The legal bits:

📌The US and Israel both know that – according to the UN Charter – the only way to lawfully get that land is for Palestine to give it away in a legally binding treaty.


📌For the treaty to be legally binding, it needs to be signed by the legitimate representatives of that state.


📌The “Palestinian” Authority is the only one who can quasi-lawfully sign this deal. I say “quasi” because one could argue the PA does not legitimately represent the rights of its citizens. At any rate, USrael did not like the declaration of intervention the PA made in South Africa ICJ case because, in so doing, they acted "as if" Palestine was, indeed, a state, and are stopping the funds to the PA in retaliation.


📌The purpose behind the destruction of each and every form of government in Gaza is to get them to a place where they cannot govern themselves and therefore, they are “not a State” under the UN charter. This is why they don't just attack the resistance, but the police, the civic guard, etc.

📌The US opposes the ICJ case because, if they ever manage to get the PA to sign that deal, an adverse judgment would cast an ominous shadow on it. Namely, it could be argued that the PA signed that deal under duress, and the deal would be void.

📌 Ironically, if Palestine was recognized as a fully-fledged state, any deal the PA signs could not be undone. So why does USrael oppose it? Because they aim at a Greater Israel down the line, obviously, and they are just taking time.


It’s important to note that there are several “accords” that were signed but are not recognized by the UN, including Camp David’s. No accord about one country can be lawful unless the legitimate representatives of that country are involved in it.

Therefore, all the talks about a “political solution” are MOOT because political solutions can NOT confer legal status - only doing things according to the law can.

[RT]