So, let's go ahead and go back to the '1967' borders and end the 'occupation'

[Phoenall]

Prior to 67 Gaza was part of Egypt and the W. Bank was part of Jordan. Since that wasn't a part of " Palestine" before 67 maybe it shouldn't be a part of it now. <snip>

Finally we have a post that is staying on topic.

Fair enough, what's so sacred about the 1949 ceasefire lines? Perhaps we should address the Palestinian territory seized by Zionist Israel and occupied illegally since 1948?

When did it become Palestinian land then, as they denied that it was theirs unless it included all of Israel. They forfeited the land when they ignored the LoN mandate and the chance to be part of humanity. How could Israel occupy Palestinian territory in 1948 when they have no territory under international law ?

 

[Phoenall]

Prior to 67 Gaza was part of Egypt and the W. Bank was part of Jordan. Since that wasn't a part of " Palestine" before 67 maybe it shouldn't be a part of it now. <snip>

Finally we have a post that is staying on topic.

Fair enough, what's so sacred about the 1949 ceasefire lines? Perhaps we should address the Palestinian territory seized by Zionist Israel and occupied illegally since 1948?

It wasn't occupied illegally. The arab countries didn't accept the UN partition, and invaded immediately after Israel declared independence.

So if they didn't accept the partition, that area was not there's to begin with.

They actually started the invasion in 1947 when elements of the arab muslims started to attack the Jews and Christians of Palestine.

 

[teddyearp]

Fair enough, what's so sacred about the 1949 ceasefire lines? Perhaps we should address the Palestinian territory seized by Zionist Israel and occupied illegally since 1948?

Not the subject of this thread. And a complete one eighty from your post #10 in this thread.

 

[teddyearp]

Without being twerp about it, the 1949 borders did not contain E. Jerusalem within the Armistice lines for Israel, can you explain your confusion?

I am not at all confused. The 1949 borders had East Jerusalem as part of Jordan; or better, Jordan 'occupied' East Jerusalem (including the Old City), kicked the Jews out of the Jewish quarter thereof and demolished most of the synagogues and homes there as well.

 

[RoccoR]

teddyearp, et al,

The Jewish State is going to have to let this go.

Without being twerp about it, the 1949 borders did not contain E. Jerusalem within the Armistice lines for Israel, can you explain your confusion?

I am not at all confused. The 1949 borders had East Jerusalem as part of Jordan; or better, Jordan 'occupied' East Jerusalem (including the Old City), kicked the Jews out of the Jewish quarter thereof and demolished most of the synagogues and homes there as well.

(COMMENT)

Israelis and Palestinians have to look at the reality of TODAY and sort out how they can both collaborate together and build a modern city and preserve for the religious interests.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

There are no borders. There are armistice lines. We should be clear about that. The armistice lines are not at all relevant with respect to negotiating or establishing borders. The only legal consideration they deserve, according to my knowledge, and once again feel free to correct me with sources, is the Oslo Accords which state that the 1949 armistice lines are to be the starting point for negotiation of permanent borders. My point being that the armistice lines themselves have no bearing on any sovereignty over territory.

 

[teddyearp]

But the 1949 borders are nonexistent as none where ever agreed between Israel and the Palestinians.

Exactly. The agreement or armistice was between Israel and the Arab countries.

Then in 1967 the arab armies attacked Israel and lost gaza and the west bank to Israel in the fight that followed. Then the ceasefire lines moved to encompass all of the west bank and all of gaza. Those are the 1967 "borders"

And that is basically what I am trying to point out in this thread, the irony that seems to be lost on most everyone.

There was much less of a 'Palestine' in 1949 than there is now after 1967. Egypt totally controlled Gaza, Jordan totally took over the West Bank. Where is the 'Palestine' there?

Is this irony lost on everyone but me?

 

[P F Tinmore]

teddyearp, et al,

The Jewish State is going to have to let this go.

Without being twerp about it, the 1949 borders did not contain E. Jerusalem within the Armistice lines for Israel, can you explain your confusion?

I am not at all confused. The 1949 borders had East Jerusalem as part of Jordan; or better, Jordan 'occupied' East Jerusalem (including the Old City), kicked the Jews out of the Jewish quarter thereof and demolished most of the synagogues and homes there as well.

(COMMENT)

Israelis and Palestinians have to look at the reality of TODAY and sort out how they can both collaborate together and build a modern city and preserve for the religious interests.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well Israel has fucked it up big time. Maybe we should let the Palestinians have a go at it.

 

[Shusha]

Is this irony lost on everyone but me?

Nope. The 1967 war was an event that brought the 'Palestinians' into being.

 

[P F Tinmore]

But the 1949 borders are nonexistent as none where ever agreed between Israel and the Palestinians.

Exactly. The agreement or armistice was between Israel and the Arab countries.

Then in 1967 the arab armies attacked Israel and lost gaza and the west bank to Israel in the fight that followed. Then the ceasefire lines moved to encompass all of the west bank and all of gaza. Those are the 1967 "borders"

And that is basically what I am trying to point out in this thread, the irony that seems to be lost on most everyone.

There was much less of a 'Palestine' in 1949 than there is now after 1967. Egypt totally controlled Gaza, Jordan totally took over the West Bank. Where is the 'Palestine' there?

Is this irony lost on everyone but me?

Indeed, the UN divided Palestine into three areas of occupation in 1949. A country does not cease to exist just because it is occupied. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty over the land.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Is this irony lost on everyone but me?

Nope. The 1967 war was an event that brought the 'Palestinians' into being.

Indeed, they just fell out of the sky like a gift from God.

 

[Shusha]

First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had? And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.

It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.

 

[Shusha]

Indeed, the UN divided Palestine into three areas of occupation in 1949. A country does not cease to exist just because it is occupied. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty over the land.

The problem is that the sovereigns were labelled as occupiers of land that they were actually sovereign over. Oops.

 

[P F Tinmore]

First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had? And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.

It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.

Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.

 

[Shusha]

Indeed, they just fell out of the sky like a gift from God.

Not at all . They just redefined themselves as a political (and religious) expediency. As a test, please demonstrate the cultural or ethnic or political differentiation between "Palestinians" and Syrians, Jordanians and/or Lebanese prior to the early 1900's.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Indeed, they just fell out of the sky like a gift from God.

Not at all . They just redefined themselves as a political expediency. As a test, please demonstrate the cultural or ethnic or political differentiation between "Palestinians" and Syrians, Jordanians and/or Lebanese prior to the early 1900's.

So they were already there but changed their name? But they were citizens of Palestine since 1925 because they already were living there.

There was no Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. Before 1900 they were all the same place.

 

[Shusha]

There was no Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. Before 1900 they were all the same place.

Um. Yeah. Exactly. Bingo. They were the same place. There was no Lebanon. There was no Syria. There was no Jordan. There was no Palestine. There was no Israel.

So what, legally, gave Lebanon, and Syria, and Jordan the RIGHT to sovereignty over the territory they now hold? And in what way does that SAME right deny the rights to the Jewish people over sovereignty as well?

 

[teddyearp]

Folks, this thread is FUBAR. I was inspired to start it in light of the new Dec 1 rules for I/P, but you all have

<snip>there may be 10 or 30 pages of the same old tired 100 year old battles and too many flames to clean the threads and revive them.

So I will just ask for mod attention and to have it closed.

My intention was to point out the irony of attempting to return to the '1967 borders' (or just previous) which would historically entail Egypt controlling the Gaza Strip and Jordan controlling the West Bank including East Jerusalem. The irony being that there was probably less of a chance of an independent Palestinian state in those areas back then than there is now. But you childish #$$%#$@%^'s couldn't post anything about said irony and instead derailed this thread by page 3, just as Coyote said they get when the new Dec 1 rules were laid down.

Maybe another time.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There was no Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. Before 1900 they were all the same place.

Um. Yeah. Exactly. Bingo. They were the same place. There was no Lebanon. There was no Syria. There was no Jordan. There was no Palestine. There was no Israel.

So what, legally, gave Lebanon, and Syria, and Jordan the RIGHT to sovereignty over the territory they now hold? And in what way does that SAME right deny the rights to the Jewish people over sovereignty as well?

The people of the place, those who normally lived there, had sovereignty over their respective place.

Sovereignty did not apply to those who normally lived somewhere else.

Religion is not a factor.

 

[Shusha]

The problem is that Egypt has no interest in controlling Gaza. And Jordan has little interest in controlling the West Bank. And Israel has little interest in controlling either, other than to prevent its citizens from being killed. So, what do any of them, or the international community, do with that? Its a mess.