Do Palestinians Have the Right to Defend Themselves?

[Phoenall]

Just curious as to under whose authority was the Kingdom of Hejaz operating with respect to the Palestinians. Was he speaking for the Palestinian Muslims or the Palestinian Christians, who made up 93% of the population of Palestine? I don't recall that the Palestine Arab Congress ever agreed for this self appointed Bedouin King to negotiate on the Palestinian's behalf, in fact, the Palestinians were far more likely to give Syria that right, given the British refusal to recognize the representative body of 93% of the population.

That is the root of the problem.

Palestinians have always had other people making decisions for them who did not have their best interest in mind.

And its always been other arab muslims hasn't it............................. So you cant blame the west for it or the Israelis. Even now the Syrian and Egyptian leaders of hamas and fatah are making decisions that impact on the lives of the Palestinian people.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Just curious as to under whose authority was the Kingdom of Hejaz operating with respect to the Palestinians. Was he speaking for the Palestinian Muslims or the Palestinian Christians, who made up 93% of the population of Palestine? I don't recall that the Palestine Arab Congress ever agreed for this self appointed Bedouin King to negotiate on the Palestinian's behalf, in fact, the Palestinians were far more likely to give Syria that right, given the British refusal to recognize the representative body of 93% of the population.

That is the root of the problem.

Palestinians have always had other people making decisions for them who did not have their best interest in mind.

And its always been other arab muslims hasn't it............................. So you cant blame the west for it or the Israelis. Even now the Syrian and Egyptian leaders of hamas and fatah are making decisions that impact on the lives of the Palestinian people.

Britain was Arab Muslim?

 

[Phoenall]

With all of that Rocco, what does it mean? That some self appointed Bedouin king from deep in the Arabian desert had the right to make decisions for the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine? How many Palestinian (Arab) Jews participated in the battles against the Turks?

Not self appointed as you well know but an Islamic leader of some renown. One who was seen as a leader by other arab muslims both spiritually and physically. So being a leader he would be best placed to deal with the British on such matters, and it was people of his standing that were given control of trans Jordan and Syria that also came from deep in the Arabian desert.

 

[Phoenall]

That was your claim dildo so produce the link..........................


You are just too easy to prove to be a complete morn these days

Aw, the little troll, doing his little troll thing.

How sweet?

Whats wrong been back and seen that I was right, so have decided to be a TROLL yourself.

 

[Billo_Really]

Whats wrong been back and seen that I was right, so have decided to be a TROLL yourself.

"What's wrong been back and seen..."?

God-damn, your grammar is horrible!

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

When that distinction really plays an important role in the discussion, be sure to let me know.

Mandate for Palestine.

Not

Mandate is Palestine.

(COMMENT)

While it is true, to a degree, I think the distinction is lost on you. Because (between 1922 and 1948) everything that constitutes "Palestine," to include the geographic limits, was either specified in the Mandate, or defined by the application of the Mandate, or in relation to the Mandate.

I think I once heard you say (something to the effect) that when the Mandate was gone, Palestine remained. That is a bit naive and certainly not very correct. The very definition of the territory as defined by the Allied Powers is based on:

• 
  "The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."

If the Mandate terminated, while the physical ground would remain, it would not technically be defined as "Palestine." Palestine, is defined by the Allied Powers. It would be an undefined region of the Greater Levant. The definition would be:

"The limits of this Order are the territories to which the nothing applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."​

In practical reality, we refer to this as a necessary dependency. In legalese, changes in the text from "for" to "is" are extremely important, only to the extent that the difference is recognizable and can be articulate. In your case --- much like your failure to understand the origin of the "civil and religious' rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" and where that languages was first coined (HINT: everything that has was based on the source, are deemed null and void by the Palestinians); your understanding of who decided and when, the boundaries of Palestine needed to be defined:

Article I

The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in their respective territories.​

Article II

Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto. SOURCE: TEXT OF THE FAISAL-WEIZMANN AGREEMENT ​

​

While some time ago, we had a deep discussion about all this. Some things are stranger than fiction.

Most Respectfully,
R

When that distinction really plays an important role in the discussion, be sure to let me know.​

Actually it is very relevant. It is said that:

The Mandate was Palestine. There was no Palestine.
The map of Palestine is the map of the Mandate. There was no Palestine.
There are no borders for Palestine. Those are the borders of the Mandate.
The "Arabs" were citizens of the Mandate not Palestine.

The conclusion is that since there was no Palestine and there were no Palestinians, that the territory was up for grabs.

Try thinking for a change.

The mandate was a double whammy, being the LoN mandate for Palestine that brought about the British mandate.
So the Mandate set in stone Palestine as a Mandate, and not a nation
The map of Palestine as drawn in 1923 and delineated in the Mandate for Palestine was the extent of the Mandate for Palestine and not the nation of Palestine.
The borders are those of the mandate for Palestine and not the nation of Palestine
The arabs, Christians and Jews were citizens of the mandatory of Palestine, or British Mandatory Palestine.

The land was sectioned into trans Jordan and the Jewish National Home by the Mandate for Palestine to be taken up as and when the recipients felt they were able to show free determination and the ability to govern themselves. The arab muslims of the National home for the Jews section were not considered to be capable of any sign of free determination.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Well, actually, you don't see many founding fathers of Israel that were born in Palestine.

I tried to make two points here:

• That Hussein bin Ali, GCB, Grand Sharif and Emir of Mecca (and ruler of Medina, capital of the al-Madinah Region); last of the Hashemite Sharifians, with Mecca being the birthplace of Muhammad (PBUH), and the site of the first revelation of the Quran (and Medina - where the final surahs of the Quran were revealed to the Prophet, called Medinan surahs); the two holiest cities in the religion of Islam; and Mecca being the former capital city of the Hejaz (now a capital of Makkah Province in Saudi Arabia); --- was not just any "self appointed Bedouin king from deep in the Arabian desert."

• That Hussein bin Ali, was a highly regarded by Shiite Muslim, and his sons, made themselves useful to the British Empire and were instrumental in initiating the Arab Revolt in 1916 against the Ottoman Empire; helping to pin-down Ottoman Forces that would have otherwise been free to attack the British Egyptian Expeditionary Forces.

With all of that Rocco, what does it mean? That some self appointed Bedouin king from deep in the Arabian desert had the right to make decisions for the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine? How many Palestinian (Arab) Jews participated in the battles against the Turks?

(COMMENT)

Just like the House of Saud went to work --- and out of all the potential leaders in the Court of Sheikhs --- became the House that unified the many tribes in Arabia. So it is that the House of Prince Ali, last King of Hejaz, attempted to expand the Hashemites by assisting in the liberation of the Middle Eastern Region from Ottoman sovereignty.

Sons in the House of Prince Ali, last King of Hejaz:

• Prince Abdullah, Emir (later King) of Transjordan
• Prince Faisal, (later King) of Iraq and Syria

In the open period of the Mandate, the Jewish Organizations mustered resources to secure the establishment of a Jewish National Home in ancient region of Palestine. The indigenous Arab population of Palestine, with a territorial history in the land for two millennia disapproved of the 1919 agreement between Emir Faisal and Chaim Weizmann pertaining to the individual "national aspirations" of the Arab and the Jewish. Additionally, the indigenous Arab Population --- which did not assist in the liberation effort, mistakenly felt that they should be awarded territorial concessions for nothing, and opposed the decision by the Allied Powers to start a resettlement project for the purpose of preserving and protecting the Jewish Culture from extinction. In the late 1970's the Arab Palestinians would adopt the mantra that such a move violated their natural and inalienable rights; although these rights did not exist at the time the Allied Powers made the decisions. They also viewed it as an infringement of assurances of independence given by the Allied Powers to Arab leaders in return for their support during the war. While it is a matter of record, that Prince Faisal did write (10 March 1921) to the Allied Powers through the British House of Commons on the issue of the Arabs entered the war on the side of the Allies with certain clear aims - unfulfilled by the Powers, it is NOT a case that the Arabs of Palestine had any legitimate claim. The Faisal Memo was submitted by General Hoddad Pasha (Hejaz Army) and delegated by His Royal Highness Emir Faisal --- it was fair in saying the Army of the Hejaz had a claim; but their was no associated effort by an Arab Army west of the Jordan River; it was a false claim. The outcome was mounting resistance to the Mandate by Palestinian Arabs, and the resort to an ever gradually escalating level of violence against the Jewish community; including the Arab creation of Palestinian Black Hand by Izz ad-Din al-Qassam (who would become the name sake martyr of the military wing and brigade of the same name in the Islamic Resistance Movement nearly 60 years later).

There is no question that there was a promise made to the Last King of the Hejaz concerning the Kingdoms owed the surviving sons. But there was no such promise made to the Arab west of the Jordan, because they made NO significant contribution in the liberation. And on the contrary, they actually created disturbances and disruption in public order for the Administration.

• In April, 1920, five Jews were killed and over two hundred injured in the first outbreak of anti-Zionist Arab violence.
• A year later, in May 1921, more serious attacks were make by Arabs on the Jews of Jaffa and of five rural settlements. On this occasion 47 Jews were killed and 146 wounded.

In separate reports, one by the Civil Administration and one by the Military Support Detachment, this commentary set the tone.

The demonstrators clashed with the police, and during the next few weeks other riots took place in Jaffa, Nablus, Haifa, and again in Jerusalem. In the course of these disorders, one policeman and 24 civilians were killed. The disturbances of 1933 differed from those of 1920, 1921 and 1929 in that they were directed not against the Jews but against the mandatory Government, which was accused of tilting the balance against the Arabs in its administration of the mandate.
​

Why did the "Bedouin king from deep in the Arabian desert had the right to make decisions?" Because they were the most civilized --- I suspect.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, actually, you don't see many founding fathers of Israel that were born in Palestine.​

That is correct. Israel is a foreign government imposed on Palestine by military force.

Just as Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan are, or don't you see the arab muslims as invaders and land thieves ?

 

[Phoenall]

Just curious as to under whose authority was the Kingdom of Hejaz operating with respect to the Palestinians. Was he speaking for the Palestinian Muslims or the Palestinian Christians, who made up 93% of the population of Palestine? I don't recall that the Palestine Arab Congress ever agreed for this self appointed Bedouin King to negotiate on the Palestinian's behalf, in fact, the Palestinians were far more likely to give Syria that right, given the British refusal to recognize the representative body of 93% of the population.

That is the root of the problem.

Palestinians have always had other people making decisions for them who did not have their best interest in mind.

And its always been other arab muslims hasn't it............................. So you cant blame the west for it or the Israelis. Even now the Syrian and Egyptian leaders of hamas and fatah are making decisions that impact on the lives of the Palestinian people.

Britain was Arab Muslim?

When did Britain make decisions for the arab muslims then ?
And you really need to look at what power Britain had in Palestine, they could not even take a shit without permission from the LoN.

 

[Phoenall]

Whats wrong been back and seen that I was right, so have decided to be a TROLL yourself.

"What's wrong been back and seen..."?

God-damn, your grammar is horrible!

Only bad grammar to a typical trailer park trash red neck. Acceptable in the land of England.

You do know a bonnet is a hat worn by women, and a trunk is something an elephant has.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Well, actually, you don't see many founding fathers of Israel that were born in Palestine.

I tried to make two points here:

• That Hussein bin Ali, GCB, Grand Sharif and Emir of Mecca (and ruler of Medina, capital of the al-Madinah Region); last of the Hashemite Sharifians, with Mecca being the birthplace of Muhammad (PBUH), and the site of the first revelation of the Quran (and Medina - where the final surahs of the Quran were revealed to the Prophet, called Medinan surahs); the two holiest cities in the religion of Islam; and Mecca being the former capital city of the Hejaz (now a capital of Makkah Province in Saudi Arabia); --- was not just any "self appointed Bedouin king from deep in the Arabian desert."

• That Hussein bin Ali, was a highly regarded by Shiite Muslim, and his sons, made themselves useful to the British Empire and were instrumental in initiating the Arab Revolt in 1916 against the Ottoman Empire; helping to pin-down Ottoman Forces that would have otherwise been free to attack the British Egyptian Expeditionary Forces.

With all of that Rocco, what does it mean? That some self appointed Bedouin king from deep in the Arabian desert had the right to make decisions for the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine? How many Palestinian (Arab) Jews participated in the battles against the Turks?

(COMMENT)

Just like the House of Saud went to work --- and out of all the potential leaders in the Court of Sheikhs --- became the House that unified the many tribes in Arabia. So it is that the House of Prince Ali, last King of Hejaz, attempted to expand the Hashemites by assisting in the liberation of the Middle Eastern Region from Ottoman sovereignty.

Sons in the House of Prince Ali, last King of Hejaz:

• Prince Abdullah, Emir (later King) of Transjordan
• Prince Faisal, (later King) of Iraq and Syria

In the open period of the Mandate, the Jewish Organizations mustered resources to secure the establishment of a Jewish National Home in ancient region of Palestine. The indigenous Arab population of Palestine, with a territorial history in the land for two millennia disapproved of the 1919 agreement between Emir Faisal and Chaim Weizmann pertaining to the individual "national aspirations" of the Arab and the Jewish. Additionally, the indigenous Arab Population --- which did not assist in the liberation effort, mistakenly felt that they should be awarded territorial concessions for nothing, and opposed the decision by the Allied Powers to start a resettlement project for the purpose of preserving and protecting the Jewish Culture from extinction. In the late 1970's the Arab Palestinians would adopt the mantra that such a move violated their natural and inalienable rights; although these rights did not exist at the time the Allied Powers made the decisions. They also viewed it as an infringement of assurances of independence given by the Allied Powers to Arab leaders in return for their support during the war. While it is a matter of record, that Prince Faisal did write (10 March 1921) to the Allied Powers through the British House of Commons on the issue of the Arabs entered the war on the side of the Allies with certain clear aims - unfulfilled by the Powers, it is NOT a case that the Arabs of Palestine had any legitimate claim. The Faisal Memo was submitted by General Hoddad Pasha (Hejaz Army) and delegated by His Royal Highness Emir Faisal --- it was fair in saying the Army of the Hejaz had a claim; but their was no associated effort by an Arab Army west of the Jordan River; it was a false claim. The outcome was mounting resistance to the Mandate by Palestinian Arabs, and the resort to an ever gradually escalating level of violence against the Jewish community; including the Arab creation of Palestinian Black Hand by Izz ad-Din al-Qassam (who would become the name sake martyr of the military wing and brigade of the same name in the Islamic Resistance Movement nearly 60 years later).

There is no question that there was a promise made to the Last King of the Hejaz concerning the Kingdoms owed the surviving sons. But there was no such promise made to the Arab west of the Jordan, because they made NO significant contribution in the liberation. And on the contrary, they actually created disturbances and disruption in public order for the Administration.

• In April, 1920, five Jews were killed and over two hundred injured in the first outbreak of anti-Zionist Arab violence.
• A year later, in May 1921, more serious attacks were make by Arabs on the Jews of Jaffa and of five rural settlements. On this occasion 47 Jews were killed and 146 wounded.

In separate reports, one by the Civil Administration and one by the Military Support Detachment, this commentary set the tone.

The demonstrators clashed with the police, and during the next few weeks other riots took place in Jaffa, Nablus, Haifa, and again in Jerusalem. In the course of these disorders, one policeman and 24 civilians were killed. The disturbances of 1933 differed from those of 1920, 1921 and 1929 in that they were directed not against the Jews but against the mandatory Government, which was accused of tilting the balance against the Arabs in its administration of the mandate.
​

Why did the "Bedouin king from deep in the Arabian desert had the right to make decisions?" Because they were the most civilized --- I suspect.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, actually, you don't see many founding fathers of Israel that were born in Palestine.​

That is correct. Israel is a foreign government imposed on Palestine by military force.

How is it 'imposing military force' for Israel to legally declare independence on territory allotted to her by the partition plan, which is EXACTLY the same way the Palestinian declared independence

There was no partition.

LINK ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not even close to being correct.

Well, actually, you don't see many founding fathers of Israel that were born in Palestine.​

That is correct. Israel is a foreign government imposed on Palestine by military force.

(COMMENT)

• A foreign government was not imposed by military force.
• A new government was established by the right of self-determination.
• It was defended by military force from direct foreign military (external) interference by aggressor hostile Arabs.

Most Respectfully,
R

Pffft.
Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish agency consisting of foreigners and its "permanent population" was a bunch of recently imported foreign settlers.

No by British Mandatory Palestinian citizens who were there at the direct request of the LoN and the Ottomans.

The only attempt at a foreign government was the Palestinian council headed by Egypt, Syria and Iraq.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The only reason that it appears that there was "no partition" was because the Aggressor Arab Armies that invaded Israel on the same day independence was declared; trying to subvert the intent of the General Assembly and take territory by force.

There was no partition.

(COMMENT)

The hostile military intervention failed to some degree. Jordan captured and annexed the West Bank. Egypt captured the Gaza Strip and placed it under it control. And Lebanon and Syria failed.

In the end, it cost the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Whatever reason, there was no partition.

The UN could not partition Palestine without the Palestinian's approval without violating its own charter.

WRONG as the partition was deliberately worded as an Either Or outcome, and did not need any more than one party to accept it. If the Jews had refused then it would have died. The UN had no authority to partition Palestine because International law had already given the land to the Jews in 1923

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Nonsense.

P F Tinmore, et al,

The only reason that it appears that there was "no partition" was because the Aggressor Arab Armies that invaded Israel on the same day independence was declared; trying to subvert the intent of the General Assembly and take territory by force.

There was no partition.

(COMMENT)

The hostile military intervention failed to some degree. Jordan captured and annexed the West Bank. Egypt captured the Gaza Strip and placed it under it control. And Lebanon and Syria failed.

In the end, it cost the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Whatever reason, there was no partition.

The UN could not partition Palestine without the Palestinian's approval without violating its own charter.

(COMMENT)

You will not find that in the Charter. Nothing in the Charter prevents the UN General Assembly from providing advise and guidance on the proper execution of Self-determination. You are merely attempting to read more into it then there is.

The Palestinians had absolutely NO authority to press a complaint.

Most Respectfully,
R

If there was no partition then where did Israel get the land to park its fat ass on?

It is only you and the islamomorons that say there was no partition. And Israel got the land from the terms of the Mandate for Palestine.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is just another variation of the perpetual victim stance.

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not even close to being correct.

Well, actually, you don't see many founding fathers of Israel that were born in Palestine.​

That is correct. Israel is a foreign government imposed on Palestine by military force.

(COMMENT)

• A foreign government was not imposed by military force.
• A new government was established by the right of self-determination.
• It was defended by military force from direct foreign military (external) interference by aggressor hostile Arabs.

Most Respectfully,
R

Pffft.
Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish agency consisting of foreigners and its "permanent population" was a bunch of recently imported foreign settlers.

(COMMENT)

Israel was established under the direction and guidance established by the UN.

The Palestinians did not have any authority to interfere, not did the adjacent Arab countries.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not true. The UN cut and ran without securing the territory in its trust.

(COMMENT)

There was no requirement to do anything about securing the territory. The Mandate ended. Israel declared independence. The violation was the Arab Countries that exceed their authority and crossed their borders using military force to secure their own agenda and acquire territory for their own gain.

Most Respectfully,
R

Only the British mandate ended, the Mandate for Palestine is still in existence while the arab muslims are failing to declare their intentions.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are just quibbling now.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Nonsense.

P F Tinmore, et al,

The only reason that it appears that there was "no partition" was because the Aggressor Arab Armies that invaded Israel on the same day independence was declared; trying to subvert the intent of the General Assembly and take territory by force.

(COMMENT)

The hostile military intervention failed to some degree. Jordan captured and annexed the West Bank. Egypt captured the Gaza Strip and placed it under it control. And Lebanon and Syria failed.

In the end, it cost the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Whatever reason, there was no partition.

The UN could not partition Palestine without the Palestinian's approval without violating its own charter.

(COMMENT)

You will not find that in the Charter. Nothing in the Charter prevents the UN General Assembly from providing advise and guidance on the proper execution of Self-determination. You are merely attempting to read more into it then there is.

The Palestinians had absolutely NO authority to press a complaint.

Most Respectfully,
R

If there was no partition then where did Israel get the land to park its fat ass on?

(COMMENT)

The right of self-determination as guided by the UN General Assembly and it agencies.

Whether you want to pretend that the Resolution was not adopted or not, is just burying your head in the sand.

But the fact of the matter is, Israel followed the recommendations and guidance and ultimately established a state. The Arabs consistently argue, did everything to obstruct progress, used force and violence, and eventually invasion to suppress the establishment of Israel. They lost.

It was created. And the Arab that attempted to take by force what they could not achieve through hard work, has whined ever since. They even tried to rewrite history.

Most Respectfully,
R

Nice song and dance but you did not answer the question.

You mean he did not give the answer you wanted to see don't you.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Read the Charter.

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is just another variation of the perpetual victim stance.

(COMMENT)

Israel was established under the direction and guidance established by the UN.

The Palestinians did not have any authority to interfere, not did the adjacent Arab countries.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not true. The UN cut and ran without securing the territory in its trust.

(COMMENT)

There was no requirement to do anything about securing the territory. The Mandate ended. Israel declared independence. The violation was the Arab Countries that exceed their authority and crossed there borders using military force to secure their own agenda and acquire territory for their own gain.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Mandate ended.​

So?

(COMMENT)

Where does it say that anything needs to be protected to your standard.

Most Respectfully,
R

The British Mandate left without setting up a state. The UNPC never showed up to set up a state.

Israel's declaration was unilateral. The UN had nothing to do with it.

That was not their remit, the only people who could set up a state were the Jews, and to a lesser extent the arab muslims.

Yes it was unilateral and that is why the arab muslims have lost for the last 68 years

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The only reason that it appears that there was "no partition" was because the Aggressor Arab Armies that invaded Israel on the same day independence was declared; trying to subvert the intent of the General Assembly and take territory by force.

There was no partition.

(COMMENT)

The hostile military intervention failed to some degree. Jordan captured and annexed the West Bank. Egypt captured the Gaza Strip and placed it under it control. And Lebanon and Syria failed.

In the end, it cost the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Whatever reason, there was no partition.

The UN could not partition Palestine without the Palestinian's approval without violating its own charter.

There was partition, as both parties agreed to the resolution.

"The UN could not partition Palestine without the Palestinian's approval without violating its own charter."

This is such nonsense. Do you have a link for this? My guess is not.

Either way, the Palestinians eventually (1988) declared independence using 181 which of course means they do agree to it.


This Palestinian Declaration of Independence explicitly accepted the UN General Assembly’s Partition Resolution 181(II) of 1947, which called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the former Mandate for Palestine

Prior thereto, from the perspective of the Palestinian people, the Partition Resolution had been deemed to be a criminal act that was perpetrated upon them by the United Nations. Today, the acceptance of the Partition Resolution in their actual Declaration of Independence

Palestine Independence Day 24 Years Ago November 15 1988 Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Then Israel should have waited until 1988 to declare independence.

Why not the arab muslims should have declared in 1948 and then we might not have had all this trouble

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now your just trying to pretend you have a reading comprehension problem.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are just quibbling now.

Nice song and dance but you did not answer the question.

(COMMENT)

When the Mandate ended, and Israel Declared Independence, it was up to Israel to defend itself (which it successfully did). The Arab Palestinians immediately lost all their territory to the advancing Arab Aggressor Armies (shame on them).

Most Respectfully,
R

Still ducking the question?

No you are ducking the answers

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The only reason that it appears that there was "no partition" was because the Aggressor Arab Armies that invaded Israel on the same day independence was declared; trying to subvert the intent of the General Assembly and take territory by force.

There was no partition.

(COMMENT)

The hostile military intervention failed to some degree. Jordan captured and annexed the West Bank. Egypt captured the Gaza Strip and placed it under it control. And Lebanon and Syria failed.

In the end, it cost the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Whatever reason, there was no partition.

The UN could not partition Palestine without the Palestinian's approval without violating its own charter.

There was partition, as both parties agreed to the resolution.

"The UN could not partition Palestine without the Palestinian's approval without violating its own charter."

This is such nonsense. Do you have a link for this? My guess is not.

Either way, the Palestinians eventually (1988) declared independence using 181 which of course means they do agree to it.


This Palestinian Declaration of Independence explicitly accepted the UN General Assembly’s Partition Resolution 181(II) of 1947, which called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the former Mandate for Palestine

Prior thereto, from the perspective of the Palestinian people, the Partition Resolution had been deemed to be a criminal act that was perpetrated upon them by the United Nations. Today, the acceptance of the Partition Resolution in their actual Declaration of Independence

Palestine Independence Day 24 Years Ago November 15 1988 Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Then Israel should have waited until 1988 to declare independence.

Why not the arab muslims should have declared in 1948 and then we might not have had all this trouble

They did.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now your just trying to pretend you have a reading comprehension problem.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are just quibbling now.

Nice song and dance but you did not answer the question.

(COMMENT)

When the Mandate ended, and Israel Declared Independence, it was up to Israel to defend itself (which it successfully did). The Arab Palestinians immediately lost all their territory to the advancing Arab Aggressor Armies (shame on them).

Most Respectfully,
R

Still ducking the question?

No you are ducking the answers

Not really.

What was my question?

What was his answer?