Can Palestinians Govern "Palestine?"

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you almost have it. You are still shopping for the answer you want.

The Declaratory Theory is the "hard fact." This "hard fact" was given form when Israel asserted its sovereignty within the territory Israel exclusively controlled. While the Declaration of Independent may have been shaped by the UN Recommends adopted in 1947 [A/RES/181 (II)].

Like a military occupation?

(COMMENT)

In this case, there is some confusion. A "military occupation" is all about "effective control" (not exclusive control). In a "Military occupation" the Occupying Power does not have exclusive control as is a sovereign power over domestic sovereign territory.

Occupation may be defined as the effective control of a foreign territory by hostile armed forces. This definition derives from Article 42 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, which states that “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” (See Footnote #1: Occupation and Other Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory.)

Exclusive Control is more ultimate power to control people and events within the area of the sovereign state.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are ducking my post.

Can Palestinians Govern "Palestine?"

Why do you always come out with this when you are shown to be wrong using unbiased sources ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you have to remember that, on 15 May the Arab League crossed the frontier as armed aggressors exerting an external influence. By launching such an attack it introduced a number of changes that otherwise may have turned-out differently.

There were many parts to Resolution 181.

• Proposed borders
• Land for two states.
• International Jerusalem.
• Rights of the people.
• Citizenship.
• UN control of the millitary.
• Constitutions.

Where was Israel on these issues?

(COMMENT)

In general, a formal declaration made by Government of Israel accepted all the obligations stipulated in the United Nations Charter is enclosed; at a time Prior to the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors. Once more, the The Partition Plan A/RES/181 (II) was a recommendation only; UN Special Committee.

• Borders: Prior to the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors, Israel assumed their basic position as: he State of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within the frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947. - See more at: The hidden documents that reveal the true borders of Israel and Palestine (Updated)

• Two-States: Prior to the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors, the Israeli position envisioned a Two-State (Israel - Palestine) starting at the end of the Mandate, which would lead to the establishment of two states in a series of parallel stages. Because the Plan was rejected by the Arab side, it could not be implemented.

• Jerusalem: Prior to the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors, assumed that the UN recommendation on the issue of Jerusalem would be the interim position. However, the Government House in the neutralized area, established by the United Nations in its effort to pacify an increasing area of the Holy City.

• Rights of the People: Israel did accept in principle, freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly and association; including the non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, and economic matters.

• Citizenship: This is a Part I - Section C - Chapter 3 - Clause 1: issue and NOT a Step Preparatory to Independence. Having said that: Israel had a basic acceptance that Arabs residing in the area of the proposed Jewish State intending to remain in the Jewish State would be granted Israeli Citizenship. Citizenship would be a Post War consideration.

• UN Control of Military:

• Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, May 15, 1948 --- states in part: The "Provisional Government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law.

• In S/1093, Israel adopted the position formally that the independence of the State of Israel was proclaimed by the National Council of the Jewish People in Palestine. Since that time --- Israel has been improving administratively and defended itself successfully against the aggression of Arab League.
​

• Constitutions: Israel operates under the Basic Law concept, as do many independent states. There several Basic Laws that pertain to the rights outlined in the Steps Preparatory to Independence. One such law is: Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty​

But what I gather here is that you are trying to find something that the Israelis did not accomplish within the list of Steps Preparatory to Independence. And much of that was truncated by the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors against Israel. What I think is even more incredible is that for as much as you pound on the concept of these various rights you fail to acknowledge that the Arab League entered into an international armed conflict (IAC) on a justification contrary to the UN Charter. While Israel seldom makes this an issue, probably because the Arab League lost more effective control, then it achieved. This is true in 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.

Again, it should be stressed that Israel never took any territory that was under the effective control of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Interesting link. I have read that before.

The hidden documents that reveal the true borders of Israel and Palestine (Updated)

There are some contradictions in this article.

The words of the Declaration are intended to suggest that the creation of Israel was authorized by the United Nations. This is not correct. The UN does not have authority under its Charter to create or divide states. The Partition Plan was a recommendation only. The Plan envisaged a process, starting at the end of the Mandate, which would lead to the establishment of two states in a series of parallel stages. Because the Plan was rejected by the Arab side, it could not be implemented.​

OK, so who does?

Borders can be changed, but a state can only acquire territory from a neighbor by legal annexation, that is, by agreement, and with a referendum of the population. Obtaining territory by war violates fundamental principles of the UN Charter. Nevertheless, this is what Israel did.​

So, how did Israel claim Resolution 181 borders when the UN had no authority to partition Palestine? Resolution 181 was a recommendation that was not implemented.

That is the contradiction. Accordingly Israel could not acquire any land without an agreement with the Palestinians. Not just the land outside of the partition plan that did not happen.

Rocco, you are still ducking my post.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you have to remember that, on 15 May the Arab League crossed the frontier as armed aggressors exerting an external influence. By launching such an attack it introduced a number of changes that otherwise may have turned-out differently.

There were many parts to Resolution 181.

• Proposed borders
• Land for two states.
• International Jerusalem.
• Rights of the people.
• Citizenship.
• UN control of the millitary.
• Constitutions.

Where was Israel on these issues?

(COMMENT)

In general, a formal declaration made by Government of Israel accepted all the obligations stipulated in the United Nations Charter is enclosed; at a time Prior to the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors. Once more, the The Partition Plan A/RES/181 (II) was a recommendation only; UN Special Committee.

• Borders: Prior to the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors, Israel assumed their basic position as: he State of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within the frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947. - See more at: The hidden documents that reveal the true borders of Israel and Palestine (Updated)

• Two-States: Prior to the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors, the Israeli position envisioned a Two-State (Israel - Palestine) starting at the end of the Mandate, which would lead to the establishment of two states in a series of parallel stages. Because the Plan was rejected by the Arab side, it could not be implemented.

• Jerusalem: Prior to the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors, assumed that the UN recommendation on the issue of Jerusalem would be the interim position. However, the Government House in the neutralized area, established by the United Nations in its effort to pacify an increasing area of the Holy City.

• Rights of the People: Israel did accept in principle, freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly and association; including the non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, and economic matters.

• Citizenship: This is a Part I - Section C - Chapter 3 - Clause 1: issue and NOT a Step Preparatory to Independence. Having said that: Israel had a basic acceptance that Arabs residing in the area of the proposed Jewish State intending to remain in the Jewish State would be granted Israeli Citizenship. Citizenship would be a Post War consideration.

• UN Control of Military:

• Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, May 15, 1948 --- states in part: The "Provisional Government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law.

• In S/1093, Israel adopted the position formally that the independence of the State of Israel was proclaimed by the National Council of the Jewish People in Palestine. Since that time --- Israel has been improving administratively and defended itself successfully against the aggression of Arab League.
​

• Constitutions: Israel operates under the Basic Law concept, as do many independent states. There several Basic Laws that pertain to the rights outlined in the Steps Preparatory to Independence. One such law is: Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty​

But what I gather here is that you are trying to find something that the Israelis did not accomplish within the list of Steps Preparatory to Independence. And much of that was truncated by the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors against Israel. What I think is even more incredible is that for as much as you pound on the concept of these various rights you fail to acknowledge that the Arab League entered into an international armed conflict (IAC) on a justification contrary to the UN Charter. While Israel seldom makes this an issue, probably because the Arab League lost more effective control, then it achieved. This is true in 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.

Again, it should be stressed that Israel never took any territory that was under the effective control of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Interesting link. I have read that before.

The hidden documents that reveal the true borders of Israel and Palestine (Updated)

There are some contradictions in this article.

The words of the Declaration are intended to suggest that the creation of Israel was authorized by the United Nations. This is not correct. The UN does not have authority under its Charter to create or divide states. The Partition Plan was a recommendation only. The Plan envisaged a process, starting at the end of the Mandate, which would lead to the establishment of two states in a series of parallel stages. Because the Plan was rejected by the Arab side, it could not be implemented.​

OK, so who does?

Borders can be changed, but a state can only acquire territory from a neighbor by legal annexation, that is, by agreement, and with a referendum of the population. Obtaining territory by war violates fundamental principles of the UN Charter. Nevertheless, this is what Israel did.​

So, how did Israel claim Resolution 181 borders when the UN had no authority to partition Palestine? Resolution 181 was a recommendation that was not implemented.

That is the contradiction. Accordingly Israel could not acquire any land without an agreement with the Palestinians. Not just the land outside of the partition plan that did not happen.

Rocco, you are still ducking my post.

WRONG you are the one ducking the answers because they go against what you believe, so you want to only see posts that agree with your POV.

The arab muslims had no say in what Israel or the Jews did, they denied the LoN and the UN when asked to come on board and be part of the solution. So they exercised their free determination and blew their whole foot off in the process, no do-overs can be put in place without breaching the UN charter, IHL and International laws

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you have to remember that, on 15 May the Arab League crossed the frontier as armed aggressors exerting an external influence. By launching such an attack it introduced a number of changes that otherwise may have turned-out differently.

There were many parts to Resolution 181.

• Proposed borders
• Land for two states.
• International Jerusalem.
• Rights of the people.
• Citizenship.
• UN control of the millitary.
• Constitutions.

Where was Israel on these issues?

(COMMENT)

In general, a formal declaration made by Government of Israel accepted all the obligations stipulated in the United Nations Charter is enclosed; at a time Prior to the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors. Once more, the The Partition Plan A/RES/181 (II) was a recommendation only; UN Special Committee.

• Borders: Prior to the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors, Israel assumed their basic position as: he State of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within the frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947. - See more at: The hidden documents that reveal the true borders of Israel and Palestine (Updated)

• Two-States: Prior to the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors, the Israeli position envisioned a Two-State (Israel - Palestine) starting at the end of the Mandate, which would lead to the establishment of two states in a series of parallel stages. Because the Plan was rejected by the Arab side, it could not be implemented.

• Jerusalem: Prior to the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors, assumed that the UN recommendation on the issue of Jerusalem would be the interim position. However, the Government House in the neutralized area, established by the United Nations in its effort to pacify an increasing area of the Holy City.

• Rights of the People: Israel did accept in principle, freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly and association; including the non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, and economic matters.

• Citizenship: This is a Part I - Section C - Chapter 3 - Clause 1: issue and NOT a Step Preparatory to Independence. Having said that: Israel had a basic acceptance that Arabs residing in the area of the proposed Jewish State intending to remain in the Jewish State would be granted Israeli Citizenship. Citizenship would be a Post War consideration.

• UN Control of Military:

• Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, May 15, 1948 --- states in part: The "Provisional Government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law.

• In S/1093, Israel adopted the position formally that the independence of the State of Israel was proclaimed by the National Council of the Jewish People in Palestine. Since that time --- Israel has been improving administratively and defended itself successfully against the aggression of Arab League.
​

• Constitutions: Israel operates under the Basic Law concept, as do many independent states. There several Basic Laws that pertain to the rights outlined in the Steps Preparatory to Independence. One such law is: Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty​

But what I gather here is that you are trying to find something that the Israelis did not accomplish within the list of Steps Preparatory to Independence. And much of that was truncated by the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors against Israel. What I think is even more incredible is that for as much as you pound on the concept of these various rights you fail to acknowledge that the Arab League entered into an international armed conflict (IAC) on a justification contrary to the UN Charter. While Israel seldom makes this an issue, probably because the Arab League lost more effective control, then it achieved. This is true in 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.

Again, it should be stressed that Israel never took any territory that was under the effective control of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Interesting link. I have read that before.

The hidden documents that reveal the true borders of Israel and Palestine (Updated)

There are some contradictions in this article.

The words of the Declaration are intended to suggest that the creation of Israel was authorized by the United Nations. This is not correct. The UN does not have authority under its Charter to create or divide states. The Partition Plan was a recommendation only. The Plan envisaged a process, starting at the end of the Mandate, which would lead to the establishment of two states in a series of parallel stages. Because the Plan was rejected by the Arab side, it could not be implemented.​

OK, so who does?

Borders can be changed, but a state can only acquire territory from a neighbor by legal annexation, that is, by agreement, and with a referendum of the population. Obtaining territory by war violates fundamental principles of the UN Charter. Nevertheless, this is what Israel did.​

So, how did Israel claim Resolution 181 borders when the UN had no authority to partition Palestine? Resolution 181 was a recommendation that was not implemented.

That is the contradiction. Accordingly Israel could not acquire any land without an agreement with the Palestinians. Not just the land outside of the partition plan that did not happen.

Rocco, you are still ducking my post.

Here ya' go, Tinmore.


You are ducking my post.™


Nice dodge™


How does that address my post™


The above are three of the most often responses you dump into threads when you're arguments are refuted. Feel free to save them in a Microsoft Word file for a handy cut and paste.

For as much time as you spend attempting to re-write history, the inescapable facts are that the Jews took the steps to establish independence, build a first world society and a modern economy, which the Arabs-Moslems could not.

Over the last six decades, the so-called Pal'istanians have provided no indication that they have the ability to build a functioning society. There is nothing to separate the Pal'istanian terrorists from any other of the retrograde, third world islamic countries that seem to continually be struggling to claw themselves out of the 7th century.

Natan Sharansky, (who was a political prisoner in Soviet Russia) authored a book entitled “The Case for Democracy”. In his book he discusses the differences between the free societies of Western liberal democracy and the fear societies of communism, Theocracies (ie: Mullocracies and other such politico-religious ideologies that discriminate against and subjugate those not of the “required” ideology), and other forms of totalitarianism. Mr. Sharansky delineated many truths about the rulers of fear societies. They cannot maintain their authority through free elections, preservation of human rights or protection of civil liberties. So, they maintain their stranglehold on absolute power through a comprehensive institution of fear. When a people are occupied with threats of imprisonment, the dread of disappearing in the night or the real possibility of turning up beheaded, dumped alongside a barren stretch of road, they are not likely to challenge the status quo.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you have to remember that, on 15 May the Arab League crossed the frontier as armed aggressors exerting an external influence. By launching such an attack it introduced a number of changes that otherwise may have turned-out differently.

There were many parts to Resolution 181.

• Proposed borders
• Land for two states.
• International Jerusalem.
• Rights of the people.
• Citizenship.
• UN control of the millitary.
• Constitutions.

Where was Israel on these issues?

(COMMENT)

In general, a formal declaration made by Government of Israel accepted all the obligations stipulated in the United Nations Charter is enclosed; at a time Prior to the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors. Once more, the The Partition Plan A/RES/181 (II) was a recommendation only; UN Special Committee.

• Borders: Prior to the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors, Israel assumed their basic position as: he State of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within the frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947. - See more at: The hidden documents that reveal the true borders of Israel and Palestine (Updated)

• Two-States: Prior to the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors, the Israeli position envisioned a Two-State (Israel - Palestine) starting at the end of the Mandate, which would lead to the establishment of two states in a series of parallel stages. Because the Plan was rejected by the Arab side, it could not be implemented.

• Jerusalem: Prior to the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors, assumed that the UN recommendation on the issue of Jerusalem would be the interim position. However, the Government House in the neutralized area, established by the United Nations in its effort to pacify an increasing area of the Holy City.

• Rights of the People: Israel did accept in principle, freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly and association; including the non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, and economic matters.

• Citizenship: This is a Part I - Section C - Chapter 3 - Clause 1: issue and NOT a Step Preparatory to Independence. Having said that: Israel had a basic acceptance that Arabs residing in the area of the proposed Jewish State intending to remain in the Jewish State would be granted Israeli Citizenship. Citizenship would be a Post War consideration.

• UN Control of Military:

• Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, May 15, 1948 --- states in part: The "Provisional Government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law.

• In S/1093, Israel adopted the position formally that the independence of the State of Israel was proclaimed by the National Council of the Jewish People in Palestine. Since that time --- Israel has been improving administratively and defended itself successfully against the aggression of Arab League.
​

• Constitutions: Israel operates under the Basic Law concept, as do many independent states. There several Basic Laws that pertain to the rights outlined in the Steps Preparatory to Independence. One such law is: Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty​

But what I gather here is that you are trying to find something that the Israelis did not accomplish within the list of Steps Preparatory to Independence. And much of that was truncated by the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors against Israel. What I think is even more incredible is that for as much as you pound on the concept of these various rights you fail to acknowledge that the Arab League entered into an international armed conflict (IAC) on a justification contrary to the UN Charter. While Israel seldom makes this an issue, probably because the Arab League lost more effective control, then it achieved. This is true in 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.

Again, it should be stressed that Israel never took any territory that was under the effective control of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Interesting link. I have read that before.

The hidden documents that reveal the true borders of Israel and Palestine (Updated)

There are some contradictions in this article.

The words of the Declaration are intended to suggest that the creation of Israel was authorized by the United Nations. This is not correct. The UN does not have authority under its Charter to create or divide states. The Partition Plan was a recommendation only. The Plan envisaged a process, starting at the end of the Mandate, which would lead to the establishment of two states in a series of parallel stages. Because the Plan was rejected by the Arab side, it could not be implemented.​

OK, so who does?

Borders can be changed, but a state can only acquire territory from a neighbor by legal annexation, that is, by agreement, and with a referendum of the population. Obtaining territory by war violates fundamental principles of the UN Charter. Nevertheless, this is what Israel did.​

So, how did Israel claim Resolution 181 borders when the UN had no authority to partition Palestine? Resolution 181 was a recommendation that was not implemented.

That is the contradiction. Accordingly Israel could not acquire any land without an agreement with the Palestinians. Not just the land outside of the partition plan that did not happen.

Rocco, you are still ducking my post.

Here ya' go, Tinmore.


You are ducking my post.™


Nice dodge™


How does that address my post™


The above are three of the most often responses you dump into threads when you're arguments are refuted. Feel free to save them in a Microsoft Word file for a handy cut and paste.

For as much time as you spend attempting to re-write history, the inescapable facts are that the Jews took the steps to establish independence, build a first world society and a modern economy, which the Arabs-Moslems could not.

Over the last six decades, the so-called Pal'istanians have provided no indication that they have the ability to build a functioning society. There is nothing to separate the Pal'istanian terrorists from any other of the retrograde, third world islamic countries that seem to continually be struggling to claw themselves out of the 7th century.

Natan Sharansky, (who was a political prisoner in Soviet Russia) authored a book entitled “The Case for Democracy”. In his book he discusses the differences between the free societies of Western liberal democracy and the fear societies of communism, Theocracies (ie: Mullocracies and other such politico-religious ideologies that discriminate against and subjugate those not of the “required” ideology), and other forms of totalitarianism. Mr. Sharansky delineated many truths about the rulers of fear societies. They cannot maintain their authority through free elections, preservation of human rights or protection of civil liberties. So, they maintain their stranglehold on absolute power through a comprehensive institution of fear. When a people are occupied with threats of imprisonment, the dread of disappearing in the night or the real possibility of turning up beheaded, dumped alongside a barren stretch of road, they are not likely to challenge the status quo.

Nice piece of verbosity but it says nothing about my post.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you have to remember that, on 15 May the Arab League crossed the frontier as armed aggressors exerting an external influence. By launching such an attack it introduced a number of changes that otherwise may have turned-out differently.

There were many parts to Resolution 181.

• Proposed borders
• Land for two states.
• International Jerusalem.
• Rights of the people.
• Citizenship.
• UN control of the millitary.
• Constitutions.

Where was Israel on these issues?

(COMMENT)

In general, a formal declaration made by Government of Israel accepted all the obligations stipulated in the United Nations Charter is enclosed; at a time Prior to the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors. Once more, the The Partition Plan A/RES/181 (II) was a recommendation only; UN Special Committee.

• Borders: Prior to the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors, Israel assumed their basic position as: he State of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within the frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947. - See more at: The hidden documents that reveal the true borders of Israel and Palestine (Updated)

• Two-States: Prior to the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors, the Israeli position envisioned a Two-State (Israel - Palestine) starting at the end of the Mandate, which would lead to the establishment of two states in a series of parallel stages. Because the Plan was rejected by the Arab side, it could not be implemented.

• Jerusalem: Prior to the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors, assumed that the UN recommendation on the issue of Jerusalem would be the interim position. However, the Government House in the neutralized area, established by the United Nations in its effort to pacify an increasing area of the Holy City.

• Rights of the People: Israel did accept in principle, freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly and association; including the non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, and economic matters.

• Citizenship: This is a Part I - Section C - Chapter 3 - Clause 1: issue and NOT a Step Preparatory to Independence. Having said that: Israel had a basic acceptance that Arabs residing in the area of the proposed Jewish State intending to remain in the Jewish State would be granted Israeli Citizenship. Citizenship would be a Post War consideration.

• UN Control of Military:

• Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, May 15, 1948 --- states in part: The "Provisional Government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law.

• In S/1093, Israel adopted the position formally that the independence of the State of Israel was proclaimed by the National Council of the Jewish People in Palestine. Since that time --- Israel has been improving administratively and defended itself successfully against the aggression of Arab League.
​

• Constitutions: Israel operates under the Basic Law concept, as do many independent states. There several Basic Laws that pertain to the rights outlined in the Steps Preparatory to Independence. One such law is: Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty​

But what I gather here is that you are trying to find something that the Israelis did not accomplish within the list of Steps Preparatory to Independence. And much of that was truncated by the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors against Israel. What I think is even more incredible is that for as much as you pound on the concept of these various rights you fail to acknowledge that the Arab League entered into an international armed conflict (IAC) on a justification contrary to the UN Charter. While Israel seldom makes this an issue, probably because the Arab League lost more effective control, then it achieved. This is true in 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.

Again, it should be stressed that Israel never took any territory that was under the effective control of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Interesting link. I have read that before.

The hidden documents that reveal the true borders of Israel and Palestine (Updated)

There are some contradictions in this article.

The words of the Declaration are intended to suggest that the creation of Israel was authorized by the United Nations. This is not correct. The UN does not have authority under its Charter to create or divide states. The Partition Plan was a recommendation only. The Plan envisaged a process, starting at the end of the Mandate, which would lead to the establishment of two states in a series of parallel stages. Because the Plan was rejected by the Arab side, it could not be implemented.​

OK, so who does?

Borders can be changed, but a state can only acquire territory from a neighbor by legal annexation, that is, by agreement, and with a referendum of the population. Obtaining territory by war violates fundamental principles of the UN Charter. Nevertheless, this is what Israel did.​

So, how did Israel claim Resolution 181 borders when the UN had no authority to partition Palestine? Resolution 181 was a recommendation that was not implemented.

That is the contradiction. Accordingly Israel could not acquire any land without an agreement with the Palestinians. Not just the land outside of the partition plan that did not happen.

Rocco, you are still ducking my post.

Here ya' go, Tinmore.


You are ducking my post.™


Nice dodge™


How does that address my post™


The above are three of the most often responses you dump into threads when you're arguments are refuted. Feel free to save them in a Microsoft Word file for a handy cut and paste.

For as much time as you spend attempting to re-write history, the inescapable facts are that the Jews took the steps to establish independence, build a first world society and a modern economy, which the Arabs-Moslems could not.

Over the last six decades, the so-called Pal'istanians have provided no indication that they have the ability to build a functioning society. There is nothing to separate the Pal'istanian terrorists from any other of the retrograde, third world islamic countries that seem to continually be struggling to claw themselves out of the 7th century.

Natan Sharansky, (who was a political prisoner in Soviet Russia) authored a book entitled “The Case for Democracy”. In his book he discusses the differences between the free societies of Western liberal democracy and the fear societies of communism, Theocracies (ie: Mullocracies and other such politico-religious ideologies that discriminate against and subjugate those not of the “required” ideology), and other forms of totalitarianism. Mr. Sharansky delineated many truths about the rulers of fear societies. They cannot maintain their authority through free elections, preservation of human rights or protection of civil liberties. So, they maintain their stranglehold on absolute power through a comprehensive institution of fear. When a people are occupied with threats of imprisonment, the dread of disappearing in the night or the real possibility of turning up beheaded, dumped alongside a barren stretch of road, they are not likely to challenge the status quo.

Nice piece of verbosity but it says nothing about my post.

You are ducking my post.™

Nice dodge™

How does that address my post™

 

[Shusha]

Interesting link. I have read that before.

The hidden documents that reveal the true borders of Israel and Palestine (Updated)

There are some contradictions in this article.

The words of the Declaration are intended to suggest that the creation of Israel was authorized by the United Nations. This is not correct. The UN does not have authority under its Charter to create or divide states. The Partition Plan was a recommendation only. The Plan envisaged a process, starting at the end of the Mandate, which would lead to the establishment of two states in a series of parallel stages. Because the Plan was rejected by the Arab side, it could not be implemented.​

OK, so who does?

Borders can be changed, but a state can only acquire territory from a neighbor by legal annexation, that is, by agreement, and with a referendum of the population. Obtaining territory by war violates fundamental principles of the UN Charter. Nevertheless, this is what Israel did.​

So, how did Israel claim Resolution 181 borders when the UN had no authority to partition Palestine? Resolution 181 was a recommendation that was not implemented.

That is the contradiction. Accordingly Israel could not acquire any land without an agreement with the Palestinians. Not just the land outside of the partition plan that did not happen.

P F Tinmore , RoccoR

I think all of us know and agree that the UN Charter does not create or divide States. 181 was only referenced by Israel in its declaration as a descriptor of recognition and a willingness to implement the plan. The question is whether or not that declaration had the legally binding effect of permanently ceding territory and if so, what subsequently became the legal status of the ceded territory.

Did the land become terra nullius (land belonging to no one)? Did it remain part of the undivided nation that I call Israel and Tinmore calls Palestine? Did it become territory belonging to the State which exercised effective control over it (Jordan and Egypt)?

In order for Israel to have been deemed to acquire land by war or, indeed, to be occupying any of the territory, Israel must have had a border within that territory and then ceded part of it and then re-taken it. When and how did that happen?

And if that happened, how can Egypt and Jordan have signed a peace treaty with Israel declaring borders between those States and Israel?

My opinion is that 181 was not implemented and had no effect either of itself nor through Israel's Declaration of Independence therefore, there was no change in the territorial integrity of the borders of the Mandate and the entire territory is Israel as was envisioned (required) in the Mandate (aka a Homeland for the Jewish People, by right of historical sovereignty). However, that said, Israel recognizes the existence of another peoples in that territory, acknowledges their desire for self-determination and separation of some portion of Israel into another nation State.




Does anyone have a reference for a requirement for a referendum before treaty negotiations and subsequent changes in territorial sovereignty? I have never seen such a thing. And I don't believe referendums were held in many, if any, of the newly created States during the same events. (And WOW! would that ever have consequences in issue of the "settlements".)

 

[Kondor3]

Can Palestinians govern themselves?

No.

For that, you need a united people.

For that, you need more than two postage-stamp sized pieces of land, in order to sustain a nation.

The rag-tag, ignorant, rabid, in-fighting, motley crew we jokingly call 'Palestinians', lack the land, resources, unity, resolve, intelligence and talent to do it.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, I labeled each point and answered each.

Rocco, you are still ducking my post.

(COMMENT)

Nothing happens instantaneously. When the Arab League decided to break the UN Charter and cross their frontiers (fully expecting to suppress the Jewish State), the entire process changed at that point. Even the Successor Government changed hands.

So, Arab League was unable to achieve any significant military objective in the 1948-49 Conflict, that they would compensate for the political and diplomatic failures as a result of excessive demands. And that leads us right up to today. The pattern in the lack of military accomplishment (not once, not twice, not even on the third attempt with a sneak attack) and the continuation of perpetual threats for perpetual conflict by Jihadist, Terrorist, Fedayeen Activity, Rebels and organized Resistance Impostors, brings us to the point where the fantasy land of the State of Palestine only exists by the grace of donor nations.

As the League of Nations Covenant said, "until such time as they are able to stand alone." Now I have heard nearly every excuse about why the Hostile Arab Palestinians have been unable to achieve the "stand alone" goal. And the excuses nearly always point to the Israelis (the Israelis did this and the Israelis did that). It should be noted that between 1949 (The Armistices) and 1967 (The Six-Day War) Israel was peaceful and building a nation. During that time, the Hostile Arab Palestinians, accomplished nothing that would add significantly to national development.

AND NO! I did not duck anything in your post. You are just trying to find some political bone to pick just to make it appear that the Palestinians are Lilly White and the Israelis are Light Green and Loam.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, I labeled each point and answered each.

Rocco, you are still ducking my post.

(COMMENT)

Nothing happens instantaneously. When the Arab League decided to break the UN Charter and cross their frontiers (fully expecting to suppress the Jewish State), the entire process changed at that point. Even the Successor Government changed hands.

So, Arab League was unable to achieve any significant military objective in the 1948-49 Conflict, that they would compensate for the political and diplomatic failures as a result of excessive demands. And that leads us right up to today. The pattern in the lack of military accomplishment (not once, not twice, not even on the third attempt with a sneak attack) and the continuation of perpetual threats for perpetual conflict by Jihadist, Terrorist, Fedayeen Activity, Rebels and organized Resistance Impostors, brings us to the point where the fantasy land of the State of Palestine only exists by the grace of donor nations.

As the League of Nations Covenant said, "until such time as they are able to stand alone." Now I have heard nearly every excuse about why the Hostile Arab Palestinians have been unable to achieve the "stand alone" goal. And the excuses nearly always point to the Israelis (the Israelis did this and the Israelis did that). It should be noted that between 1949 (The Armistices) and 1967 (The Six-Day War) Israel was peaceful and building a nation. During that time, the Hostile Arab Palestinians, accomplished nothing that would add significantly to national development.

AND NO! I did not duck anything in your post. You are just trying to find some political bone to pick just to make it appear that the Palestinians are Lilly White and the Israelis are Light Green and Loam.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of all this addresses my post?

Borders can be changed, but a state can only acquire territory from a neighbor by legal annexation, that is, by agreement, and with a referendum of the population. Obtaining territory by war violates fundamental principles of the UN Charter. Nevertheless, this is what Israel did.​

So, how did Israel claim Resolution 181 borders when the UN had no authority to partition Palestine? Resolution 181 was a recommendation that was not implemented.

That is the contradiction. Accordingly Israel could not acquire any land without an agreement with the Palestinians. Not just the land outside of the partition plan that did not happen.​

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are not reading.

What part of all this addresses my post?

Borders can be changed, but a state can only acquire territory from a neighbor by legal annexation, that is, by agreement, and with a referendum of the population. Obtaining territory by war violates fundamental principles of the UN Charter. Nevertheless, this is what Israel did.
​

So, how did Israel claim Resolution 181 borders when the UN had no authority to partition Palestine? Resolution 181 was a recommendation that was not implemented.

That is the contradiction. Accordingly Israel could not acquire any land without an agreement with the Palestinians. Not just the land outside of the partition plan that did not happen.​

(COMMENT)

A/RES/181 (II) is a recommended action guide. BUT as has been said over and over again, the DECLARATIVE process using the self-determination was the authority to lay claim from the Allied Powers have title and rights by Treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are not reading.

What part of all this addresses my post?

Borders can be changed, but a state can only acquire territory from a neighbor by legal annexation, that is, by agreement, and with a referendum of the population. Obtaining territory by war violates fundamental principles of the UN Charter. Nevertheless, this is what Israel did.
​

So, how did Israel claim Resolution 181 borders when the UN had no authority to partition Palestine? Resolution 181 was a recommendation that was not implemented.

That is the contradiction. Accordingly Israel could not acquire any land without an agreement with the Palestinians. Not just the land outside of the partition plan that did not happen.​

(COMMENT)

A/RES/181 (II) is a recommended action guide. BUT as has been said over and over again, the DECLARATIVE process using the self-determination was the authority to lay claim from the Allied Powers have title and rights by Treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R

That ducks my post.

 

[flacaltenn]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you misread the tense. This statement was made in connection with the post-Agreement phase. Relative to the comment made by MJB12741: "The worst punishment Israel could inflict on the Palestinians would be self government,with self determination without having Israel to suck off of to support them any longer."

The United States government has announced a new contribution of nearly US$ 68 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), including more than US$ 3.8 million for the construction of a multipurpose school building in Zohour to replace the current rented facilities and more than $1.3 million for the extension of Jordan Field operations support office (OSO). The majority of the nearly $68 million contribution will go to the Agency's Programme Budget to support more than 170 UNRWA schools in Jordan; as well as its health clinics and social services programmes, which help Palestine refugees’ efforts to stay healthy and secure.
SOURCE: UNRWA US Announces Additional $68M Contribution to Support Palestine Refugee

This is all about what happens after (if ever) the Israelis and the Palestinians agree and begin a withdrawal from the West Bank.

Where as, the US donor contribution to the Palestinians would probably go down; because they have virtually no expected return on any US investment.

Not true. The money the US gives to the "Palestinians" is to protect Israel.

(COMMENT)

First, the return on US Dollar Investment given to the Palestinians is not now, nor expected to be in the future, about the protection of Israel; not even the US Security Assistance funding for PA Security Forces. It is about setting the conditions to meet Article 43 HR (law and order) prior to an agreed upon withdrawal from the West Bank.

View attachment 90425​

The effectiveness of U.S. assistance to the Palestinians in furthering U.S. policy objectives might be defined by answers to the following questions:

( Quote From U.S. Foreign Aid to the Palestinians CRS RS22967 18 MAR 16)
 How does it affect U.S. influence with Palestinians in working toward regional policy objectives?
 How does it address short-term (i.e., humanitarian) needs?
 How does it address longer-term development, governance, and reform efforts?​

Again, you misunderstand the various purposes for the various kinds of funding, and how the change in conditions changes the direction and focus of funding.

If the Palestinians were to come forth with acceptable conditions that actually (not theoretically) lead to a withdrawal, the US will in all probability, cut a substantial portion of funding to the PA (or successor government); simply because the US would not want that funding to be used in hostile activities against Israel. Likewise, the US would increase funding to Israel's defensive capabilities to offset the potential for staging Arab Forces (Hostile Arab Palestinians) within 9 miles of Netanya, 10 miles from Beersheba, and 11 miles from Tel Aviv.

Currently, the US is getting virtually no return on its investment from the US Dollars and equipment provided to the PA, relative to Israeli Security. In fact, one only needs to read this Discussion Group and watch as violent events occur and the low and order declines relative to the safety and security of Israeli Citizens. Incident levels are increasing --- not decreasing.

Most Respectfully,
R

Currently, the US is getting virtually no return on its investment from the US Dollars and equipment provided to the PA, relative to Israeli Security.​

You don't give military aid to a place that has no generally agreed upon govt. And is split between rival factions that want to kill each other. . Are you nutz? That shouldn't even BE on the table until the proper leadership and authorities are in place.

 

[flacaltenn]

One of Two things need to happen. Because it's clear that there is no history of a united governed Palestine and recent history bears out how fragile any attempts to Nationalize the cause really are.

1) There must be a "protectorate" based on a neighborhood solution. With Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel joining in. That's what's left of STABILITY in the entire region outside of Iran. Put aside the Pali territory, create transportation and trade corridors and hold it all in TRUST until some form of self-governance is established WITHOUT extremist influence. Doesn't have to be a single nation state. Could be a weak federation of City States.

Do it FOR them OR --

2) Set a date certain for a UNIFIED and RATIFIED Pali government. Time is floating by. And generations are being wasted. Open special diplomatic channels to the neighborhood including Israel. Laying out a timetable for a full proposal on how this govt derives funding, creation of a legal system, proposals for policing, adherence to Intl law, etc. NO talks on borders, aid or trade until this is done. No more than 4 years.

If the timeline is NOT MET or they start killing each other again -- reconsider #1.
Barring those options, there will never a Pali state. Best hope would be a semi-autonomous region composed of a few independently governed city states. Gaza, Ramallah, Hebron, ect.

 

[Shusha]

That is the contradiction. Accordingly Israel could not acquire any land without an agreement with the Palestinians. Not just the land outside of the partition plan that did not happen.

Israel did not acquire land. At no time has Israel acquired any territory. Step by step.

The Ottoman Empire was dissolved.

The Ottoman Empire (now Turkey) ceded all claims to territory, of which, "Palestine" was part.

The territory was ceded to the control of the Allied Powers for the purpose of self-determination and self-government of various groups as they became capable of said government.

One of those groups was the Jewish People and the territory ceded for their self-determination and self-government was what was left of "Palestine" after Jordan's people were given its own self-determination.

The Jewish People, having completed the necessary steps, having established a government, DECLARED its independence (from the Mandate of the Allied Powers) just as Jordan and Syria and Iraq declared their independence. It is the declaration of independence and the recognition of independence which brings a State into being. Done and done. Israel is a State on all of the territory.

Jordan and Egypt sign peace treaties with Israel delineating the borders between their respective nations and Israel.

Much later, 1988, Palestine declared its own independence (from Israel). Israel essentially accepted this in principle. A negotiated peace treaty between Israel and the government of Palestine permitted Palestine temporary government over Gaza and Area A and temporary limited government over Area B. Israel maintains complete control over Area C (they maintain control -- they already had it both legally and effectively). ALL final dispositions were left to negotiation and treaty.

So, P F Tinmore , where do you think I have this wrong and why?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you have to remember that, on 15 May the Arab League crossed the frontier as armed aggressors exerting an external influence. By launching such an attack it introduced a number of changes that otherwise may have turned-out differently.

There were many parts to Resolution 181.

• Proposed borders
• Land for two states.
• International Jerusalem.
• Rights of the people.
• Citizenship.
• UN control of the millitary.
• Constitutions.

Where was Israel on these issues?

(COMMENT)

In general, a formal declaration made by Government of Israel accepted all the obligations stipulated in the United Nations Charter is enclosed; at a time Prior to the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors. Once more, the The Partition Plan A/RES/181 (II) was a recommendation only; UN Special Committee.

• Borders: Prior to the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors, Israel assumed their basic position as: he State of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within the frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947. - See more at: The hidden documents that reveal the true borders of Israel and Palestine (Updated)

• Two-States: Prior to the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors, the Israeli position envisioned a Two-State (Israel - Palestine) starting at the end of the Mandate, which would lead to the establishment of two states in a series of parallel stages. Because the Plan was rejected by the Arab side, it could not be implemented.

• Jerusalem: Prior to the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors, assumed that the UN recommendation on the issue of Jerusalem would be the interim position. However, the Government House in the neutralized area, established by the United Nations in its effort to pacify an increasing area of the Holy City.

• Rights of the People: Israel did accept in principle, freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly and association; including the non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, and economic matters.

• Citizenship: This is a Part I - Section C - Chapter 3 - Clause 1: issue and NOT a Step Preparatory to Independence. Having said that: Israel had a basic acceptance that Arabs residing in the area of the proposed Jewish State intending to remain in the Jewish State would be granted Israeli Citizenship. Citizenship would be a Post War consideration.

• UN Control of Military:

• Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, May 15, 1948 --- states in part: The "Provisional Government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law.

• In S/1093, Israel adopted the position formally that the independence of the State of Israel was proclaimed by the National Council of the Jewish People in Palestine. Since that time --- Israel has been improving administratively and defended itself successfully against the aggression of Arab League.
​

• Constitutions: Israel operates under the Basic Law concept, as do many independent states. There several Basic Laws that pertain to the rights outlined in the Steps Preparatory to Independence. One such law is: Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty​

But what I gather here is that you are trying to find something that the Israelis did not accomplish within the list of Steps Preparatory to Independence. And much of that was truncated by the Arab League crossing the frontiers as armed aggressors against Israel. What I think is even more incredible is that for as much as you pound on the concept of these various rights you fail to acknowledge that the Arab League entered into an international armed conflict (IAC) on a justification contrary to the UN Charter. While Israel seldom makes this an issue, probably because the Arab League lost more effective control, then it achieved. This is true in 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.

Again, it should be stressed that Israel never took any territory that was under the effective control of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Interesting link. I have read that before.

The hidden documents that reveal the true borders of Israel and Palestine (Updated)

There are some contradictions in this article.

The words of the Declaration are intended to suggest that the creation of Israel was authorized by the United Nations. This is not correct. The UN does not have authority under its Charter to create or divide states. The Partition Plan was a recommendation only. The Plan envisaged a process, starting at the end of the Mandate, which would lead to the establishment of two states in a series of parallel stages. Because the Plan was rejected by the Arab side, it could not be implemented.​

OK, so who does?

Borders can be changed, but a state can only acquire territory from a neighbor by legal annexation, that is, by agreement, and with a referendum of the population. Obtaining territory by war violates fundamental principles of the UN Charter. Nevertheless, this is what Israel did.​

So, how did Israel claim Resolution 181 borders when the UN had no authority to partition Palestine? Resolution 181 was a recommendation that was not implemented.

That is the contradiction. Accordingly Israel could not acquire any land without an agreement with the Palestinians. Not just the land outside of the partition plan that did not happen.

Rocco, you are still ducking my post.

Here ya' go, Tinmore.


You are ducking my post.™


Nice dodge™


How does that address my post™


The above are three of the most often responses you dump into threads when you're arguments are refuted. Feel free to save them in a Microsoft Word file for a handy cut and paste.

For as much time as you spend attempting to re-write history, the inescapable facts are that the Jews took the steps to establish independence, build a first world society and a modern economy, which the Arabs-Moslems could not.

Over the last six decades, the so-called Pal'istanians have provided no indication that they have the ability to build a functioning society. There is nothing to separate the Pal'istanian terrorists from any other of the retrograde, third world islamic countries that seem to continually be struggling to claw themselves out of the 7th century.

Natan Sharansky, (who was a political prisoner in Soviet Russia) authored a book entitled “The Case for Democracy”. In his book he discusses the differences between the free societies of Western liberal democracy and the fear societies of communism, Theocracies (ie: Mullocracies and other such politico-religious ideologies that discriminate against and subjugate those not of the “required” ideology), and other forms of totalitarianism. Mr. Sharansky delineated many truths about the rulers of fear societies. They cannot maintain their authority through free elections, preservation of human rights or protection of civil liberties. So, they maintain their stranglehold on absolute power through a comprehensive institution of fear. When a people are occupied with threats of imprisonment, the dread of disappearing in the night or the real possibility of turning up beheaded, dumped alongside a barren stretch of road, they are not likely to challenge the status quo.

Nice piece of verbosity but it says nothing about my post.

It says that your post is a fantasy built by you to appease your stupidity

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, I labeled each point and answered each.

Rocco, you are still ducking my post.

(COMMENT)

Nothing happens instantaneously. When the Arab League decided to break the UN Charter and cross their frontiers (fully expecting to suppress the Jewish State), the entire process changed at that point. Even the Successor Government changed hands.

So, Arab League was unable to achieve any significant military objective in the 1948-49 Conflict, that they would compensate for the political and diplomatic failures as a result of excessive demands. And that leads us right up to today. The pattern in the lack of military accomplishment (not once, not twice, not even on the third attempt with a sneak attack) and the continuation of perpetual threats for perpetual conflict by Jihadist, Terrorist, Fedayeen Activity, Rebels and organized Resistance Impostors, brings us to the point where the fantasy land of the State of Palestine only exists by the grace of donor nations.

As the League of Nations Covenant said, "until such time as they are able to stand alone." Now I have heard nearly every excuse about why the Hostile Arab Palestinians have been unable to achieve the "stand alone" goal. And the excuses nearly always point to the Israelis (the Israelis did this and the Israelis did that). It should be noted that between 1949 (The Armistices) and 1967 (The Six-Day War) Israel was peaceful and building a nation. During that time, the Hostile Arab Palestinians, accomplished nothing that would add significantly to national development.

AND NO! I did not duck anything in your post. You are just trying to find some political bone to pick just to make it appear that the Palestinians are Lilly White and the Israelis are Light Green and Loam.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of all this addresses my post?

Borders can be changed, but a state can only acquire territory from a neighbor by legal annexation, that is, by agreement, and with a referendum of the population. Obtaining territory by war violates fundamental principles of the UN Charter. Nevertheless, this is what Israel did.​

So, how did Israel claim Resolution 181 borders when the UN had no authority to partition Palestine? Resolution 181 was a recommendation that was not implemented.

That is the contradiction. Accordingly Israel could not acquire any land without an agreement with the Palestinians. Not just the land outside of the partition plan that did not happen.​

This all boils down to your refusal to provide any link that states that the arab muslims were granted any part of Jewish palestine after 1917. You are going on one persons POV and his lies and manipulations to show that palestine the nation was invented by the LoN in their treaties of Sevres and Lausanne. The reality is that neither treaty mentions palestine by name, or grants the arab muslims full control of all of palestine. Why would Israel need the palestinians go ahead when the palestinians did not own any of the land

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are not reading.

What part of all this addresses my post?

Borders can be changed, but a state can only acquire territory from a neighbor by legal annexation, that is, by agreement, and with a referendum of the population. Obtaining territory by war violates fundamental principles of the UN Charter. Nevertheless, this is what Israel did.
​

So, how did Israel claim Resolution 181 borders when the UN had no authority to partition Palestine? Resolution 181 was a recommendation that was not implemented.

That is the contradiction. Accordingly Israel could not acquire any land without an agreement with the Palestinians. Not just the land outside of the partition plan that did not happen.​

(COMMENT)

A/RES/181 (II) is a recommended action guide. BUT as has been said over and over again, the DECLARATIVE process using the self-determination was the authority to lay claim from the Allied Powers have title and rights by Treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R

That ducks my post.

No it puts your post were it belongs, with the rest of the trash. You have a very weird view of what happened in the M.E. from 1917 to 1967 and so use modern international law to attempt to pull the wool over peoples eyes. A pity you have no evidence to support your claims and so are left with egg on your face every time you post your islamonazi propaganda

 

[P F Tinmore]

That is the contradiction. Accordingly Israel could not acquire any land without an agreement with the Palestinians. Not just the land outside of the partition plan that did not happen.

Israel did not acquire land. At no time has Israel acquired any territory. Step by step.

The Ottoman Empire was dissolved.

The Ottoman Empire (now Turkey) ceded all claims to territory, of which, "Palestine" was part.

The territory was ceded to the control of the Allied Powers for the purpose of self-determination and self-government of various groups as they became capable of said government.

One of those groups was the Jewish People and the territory ceded for their self-determination and self-government was what was left of "Palestine" after Jordan's people were given its own self-determination.

The Jewish People, having completed the necessary steps, having established a government, DECLARED its independence (from the Mandate of the Allied Powers) just as Jordan and Syria and Iraq declared their independence. It is the declaration of independence and the recognition of independence which brings a State into being. Done and done. Israel is a State on all of the territory.

Jordan and Egypt sign peace treaties with Israel delineating the borders between their respective nations and Israel.

Much later, 1988, Palestine declared its own independence (from Israel). Israel essentially accepted this in principle. A negotiated peace treaty between Israel and the government of Palestine permitted Palestine temporary government over Gaza and Area A and temporary limited government over Area B. Israel maintains complete control over Area C (they maintain control -- they already had it both legally and effectively). ALL final dispositions were left to negotiation and treaty.

So, P F Tinmore , where do you think I have this wrong and why?

The territory was ceded to the control of the Allied Powers for the purpose of self-determination and self-government of various groups as they became capable of said government.​

No they didn't. Read Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, I labeled each point and answered each.

Rocco, you are still ducking my post.

(COMMENT)

Nothing happens instantaneously. When the Arab League decided to break the UN Charter and cross their frontiers (fully expecting to suppress the Jewish State), the entire process changed at that point. Even the Successor Government changed hands.

So, Arab League was unable to achieve any significant military objective in the 1948-49 Conflict, that they would compensate for the political and diplomatic failures as a result of excessive demands. And that leads us right up to today. The pattern in the lack of military accomplishment (not once, not twice, not even on the third attempt with a sneak attack) and the continuation of perpetual threats for perpetual conflict by Jihadist, Terrorist, Fedayeen Activity, Rebels and organized Resistance Impostors, brings us to the point where the fantasy land of the State of Palestine only exists by the grace of donor nations.

As the League of Nations Covenant said, "until such time as they are able to stand alone." Now I have heard nearly every excuse about why the Hostile Arab Palestinians have been unable to achieve the "stand alone" goal. And the excuses nearly always point to the Israelis (the Israelis did this and the Israelis did that). It should be noted that between 1949 (The Armistices) and 1967 (The Six-Day War) Israel was peaceful and building a nation. During that time, the Hostile Arab Palestinians, accomplished nothing that would add significantly to national development.

AND NO! I did not duck anything in your post. You are just trying to find some political bone to pick just to make it appear that the Palestinians are Lilly White and the Israelis are Light Green and Loam.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of all this addresses my post?

Borders can be changed, but a state can only acquire territory from a neighbor by legal annexation, that is, by agreement, and with a referendum of the population. Obtaining territory by war violates fundamental principles of the UN Charter. Nevertheless, this is what Israel did.​

So, how did Israel claim Resolution 181 borders when the UN had no authority to partition Palestine? Resolution 181 was a recommendation that was not implemented.

That is the contradiction. Accordingly Israel could not acquire any land without an agreement with the Palestinians. Not just the land outside of the partition plan that did not happen.​

This all boils down to your refusal to provide any link that states that the arab muslims were granted any part of Jewish palestine after 1917. You are going on one persons POV and his lies and manipulations to show that palestine the nation was invented by the LoN in their treaties of Sevres and Lausanne. The reality is that neither treaty mentions palestine by name, or grants the arab muslims full control of all of palestine. Why would Israel need the palestinians go ahead when the palestinians did not own any of the land

This all boils down to your refusal to provide any link that states that the arab muslims were granted any part of Jewish palestine after 1917.​

False question.