A question about rocket fire~and a paradox

[toastman]

Where anywhere on the map does it say international boundaries of Palestine??
I got this map from mapquest, why don't you go there and find a map of Palestine with international boundaries, like I have with Israel.

Oh wait, you can't. The only map you can find is a Partition Plan map with proposed boundaries

BTW, as for crossing from Gaza to West Bank without there being a border, if you knew how to read, there is an armistice line separating the two.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In some respects you're correct.

OK, but why does he keep quoting it when he knows, or should know, that it is false? Look at the facts on the ground. There isn't a trace of resolution 181 anywhere. The Palestinians rejected it. Israel rejected it before it mentioned it in its declaration and it would not accept it now.

Some people still mention it to foster a political agenda but it is quite dead.

(COMMENT)

While it is true that the Arabs rejected it, it is not true that the Israelis rejected it. The reason you look on the ground and don't see a trace of it ---- is because, the Arab Forces botched it all up. The entire purpose of the Arab Invasion was to attempt at external interference in the implementation process.

Until the invasion by the Arab Armies in 1948, the actual land apportionment part of Resolution 181(II) was in play. However, after the establishment of the Armistice Lines of 1949, Israel came-out a winner, territorially.

Yes, you are right, Israel would never accept the retrograde action of the original apportionment today. It would have to give-up too much territory acquired from the Arabs. But on 15 May 1948, the Israelis had accepted and implemented the Resolution. The Arab invasion changed that, to the Israeli advantage.

The territorial apportionment piece of the Resolution was overtaken by event and evolved as a result of the military loses incurred by Arab Forces. But that just shows you how flexible the resolution was.

But then, it must also be remembered that Jordan got its piece (the West Bank) and Egypt got its piece (Gaza). So not the entire Arab Force missed their nationalistic agenda.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

I hope this stays in the I/P section.

For many days I have thought about asking the posters in this section who live in the United States this theoretical question.

Background.

For many years the southwest U.S. had endured mass illegal immigration; no let me cut to the chase. "La reconquista". Which means that the Mexicans want to take over 'land' that they lost during a war that they lost.

What has the U.S. done? Started to build a wall. Sound familiar? The other side has built tunnels. Sound familiar? The U.S. have attempted to destroy the tunnels. Sound familiar?

Now let me cut to the point. Say the Mexicans/Tijuana cartel grows tired of the 'occupation' or refusal of "La Reconquista" or the destruction of their tunnels and decides to build and fire rockets towards . . . say Long Beach, California, indiscriminately.

Even thought the U.S. can probably knock down these primitive rockets with their superior technology, how long; or better, how many of these rockets would you like to fall before the U.S. goes in and kicks their collective ASS?

Probably not long at all.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Billo_Really]

True, I don't remember the US asking for permission to go in Iraq chasing el-Qaeda..and that threat is far more distant.

That was a war crime.

I've been against the Iraq war from day 1.

Attacking Iraq over 9/11, is like attacking Mexico over Pearl Harbor.

 

[Daniyel]

True, I don't remember the US asking for permission to go in Iraq chasing el-Qaeda..and that threat is far more distant.

That was a war crime.

I've been against the Iraq war from day 1.

Attacking Iraq over 9/11, is like attacking Mexico over Pearl Harbor.

And again you miss the point, it was operation on Iraqi ground to eliminate el-Qaeda, not against Iraq.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In some respects you're correct.

OK, but why does he keep quoting it when he knows, or should know, that it is false? Look at the facts on the ground. There isn't a trace of resolution 181 anywhere. The Palestinians rejected it. Israel rejected it before it mentioned it in its declaration and it would not accept it now.

Some people still mention it to foster a political agenda but it is quite dead.

(COMMENT)

While it is true that the Arabs rejected it, it is not true that the Israelis rejected it. The reason you look on the ground and don't see a trace of it ---- is because, the Arab Forces botched it all up. The entire purpose of the Arab Invasion was to attempt at external interference in the implementation process.

The Palestinians rejected 181 as they had the right to do. (Remember that question I keep asking and you keep ducking?) Nobody had the authority to force it upon them at the point of a gun so 181 was no more.

It is a lie to say that Israel accepted resolution 181. By the time Israel mentioned 181 in its declaration, it had already blown past the proposed borders and was deep into the proposed Arab area and Jerusalem. There were about 300,000 Palestinians expelled from their homes (not to mention those killed.) Before Israel's declaration.

So, what part of resolution 181 did Israel accept?

Until the invasion by the Arab Armies in 1948, the actual land apportionment part of Resolution 181(II) was in play. However, after the establishment of the Armistice Lines of 1949, Israel came-out a winner, territorially.

Yes, you are right, Israel would never accept the retrograde action of the original apportionment today. It would have to give-up too much territory acquired from the Arabs. But on 15 May 1948, the Israelis had accepted and implemented the Resolution. The Arab invasion changed that, to the Israeli advantage.

The territorial apportionment piece of the Resolution was overtaken by event and evolved as a result of the military loses incurred by Arab Forces. But that just shows you how flexible the resolution was.

WOW, you are deep into Israel's propaganda territory here. It is said that because the Arab armies lost the 1948 war, (not true but that is a different story for another day) that Israel won land from the Palestinians.

How did Egypt, Jordan, etc. lose Palestinian land to Israel?

But then, it must also be remembered that Jordan got its piece (the West Bank) and Egypt got its piece (Gaza). So not the entire Arab Force missed their nationalistic agenda.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Where anywhere on the map does it say international boundaries of Palestine??
I got this map from mapquest, why don't you go there and find a map of Palestine with international boundaries, like I have with Israel.

Oh wait, you can't. The only map you can find is a Partition Plan map with proposed boundaries

BTW, as for crossing from Gaza to West Bank without there being a border, if you knew how to read, there is an armistice line separating the two.

Indeed.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949

Your funny map only shows the armistice lines that were drawn over top of the international borders. Example:

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, some of this is true.

The Palestinians rejected 181 as they had the right to do. (Remember that question I keep asking and you keep ducking?) Nobody had the authority to force it upon them at the point of a gun so 181 was no more.

(COMMENT)

It is true, that the Arab Palestinians had a right to reject. And they did. It was not forced upon them (TRUE).

But, as it did not require both to agree and accept.

F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS

When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.

4. The Commission, after consultation with the democratic parties and other public organizations of The Arab and Jewish States, shall select and establish in each State as rapidly as possible a Provisional Council of Government. The activities of both the Arab and Jewish Provisional Councils of Government shall be carried out under the general direction of the Commission.

If by 1 April 1948 a Provisional Council of Government cannot be selected for either of the States, or, if selected, cannot carry out its functions, the Commission shall communicate that fact to the Security Council for such action with respect to that State as the Security Council may deem proper, and to the Secretary-General for communication to the Members of the United Nations.

(d) The text of this resolution was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.

SOURCE: A/AC.21/7 29 January 1948

SOURCE: Resolution 181

It is a lie to say that Israel accepted resolution 181. By the time Israel mentioned 181 in its declaration, it had already blown past the proposed borders and was deep into the proposed Arab area and Jerusalem. There were about 300,000 Palestinians expelled from their homes (not to mention those killed.) Before Israel's declaration.

So, what part of resolution 181 did Israel accept?

(COMMENT)

The implementation process started well before May, as you can see. Israel had already communicated its intentions to the UNPC, the Successor Government to the UK. Israel was already involved in the transition process outline in the Steps Preparatory to Independence.

The inner working and latent processes between Israel and the Successor Government may not meet the "P F Tinmore" standard, but at the time, it was acceptable. Remember, it is not just my opinion, but the opinion of the Successor Government that the process was implemented for Israel.

All you are worried about is the territorial issues. But the process is much more than that.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, some of this is true.

The Palestinians rejected 181 as they had the right to do. (Remember that question I keep asking and you keep ducking?) Nobody had the authority to force it upon them at the point of a gun so 181 was no more.

(COMMENT)

It is true, that the Arab Palestinians had a right to reject. And they did. It was not forced upon them (TRUE).

But, as it did not require both to agree and accept.

Most Respectfully,
R

Wait! Before we go any further, your post bumps into that question I keep asking and you keep ducking.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,

Ask the question.

Wait! Before we go any further, your post bumps into that question I keep asking and you keep ducking.

v/r
R

 

[teddyearp]

I hope this stays in the I/P section.

For many days I have thought about asking the posters in this section who live in the United States this theoretical question.

Background.

For many years the southwest U.S. had endured mass illegal immigration; no let me cut to the chase. "La reconquista". Which means that the Mexicans want to take over 'land' that they lost during a war that they lost.

What has the U.S. done? Started to build a wall. Sound familiar? The other side has built tunnels. Sound familiar? The U.S. have attempted to destroy the tunnels. Sound familiar?

Now let me cut to the point. Say the Mexicans/Tijuana cartel grows tired of the 'occupation' or refusal of "La Reconquista" or the destruction of their tunnels and decides to build and fire rockets towards . . . say Long Beach, California, indiscriminately.

Even thought the U.S. can probably knock down these primitive rockets with their superior technology, how long; or better, how many of these rockets would you like to fall before the U.S. goes in and kicks their collective ASS?

Probably not long at all.

Does that answer your question?

Yes. Ding, ding, ding, we have another winner!

Someone who actually stayed on topic!

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,

Ask the question.

Wait! Before we go any further, your post bumps into that question I keep asking and you keep ducking.

v/r
R

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;

A/RES/3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974

When, and under what circumstances, did the Palestinians obtain these pre existing, inalienable rights?

 

[toastman]

Where anywhere on the map does it say international boundaries of Palestine??
I got this map from mapquest, why don't you go there and find a map of Palestine with international boundaries, like I have with Israel.

Oh wait, you can't. The only map you can find is a Partition Plan map with proposed boundaries

BTW, as for crossing from Gaza to West Bank without there being a border, if you knew how to read, there is an armistice line separating the two.

Indeed.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949

Your funny map only shows the armistice lines that were drawn over top of the international borders. Example:

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949

My funny map?? That is the official map of Israel. What's the matter with you?

From the official UN website:

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/israel.pdf

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In some respects you're correct.

OK, but why does he keep quoting it when he knows, or should know, that it is false? Look at the facts on the ground. There isn't a trace of resolution 181 anywhere. The Palestinians rejected it. Israel rejected it before it mentioned it in its declaration and it would not accept it now.

Some people still mention it to foster a political agenda but it is quite dead.

(COMMENT)

While it is true that the Arabs rejected it, it is not true that the Israelis rejected it. The reason you look on the ground and don't see a trace of it ---- is because, the Arab Forces botched it all up. The entire purpose of the Arab Invasion was to attempt at external interference in the implementation process.

The Palestinians rejected 181 as they had the right to do. (Remember that question I keep asking and you keep ducking?) Nobody had the authority to force it upon them at the point of a gun so 181 was no more.

It is a lie to say that Israel accepted resolution 181. By the time Israel mentioned 181 in its declaration, it had already blown past the proposed borders and was deep into the proposed Arab area and Jerusalem. There were about 300,000 Palestinians expelled from their homes (not to mention those killed.) Before Israel's declaration.

So, what part of resolution 181 did Israel accept?

Until the invasion by the Arab Armies in 1948, the actual land apportionment part of Resolution 181(II) was in play. However, after the establishment of the Armistice Lines of 1949, Israel came-out a winner, territorially.

Yes, you are right, Israel would never accept the retrograde action of the original apportionment today. It would have to give-up too much territory acquired from the Arabs. But on 15 May 1948, the Israelis had accepted and implemented the Resolution. The Arab invasion changed that, to the Israeli advantage.

The territorial apportionment piece of the Resolution was overtaken by event and evolved as a result of the military loses incurred by Arab Forces. But that just shows you how flexible the resolution was.

WOW, you are deep into Israel's propaganda territory here. It is said that because the Arab armies lost the 1948 war, (not true but that is a different story for another day) that Israel won land from the Palestinians.

How did Egypt, Jordan, etc. lose Palestinian land to Israel?

But then, it must also be remembered that Jordan got its piece (the West Bank) and Egypt got its piece (Gaza). So not the entire Arab Force missed their nationalistic agenda.

Most Respectfully,
R

Deep into Israeli propaganda? Oh please Tinmore! What he said is 100% true and you haven't even proven otherwise.
The land that Israel gained in the 1948 war was not 'Palestinian Land'. Sure they owned land, but it was actually land that was allotted to them in the partition plan. They had no sovereignty over it . Remember, they rejected 181 at that point (but then used it as a basis to declare independence in 1988)

That land is inside the green line. It belongs to Israel. The U.N and PA even recognize it as Israels .


Wow, I can't believe I'm bothering explaining this to you

 

[Wry Catcher]

I hope this stays in the I/P section.

For many days I have thought about asking the posters in this section who live in the United States this theoretical question.

Background.

For many years the southwest U.S. had endured mass illegal immigration; no let me cut to the chase. "La reconquista". Which means that the Mexicans want to take over 'land' that they lost during a war that they lost.

What has the U.S. done? Started to build a wall. Sound familiar? The other side has built tunnels. Sound familiar? The U.S. have attempted to destroy the tunnels. Sound familiar?

Now let me cut to the point. Say the Mexicans/Tijuana cartel grows tired of the 'occupation' or refusal of "La Reconquista" or the destruction of their tunnels and decides to build and fire rockets towards . . . say Long Beach, California, indiscriminately.

Even thought the U.S. can probably knock down these primitive rockets with their superior technology, how long; or better, how many of these rockets would you like to fall before the U.S. goes in and kicks their collective ASS?

The scenarios are not comparable. Mexico ceded land to the US in a post war treaty. Some was purchased by the US.

There has been no treaty ceding land to Israel.

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, some of this is true.

The Palestinians rejected 181 as they had the right to do. (Remember that question I keep asking and you keep ducking?) Nobody had the authority to force it upon them at the point of a gun so 181 was no more.

(COMMENT)

It is true, that the Arab Palestinians had a right to reject. And they did. It was not forced upon them (TRUE).

But, as it did not require both to agree and accept.

F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS

When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.

4. The Commission, after consultation with the democratic parties and other public organizations of The Arab and Jewish States, shall select and establish in each State as rapidly as possible a Provisional Council of Government. The activities of both the Arab and Jewish Provisional Councils of Government shall be carried out under the general direction of the Commission.





SOURCE: Resolution 181

It is a lie to say that Israel accepted resolution 181. By the time Israel mentioned 181 in its declaration, it had already blown past the proposed borders and was deep into the proposed Arab area and Jerusalem. There were about 300,000 Palestinians expelled from their homes (not to mention those killed.) Before Israel's declaration.

So, what part of resolution 181 did Israel accept?

(COMMENT)

The implementation process started well before May, as you can see. Israel had already communicated its intentions to the UNPC, the Successor Government to the UK. Israel was already involved in the transition process outline in the Steps Preparatory to Independence.

The inner working and latent processes between Israel and the Successor Government may not meet the "P F Tinmore" standard, but at the time, it was acceptable. Remember, it is not just my opinion, but the opinion of the Successor Government that the process was implemented for Israel.

All you are worried about is the territorial issues. But the process is much more than that.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ah yes, the PF Tinmore standard

 

[P F Tinmore]

Where anywhere on the map does it say international boundaries of Palestine??
I got this map from mapquest, why don't you go there and find a map of Palestine with international boundaries, like I have with Israel.

Oh wait, you can't. The only map you can find is a Partition Plan map with proposed boundaries

BTW, as for crossing from Gaza to West Bank without there being a border, if you knew how to read, there is an armistice line separating the two.

Indeed.



Your funny map only shows the armistice lines that were drawn over top of the international borders. Example:

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949

My funny map?? That is the official map of Israel. What's the matter with you?

From the official UN website:

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/israel.pdf

Is that the map with the disclaimer on the bottom?

The designations employed and the presentation of material on this
map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the
part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal
status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities or
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Indeed it is!

 

[RoccoR]

toastman, et al,

Yes, indeed. Every Map the UN has generally published has a disclaimer on it.

Is that the map with the disclaimer on the bottom?

The designations employed and the presentation of material on this
map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the
part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal
status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities or
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Indeed it is!

(COMMENT)

The UN Secretariat is an administrative body. I cannot attest to anything. Its Maps are for information only. That is what the disclaimer is all about.

There are some Maps, associated usually with treaties, that are on file with the UN, but not UN Maps that don't have the disclaimer on it.

As an example, this Map shows international boundaries based on the Israeli Egyptian Peace Treaty. It is signed by both sides of the dispute.

Our friend P F Tinmore uses this "disclaimer" trick as a means to discredit generally accepted information provided on UN Maps. It is a necessary parlor trick; otherwise the entire premise of the Palestinian Thesis would be put asunder. It works for him as shield to deny "common knowledge." He has several of these tricks.

Remember, the Arab Palestinian, like that of P F Tinmore, believes that Israel is an illegal entity. That somehow, there is something somewhere that says the former Mandate of Palestine belongs to the Arabs. It is a basic tenant of HAMAS and the Palestinian National Council. But don't be fooled. These are mere propaganda parlor tricks.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

Indeed.



Your funny map only shows the armistice lines that were drawn over top of the international borders. Example:

My funny map?? That is the official map of Israel. What's the matter with you?

From the official UN website:

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/israel.pdf

Is that the map with the disclaimer on the bottom?

The designations employed and the presentation of material on this
map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the
part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal
status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities or
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Indeed it is!

Your point? It says that for every map in the website lol! You proved nothing!

You can argue all you want, but that is the official map of Israel . But like Rocco said, you don't recognize Israel. Luckily, your recognition is not needed.

So far, all your lies have been dismantled, again and you have failed to refute any of mine or Rocco's post.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Where anywhere on the map does it say international boundaries of Palestine??
I got this map from mapquest, why don't you go there and find a map of Palestine with international boundaries, like I have with Israel.

Oh wait, you can't. The only map you can find is a Partition Plan map with proposed boundaries

BTW, as for crossing from Gaza to West Bank without there being a border, if you knew how to read, there is an armistice line separating the two.

Indeed.



Your funny map only shows the armistice lines that were drawn over top of the international borders. Example:

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949

My funny map?? That is the official map of Israel. What's the matter with you?

From the official UN website:

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/israel.pdf

OK, but that does not address my post.

Are you trying to deflect?