Is Israel the Same as South Africa?

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Resolution 2625 does not mention Palestine.

The armistice lines (that are specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries) run through Palestine. Please explain how the Palestinians can violate a line that is Palestine on both sides.

(COMMENT)

Of course it did not mention "Palestine" (State of or the Territory) specifically. It is a generalized concept that is universally applied.

I don't see how you can universally apply a concept to a very unusual situation. Palestine was divided into three areas of occupation by armistice lines that were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. There are no borders inside Palestine. The area inside all of those lines was still Palestine.

BTW: The State of Palestine is not on both sides of the Demarcation Line. The State of Palestine (alla 1988) is on one side and the State of Israel (alla 1948) is on the other. While the HAMAS Covenant and the PNC Charter stipulate otherwise, I assure you it is not the case.​

Either the State of Palestine is a "State" as declared by the PLO in 1988, with the Armistice Lines as demarcation; --- OR --- there is no legitimate State of Palestine. And if there is a "State of Palestine," then it has boundaries. But they are not the territorial boundaries with the demarcations it had during the former British Mandate. The State of Israel may be in territory formerly known as Palestine, but it is a sovereignty unto itself and not subject to any claim by the Palestinian.

Bot(h) of these are complicated issues. If you would like to discuss them, post them as separate items.

When you say " But they are not the territorial boundaries with the demarcations it had during the former British Mandate." the mandate was not Palestine. It was merely a period of time in Palestine's history. Palestine's international borders were still there after the mandate left Palestine.

(COMMENT)

I don't think these are that complicated at all:

• If you cross a "demarcation line" either in Korea or the Middle East, you have violated the international law concept.
  
• If you are part of a Hostile activity that operates against the sovereignty of the State of Israel, then you are in violated the international law concept.

Like I said, this is complicated.

The League of Nations determined that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to post war treaties.

The Palestinians fought for their rights to defend their country and gain independence all during the mandate period. Britain, who was supposed to assist the people to independence, violated the LoN charter and the rights of the Palestinians by trampling their initiatives toward independence.

Britain realized that its stupid plans were unworkable when they blew up in its face so they shoved the problem onto the UN.

The UN devised a plan that had already been rejected ten years earlier, and they knew it would be rejected again, but they did it anyway. Of course it was rejected again and was never implemented. No borders were defined, no land was transferred, and no states were created. The land remained Palestinian.

In May of 1948 Britain cut and ran. Foreigners declared themselves to be a state inside Palestine without the legal possession of any land and without defining any borders. Five Arab countries attacked the new state of Israel. (Not really but that is the way the story goes.)

In September of 1948 The Palestinians declared independence on their own land and inside their own international borders that they had since 1922. Five countries recognized the state of Palestine. They sent their declaration of independence to the UN. A state exists and has the right to defend itself without the recognition of other states.

In 1949 the UN Security Council called for an armistice to end the 1948 war. nobody won or lost that war. The armistice agreements, that the Israeli government signed, specifically called the place Palestine and referenced Palestine's international borders. No state of Israel was mentioned. No land or borders for Israel were mentioned.

The agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation claiming that the Palestine question be addressed at a later date.

That date has yet to come.

(SIDEBAR)

It is understood that a "claim" made by the Palestinians is still outstanding and requires wither litigations or settlement; towit:

That the territory of a State shall not be violated by being the object, even temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures of force taken by another State in contravention of the Charter, and that it shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from such measures or the threat thereof.​

This is a question on two points:

• Defensible Borders; multiple Wars initiated, instigated by, or provoked by, foreign Arab Armies.
• The active threat and demonstrated attempts to undermine the sovereignty of Israel.

The State of Israel has not yet been afforded the opportunity to openly defend itself in litigation over the two decades of terrorism it was subject to before occupation, and the following 40 years of terrorism (albeit diminished) after occupation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think the Israeli feel the same way.

Indeed, Hamas has consistently said that they would never recognize the occupation of Palestine.

I think your average American would feel the same way about the US.

(COMMENT)

As I asked in Post 182 in thread "Document confirms World Zionist Organization allocates land to settlers in Jordan:" "What has HAMAS done for the Palestinian People that was not ultimately discretionary at the hands of the State of Israel? What has HAMAS ever done other then to deny the Palestinian peace and prosperity in lieu of a conflict that they have no hope of ever achieving?"

HAMAS is an obstruction to both local and regional peace and prosperity. There is no reasonable expectation that the Hostile Arab Palestinian is ever going to gain control of the State of Israel. The best it can hope for, without a peace settlement, is that its people don't starve to death.

GAZA, Sept. 10 (Xinhua) -- As most of sewage pumping stations stop working due to lack of fuel, the fuel shortage in the Hamas- ruled Gaza Strip risks environmental disaster, environment officials in Gaza said on Tuesday.

Bahaoldin al-Agha, director of the environment protection authorities in Gaza, told Xinhua that if the fuel shortage keeps growing, the sewage pumping stations in the Gaza Strip will completely stop working, "and the entire Gaza Strip will be flooded with sewage water."

Israel imposed a tight blockade on the Palestinian coastal enclave after Islamic Hamas movement violently seized control of it in June 2007. It allowed insufficient amounts of expensive gasoline and diesel into Gaza, but the population here couldn't afford purchasing it.

To resolve the fuel shortage, the Palestinians dug thousands of smuggling tunnels under the borders between the Gaza Strip and Egypt to get not only fuel, but also food and other goods. However, Egypt destroyed most of these tunnels since the fall of President Mohamed Morsi on July 3.

The Gaza Strip, with 1.7 million people, produces 120,000 cubic meter of waste and sewage water, according to the environment officials in Gaza, who added that there are 57 sewage pumping stations in the Gaza Strip operated by fuel that used to be smuggled from Egypt.

The fuel shortage is not only threatening to paralyze the 57 sewage pumping stations, but also increased blackout.

SOURCE: Xinhua News Service ---English.news.cn

At what point will the Palestinian say, enough is enough?

Most Respectfully,
R

It is hard to say. The Palestinians are not the surrender type.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Of course they don't

I have asked many times for documents showing when Israel legally acquired any land.

All I got was a song and dance.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think the Israeli feel the same way.

Indeed, Hamas has consistently said that they would never recognize the occupation of Palestine.

I think your average American would feel the same way about the US.

(COMMENT)

As I asked in Post 182 in thread "Document confirms World Zionist Organization allocates land to settlers in Jordan:" "What has HAMAS done for the Palestinian People that was not ultimately discretionary at the hands of the State of Israel? What has HAMAS ever done other then to deny the Palestinian peace and prosperity in lieu of a conflict that they have no hope of ever achieving?"

HAMAS is an obstruction to both local and regional peace and prosperity. There is no reasonable expectation that the Hostile Arab Palestinian is ever going to gain control of the State of Israel. The best it can hope for, without a peace settlement, is that its people don't starve to death.


At what point will the Palestinian say, enough is enough?

Most Respectfully,
R

It is hard to say. The Palestinians are not the surrender type.

If compromise meant surrender, no one would ever stay married. Don't you think Israelis/Jews compromise by giving away the heartland of Eretz Yisrael, their most holy cities?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think the Israeli feel the same way.


(COMMENT)

As I asked in Post 182 in thread "Document confirms World Zionist Organization allocates land to settlers in Jordan:" "What has HAMAS done for the Palestinian People that was not ultimately discretionary at the hands of the State of Israel? What has HAMAS ever done other then to deny the Palestinian peace and prosperity in lieu of a conflict that they have no hope of ever achieving?"

HAMAS is an obstruction to both local and regional peace and prosperity. There is no reasonable expectation that the Hostile Arab Palestinian is ever going to gain control of the State of Israel. The best it can hope for, without a peace settlement, is that its people don't starve to death.



At what point will the Palestinian say, enough is enough?

Most Respectfully,
R

It is hard to say. The Palestinians are not the surrender type.

If compromise meant surrender, no one would ever stay married. Don't you think Israelis/Jews compromise by giving away the heartland of Eretz Yisrael, their most holy cities?

Also, if you feel so strongly about your Palestinian brethren, why don't you leave your comfortable American home, and go to Gaza to live and fight, since you're not the "surrendering type"?

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is hard to say. The Palestinians are not the surrender type.

If compromise meant surrender, no one would ever stay married. Don't you think Israelis/Jews compromise by giving away the heartland of Eretz Yisrael, their most holy cities?

Also, if you feel so strongly about your Palestinian brethren, why don't you leave your comfortable American home, and go to Gaza to live and fight, since you're not the "surrendering type"?

Israel would love to keep the battle in its home court.

Sorry, that is not going to happen.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

quote=P F Tinmore;7825739]

I kind of feel bad, we kind of ganged up on Tinmore and he stopped posting...

Tinmore, you still there???[/QUOTE
Tinmore will be here long after you're surfing with the sharks.

Indeed, I was trying to choose which Palestinian map to post. Here in one from 1948.

Since Israel was founded in 1948 surely one of y'all can post a 1948 map of Israel.

Sorry to continue to trouble you about this, Tinny, but many of your colleagues in the audience would benefit from some clarification on your part...

Assuming that the beige-colored area on the map which you supplied (above) is all Palestinian-controlled territory...

Is this what you (the Palestinians) need - the minimum that you will accept - in order to make permanent peace with the Jews of the region?

A simple 'Yes' or 'No' would do nicely...

Thank you...

Kondor, by posting that map, Tinmore is advocating for the destruction of a vibrant country called Israel. According to him, North and South Korea also don't exist, since they are separated by an armistice line. Maybe Tinmore can teach a class in abstract philosophy, but I would never put him on a Palestinian negotiating team.

 

[toastman]

Of course they don't

I have asked many times for documents showing when Israel legally acquired any land.

All I got was a song and dance.

You act as if without that question being answered, then you win the argument or something. Not to mention we've been through this so many times !

 

[P F Tinmore]

Of course they don't

I have asked many times for documents showing when Israel legally acquired any land.

All I got was a song and dance.

You act as if without that question being answered, then you win the argument or something. Not to mention we've been through this so many times !

Indeed, I feel like a theatrical agent.

 

[toastman]

I have a suggestion for you Tinmore. For your next vacation, got to Israel. I have tons of family there, you can stay with them.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I have a suggestion for you Tinmore. For your next vacation, got to Israel. I have tons of family there, you can stay with them.

Israel is like anywhere else. A lot of nice people and a government full of assholes.

 

[toastman]

I have a suggestion for you Tinmore. For your next vacation, got to Israel. I have tons of family there, you can stay with them.

Israel is like anywhere else. A lot of nice people and a government full of assholes.

So you're gonna go ?

 

[Kondor3]

Israel never declared any territory. Israel has no defined territory.

Of course they don't

I have asked many times for documents showing when Israel legally acquired any land.

All I got was a song and dance.

That's OK...

You were asked a simple and courteous question...

Is the map you provided a visual image of the minimum Palestinian-controlled land-mass that you (the Palestinians) would accept, in order to make peace with the Jews of the Region?


And all YOU have served-up so far is a sullen and deficient silence...

Goose... meet gander.

Or would you care to change things and actually answer the question...

That would seem to make more sense than letting folks assume the worst...

Unless, of course, 'the worst' (the most extreme) is what you actually have in-mind...

Unless, of course, you fear saying the words, in order to confirm such a stance...

Otherwise, in light of your silence, it seems sensible to articulate your likely ultimate position FOR you; namely...

"P.F. Tinmore's presumed (and silence-confirmed) stance on control of the lands of Palestine:

The beige-colored areas on the map, below, indicate Palestinian -controlled territory, and that, in turn, expresses my own (and my Palestinian brethren's) own position regarding the minimum amount of Palestinian-controlled territory that we will settle for, in order to make our peace with the Jews of the region.

There may very well be other issues to be resolved before such peace can actually be effected, and time will sort that out, but, with respect to land-ownership and control, the map, below, shows the full extent of our claims, demands, goals and expectations.

In short. we want it all, and we will not settle for less, faithful to that goal even unto death."

You are certainly welcome to amend such a statement, or to sweep it aside with something clear and concise related to the map you provided, by taking responsibility for your own declaration, but, in the wake of your continued and obstinate silence on the subject, and your inability or unwillingness to deliver a straight answer that clarifies the map you provided...

The presumed-stance declaration on your behalf may be utilized with a high likelihood of accuracy, given your posting history and your fervent and highly persistent advocacy on behalf of the Palestinians and your manifest hostility against the State of Israel.

It seems best, going forward, to operate upon the ancient legal principle of "qui tacet consentire videtur" ...

"He who remains silent is understood to consent."

========================================

Then again, you can always set the record straight, on your own, by providing your colleagues with a straight answer to the following, or something quite similar designed to facilitate a simple, concise, easy-to-understand answer:

----------

"Assuming that the beige-colored area on the map which you supplied (above) is all Palestinian-controlled territory...

Is this what you (the Palestinians) need - the minimum that you will accept - in order to make permanent peace with the Jews of the region?

A simple 'Yes' or 'No' would do nicely, and you can certainly qualify that Yes/No answer with any other commentary that you believe to be appropriate."

========================================

Qui tacet consentire videtur.

"He who remains silent is understood to consent."

========================================

This is probably all that needs to be done in order to put the matter to rest, having extended every possible opportunity for correction, so, I'm done with it, unless you'd care to correct my assessment of your ultimate stance, after all.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Kondor, by posting that map, Tinmore is advocating for the destruction of a vibrant country called Israel. According to him, North and South Korea also don't exist, since they are separated by an armistice line. Maybe Tinmore can teach a class in abstract philosophy, but I would never put him on a Palestinian negotiating team."

He seems caught between obliquely but strongly hinting at his Map, as the ultimate goal of the Palestinians, and not wanting to explicitly say so, so as not to sabotage (in a conversational and speculative context) the negotiating position of those for whom he advocates. Perhaps I'm wrong.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"...Kondor, by posting that map, Tinmore is advocating for the destruction of a vibrant country called Israel. According to him, North and South Korea also don't exist, since they are separated by an armistice line. Maybe Tinmore can teach a class in abstract philosophy, but I would never put him on a Palestinian negotiating team."

He seems caught between obliquely but strongly hinting at his Map, as the ultimate goal of the Palestinians, and not wanting to explicitly say so, so as not to sabotage (in a conversational and speculative context) the negotiating position of those for whom he advocates. Perhaps I'm wrong.

It is not up to me to determine any peace agreement. I was asked to post a map with Palestine's international borders so I did.

BTW, did anyone find a 1948 map of Israel?

 

[Kondor3]

"...Kondor,Interesting Map,I never realized the Palestinians had such a Rail Network,I have never seen this whilst in Israel,methinks it must have been blown up at some stage circa 1947/48. It would have been built by the Turks or British(or both) steve"

Actually, Tinny supplied the map, some hours ago, a bit earlier in this thread... and, I agree about the Turks and the Brits being (quite probably, jointly, with the Brits building upon what the Turks did, and beyond) responsible for whatever modest rail and similar infrastructure existed there in 1948... there's no way that the rag-tag collection of villagers and shepherds and semi-nomadic and diverse collection of population fragments living there at the time were responsible for much or any of that - beyond the manual labor level, anyway...

 

[Kondor3]

"...It is not up to me to determine any peace agreement..."

A minor detail at best; we deal in the speculative here, and all of the entanglements that go along with that, and there is no harm done out-and-about in the Real World by sharing your own personal perceptions of what constitutes the minimal acceptable control of land, in a message-board setting.

Frankly, it seems pointless to engage in dialogue and argument here or anyplace similar, on a regular basis, unless you can articulate just what it is, that you are advocating FOR.

How can you tell us what you want, if you cannot tell us what you want?

In clear, concise and certain terms that everyone can understand.

Is that not an entirely logical progression?

"...I was asked to post a map with Palestine's international borders so I did..."

Actually you were asked the following...

----------

(*) "Tinny...

Do you have a map of the boundaries of a Palestinian State, that you and your brethren perceive as minimally acceptable with respect to land-mass controlled by the Palestinians, in order to secure permanent peace with the Jews of the region?"...

----------

...in post No. 1070 ( http://www.usmessageboard.com/israel-and-palestine/305058-is-israel-the-same-as-south-africa-72.html#post7822578 ) yesterday...

And you posted your map in response to that question.

Assuming that you did understand the question, and what was being asked of you (and, given your obvious intelligence, I'm fairly confident that you did, indeed, understand), your response can only be construed in one way... you want it all.

But it is always best to attempt to work with folks to clarify and be certain rather than resorting to 'construing'...

Even though 'construing' is a perfectly legitimate and viable and likely-accurate alternative solution, in light of the silence which accompanies a precise visual aid such as the map you supplied in response to the original question (*).

Hope that helps you to understand the concern.

 

[toastman]

"...Kondor, by posting that map, Tinmore is advocating for the destruction of a vibrant country called Israel. According to him, North and South Korea also don't exist, since they are separated by an armistice line. Maybe Tinmore can teach a class in abstract philosophy, but I would never put him on a Palestinian negotiating team."

He seems caught between obliquely but strongly hinting at his Map, as the ultimate goal of the Palestinians, and not wanting to explicitly say so, so as not to sabotage (in a conversational and speculative context) the negotiating position of those for whom he advocates. Perhaps I'm wrong.

It is not up to me to determine any peace agreement. I was asked to post a map with Palestine's international borders so I did.

BTW, did anyone find a 1948 map of Israel?

The first map is Israel before the 1948 Arab Israeli war (the purple)
The second map is Israel after the 1948 Arab Israeli war

 

[P F Tinmore]

He seems caught between obliquely but strongly hinting at his Map, as the ultimate goal of the Palestinians, and not wanting to explicitly say so, so as not to sabotage (in a conversational and speculative context) the negotiating position of those for whom he advocates. Perhaps I'm wrong.

It is not up to me to determine any peace agreement. I was asked to post a map with Palestine's international borders so I did.

BTW, did anyone find a 1948 map of Israel?

The first map is Israel before the 1948 Arab Israeli war (the purple)
The second map is Israel after the 1948 Arab Israeli war

Left map - proposed 1947 resolution 181 borders that never became borders.
Right map - add 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not to be political or territorial borders.

There are no Israeli borders on either of those maps. Why did they skip over the 1948 map?

 

[toastman]

It is not up to me to determine any peace agreement. I was asked to post a map with Palestine's international borders so I did.

BTW, did anyone find a 1948 map of Israel?

The first map is Israel before the 1948 Arab Israeli war (the purple)
The second map is Israel after the 1948 Arab Israeli war

Left map - proposed 1947 resolution 181 borders that never became borders.
Right map - add 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not to be political or territorial borders.

There are no Israeli borders on either of those maps. Why did they skip over the 1948 map?

The first map is the proposed U.N partition plan. When Israel declared independence, she did so in the land allotted to her in the partition plan. Which is the same as the first map.