Palestine Today

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Exactly!

You will notice that four separate Armistice Agreements were made; not including a separate agreement with the APG.

They were not a party to the war.

(COMMENT)

They were not a party to the Armistice because they were not a sovereign party. An Armistice Agreement falls under Article 2 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: "Vienna Convention Law Treaties" an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law. The Arab Palestinians rejected all offers to participate in the self-governing processes. The one most applicable was the offer to participate with the UN Palestine Commission.

In any event, it was previously agreed that once Permanent Peace arrangements were put in place → the Armistice Agreements would dissolve...

"The Armistice shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved."​

Most Respectfully,
R

It is interesting that the Armistice Agreements mention Palestine many times but never mentioned a place called Israel.

Palestine's international borders are mentioned but no borders were mentioned for Israel.

It was like a place called Israel did not exist but Palestine did.

Israel is not mentioned in the Armistice Agreements for the same reason Palestine is not mentioned in the Lausanne Treaty--its presence is assumed. The word "Israeli" is mentioned in the Agreements though.

The word "Israeli" is mentioned in the Agreements though.

Indeed, Israeli but not Israel.

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Exactly!

You will notice that four separate Armistice Agreements were made; not including a separate agreement with the APG.

They were not a party to the war.

(COMMENT)

They were not a party to the Armistice because they were not a sovereign party. An Armistice Agreement falls under Article 2 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: "Vienna Convention Law Treaties" an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law. The Arab Palestinians rejected all offers to participate in the self-governing processes. The one most applicable was the offer to participate with the UN Palestine Commission.

In any event, it was previously agreed that once Permanent Peace arrangements were put in place → the Armistice Agreements would dissolve...

"The Armistice shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved."​

Most Respectfully,
R

It is interesting that the Armistice Agreements mention Palestine many times but never mentioned a place called Israel.

Palestine's international borders are mentioned but no borders were mentioned for Israel.

It was like a place called Israel did not exist but Palestine did.

So they negotiated with the only effective sovereign govt of Palestine - Israeli govt.
Did they negotiate with anyone else?

I guess in Your vision its' only Israel fault that neither Jordan nor Egypt effectively recognized Palestinian rule over the land. Not when Egypt or Jordan ruled over the lands neither when they negotiated with Israel.
There was solidarity but they didn't take them in account as players to negotiate with.

It's like if Israel is going to negotiate with Syria, they won't go to the Druze community to sign treaties over the existing sovereign govt. No matter how close the Druze plight might be to the Israelis.
They're just not a player on a governmental-state level, neither were the Palestinian parties who used big words and declarations but had little relevancy to the situation or effective organization.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a load of crap. All four Armistice Agreements were by country and between states. It may have used the boundaries of the territory once under the Mandate, but rest assured, the Armistice Lines are between Israel and the four Principle Aggressor Nations of the Arab League.

It is interesting that the Armistice Agreements mention Palestine many times but never mentioned a place called Israel.

Palestine's international borders are mentioned but no borders were mentioned for Israel.

It was like a place called Israel did not exist but Palestine did.

(REFERENCE)

• 02/23/1949

S/1264/Corr.1 Egypt-Israel General Armistice Agreement

For the President of the Security Council:

“I have the honour to inform you that an armistice agreement
between Egypt and Israel has been signed this morning, 24 February at Rhodes.

The text of the agreement is as follows:
​

• 03/23/1949

S/1296 Israel-Lebanon General Armistice Agreement

For the President of the Security Council:

“I have honour to inform the Security Council that a general armistice agreement, in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of sixteen November 1948, was signed by the delegations of Israel and Lebanon at Ras En Naqura on twentythree March 1949. The text of the agreement is as follows:

• LEBANESE-ISRAELI GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT •
​

• 04/03/1949

S/1302/Rev.1 Israel-Jordan General Armistice Agreement - Cablegram from UN Acting Mediator, Map (Green Line)

For the President of the Security Council

I have the honour to inform you that an armistice agreement between the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom and Israel has been signed this evening, 3 April 1949, at Rhodes. The text of the agreement follows.
​

• 07/20/1949

S/1353 Israel-Syria General Armistice Agreement

For the President of the Security Council:

“I have the honour to inform the Security Council that a General Armistice Agreement, in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948, was signed by the delegations of Israel and Syria at Hill 232, near Mahanayim on 20 July 1949. The text of the Agreement is as follows:
​

BTW: Armistice Lines are not "Permanent International Boundaries.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
​

• Similarly, the Peace Treaty Boundaries (relevant to the West Bank) spells it out plainly:

Article 3(1) The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a).
​

• Again, in similar fashion, the Peace Treaty Boundaries (relevant to the Gaza Strip) spells out plainly:

Article II The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine.
​

(COMMENT)

I think that much of this nonsense about the 1948 nation or state called Palestine is merely a purposeful intent to make people think that there was actually an unspoken nation. Which there was not.

There was no mistake then (1948/1949), there was no mistake in November 1988 when the PLO Declared Independence, and there is certainly no mistake or subterfuge today. (Although the scope, nature and degree of sovereignty is really up in the air.)

As you have put it: "Palestine's international borders," is indeterminate and certainly used to confuse the issue for propaganda purposes. Certainly, it has no legs to stand upon.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Exactly!

You will notice that four separate Armistice Agreements were made; not including a separate agreement with the APG.

They were not a party to the war.

(COMMENT)

They were not a party to the Armistice because they were not a sovereign party. An Armistice Agreement falls under Article 2 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: "Vienna Convention Law Treaties" an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law. The Arab Palestinians rejected all offers to participate in the self-governing processes. The one most applicable was the offer to participate with the UN Palestine Commission.

In any event, it was previously agreed that once Permanent Peace arrangements were put in place → the Armistice Agreements would dissolve...

"The Armistice shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved."​

Most Respectfully,
R

It is interesting that the Armistice Agreements mention Palestine many times but never mentioned a place called Israel.

Palestine's international borders are mentioned but no borders were mentioned for Israel.

It was like a place called Israel did not exist but Palestine did.

So they negotiated with the only effective sovereign govt of Palestine - Israeli govt.
Did they negotiate with anyone else?

I guess in Your vision its' only Israel fault that neither Jordan nor Egypt effectively recognized Palestinian rule over the land. Not when Egypt or Jordan ruled over the lands neither when they negotiated with Israel.
There was solidarity but they didn't take them in account as players to negotiate with.

It's like if Israel is going to negotiate with Syria, they won't go to the Druze community to sign treaties over the existing sovereign govt. No matter how close the Druze plight might be to the Israelis.
They're just not a player on a governmental-state level, neither were the Palestinian parties who used big words and declarations but had little relevancy to the situation or effective organization.

It was Britain who appointed the government in Jordan. The Zionists promised Jordan three million a year for five years and the West Bank if they would not attack Israel in the war Israel was planning to start in 1948.

Egypt, on the other hand, never intended to annex Gaza. Egypt assisted the Palestinians in establishing a government who declared independence in 1948.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

There was no "negotiation" at all. The abandonment was a unilaterial decision on the part of the Hashemite King.

So they negotiated with the only effective sovereign govt of Palestine - Israeli govt.
Did they negotiate with anyone else?

(COMMENT)

The official history site for Jordan calls it the "Disengagement from the West Bank:" "Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank."

• 07/31/1988 Dismantling legal and administrative links with West Bank - King Hussein of Jordan address to the nation - Non-UN document

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

It may have used the boundaries of the territory once under the Mandate,

There you go again with Israeli bullshit. The Mandate was not a place. It was an administration appointed to Palestine. Palestine was there with or without the Mandate.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

There was no "negotiation" at all. The abandonment was a unilaterial decision on the part of the Hashemite King.

So they negotiated with the only effective sovereign govt of Palestine - Israeli govt.
Did they negotiate with anyone else?

(COMMENT)

The official history site for Jordan calls it the "Disengagement from the West Bank:" "Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank."

• 07/31/1988 Dismantling legal and administrative links with West Bank - King Hussein of Jordan address to the nation - Non-UN document

Most Respectfully,
R

OK???

 

[Hollie]

It may have used the boundaries of the territory once under the Mandate,

There you go again with Israeli bullshit. The Mandate was not a place. It was an administration appointed to Palestine. Palestine was there with or without the Mandate.

Indeed, It seems you're still clinging to some invention of your alleged "State of Pal'istan".

Yes, there was the geographic area called "Palestine".

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Exactly!

They were not a party to the war.

(COMMENT)

They were not a party to the Armistice because they were not a sovereign party. An Armistice Agreement falls under Article 2 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: "Vienna Convention Law Treaties" an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law. The Arab Palestinians rejected all offers to participate in the self-governing processes. The one most applicable was the offer to participate with the UN Palestine Commission.

In any event, it was previously agreed that once Permanent Peace arrangements were put in place → the Armistice Agreements would dissolve...

"The Armistice shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved."​

Most Respectfully,
R

It is interesting that the Armistice Agreements mention Palestine many times but never mentioned a place called Israel.

Palestine's international borders are mentioned but no borders were mentioned for Israel.

It was like a place called Israel did not exist but Palestine did.

So they negotiated with the only effective sovereign govt of Palestine - Israeli govt.
Did they negotiate with anyone else?

I guess in Your vision its' only Israel fault that neither Jordan nor Egypt effectively recognized Palestinian rule over the land. Not when Egypt or Jordan ruled over the lands neither when they negotiated with Israel.
There was solidarity but they didn't take them in account as players to negotiate with.

It's like if Israel is going to negotiate with Syria, they won't go to the Druze community to sign treaties over the existing sovereign govt. No matter how close the Druze plight might be to the Israelis.
They're just not a player on a governmental-state level, neither were the Palestinian parties who used big words and declarations but had little relevancy to the situation or effective organization.

It was Britain who appointed the government in Jordan. The Zionists promised Jordan three million a year for five years and the West Bank if they would not attack Israel in the war Israel was planning to start in 1948.

Egypt, on the other hand, never intended to annex Gaza. Egypt assisted the Palestinians in establishing a government who declared independence in 1948.

The same "all Palestine" office that eventually proclaimed the King of Jordan as King of Palestine?
Just another example of how they tried to enlarge the borders of Arabian dynasties under the pretense of self determination.

Even the Syrians called upon that decision as conflicting the propagated notion of independence.
Arabs in Palestine ceded the land to foreign Arabian kings twice.

 

[RoccoR]

RE:: Palestine Today
※→ et al,

This is just another Palestinian head Three-card Monte games with the word salad.

It may have used the boundaries of the territory once under the Mandate,

There you go again with Israeli bullshit. The Mandate was not a place. It was an administration appointed to Palestine. Palestine was there with or without the Mandate.

Indeed, It seems you're still clinging to some invention of your alleged "State of Pal'istan".

Yes, there was the geographic area called "Palestine".

(COMMENT)

The language use by me, and most governments, and certainly the UN is what is equivalently used in the treaties:

PART I.

PRELIMINARY.
Title. 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

• 
  The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.

The confusion is the difference between the Mandatory and the Mandate.

The term "Mandatory" → which is (what you ≈ said) trust government selected by the said Allied Powers in the matter of administration in the territory of Palestine. The Mandate is an obligation and authority given to the Mandatory to carry-out certain responsibilities; one of which was the responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on 2 November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Exactly!

(COMMENT)

They were not a party to the Armistice because they were not a sovereign party. An Armistice Agreement falls under Article 2 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: "Vienna Convention Law Treaties" an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law. The Arab Palestinians rejected all offers to participate in the self-governing processes. The one most applicable was the offer to participate with the UN Palestine Commission.

In any event, it was previously agreed that once Permanent Peace arrangements were put in place → the Armistice Agreements would dissolve...

"The Armistice shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved."​

Most Respectfully,
R

It is interesting that the Armistice Agreements mention Palestine many times but never mentioned a place called Israel.

Palestine's international borders are mentioned but no borders were mentioned for Israel.

It was like a place called Israel did not exist but Palestine did.

So they negotiated with the only effective sovereign govt of Palestine - Israeli govt.
Did they negotiate with anyone else?

I guess in Your vision its' only Israel fault that neither Jordan nor Egypt effectively recognized Palestinian rule over the land. Not when Egypt or Jordan ruled over the lands neither when they negotiated with Israel.
There was solidarity but they didn't take them in account as players to negotiate with.

It's like if Israel is going to negotiate with Syria, they won't go to the Druze community to sign treaties over the existing sovereign govt. No matter how close the Druze plight might be to the Israelis.
They're just not a player on a governmental-state level, neither were the Palestinian parties who used big words and declarations but had little relevancy to the situation or effective organization.

It was Britain who appointed the government in Jordan. The Zionists promised Jordan three million a year for five years and the West Bank if they would not attack Israel in the war Israel was planning to start in 1948.

Egypt, on the other hand, never intended to annex Gaza. Egypt assisted the Palestinians in establishing a government who declared independence in 1948.

The same "all Palestine" office that eventually proclaimed the King of Jordan as King of Palestine?
Just another example of how they tried to enlarge the borders of Arabian dynasties under the pretense of self determination.

Even the Syrians called upon that decision as conflicting the propagated notion of independence.
Arabs in Palestine ceded the land to foreign Arabian kings twice.

In my view it shows how Arabs in Palestine view themselves, and which rule is preferred to be installed over the land.

This is why notions such as Emirate/s or city states, where such dynamics of social structure are respected can be more effective in answering the needs of such rooted culture.

This works best in Arabia and the Gulf, can work as well in Gaza - just don't pretend to be fighting for Democracy.

 

[Shusha]

It may have used the boundaries of the territory once under the Mandate,

There you go again with Israeli bullshit. The Mandate was not a place. It was an administration appointed to Palestine. Palestine was there with or without the Mandate.

And the sovereign of "Palestine" was the government which formed to bring about the National Homeland for the Jewish people. The sovereign of "Palestine" renamed the State, Israel. Same place. You keep wanting there to be a State with no sovereign.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE:: Palestine Today
※→ et al,

This is just another Palestinian head Three-card Monte games with the word salad.

It may have used the boundaries of the territory once under the Mandate,

There you go again with Israeli bullshit. The Mandate was not a place. It was an administration appointed to Palestine. Palestine was there with or without the Mandate.

Indeed, It seems you're still clinging to some invention of your alleged "State of Pal'istan".

Yes, there was the geographic area called "Palestine".

(COMMENT)

The language use by me, and most governments, and certainly the UN is what is equivalently used in the treaties:

PART I.

PRELIMINARY.
Title. 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

• 
  The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.

The confusion is the difference between the Mandatory and the Mandate.

The term "Mandatory" → which is (what you ≈ said) trust government selected by the said Allied Powers in the matter of administration in the territory of Palestine. The Mandate is an obligation and authority given to the Mandatory to carry-out certain responsibilities; one of which was the responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on 2 November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Sorry, I am going to do a "Rocco" post.

Benoliel and Perry attempt to refute my argument that the statehood asserted by the Palestine National Council in 1988 was not of a new state, but of a state that already existed. They challenge my position that Palestine, as a Class A mandate under the League of Nations, was a state already in that era. 36 But beyond a bald assertion, Benoliel and Perry cite nothing that would demonstrate that Palestine was not a state in the League era. In particular, they mention nothing of the practice of the states of that era in regard to Palestine, which is where one must look to determine if Palestine was then a state. Had Benoliel and Perry examined that state practice, they would have seen that Palestine was accepted as a state, even though it was administered by Great Britain under the mandate system established by the League. 3 7

Most critically, Benoliel and Perry fail to account for a major international instrument of the era bearing on the status of Palestine, the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne." It was in this treaty that Turkey gave up its territories in the Arab world following its defeat in World War I9 The Treaty of Lausanne, to which the World War I allies were party, more than once refers to Turkey's Arab territories (Iraq, Syria, and Palestine), all of which became Class A mandates as "states" that were "detached" from Turkey. 40 The Treaty of Lausanne thus reflected an assumption that the Class A mandate territories, including Palestine, were "states." Under the League Covenant, the independence of these states was "provisionally recognized," and they were to be made independent in due course. 4 1 The Class A mandates were states temporarily under the administration of an outside state.

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil

 

[TNHarley]

Seems the palis were the first in israel. They just discovered a 500,000 year old homo erectus settlement right outside israel.

 

[Hollie]

RE:: Palestine Today
※→ et al,

This is just another Palestinian head Three-card Monte games with the word salad.

It may have used the boundaries of the territory once under the Mandate,

There you go again with Israeli bullshit. The Mandate was not a place. It was an administration appointed to Palestine. Palestine was there with or without the Mandate.

Indeed, It seems you're still clinging to some invention of your alleged "State of Pal'istan".

Yes, there was the geographic area called "Palestine".

(COMMENT)

The language use by me, and most governments, and certainly the UN is what is equivalently used in the treaties:

PART I.

PRELIMINARY.
Title. 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

• 
  The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.

The confusion is the difference between the Mandatory and the Mandate.

The term "Mandatory" → which is (what you ≈ said) trust government selected by the said Allied Powers in the matter of administration in the territory of Palestine. The Mandate is an obligation and authority given to the Mandatory to carry-out certain responsibilities; one of which was the responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on 2 November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Sorry, I am going to do a "Rocco" post.

Benoliel and Perry attempt to refute my argument that the statehood asserted by the Palestine National Council in 1988 was not of a new state, but of a state that already existed. They challenge my position that Palestine, as a Class A mandate under the League of Nations, was a state already in that era. 36 But beyond a bald assertion, Benoliel and Perry cite nothing that would demonstrate that Palestine was not a state in the League era. In particular, they mention nothing of the practice of the states of that era in regard to Palestine, which is where one must look to determine if Palestine was then a state. Had Benoliel and Perry examined that state practice, they would have seen that Palestine was accepted as a state, even though it was administered by Great Britain under the mandate system established by the League. 3 7

Most critically, Benoliel and Perry fail to account for a major international instrument of the era bearing on the status of Palestine, the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne." It was in this treaty that Turkey gave up its territories in the Arab world following its defeat in World War I9 The Treaty of Lausanne, to which the World War I allies were party, more than once refers to Turkey's Arab territories (Iraq, Syria, and Palestine), all of which became Class A mandates as "states" that were "detached" from Turkey. 40 The Treaty of Lausanne thus reflected an assumption that the Class A mandate territories, including Palestine, were "states." Under the League Covenant, the independence of these states was "provisionally recognized," and they were to be made independent in due course. 4 1 The Class A mandates were states temporarily under the administration of an outside state.

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil

I know it’s been related to you dozens of times and why you persist in trying to re-write the Treaty of Lausanne is quite obvious, so once again,



the Treaty of Lausanne was concerned with the end of hostilities following WW1.


The Treaty of Lausanne never once refers to “Pal’istan”.


Should I save the above as a Microsoft Word document and email it to you? You can then, when prompted during your next attempt to re-write the Treaty of Lausanne, be instructed to cut and paste said Word document and save everyone yet another FPM (Face Palm Moment) when you, you know, do what you do.

 

[Shusha]

The Treaty of Lausanne ... more than once refers to Turkey's Arab territories (Iraq, Syria, and Palestine) ...

Link? Or quote specific Articles.

 

[Shusha]

The Treaty of Lausanne thus reflected an assumption that the Class A mandate territories, including Palestine, were "states." Under the League Covenant, the independence of these states was "provisionally recognized," and they were to be made independent in due course.

Yeah, no.

The wording of the League Covenant Article 22, paragraph 4 is permissive, not obligating.

‘Certain communities, formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire, have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone'

Not WAS. Not WILL be. Not MUST be. Not ARE independent nations. Can be. When can they be? Subject to the rendering of assistance. So no, this is not proof that "Palestine" was not an existing State.

 

[Shusha]

And further to ALL that, you still have the problem that the State of Palestine, whenever it came into existence, was the National Home for the Jewish People.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Child Jailed Under Illegal Israeli Occupation-Ahed Tamimi

 

[P F Tinmore]