Is Israel the Same as South Africa?

[ForeverYoung436]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's go over this.

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.

(COMMENT)

The description "Palestine" was referring to a territory, not a "state." There was no State of Palestine." The armistice agreement (as an example) was between two states (Egypt and Israel) as signed this morning, 24 February at Rhodes. You are correct, at that time, there were no borders set. But the UN Security Council does not draw Armistice Lines that have no meaning. Please note:

ARTICLE II

2. No element of the land, sea or air military or para-military forces of either Part, including non-regular forces, shall commit any warlike or hostile act against the military or para-military forces of the other Party, or against civilians in territory under the control of that Party; or shall advance beyond or pass over for any purpose whatsoever the Armistice Demarcation Line set forth in Article VI of this Agreement except as provided in Article III of this Agreement; and elsewhere shall not violate the international frontier; or enter into or pass through the air space of the other Party or through the waters within three miles of the coastline of the other Party.

SOURCE: EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT

BTW: Just as a side note, each of the Armistice arrangements, as you can see in the text of each agreement, refers to a specific MAP. In the case of the West Bank and the associated Armistice Agreement between Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom, the Map is a 1:250,000 scale map sheet; signed in the upper left hand corner by Lieutenant-Colonel Moshe DAYAN (Israel) and Colonel Ahmed Sudki EL-JUNDI (Jordan).



Each Armistice Arrangement spells out the restriction. General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXXV) merely codifies (making it universal) the (nearly) exact same language used in Armistice Agreements since the First World War (almost a century ago). It is a mistake to think the Question of Palestine is somehow special and unique. If anything is special and unique is that the conflict is fought over and over again with the same results.


(COMMENT)

Subterfuge. The MANDATE FOR PALESTINE was to entrust to a Mandatory (the UK) selected by the Allied Powers, the administration of the "territory of Palestine," which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire (successor nation to the Ottoman Empire), within such boundaries as may be fixed by them. Palestine was not a "state" or even a defined territory. The boundaries were set, not by Palestinians, but by the Allied Power in accordance with the Part III, Section VII, Article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres; which uses the same language as the San Remo Convention.

I REPEAT: The boundaries associated with the "Territory of Palestine" were arbitrary boundaries established by the Allied Powers and not the Arab or the Palestinians.


(COMMENT)

No, it is rather straight forward.


(COMMENT)

No. Part III, Section VII, Articles 94 thru 97, of the Treaty of Sevres says no such thing. It doesn't even specific Palestine by boundaries or borders. In fact, the treaty doesn't even mention Lebanon or Trans-Jordan. The were both carve-outs by the Allied Powers [(Lebanon out of Syria) and (Trans-Jordan out of Palestine)].


(COMMENT)

That is a perspective. But not totally truthful to the events of the day. While it is true that the Arab King of the HEJAZ made it clear in the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement (1919) that the Arabs had national aspirations in the region, it is just as true that HM understood that the Jewish State was also very much a nationalistic concern; and that it was to be a "collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine. Both the HRH Emir Faisal and Chairman Weizmann came away understanding "that Palestine shall be placed under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment there of the Jewish National Home and ultimately render possible the creation of an autonomous Commonwealth."


(COMMENT)

This is a giant leap in time. We go from 1919 to 1947.



An irreconcilable conflict of principles.


(COMMENT)

Again, a very biased slant on what actually happened.

There are no land transfers in the Declaration of Independence, not for Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Israel. And when the State of Palestine was recognized, there was no land transfers then. Land transfers are a real estate term and action used in purchasing or reparation. Sovereignty is an entirely different matter.

The land, for many decades to come, will be also be known as the "former mandated territory of Palestine." But the State of Palestine, is something entirely different.

The borders were defined in Part II, Section B, The Jewish State, in General Assembly Resolution 181(II), and the associated Map of the Partition, as recommended by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNCOP).




(COMMENT)

That is an opinion. Five Arab countries attacked the new state of Israel.




(COMMENT)

Israel had already declared independence on 15 May, 1948.


(COMMENT)

Subterfuge. The Armistice was with the State of Israel. There was no State of Palestine mentioned.

Yes, correct. Armistice Arrangement do not declare outcome. The outcomes are self-evident. "The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement."


(COMMENT)

No, this is wrong. The Armistice did not declare any occupation.

The word "occupation" is not even used once in the EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT, or the ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN LEBANON AND ISRAEL, or the HASHEMITE JORDAN KINGDOM - ISRAEL: GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT, or the ISRAELI-SYRIAN GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT.

Out of curiosity I also checked the two Treaties.

Treaty of Peace between The State of Israel and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 26 October 1994: The word "occupation" or "occupied" is not used once.

Article 3 - International Boundary

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.
3. The parties recognise the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.
4. The demarcation of the boundary will take place as set forth in Appendix (I) to Annex I and will be concluded not later than nine months after the signing of the Treaty.
5. It is agreed that where the boundary follows a river, in the event of natural changes in the course of the flow of the river as described in Annex I (a), the boundary shall follow the new course of the flow. In the event of any other changes the boundary shall not be affected unless otherwise agreed.
6. Immediately upon the exchange of the instruments of ratification of this Treaty, each Party will deploy on its side of the international boundary as defined in Annex I (a).
7. The Parties shall, upon the signature of the Treaty, enter into negotiations to conclude, within 9 months, an agreement on the delimitation of their maritime boundary in the Gulf of Aqaba.
8. Taking into account the special circumstances of the Naharayim/Baqura area, which is under Jordanian sovereignty, with Israeli private ownership rights, the Parties agreed to apply the provisions set out in Annex I (b).
9. With respect to the Zofar/Al-Ghamr area, the provisions set out in Annex I (c) will apply.

The same is true for the Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979

Article II

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is an important point that was made in the documents of that time. The British said that most important principle for the Jews is to create a sovereign Jewish state. The most important principle for the Arabs is to prevent that from happening, but not to create a sovereign state of their own. It's too bad that the Kurds and Tibetans' situations are ignored, while the Palestinians stubbornly refuse to create their own state in the West Bank, and only concentrate their efforts on destroying Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's go over this.

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.

(COMMENT)

The description "Palestine" was referring to a territory, not a "state." There was no State of Palestine."

WOW, so much smoke! I will cut this into segments.

Where do the armistice agreements say that?

Where is the question of Palestine being on both sides of the armistice lines?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

They write about things that don't exist.

Where do the armistice agreements say that?

(COMMENT)

• Where does it say "State of Palestine?"
• Where is the Armistice for the "State of Palestine?" Every sovereignty involved has a Armistice. Where is the one for Palestine?

It is because there was no sovereignty called Palestine.

Where is the question of Palestine being on both sides of the armistice lines?

(COMMENT)

The entire region is called the "former mandated territory of Palestine." But there is no Armistice Line with the same sovereignty on both sides. Armistice Lines are lines of separation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

"...It is because there was no sovereignty called Palestine..."

Exactly.

All of it 'Unincorporated' and entirely up-for-grabs and divisible, the very nanosecond that the British Mandate expired.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

They write about things that don't exist.

Where do the armistice agreements say that?

(COMMENT)

• Where does it say "State of Palestine?"
• Where is the Armistice for the "State of Palestine?" Every sovereignty involved has a Armistice. Where is the one for Palestine?

Where does it say state of Israel, state of Egypt...?

It is because there was no sovereignty called Palestine.

Where is the question of Palestine being on both sides of the armistice lines?

(COMMENT)

The entire region is called the "former mandated territory of Palestine." But there is no Armistice Line with the same sovereignty on both sides. Armistice Lines are lines of separation.

The only time "territory of Palestine" was mentioned in the mandate was in the first paragraph before its international borders were defined. After that it was called Palestine and ten times it was referred to as a country.

The armistice agreements, that took place almost a year after the mandate left Palestine, never used the term "former mandated territory of Palestine." Palestine was mentioned many times and it was always called Palestine.

Funny, a place called Israel was not mentioned.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's go over this.

The armistice agreement (as an example) was between two states (Egypt and Israel) as signed this morning, 24 February at Rhodes. You are correct, at that time, there were no borders set. But the UN Security Council does not draw Armistice Lines that have no meaning. Please note:

ARTICLE II

2. No element of the land, sea or air military or para-military forces of either Part, including non-regular forces, shall commit any warlike or hostile act against the military or para-military forces of the other Party, or against civilians in territory under the control of that Party; or shall advance beyond or pass over for any purpose whatsoever the Armistice Demarcation Line set forth in Article VI of this Agreement except as provided in Article III of this Agreement; and elsewhere shall not violate the international frontier; or enter into or pass through the air space of the other Party or through the waters within three miles of the coastline of the other Party.

SOURCE: EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT

BTW: Just as a side note, each of the Armistice arrangements, as you can see in the text of each agreement, refers to a specific MAP. In the case of the West Bank and the associated Armistice Agreement between Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom, the Map is a 1:250,000 scale map sheet; signed in the upper left hand corner by Lieutenant-Colonel Moshe DAYAN (Israel) and Colonel Ahmed Sudki EL-JUNDI (Jordan).



Each Armistice Arrangement spells out the restriction. General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXXV) merely codifies (making it universal) the (nearly) exact same language used in Armistice Agreements since the First World War (almost a century ago). It is a mistake to think the Question of Palestine is somehow special and unique. If anything is special and unique is that the conflict is fought over and over again with the same results.

OK...uhhh...what are you trying to say here? That neither of the two sides can attack the other? I knew that.

What is unique? How many other countries have been divided into three pieces each under a different foreign military power?

Which side of the lines are Palestinians allowed to be on?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

Fine counterpoints, Tinny, on the existence or mention of Israel or borders or any of that, even if many of them are suspect.

Trouble is, none of them mean a damn in today's Real World.

None of them signify.

None of them are going to yield anything good for 'you'; there's no point in clinging to the past when its obsolete factors no longer carry any weight with the wider world.

Best to recover 'your' collective sanity and figure out where to go from here, with far more pragmatism than 'you' have managed to demonstrate to date.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Fine counterpoints, Tinny, on the existence or mention of Israel or borders or any of that, even if many of them are suspect.

Trouble is, none of them mean a damn in today's Real World.

None of them signify.

None of them are going to yield anything good for 'you'; there's no point in clinging to the past when its obsolete factors no longer carry any weight with the wider world.

Best to recover 'your' collective sanity and figure out where to go from here, with far more pragmatism than 'you' have managed to demonstrate to date.

The wider world is changing.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w56AP_cjDYw]Rafeef, Ben and Mbuyiseni on Israeli Apartheid Week - 22.2.12 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Kondor3]

Not really...

We've been over THIS ground before, as well...

BDS has been around since 2005...

The Boycott is a circus flea, and will have very little substantive and enduring impact upon the Israelis...

And, of course, whatever harm is inflicted upon them by the Boycott, the United States will make-up for, as loans and grants, to ensure the survival of our friend and ally Israel, using your tax money and mine...

Until the Euro-Liberal energy-burst is spent, and things go back to normal, as the Euro-courts rule against it...

Don't pin your hopes on BDS, Tinny, 'cause, in the Real World, that's far-too-little... far-too-late in the game...

 

[toastman]

Tinmore, Kondor is absolutely right. none of what you say has any relevance today.
Even if what you said was true, it would still not have any relevance . And you know that full well.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tinmore, Kondor is absolutely right. none of what you say has any relevance today.
Even if what you said was true, it would still not have any relevance . And you know that full well.

It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. ~ Samuel Adams

 

[Kondor3]

Tinmore, Kondor is absolutely right. none of what you say has any relevance today.
Even if what you said was true, it would still not have any relevance . And you know that full well.

It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. ~ Samuel Adams

Yes...

Of course...

And your brethren will be doing just that...

In Amman... and Beirut... and Damascus... and Cairo...

Because they could not bring themselves to dwell in the Real World, and continued to delude themselves, until they lost the last few scraps of land that they still possessed...

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tinmore, Kondor is absolutely right. none of what you say has any relevance today.
Even if what you said was true, it would still not have any relevance . And you know that full well.

It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. ~ Samuel Adams

Yes...

Of course...

And your brethren will be doing just that...

In Amman... and Beirut... and Damascus... and Cairo...

Because they could not bring themselves to dwell in the Real World, and continued to delude themselves, until they lost the last few scraps of land that they still possessed...

Just because they may be out of the country does not mean they will be out of your hair.

 

[Kondor3]

It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. ~ Samuel Adams

Yes...

Of course...

And your brethren will be doing just that...

In Amman... and Beirut... and Damascus... and Cairo...

Because they could not bring themselves to dwell in the Real World, and continued to delude themselves, until they lost the last few scraps of land that they still possessed...

Just because they may be out of the country does not mean they will be out of your hair.

1. It's not my hair.

2. Once they're out of the country they will disperse and energies will dissipate.

Within two or three generations even the Movement will be nothing more than a dusty and meaningless footnote in the history books.

The rest of the world will forget at the speed of light.

Your brethren will forget more slowly, while they are busy scattering, but quickly enough, as history measures time, and the moment and the rancid dream will be lost forevermore.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes...

Of course...

And your brethren will be doing just that...

In Amman... and Beirut... and Damascus... and Cairo...

Because they could not bring themselves to dwell in the Real World, and continued to delude themselves, until they lost the last few scraps of land that they still possessed...

Just because they may be out of the country does not mean they will be out of your hair.

1. It's not my hair.

2. Once they're out of the country they will disperse and energies will dissipate.

Within two or three generations even the Movement will be nothing more than a dusty and meaningless footnote in the history books.

The rest of the world will forget at the speed of light.

Your brethren will forget more slowly, while they are busy scattering, but quickly enough, as history measures time, and the moment and the rancid dream will be lost forevermore.

The old will die and the young will forget.

How many generations ago was that?

How many diaspora Palestinians have taken up the cause in the last ten years or so?

 

[Kondor3]

Just because they may be out of the country does not mean they will be out of your hair.

1. It's not my hair.

2. Once they're out of the country they will disperse and energies will dissipate.

Within two or three generations even the Movement will be nothing more than a dusty and meaningless footnote in the history books.

The rest of the world will forget at the speed of light.

Your brethren will forget more slowly, while they are busy scattering, but quickly enough, as history measures time, and the moment and the rancid dream will be lost forevermore.

The old will die and the young will forget.

How many generations ago was that?

How many diaspora Palestinians have taken up the cause in the last ten years or so?

It's a little hard to forget when you're living in the same shithole refugee camp or refugee town that your grandfather lived in when he chose to fight the Jews rather than to live peacefully alongside them.

It's a little easier to forget when you're living a good life someplace else, with peace, freedom, good food, clean water, good schools, a job, and prospects for a long and peaceful and happy life.

Which is what they'll find, once they leave.

Time to help them to make themselves happy.

So that they can begin to forget, and to move on with life.

 

[toastman]

Just because they may be out of the country does not mean they will be out of your hair.

1. It's not my hair.

2. Once they're out of the country they will disperse and energies will dissipate.

Within two or three generations even the Movement will be nothing more than a dusty and meaningless footnote in the history books.

The rest of the world will forget at the speed of light.

Your brethren will forget more slowly, while they are busy scattering, but quickly enough, as history measures time, and the moment and the rancid dream will be lost forevermore.

The old will die and the young will forget.

How many generations ago was that?

How many diaspora Palestinians have taken up the cause in the last ten years or so?

Right of return is not going to happen. You know that just as well as I do. The surrounding Arab countries need to absorb the Palestinian refugees, not tiny little Israel.

 

[toastman]

If I were the leader of the PA, I would start making a deal right now.

 

[Hoffstra]

Israel offered to allow back 100,000 Palestinian refugees before and they can do it again.

 

[Kondor3]

Israel offered to allow back 100,000 Palestinian refugees before and they can do it again.

Just because they did it before does not mean that they'll want to try it again - nor are they obliged to.