Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I often think you are attempting some philosphical trap in favor of the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) position. In this case, there are a couple of points which the HoAP do not want to bring into the light for debate for consideration.

Israel unilaterally annexed territory it captured by force from a people who had no military.

Refute away.

(COMMENT)

Let's be specific, an not use ambiguous terms. Under the International Criminal Court, any allegation which is ambiguous is ruled in favor of the accused.

Article 22
Nullum crimen sine lege

1. A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.

2. The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favor of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

3. This article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal under international law independently of this Statute.

So, by all means, let's be specific.

For the purpose of the discussion, for the matter before us - use the West Bank (WB) at the Occupied Territory (OT) as the example.

The WB was taken by Israel from the hand of sovereignty held by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Why is this important? (RHETORICAL) Simply because you imply that it was taken from the HoAP when you say:

◈ "from a people who had no military"​

◈ In 1967, when the WB was overrun by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), the only force opposing the action was the Royal Jordanian Army (RJA)(forerunner of the Arab Legion). The IDF was in hot pursuit of RJA unit making a tactical withdrawal from the WB. This is how the State of Israel came to be in occupation. The OT was that of the Hashemite Kingdom → NOT → that of the Arab Palestinian.

◈ The Unification of the Two Banks (as Jordan refers to it) by the Arab Palestinians own hand.

The Tragedy of Palestine
On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.

Severance of All Administrative and Legal Ties with the Occupied West Bank
on July 31 (1988) King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only.

The importance of this two pieces of information is that at the time Jordan severed all ties with the WB, there was no other authority on the scene, at the time, with the capacity, EXCEPT the Occupying Forces of the IDF on behalf of Israel. By default the, when the King of Jordan severed all ties, by default, the OT then came under the control of the Israelis (Terra Tullius) "used in international law to describe territory that may be acquired by a state's occupation of it" - and -
severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank

• Terra nullius •
Terra nullius is a Latin expression deriving from Roman law meaning "nobody's land", which is used in international law to describe territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state, or over which any prior sovereign has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty. (Think HM the King of Jordan.)​

It is important to note that there are multifaceted views on the status of the OT:

◈ Arab Palestinian Parliament (pre-1988) in Jordan considered the OT as Jordanian "Sovereign Territory" under the right of self-determination.

◈ And Israel considered the OT as "disputed territory."

◈ And last, but not least, the Arab Palestinians of the WB (post-1988) considered the OP their sovereign territory.
​

It is also important that you understand that I cannot dispute a broad claim such as:

◈ Israel unilaterally annexed territory. It did do that. But in certain cases, it was Jordanian territory that was politically abandoned.

◈ The OT "was captured by force:" The territory was captured from the Jordanians and the Israelis and Jordanians settled that dispute in 1994. The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the confrontation.

◈ Stated that: "who had no military" Of course the Arab Palestinians had no conventional forces in the 1967 War. The Jordanians defended the territory as their sovereign territory.​

Most Respectfully,
R

I wasn't talking about 1967.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I often think you are attempting some philosphical trap in favor of the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) position. In this case, there are a couple of points which the HoAP do not want to bring into the light for debate for consideration.

Israel unilaterally annexed territory it captured by force from a people who had no military.

Refute away.

(COMMENT)

Let's be specific, an not use ambiguous terms. Under the International Criminal Court, any allegation which is ambiguous is ruled in favor of the accused.

Article 22
Nullum crimen sine lege

1. A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.

2. The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favor of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

3. This article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal under international law independently of this Statute.

So, by all means, let's be specific.

For the purpose of the discussion, for the matter before us - use the West Bank (WB) at the Occupied Territory (OT) as the example.

The WB was taken by Israel from the hand of sovereignty held by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Why is this important? (RHETORICAL) Simply because you imply that it was taken from the HoAP when you say:

◈ "from a people who had no military"​

◈ In 1967, when the WB was overrun by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), the only force opposing the action was the Royal Jordanian Army (RJA)(forerunner of the Arab Legion). The IDF was in hot pursuit of RJA unit making a tactical withdrawal from the WB. This is how the State of Israel came to be in occupation. The OT was that of the Hashemite Kingdom → NOT → that of the Arab Palestinian.

◈ The Unification of the Two Banks (as Jordan refers to it) by the Arab Palestinians own hand.

The Tragedy of Palestine
On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.

Severance of All Administrative and Legal Ties with the Occupied West Bank
on July 31 (1988) King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only.

The importance of this two pieces of information is that at the time Jordan severed all ties with the WB, there was no other authority on the scene, at the time, with the capacity, EXCEPT the Occupying Forces of the IDF on behalf of Israel. By default the, when the King of Jordan severed all ties, by default, the OT then came under the control of the Israelis (Terra Tullius) "used in international law to describe territory that may be acquired by a state's occupation of it" - and -
severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank

• Terra nullius •
Terra nullius is a Latin expression deriving from Roman law meaning "nobody's land", which is used in international law to describe territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state, or over which any prior sovereign has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty. (Think HM the King of Jordan.)​

It is important to note that there are multifaceted views on the status of the OT:

◈ Arab Palestinian Parliament (pre-1988) in Jordan considered the OT as Jordanian "Sovereign Territory" under the right of self-determination.

◈ And Israel considered the OT as "disputed territory."

◈ And last, but not least, the Arab Palestinians of the WB (post-1988) considered the OP their sovereign territory.
​

It is also important that you understand that I cannot dispute a broad claim such as:

◈ Israel unilaterally annexed territory. It did do that. But in certain cases, it was Jordanian territory that was politically abandoned.

◈ The OT "was captured by force:" The territory was captured from the Jordanians and the Israelis and Jordanians settled that dispute in 1994. The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the confrontation.

◈ Stated that: "who had no military" Of course the Arab Palestinians had no conventional forces in the 1967 War. The Jordanians defended the territory as their sovereign territory.​

Most Respectfully,
R

I wasn't talking about 1967.

I wasn’t the only one who noted your habit of Islamo-tap dancing around issues you don’t understand.

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ How many of these are members of Hamas or the other groups?]

Hamas terrorists attack IDF soldiers on Gaza border - watch

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I can hardly believe you said that!

So, the last time this topic came up about defined borders, you said that same thing. I recommend that you look at Posting #1999 31 JAN '19 to see the same thing...

[

I've copied and linked the documentation on the "defined International Boundaries" - many - many - times - and your claim simply does not come up to par.

Not so. You have never posted anything showing Israel's defined territory. It is well known, though, what territory Israel occupies.

(COMMENT)

Eastern Boundary​

❖ The Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty was signed on October 26, 1994 →

◈ Article 3 - International Boundary​

Southern Boundary

❖ 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​

Northern Boundary

❖ The International Boundary between Israel and Lebanon was established pursuant to the 1923 Agreement between France and Great Britain ...”, that “this line was reaffirmed in the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement signed on 23 March 1949” and that “subsequently there were several modifications mutually agreed by Israel and Lebanon”. Last Letter Agreement reaffirms the boundary in the Letter dated 9 June 2000 from the President of Lebanon addressed to the Secretary-General •

◈ See A/54/914 S/2000/564 12 June 2000
Paragraph 11 of this report states that “for the practical purpose of confirming the Israeli withdrawal, the United Nations needs to identify a line to be adopted conforming to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon ...”​

North Eastern Boundary

❖ GOLAN HEIGHTS LAW December 14, 1981 •

◈ This legislation, extending Israeli law to the area of the Golan Heights was adopted by the Knesset by a majority of 63 against 21.​

These are the most current descriptions of the current boundaries. I hope you see that this was proved before and that I did not "duck the issue."

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel unilaterally annexed territory it captured by force from a people who had no military.

Refute away.

Sure sure, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and the Jihad Army Of Holy War were all boyscout bands.
Everything captured in the war except for the Sinai peninsula was vested with sovereignty of the Jewish nation under international law, decades before Israel liberated their rightful lands and capital.

Now is the part where You start hysterically dancing around.

Now you are doing the usual dance.

When Britain left Palestine in 1948 they handed the administration of Palestine over to the UN. (UNPC) If it was Jewish territory, why didn't they just hand it over to the Jews?

Because it wasn't. None of it.

This is circular logic.
Both UN and Britain were bound by international law which vested sovereignty with the Jewish nation.
The flawed manner in which the trustees dealt with the obligation doesn't change the law or the fact that there was no other nation mentioned under international as the legal beneficiary of self-determination in the land that was assigned to Mandatory Palestine.

All of the land is Jewish territory, because it was defined so under international law, all of it.

Q. Was any other nation mentioned?

 

[Hollie]

It appears that some Islamic terrorist beat-down was delivered by the IDF to a number of misbehaving gee-had wannabes.

IDF attacks Hamas positions after soldier injured amid Gaza border night clashes

IDF attacks Hamas positions after soldier injured amid Gaza border night clashes
02/17/2019

Palestinian protesters carry tyres as smoke billows from burning tyres at the Israel-Gaza border, east of Gaza city, on October 12, 2018

SAID KHATIB / AFP
19 Palestinians were also injured during the protests, the Gaza health ministry reported
The Israeli army attacked two Hamas positions in the Gaza Strip on Sunday night after an IDF soldier was injured amid clashes along the volatile border.

The Israeli soldier was said to have been hit by an improvised explosive thrown by Palestinians during the protests, the IDF said in a statement.

Dozens of Palestinians were said to have gathered along the border where they “hurled explosive devices and rolled burning tires at IDF soldiers along the security fence,” the statement continued.

According to the Hamas-run Health Ministry, 19 Palestinians were also injured during the protests east of Jabaliya and were said to have suffered varying injuries.




And in other happy-fun Islamic terrorist news, the two competing Islamic terrorist mini-caliphates are having a bit of disagreement over which group of angry islamists is going to control some islamo-turf.

It's a bit like watching the Crips and the Bloods fighting a turf war and hoping both sides score a big body count.


Only hours before the protests erupted, reports emerged that Hamas had taken control of the main goods Kerem Shalom crossing, in turn expelling the Palestinian Authority employees from the border.

Security forces "put in place procedures dictated by security imperatives", Gaza's interior ministry spokesman Iyad al-Bozum said in a statement. "Palestinian Authority employees at the crossing have refused to cooperate on these procedures for a few days and today we were surprised by their departure," he added.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I can hardly believe you said that!

So, the last time this topic came up about defined borders, you said that same thing. I recommend that you look at Posting #1999 31 JAN '19 to see the same thing...

[
Not so. You have never posted anything showing Israel's defined territory. It is well known, though, what territory Israel occupies.

(COMMENT)

Eastern Boundary​

❖ The Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty was signed on October 26, 1994 →

◈ Article 3 - International Boundary​

Southern Boundary

❖ 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​

Northern Boundary

❖ The International Boundary between Israel and Lebanon was established pursuant to the 1923 Agreement between France and Great Britain ...”, that “this line was reaffirmed in the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement signed on 23 March 1949” and that “subsequently there were several modifications mutually agreed by Israel and Lebanon”. Last Letter Agreement reaffirms the boundary in the Letter dated 9 June 2000 from the President of Lebanon addressed to the Secretary-General •

◈ See A/54/914 S/2000/564 12 June 2000
Paragraph 11 of this report states that “for the practical purpose of confirming the Israeli withdrawal, the United Nations needs to identify a line to be adopted conforming to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon ...”​

North Eastern Boundary

❖ GOLAN HEIGHTS LAW December 14, 1981 •

◈ This legislation, extending Israeli law to the area of the Golan Heights was adopted by the Knesset by a majority of 63 against 21.​

These are the most current descriptions of the current boundaries. I hope you see that this was proved before and that I did not "duck the issue."

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel unilaterally annexed territory it captured by force from a people who had no military.

Refute away.

Sure sure, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and the Jihad Army Of Holy War were all boyscout bands.
Everything captured in the war except for the Sinai peninsula was vested with sovereignty of the Jewish nation under international law, decades before Israel liberated their rightful lands and capital.

Now is the part where You start hysterically dancing around.

Now you are doing the usual dance.

When Britain left Palestine in 1948 they handed the administration of Palestine over to the UN. (UNPC) If it was Jewish territory, why didn't they just hand it over to the Jews?

Because it wasn't. None of it.

This is circular logic.
Both UN and Britain were bound by international law which vested sovereignty with the Jewish nation.
The flawed manner in which the trustees dealt with the obligation doesn't change the law or the fact that there was no other nation mentioned under international as the legal beneficiary of self-determination in the land that was assigned to Mandatory Palestine.

All of the land is Jewish territory, because it was defined so under international law, all of it.

Q. Was any other nation mentioned?

Link?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Essentially, the UNPC did exactly that!

Now you are doing the usual dance.

When Britain left Palestine in 1948 they handed the administration of Palestine over to the UN. (UNPC) If it was Jewish territory, why didn't they just hand it over to the Jews?

Because it wasn't. None of it.

(COMMENT)

Because the policy under the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" adopted by the General Assembly called for:

4. The Commission, after consultation with the democratic parties and other public organizations of The Arab and Jewish States, shall select and establish in each State as rapidly as possible a Provisional Council of Government. The activities of both the Arab and Jewish Provisional Councils of Government shall be carried out under the general direction of the Commission.​

10. The Constituent Assembly of each State shall draft a democratic constitution for its State and choose a provisional government to succeed the Provisional Council of Government appointed by the Commission. The constitutions of the States shall embody chapters 1 and 2 of the Declaration provided for in section C below and include inter alia provisions for:

(a) ...

(b) Settling all international disputes in which the State may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;

(c) Accepting the obligation of the State to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations;

(d) ...

(e) ...​

Your objection is merely an extension of the Arab Leagues decision not to accept the Jewish State. The Invasion by the Arab League States essentially became the unintentional tool for the expansion of the Jewish State. And to this day, the "official" position of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, is that:

✧ The 1967 border, which is defined as the 1949 Armistice Line along with all legal modification thereto up to June 4th 1967, is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine.​

This is an expansion of Israeli Territory was made possible by the invasion of the Arab League Forces, and the PLO claim the original Armistice Lines as the "internationally recognized border" → which is in dispute at this time. Many things have changed since the Armistice. And the Treaties made by the parties in the conflict (including the Six Day and Yom Kipper Wars) changed the boundaries (at least those pertaining to the West Bank and Gaza Strip).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Essentially, the UNPC did exactly that!

Now you are doing the usual dance.

When Britain left Palestine in 1948 they handed the administration of Palestine over to the UN. (UNPC) If it was Jewish territory, why didn't they just hand it over to the Jews?

Because it wasn't. None of it.

(COMMENT)

Because the policy under the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" adopted by the General Assembly called for:

4. The Commission, after consultation with the democratic parties and other public organizations of The Arab and Jewish States, shall select and establish in each State as rapidly as possible a Provisional Council of Government. The activities of both the Arab and Jewish Provisional Councils of Government shall be carried out under the general direction of the Commission.​

10. The Constituent Assembly of each State shall draft a democratic constitution for its State and choose a provisional government to succeed the Provisional Council of Government appointed by the Commission. The constitutions of the States shall embody chapters 1 and 2 of the Declaration provided for in section C below and include inter alia provisions for:

(a) ...

(b) Settling all international disputes in which the State may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;

(c) Accepting the obligation of the State to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations;

(d) ...

(e) ...​

Your objection is merely an extension of the Arab Leagues decision not to accept the Jewish State. The Invasion by the Arab League States essentially became the unintentional tool for the expansion of the Jewish State. And to this day, the "official" position of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, is that:

✧ The 1967 border, which is defined as the 1949 Armistice Line along with all legal modification thereto up to June 4th 1967, is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine.​

This is an expansion of Israeli Territory was made possible by the invasion of the Arab League Forces, and the PLO claim the original Armistice Lines as the "internationally recognized border" → which is in dispute at this time. Many things have changed since the Armistice. And the Treaties made by the parties in the conflict (including the Six Day and Yom Kipper Wars) changed the boundaries (at least those pertaining to the West Bank and Gaza Strip).

Most Respectfully,
R

There was no resolution 181 and the 1948 war had no affect on Palestinian territory.

 

[Sixties Fan]

For first time in months, Gaza balloons spark fire in south

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

All I can say is... WOW.

There was no resolution 181 and the 1948 war had no affect on Palestinian territory.

(COMMENT)

​

As you can see in the Annotated First Page Extract (supra) from the Resolution that the Ramallah Government is so proud of, recalls its General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947. It is also embedded and acknowledged in the Palestinian Declaration of Independence.

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defense of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence, and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.

In terms of the claim, you make that the "1948 war had no effect on Palestinian territory" I can only point out that the PLO-NAD says something different.

​

This discussion illuminates the central problem of the Arab Palestine. They simply don't agree among themselves as to who is the government, who is the national leader, or what it means when they say the State of Palestine. If you cannot agree upon that, then on what basis can you say that you are a legitimate state?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

Did anyone forget to mark their calendars? There was an anniversary (of sorts) last Friday. The Arab-Moslem border riots and failed gee-had intended to breach the Israeli border has now droned on for 47 weeks.

Among the dead and injured Arabs-Moslems who gave up life and limb in the hopes of slaughtering Israeli citizens is the abysmal failure of Arabs-Moslems to accomplish anything but creating dead and injured Arabs- Moslems.

47th Friday of the Great March of Return in Gaza.

47th Friday of the Great March of Return in Gaza

Since Palestinians in Gaza began holding the rallies in March of last year, more than 250 protesters have been killed — and thousands more injured — by Israeli army gunfire.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

All I can say is... WOW.

There was no resolution 181 and the 1948 war had no affect on Palestinian territory.

(COMMENT)

View attachment 246737


​

As you can see in the Annotated First Page Extract (supra) from the Resolution that the Ramallah Government is so proud of, recalls its General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947. It is also embedded and acknowledged in the Palestinian Declaration of Independence.

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defense of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence, and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.

In terms of the claim, you make that the "1948 war had no effect on Palestinian territory" I can only point out that the PLO-NAD says something different.

View attachment 246739
​

This discussion illuminates the central problem of the Arab Palestine. They simply don't agree among themselves as to who is the government, who is the national leader, or what it means when they say the State of Palestine. If you cannot agree upon that, then on what basis can you say that you are a legitimate state?

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what in all of this refutes my posts?

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

All I can say is... WOW.

There was no resolution 181 and the 1948 war had no affect on Palestinian territory.

(COMMENT)

View attachment 246737


​

As you can see in the Annotated First Page Extract (supra) from the Resolution that the Ramallah Government is so proud of, recalls its General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947. It is also embedded and acknowledged in the Palestinian Declaration of Independence.

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defense of the freedom and independence of that homeland,

Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and

Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence, and sovereignty over its territory:

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.

In terms of the claim, you make that the "1948 war had no effect on Palestinian territory" I can only point out that the PLO-NAD says something different.

View attachment 246739
​

This discussion illuminates the central problem of the Arab Palestine. They simply don't agree among themselves as to who is the government, who is the national leader, or what it means when they say the State of Palestine. If you cannot agree upon that, then on what basis can you say that you are a legitimate state?

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what in all of this refutes my posts?

All in that which refutes your nonsensical post.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border​

⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I could not have been more explicit in my answer if I had drawn pictures. Oh, wait! I think I did...

I think you are playing some sort of game here.

(YOUR QUESTION)

So, what in all of this refutes my posts?

(EXCERPT FROM YOUR CITED POSTING)

There was no resolution 181 and the 1948 war had no affect on Palestinian territory.

• ISSUE #1: YOU SAID: There was no resolution 181:

◈ Not only did I address and refute the issue, I demonstrated were it was used by the "sole representative of the Palestinians" and where it was used by the UN in the decision to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status.​

• ISSUE #2: YOU SAID: The 1948 war had no affect on Palestinian territory.

◈ Not only did I address and refute the issue, but I gave an example of how the PLO acknowledge the war, and use the Armistice Demarcation as a reference point.​

Now I could have thrown-in the 1999 Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the UN Secretary-General (A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999), but I thought that would be overkill (salt in the wound kind of thing).

◈ For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable.​

I have noticed that you play "ostrich" when it is factually a matter of record (head in the sand kind of thing). But then, you are not the only one that does that as a pro-Arab Palestinian strategy.

Most Respectfully,
R

INFORMATIONAL ANNEX:

At its second regular session, after an intense two-month-long debate, the General Assembly, on 29 November 1947, adopted resolution 181 (II), approving with minor changes the Plan of Partition with Economic Union as proposed by the majority in the Special Committee on Palestine. The partition plan, a detailed four-part document attached to the resolution, provided for the termination of the Mandate, the progressive withdrawal of British armed forces and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem. The plan included:

• The creation of the Arab and Jewish States, not later than 1 October 1948.

• Division of Palestine into eight parts: three were allotted to the Arab State ʤand three to the Jewish State, with the town of Jaffa forming an Arab enclave within Jewish territory, and

• An international regime for Jerusalem, the eighth division, to be administered by the United Nations Trusteeship Council.​

​

SOURCE: Excerpt: Page 7 • The Question of Palestine and the United Nations (DPI2499.pdf) •

​

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border​

⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I could not have been more explicit in my answer if I had drawn pictures. Oh, wait! I think I did...

I think you are playing some sort of game here.

(YOUR QUESTION)

So, what in all of this refutes my posts?

(EXCERPT FROM YOUR CITED POSTING)

There was no resolution 181 and the 1948 war had no affect on Palestinian territory.

• ISSUE #1: YOU SAID: There was no resolution 181:

◈ Not only did I address and refute the issue, I demonstrated were it was used by the "sole representative of the Palestinians" and where it was used by the UN in the decision to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status.​

• ISSUE #2: YOU SAID: The 1948 war had no affect on Palestinian territory.

◈ Not only did I address and refute the issue, but I gave an example of how the PLO acknowledge the war, and use the Armistice Demarcation as a reference point.​

Now I could have thrown-in the 1999 Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the UN Secretary-General (A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999), but I thought that would be overkill (salt in the wound kind of thing).

◈ For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable.​

I have noticed that you play "ostrich" when it is factually a matter of record (head in the sand kind of thing). But then, you are not the only one that does that as a pro-Arab Palestinian strategy.

Most Respectfully,
R

INFORMATIONAL ANNEX:

At its second regular session, after an intense two-month-long debate, the General Assembly, on 29 November 1947, adopted resolution 181 (II), approving with minor changes the Plan of Partition with Economic Union as proposed by the majority in the Special Committee on Palestine. The partition plan, a detailed four-part document attached to the resolution, provided for the termination of the Mandate, the progressive withdrawal of British armed forces and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem. The plan included:

• The creation of the Arab and Jewish States, not later than 1 October 1948.

• Division of Palestine into eight parts: three were allotted to the Arab State ʤand three to the Jewish State, with the town of Jaffa forming an Arab enclave within Jewish territory, and

• An international regime for Jerusalem, the eighth division, to be administered by the United Nations Trusteeship Council.​

​

SOURCE: Excerpt: Page 7 • The Question of Palestine and the United Nations (DPI2499.pdf) •

​

So, Israel claims to have accepted Resolution 181 (And referenced it in its declaration of independence.) then claims it to be null and void since the Palestinians rejected it. The UN still claims it to be valid. The PLO now claims to recognize Resolution 181.

Does this mean that the Borders between Israel and Palestine are those proposed in Resolution 181?

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border​

⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I could not have been more explicit in my answer if I had drawn pictures. Oh, wait! I think I did...

I think you are playing some sort of game here.

(YOUR QUESTION)

So, what in all of this refutes my posts?

(EXCERPT FROM YOUR CITED POSTING)

There was no resolution 181 and the 1948 war had no affect on Palestinian territory.

• ISSUE #1: YOU SAID: There was no resolution 181:

◈ Not only did I address and refute the issue, I demonstrated were it was used by the "sole representative of the Palestinians" and where it was used by the UN in the decision to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status.​

• ISSUE #2: YOU SAID: The 1948 war had no affect on Palestinian territory.

◈ Not only did I address and refute the issue, but I gave an example of how the PLO acknowledge the war, and use the Armistice Demarcation as a reference point.​

Now I could have thrown-in the 1999 Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the UN Secretary-General (A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999), but I thought that would be overkill (salt in the wound kind of thing).

◈ For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable.​

I have noticed that you play "ostrich" when it is factually a matter of record (head in the sand kind of thing). But then, you are not the only one that does that as a pro-Arab Palestinian strategy.

Most Respectfully,
R

INFORMATIONAL ANNEX:

At its second regular session, after an intense two-month-long debate, the General Assembly, on 29 November 1947, adopted resolution 181 (II), approving with minor changes the Plan of Partition with Economic Union as proposed by the majority in the Special Committee on Palestine. The partition plan, a detailed four-part document attached to the resolution, provided for the termination of the Mandate, the progressive withdrawal of British armed forces and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem. The plan included:

• The creation of the Arab and Jewish States, not later than 1 October 1948.

• Division of Palestine into eight parts: three were allotted to the Arab State ʤand three to the Jewish State, with the town of Jaffa forming an Arab enclave within Jewish territory, and

• An international regime for Jerusalem, the eighth division, to be administered by the United Nations Trusteeship Council.​

​

SOURCE: Excerpt: Page 7 • The Question of Palestine and the United Nations (DPI2499.pdf) •

​

So, Israel claims to have accepted Resolution 181 (And referenced it in its declaration of independence.) then claims it to be null and void since the Palestinians rejected it. The UN still claims it to be valid. The PLO now claims to recognize Resolution 181.

Does this mean that the Borders between Israel and Palestine are those proposed in Resolution 181?

The PLO retroactively accepts Resolution 181? A typical Arab-Moslem absurdity.

Wht is this this thing you call a “PLO”? Did Arabs-Moslems dig up Arafat’s grave and give him a voice?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I went back and re-read my Posting #2070 of Yesterday at 6:24 PM. I don't think I wrote anything that could be construed as stating what "Israel" accepts or does not accept.

As far as Israel referencing A/RES/181 (II) in their announcement of the Declaration of Independence (14/15 May 1948)ª, I can say that it did reference Parts of the Resolution of 29 November 1948. Israel made three statements to that effect in May 1948.

✦ APPLIED TO UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION FOR RECOGNITION AS PROVISIONAL COUNCIL GOVERNMENT UNDER PART ONE B FOUR OF RESOLUTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON NOVEMBER 29TH 1947

✦ STATE OF ISRAEL WILL BE READY COOPERATE WITH ORGANS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF UNITED NATIONS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY OF NOVEMBER 29 1947 AND WILL TAKE STEPS TO BRING ABOUT ECONOMIC UNION OVER WHOLE OF PALESTINE.

✦ STATE OF ISRAEL ITS READINESS TO SIGN DECLARATION AND UNDERTAKING PROVIDED FOR RESPECTIVELY IN PART ONE C AND PART ONE D OF RESOLUTION.

"I" made no such statement, as you sound out here, to the effect that Israel → "claims it to be null and void since the Palestinians rejected it."

Footnote
-----------------------------
ª The "announcement" by cablegram of the Declaration of Independence, and the actual Declaration of Independence are two different Documents.

]So, Israel claims to have accepted Resolution 181 (And referenced it in its declaration of independence.) then claims it to be null and void since the Palestinians rejected it. The UN still claims it to be valid. The PLO now claims to recognize Resolution 181.

(COMMENT)

A political soundbite ("null and void") is NOT a complete answer to any complex question.

The discussion about the 1999 statement by Ariel Sharon, then the Israeli Foreign Minister, that Resolution 181 is null and void due to the [Historical] circumstances... is a pro-Arab Palestinian argument that a single statement or a piece of paper can overturn reality. By 1999, → the 1948 Arab Invasion of Israel was fought, → the Six-Day War was fought, → the sneak attack on Yo Kipper 1973 was fought off, and the Oslo Accords were signed. There can be no doubt that → history and time (a half-century covering the span of time between 1948 and 1999) had an impact on the utility of A/RES/181 (II). The pro-Arab Palestinians would gladly take the boundaries outlined by A/RES/181 (II) if they could get it. It would almost double the land area of the territories in dispute.

]Does this mean that the Borders between Israel and Palestine are those proposed in Resolution 181?

(COMMENT)

Hell No!

The "borders" as outlined in Part II • Boundaries, of A/RES/181(II), have been overtaken by even, having been modified by various wars, international agreements, and treaties. As far as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are concerned, the Internationally Recognized boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty are where Israel establishes and enforces the boundary.

Without regard to the political rhetoric in the UN and elsewhere, every country that accepts an Israeli Passport, every country that observes restriction on Israeli sovereign airspace, every person that goes through an Israeli Immigration Station control checkpoint recognizes the borders of Israel. And as the concept is spelled-out in the Montevideo Convention: → "Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable" (once given cannot be taken back).

Can your question be answered in a soundbite? No!

(EPILOG)

I took great care in exactly answering your questions with some detail and reference. So don't use that old: "what part of that refutes your post?" as a comeback.

Since the time that Arab Higher Committee has taken the stance that: "“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION, AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM" → much has changed.

The Arab Palestinians have formed a quasi-Government that directly supports of violence by non-state actors that either:

◈ Supports a network of Jihadists, Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Troublemakers, Adherents, Guerrillas and Asymmetric Fighter. Are engaged in activities which intentionally or are indirectly set in motion to assualt civilians. (Palestine Today)

.................................................................OR

◈ Expresses, incites, finances or encourages acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create an atmosphere of fear in the minds of constituents of another state; directs acts against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State. (Palestine Today)

.................................................................OR

◈ Establishes a regime of unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place. (Palestine Today)

​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I went back and re-read my Posting #2070 of Yesterday at 6:24 PM. I don't think I wrote anything that could be construed as stating what "Israel" accepts or does not accept.

As far as Israel referencing A/RES/181 (II) in their announcement of the Declaration of Independence (14/15 May 1948)ª, I can say that it did reference Parts of the Resolution of 29 November 1948. Israel made three statements to that effect in May 1948.

✦ APPLIED TO UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION FOR RECOGNITION AS PROVISIONAL COUNCIL GOVERNMENT UNDER PART ONE B FOUR OF RESOLUTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON NOVEMBER 29TH 1947

✦ STATE OF ISRAEL WILL BE READY COOPERATE WITH ORGANS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF UNITED NATIONS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY OF NOVEMBER 29 1947 AND WILL TAKE STEPS TO BRING ABOUT ECONOMIC UNION OVER WHOLE OF PALESTINE.

✦ STATE OF ISRAEL ITS READINESS TO SIGN DECLARATION AND UNDERTAKING PROVIDED FOR RESPECTIVELY IN PART ONE C AND PART ONE D OF RESOLUTION.

"I" made no such statement, as you sound out here, to the effect that Israel → "claims it to be null and void since the Palestinians rejected it."

Footnote
-----------------------------
ª The "announcement" by cablegram of the Declaration of Independence, and the actual Declaration of Independence are two different Documents.

]So, Israel claims to have accepted Resolution 181 (And referenced it in its declaration of independence.) then claims it to be null and void since the Palestinians rejected it. The UN still claims it to be valid. The PLO now claims to recognize Resolution 181.

(COMMENT)

A political soundbite ("null and void") is NOT a complete answer to any complex question.

The discussion about the 1999 statement by Ariel Sharon, then the Israeli Foreign Minister, that Resolution 181 is null and void due to the [Historical] circumstances... is a pro-Arab Palestinian argument that a single statement or a piece of paper can overturn reality. By 1999, → the 1948 Arab Invasion of Israel was fought, → the Six-Day War was fought, → the sneak attack on Yo Kipper 1973 was fought off, and the Oslo Accords were signed. There can be no doubt that → history and time (a half-century covering the span of time between 1948 and 1999) had an impact on the utility of A/RES/181 (II). The pro-Arab Palestinians would gladly take the boundaries outlined by A/RES/181 (II) if they could get it. It would almost double the land area of the territories in dispute.

]Does this mean that the Borders between Israel and Palestine are those proposed in Resolution 181?

(COMMENT)

Hell No!

The "borders" as outlined in Part II • Boundaries, of A/RES/181(II), have been overtaken by even, having been modified by various wars, international agreements, and treaties. As far as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are concerned, the Internationally Recognized boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty are where Israel establishes and enforces the boundary.

Without regard to the political rhetoric in the UN and elsewhere, every country that accepts an Israeli Passport, every country that observes restriction on Israeli sovereign airspace, every person that goes through an Israeli Immigration Station control checkpoint recognizes the borders of Israel. And as the concept is spelled-out in the Montevideo Convention: → "Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable" (once given cannot be taken back).

Can your question be answered in a soundbite? No!

(EPILOG)

I took great care in exactly answering your questions with some detail and reference. So don't use that old: "what part of that refutes your post?" as a comeback.

Since the time that Arab Higher Committee has taken the stance that: "“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION, AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM" → much has changed.

The Arab Palestinians have formed a quasi-Government that directly supports of violence by non-state actors that either:

◈ Supports a network of Jihadists, Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Troublemakers, Adherents, Guerrillas and Asymmetric Fighter. Are engaged in activities which intentionally or are indirectly set in motion to assualt civilians. (Palestine Today)

.................................................................OR

◈ Expresses, incites, finances or encourages acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create an atmosphere of fear in the minds of constituents of another state; directs acts against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State. (Palestine Today)

.................................................................OR

◈ Establishes a regime of unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place. (Palestine Today)

​

Most Respectfully,
R

The "borders" as outlined in Part II • Boundaries, of A/RES/181(II), have been overtaken by even, having been modified by various wars, international agreements, and treaties.

Did the Palestinians lose any wars or sign any of these treaties. Or, was it all done by external interference?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a loaded question. It is like asking: “When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife?” Up and until The Seventh Arab Summit Conference (Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974) there was no political body called "Palestinians." It was a regional colloquialism used by certain Arabs to distinguish themselves from other Arabs. Up until The Seventh Arab Summit, the Arab League through the Arab High Committee (AHC) represented those that called themselves "Palestinians."

So your question is only valid from a time beginning after 28 October 1974. when the Arab League established independent national authority (INA). The Arab League officially recognized the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.

As a result out of the proceedings of The Seventh Arab Summit the UN acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988; see A/RES/43/177 Question of Palestine 15 December 1988.

The "borders" as outlined in Part II • Boundaries, of A/RES/181(II), have been overtaken by even, having been modified by various wars, international agreements, and treaties.

Did the Palestinians lose any wars or sign any of these treaties. Or, was it all done by external interference?

(COMMENT)

The Israeli War of Independence (1948) was fought and the four Principle Parties (Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria) for the Arab League came to four separate agreements as outlined in my Posting of #2054.

Similarly, an independent national authority (INA) for the Palestinians did not exist during the period of the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War. That would have made participation and relevance impossible. After 1974 when the Arab League established the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.

✦ So I ask you to remember: What "Palestinian territory that is liberated" since 1974?
​

◈ Area "A" came under full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority in 1995 was an outcome of the Oslo Accords.

◈ The Gaza Strip became a self-governing Palestinian subdivision corresponding to an autonomous province under the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) as an outcome of the Israeli dismantling of all settlements in the Gaza Strip and a unilaterial disengagement in 2005.​

The PLO/Palestinian Authority (PLO/PA) has an on again, off again, relationship with HAMAS. The PLO/PA cannot say that it has sovereign control over Gaza. But, for all practical purposes, the PLO/PA has full right and power of a governing body to govern Area "A" without any external interference.



Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a loaded question. It is like asking: “When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife?” Up and until The Seventh Arab Summit Conference (Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974) there was no political body called "Palestinians." It was a regional colloquialism used by certain Arabs to distinguish themselves from other Arabs. Up until The Seventh Arab Summit, the Arab League through the Arab High Committee (AHC) represented those that called themselves "Palestinians."

So your question is only valid from a time beginning after 28 October 1974. when the Arab League established independent national authority (INA). The Arab League officially recognized the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.

As a result out of the proceedings of The Seventh Arab Summit the UN acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988; see A/RES/43/177 Question of Palestine 15 December 1988.

The "borders" as outlined in Part II • Boundaries, of A/RES/181(II), have been overtaken by even, having been modified by various wars, international agreements, and treaties.

Did the Palestinians lose any wars or sign any of these treaties. Or, was it all done by external interference?

(COMMENT)

The Israeli War of Independence (1948) was fought and the four Principle Parties (Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria) for the Arab League came to four separate agreements as outlined in my Posting of #2054.

Similarly, an independent national authority (INA) for the Palestinians did not exist during the period of the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War. That would have made participation and relevance impossible. After 1974 when the Arab League established the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.

✦ So I ask you to remember: What "Palestinian territory that is liberated" since 1974?
​

◈ Area "A" came under full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority in 1995 was an outcome of the Oslo Accords.

◈ The Gaza Strip became a self-governing Palestinian subdivision corresponding to an autonomous province under the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) as an outcome of the Israeli dismantling of all settlements in the Gaza Strip and a unilaterial disengagement in 2005.​

The PLO/Palestinian Authority (PLO/PA) has an on again, off again, relationship with HAMAS. The PLO/PA cannot say that it has sovereign control over Gaza. But, for all practical purposes, the PLO/PA has full right and power of a governing body to govern Area "A" without any external interference.



Most Respectfully,
R

You are ducking the question.

Did the Palestinians lose any wars or sign any of these treaties. Or, was it all done by external interference?​