Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15

[harmonica]

the Arabs said F-YOU to the UN and peace in 1947
since then, the Arabs and Pals have vowed to eradicate Israel
the Pals are lucky the Israelis have shown great restraint in using force

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

RE: Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Oh, for heaven's sake...

That is counter to You own logic, was there ever a war against Egyptian occupation?

Because Egypt doesn't occupy Palestinian land. That's why.

(COMMENT)

OK, in 1948 did not place under occupation territory. The Israelis had sovereign territory, and territory under the Armistice Agreements.

At the conclusion of the 1967 War, Israel had:

• Sovereign territory
• Territory formerly under the sovereignty of Jordan.
• Territory formwerly under the Military Governorship of Egypt.
• Territorial fragments formerly under the Administration IAW the Armistice.

Today, let's see. Israel has:

• Sovereign territory (including annexations; and territorial boundaries from the Treaties with Jordan and Egypt).
  
• Territory formerly under the sovereignty of Jordan.
• Territorial fragments formerly under the Administration of the Armistice.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, in 1948 did not place under occupation territory. The Israelis had sovereign territory, and territory under the Armistice Agreements.

Israel had no territory under the armistice agreements.

Israel had no territory under the armistice agreements.

You never did explain who had the territory under the armistice agreements.

Not Israel. The UN had no territory. The Mandate had no territory. So, where did Israel get it?
Link?

I notice you never explain who held the territory after the armistice agreements.

 

[Mindful]

RE: Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Oh, for heaven's sake...

Because Egypt doesn't occupy Palestinian land. That's why.

(COMMENT)

OK, in 1948 did not place under occupation territory. The Israelis had sovereign territory, and territory under the Armistice Agreements.

At the conclusion of the 1967 War, Israel had:

• Sovereign territory
• Territory formerly under the sovereignty of Jordan.
• Territory formwerly under the Military Governorship of Egypt.
• Territorial fragments formerly under the Administration IAW the Armistice.

Today, let's see. Israel has:

• Sovereign territory (including annexations; and territorial boundaries from the Treaties with Jordan and Egypt).
  
• Territory formerly under the sovereignty of Jordan.
• Territorial fragments formerly under the Administration of the Armistice.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, in 1948 did not place under occupation territory. The Israelis had sovereign territory, and territory under the Armistice Agreements.

Israel had no territory under the armistice agreements.

Israel had no territory under the armistice agreements.

You never did explain who had the territory under the armistice agreements.

Not Israel. The UN had no territory. The Mandate had no territory. So, where did Israel get it?
Link?

I notice you never explain who held the territory after the armistice agreements.

Do you expect him to?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

RE: Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Oh, for heaven's sake...

(COMMENT)

OK, in 1948 did not place under occupation territory. The Israelis had sovereign territory, and territory under the Armistice Agreements.

At the conclusion of the 1967 War, Israel had:

• Sovereign territory
• Territory formerly under the sovereignty of Jordan.
• Territory formwerly under the Military Governorship of Egypt.
• Territorial fragments formerly under the Administration IAW the Armistice.

Today, let's see. Israel has:

• Sovereign territory (including annexations; and territorial boundaries from the Treaties with Jordan and Egypt).
  
• Territory formerly under the sovereignty of Jordan.
• Territorial fragments formerly under the Administration of the Armistice.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, in 1948 did not place under occupation territory. The Israelis had sovereign territory, and territory under the Armistice Agreements.

Israel had no territory under the armistice agreements.

Israel had no territory under the armistice agreements.

You never did explain who had the territory under the armistice agreements.

Not Israel. The UN had no territory. The Mandate had no territory. So, where did Israel get it?
Link?

I notice you never explain who held the territory after the armistice agreements.

Do you expect him to?

No, but it's amusing to watch him scurry around.

 

[Mindful]

Israel had no territory under the armistice agreements.

Israel had no territory under the armistice agreements.

You never did explain who had the territory under the armistice agreements.

Not Israel. The UN had no territory. The Mandate had no territory. So, where did Israel get it?
Link?

I notice you never explain who held the territory after the armistice agreements.

Do you expect him to?

No, but it's amusing to watch him scurry around.

I wonder if he can say Gaza in a sentence.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You can believe the propaganda. The rest of us can use the official record.

• Press Release PAL/169 •
17 May 1948

​

Resolution 181 didn't happen. All of that territory was captured by war.

(COMMENT)

The problem here is that (1) the termination from both the Mandate, (2) the release from the UN Palestine Commission, and (3) the Declaration of independence happen at nearly the same time. The Right to Sovereignty without interference was mangled by the invasion of the Arab League Forces in the same time frame.

The did not alter the fact that, that part of the Resolution of 181 (II) that was accepted by the Israelis → and that part of the acceptance that was interfered with by the Arab League Invasion → was implemented, as you can see, supra...

(EPILOG)

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

Joseph Goebbels
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15
※→ Mindful, et al,

Well, I think you might have a very difficult time finding a "hard promise", prior to 1948, of any true authority that outlines exactly what is promised to whom. BUT, that is not the real core issue (IMO).

It was rather fortuitous, as it turned-out, that the Arab League took unilateral action and crossed their borders into the Territories.

Israel settled for far less land than was promised to it.

How many Arab armies attacked the fledgling state after said state was founded? Do you know?

And do you know the reason/rationale for taking the Golan? Without any of your revisionist nonsense?

(COMMENT)

On the outbreak of hostilities, when the British relinquished its Mandate over Palestine, the Arab League (5 Major contributors, 2 minor contributors, several asymmetric volunteer forces) entered the territory to ostensibly assist the Palestinian Arabs; the true hidden agenda was to expand their own territorial control. However, after the engagement and upon the cession of hostilities, when the FEBA was taken into consideration → under the auspices, armistice agreements were signed, Israel had effective control over additional area. The Armistice Lines were Military Demarcations AND territorial expansion taken by force.

As far as the Golan Heights are concerned, Syrian Military control gave the Syrian forces a set of advantages for rockets, mortars, and various surveillance and targeting system. This was supported by the JCSM-373-67 (Israel Might be Justified in Retaining Certain Ground). See this Special Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense with your attention to Paragraph 2b.

People generally get annoyed at me for my response since I publish so much documentation concerning the topic under discussion. Today, not so much since you are clearly suggesting that my postings are other than supported by facts (revisionist history).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Well, I think you might have a very difficult time finding a "hard promise", prior to 1948, of any true authority that outlines exactly what is promised to whom.

Not so sure about that. The Mandate for Palestine is pretty definitive that the entire territory, excluding what became Jordan, was to be the Jewish Homeland. Pretty "hard promise". And legally binding, don't you agree?

 

[Mindful]

Well, I think you might have a very difficult time finding a "hard promise", prior to 1948, of any true authority that outlines exactly what is promised to whom.

Not so sure about that. The Mandate for Palestine is pretty definitive that the entire territory, excluding what became Jordan, was to be the Jewish Homeland. Pretty "hard promise". And legally binding, don't you agree?

The British didn't want to upset the French = Syria.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15
※→ Shusha, et al,

No matter what you think the Mandate for Palestine says, the Mandate itself is NOT a promise to, or an obligation to the Jewish People. It is a communication of a directive between the League of Nations and the British Mandatory as to what the Principal Allied Powers have agreed relative to the administration of the territory of Palestine.

It is NOT an expression of a Promise to the Jewish People. It is NOT an expression of an Obligation made to the Jewish People. It does not speak to the Jewish People; only about the Jewish People and the Jewish National Home.

Well, I think you might have a very difficult time finding a "hard promise", prior to 1948, of any true authority that outlines exactly what is promised to whom.

Not so sure about that. The Mandate for Palestine is pretty definitive that the entire territory, excluding what became Jordan, was to be the Jewish Homeland. Pretty "hard promise". And legally binding, don't you agree?

(COMMENT)

The Mandate shows an INTENT to "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" and instructs → "that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917." But again, it is NOT an enforceable pledge that the Jewish People can make Enforceable.

Having said that, what WAS a general enforceable direction is the: "Calls upon the inhabitants of Palestine to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put this plan into effect." While it is not "legally binding", to comply with this UN Call is not illegal.

✪ "Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948."

✪ "The Commission shall instruct the Provisional Councils of Government of both the Arab and Jewish States, after their formation, to proceed to the establishment of administrative organs of government, central and local;" contained in the "Steps Preparatory to Independence."​

Now with the Plan [A/RES/181(II)], there was a General Call that "Appeals to all Governments and all peoples to refrain from taking action which might hamper or delay the carrying out of these recommendations." However, the Arab League and attempted to alter the expressed intent by force. Any conflict resulting from this interference [prohibited by Article 2(4)] is as a result of violating the UN Charter and ignoring the appeal by the UN.

The territory under Israeli control at the time of the Armistice, what a direct consequence of the Arab League provocation and an intentional hampering of the implementation.

✪ It was the responsibility of the UN Palestine Commission "to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine."​

However, the outbreak of Hostilities on the part of the Arab League prevented the accomplishment of the mission and can to an unfavorable consequence that the Arab League had to live with.

NOW, the interesting turn of event happened on 31 July 1988. On that date, the Jordanian Government cut all ties with the people of the West Bank. On the First of August 1988, the only government exercising "Effective Control" over the West Bank and the Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem was Israel. It was territory over which any prior sovereign (King of Jordan) has expressly and implicitly relinquished sovereignty; then place in the hands of Israel by default.

✪ The doctrine of terra nullius was really no more than an eighteen-century convention of European international law – it is held that any land which was unoccupied or unsettled could be acquired as a new territory by a sovereign State and that the laws of that State would apply in the new territory.

The Doctrine of Discovery, Settler Colonialism and the Dakota Access Pipeline

According to journalist Julian Brave NoiseCat, “Justice John Marshall used the doctrine to support the majority opinion of the court, which found that Indians … could not own, the ancestral homelands where their people had lived, loved, worshipped, married, mourned and died for millennia.” The Johnson v. M’Intosh decision stands to this day. NoiseCat went on to report:

The doctrine has had a significant influence on Indian law and set a precedent that resonates even in modern decisions. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — widely considered the most liberal justice on the Supreme Court — even cited cases based upon the doctrine as recently as 2005 to deny a land claim brought before the court by the Oneida Nation.
​

To this day, the doctrine continues to be a structural barrier to Indigenous rights to lands, resources, and self-determination (liberation).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The did not alter the fact that, that part of the Resolution of 181 (II) that was accepted by the Israelis →

So, the UN had no territory to allot.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Oh, for heaven's sake...

Because Egypt doesn't occupy Palestinian land. That's why.

(COMMENT)

OK, in 1948 did not place under occupation territory. The Israelis had sovereign territory, and territory under the Armistice Agreements.

At the conclusion of the 1967 War, Israel had:

• Sovereign territory
• Territory formerly under the sovereignty of Jordan.
• Territory formwerly under the Military Governorship of Egypt.
• Territorial fragments formerly under the Administration IAW the Armistice.

Today, let's see. Israel has:

• Sovereign territory (including annexations; and territorial boundaries from the Treaties with Jordan and Egypt).
  
• Territory formerly under the sovereignty of Jordan.
• Territorial fragments formerly under the Administration of the Armistice.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, in 1948 did not place under occupation territory. The Israelis had sovereign territory, and territory under the Armistice Agreements.

Israel had no territory under the armistice agreements.

Israel had no territory under the armistice agreements.

You never did explain who had the territory under the armistice agreements.

Not Israel. The UN had no territory. The Mandate had no territory. So, where did Israel get it?
Link?

I notice you never explain who held the territory after the armistice agreements.

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. Sovereignty remains in the hand of the people.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Right to Sovereignty without interference was mangled by the invasion of the Arab League Forces in the same time frame.

How so?

 

[Hollie]

The Right to Sovereignty without interference was mangled by the invasion of the Arab League Forces in the same time frame.

How so?

By the invasion of the Arabs-Moslems.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Oh, for heaven's sake...

(COMMENT)

OK, in 1948 did not place under occupation territory. The Israelis had sovereign territory, and territory under the Armistice Agreements.

At the conclusion of the 1967 War, Israel had:

• Sovereign territory
• Territory formerly under the sovereignty of Jordan.
• Territory formwerly under the Military Governorship of Egypt.
• Territorial fragments formerly under the Administration IAW the Armistice.

Today, let's see. Israel has:

• Sovereign territory (including annexations; and territorial boundaries from the Treaties with Jordan and Egypt).
  
• Territory formerly under the sovereignty of Jordan.
• Territorial fragments formerly under the Administration of the Armistice.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, in 1948 did not place under occupation territory. The Israelis had sovereign territory, and territory under the Armistice Agreements.

Israel had no territory under the armistice agreements.

Israel had no territory under the armistice agreements.

You never did explain who had the territory under the armistice agreements.

Not Israel. The UN had no territory. The Mandate had no territory. So, where did Israel get it?
Link?

I notice you never explain who held the territory after the armistice agreements.

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. Sovereignty remains in the hand of the people.

Tossing around that slogan you cut and paste into multiple threads doesn’t address your misunderstanding.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

RE: Israeli forces shoot unarmed protesters from across Gaza security fence, killing at least 15
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Oh, for heaven's sake...

(COMMENT)

OK, in 1948 did not place under occupation territory. The Israelis had sovereign territory, and territory under the Armistice Agreements.

At the conclusion of the 1967 War, Israel had:

• Sovereign territory
• Territory formerly under the sovereignty of Jordan.
• Territory formwerly under the Military Governorship of Egypt.
• Territorial fragments formerly under the Administration IAW the Armistice.

Today, let's see. Israel has:

• Sovereign territory (including annexations; and territorial boundaries from the Treaties with Jordan and Egypt).
  
• Territory formerly under the sovereignty of Jordan.
• Territorial fragments formerly under the Administration of the Armistice.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, in 1948 did not place under occupation territory. The Israelis had sovereign territory, and territory under the Armistice Agreements.

Israel had no territory under the armistice agreements.

Israel had no territory under the armistice agreements.

You never did explain who had the territory under the armistice agreements.

Not Israel. The UN had no territory. The Mandate had no territory. So, where did Israel get it?
Link?

I notice you never explain who held the territory after the armistice agreements.

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. Sovereignty remains in the hand of the people.

Awesome, so who made the agreements?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel had no territory under the armistice agreements.

Israel had no territory under the armistice agreements.

You never did explain who had the territory under the armistice agreements.

Not Israel. The UN had no territory. The Mandate had no territory. So, where did Israel get it?
Link?

I notice you never explain who held the territory after the armistice agreements.

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. Sovereignty remains in the hand of the people.

Awesome, so who made the agreements?

Most people know who signed the armistice agreements but few know what they said.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel had no territory under the armistice agreements.

Israel had no territory under the armistice agreements.

You never did explain who had the territory under the armistice agreements.

Not Israel. The UN had no territory. The Mandate had no territory. So, where did Israel get it?
Link?

I notice you never explain who held the territory after the armistice agreements.

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. Sovereignty remains in the hand of the people.

Tossing around that slogan you cut and paste into multiple threads doesn’t address your misunderstanding.

I notice that you did not refute anything I said.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Israel had no territory under the armistice agreements.

You never did explain who had the territory under the armistice agreements.

Not Israel. The UN had no territory. The Mandate had no territory. So, where did Israel get it?
Link?

I notice you never explain who held the territory after the armistice agreements.

Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. Sovereignty remains in the hand of the people.

Tossing around that slogan you cut and paste into multiple threads doesn’t address your misunderstanding.

I notice that you did not refute anything I said.

I notice you NEVER mention the attacks the attempted attacks and the indiscriminate attacks by Pals.

 

[Billo_Really]

In 1948, Israel took more land than that was allocated to it.

Yup, they kicked some Arab ass.

In 1967, Israel took the West Bank, Golan Heights, Gaza and East Jerusalem in that war.

Yup, kicked Arab ass again.

That's the land Israel occupy's to this date.

And they're gonna keep most of it.

I see you're a fan of Hitler.

Because you just argued it was okay for Germany to annex Poland.

I'm sure the Krauts had snipers shooting Poles, as well.

It's a small world after all.