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

[Shusha]

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.

Did the Jewish people agree to their dispossession?

 

[teddyearp]

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.

And this just adds more irony to the irony of the pre 1967 borders . . . .

 

[Slyhunter]

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?

that's an unreasonable demand. in order to make Palestine contiguous you would have to break Israel into two tiny partials. Not going to happen.

 

[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.

And this just adds more irony to the irony of the pre 1967 borders . . . .

Yep. Everybody would be much happier if the Palestinians and the Gazans would just create States. But no matter what they seem to be given they just refuse to do so.

 

[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?

that's an unreasonable demand. in order to make Palestine contiguous you would have to break Israel into two tiny partials. Not going to happen.

I was rather asking if he was suggesting that Israel cease to exist and be replaced by a one state solution named Palestine under Arab Muslim rule. Rather than two (realistically three) States, each with defined borders under a treaty (Israel, Palestine and Gaza).

There are no existing borders now, but a treaty can make them easily enough.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, Shusha, et al,

Well, I don't exactly understand what your point is, or what your insult is about. My commentary referenced Treaties directly relevant to the border issue, not some vague charters.

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.

(COMMENT)

Actually, I want to get younger; and not grow older.

You cannot use the term "dispossession" for two reason:

• Relative to the "Border Quetion" --- If the previous sovereign past the title and rights for the territory to the Allied Power. No sovereign territory was passed to the Arab Palestinians.

• The term "dispossession" is the action of depriving a person of land, property, or other possessions. It is a Civil Matter, protected under the mandate. It has nothing to do with sovereign territories or boundaries.

The Council of the League of Nations made the assignment for the Mandates, and the Allied Powers had no reason to seek Palestinian approval for anything to do with the future intentions they had for the territory. The exact survey boundaries of all territories were left unspecified, to "be determined by the Principal Allied Powers" and were not finalized until several years later.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Wrong again rat boy as the Jews declared to the delineated borders as set down in the 1923 International law, further reinforced by the 1949 amendment to the UN charter. The land that was left was no ones as the arab's had refused to accept the partition plan. So until they accepted the terms of the partition plan they had no claims to the land and any land Israel wrest from the invading squatters could legally become theirs

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Try again as they did to known criteria with the full knowledge of the UN

 

[Phoenall]

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.

So when will you be giving up your stolen property, or will you be a two faced hypocrite all your life

 

[Phoenall]

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?

GIVEN many times in the past, not our fault that you ignore them

 

[Phoenall]

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?

that's an unreasonable demand. in order to make Palestine contiguous you would have to break Israel into two tiny partials. Not going to happen.

Could be done with the help of the tunnel builders in gaza. The tunnel would need to be very deep underground so that the terrorists could not use it to mine Israel schools with. Or they could ask allah to give them the power to build a tunnel in the sky out of reinforced transparent concrete

 

[hadit]

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?

Why is Israel the only nation whose annexation of land won in a defensive war gets called "illegal"?

 

[montelatici]

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?

Why is Israel the only nation whose annexation of land won in a defensive war gets called "illegal"?

People that invade a territory somewhere else, especially on another continent, do not engage in a defensive war. It's like saying the Europeans that invaded the New World were engaged in a defensive war when the natives resisted European settlement.

 

[hadit]

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?

Why is Israel the only nation whose annexation of land won in a defensive war gets called "illegal"?

People that invade a territory somewhere else, especially on another continent, do not engage in a defensive war. It's like saying the Europeans that invaded the New World were engaged in a defensive war when the natives resisted European settlement.

The Jews didn't "invade" Israel. The world powers carved out a home land for them after WWII. They then seized land in the 6 day war, when they were attacked by, and in which they humiliated, the Arab nations seeking to push them into the sea. It was a defensive war, and they won, decisively.

 

[montelatici]

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?

Why is Israel the only nation whose annexation of land won in a defensive war gets called "illegal"?

People that invade a territory somewhere else, especially on another continent, do not engage in a defensive war. It's like saying the Europeans that invaded the New World were engaged in a defensive war when the natives resisted European settlement.

The Jews didn't "invade" Israel. The world powers carved out a home land for them after WWII. They then seized land in the 6 day war, when they were attacked by, and in which they humiliated, the Arab nations seeking to push them into the sea. It was a defensive war, and they won, decisively.

World powers carved out land in the Americas for Puritans, Catholics etc. It did not make it any less of an invasion.

The Pope (then the world's temporal authority for the Catholic states) carved out the Americas between Portugal and Spain. Did that make it less of an invasion.

What part of invading a land occupied by native people, settling it and displacing the native people do you not understand.

There is nothing defensive about moving hordes into lands inhabited by native people.

The Europeans engaged in a war of conquest, an invasion. The Palestinian natives simply resisted conquest.

Talk about cognitive dissonance. LOL

 

[hadit]

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?

Why is Israel the only nation whose annexation of land won in a defensive war gets called "illegal"?

People that invade a territory somewhere else, especially on another continent, do not engage in a defensive war. It's like saying the Europeans that invaded the New World were engaged in a defensive war when the natives resisted European settlement.

The Jews didn't "invade" Israel. The world powers carved out a home land for them after WWII. They then seized land in the 6 day war, when they were attacked by, and in which they humiliated, the Arab nations seeking to push them into the sea. It was a defensive war, and they won, decisively.

World powers carved out land in the Americas for Puritans, Catholics etc. It did not make it any less of an invasion.

The Pope (then the world's temporal authority for the Catholic states) carved out the Americas between Portugal and Spain. Did that make it less of an invasion.

What part of invading a land occupied by native people, settling it and displacing the native people do you not understand.

There is nothing defensive about moving hordes into lands inhabited by native people.

The Europeans engaged in a war of conquest, an invasion. The Palestinian natives simply resisted conquest.

Talk about cognitive dissonance. LOL

Then your complaint is with the world powers at the time, not the Jews who simply moved into their new homeland. And, of course, they would not have taken more land had the surrounding nations not attacked and been so completely defeated.

 

[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?

Why is Israel the only nation whose annexation of land won in a defensive war gets called "illegal"?

People that invade a territory somewhere else, especially on another continent, do not engage in a defensive war. It's like saying the Europeans that invaded the New World were engaged in a defensive war when the natives resisted European settlement.

Starting to realise that you are a hypocrite now are we, so when will you do what you demand the Jews be forced into doing and leave the lands you occupied. You might find it hard to get a nation to take you in when you do.

 

[Phoenall]

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?

Why is Israel the only nation whose annexation of land won in a defensive war gets called "illegal"?

People that invade a territory somewhere else, especially on another continent, do not engage in a defensive war. It's like saying the Europeans that invaded the New World were engaged in a defensive war when the natives resisted European settlement.

The Jews didn't "invade" Israel. The world powers carved out a home land for them after WWII. They then seized land in the 6 day war, when they were attacked by, and in which they humiliated, the Arab nations seeking to push them into the sea. It was a defensive war, and they won, decisively.

World powers carved out land in the Americas for Puritans, Catholics etc. It did not make it any less of an invasion.

The Pope (then the world's temporal authority for the Catholic states) carved out the Americas between Portugal and Spain. Did that make it less of an invasion.

What part of invading a land occupied by native people, settling it and displacing the native people do you not understand.

There is nothing defensive about moving hordes into lands inhabited by native people.

The Europeans engaged in a war of conquest, an invasion. The Palestinian natives simply resisted conquest.

Talk about cognitive dissonance. LOL

So when will you start to demonise and denounce the Catholic church, calling then invaders, murderers, colonisers etc.

Again which European country was this that invaded and colonised Palestine ?

 

[theliq]

TheOldSchool

I think at this point we can all agree that the people who decided creating Israel after WW2 was a good idea really fucked up and wouldn't do it again if they knew the shitstorm it would start.

(COMMENT)

This is one of those theoretical questions (calling for the hypothetical: "what if") where the answer is: "We'll never know now."

When I came back from Europe the first time, I had seen most of it through a 1970s version of a minds-eye; clearly not through the eyes of my father. The men and women who contributed to the WWII War effort were special, and had seen things and done things they would better left forgotten. The names and places like Monte Cassino, the Ardennes, Luzon, Normandy, Arnhem, Bastogne, provoked different memories for me then it did for them. The Battle of Bataan and Corregidor, Midway and Leyte Gulf --- all mean something more to them --- then it will ever will for me. They tackled and triumphed over two most powerful and ruthless military machines ever assembled.​

It is very difficult for me to guess what, as Tom Brokaw called them, the "Greatest Generation" would have thought about the today's plight of the Jewish People and the arrogance of the Arab-Palestinian, in an attempt to defy the establishment of a Jewish National Home, and engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the decision of the UN and the Allied Powers. I'm not sure how the would react to the complaints of the Arab Palestinian People given that many of the key leaders that fought to overrun Israel support the NAZIs. The policy of the day, was deNAZIfication.

When COL William Quinn, ACofS G-2 was compiling the CIC reports one finding in Dachau, he wrote these words:

View attachment 56920​

Given that the two leads of the Arab-Palestinian Resistance Militia Units (Holy War Army and Arab Liberation Army) were both NAZIs: (i) Hasan Salama, a special commando unit of the Waffen SS in Operation ATLAS, which was jointly operated by German Intelligence and Grand Mufti al-Husseini; (ii) Fawzi al-Qawuqi, was a Colonel in the Wehrmacht. Even the Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husayni, an Arab nationalist, opponent to the establishment of a Jewish National Home, and future First President of the All Palestine Government, had direct ties to NAZI Germany, and the Führer.

Yes, it would be hard to say if they would choose the Jewish side --- or --- Arab-Palestinian side that was a former enemy element (Germany was still Occupied by Allied Forces).

Most Respectfully,
R

"today's plight of the Jewish People and the arrogance of the Arab-Palestinian, in an attempt to defy the establishment of a Jewish National Home"

That's the most biased nonsense I've ever seen.

It is true though, and anyone who is not brainwashed can see it as reality

Back to my original point, this "plight" of the Jewish people and anger at the "arrogant" Palestinians wouldn't exist if the creators of Israel had opted out instead of creating the country. If they had know the insane religious clusterfuck it would create, they never would have done it.

And where would that have left the Jews of the world then. How soon before another Nazi group started to plot to wipe them out. Just looking at this board the numbers of such people in America is alarming. The Jews had worldwide support for their national home until the birth of the UN when it was lost. The UN should have stamped out the Palestinian/arab nationalist movement in 1947 when they first started to attacks on the Jews hoping to wipe them out and claim all the land. If that had been done then the problems of today would not be there.

You did not mention the Zionist Terrorists Pheo....WHY

 

[theliq]

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?

Why is Israel the only nation whose annexation of land won in a defensive war gets called "illegal"?

People that invade a territory somewhere else, especially on another continent, do not engage in a defensive war. It's like saying the Europeans that invaded the New World were engaged in a defensive war when the natives resisted European settlement.

The Jews didn't "invade" Israel. The world powers carved out a home land for them after WWII. They then seized land in the 6 day war, when they were attacked by, and in which they humiliated, the Arab nations seeking to push them into the sea. It was a defensive war, and they won, decisively.

World powers carved out land in the Americas for Puritans, Catholics etc. It did not make it any less of an invasion.

The Pope (then the world's temporal authority for the Catholic states) carved out the Americas between Portugal and Spain. Did that make it less of an invasion.

What part of invading a land occupied by native people, settling it and displacing the native people do you not understand.

There is nothing defensive about moving hordes into lands inhabited by native people.

The Europeans engaged in a war of conquest, an invasion. The Palestinian natives simply resisted conquest.

Talk about cognitive dissonance. LOL

So when will you start to demonise and denounce the Catholic church, calling then invaders, murderers, colonisers etc.

Again which European country was this that invaded and colonised Palestine ?

You are partly right Pheo.......I think I am the only one on here that is Critical of the Catholic Church throughout history.....inparticular their Demonization of Jews mainly but their hideious (sic)crimes against the Jews and Moors in Spain..steve