Do Palestinians Have the Right to Defend Themselves?

[Phoenall]

"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!

Which under International law was Israeli land granted in 1923

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Will a map from 1922 do that shows the lands granted to the Jews for their National Home

Or how about one from 1937

 

[Phoenall]

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.

But the LoN did allot land to the Jews for their National Home in 1923, this entered into international law and so Israel fulfilled the terms of the mandate on may 14 1948. The truth sucks when you are a brainwashed islamomoron fed on propaganda and lies.

 

[Phoenall]

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:

Very clear that the arab armies invaded the north east of Israel, the east, the north west and the south west

 

[Phoenall]

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?

Shown by the dash dot line

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Only if you don't believe that the Jews have the right to live in Israel

 

[Phoenall]

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.

I don't see anything marked Palestine , Egypt, Syria or Iraq either

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is the layman engineered question; but not politically very savvy. There are TWO (2) theories that are near equally valid when it comes to the international law behind the recognition of a sovereign sate.

• The first is called the “declaratory” view. The “declaratory” view has been, for the last century, the more accepted and generally understood view. But at the dawn of the 21st Century, it has gradually become less favorable (largely because of the implications and conflict is has generated) in the last half of the 20th Century. Under the “declaratory” view, upon the declaration of independence, pursuant to the Articles 3 and 6 of the Montevideo Convention the 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of a State --- the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. The declaratory theory looks to the new state’s assertion of its sovereignty within the territory it exclusively controls to determine it validity. International Court of Justice (ICJ) is generally understood to hold and adheres to the "declaratory" view; consistent to the Montevideo Convention.

• The “declaratory” view has begun to give way to the more popular view known as the “constitutive” view, which is better understood and much easier to understand; simply because it is less ambiguous. The "constitutive theory" states that recognition of an entity as a state is not automatic. Under this theory --- and contrary to the 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of a State --- a state is only a state when it is recognized as such and other states; which is discretionary. Under the "constitutive theory" - in the legal sense, a new state is not a state unless it is recognized as a state (this is the exact opposite of the Montevideo Convention the 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of a State --- and the “declaratory” view).

Many pro-Palestinians, especial those that argue that on the termination of the Mandate, they hold clearly in favors of the declaratory model, that is, that the entity exists as a state before recognition, flows in parallel with the inalienable rights theory. The notion that international recognition of the entity as a new state is required before hand, rejects the view that a state existed before recognition.

How can anyone attack Israel if it has no defined territory? Where is it?

(REFERENCES)

• Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
• Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
• Law-Pedia.com Definition of "High Contracting Parties (representatives of states who have signed or ratified a treaty)
• The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), signed at Vienna on 23 May1969

(COMMENT)

In the case of the pro-Palestinians, they want to use elements of both theories; simultaneously. The want to say that Palestine existed before the Mandate (but was taken from them). The Arab Palestinians wants to say that they do not consider Israel as a legal state, even though Israel had recognition well before the Arab Palestinian.

(ANSWER)

Under the "declarative view" Israel declares itself a free and independent state and under the right of self-defense, establishes that territory it controls pursuant to Articles 3 through 6 of the Montevideo Convention.

ARTICLE 3

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.
The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.​

ARTICLE 4

States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​

ARTICLE 5

The fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever.​

ARTICLE 6

The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.​

ARTICLE 7

The recognition of a state may be express or tacit. The latter results from any act which implies the intention of recognizing the new state.​

ARTICLE 8

No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

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.

But the LoN did allot land to the Jews for their National Home in 1923, this entered into international law and so Israel fulfilled the terms of the mandate on may 14 1948. The truth sucks when you are a brainwashed islamomoron fed on propaganda and lies.

The LoN had no legal right to allot land. Per article 22 of the Covenant of the LoN. the LoN merely recognized that the land belonged to its inhabitants and the land was put in trust with the Mandatory. Since the inhabitants were 93% Christian and Muslims, 93% belonged to the non-Jewish inhabitants. Posting Hasbara cartoon maps doesn't change fact.

This is the "international law. Don't see anything about non-resident Europeans having any special rights.

"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."

More importantly, per Article 20. Britain, by joining the LoN should have abrogated all obligations and understandings that were inconsistent with the terms of the Covenant of the LoN, which the Balfout Declaration was.

"ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is the layman engineered question; but not politically very savvy. There are TWO (2) theories that are near equally valid when it comes to the international law behind the recognition of a sovereign sate.

• The first is called the “declaratory” view. The “declaratory” view has been, for the last century, the more accepted and generally understood view. But at the dawn of the 21st Century, it has gradually become less favorable (largely because of the implications and conflict is has generated) in the last half of the 20th Century. Under the “declaratory” view, upon the declaration of independence, pursuant to the Articles 3 and 6 of the Montevideo Convention the 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of a State --- the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. The declaratory theory looks to the new state’s assertion of its sovereignty within the territory it exclusively controls to determine it validity. International Court of Justice (ICJ) is generally understood to hold and adheres to the "declaratory" view; consistent to the Montevideo Convention.

• The “declaratory” view has begun to give way to the more popular view known as the “constitutive” view, which is better understood and much easier to understand; simply because it is less ambiguous. The "constitutive theory" states that recognition of an entity as a state is not automatic. Under this theory --- and contrary to the 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of a State --- a state is only a state when it is recognized as such and other states; which is discretionary. Under the "constitutive theory" - in the legal sense, a new state is not a state unless it is recognized as a state (this is the exact opposite of the Montevideo Convention the 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of a State --- and the “declaratory” view).

Many pro-Palestinians, especial those that argue that on the termination of the Mandate, they hold clearly in favors of the declaratory model, that is, that the entity exists as a state before recognition, flows in parallel with the inalienable rights theory. The notion that international recognition of the entity as a new state is required before hand, rejects the view that a state existed before recognition.

How can anyone attack Israel if it has no defined territory? Where is it?

(REFERENCES)

• Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
• Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
• Law-Pedia.com Definition of "High Contracting Parties (representatives of states who have signed or ratified a treaty)
• The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), signed at Vienna on 23 May1969

(COMMENT)

In the case of the pro-Palestinians, they want to use elements of both theories; simultaneously. The want to say that Palestine existed before the Mandate (but was taken from them). The Arab Palestinians wants to say that they do not consider Israel as a legal state, even though Israel had recognition well before the Arab Palestinian.

(ANSWER)

Under the "declarative view" Israel declares itself a free and independent state and under the right of self-defense, establishes that territory it controls pursuant to Articles 3 through 6 of the Montevideo Convention.

ARTICLE 3

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.
The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.​

ARTICLE 4

States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​

ARTICLE 5

The fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever.​

ARTICLE 6

The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.​

ARTICLE 7

The recognition of a state may be express or tacit. The latter results from any act which implies the intention of recognizing the new state.​

ARTICLE 8

No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco et al,

You are mischaracterizing the Palestinian position. The Palestinians have always, since the first Palestinian delegations went to London in the early 1920s to pursue their case for independence, asserted that the Balfour declaration, beyond its basic immorality, i.e. imposing the European settlement of Palestine, was inconsistent with the Covenant of the League of Nations. Moreover they rightfully asserted that Britain agreed, by signing the Covenant, to abrogate any prior agreement inconsistent with the Covenant per article 20 and the Balfour Declaration was certainly inconsistent with, at a minimum articles 22 and 23 of the LoN Covenant.

"ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."

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.


ARTICLE 23.
Subject to and in accordance with the provisions of international conventions existing or hereafter to be agreed upon, the Members of the League:

(a) will endeavour to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women, and children, both in their own countries and in all countries to which their commercial and industrial relations extend, and for that purpose will establish and maintain the necessary international organisations;

(b) undertake to secure just treatment of the native inhabitants of territories under their control;"

In both Article 22 and 23, the inhabitants (93% of which were Muslims and Christians) were to be protected and nurtured. The Balfour Declaration, was clearly in conflict when it asserted special rights for inhabitants of Europe at the expense of the rights of 93% of the inhabitants of Palestine.

Anything else is, I'm afraid, just window dressing that does not change the "original sin" which was that of not safeguarding the welfare (as defined in the Covenant) of 93% of the inhabitants of Palestine when the Mandate was accepted by Britain.


Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

 

[Phoenall]

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.

In other words he has you beat again so you plead ignorance and claim he is ducking the subject. When what has really happened he as answered your arguments, picked them clean and shown that you are a complete idiot with no earthly idea of the situation in the M.E. You just parrot what you are told by your islamonazi handlers and dig that hole you are in ever deeper.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

But the LoN did allot land to the Jews for their National Home in 1923, this entered into international law and so Israel fulfilled the terms of the mandate on may 14 1948. The truth sucks when you are a brainwashed islamomoron fed on propaganda and lies.

The LoN had no legal right to allot land. Per article 22 of the Covenant of the LoN. the LoN merely recognized that the land belonged to its inhabitants and the land was put in trust with the Mandatory. Since the inhabitants were 93% Christian and Muslims, 93% belonged to the non-Jewish inhabitants. Posting Hasbara cartoon maps doesn't change fact.

This is the "international law. Don't see anything about non-resident Europeans having any special rights.

"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."

More importantly, per Article 20. Britain, by joining the LoN should have abrogated all obligations and understandings that were inconsistent with the terms of the Covenant of the LoN, which the Balfout Declaration was.

"ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

YES THEY DID AS THEY GAINED SOVERIENGTY OVER THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. Got that Abdul they owned the land and could do what they wanted with it. If you insist on saying stupid things then you will have to tell the arab muslims that their nations do not exist because the LoN did not have the right to grant them the land.
In the case of Palestine the LoN granted the Jews the legal right under International law to take up the land granted to them and held in trusteeship by the LoN, at any time in future when they saw themselves fit.

Yes and the LoN allotted trans Jordan as the arab muslim portion of Palestine, presided over by a foreign ruler. They gave the arab muslims 3 choices to fulfil their free determination
1) Go to trans Jordan with a small bonus for relocation and travelling expenses
2) stay and become full citizens of the new National home of the Jews
3) stay and be eventually evicted as foreign belligerents, enemies and illegals

We all know what the majority of the arab muslims decided and are now evicted from the National home of the Jews.

Read article 22 again and then post where it mentions arab muslims by name having a say in any future nation.

As for article 20 read that again in full and see where it says anything about giving all of the M.E. to the arab muslims

 

[Phoenall]

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

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...​

How can anyone attack Israel if it has no defined territory? Where is it?

Where is the defined territory of Palestine as detailed in the maps they provided in 1948 or 1988. Lets see what the arab muslims are claiming as Palestine, as I have shown in the maps showing the preliminary borders of Israel that are still to be mutually negotiated with Lebanon, Syria and arab muslim Palestine. Up until those borders are agreed Israel exists on the land it has full control over.

 

[montelatici]

Rocco et al.

There is much confusion about Israel's borders. If one assumes that the creation of a European settler state in Palestine was legal under international law (I don't, by the way as the UN cannot, by its Charter create states), Israel's borders were defined by the provisional government of the Europeans prior to declaring independence. The communications sent by the Europeans to foreign nations requesting recognition were similar to the one written to the U.S.

"DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o'clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.

With full knowledge of the deep bond of sympathy which has existed and has been strengthened over the past thirty years between the Government of the United States and the Jewish people of Palestine, I have been authorized by the provisional government of the new state to tender this message and to express the hope that your government will recognize and will welcome Israel into the community of nations.

Very respectfully yours,

ELIAHU EPSTEIN

Agent, Provisional Government of Israel

Avalon Project - A Decade of American Foreign Policy 1941-1949 - Independence of Israel - Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States May 15 1948

So the only legal borders of Israel are the 1947 borders, as recognized by the U.S. and other countries.

Borders can be changed, but a state can only acquire territory by legal annexation, in agreement with, and with a referendum of the population. Obtaining territory by conquest violates the fundamental principle of the UN Charter.

You forget that the UN has created states since contrary to its charter and they have been islamonazi states, but that is by the by as the state was created in 1923 by a body that could enact International law. So you lose that point

The LoN defined the territory in 1923 and laid it down on the other mandates in existence at the time. If you don't agree then Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi are all illegal as well, because the LoN defined their borders for them.

That was the case on may 14 1948 right up until the combined arab armies attacked and attempted to take Israel by force and murder all the Jews. They failed in this and as a consequence Israel gained control of more free land that had not been claimed by the end of the British mandate. The UN recognised this and so amended their status and borders. So the only borders are those that exist as of 1949 when the arab muslims lost land and many battles. It was not land won by conquest but land taken freely that had no sovereign owner

The UN created no state neither did the LoN. The states you mention received provisional statehood via the Treaty of Versailles which provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.

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.

But the LoN did allot land to the Jews for their National Home in 1923, this entered into international law and so Israel fulfilled the terms of the mandate on may 14 1948. The truth sucks when you are a brainwashed islamomoron fed on propaganda and lies.

The LoN had no legal right to allot land. Per article 22 of the Covenant of the LoN. the LoN merely recognized that the land belonged to its inhabitants and the land was put in trust with the Mandatory. Since the inhabitants were 93% Christian and Muslims, 93% belonged to the non-Jewish inhabitants. Posting Hasbara cartoon maps doesn't change fact.

This is the "international law. Don't see anything about non-resident Europeans having any special rights.

"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."

More importantly, per Article 20. Britain, by joining the LoN should have abrogated all obligations and understandings that were inconsistent with the terms of the Covenant of the LoN, which the Balfout Declaration was.

"ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

YES THEY DID AS THEY GAINED SOVERIENGTY OVER THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. Got that Abdul they owned the land and could do what they wanted with it. If you insist on saying stupid things then you will have to tell the arab muslims that their nations do not exist because the LoN did not have the right to grant them the land.
In the case of Palestine the LoN granted the Jews the legal right under International law to take up the land granted to them and held in trusteeship by the LoN, at any time in future when they saw themselves fit.

Yes and the LoN allotted trans Jordan as the arab muslim portion of Palestine, presided over by a foreign ruler. They gave the arab muslims 3 choices to fulfil their free determination
1) Go to trans Jordan with a small bonus for relocation and travelling expenses
2) stay and become full citizens of the new National home of the Jews
3) stay and be eventually evicted as foreign belligerents, enemies and illegals

We all know what the majority of the arab muslims decided and are now evicted from the National home of the Jews.

Read article 22 again and then post where it mentions arab muslims by name having a say in any future nation.

As for article 20 read that again in full and see where it says anything about giving all of the M.E. to the arab muslims

Article 22, indicates the "inhabitants" would have the say. Who were 93% of the inhabitants Phoney? It says nothing about transferring Europeans to Palestine, quite the opposite, since transferring Europeans to Palestine would be detrimental to the welfare of 93% of the inhabitants.

"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.

Article 20 merely states the previous agreements, such as the Balfour Declaration, which was inconsistent with the Covenant, must have been abrogated. The Balfour Declaration was inconsistent with the Covenant because it impinged on the rights of the inhabitants (the 93% non-Jews) .

 

[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?

Shown by the dash dot line

That dash dot line is the 1949 armistice line. It was not there in 1948. Somebody is trying to lie to you.

 

[Phoenall]

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

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...​

How can anyone attack Israel if it has no defined territory? Where is it?

YOU claim it doesn't have any defined territory . But that' doesn't make it true. Remember, Tinmore rules don't apply to real life.

Israel is a sovereign state. Sovereign states have defined territory:

"In international law, a sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states."

Sovereign state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Indeed, and Israel has never had a defined territory.

Has the nation of Palestine ?

I can produce the defined territory allocated to the Jewish National Home by the LoN Mandate for Palestine a legal and binding document.

Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory

PALESTINE



INTRODUCTORY.


POSITION, ETC.​

Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.

On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: -

North. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

East. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

South. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

West. – The Mediterranean Sea.



So there is Israels defined territory

 

[Phoenall]

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.

(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

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...​

How can anyone attack Israel if it has no defined territory? Where is it?

YOU claim it doesn't have any defined territory . But that' doesn't make it true. Remember, Tinmore rules don't apply to real life.

Israel is a sovereign state. Sovereign states have defined territory:

"In international law, a sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states."

Sovereign state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Indeed, and Israel has never had a defined territory.

Yes she has, and yes she does. Israel is a sovereign state, and international law defines a sovereign state as having defined territory. I provided a link to back up my statement.
Where's your link ?

Did your link define Israel's territory?

Mine does

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

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...​

How can anyone attack Israel if it has no defined territory? Where is it?

YOU claim it doesn't have any defined territory . But that' doesn't make it true. Remember, Tinmore rules don't apply to real life.

Israel is a sovereign state. Sovereign states have defined territory:

"In international law, a sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states."

Sovereign state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Indeed, and Israel has never had a defined territory.

Has the nation of Palestine ?

I can produce the defined territory allocated to the Jewish National Home by the LoN Mandate for Palestine a legal and binding document.

Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory

PALESTINE



INTRODUCTORY.


POSITION, ETC.​

Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.

On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: -

North. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

East. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

South. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

West. – The Mediterranean Sea.



So there is Israels defined territory

Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory​

Then why didn't they call it the area of Israel?

The Mandate was to allow Jews to immigrate to Palestine. They would become Palestinian citizens. They would share the country and become part of the government with the Palestinians already living there. There was not to be a Jewish.

If anyone says different, they are lying.

 

[Phoenall]

Rocco et al.

There is much confusion about Israel's borders. If one assumes that the creation of a European settler state in Palestine was legal under international law (I don't, by the way as the UN cannot, by its Charter create states), Israel's borders were defined by the provisional government of the Europeans prior to declaring independence. The communications sent by the Europeans to foreign nations requesting recognition were similar to the one written to the U.S.

"DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o'clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.

With full knowledge of the deep bond of sympathy which has existed and has been strengthened over the past thirty years between the Government of the United States and the Jewish people of Palestine, I have been authorized by the provisional government of the new state to tender this message and to express the hope that your government will recognize and will welcome Israel into the community of nations.

Very respectfully yours,

ELIAHU EPSTEIN

Agent, Provisional Government of Israel

Avalon Project - A Decade of American Foreign Policy 1941-1949 - Independence of Israel - Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States May 15 1948

So the only legal borders of Israel are the 1947 borders, as recognized by the U.S. and other countries.

Borders can be changed, but a state can only acquire territory by legal annexation, in agreement with, and with a referendum of the population. Obtaining territory by conquest violates the fundamental principle of the UN Charter.

You forget that the UN has created states since contrary to its charter and they have been islamonazi states, but that is by the by as the state was created in 1923 by a body that could enact International law. So you lose that point

The LoN defined the territory in 1923 and laid it down on the other mandates in existence at the time. If you don't agree then Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi are all illegal as well, because the LoN defined their borders for them.

That was the case on may 14 1948 right up until the combined arab armies attacked and attempted to take Israel by force and murder all the Jews. They failed in this and as a consequence Israel gained control of more free land that had not been claimed by the end of the British mandate. The UN recognised this and so amended their status and borders. So the only borders are those that exist as of 1949 when the arab muslims lost land and many battles. It was not land won by conquest but land taken freely that had no sovereign owner

The UN created no state neither did the LoN. The states you mention received provisional statehood via the Treaty of Versailles which provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.

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.

But the LoN did allot land to the Jews for their National Home in 1923, this entered into international law and so Israel fulfilled the terms of the mandate on may 14 1948. The truth sucks when you are a brainwashed islamomoron fed on propaganda and lies.

The LoN had no legal right to allot land. Per article 22 of the Covenant of the LoN. the LoN merely recognized that the land belonged to its inhabitants and the land was put in trust with the Mandatory. Since the inhabitants were 93% Christian and Muslims, 93% belonged to the non-Jewish inhabitants. Posting Hasbara cartoon maps doesn't change fact.

This is the "international law. Don't see anything about non-resident Europeans having any special rights.

"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."

More importantly, per Article 20. Britain, by joining the LoN should have abrogated all obligations and understandings that were inconsistent with the terms of the Covenant of the LoN, which the Balfout Declaration was.

"ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

YES THEY DID AS THEY GAINED SOVERIENGTY OVER THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. Got that Abdul they owned the land and could do what they wanted with it. If you insist on saying stupid things then you will have to tell the arab muslims that their nations do not exist because the LoN did not have the right to grant them the land.
In the case of Palestine the LoN granted the Jews the legal right under International law to take up the land granted to them and held in trusteeship by the LoN, at any time in future when they saw themselves fit.

Yes and the LoN allotted trans Jordan as the arab muslim portion of Palestine, presided over by a foreign ruler. They gave the arab muslims 3 choices to fulfil their free determination
1) Go to trans Jordan with a small bonus for relocation and travelling expenses
2) stay and become full citizens of the new National home of the Jews
3) stay and be eventually evicted as foreign belligerents, enemies and illegals

We all know what the majority of the arab muslims decided and are now evicted from the National home of the Jews.

Read article 22 again and then post where it mentions arab muslims by name having a say in any future nation.

As for article 20 read that again in full and see where it says anything about giving all of the M.E. to the arab muslims

Article 22, indicates the "inhabitants" would have the say. Who were 93% of the inhabitants Phoney? It says nothing about transferring Europeans to Palestine, quite the opposite, since transferring Europeans to Palestine would be detrimental to the welfare of 93% of the inhabitants.

"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.

Article 20 merely states the previous agreements, such as the Balfour Declaration, which was inconsistent with the Covenant, must have been abrogated. The Balfour Declaration was inconsistent with the Covenant because it impinged on the rights of the inhabitants (the 93% non-Jews) .

NOPE as it was the LoN that had the final say in whether or not the people would be allowed a state.

Makes no difference as they were primarily wandering workers with no ties to the land, so they were deliberately left out of the Mandate. You see they did not hit the criteria of habitually resident so were not counted, leaving the Jews and Christians to create a nation. The LoN agreed that the Jews were long overdue for a National Home and so enacted their legal rights to ignore the covenant and grant the Jews their National Home on the 22% of Palestine left. In the case of Palestine no one state governed that land under Ottoman control and as such did not meet the remit of article 22. The portion that did was granted to the Hashemite prince to be trans Jordan ( so called because the LoN did not want to give it a name the future inhabitants would not like. ) The remaining 22% just so happened to be almost the land that Mcmahon has set aside for the Jews in his letters to the Sherriff of Mecca, that they reached agreement on. So the LoN fulfilled their article 22 obligations with the allocation of trans Jordan to the muslims and the remainder to the Jews Which was the population split in 1923 when the LoN wrote the Mandate for Palestine.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

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...​

How can anyone attack Israel if it has no defined territory? Where is it?

YOU claim it doesn't have any defined territory . But that' doesn't make it true. Remember, Tinmore rules don't apply to real life.

Israel is a sovereign state. Sovereign states have defined territory:

"In international law, a sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states."

Sovereign state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Indeed, and Israel has never had a defined territory.

Has the nation of Palestine ?

I can produce the defined territory allocated to the Jewish National Home by the LoN Mandate for Palestine a legal and binding document.

Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory

PALESTINE



INTRODUCTORY.


POSITION, ETC.​

Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.

On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: -

North. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

East. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

South. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

West. – The Mediterranean Sea.



So there is Israels defined territory

Palestine lies on the western edge...

So there is Israels defined territory