@Deleted User Wikipedia is correct there

Let's celebrate that the Soviet Union is gone

epic fail

it always sucked

we don't encourage soyboy collectivist behavior in the west

only if you can't compete as an individual

that is the best strategy for betas

yeah, one could finish a book while waiting in those food lines

"decent healthcare" lol

unemployment was artificially low

stupid roles were created

that drained funding

didn't Jesus speak Aramaic?

I like this :Kike:

how do you do the images?

You need jesus

I always bring the hype

what's hypesquad?

you clearly need jesus

I've asked for more roles

where they at?

why do goyim always have some subservient fetish thinking they're fighting wars for israel?

@Aztec

why does the US benefit from destabilizing Syria @Bogatyr Bogumir ?

@Spookaswa Without the the US, Assad and others would get along just fine. The natural state of the arab and muslim world is utter traquility. The problem is that this only sounds true to you if you're stuck in bubble, where you keep swallowing your own bullshit `you retarded cum drinker`.

how much better?

would Assad not have opted for chemical weapons?

or would the rebels not have beheaded as many?

you're blaming a 3rd party

when the real responsibility is on Europe and its retarded policy of blindly accepting refugees

You're telling me that the arab world is destabilized because the west only gave them their own nations a couple decades later. How does that follow? You say the invasion of Iraq was the cause of some of the instability. I say it was Obama's pullout. It really depends on what point in time you're willing to take for granted. In your case, you'll go back all the way to WW1 to blame the west, while the discussion is centered on the US and not on the French and British. If you blame NATO and the US for getting involved in the Syrian civil war, why do you not also blame Russia, Iran and Hezbollah (still Iran)? You're assuming what would have happened in an alternate reality without interference. All the while, the Syrian civil was arose as part of the Arab Spring and the entire Arab Spring has been brutal. If you want to back all the way to WW1, I remember when the US didn't get involved and 90% of Ottoman Armenians were murdered. Increased support and weaponry doesn't necessarily increase scale. Look at the cold war: weaponry and support both kept increasing, but this only pushed the outcome to a stalemate. What was the difference? The conflict was between civilized white people.

they use jordanian and israeli currency

`Is Palisten a country?
Its has its own flag`

hardly

they use the standard arab flag

`1. is able to enforce their own laws within their borders` - If they could, there would be no West Bank settlements, unless you dispute that being their territory.

`2. have a standing army` - They don't have one. Gaza has a few armed foces. West Bank has another one. They're not one army.

`3 . print their own currency` - Jordanian Dinar isn't their own currency, neither is the Israeli shekel

`4. have international relations with other nations` - With how many? They certainly don't have relations with Israel.

@Similar Scowl

`They have international relations with many countries.` - I'm happy for them. `They are involved in many supranational organizations and many countries recognize them.`- Not enough do. `They DO have a standing army and security services.` - What is their 'standing army' called? `Their effectiveness is disputable, but that can be said of many nations.` - Which nation has no control over its armed forces? `They do technically have a flag.` - Yeah, it's the Flag of the Arab Federation. `A currency isn’t necessarily a requirement for being a state`- Other guy said it was, but ok.

Not enough to vote them fully in. And the Palestinian Security Forces aren't their army. They have no army. Who's in charge of the PSF? I know the answer, but I wanna play this out.

just say it's the jews

I don't care

"palestine" isn't a full member state

you can blame the jews for it

doesn't change reality

Abbas is in charge of the PSF

and Abbas can't do shit in Gaza

they're an inflated police force

which army would defend "Palestine" from an invasion?

neither

Israel

there is one army responsible for defending the gazan and the west bank borders

what's that army called?

habibi

it's the IDF

palestine's status as a soveirgn state is only recognized by individual countries

no, it wouldn't

if an invasion happened

Abbas would hop on the phone

and call up Bibi

Article XII of the Oslo II Accord states:
″In order to guarantee public order and internal security for the Palestinians of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the [Palestinian] Council shall establish a strong police force as set out in Article XIV below. Israel shall continue to carry the responsibility for defense against external threats, including the responsibility for protecting the Egyptian and Jordanian borders, and for defense against external threats from the sea and from the air, as well as the responsibility for overall security of Israelis and Settlements, for the purpose of safeguarding their internal security and public order, and will have all the powers to take the steps necessary to meet this responsibility.″

except it's not legally bound to call France

like "palestine" is

I don't have to disqualify it to be a nation

you have to qualify it as one

and according to that dude's definition

it's not doing well

sounds like he's close to being 100% wrong then

if palestine wants to be a soveirgn nation

it needs to negotiate with Israel

that's not how it works.

when going by individual recognition

it's a state only within the context of its relationship with that country

if it wants to be a soveirgn state

it needs to be voted in like Israel

and have control over its borders

and it'll only get that

once it negotiates with Israel

they had no issue when it came to Israel

or any other mid eastern state created at that time

if the legal opinion has since changed

then it now goes by individual bilateral basis

in which case, it's only a soveirgn nation

once Israel recognizes it

which brings it back to the original conclusion

that it needs to negotiate with Israel

your guys' argument is that the UN has no role here

and that Israel should recognize it because some other country does

which is a new principle

I can as easily argue that those nations shouldn't recognize Palestine because Israel doesn't

it doesn't fit any of it

` juridical entity` - can Abbas try Gazan war criminals?

`that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area.` - When was the last time Abbas has called off Gazan missiles ?

`as having a permanent population` - this isn't true according even the Palestinians, with them claiming ever growing nth generation refugees

nor is true, because they claim the population of Israeli Arabs

` defined territory` - only if you forget about the West Bank and the northern territory contested between Israel, Syria and Palestine

` one government` - again, this exists in name only. Gaza and West Bank are ran seperately

`and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.` - if Abbas chose to negotiate with Israel, Gaza would not follow