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

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This logic defies reality.

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.

There is a shift in this story. Before the '67 war the West Bank and Gaza were occupied Palestinian territories. Occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively.

Israel could not win Palestinian territory from Jordan or Egypt because it was not theirs to lose. That is why they are still called occupied Palestinian territories. The '67 borders only define the Palestinian territories that Israel occupied in 1967.

(COMMENT)

It is actually the other way around. The territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, no matter how the Arab-Palestinian want to define it, in control of by another country.

It was never the Arab-Palestinian's sovereign territory to either loose or rule in 1967.

The Arab-Palestinians gave the West Bank to Jordan through their right of self-determination.

Similarly, the All Palestine Government gave the Egyptian full reign in the Gaza Strip.

No, they call it Palestine because it is a remnant of the original territory (to be determined by the Allied Powers) to which the Mandate applied; and define as "Palestine" by the Order in Council. THEN, in 1988, the PLO declared independence; and they called it Palestine for the same reason.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yeah, yeah, do you have a better explanation as to why they are still occupied Palestinian territories?

1. There was never a "Palestine" nation in that area, so there was no nation to "occupy".
2. Israel is a tiny country, surrounded by large, implacable enemies who are trying to destroy her. Of course they're going to keep buffer zones they won in a defensive war.

1. There was never a "Palestine" nation in that area, so there was no nation to "occupy".​

Link?

 

[hadit]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This logic defies reality.

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.

There is a shift in this story. Before the '67 war the West Bank and Gaza were occupied Palestinian territories. Occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively.

Israel could not win Palestinian territory from Jordan or Egypt because it was not theirs to lose. That is why they are still called occupied Palestinian territories. The '67 borders only define the Palestinian territories that Israel occupied in 1967.

(COMMENT)

It is actually the other way around. The territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, no matter how the Arab-Palestinian want to define it, in control of by another country.

It was never the Arab-Palestinian's sovereign territory to either loose or rule in 1967.

The Arab-Palestinians gave the West Bank to Jordan through their right of self-determination.

Similarly, the All Palestine Government gave the Egyptian full reign in the Gaza Strip.

No, they call it Palestine because it is a remnant of the original territory (to be determined by the Allied Powers) to which the Mandate applied; and define as "Palestine" by the Order in Council. THEN, in 1988, the PLO declared independence; and they called it Palestine for the same reason.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yeah, yeah, do you have a better explanation as to why they are still occupied Palestinian territories?

1. There was never a "Palestine" nation in that area, so there was no nation to "occupy".
2. Israel is a tiny country, surrounded by large, implacable enemies who are trying to destroy her. Of course they're going to keep buffer zones they won in a defensive war.

1. There was never a "Palestine" nation in that area, so there was no nation to "occupy".​

Link?

What source would you accept? They all agree that there was never a nation called "Palestine" that existed in that region. Seriously, do a quick Google search.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This logic defies reality.

There is a shift in this story. Before the '67 war the West Bank and Gaza were occupied Palestinian territories. Occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively.

Israel could not win Palestinian territory from Jordan or Egypt because it was not theirs to lose. That is why they are still called occupied Palestinian territories. The '67 borders only define the Palestinian territories that Israel occupied in 1967.

(COMMENT)

It is actually the other way around. The territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, no matter how the Arab-Palestinian want to define it, in control of by another country.

It was never the Arab-Palestinian's sovereign territory to either loose or rule in 1967.

The Arab-Palestinians gave the West Bank to Jordan through their right of self-determination.

Similarly, the All Palestine Government gave the Egyptian full reign in the Gaza Strip.

No, they call it Palestine because it is a remnant of the original territory (to be determined by the Allied Powers) to which the Mandate applied; and define as "Palestine" by the Order in Council. THEN, in 1988, the PLO declared independence; and they called it Palestine for the same reason.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yeah, yeah, do you have a better explanation as to why they are still occupied Palestinian territories?

1. There was never a "Palestine" nation in that area, so there was no nation to "occupy".
2. Israel is a tiny country, surrounded by large, implacable enemies who are trying to destroy her. Of course they're going to keep buffer zones they won in a defensive war.

1. There was never a "Palestine" nation in that area, so there was no nation to "occupy".​

Link?

What source would you accept? They all agree that there was never a nation called "Palestine" that existed in that region. Seriously, do a quick Google search.

You said it. You prove it.

 

[hadit]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This logic defies reality.

(COMMENT)

It is actually the other way around. The territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, no matter how the Arab-Palestinian want to define it, in control of by another country.

It was never the Arab-Palestinian's sovereign territory to either loose or rule in 1967.

The Arab-Palestinians gave the West Bank to Jordan through their right of self-determination.

Similarly, the All Palestine Government gave the Egyptian full reign in the Gaza Strip.

No, they call it Palestine because it is a remnant of the original territory (to be determined by the Allied Powers) to which the Mandate applied; and define as "Palestine" by the Order in Council. THEN, in 1988, the PLO declared independence; and they called it Palestine for the same reason.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yeah, yeah, do you have a better explanation as to why they are still occupied Palestinian territories?

1. There was never a "Palestine" nation in that area, so there was no nation to "occupy".
2. Israel is a tiny country, surrounded by large, implacable enemies who are trying to destroy her. Of course they're going to keep buffer zones they won in a defensive war.

1. There was never a "Palestine" nation in that area, so there was no nation to "occupy".​

Link?

What source would you accept? They all agree that there was never a nation called "Palestine" that existed in that region. Seriously, do a quick Google search.

You said it. You prove it.

Oh, brother:

Articles: There Was Never a Country Called Palestine
The Ironic History of Palestine
The Truth about the Palestinian People
Who Are The Palestinians?  What And Where Is Palestine?
Was there ever a state called Palestine?

You might as well insist that I prove an object is pulled toward the center of the earth. Now, do you accept that there never was a nation called "Palestine" in the region? If you disagree, prove your contention. I proved mine.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is very typical. The Palestinian makes a claim that they know cannot be substantiated. Then when challenged they ask for the proof of impossibility or use an evidence of absence argument as a negative claim.

1. There was never a "Palestine" nation in that area, so there was no nation to "occupy".​

Link?

(COMMENT)

The territory to which the Mandate of Palestine was applied, and the Mandate Government of Palestine, where never a specific territory to which the Arab Palestinians had any exclusive control over. The exception being except for Area "A" in 1995 --- and the Gaza Strip after 2005.

AND, even the Arab Palestinians themselves, periodically raise the issue that they do not have control over their territory by virtue of the Israeli Occupation.

If that is true, then the Palestinians have NEVER had exclusive control of anything. How do they establish or exert the claim of sovereignty as a nation?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

I don't understand the significance of there being a nation called Palestine, after all there was no nation named Iraq (or the United States or Jordan) before independence was gained by said states. There was an administrative territorial unit called Palaestina Prima and the Latin Kingdom in Palestine was a Christian state. But, it does not matter one bit.

 

[montelatici]

" How do they establish or exert the claim of sovereignty as a nation?"

Pursuant to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Nothing in the Covenant (especially Article 22) grants sovereignty to any people or nation by name. In fact, none of the Class "A" Mandate Territories achieved sovereignty until the late 1940's.

" How do they establish or exert the claim of sovereignty as a nation?"

Pursuant to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

(COMMENT)

The provisions of Article 22 were, from the standpoint of the League of Nations and the Allied Powers, given effect through the Mandate.

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them;
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Once you understand what the importance of understanding what the Government of Palestine was, you will understand the significance.

I don't understand the significance of there being a nation called Palestine, after all there was no nation named Iraq (or the United States or Jordan) before independence was gained by said states. There was an administrative territorial unit called Palaestina Prima and the Latin Kingdom in Palestine was a Christian state. But, it does not matter one bit.

(COMMENT)

Yes, with the name of Iraq over Mesopotamia, the Hashemite Prince Faisal becomes King.
With the King of England conferring sovereignty on the Hashemite Prince Abdullah in Transjordan, independence is conferred. And in a short time later, the Hashemite Kingdom comes into existence.
With the Declaration of Independence, the United States of America is born.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yeah, yeah, do you have a better explanation as to why they are still occupied Palestinian territories?

1. There was never a "Palestine" nation in that area, so there was no nation to "occupy".
2. Israel is a tiny country, surrounded by large, implacable enemies who are trying to destroy her. Of course they're going to keep buffer zones they won in a defensive war.

1. There was never a "Palestine" nation in that area, so there was no nation to "occupy".​

Link?

What source would you accept? They all agree that there was never a nation called "Palestine" that existed in that region. Seriously, do a quick Google search.

You said it. You prove it.

Oh, brother:

Articles: There Was Never a Country Called Palestine
The Ironic History of Palestine
The Truth about the Palestinian People
Who Are The Palestinians? What And Where Is Palestine?
Was there ever a state called Palestine?

You might as well insist that I prove an object is pulled toward the center of the earth. Now, do you accept that there never was a nation called "Palestine" in the region? If you disagree, prove your contention. I proved mine.

OK, so you posted some opinion pieces.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Nothing in the Covenant (especially Article 22) grants sovereignty to any people or nation by name. In fact, none of the Class "A" Mandate Territories achieved sovereignty until the late 1940's.

" How do they establish or exert the claim of sovereignty as a nation?"

Pursuant to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

(COMMENT)

The provisions of Article 22 were, from the standpoint of the League of Nations and the Allied Powers, given effect through the Mandate.

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them;
​

Most Respectfully,
R

For the inhabitants. The inhabitants at the time of writing, not colonizing Europeans, were Muslims and Christians.

 

[Challenger]

Allied Powers had no reason to seek Palestinian approval for anything to do with the future intentions they had for the territory.

Article 22 disagrees with you, as does the mandate.

 

[Challenger]

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"?

Because it was illegal when Zionist israel did it.

 

[Challenger]

So ... what borders should be used to define Israel?

The borders they themselves declared on 14th May 1948

 

[Challenger]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This logic defies reality.

There is a shift in this story. Before the '67 war the West Bank and Gaza were occupied Palestinian territories. Occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively.

Israel could not win Palestinian territory from Jordan or Egypt because it was not theirs to lose. That is why they are still called occupied Palestinian territories. The '67 borders only define the Palestinian territories that Israel occupied in 1967.

(COMMENT)

It is actually the other way around. The territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, no matter how the Arab-Palestinian want to define it, in control of by another country.

It was never the Arab-Palestinian's sovereign territory to either loose or rule in 1967.

The Arab-Palestinians gave the West Bank to Jordan through their right of self-determination.

Similarly, the All Palestine Government gave the Egyptian full reign in the Gaza Strip.

No, they call it Palestine because it is a remnant of the original territory (to be determined by the Allied Powers) to which the Mandate applied; and define as "Palestine" by the Order in Council. THEN, in 1988, the PLO declared independence; and they called it Palestine for the same reason.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yeah, yeah, do you have a better explanation as to why they are still occupied Palestinian territories?

1. There was never a "Palestine" nation in that area, so there was no nation to "occupy".
2. Israel is a tiny country, surrounded by large, implacable enemies who are trying to destroy her. Of course they're going to keep buffer zones they won in a defensive war.

1. There was never a "Palestine" nation in that area, so there was no nation to "occupy".​

Link?

What source would you accept? They all agree that there was never a nation called "Palestine" that existed in that region. Seriously, do a quick Google search.

There was never an independant "state" called Palestine, possibly, but that's different from there being a Palestinian "nation" or cultural/ethnic entity. Within the UK we have several regions, none of which are nations and all of which have differing cultures and dialects; just try colonising one of them...

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

You're kidding me --- right?

Allied Powers had no reason to seek Palestinian approval for anything to do with the future intentions they had for the territory.

Article 22 disagrees with you, as does the mandate.

(COMMENT)

The Council of the League of Nations and the Allied Power used the Mandate for Palestine as the vehicle in they chose to give meaning to Article 22.

Article 22 does not mention Palestine and the Mandate requires that consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate.

ARTICLE 16.

Turkey hereby renounces 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 recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
[/ident]​

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[hadit]

1. There was never a "Palestine" nation in that area, so there was no nation to "occupy".
2. Israel is a tiny country, surrounded by large, implacable enemies who are trying to destroy her. Of course they're going to keep buffer zones they won in a defensive war.

1. There was never a "Palestine" nation in that area, so there was no nation to "occupy".​

Link?

What source would you accept? They all agree that there was never a nation called "Palestine" that existed in that region. Seriously, do a quick Google search.

You said it. You prove it.

Oh, brother:

Articles: There Was Never a Country Called Palestine
The Ironic History of Palestine
The Truth about the Palestinian People
Who Are The Palestinians? What And Where Is Palestine?
Was there ever a state called Palestine?

You might as well insist that I prove an object is pulled toward the center of the earth. Now, do you accept that there never was a nation called "Palestine" in the region? If you disagree, prove your contention. I proved mine.

OK, so you posted some opinion pieces.

If you believe that a nation called "Palestine" existed in that area, please post evidence of such. Otherwise, my contention stands.

 

[hadit]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This logic defies reality.

(COMMENT)

It is actually the other way around. The territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, no matter how the Arab-Palestinian want to define it, in control of by another country.

It was never the Arab-Palestinian's sovereign territory to either loose or rule in 1967.

The Arab-Palestinians gave the West Bank to Jordan through their right of self-determination.

Similarly, the All Palestine Government gave the Egyptian full reign in the Gaza Strip.

No, they call it Palestine because it is a remnant of the original territory (to be determined by the Allied Powers) to which the Mandate applied; and define as "Palestine" by the Order in Council. THEN, in 1988, the PLO declared independence; and they called it Palestine for the same reason.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yeah, yeah, do you have a better explanation as to why they are still occupied Palestinian territories?

1. There was never a "Palestine" nation in that area, so there was no nation to "occupy".
2. Israel is a tiny country, surrounded by large, implacable enemies who are trying to destroy her. Of course they're going to keep buffer zones they won in a defensive war.

1. There was never a "Palestine" nation in that area, so there was no nation to "occupy".​

Link?

What source would you accept? They all agree that there was never a nation called "Palestine" that existed in that region. Seriously, do a quick Google search.

There was never an independant "state" called Palestine, possibly, but that's different from there being a Palestinian "nation" or cultural/ethnic entity. Within the UK we have several regions, none of which are nations and all of which have differing cultures and dialects; just try colonising one of them...

Each of those regions, however, belong to the UK, no? They do not comprise independent nations.

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

I would have agreed to this IF, and only IF, the Arab League forces had not violated Article 2 of the Charter.

So ... what borders should be used to define Israel?

The borders they themselves declared on 14th May 1948

(COMMENT)

But since the Arab Forces did advance into Israel, any territory the Israelis brought under control in the wake of an Arab Retreat, is newly acquired territory.

And until such time that the Arab League forces establish a Peace Treaty, Israel might still hold that territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

They did not belong to the UK. They were given on trust to the Mandatories to implement Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which states in part:

ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.