Seek Peace, Pursue Justice in Israel-Palestine

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think your logic and my logic differ. There is a country named Israel; so recognized internationally by United Nations (LINK --->A/RES/273 (III) of 11 May 1949).

• ...........All countries have borders.
• ...........Israel is a country.

THEREFORE: ........Israel has borders.

Originally, the borders were set by GA Resolution 181(II) (LINK ---> A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947). Given the dispute over Resolution 181(II), with you and the Israelis claiming it is no longer relevant, and the Palestinians and the UN saying it is part of the record, we look to today, to see what borders are established:

The dispute is over what borders.

• SOUTHERN BORDER: The entire southern border is in no-contest. The treaty (effective law) establishes that segment in Article II. (LINK ---> Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt - Non-UN document (26 March 1979)) Together, with the unilaterial withdrawal from the Gaza Strip (LINK ---> S/2005/559 of 31 August 2005) the entire souther border is established.

• NORTHERN BORDER: The UN documents and the exchange between the SecGen & President of Lebanon establishes and reaffirms "international boundary between Israel and Lebanon" in Paragraph 13 of S/2000/460. (LINKS ---> A/54/914-S/2000/564 of 12 June 2000 AND S/2000/460 of 22 May 2000).

• EASTERN BORDER:
  • The Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994 (effective law) (LINKs ---> The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty OR A/50/73-S/1995/83 of 27 January 1995) establishes the "international boundary between Israel and Jordan" in Article 3.
  • There is a dispute between Syria and Israel along the border, in the Golan Heights region. Internationally, there is a small segment of Israel's borders that is in dispute which is covered by an Armistice Agreement (LINK ---> S/1353 of 20 July 1949)

I see no similar documentation for the State of Palestine, or any unnamed Arab State that might be associated with PART II (Boundaries), Section A (The Arab State), within GA Resolution 181 (II) (LINK ---> A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947). But since GA Resolution 181(II) is considered irrelevant, this makes a case for the argument that there is no such thing as Palestine. In the waring intervals, Palestine was made irrelevant.

P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,

Yes, but more importantly, the Palestinians recognize the State of Israel. It is Hamas that changed the standing recognition.

Palestine's borders are the same as they have been since 1922.

(OBSERVATION)

Yesterday, the Israeli representative to the United Nations made some comments to the media on the issue of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, as well as on a statement previously made by President Arafat on the subject. The Israeli representative repeated what the Israeli Foreign Minister said a few days ago, namely that resolution 181 (II) was "null and void". These are pathetic statements involving illegal positions with far-reaching and serious consequences.

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

(cut)

(Signed) Nasser AL-KIDWA
Ambassador
Permanent Observer of
Palestine to the United Nations​

SOURCE: A/53/879-S/1999/334 of 25 March 1999

I think this muddies-up the case.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree with Israel. Resolution 181 was null and void. I have been saying that for years.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure you mean that.

I refer to the letter addressed to you from the Palestinian Permanent Observer dated 25 March 1999 (A/53/879-S/1999/334), concerning General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947.

(cut)

The fundamental act of international illegality was the invasion of the nascent State of Israel and the attempt to overturn a resolution of the General Assembly with armed force. That is why those seeking to critique Israel's position on the status of resolution 181 (II) are misdirected. For in fact, resolution 181 (II) was made irrelevant by the actions of the Arab States and the Palestinian leadership in 1948, whose refusal to accept the resolution altered the circumstances in the Middle East on which it was originally based.

By early 1949, with their invasion thwarted, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Transjordan entered into armistice agreements with the State of Israel. These agreements made no mention of 181 (II). Similarly, Security Council resolution 73 (1949) of 11 August 1949, which endorsed the armistice, made no reference to 181 (II). In short, from the perspective of Israel, resolution 181 (II) had been overtaken by the events of 1947-1949.

In order to respond to the new realities that emerged in the years and decades following the partition resolution, the United Nations abandoned the proposals contained in resolution 181 (II). In its place, the Security Council adopted resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) which provided a radically different formula for the settlement of the conflict. Indeed, this is the only formula that has been accepted by all concerned as the basis for permanent status negotiations.

(cut)

SOURCE: A/54/77-S/1999/365 of 31 March 1999

(COMMENT)

References:

• Resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967: LINK ---> S/RES/242 (1967) of 22 November 1967
  
• Resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973: LINK ---> S/RES/338 (1973) of 22 October 1973

Taking a closer look at the Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994, I call your attention to the boundary as described in (The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty) Annex I: (a) International Boundary. There is an argument to be made, as to the true boundary agreed upon. Again, is there a Palestine?

A. The boundary Line shall follow the middle of the main course of the flow of the Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers.
B. The boundary line shall follow natural changes (accretion or erosion) in the course of the rivers unless otherwise agreed. Artificial changes in or of the course of the rivers shall not affect the location of the boundary unless otherwise agreed. No artificial changes may be made except by agreement between both Parties.
C. In the event of a future sudden natural change in or of the course of the rivers (avulsion or cutting of new bed) the Joint Boundary Commission (Article 3 below) shall meet as soon as possible, to decide on necessary measures, which may include physical restoration of the prior location of the river course.
D. The boundary line in the two rivers is shown on the 1/10,000 orthophoto maps dated 1994 (Appendix III attached to this Annex).
E. Adjustment to the boundary line in any of the rivers due to natural changes (accretion or erosion) shall be carried out whenever it is deemed necessary by the Boundary Commission or once every five years.
F. The lines defining the special Baqura/Naharayim area are shown on the 1:10,000 orthophoto map (Appendix IV attached to this Annex).
G. The orthophoto maps and image maps showing the line separating Jordan from the territory that came under Israeli Military government control in 1967 shall have that line indicated in a different presentation and the legend shall carry on it the following disclaimer:

"This line is the administrative boundary between Jordan and the territory which came under Israeli military government control in 1967. Any treatment of this line shall be without prejudice to the status of that territory.”​

Now common sense tells us that there is such a thing as the West Bank and it is Occupied Territory. But a case can be made, if it is determined that the Palestinians of the West Bank are not found capable of standing alone, that it should fall under Israeli Trusteeship.

In any event, while we can demonstrate today, that which forms the boundaries of the State of Israel (with a minor dispute along the Golan Heights), all that are recent in terms, can anything similar be said for Palestine? I think not. Your 1922 claim, using the logic you apply to the GA Resolution 181 (II), has long since been overtaken by political and warfare events.

SIMON SAYS: ? Where is Palestine today? What are the 21st Century boundaries?​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[proudveteran06]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think your logic and my logic differ. There is a country named Israel; so recognized internationally by United Nations (LINK --->A/RES/273 (III) of 11 May 1949).

• ...........All countries have borders.
• ...........Israel is a country.

THEREFORE: ........Israel has borders.

Originally, the borders were set by GA Resolution 181(II) (LINK ---> A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947). Given the dispute over Resolution 181(II), with you and the Israelis claiming it is no longer relevant, and the Palestinians and the UN saying it is part of the record, we look to today, to see what borders are established:

The dispute is over what borders.

• SOUTHERN BORDER: The entire southern border is in no-contest. The treaty (effective law) establishes that segment in Article II. (LINK ---> Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt - Non-UN document (26 March 1979)) Together, with the unilaterial withdrawal from the Gaza Strip (LINK ---> S/2005/559 of 31 August 2005) the entire souther border is established.

• NORTHERN BORDER: The UN documents and the exchange between the SecGen & President of Lebanon establishes and reaffirms "international boundary between Israel and Lebanon" in Paragraph 13 of S/2000/460. (LINKS ---> A/54/914-S/2000/564 of 12 June 2000 AND S/2000/460 of 22 May 2000).

• EASTERN BORDER:
  • The Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994 (effective law) (LINKs ---> The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty OR A/50/73-S/1995/83 of 27 January 1995) establishes the "international boundary between Israel and Jordan" in Article 3.
  • There is a dispute between Syria and Israel along the border, in the Golan Heights region. Internationally, there is a small segment of Israel's borders that is in dispute which is covered by an Armistice Agreement (LINK ---> S/1353 of 20 July 1949)

I see no similar documentation for the State of Palestine, or any unnamed Arab State that might be associated with PART II (Boundaries), Section A (The Arab State), within GA Resolution 181 (II) (LINK ---> A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947). But since GA Resolution 181(II) is considered irrelevant, this makes a case for the argument that there is no such thing as Palestine. In the waring intervals, Palestine was made irrelevant.

P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,

Yes, but more importantly, the Palestinians recognize the State of Israel. It is Hamas that changed the standing recognition.


(OBSERVATION)



I think this muddies-up the case.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree with Israel. Resolution 181 was null and void. I have been saying that for years.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure you mean that.

I refer to the letter addressed to you from the Palestinian Permanent Observer dated 25 March 1999 (A/53/879-S/1999/334), concerning General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947.

(cut)

The fundamental act of international illegality was the invasion of the nascent State of Israel and the attempt to overturn a resolution of the General Assembly with armed force. That is why those seeking to critique Israel's position on the status of resolution 181 (II) are misdirected. For in fact, resolution 181 (II) was made irrelevant by the actions of the Arab States and the Palestinian leadership in 1948, whose refusal to accept the resolution altered the circumstances in the Middle East on which it was originally based.

By early 1949, with their invasion thwarted, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Transjordan entered into armistice agreements with the State of Israel. These agreements made no mention of 181 (II). Similarly, Security Council resolution 73 (1949) of 11 August 1949, which endorsed the armistice, made no reference to 181 (II). In short, from the perspective of Israel, resolution 181 (II) had been overtaken by the events of 1947-1949.

In order to respond to the new realities that emerged in the years and decades following the partition resolution, the United Nations abandoned the proposals contained in resolution 181 (II). In its place, the Security Council adopted resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) which provided a radically different formula for the settlement of the conflict. Indeed, this is the only formula that has been accepted by all concerned as the basis for permanent status negotiations.

(cut)

SOURCE: A/54/77-S/1999/365 of 31 March 1999

(COMMENT)

References:

• Resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967: LINK ---> S/RES/242 (1967) of 22 November 1967
  
• Resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973: LINK ---> S/RES/338 (1973) of 22 October 1973

Taking a closer look at the Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994, I call your attention to the boundary as described in (The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty) Annex I: (a) International Boundary. There is an argument to be made, as to the true boundary agreed upon. Again, is there a Palestine?

A. The boundary Line shall follow the middle of the main course of the flow of the Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers.
B. The boundary line shall follow natural changes (accretion or erosion) in the course of the rivers unless otherwise agreed. Artificial changes in or of the course of the rivers shall not affect the location of the boundary unless otherwise agreed. No artificial changes may be made except by agreement between both Parties.
C. In the event of a future sudden natural change in or of the course of the rivers (avulsion or cutting of new bed) the Joint Boundary Commission (Article 3 below) shall meet as soon as possible, to decide on necessary measures, which may include physical restoration of the prior location of the river course.
D. The boundary line in the two rivers is shown on the 1/10,000 orthophoto maps dated 1994 (Appendix III attached to this Annex).
E. Adjustment to the boundary line in any of the rivers due to natural changes (accretion or erosion) shall be carried out whenever it is deemed necessary by the Boundary Commission or once every five years.
F. The lines defining the special Baqura/Naharayim area are shown on the 1:10,000 orthophoto map (Appendix IV attached to this Annex).
G. The orthophoto maps and image maps showing the line separating Jordan from the territory that came under Israeli Military government control in 1967 shall have that line indicated in a different presentation and the legend shall carry on it the following disclaimer:

"This line is the administrative boundary between Jordan and the territory which came under Israeli military government control in 1967. Any treatment of this line shall be without prejudice to the status of that territory.”​

Now common sense tells us that there is such a thing as the West Bank and it is Occupied Territory. But a case can be made, if it is determined that the Palestinians of the West Bank are not found capable of standing alone, that it should fall under Israeli Trusteeship.

In any event, while we can demonstrate today, that which forms the boundaries of the State of Israel (with a minor dispute along the Golan Heights), all that are recent in terms, can anything similar be said for Palestine? I think not. Your 1922 claim, using the logic you apply to the GA Resolution 181 (II), has long since been overtaken by political and warfare events.

SIMON SAYS: ? Where is Palestine today? What are the 21st Century boundaries?​

Most Respectfully,
R

Ask again what Gov't was in " palestine", who was the President, etc. etc. there will be no response. Tinman keeps talking about the 1922 " Borders" now the 1947. What he refuses to mention is that the Arabs have never accepted it.

The U.N. Resolulution of 1947 also speaks of Jerusalem as an INTERNATIONAL CITY, something Jordan refused to do and Abbas refuses to do now. Just more proof that " resolution" is null and void

 

[irosie91]

Many borders are disputed----land boarders between neighbors in towns, town
boarders, city borders, state borders and country borders and borders have
also CHANGED historically. One would have to be psychotic to claim
a country "does not exist" because its borders are in dispute

 

[proudveteran06]

Many borders are disputed----land boarders between neighbors in towns, town
boarders, city borders, state borders and country borders and borders have
also CHANGED historically. One would have to be psychotic to claim
a country "does not exist" because its borders are in dispute

Since Israel was established May 14, 1948 their Borders have ALWAYS been "disputed". That means according to the Palestinian Tinman Israel never existed.

That being the case Israel will not accept Borders that they rejected.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think your logic and my logic differ. There is a country named Israel; so recognized internationally by United Nations (LINK --->A/RES/273 (III) of 11 May 1949).

• ...........All countries have borders.
• ...........Israel is a country.

THEREFORE: ........Israel has borders.

Originally, the borders were set by GA Resolution 181(II) (LINK ---> A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947). Given the dispute over Resolution 181(II), with you and the Israelis claiming it is no longer relevant, and the Palestinians and the UN saying it is part of the record, we look to today, to see what borders are established:

The dispute is over what borders.

• SOUTHERN BORDER: The entire southern border is in no-contest. The treaty (effective law) establishes that segment in Article II. (LINK ---> Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt - Non-UN document (26 March 1979)) Together, with the unilaterial withdrawal from the Gaza Strip (LINK ---> S/2005/559 of 31 August 2005) the entire souther border is established.

From your link.

2. Israel will withdraw all its armed forces and civilians from the Sinai behind the international boundary between Egypt and mandated Palestine,...

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel in the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine,...

Notice that it does not say to withdraw behind the international boundary between Egypt and Israel.

It calls the border between Egypt and Israel a "permanent border" not an international border.

It is curious that they would use the term "mandated Palestine" when the 1949 armistice agreements called the place Palestine. They do not mention the mandate that ended the previous year. They called the border the international border as between Egypt and Palestine.

• NORTHERN BORDER: The UN documents and the exchange between the SecGen & President of Lebanon establishes and reaffirms "international boundary between Israel and Lebanon" in Paragraph 13 of S/2000/460. (LINKS ---> A/54/914-S/2000/564 of 12 June 2000 AND S/2000/460 of 22 May 2000).

From your link.

Paragraph 13 of the report states that “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”...

There was no Israel in 1923.

The 1949 armistice agreement named the place Palestine. There was no mention of an Israel. The border was called the international border between Lebanon and Palestine.

This brings to question the accuracy of this link.

• EASTERN BORDER:
• The Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994 (effective law) (LINKs ---> The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty OR A/50/73-S/1995/83 of 27 January 1995) establishes the "international boundary between Israel and Jordan" in Article 3.

From your link.

2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

The 1949 armistice agreement specifically called the territory west of that border Palestine.

Sometime between 1949 and 1995 Israel acquired that territory?

Could you document that acquisition?

• There is a dispute between Syria and Israel along the border, in the Golan Heights region. Internationally, there is a small segment of Israel's borders that is in dispute which is covered by an Armistice Agreement (LINK ---> S/1353 of 20 July 1949)

From your link.

Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line.

No comment.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you challenge the treaties?

From your link.

2. Israel will withdraw all its armed forces and civilians from the Sinai behind the international boundary between Egypt and mandated Palestine,...

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel in the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine,...

Notice that it does not say to withdraw behind the international boundary between Egypt and Israel.

It calls the border between Egypt and Israel a "permanent border" not an international border.

It is curious that they would use the term "mandated Palestine" when the 1949 armistice agreements called the place Palestine. They do not mention the mandate that ended the previous year. They called the border the international border as between Egypt and Palestine.

(COMMENT)

It actually uses both phrases. One to denote "what" it is (international) and the other to denote it "temporal endurance" (permanent).

Palestine is the description used in the Treaty (Article 95, LINK ---> http://www.hri.org/docs/sevres/part3.html) "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers." It differs slightly from the term "mandate Palestine" as segments of the mandate were given independence. The frame of Palestine is not decided by Arab tribal lore, but by the Allied Powers.

From your link.


There was no Israel in 1923.

The 1949 armistice agreement named the place Palestine. There was no mention of an Israel. The border was called the international border between Lebanon and Palestine.

This brings to question the accuracy of this link.

(COMMENT)

Yes. The UN chose to describe the boundary in terms of the language the separated the French Mandate from the British Mandate. “Boundary Line between Syria and Palestine from the Mediterranean to El Hamme”. This line was reaffirmed in the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement signed on 23 March 1949."

There is nothing wrong in using an older establish line, created from the Sykes–Picot Agreement. Remembering, of course, that the Treaty of Sevres already stipulated that the boundaries of Palestine were to be "determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers." Until the time of the Mandate, there were no permanent boundaries for Palestine under the Ottoman Empire.

As to the accuracy of the links; I think it is authoritative (the source being the UN Archive). I see it as more of an interpretational issue behind the intent and meaning. You want to find a defect, and so you hunt for language that might be ambiguous. But I urge you to look at the documents in their totality - and - not as sound bites.

From your link.

The 1949 armistice agreement specifically called the territory west of that border Palestine.

Sometime between 1949 and 1995 Israel acquired that territory?

Could you document that acquisition?

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is a timeline difference. Remembering that Jordan was given Independence on 25 May 1946, from the territory under the original Palestine Mandate (a fact often overlooked by today's Palestinian). From that date on, the remainder of the Palestine Mandate was, in fact, west of the river and Dead Sea.

It was not a true acquisition, per se, as it is an acknowledgement of the limit to Jordanian Territorial sovereignty. Under the GA Resolution 181(II), west of the River and the Dead Sea would have been another Arab State, but with the attack of five Arab Armies (from seven Arab States), the Arab League and the Palestinian High Commission abrogated the offer for independence. The territory was, de facto, unclaimed; no longer mandate territory and without Arab Leadership to form a nation.

• Confidential DOS Central Files PALESTINE United Nations Activities, 1945-1949 LINK --->http://academic.lexisnexis.com/documents/upa_cis/10033_CFPalestineUN19451949.pdf

From your link.

Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line.

No comment.

(COMMENT)

This is the use of political language; remembering of course, that the title of the document is: "ISRAELI-SYRIAN GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT." It is not a Palestine-Syrian General Armistice Agreement.

At the time, it was not uncommon for the Arabs, even having lost the wars, to refuse to use the name of "Israel." Even today, there are those that challenge Israel's right to exist, that refuse to recognize the name "Israel" as the noun nomenclature for the State. More often then not, these are people that refuse to understand that the territory of Palestine was an arbitrary designation under the Ottoman Empire to administratively describe territorial remnant that was neither Syrian or Mesopotamian, proper. Hense, that is why the Treat gave leave for the Mandatory to set the boundaries (Article 95).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hossfly]

Rocco just ate Tinmore's lunch with a detailed, precise summation.
Now I want to see the rebuttal
This is gonna be good!

 

[toastman]

Rocco just ate Tinmore's lunch with a detailed, precise summation.
Now I want to see the rebuttal
This is gonna be good!

His rebuttal will take us all to a ride back to 1922

 

[Hossfly]

Rocco just ate Tinmore's lunch with a detailed, precise summation.
Now I want to see the rebuttal
This is gonna be good!

His rebuttal will take us all to a ride back to 1922

C'mon Tinmore, get it in gear. I ain't got all day. Things to do.

 

[toastman]

tinmore, do you agree NOW that Israel has borders ? Yes or no ??

 

[toastman]

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you challenge the treaties?

From your link.

2. Israel will withdraw all its armed forces and civilians from the Sinai behind the international boundary between Egypt and mandated Palestine,...

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel in the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine,...

Notice that it does not say to withdraw behind the international boundary between Egypt and Israel.

It calls the border between Egypt and Israel a "permanent border" not an international border.

It is curious that they would use the term "mandated Palestine" when the 1949 armistice agreements called the place Palestine. They do not mention the mandate that ended the previous year. They called the border the international border as between Egypt and Palestine.

(COMMENT)

It actually uses both phrases. One to denote "what" it is (international) and the other to denote it "temporal endurance" (permanent).

Palestine is the description used in the Treaty (Article 95, LINK ---> Sevres Treaty: Part III) "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers." It differs slightly from the term "mandate Palestine" as segments of the mandate were given independence. The frame of Palestine is not decided by Arab tribal lore, but by the Allied Powers.

What are you trying to say?

(COMMENT)

Yes. The UN chose to describe the boundary in terms of the language the separated the French Mandate from the British Mandate. “Boundary Line between Syria and Palestine from the Mediterranean to El Hamme”. This line was reaffirmed in the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement signed on 23 March 1949."

There is nothing wrong in using an older establish line, created from the Sykes–Picot Agreement. Remembering, of course, that the Treaty of Sevres already stipulated that the boundaries of Palestine were to be "determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers." Until the time of the Mandate, there were no permanent boundaries for Palestine under the Ottoman Empire.

As to the accuracy of the links; I think it is authoritative (the source being the UN Archive). I see it as more of an interpretational issue behind the intent and meaning. You want to find a defect, and so you hunt for language that might be ambiguous. But I urge you to look at the documents in their totality - and - not as sound bites.

They are using information that is not correct then basing conclusions on false premise.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is a timeline difference. Remembering that Jordan was given Independence on 25 May 1946, from the territory under the original Palestine Mandate (a fact often overlooked by today's Palestinian). From that date on, the remainder of the Palestine Mandate was, in fact, west of the river and Dead Sea.

It was not a true acquisition, per se, as it is an acknowledgement of the limit to Jordanian Territorial sovereignty. Under the GA Resolution 181(II), west of the River and the Dead Sea would have been another Arab State, but with the attack of five Arab Armies (from seven Arab States), the Arab League and the Palestinian High Commission abrogated the offer for independence. The territory was, de facto, unclaimed; no longer mandate territory and without Arab Leadership to form a nation.

• Confidential DOS Central Files PALESTINE United Nations Activities, 1945-1949 LINK --->http://academic.lexisnexis.com/documents/upa_cis/10033_CFPalestineUN19451949.pdf

Could you clarify your point?

From your link.

Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line.

No comment.

(COMMENT)

This is the use of political language; remembering of course, that the title of the document is: "ISRAELI-SYRIAN GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT." It is not a Palestine-Syrian General Armistice Agreement.

At the time, it was not uncommon for the Arabs, even having lost the wars, to refuse to use the name of "Israel." Even today, there are those that challenge Israel's right to exist, that refuse to recognize the name "Israel" as the noun nomenclature for the State. More often then not, these are people that refuse to understand that the territory of Palestine was an arbitrary designation under the Ottoman Empire to administratively describe territorial remnant that was neither Syrian or Mesopotamian, proper. Hense, that is why the Treat gave leave for the Mandatory to set the boundaries (Article 95).

Contrary to popular propaganda, the "Arabs" did not lose the 1948 war. An armistice was called by UN Security Council resolution. Nobody lost that war. No land was transferred. No borders were changed.

Consequently, the international boundary between Syria and Palestine was still the international boundary between Syria and Palestine. It was the same for Palestine's borders with Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You cannot contest what is written in treaty. What sovereign states decide among themselves is not for Palestinian to critique.

What are you trying to say?

(COMMENT)

The phrasing is semi-legal language and temporal in nature (changing). Palestine is defined (at that time - by Treaty or International Law) as that territory "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers" (Treaty language) and "within such boundaries as may be fixed by them" (Mandate Language). It is not defined by Palestinian folklore. The phrase "Mandate Palestine" refers to territory under which the UN and the Mandatory have "full powers of legislation (refers to the preparation and enactment of laws by the Mandatory through its lawmaking process) and of administration."

The Treaty boundary is both international (recognized by the UN and the General Assembly, to include the Arab League) and permanent in nature (everlasting - written in stone and not under contest). It is a finalize arrangement and agreement between the two sovereignties, and not subject to Palestinian interpretation or objection.

They are using information that is not correct then basing conclusions on false premise.

(COMMENT)

This agreement (Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement) is a matter of record and is again an arrangement between the two sovereign nations and not subject to critique by the Palestinian or any subculture authority. Unlike the Treaty with Egypt, this arrangement is temporal in nature and subject to change.

However, the line itself is what it is. The two parties (Israel and Lebanon) agreed (along with the UN) to use the original line that was drawn in the Sykes–Picot Agreement, which became the same line that distinguished the French Mandate from the British Mandate. In that regard, it is no way a "false premise." It was well within the preview of the Allied Powers to make that decision, IAW the Treaty. It is unassailable.

Could you clarify your point?

(COMMENT)

The British Mandate over Palestine (a territory defined by the Allied Powers), was gradually being given independence and handing the indigenous population the right of self-determination. As segments of the original mandates were sectioned-off and assume the status of sovereign nations, the mandate territory (naturally) became smaller and smaller. Jordan became sovereign first (in 1946). That left the remainder of the mandate on the West side of the Jordan/Yarmouk Rivers ad the Dead Sea (the western border of Jordan). When the last of the territory was being sectionalized into the last two sovereign nations (the Jewish State and the Arab State), under the GA Resolution 181(II), and "the development of self-governing institutions" (under Article 2 of the Mandate).

• 29 November '47: UN General Assembly votes for Resolution 181, the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states by October 1, 1948, with Jerusalem to be under a UN trusteeship. Jews approve; Arabs reject. Arabs say they are not bound by the decision, and*charge*that US and USSR coerced smaller countries to vote for partition.
• 30 November '47: Arab attacks on Jews begin.

Of the approximately 22% of the remaining Mandate, 78% having been partitioned to Jordan for the establish of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, 55% was partitioned for the Jewish State (approx 12% of the original mandate) and 45% (approx 9.9% of the original mandate) for yet another Arab State; or - of the total Mandate of Palestine, nearly 88% was partition to the Arab communities and 12% to the Jewish National Home.

The Arab League and Palestinian High Commission rejected the overall partitioning, of the mandate remnant (the near half and half split of the 22% remaining after the creation of Jordan).

That left the 9.9% of the territory ungoverned; where the Arabs abandone the development of a self-governing institution in favor of war.

Contrary to popular propaganda, the "Arabs" did not lose the 1948 war. An armistice was called by UN Security Council resolution. Nobody lost that war. No land was transferred. No borders were changed.

Consequently, the international boundary between Syria and Palestine was still the international boundary between Syria and Palestine. It was the same for Palestine's borders with Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon.

(COMMENT)

One cannot deny the existence of either the Treaties or the small segment of Armistice that set the conditions of boundaries. They exist and are a matter of record; beyond challenge. The "ostrich effect" (burying one's head in the sand) simply doesn't work here.

No such state or sovereignty of Palestine existed. And each of the treaties and armistice arrangements are between the State of Israel and one of the aforementioned Arab States. There is no treaty or armistice arrangement between anything called Palestine and any Arab State.

As to the 1948-1949 War, you are working on a false premise ("No land was transferred. No borders were changed."). All kinds of shifting and changes were made during that time. Here are Just two examples:

• 24 February '49. Israel and Egypt sign armistice. Israel gets most of Negeb, except Auja which will be demilitarized and serve as UN armistice headquarters. Control of Beersheba depends on permanent settlement with Egypt and armistice with Transjordan. Egypt keeps Gaza. Both sides will withdraw forces from Negeb.

• 3 April '49: Israel and Transjordan sign armistice. Both sides are bound to decide issues with no aggression. Arab Legion will replace Iraqi army in north-central Palestine. There will be neutral zone between two countries, except Aqaba, where number of forces will remain the same. Committee of Arabs and Jews will work for peace with help from UN Security Council. Jews will control modern Jerusalem, and Arabs will control old Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron, and central Palestine. Dead Sea will be divided in half. There will be free travel on Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway and Jerusalem-Bethlehem highway. Jerusalem's water supply from Latrun, Palestine, which was cut by the Arabs, will be restored. Jews control Hadera-Afula road, northwest of Nablus-Jenin-Tulkarm.

I could list a half-dozen more of these shifts. Wars in the Middle East are not about who wins or loses, but about who controls the land.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

So Tinnie, NOW do you believe that Israel has borders????

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

So Tinnie, NOW do you believe that Israel has borders????

NO, they do not. Words of noone will change that fact. The UN Charter tells us acquisitions of territory by force are not legitimate ways to gain sovereignty over land. AND Resolution 181 was not implemented. There are no acts that set borders for Israel under intl law. THE greatest Irony in all of this is that only a lawful and just peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians can give Israel true legitimacy as a nation and internationally recognized boundaries. And Israel refuses to embrace that option.

 

[toastman]

So Tinnie, NOW do you believe that Israel has borders????

NO, they do not. Words of noone will change that fact. The UN Charter tells us acquisitions of territory by force are not legitimate ways to gain sovereignty over land. AND Resolution 181 was not implemented. There are no acts that set borders for Israel under intl law. THE greatest Irony in all of this is that only a lawful and just peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians can give Israel true legitimacy as a nation and internationally recognized boundaries. And Israel refuses to embrace that option.

Obviously you did not read Roccos detailed posts with his documented facts. I've been to Israel over ten times, I've even seen the borders myself. Can you show some documents that says Israel has no borders, or are you just going to continue with your usual drivel ?

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

THE struggle for freedom from Israeli Occupation of the Palestinian people is the human rights cause of the world, the opportunity of a lifetime for every man and woman and child in our world to take a stand against Injustice and support the right of the Palestinian people to live free from Occupation. The international communuty with BDS coupled with popular resistance in Palestine shall one day see Palestine free once again! CAUSES like this make life meaningful as does seeing people to come together to support basic human rights of all.

 

[toastman]

THE struggle for freedom from Israeli Occupation of the Palestinian people is the human rights cause of the world, the opportunity of a lifetime for every man and woman and child in our world to take a stand against Injustice and support the right of the Palestinian people to live free from Occupation. The international communuty with BDS coupled with popular resistance in Palestine shall one day see Palestine free once again! CAUSES like this make life meaningful as does seeing people to come together to support basic human rights of all.

What does that have to do with borders ????? Read Roccos post and tell me what you disagree with

 

[RoccoR]

SherriMunnerlyn, et al,
Well, if you say so! But that is Not what the official position the Palestinian held. (That is actually an Israeli position. I did not know that you where an Israeli advocate!)

So Tinnie, NOW do you believe that Israel has borders????

NO, they do not. Words of noone will change that fact. The UN Charter tells us acquisitions of territory by force are not legitimate ways to gain sovereignty over land. AND Resolution 181 was not implemented. There are no acts that set borders for Israel under intl law. THE greatest Irony in all of this is that only a lawful and just peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians can give Israel true legitimacy as a nation and internationally recognized boundaries. And Israel refuses to embrace that option.

(OBSERVATION)

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

(Signed) Nasser AL-KIDWA
Ambassador
Permanent Observer of
Palestine to the United Nations​

SOURCE: A/53/879-S/1999/334 of 25 March 1999

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

So Tinnie, NOW do you believe that Israel has borders????

NO, they do not. Words of noone will change that fact. The UN Charter tells us acquisitions of territory by force are not legitimate ways to gain sovereignty over land. AND Resolution 181 was not implemented. There are no acts that set borders for Israel under intl law. THE greatest Irony in all of this is that only a lawful and just peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians can give Israel true legitimacy as a nation and internationally recognized boundaries. And Israel refuses to embrace that option.

Obviously you did not read Roccos detailed posts with his documented facts. I've been to Israel over ten times, I've even seen the borders myself. Can you show some documents that says Israel has no borders, or are you just going to continue with your usual drivel ?

His words have no ability to give Israel borders she simply does not have. Let us hear you explain how Israel acquired borders and what those borders are.