Do Palestinians Have the Right to Defend Themselves?

[toastman]

He has answered all of them, it is you that does not like the answers.

Rocco has been blowing a lot of smoke at my posts but he has not answered the questions.

Rocco has been exceedingly patient as always. To tell the truth, I can't imagine how he remains so in dealing with you hateful vermin.

I don't see how Tinmore has the patience to deal you

montelatici, et al,

You are reading much to much into the Article 22 position.

Rocco et al:

A place is defined by its people. When the British received the "Mandate" the population was made up of about 95% Muslims and Christians. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations applied to this vast majority of the population. The people of the former Ottoman Territories were the "owners" of the land, the Mandatory was simply "entrusted" with the duty of ensuring the "well-being and development" of the people, which included the 93% of the people of Palestine who were not European Jews. Furthermore, these same people were provisionally recognized as an independent nation under the same article of the Covenant.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."

(COMMENT)

First, there are some - 9 Clauses to Article 22 of the Covenant. Nowhere in those 9 Clauses is any specific territory of the Middle East singled out; nor were there any specific Arab inhabitance (indigenous people or habitual inhabitants) offered or promised anything specific relative to self-government or territorial integrity.

Second, the Arab Palestinian declined to participate in the "tutelage" offered by the Mandatory throughout the entire period. This demonstrated an unwillingness to participate in the Article 22 Process or to avail themselves to the gradual process (as a demonstration of their "willing to accept it").

22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.

“The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”
​

In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​

Third, there was nothing written in the Covenant to suggest that Palestine (as territory so determined by the Allied Powers) was singled-out as a "certain community" --- formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire --- as having reached a stage of development either as an independent nation or suitable for "provisionally recognized." That is even more true given that the Arab in that territory (as determined by the Allied Powers) declined to participate in the Article 22 Process that would help bring it to meet the mandatory criteria to be able to stand alone. In fact, it is probably more likely that the "certain community" may have been pertaining to the Hashemite participants in the Arab Revolt or the communities located in the French Mandate, to which Article 22 equally applied.

Fourth, the Arabs of Palestine (the Palestine as defined by the Order in Council) have not yet, even after declaring independence and exercising self-determination more than once, was able to establish a central government that could actually - in a peacefully means - transition from one administration (ruling party) to another in accordance with the:

• 2003 Amended Basic Law (current)
• 2005 Amendment to the Basic Law (current)

So, it really doesn't matter how you observe the State of Palestine, it was unable to meet the criteria in 1923, it was unable to meet the criteria in 1947, it has been unable to meet the criteria of a nation that can stand alone in contemporary times.

I challenge your assertion that the contemporary Arab Palestinian, which has not been able to Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, in the last 45 years, has ever made a credible effort to assume the governmental roles of a nation "under the strenuous conditions of the modern world." (Another Article 22 Criteria.)

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco,

Firstly, your premise is incorrect. Palestine was, in fact, included among the Class A Mandates, i.e., those territories whose people received provisional independence. Only when the Mandatory realized the impossibility of protecting the rights of the majority did the British pull back and not promote the independence of Palestine. Obviously, with a Christian and Muslim majority of 93%, independence would have halted the colonial project as envisioned by the Balfour Declaration. The fact that the Royal Commission of 1936-37 recognized that the Palestinian Arabs, Christian and Muslim, were politically and administratively as developed as those in other Arab countries, makes your conclusion regarding the Palestinian's lack of readiness for independence incorrect. As stated in para. 102 of A/364, which I believe, you are now acquainted with.

"102. The Royal Commission of 1936-37 was impressed by the fact that the Arab national movement.

". . . is now sustained by a far more efficient and comprehensive political machine than existed in earlier years. The centralization of control . . . has now been as fully effected as is possible in any Arab country. All the political parties present a 'common front' and their leaders sit together on the Arab Higher Committee. Christian as well as Moslem Arabs are represented on it."

The truth of the matter is that the British delayed the granting of independence to Palestine to facilitate the Balfour colonial project.

To recapitulate. The Christians and Muslims were ready for independence. The Christians and Muslims rightly refused to accept the Balfour colonial project which was designed to flood Palestine with Europeans and evict the existing inhabitants. I can't think of a more rationale response. The "hostiles" were those from elsewhere planning to dispossess the Christians and Muslims.

This is complete Jibberish ! This is just an excuse for the Palestinian NOT declaring independence when they should have.

Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did. Why didn't they do so before Israel ? There was nothing stopping them. Like you said, they owned most of the land, right? Their declaration of 1948 was a bust and not recognized. After 40 years of thinking they could take away what was now Israel, they decided to declare independence in 1988 on the land allotted to them by the partition plan.

Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did.​

Not true.

Then on what territory did the Palestinians try to declare independence on in 1948 ? Show me map if you can

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al

What is your claim here?

,

Relative to the Middle East, after WWI - the Ottoman Surrender - but prior to Israeli Independence, there was no "military invasion by an armed force" to takeover the territory ---until 15 May 1948, when the combined force of military contribution from Egypt, Jordan, Syria Iraq , Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, --- supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and Sudan (collectively known as the Arab League), violated Article 1(2) - and - 2(4) of the UN Charter by the use of armed force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the new State of Israel.​

​

Load of crap, Rocco.

(COMMENT)

Are you suggesting that Egypt, Jordan, Syria Iraq , Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, --- supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and Sudan, --- DID NOT violated Articles 1(2) - and - 2(4) of the UN Charter?

• That they DID NOT leave the jurisdiction of their sovereign territory?
• That they DID NOT enter a jurisdiction of another territorial entity?

Are you claiming that the basic concepts outlined in the Convention on Rights and Duties of States do not really apply?

• That some political existence is dependent on external recognition?
• That recognition is required before an entity has the right to defend its integrity and independence?
• That recognition must be implicitly expressed?

What are you saying?

Most Respectfully,
R

1) Not the point. I don't think so.

2) No.

Of course those 5 Arab states entered a jurisdiction of another territorial integrity. How can you deny such a thing ?

No they didn't.

I have asked many times for someone to show me where any Arab country entered Israel.

Nobody has answered.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"A combined invasion by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, together with expeditionary forces from Iraq, entered Palestine"

"The invading forces took control of the Arab areas and immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements"

1948 Arab Israeli War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

entered Palestine

Indeed!

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al

What is your claim here?

,

Relative to the Middle East, after WWI - the Ottoman Surrender - but prior to Israeli Independence, there was no "military invasion by an armed force" to takeover the territory ---until 15 May 1948, when the combined force of military contribution from Egypt, Jordan, Syria Iraq , Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, --- supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and Sudan (collectively known as the Arab League), violated Article 1(2) - and - 2(4) of the UN Charter by the use of armed force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the new State of Israel.​

​

Load of crap, Rocco.

(COMMENT)

Are you suggesting that Egypt, Jordan, Syria Iraq , Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, --- supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and Sudan, --- DID NOT violated Articles 1(2) - and - 2(4) of the UN Charter?

• That they DID NOT leave the jurisdiction of their sovereign territory?
• That they DID NOT enter a jurisdiction of another territorial entity?

Are you claiming that the basic concepts outlined in the Convention on Rights and Duties of States do not really apply?

• That some political existence is dependent on external recognition?
• That recognition is required before an entity has the right to defend its integrity and independence?
• That recognition must be implicitly expressed?

What are you saying?

Most Respectfully,
R

1) Not the point. I don't think so.

2) No.

Of course those 5 Arab states entered a jurisdiction of another territorial integrity. How can you deny such a thing ?

No they didn't.

I have asked many times for someone to show me where any Arab country entered Israel.

Nobody has answered.

They attacked Israel, but Israeli forces did not allow them to enter Israeli territory from what I have read.

 

[toastman]

"A combined invasion by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, together with expeditionary forces from Iraq, entered Palestine"

"The invading forces took control of the Arab areas and immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements"

1948 Arab Israeli War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

entered Palestine

Indeed!

Well they couldn't just enter Israel, the country they were fighting, although they tried to .

 

[P F Tinmore]

Rocco has been blowing a lot of smoke at my posts but he has not answered the questions.

Rocco has been exceedingly patient as always. To tell the truth, I can't imagine how he remains so in dealing with you hateful vermin.

I don't see how Tinmore has the patience to deal you

montelatici, et al,

You are reading much to much into the Article 22 position.

Rocco et al:

A place is defined by its people. When the British received the "Mandate" the population was made up of about 95% Muslims and Christians. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations applied to this vast majority of the population. The people of the former Ottoman Territories were the "owners" of the land, the Mandatory was simply "entrusted" with the duty of ensuring the "well-being and development" of the people, which included the 93% of the people of Palestine who were not European Jews. Furthermore, these same people were provisionally recognized as an independent nation under the same article of the Covenant.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."

(COMMENT)

First, there are some - 9 Clauses to Article 22 of the Covenant. Nowhere in those 9 Clauses is any specific territory of the Middle East singled out; nor were there any specific Arab inhabitance (indigenous people or habitual inhabitants) offered or promised anything specific relative to self-government or territorial integrity.

Second, the Arab Palestinian declined to participate in the "tutelage" offered by the Mandatory throughout the entire period. This demonstrated an unwillingness to participate in the Article 22 Process or to avail themselves to the gradual process (as a demonstration of their "willing to accept it").

22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.

“The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”
​

In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​

Third, there was nothing written in the Covenant to suggest that Palestine (as territory so determined by the Allied Powers) was singled-out as a "certain community" --- formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire --- as having reached a stage of development either as an independent nation or suitable for "provisionally recognized." That is even more true given that the Arab in that territory (as determined by the Allied Powers) declined to participate in the Article 22 Process that would help bring it to meet the mandatory criteria to be able to stand alone. In fact, it is probably more likely that the "certain community" may have been pertaining to the Hashemite participants in the Arab Revolt or the communities located in the French Mandate, to which Article 22 equally applied.

Fourth, the Arabs of Palestine (the Palestine as defined by the Order in Council) have not yet, even after declaring independence and exercising self-determination more than once, was able to establish a central government that could actually - in a peacefully means - transition from one administration (ruling party) to another in accordance with the:

• 2003 Amended Basic Law (current)
• 2005 Amendment to the Basic Law (current)

So, it really doesn't matter how you observe the State of Palestine, it was unable to meet the criteria in 1923, it was unable to meet the criteria in 1947, it has been unable to meet the criteria of a nation that can stand alone in contemporary times.

I challenge your assertion that the contemporary Arab Palestinian, which has not been able to Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, in the last 45 years, has ever made a credible effort to assume the governmental roles of a nation "under the strenuous conditions of the modern world." (Another Article 22 Criteria.)

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco,

Firstly, your premise is incorrect. Palestine was, in fact, included among the Class A Mandates, i.e., those territories whose people received provisional independence. Only when the Mandatory realized the impossibility of protecting the rights of the majority did the British pull back and not promote the independence of Palestine. Obviously, with a Christian and Muslim majority of 93%, independence would have halted the colonial project as envisioned by the Balfour Declaration. The fact that the Royal Commission of 1936-37 recognized that the Palestinian Arabs, Christian and Muslim, were politically and administratively as developed as those in other Arab countries, makes your conclusion regarding the Palestinian's lack of readiness for independence incorrect. As stated in para. 102 of A/364, which I believe, you are now acquainted with.

"102. The Royal Commission of 1936-37 was impressed by the fact that the Arab national movement.

". . . is now sustained by a far more efficient and comprehensive political machine than existed in earlier years. The centralization of control . . . has now been as fully effected as is possible in any Arab country. All the political parties present a 'common front' and their leaders sit together on the Arab Higher Committee. Christian as well as Moslem Arabs are represented on it."

The truth of the matter is that the British delayed the granting of independence to Palestine to facilitate the Balfour colonial project.

To recapitulate. The Christians and Muslims were ready for independence. The Christians and Muslims rightly refused to accept the Balfour colonial project which was designed to flood Palestine with Europeans and evict the existing inhabitants. I can't think of a more rationale response. The "hostiles" were those from elsewhere planning to dispossess the Christians and Muslims.

This is complete Jibberish ! This is just an excuse for the Palestinian NOT declaring independence when they should have.

Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did. Why didn't they do so before Israel ? There was nothing stopping them. Like you said, they owned most of the land, right? Their declaration of 1948 was a bust and not recognized. After 40 years of thinking they could take away what was now Israel, they decided to declare independence in 1988 on the land allotted to them by the partition plan.

Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did.​

Not true.

Then on what territory did the Palestinians try to declare independence on in 1948 ? Show me map if you can

Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where Palestine encroached on Israel.

 

[toastman]

Rocco has been exceedingly patient as always. To tell the truth, I can't imagine how he remains so in dealing with you hateful vermin.

I don't see how Tinmore has the patience to deal you

montelatici, et al,

You are reading much to much into the Article 22 position.

(COMMENT)

First, there are some - 9 Clauses to Article 22 of the Covenant. Nowhere in those 9 Clauses is any specific territory of the Middle East singled out; nor were there any specific Arab inhabitance (indigenous people or habitual inhabitants) offered or promised anything specific relative to self-government or territorial integrity.

Second, the Arab Palestinian declined to participate in the "tutelage" offered by the Mandatory throughout the entire period. This demonstrated an unwillingness to participate in the Article 22 Process or to avail themselves to the gradual process (as a demonstration of their "willing to accept it").

22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.

“The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”
​

In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​

Third, there was nothing written in the Covenant to suggest that Palestine (as territory so determined by the Allied Powers) was singled-out as a "certain community" --- formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire --- as having reached a stage of development either as an independent nation or suitable for "provisionally recognized." That is even more true given that the Arab in that territory (as determined by the Allied Powers) declined to participate in the Article 22 Process that would help bring it to meet the mandatory criteria to be able to stand alone. In fact, it is probably more likely that the "certain community" may have been pertaining to the Hashemite participants in the Arab Revolt or the communities located in the French Mandate, to which Article 22 equally applied.

Fourth, the Arabs of Palestine (the Palestine as defined by the Order in Council) have not yet, even after declaring independence and exercising self-determination more than once, was able to establish a central government that could actually - in a peacefully means - transition from one administration (ruling party) to another in accordance with the:

• 2003 Amended Basic Law (current)
• 2005 Amendment to the Basic Law (current)

So, it really doesn't matter how you observe the State of Palestine, it was unable to meet the criteria in 1923, it was unable to meet the criteria in 1947, it has been unable to meet the criteria of a nation that can stand alone in contemporary times.

I challenge your assertion that the contemporary Arab Palestinian, which has not been able to Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, in the last 45 years, has ever made a credible effort to assume the governmental roles of a nation "under the strenuous conditions of the modern world." (Another Article 22 Criteria.)

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco,

Firstly, your premise is incorrect. Palestine was, in fact, included among the Class A Mandates, i.e., those territories whose people received provisional independence. Only when the Mandatory realized the impossibility of protecting the rights of the majority did the British pull back and not promote the independence of Palestine. Obviously, with a Christian and Muslim majority of 93%, independence would have halted the colonial project as envisioned by the Balfour Declaration. The fact that the Royal Commission of 1936-37 recognized that the Palestinian Arabs, Christian and Muslim, were politically and administratively as developed as those in other Arab countries, makes your conclusion regarding the Palestinian's lack of readiness for independence incorrect. As stated in para. 102 of A/364, which I believe, you are now acquainted with.

"102. The Royal Commission of 1936-37 was impressed by the fact that the Arab national movement.

". . . is now sustained by a far more efficient and comprehensive political machine than existed in earlier years. The centralization of control . . . has now been as fully effected as is possible in any Arab country. All the political parties present a 'common front' and their leaders sit together on the Arab Higher Committee. Christian as well as Moslem Arabs are represented on it."

The truth of the matter is that the British delayed the granting of independence to Palestine to facilitate the Balfour colonial project.

To recapitulate. The Christians and Muslims were ready for independence. The Christians and Muslims rightly refused to accept the Balfour colonial project which was designed to flood Palestine with Europeans and evict the existing inhabitants. I can't think of a more rationale response. The "hostiles" were those from elsewhere planning to dispossess the Christians and Muslims.

This is complete Jibberish ! This is just an excuse for the Palestinian NOT declaring independence when they should have.

Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did. Why didn't they do so before Israel ? There was nothing stopping them. Like you said, they owned most of the land, right? Their declaration of 1948 was a bust and not recognized. After 40 years of thinking they could take away what was now Israel, they decided to declare independence in 1988 on the land allotted to them by the partition plan.

Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did.​

Not true.

Then on what territory did the Palestinians try to declare independence on in 1948 ? Show me map if you can

Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where Palestine encroached on Israel.

d by

Look at a map of the partition plan. Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her by the partition plan.
It was not Palestine that enroached on Israel, it was Arab forces joined by Palestinian militias.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I don't see how Tinmore has the patience to deal you
Rocco,

Firstly, your premise is incorrect. Palestine was, in fact, included among the Class A Mandates, i.e., those territories whose people received provisional independence. Only when the Mandatory realized the impossibility of protecting the rights of the majority did the British pull back and not promote the independence of Palestine. Obviously, with a Christian and Muslim majority of 93%, independence would have halted the colonial project as envisioned by the Balfour Declaration. The fact that the Royal Commission of 1936-37 recognized that the Palestinian Arabs, Christian and Muslim, were politically and administratively as developed as those in other Arab countries, makes your conclusion regarding the Palestinian's lack of readiness for independence incorrect. As stated in para. 102 of A/364, which I believe, you are now acquainted with.

"102. The Royal Commission of 1936-37 was impressed by the fact that the Arab national movement.

". . . is now sustained by a far more efficient and comprehensive political machine than existed in earlier years. The centralization of control . . . has now been as fully effected as is possible in any Arab country. All the political parties present a 'common front' and their leaders sit together on the Arab Higher Committee. Christian as well as Moslem Arabs are represented on it."

The truth of the matter is that the British delayed the granting of independence to Palestine to facilitate the Balfour colonial project.

To recapitulate. The Christians and Muslims were ready for independence. The Christians and Muslims rightly refused to accept the Balfour colonial project which was designed to flood Palestine with Europeans and evict the existing inhabitants. I can't think of a more rationale response. The "hostiles" were those from elsewhere planning to dispossess the Christians and Muslims.

This is complete Jibberish ! This is just an excuse for the Palestinian NOT declaring independence when they should have.

Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did. Why didn't they do so before Israel ? There was nothing stopping them. Like you said, they owned most of the land, right? Their declaration of 1948 was a bust and not recognized. After 40 years of thinking they could take away what was now Israel, they decided to declare independence in 1988 on the land allotted to them by the partition plan.

Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did.​

Not true.

Then on what territory did the Palestinians try to declare independence on in 1948 ? Show me map if you can

Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where Palestine encroached on Israel.

d by

Look at a map of the partition plan. Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her by the partition plan.
It was not Palestine that enroached on Israel, it was Arab forces joined by Palestinian militias.

The partition plan was a non binding, General Assembly recommendation for the for the Security Council to partition Palestine.

The Security Council did not act on that recommendation.

There was no allotted land. It was a recommendation.

 

[toastman]

This is complete Jibberish ! This is just an excuse for the Palestinian NOT declaring independence when they should have.

Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did. Why didn't they do so before Israel ? There was nothing stopping them. Like you said, they owned most of the land, right? Their declaration of 1948 was a bust and not recognized. After 40 years of thinking they could take away what was now Israel, they decided to declare independence in 1988 on the land allotted to them by the partition plan.

Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did.​

Not true.

Then on what territory did the Palestinians try to declare independence on in 1948 ? Show me map if you can

Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where Palestine encroached on Israel.

d by

Look at a map of the partition plan. Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her by the partition plan.
It was not Palestine that enroached on Israel, it was Arab forces joined by Palestinian militias.

The partition plan was a non binding, General Assembly recommendation for the for the Security Council to partition Palestine.

The Security Council did not act on that recommendation.

There was no allotted land. It was a recommendation.

Rocco has been exceedingly patient as always. To tell the truth, I can't imagine how he remains so in dealing with you hateful vermin.

I don't see how Tinmore has the patience to deal you

montelatici, et al,

You are reading much to much into the Article 22 position.

(COMMENT)

First, there are some - 9 Clauses to Article 22 of the Covenant. Nowhere in those 9 Clauses is any specific territory of the Middle East singled out; nor were there any specific Arab inhabitance (indigenous people or habitual inhabitants) offered or promised anything specific relative to self-government or territorial integrity.

Second, the Arab Palestinian declined to participate in the "tutelage" offered by the Mandatory throughout the entire period. This demonstrated an unwillingness to participate in the Article 22 Process or to avail themselves to the gradual process (as a demonstration of their "willing to accept it").

22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.

“The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”
​

In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​

Third, there was nothing written in the Covenant to suggest that Palestine (as territory so determined by the Allied Powers) was singled-out as a "certain community" --- formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire --- as having reached a stage of development either as an independent nation or suitable for "provisionally recognized." That is even more true given that the Arab in that territory (as determined by the Allied Powers) declined to participate in the Article 22 Process that would help bring it to meet the mandatory criteria to be able to stand alone. In fact, it is probably more likely that the "certain community" may have been pertaining to the Hashemite participants in the Arab Revolt or the communities located in the French Mandate, to which Article 22 equally applied.

Fourth, the Arabs of Palestine (the Palestine as defined by the Order in Council) have not yet, even after declaring independence and exercising self-determination more than once, was able to establish a central government that could actually - in a peacefully means - transition from one administration (ruling party) to another in accordance with the:

• 2003 Amended Basic Law (current)
• 2005 Amendment to the Basic Law (current)

So, it really doesn't matter how you observe the State of Palestine, it was unable to meet the criteria in 1923, it was unable to meet the criteria in 1947, it has been unable to meet the criteria of a nation that can stand alone in contemporary times.

I challenge your assertion that the contemporary Arab Palestinian, which has not been able to Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, in the last 45 years, has ever made a credible effort to assume the governmental roles of a nation "under the strenuous conditions of the modern world." (Another Article 22 Criteria.)

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco,

Firstly, your premise is incorrect. Palestine was, in fact, included among the Class A Mandates, i.e., those territories whose people received provisional independence. Only when the Mandatory realized the impossibility of protecting the rights of the majority did the British pull back and not promote the independence of Palestine. Obviously, with a Christian and Muslim majority of 93%, independence would have halted the colonial project as envisioned by the Balfour Declaration. The fact that the Royal Commission of 1936-37 recognized that the Palestinian Arabs, Christian and Muslim, were politically and administratively as developed as those in other Arab countries, makes your conclusion regarding the Palestinian's lack of readiness for independence incorrect. As stated in para. 102 of A/364, which I believe, you are now acquainted with.

"102. The Royal Commission of 1936-37 was impressed by the fact that the Arab national movement.

". . . is now sustained by a far more efficient and comprehensive political machine than existed in earlier years. The centralization of control . . . has now been as fully effected as is possible in any Arab country. All the political parties present a 'common front' and their leaders sit together on the Arab Higher Committee. Christian as well as Moslem Arabs are represented on it."

The truth of the matter is that the British delayed the granting of independence to Palestine to facilitate the Balfour colonial project.

To recapitulate. The Christians and Muslims were ready for independence. The Christians and Muslims rightly refused to accept the Balfour colonial project which was designed to flood Palestine with Europeans and evict the existing inhabitants. I can't think of a more rationale response. The "hostiles" were those from elsewhere planning to dispossess the Christians and Muslims.

This is complete Jibberish ! This is just an excuse for the Palestinian NOT declaring independence when they should have.

Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did. Why didn't they do so before Israel ? There was nothing stopping them. Like you said, they owned most of the land, right? Their declaration of 1948 was a bust and not recognized. After 40 years of thinking they could take away what was now Israel, they decided to declare independence in 1988 on the land allotted to them by the partition plan.

Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did.​

Not true.

Then on what territory did the Palestinians try to declare independence on in 1948 ? Show me map if you can

Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where Palestine encroached on Israel.

Here is a map of the Arab offensive:

 

[toastman]

This is complete Jibberish ! This is just an excuse for the Palestinian NOT declaring independence when they should have.

Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did. Why didn't they do so before Israel ? There was nothing stopping them. Like you said, they owned most of the land, right? Their declaration of 1948 was a bust and not recognized. After 40 years of thinking they could take away what was now Israel, they decided to declare independence in 1988 on the land allotted to them by the partition plan.

Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did.​

Not true.

Then on what territory did the Palestinians try to declare independence on in 1948 ? Show me map if you can

Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where Palestine encroached on Israel.

d by

Look at a map of the partition plan. Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her by the partition plan.
It was not Palestine that enroached on Israel, it was Arab forces joined by Palestinian militias.

The partition plan was a non binding, General Assembly recommendation for the for the Security Council to partition Palestine.

The Security Council did not act on that recommendation.

There was no allotted land. It was a recommendation.

"captures 50% of area allotted to Arab state,"

1948 Arab Israeli War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[P F Tinmore]

Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did.​

Not true.

Then on what territory did the Palestinians try to declare independence on in 1948 ? Show me map if you can

Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where Palestine encroached on Israel.

d by

Look at a map of the partition plan. Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her by the partition plan.
It was not Palestine that enroached on Israel, it was Arab forces joined by Palestinian militias.

The partition plan was a non binding, General Assembly recommendation for the for the Security Council to partition Palestine.

The Security Council did not act on that recommendation.

There was no allotted land. It was a recommendation.

I don't see how Tinmore has the patience to deal you
Rocco,

Firstly, your premise is incorrect. Palestine was, in fact, included among the Class A Mandates, i.e., those territories whose people received provisional independence. Only when the Mandatory realized the impossibility of protecting the rights of the majority did the British pull back and not promote the independence of Palestine. Obviously, with a Christian and Muslim majority of 93%, independence would have halted the colonial project as envisioned by the Balfour Declaration. The fact that the Royal Commission of 1936-37 recognized that the Palestinian Arabs, Christian and Muslim, were politically and administratively as developed as those in other Arab countries, makes your conclusion regarding the Palestinian's lack of readiness for independence incorrect. As stated in para. 102 of A/364, which I believe, you are now acquainted with.

"102. The Royal Commission of 1936-37 was impressed by the fact that the Arab national movement.

". . . is now sustained by a far more efficient and comprehensive political machine than existed in earlier years. The centralization of control . . . has now been as fully effected as is possible in any Arab country. All the political parties present a 'common front' and their leaders sit together on the Arab Higher Committee. Christian as well as Moslem Arabs are represented on it."

The truth of the matter is that the British delayed the granting of independence to Palestine to facilitate the Balfour colonial project.

To recapitulate. The Christians and Muslims were ready for independence. The Christians and Muslims rightly refused to accept the Balfour colonial project which was designed to flood Palestine with Europeans and evict the existing inhabitants. I can't think of a more rationale response. The "hostiles" were those from elsewhere planning to dispossess the Christians and Muslims.

This is complete Jibberish ! This is just an excuse for the Palestinian NOT declaring independence when they should have.

Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did. Why didn't they do so before Israel ? There was nothing stopping them. Like you said, they owned most of the land, right? Their declaration of 1948 was a bust and not recognized. After 40 years of thinking they could take away what was now Israel, they decided to declare independence in 1988 on the land allotted to them by the partition plan.

Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did.​

Not true.

Then on what territory did the Palestinians try to declare independence on in 1948 ? Show me map if you can

Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where Palestine encroached on Israel.

Here is a map of the Arab offensive:

I don't see any Israeli borders. Where is it?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did.​

Not true.

Then on what territory did the Palestinians try to declare independence on in 1948 ? Show me map if you can

Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where Palestine encroached on Israel.

d by

Look at a map of the partition plan. Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her by the partition plan.
It was not Palestine that enroached on Israel, it was Arab forces joined by Palestinian militias.

The partition plan was a non binding, General Assembly recommendation for the for the Security Council to partition Palestine.

The Security Council did not act on that recommendation.

There was no allotted land. It was a recommendation.

"captures 50% of area allotted to Arab state,"

1948 Arab Israeli War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

There again, it was a recommendation that didn't happen.

 

[toastman]

Then on what territory did the Palestinians try to declare independence on in 1948 ? Show me map if you can

Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where Palestine encroached on Israel.

d by

Look at a map of the partition plan. Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her by the partition plan.
It was not Palestine that enroached on Israel, it was Arab forces joined by Palestinian militias.

The partition plan was a non binding, General Assembly recommendation for the for the Security Council to partition Palestine.

The Security Council did not act on that recommendation.

There was no allotted land. It was a recommendation.

This is complete Jibberish ! This is just an excuse for the Palestinian NOT declaring independence when they should have.

Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did. Why didn't they do so before Israel ? There was nothing stopping them. Like you said, they owned most of the land, right? Their declaration of 1948 was a bust and not recognized. After 40 years of thinking they could take away what was now Israel, they decided to declare independence in 1988 on the land allotted to them by the partition plan.

Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did.​

Not true.

Then on what territory did the Palestinians try to declare independence on in 1948 ? Show me map if you can

Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where Palestine encroached on Israel.

Here is a map of the Arab offensive:

I don't see any Israeli borders. Where is it?

What does that have to do with anything ?

 

[toastman]

Then on what territory did the Palestinians try to declare independence on in 1948 ? Show me map if you can

Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where Palestine encroached on Israel.

d by

Look at a map of the partition plan. Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her by the partition plan.
It was not Palestine that enroached on Israel, it was Arab forces joined by Palestinian militias.

The partition plan was a non binding, General Assembly recommendation for the for the Security Council to partition Palestine.

The Security Council did not act on that recommendation.

There was no allotted land. It was a recommendation.

"captures 50% of area allotted to Arab state,"

1948 Arab Israeli War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

There again, it was a recommendation that didn't happen.

The partition plan allotted, or allocated if you prefer,land for a Jewish state and an Arab one.

Yes, the partition plan DID happen, as both countries used the resolution as a basis to declare independence. Israel agreed to it in 1948, the Palestinian in 1988.

"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, together with an international trusteeship for the City of Jerusalem. The significance of the PNC’s acceptance of partition in the Palestinian Declaration of Independence itself cannot be overemphasized"

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

 

[P F Tinmore]

Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where Palestine encroached on Israel.

d by

Look at a map of the partition plan. Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her by the partition plan.
It was not Palestine that enroached on Israel, it was Arab forces joined by Palestinian militias.

The partition plan was a non binding, General Assembly recommendation for the for the Security Council to partition Palestine.

The Security Council did not act on that recommendation.

There was no allotted land. It was a recommendation.

Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did.​

Not true.

Then on what territory did the Palestinians try to declare independence on in 1948 ? Show me map if you can

Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where Palestine encroached on Israel.

Here is a map of the Arab offensive:

I don't see any Israeli borders. Where is it?

What does that have to do with anything ?

The discussion was about the Arab armies attacking Israel. I don't see anything on that map marked Israel.

 

[toastman]

d by

Look at a map of the partition plan. Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her by the partition plan.
It was not Palestine that enroached on Israel, it was Arab forces joined by Palestinian militias.

The partition plan was a non binding, General Assembly recommendation for the for the Security Council to partition Palestine.

The Security Council did not act on that recommendation.

There was no allotted land. It was a recommendation.

Then on what territory did the Palestinians try to declare independence on in 1948 ? Show me map if you can

Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where Palestine encroached on Israel.

Here is a map of the Arab offensive:

I don't see any Israeli borders. Where is it?

What does that have to do with anything ?

The discussion was about the Arab armies attacking Israel. I don't see anything on that map marked Israel.

It was called the Arab - Israeli war Tinmore. Why do you need link to show who the Arabs attacked? What's wrong with you ??? Of course they attacked Israel.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now it is time that you cut the crap. You cannot post a Map that shows the Arab Countries did not violate the Charter. The UN posted the following.

On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs. SOURCE: Page 10 - The first Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 - Chapter 2: The Partition Plan and the end of the British mandate - The Question of Palestine and the United Nations . UN Document​

Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where Palestine encroached on Israel.

(COMMENT)

You can deny, all you want, that Israel doesn't have borders and therefore, the Arab Forces are free to interfere all they can. But in doing so, with each clash, the Arab Palestinian seems to lose control of more territory that was originally allotted for the Arab State.

On 15 July 1948, the Security Council decided in a resolution that the situation in Palestine constituted a threat to the peace. It ordered a ceasefire and declared that failure to comply would be construed as a breach of the peace requiring immediate consideration of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. In accordance with the resolution, a second truce came into force. By that time, Israel controlled much of the territory allotted to the Arab State by the partition resolution, including the western part of Jerusalem. Egypt and Jordan respectively controlled the remaining portions of the Gaza district and the West Bank of the Jordan River (which included East Jerusalem, with its walled Old City). More fighting took place in October 1948 and March 1949, during which Israel took over other areas, some of which had been allotted to the Arab State. In 1950, Jordan brought the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, formally under its jurisdiction pending a solution to the problem. SOURCE: Page 10 - The first Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 - Chapter 2: The Partition Plan and the end of the British mandate - The Question of Palestine and the United Nations . UN Document​

It really doesn't matter at this point. The Arab Palestinians will never have enough leverage now to negotiate with Israel --- and it is unlikely that the Arab League, now in danger from another Islamic Threat (the Islamic State), not so dissimilar from the Islamic Resistance Movement.

Hamas, PA could be next pawns in Saudi-Iranian proxy war ...www.foxnews.com/world/2015/04/15/hamas-pa...in-saudi-iranian-proxy-warApr 15, 2015 ·
Top Palestinian Authority officials are appealing to Saudi Arabia to use an "iron hand" toward Iranian-backed rival Hamas, a development that underscores ...​

Additionally, Major General Qassem Suleimani, Commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Qods Force (IRGC-QF), makes very plain the Persian Alliance with HAMAS (The Islamic Resistance Movement) and the amount of influence the IRGC-QF has with the Palestinian militants of a military wing (Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades) of the Islamic Resistance Movement. (This further confuses the Sunni 'v' Shi'ite Rivalry in the reason. The question is asked: Is HAMAS Sunni? Or is HAMAS Shi'ite? Or is HAMAS for sale to the highest bidder?)

Iran 'is intensifying efforts to support Hamas in Gaza'
By Con Coughlin, Defence Editor, 04 Apr 2015
Iran has transferred tens of millions of dollars to Hamas's military wing in Gaza to help it rebuild after last summer's conflict with Israel, intelligence sources state Iran has sent Hamas’s military wing tens of millions of dollars to help it rebuild the network of tunnels in Gaza destroyed by Israel’s invasion last summer, intelligence sources have told The Sunday Telegraph.
​

In any event, the pro-Palestinian aspects and ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Quds Force seem to suggest that the Palestinians will string any story along to get support in their desperate bid for weapons to carry-on the Armed Struggle and terrorism which they prefer to a negotiated settlement. However, the longer the Palestinians remain in a de facto "State of War" with the Israelis, the more enhanced the likelihood that Israeli settlements in Area "C" will expand in order to meet the potential threat to Israel by Iranian Proxies.

NOTE: The importance to the Iranian connection to HAMAS in Gaza, is that if allowed to breach containment and develop a solid abase, Saudi Arabia will have Iranians on two sides (the Palestinian Side and the Persian Gulf Side).​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now it is time that you cut the crap. You cannot post a Map that shows the Arab Countries did not violate the Charter. The UN posted the following.

On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs. SOURCE: Page 10 - The first Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 - Chapter 2: The Partition Plan and the end of the British mandate - The Question of Palestine and the United Nations . UN Document​

Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where Palestine encroached on Israel.

(COMMENT)

You can deny, all you want, that Israel doesn't have borders and therefore, the Arab Forces are free to interfere all they can. But in doing so, with each clash, the Arab Palestinian seems to lose control of more territory that was originally allotted for the Arab State.

On 15 July 1948, the Security Council decided in a resolution that the situation in Palestine constituted a threat to the peace. It ordered a ceasefire and declared that failure to comply would be construed as a breach of the peace requiring immediate consideration of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. In accordance with the resolution, a second truce came into force. By that time, Israel controlled much of the territory allotted to the Arab State by the partition resolution, including the western part of Jerusalem. Egypt and Jordan respectively controlled the remaining portions of the Gaza district and the West Bank of the Jordan River (which included East Jerusalem, with its walled Old City). More fighting took place in October 1948 and March 1949, during which Israel took over other areas, some of which had been allotted to the Arab State. In 1950, Jordan brought the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, formally under its jurisdiction pending a solution to the problem. SOURCE: Page 10 - The first Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 - Chapter 2: The Partition Plan and the end of the British mandate - The Question of Palestine and the United Nations . UN Document​

It really doesn't matter at this point. The Arab Palestinians will never have enough leverage now to negotiate with Israel --- and it is unlikely that the Arab League, now in danger from another Islamic Threat (the Islamic State), not so dissimilar from the Islamic Resistance Movement.

Hamas, PA could be next pawns in Saudi-Iranian proxy war ...www.foxnews.com/world/2015/04/15/hamas-pa...in-saudi-iranian-proxy-warApr 15, 2015 ·
Top Palestinian Authority officials are appealing to Saudi Arabia to use an "iron hand" toward Iranian-backed rival Hamas, a development that underscores ...​

Additionally, Major General Qassem Suleimani, Commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Qods Force (IRGC-QF), makes very plain the Persian Alliance with HAMAS (The Islamic Resistance Movement) and the amount of influence the IRGC-QF has with the Palestinian militants of a military wing (Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades) of the Islamic Resistance Movement. (This further confuses the Sunni 'v' Shi'ite Rivalry in the reason. The question is asked: Is HAMAS Sunni? Or is HAMAS Shi'ite? Or is HAMAS for sale to the highest bidder?)

Iran 'is intensifying efforts to support Hamas in Gaza'
By Con Coughlin, Defence Editor, 04 Apr 2015
Iran has transferred tens of millions of dollars to Hamas's military wing in Gaza to help it rebuild after last summer's conflict with Israel, intelligence sources state Iran has sent Hamas’s military wing tens of millions of dollars to help it rebuild the network of tunnels in Gaza destroyed by Israel’s invasion last summer, intelligence sources have told The Sunday Telegraph.
​

In any event, the pro-Palestinian aspects and ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Quds Force seem to suggest that the Palestinians will string any story along to get support in their desperate bid for weapons to carry-on the Armed Struggle and terrorism which they prefer to a negotiated settlement. However, the longer the Palestinians remain in a de facto "State of War" with the Israelis, the more enhanced the likelihood that Israeli settlements in Area "C" will expand in order to meet the potential threat to Israel by Iranian Proxies.

NOTE: The importance to the Iranian connection to HAMAS in Gaza, is that if allowed to breach containment and develop a solid abase, Saudi Arabia will have Iranians on two sides (the Palestinian Side and the Persian Gulf Side).​

Most Respectfully,
R

Well said Rocco, great post ....

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now it is time that you cut the crap. You cannot post a Map that shows the Arab Countries did not violate the Charter. The UN posted the following.

On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs. SOURCE: Page 10 - The first Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 - Chapter 2: The Partition Plan and the end of the British mandate - The Question of Palestine and the United Nations . UN Document​

Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where Palestine encroached on Israel.

(COMMENT)

You can deny, all you want, that Israel doesn't have borders and therefore, the Arab Forces are free to interfere all they can. But in doing so, with each clash, the Arab Palestinian seems to lose control of more territory that was originally allotted for the Arab State.

On 15 July 1948, the Security Council decided in a resolution that the situation in Palestine constituted a threat to the peace. It ordered a ceasefire and declared that failure to comply would be construed as a breach of the peace requiring immediate consideration of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. In accordance with the resolution, a second truce came into force. By that time, Israel controlled much of the territory allotted to the Arab State by the partition resolution, including the western part of Jerusalem. Egypt and Jordan respectively controlled the remaining portions of the Gaza district and the West Bank of the Jordan River (which included East Jerusalem, with its walled Old City). More fighting took place in October 1948 and March 1949, during which Israel took over other areas, some of which had been allotted to the Arab State. In 1950, Jordan brought the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, formally under its jurisdiction pending a solution to the problem. SOURCE: Page 10 - The first Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 - Chapter 2: The Partition Plan and the end of the British mandate - The Question of Palestine and the United Nations . UN Document​

It really doesn't matter at this point. The Arab Palestinians will never have enough leverage now to negotiate with Israel --- and it is unlikely that the Arab League, now in danger from another Islamic Threat (the Islamic State), not so dissimilar from the Islamic Resistance Movement.

Hamas, PA could be next pawns in Saudi-Iranian proxy war ...www.foxnews.com/world/2015/04/15/hamas-pa...in-saudi-iranian-proxy-warApr 15, 2015 ·
Top Palestinian Authority officials are appealing to Saudi Arabia to use an "iron hand" toward Iranian-backed rival Hamas, a development that underscores ...​

Additionally, Major General Qassem Suleimani, Commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Qods Force (IRGC-QF), makes very plain the Persian Alliance with HAMAS (The Islamic Resistance Movement) and the amount of influence the IRGC-QF has with the Palestinian militants of a military wing (Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades) of the Islamic Resistance Movement. (This further confuses the Sunni 'v' Shi'ite Rivalry in the reason. The question is asked: Is HAMAS Sunni? Or is HAMAS Shi'ite? Or is HAMAS for sale to the highest bidder?)

Iran 'is intensifying efforts to support Hamas in Gaza'
By Con Coughlin, Defence Editor, 04 Apr 2015
Iran has transferred tens of millions of dollars to Hamas's military wing in Gaza to help it rebuild after last summer's conflict with Israel, intelligence sources state Iran has sent Hamas’s military wing tens of millions of dollars to help it rebuild the network of tunnels in Gaza destroyed by Israel’s invasion last summer, intelligence sources have told The Sunday Telegraph.
​

In any event, the pro-Palestinian aspects and ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Quds Force seem to suggest that the Palestinians will string any story along to get support in their desperate bid for weapons to carry-on the Armed Struggle and terrorism which they prefer to a negotiated settlement. However, the longer the Palestinians remain in a de facto "State of War" with the Israelis, the more enhanced the likelihood that Israeli settlements in Area "C" will expand in order to meet the potential threat to Israel by Iranian Proxies.

NOTE: The importance to the Iranian connection to HAMAS in Gaza, is that if allowed to breach containment and develop a solid abase, Saudi Arabia will have Iranians on two sides (the Palestinian Side and the Persian Gulf Side).​

Most Respectfully,
R

I have to give you credit, Rocco, this is one of the most verbose ducks I have ever seen.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You really haven't provided anything of substance to the discussion in quite a while. You prefer to ask questions --- in such a way as to preclude a simple answer --- and then criticize the complex nature of the response. In this case you asked for a Map during a transitional period between the Mandate period and termination period --- that cascades into a period of armed conflict when territorial control is moving. Clearly your point was to imply that if a border cannot be identified, then the Arab Armies that left their sovereign territory did not enter Israel. That clearly violates the concepts of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, yet you don't challenge the convention or the way the Article are applied to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict --- but complain the explanation is to "verbose."

Nonsense! You just don;t have the ability to address the points made.

[
I have to give you credit, Rocco, this is one of the most verbose ducks I have ever seen.

(COMMENT)

Earlier, you denied that the Arab Countries attacked Israel --- trying to suggest that Israel does not exist because it does not have borders or boundaries that conform to Palestinian Guidelines; as if the Palestinians had some pre-existing right to place restrictions on the Israeli right to self determination.

Then you consistently challenge each response, not by content --- but by suggesting it is "verbose" (using or expressed in more words than are needed), as if the 67 year conflict between on the matter of the Jewish National Home and the Arab Civil War to prevent it, can be address in short and simple sound bites.

I am not impressed with your lack of an ability to address the issues. I am impressed in the way you take substantive points --- grounded in facts and logic --- and totally discard them as if the only perspective of realistic consequence is that held by would-be pro-Palestinians that have not made a contribution (of any sort) to humanity in nearly a century.

Most Respectfully,
R