant international laws that are relevant to the Israeli population because you see them as occupiers, then why don't you apply the sane standards to the Jordanian population, who under my scenario would also be occupiers?
Seems like you apply double standards curlyg.