More History Before 1967

[RoccoR]

toastman; P F Tinmore, et al,

All maps have the same notice when published by the Secretariat.

There's no such thing as fake borders.

The Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, signed on March 26, 1979 created an officially recognized international border along the 1906 line, with Egypt renouncing all claims to the Gaza Strip

Borders of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting, there is an Israeli border between Egypt and Palestine.

There's no mention of Palestine there.

(COMMENT)

The Secretariat is not the proponent. PF Tinmore misrepresents the meaning of that disclaimer notice all the time; just as he misrepresents the original status of GA Res 181(II). It is a standard position he takes to in order to promote an alternative history.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

There's no such thing as fake borders.

The Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, signed on March 26, 1979 created an officially recognized international border along the 1906 line, with Egypt renouncing all claims to the Gaza Strip

Borders of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting, there is an Israeli border between Egypt and Palestine.

There's no mention of Palestine there.

There was.

They are trying to back door borders for Israel. The only way Israel can acquire any Palestinian land or borders is an agreement with the Palestinians.

 

[toastman]

You've made that claim before, but never provide information proving it. Where does it say the Palestinians had to have ceded land to Israel for the borders of Israel to be legitimate ?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,

Today, the existing treaties and armistice mark the borders.

Interesting, there is an Israeli border between Egypt and Palestine.

There's no mention of Palestine there.

There was.

They are trying to back door borders for Israel. The only way Israel can acquire any Palestinian land or borders is an agreement with the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

No authority gave the Palestinians any control, administrative or otherwise, over any territory. The control went from the Ottoman Empire to the Allied Powers/LoN. There was never a point that the Palestinians had any control over any of the territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

toastman; P F Tinmore, et al,

All maps have the same notice when published by the Secretariat.

Examples?

Interesting, there is an Israeli border between Egypt and Palestine.

There's no mention of Palestine there.

(COMMENT)

The Secretariat is not the proponent. PF Tinmore misrepresents the meaning of that disclaimer notice all the time; just as he misrepresents the original status of GA Res 181(II). It is a standard position he takes to in order to promote an alternative history.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you keep pimping resolution 181? It was a proposal that was offered and rejected. It means absolutely nothing.

 

[Hyrcanus]

Why do you keep pimping resolution 181? It was a proposal that was offered and rejected. It means absolutely nothing.

UN SC res 181 is the basis for the UN recognition of the state of israel.

 

[toastman]

toastman; P F Tinmore, et al,

All maps have the same notice when published by the Secretariat.

Examples?

There's no mention of Palestine there.

(COMMENT)

The Secretariat is not the proponent. PF Tinmore misrepresents the meaning of that disclaimer notice all the time; just as he misrepresents the original status of GA Res 181(II). It is a standard position he takes to in order to promote an alternative history.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you keep pimping resolution 181? It was a proposal that was offered and rejected. It means absolutely nothing.

He is trying to say that you continuously distort the Resolution, he never said it was implemented

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,

Today, the existing treaties and armistice mark the borders.

There's no mention of Palestine there.

There was.

They are trying to back door borders for Israel. The only way Israel can acquire any Palestinian land or borders is an agreement with the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

No authority gave the Palestinians any control, administrative or otherwise, over any territory. The control went from the Ottoman Empire to the Allied Powers/LoN. There was never a point that the Palestinians had any control over any of the territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

So then, why does Israel have to negotiate borders with the Palestinians?

 

[Hyrcanus]

So then, why does Israel have to negotiate borders with the Palestinians?

Jordan gave their rights to negotiate over the West Bank, to the PLO.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So then, why does Israel have to negotiate borders with the Palestinians?

Jordan gave their rights to negotiate over the West Bank, to the PLO.

Jordan never had the right to negotiate the West Bank.

 

[toastman]

So then, why does Israel have to negotiate borders with the Palestinians?

Jordan gave their rights to negotiate over the West Bank, to the PLO.

Jordan never had the right to negotiate the West Bank.

Then who did ?

 

[RoccoR]

toastman; P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's see.

Why do you keep pimping resolution 181? It was a proposal that was offered and rejected. It means absolutely nothing.

(COMMENT)

Was it accepted as legitimate by proper Palestinian Authority? Yes

Was it used as the packet to get admission into the UN? Yes

Was it accepted by the Israelis? Yes

When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.

SOURCE: Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine

You'll notice that the resolution say "or" and not both. And this nonsense about requiring US Security Council approval or action, is just as incredible. Non-binding resolutions do not require UNSC action when it is an offer and acceptance resolution, which this is. Both sides could accept, and both sides could reject (non-binding).

Having received the report of the Security Council on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,1/

Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,

Noting that the Security Council has recommended to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,

Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it "unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations",2/

Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,

The General Assembly,

Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,

1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;

2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.

SOURCE: A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949

You will notice that the Resolution 181 (II) Future government of Palestine of 29 November 1947 was noted as "implemented."

(QUESTION)

The question is, why do you deny it in the face such documentary evidence?

I suspect because it is a piece of inconvenient history. Together with the Map Annex, and the narrative of the borders, your argument is lost.

However, relative to today, only the treaties with the adjacent countries are relevant. None of the historical documents gives the Palestinians any control or any borders.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Jordan gave their rights to negotiate over the West Bank, to the PLO.

Jordan never had the right to negotiate the West Bank.

Then who did ?

Remember, Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank but could not because it was occupied Palestinian land. Jordan even set up a phoney council in the West Bank so that "the Palestinians" would cede the land to Jordan. That did not work out for them either.

Neither Egypt nor Israel attempted to annex the land they occupied in the 1948 war.

 

[P F Tinmore]

toastman; P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's see.

Why do you keep pimping resolution 181? It was a proposal that was offered and rejected. It means absolutely nothing.

(COMMENT)

Was it accepted as legitimate by proper Palestinian Authority? Yes

Was it used as the packet to get admission into the UN? Yes

Was it accepted by the Israelis? Yes

When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.

SOURCE: Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine

You'll notice that the resolution say "or" and not both. And this nonsense about requiring US Security Council approval or action, is just as incredible. Non-binding resolutions do not require UNSC action when it is an offer and acceptance resolution, which this is. Both sides could accept, and both sides could reject (non-binding).

Having received the report of the Security Council on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,1/

Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,

Noting that the Security Council has recommended to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,

Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it "unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations",2/

Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,

The General Assembly,

Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,

1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;

2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.

SOURCE: A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949

You will notice that the Resolution 181 (II) Future government of Palestine of 29 November 1947 was noted as "implemented."

(QUESTION)

The question is, why do you deny it in the face such documentary evidence?

I suspect because it is a piece of inconvenient history. Together with the Map Annex, and the narrative of the borders, your argument is lost.

However, relative to today, only the treaties with the adjacent countries are relevant. None of the historical documents gives the Palestinians any control or any borders.

Most Respectfully,
R

And Palestine is recognized by the UN as a non member state.

What does UN recognition mean.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,

Hummm. Is this a trick question?

So then, why does Israel have to negotiate borders with the Palestinians?

(COMMENT)

Because the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never annexed by Israel.

Israel acquired control as a result of being in Hot Pursuit of enemy forces in retreat attempting to invade the sovereign territory of Israel. Both the West Bank and Gaza Strip populations were conspiratorially entangled with, and providing direct support to, the hostile enemy forces involved in the failed invasion attempts. As a result of the retreat, Israel occupied the overrun territory (West Bank and Gaza Strip) and brought them under control for rear-area protection purposes. The West Bank and Gaza Strip were enemy populations, presenting a direct threat against the sovereign nation of Israel. These populations still refuse to recognize the sovereign nature of Israel and still represent a threat to regional peace.

Does Israel have to negotiate borders with the Palestinians? That is only one option. As long as the Palestinians refuse to accept the legitimacy of the State of Israel, indefinite occupation is just as much a viable option.

There are other options.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,

Hummm. Is this a trick question?

So then, why does Israel have to negotiate borders with the Palestinians?

(COMMENT)

Because the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never annexed by Israel.

Israel acquired control as a result of being in Hot Pursuit of enemy forces in retreat attempting to invade the sovereign territory of Israel. Both the West Bank and Gaza Strip populations were conspiratorially entangled with, and providing direct support to, the hostile enemy forces involved in the failed invasion attempts. As a result of the retreat, Israel occupied the overrun territory (West Bank and Gaza Strip) and brought them under control for rear-area protection purposes. The West Bank and Gaza Strip were enemy populations, presenting a direct threat against the sovereign nation of Israel. These populations still refuse to recognize the sovereign nature of Israel and still represent a threat to regional peace.

Does Israel have to negotiate borders with the Palestinians? That is only one option. As long as the Palestinians refuse to accept the legitimacy of the State of Israel, indefinite occupation is just as much a viable option.

There are other options.

Most Respectfully,
R

Because the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never annexed by Israel.

When was the rest of Palestine annexed by Israel?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Did you read it?

And Palestine is recognized by the UN as a non member state.

What does UN recognition mean.

(COMMENT)

I recommend you read it.

Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,

Reaffirming its commitment, in accordance with international law, to the two-State solution of an independent, sovereign, democratic, viable and contiguous State of Palestine living side by side with Israel in peace and security on the basis of the pre-1967 borders,

2. Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice;

SOURCE: 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations 4 December 2012

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Did you read it?

And Palestine is recognized by the UN as a non member state.

What does UN recognition mean.

(COMMENT)

I recommend you read it.

Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,

Reaffirming its commitment, in accordance with international law, to the two-State solution of an independent, sovereign, democratic, viable and contiguous State of Palestine living side by side with Israel in peace and security on the basis of the pre-1967 borders,

2. Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice;

SOURCE: 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations 4 December 2012

Most Respectfully,
R

Interesting. They reference resolution 181 then they mention 67 borders. Those are conflicting. They mention the non acquisition of land by war but leave out the acquisition of Palestinian land by the 1948 war.

Who wrote this crap.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you have to understand the steps.

When was the rest of Palestine annexed by Israel?

(COMMENT)

It was not annex. It was declared independent under the right of self-determination. The state expanded a little, over the original GA Res 181(II) borders during the 1948-1949 War.

Interesting. They reference resolution 181 then they mention 67 borders. Those are conflicting. They mention the non acquisition of land by war but leave out the acquisition of Palestinian land by the 1948 war.

Who wrote this crap.

(COMMENT)

The non-acquisition of land applies to the aggressor - and - not the defender. The Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP), in connection with the offensive assault by the 5 Arab Armies, were the aggressor. It was not that the Israel won territory so much as it was the HoAP lost territory as a result of the failed aggressive move.

Today, (LINK) 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations grants recognition to (essentially) the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as the last of the territory available to the Palestinian as the State of Palestine.

I know that everything written by the International Body that doesn't conform with your idea is "crap." But it is a reality. Eventually, the Palestinian will again, make a fatal error, and relinquish the remainder of the territory. But I don't think that Israel, or any of the surrounding Arab States want to take-on the parasitic nature of the Palestinian. They are simply too much trouble. However, the Arab regional governments might step-in if they see the Palestinians forfeit control to the influences control by the Iranians. Already, we see a cooling of relations between Gaza and Egypt. Already we see end-fighting between Hamas and the PIJ. And already we see Hamas quarreling with Fatah and Hezbollah. The Gaza Strip government may collapse if it is not careful.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you have to understand the steps.

When was the rest of Palestine annexed by Israel?

(COMMENT)

It was not annex. It was declared independent under the right of self-determination. The state expanded a little, over the original GA Res 181(II) borders during the 1948-1949 War.

Interesting. They reference resolution 181 then they mention 67 borders. Those are conflicting. They mention the non acquisition of land by war but leave out the acquisition of Palestinian land by the 1948 war.

Who wrote this crap.

(COMMENT)

The non-acquisition of land applies to the aggressor - and - not the defender. The Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP), in connection with the offensive assault by the 5 Arab Armies, were the aggressor. It was not that the Israel won territory so much as it was the HoAP lost territory as a result of the failed aggressive move.

Today, (LINK) 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations grants recognition to (essentially) the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as the last of the territory available to the Palestinian as the State of Palestine.

I know that everything written by the International Body that doesn't conform with your idea is "crap." But it is a reality. Eventually, the Palestinian will again, make a fatal error, and relinquish the remainder of the territory. But I don't think that Israel, or any of the surrounding Arab States want to take-on the parasitic nature of the Palestinian. They are simply too much trouble. However, the Arab regional governments might step-in if they see the Palestinians forfeit control to the influences control by the Iranians. Already, we see a cooling of relations between Gaza and Egypt. Already we see end-fighting between Hamas and the PIJ. And already we see Hamas quarreling with Fatah and Hezbollah. The Gaza Strip government may collapse if it is not careful.

Most Respectfully,
R

So you are saying that the Zionists went to Palestine to take over their country and that was a defensive war.

You don't make any sense.