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

[P F Tinmore]

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.

That leads us back to the '67 borders. They are the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not the be political or territorial boundaries.

Since they were not really borders they did not change Palestine's existing international borders.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is irrelevant as to what you think about the Armistice Lines. Today the Green Line is actually only a historical landmark.

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.

That leads us back to the '67 borders. They are the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not the be political or territorial boundaries.

Since they were not really borders they did not change Palestine's existing international borders.

(COMMENT)

The Armistice Lines were dissipated with the Treaties. In the case of the West Bank, When the Peace Treaty went into effect, replacing the Armistice with an International Boundary.

Article XII Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement, 3 April 1949 ​

2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article.​

Article 3 - International Boundary Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty, October 26, 1994

1. The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized international boundary between Jordan and Israel, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.
3. The Parties recognize the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.
4. The demarcation of the boundary will take place as set forth in Appendix (I) to Annex I and will be concluded not later than 9 months after the signing of the Treaty.
​

As to the Armistice Lines, while they may not be negotiated International Boundaries, they are treated the same way as any other demarcation. Under Customary Law:

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

That leads us back to the '67 borders. They are the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not the be political or territorial boundaries.

Since they were not really borders they did not change Palestine's existing international borders.

I'm not sure what you are arguing for here, then. That Palestine is one contiguous state from the border with Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon? And that this can not be changed? And that it should be under the sovereignty of Arab Muslims?

 

[P F Tinmore]

That leads us back to the '67 borders. They are the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not the be political or territorial boundaries.

Since they were not really borders they did not change Palestine's existing international borders.

I'm not sure what you are arguing for here, then. That Palestine is one contiguous state from the border with Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon? And that this can not be changed? And that it should be under the sovereignty of Arab Muslims?

Here is a 1946 map of Palestine. Look in the legend for the border line then find that line on the map.

Where are those borders in 1949? Example:

Article V
1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949

Still there.

 

[Phoenall]

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?

Not lost on me either as Palestine was not mentioned as an independent state from 1948 to 1972 when the area was under occupation by Egypt and Jordan

 

[Phoenall]

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.

They did and they have made a bigger hash of things, just look at the hamas/fatah episodes and the refusal by all sides to call elections

 

[Phoenall]

Is this irony lost on everyone but me?

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

Not for at least 5 years when they tried to steal Jordan and failed with the loss of up to 50,000 Palestinian civilians in one month.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

NOPE wrong again as the UN did not divide Jewish Palestine, it was just a recommendation. Correct Egypt and Jordan are still there less gaza and the west bank. The country was never Palestine, and you have no actual evidence that it was. But it became Israel in 1948 against the wishes of the arab muslims who ignored the reality at their own peril

 

[RoccoR]

Phoenall, "P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

This is still not quite right.

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

Further, this encompasses and necessitates the idea that the Jewish people have NO right to sovereignty.

The native Muslims, Christians, and Jews all had equal sovereignty.

Said who ? as that was not a right until just recently, in 1923 the Jews had sovereignty over Jewish Palestine, the arabs over arab Palestine. International treaty says this is so dated 1924

(COMMENT)

Our friend "P F Tinmore" would have a very valid argument if it were not for one thing: When the Ottoman/Turkish Governments surrendered, under the Ottomans and Turks, there was no Political Subdivision or Administrative District of Palestine. Palestine was like saying the Alpine Region, Appalachian Region or the region of the Pacific Ocean; comprises three ethnogeographic groupings— Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia.

At the time of the original Armistice and subsequent Treaty, Palestine was not a political subdivision or territory covered as one situated outside the frontiers Turkey.

Armenia and Kurdistan (promised in the Treaty of Sevres) were not mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne; and the regions in question were given to Turkey in accordance with the principle of self-determination. In return Turkey renounced "all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognized by the said Treaty", thus establishing an anti-irredentist policy that has remained a basic element of the Turkish Republic's foreign policy ever since.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Challenger]

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.

Really? How so?

 

[teddyearp]

Really? How so?

Here's your post from #10:

Zionist Israel's borders were defined in 1948 when it declared independance, and most Western powers recognised these borders, <snip>

And now your one eighty:

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?

So, what is it? Borders defined and accepted, or seized illegally?

 

[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.

Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.

Show where that is incorrect

From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners )​

That is where your theory goes south. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed sovereignty. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the inhabitants.

 

[Challenger]

Really? How so?

Here's your post from #10:

Zionist Israel's borders were defined in 1948 when it declared independance, and most Western powers recognised these borders, <snip>

And now your one eighty:

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?

So, what is it? Borders defined and accepted, or seized illegally?

Ah, I see. My bad, I assumed a greater level of knowledge. The Zionist colonists declared their borders when they declared their "independance" in May 1948 and were recognised as a state on that basis by the Western powers. Every square yard of ground they subsequently captured has therefore been siezed and occupied illegally, right up to the present day.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Really? How so?

Here's your post from #10:

Zionist Israel's borders were defined in 1948 when it declared independance, and most Western powers recognised these borders, <snip>

And now your one eighty:

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?

So, what is it? Borders defined and accepted, or seized illegally?

Ah, I see. My bad, I assumed a greater level of knowledge. The Zionist colonists declared their borders when they declared their "independance" in May 1948 and were recognised as a state on that basis by the Western powers. Every square yard of ground they subsequently captured has therefore been siezed and occupied illegally, right up to the present day.

The fact is that Israel never did declare borders.

 

[Coyote]

Folks, this thread was significantly derailed (like something like 60 posts). As a result I opted to split the thread and move a lot of posts into a new one: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Because of the difficulty in seperating out posts there may still be some here that could have been moved and weren't. Please don't respond to them and continue derailing the thread.

For your enlightenment here is the topic and what the OP was attempting to discuss in it: So, let's go ahead and go back to the '1967' borders and end the 'occupation' | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

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...

 

[hadit]

It's beyond obvious that the ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel. Is there really any controversy about that, given that it's publicly stated by the nations surrounding her? Short of that, going back to 1967 borders could help erase the humiliation the Arab nations feel at being so completely routed by the tiny, new state of Israel that they thought would be pushed into the sea with little effort.

 

[RoccoR]

Shusha, et al,

Well, that is not exactly true.

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.

(REFERENCE)

:Article II --- Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979​

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.

• 
  

Article 3 - International Boundary --- Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel, 26 October 1994

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
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.

3. The parties recognise the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.
​

(COMMENT)

Yes, look at where the boundaries are.

It is the State of Palestine that has no boundaries, not even an Armistice Line. The Palestinians were not a Party to Peace and were not a party to the Armistice; and declined to participate in self-governing programs of the Mandatory, and rejected the inclusion of the Partition Plan.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

(COMMENT)

Yes, look at where the boundaries are.

It is the State of Palestine that has no boundaries, not even an Armistice Line. The Palestinians were not a Party to Peace and were not a party to the Armistice; and declined to participate in self-governing programs of the Mandatory, and rejected the inclusion of the Partition Plan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, my post was in reference to internal "borders" within what is now Israel and the disputed territories.

 

[montelatici]

Shusha, et al,

Well, that is not exactly true.

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.

(REFERENCE)

:Article II --- Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.

Article 3 - International Boundary --- Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel, 26 October 1994

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
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.

3. The parties recognise the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.
​

(COMMENT)

Yes, look at where the boundaries are.

It is the State of Palestine that has no boundaries, not even an Armistice Line. The Palestinians were not a Party to Peace and were not a party to the Armistice; and declined to participate in self-governing programs of the Mandatory, and rejected the inclusion of the Partition Plan.

Most Respectfully,
R

The American Indians did not participate in the assignment of European charters for the New World. The native Africans did not participate in any of the charters for Rhodesia or South Africa.
Neither agreed to the assignment of land to the European colonists. The native Palestinians had no need to agree to their dispossession. Grow up Rocco.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Shusha, et al,

Well, that is not exactly true.

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.

(REFERENCE)

:Article II --- Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.

Article 3 - International Boundary --- Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel, 26 October 1994

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
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.

3. The parties recognise the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.
​

(COMMENT)

Yes, look at where the boundaries are.

It is the State of Palestine that has no boundaries, not even an Armistice Line. The Palestinians were not a Party to Peace and were not a party to the Armistice; and declined to participate in self-governing programs of the Mandatory, and rejected the inclusion of the Partition Plan.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is the State of Palestine that has no boundaries, not even an Armistice Line.​

Link?