The Clausewitz Failure

[Phoenall]

acts of aggression directed towards the Israeli newly declared territorial integrity

Which was???

Israel always has to "defend itself" against the people it is attacking. They are still pimping that line.

Indeed, It was the Arab league armies (note the plural tense of armies), that were the aggressors in 1948. Similarly, arabs were the aggressors in later wars directed against Israel. Indeed, Israel certainly did "defend itself", successfully, against those Arab assaults with the arabs suffering humiliating losses.

Allah seems to have played a cruel joke on the arabs-Moslems.

Nobody attacked Israel.

You've fallen down and bumped you head again, right?

He is reading the islamonazi version of the war again, the one that misses out the attacks by arab league forces

 

[Phoenall]

First, that is a matter to be litigate --- or brought under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States where they "settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice:"

Of course none of that will happen as long as the criminal class trumps international law with power politics.

That is why there is BDS to change those dynamics.

The Treaty Parties are the OttomanEmpire/Turkish Republic AND the Allied Powers. The Palestinians, the Arabs, or indigenous population was NOT bequeathed anything.

Yes they were. It was specified that the people would have citizenship in their respective states.

As the citizens of defined territories they would have the standard list of rights: self determination, independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

And there was no state of palestine was there. The area known as palestine had no defined borders. And none of those concepts were in force at the time meaning that they can not be applied retroactively. You might get away with that on the other boards you infest, but you wont on here.



By the way if you read the terms of the surrender treaties they do say The Ottomans and their allies, and the mufti along with the palestinians were counted in that group

More unsubstantiated Israel talking points.

No proven facts that destroy your claims everytime, and the source alters many times showing that there is more than one source. This means they are not talking points and they are very much substantiated.


Now all youi have is the same repeated islamonazio source that has no basis in reality

 

[P F Tinmore]

acts of aggression directed towards the Israeli newly declared territorial integrity

Which was???

Israel always has to "defend itself" against the people it is attacking. They are still pimping that line.

When was the last time Israel "attacked" the arab muslims, without it being in responce to the arab muslim attacks on Israel ?

When you are under constant attack by terrorists you are constantly defending yourself like Israel is. Any other nation would be allowed to wipe out the arab muslims causing the violence, so why cant Israel ?

WOW, more unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Resolution 181(II) was never "enforced;" no part of it at any time. The parts that could be implemented were implemented.

What and by whom?

The Jews and the UN of course, it was not part of 181 that the arab's had to agree for it to take place.

The Palestinians rejected it and it was not implemented.

End of story.

 

[P F Tinmore]

arab league invaded mandate of palestine lands

No the didn't.

1. The Mandate did not have any land,
2. The Mandate had already left Palestine.

You need to keep up.

 

[P F Tinmore]

First, that is a matter to be litigate --- or brought under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States where they "settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice:"

Of course none of that will happen as long as the criminal class trumps international law with power politics.

That is why there is BDS to change those dynamics.

The Treaty Parties are the OttomanEmpire/Turkish Republic AND the Allied Powers. The Palestinians, the Arabs, or indigenous population was NOT bequeathed anything.

Yes they were. It was specified that the people would have citizenship in their respective states.

As the citizens of defined territories they would have the standard list of rights: self determination, independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

And there was no state of palestine was there. The area known as palestine had no defined borders. And none of those concepts were in force at the time meaning that they can not be applied retroactively. You might get away with that on the other boards you infest, but you wont on here.



By the way if you read the terms of the surrender treaties they do say The Ottomans and their allies, and the mufti along with the palestinians were counted in that group

More unsubstantiated Israel talking points.

No proven facts that destroy your claims everytime, and the source alters many times showing that there is more than one source. This means they are not talking points and they are very much substantiated.


Now all youi have is the same repeated islamonazio source that has no basis in reality

Blah, blah, blah, and no proof. Israel says it so it must be true.

 

[Phoenall]

acts of aggression directed towards the Israeli newly declared territorial integrity

Which was???

Israel always has to "defend itself" against the people it is attacking. They are still pimping that line.

When was the last time Israel "attacked" the arab muslims, without it being in responce to the arab muslim attacks on Israel ?

When you are under constant attack by terrorists you are constantly defending yourself like Israel is. Any other nation would be allowed to wipe out the arab muslims causing the violence, so why cant Israel ?

WOW, more unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.

No questions that you constantly refuse to answer because you know the truth and it hurts. So you deflect and derail with off topic video's and nonsensical phrases.

Show when my claims have ever been Israeli talking points

 

[Phoenall]

Resolution 181(II) was never "enforced;" no part of it at any time. The parts that could be implemented were implemented.

What and by whom?

The Jews and the UN of course, it was not part of 181 that the arab's had to agree for it to take place.

The Palestinians rejected it and it was not implemented.

End of story.

So you deny the words of the UN themselves when they say it was implemented then.


Yes the arab's rejected it, but it did not end there as the resolution was based on either/or and not both must agree. It is written very clearly in the articles, and then it was implemented when the UN accepted Israel as a nation with full powers to the UN.


ONCE AGAIN THE ARAB MUSLIMS MISSED A CHANCE TO MAKE SOMETHING OF THEMSELVES AND BLAME EVERYONE BUT THEMSELVES

 

[Phoenall]

arab league invaded mandate of palestine lands

No the didn't.

1. The Mandate did not have any land,
2. The Mandate had already left Palestine.

You need to keep up.

NO YOU DO AS YOU CONFUSE THE LEGAL ENTITY WITH THE MANDATED POWER.


The mandate had territory that the mandatory power administered until the land was transferred to the government elect. In the case of Jordan this was in 1946 when the mandate of palestine was fulfilled and Jordan was accepted as a nation able to stand on its own feet.

WRONG the mandatory power left after handing control of the mandate to the UN, who also happened to be the custodians of the remaining mandates after assimilating the LoN in 1945. The mandate is still in force as there is a small part of it that has not been fully claimed .


Try reading the LoN minutes that spell it all out

 

[Phoenall]

First, that is a matter to be litigate --- or brought under the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States where they "settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice:"

Of course none of that will happen as long as the criminal class trumps international law with power politics.

That is why there is BDS to change those dynamics.

The Treaty Parties are the OttomanEmpire/Turkish Republic AND the Allied Powers. The Palestinians, the Arabs, or indigenous population was NOT bequeathed anything.

Yes they were. It was specified that the people would have citizenship in their respective states.

As the citizens of defined territories they would have the standard list of rights: self determination, independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

And there was no state of palestine was there. The area known as palestine had no defined borders. And none of those concepts were in force at the time meaning that they can not be applied retroactively. You might get away with that on the other boards you infest, but you wont on here.



By the way if you read the terms of the surrender treaties they do say The Ottomans and their allies, and the mufti along with the palestinians were counted in that group

More unsubstantiated Israel talking points.

No proven facts that destroy your claims everytime, and the source alters many times showing that there is more than one source. This means they are not talking points and they are very much substantiated.


Now all youi have is the same repeated islamonazio source that has no basis in reality

Blah, blah, blah, and no proof. Israel says it so it must be true.

When have I ever said that then, as for proof look at the number of links provided that you ignore because you know they destroy your every claim. Why do you think not one other person steps in and defends your posts, because you refuse to accept the truth even when it is presented from 4 separate unbiased sources

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What a set of questions!

acts of aggression directed towards the Israeli newly declared territorial integrity

Which was???
Israel always has to "defend itself" against the people it is attacking. They are still pimping that line.

(COMMON)

In the case of the prior comment here; we were talking specifically about the invasion by the Arab League Forces in 1948. Each component member of the actually crossed their frontier on the assault of the new Jewish State of Israel (territorial limits as they defined through self-determination).

​

The armed attack by each component member of the Combined Hostile Arab Force was an act of aggression, an effort contrary to Article 2(4) of the Charter, and opposed by the Israel Defense Force based on Customary Law, Treaty of Westphalia ("Some scholars of international relations credit the treaties with providing the foundation of the modern state system and articulating the concept of territorial sovereignty." Encyclopedia Britannica), and Article 51 of the Charter. The War of Independence triggered by the Arab League Invasion was abated with two components of the original invading force (Egypt and Jordan) through Peace Treaties in 1974 and 1994 (respectively) with the recognitions of the State of Israel and the International Boundaries.

Resolution 181(II) was never "enforced;" no part of it at any time. The parts that could be implemented were implemented.

What and by whom?

(COMMENT)

The key elements that Israel and the UN wanted to complete, before the provisional government announced independence, were the 14 Items called: The Steps Preparatory to Independence. [Part I, Section B, A/RES/181 (II)] Essentially nothing else was absolutely essential in the recommendation by the UN. It was the criminal intent of the Arab League to interrupt the completion of the 14 Steps and prevent the the Jewish People from exercising self-determination under Article 1(2) of the Charter, reconstituting their national home.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

WoW!

Nobody attacked Israel.

(QUESTION)

Is this what you call revisionist history?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

WoW!

Nobody attacked Israel.

(QUESTION)

Is this what you call revisionist history?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab armies fought Israeli forces in Palestine. How is that attacking Israel?

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

WoW!

Nobody attacked Israel.

(QUESTION)

Is this what you call revisionist history?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab armies fought Israeli forces in Palestine. How is that attacking Israel?

How do you manage to get the facts so completely befuddled?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

WoW!

Nobody attacked Israel.

(QUESTION)

Is this what you call revisionist history?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab armies fought Israeli forces in Palestine. How is that attacking Israel?

How do you manage to get the facts so completely befuddled?

That's the facts.

Do you have any real history that says different?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

As you can see, the Arab Forces did enter Israeli Sovereign Territory.

You are under the impression that just because you call the territory by its 1920 assigned name, that it renders it some special political consideration. The name Palestine, in 1948, transitioned from the name the Allied Powers assigned it for mandate purposes.

The designation of "Palestine" was defined as "the territory to which the Mandate applied." When the Mandate was terminated, the territory transferred to the UN Trusteeship under the Administration of the UN Palestine Commission. [Chapter XII Article 77(1a) of the UN Charter] It was not the Arab League's territory to freely enter without approval. Neither the UN, the UNPC, or the Israelis gave such approval.

P F Tinmore, et al,

WoW!

Nobody attacked Israel.

(QUESTION)

Is this what you call revisionist history?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab armies fought Israeli forces in Palestine. How is that attacking Israel?

(COMMENT)

Actually, each of the component nation, committed two acts of aggression or violations of Article 2 of the Charter.

The moment any armed element, of any Arab component, of the Arab League crossed their frontier threshold and left their sovereignty --- entering into either territory under the Israeli Declaration, --- or --- the territory under the trusteeship of the UN, ----- THEY committed an act of aggression. There is not other interpretation.

• The Armed entry into a UN Trusteeship without permission is violation #1 of the Charter.
• The Armed Entry into territory declared Independent is violation #2 of the Charter.
​

In effect, a partition physically happened on the signing of the various Armistice Agreement. At least in terms of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, those frontiers ultimately we made permanent international boundaries by treaty. (But that is another story.)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, --- they are facts; to be sure. In one context they can event be true. But your implications are 180º out of phase with what those facts actually mean.

P F Tinmore, et al,

WoW!

Nobody attacked Israel.

(QUESTION)

Is this what you call revisionist history?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab armies fought Israeli forces in Palestine. How is that attacking Israel?

How do you manage to get the facts so completely befuddled?

That's the facts.

Do you have any real history that says different?

(COMMENT)

As explained in my Posting #191 (including the Map)., as well as in my Posting #196, your interpretation of the meaning is not factual --- not factual at all ---- not even close.

Yes we can say there is a truth here! --- This is true only to the degree that you understand that any military engagement --- by the unauthorized advance of armed forces --- into any territory in the former Mandate of Palestine is an act of aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

WoW!

Nobody attacked Israel.

(QUESTION)

Is this what you call revisionist history?

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab armies fought Israeli forces in Palestine. How is that attacking Israel?

How do you manage to get the facts so completely befuddled?

That's the facts.

Do you have any real history that says different?

Yes. History says differently. RoccoP already addressed your confusion but the facts (the facts you could not address) were that the Arab league forces entered sovereign territory. I understand that you can not fathom the concept of sovereignty and self-determination applying to The Zionist Entity™ but those principles apply in spite of your deep Jew hatreds.

Failure and incompetence on the part of Arabs-Moslems who still cannot achieve sovereignty and self-determination is not the fault of Israel or The Great Satan™. You're looking for excuses to calm an emotional requirement that others Must be blamed for the failures and ineptitudes that haunt Arabs-Moslems.

 

[P F Tinmore]

When the Mandate was terminated, the territory transferred to the UN Trusteeship under the Administration of the UN Palestine Commission.

Trustees don't own anything. The administration, not the actual Palestinian territory, was transferred.

Not that it matters. The UNPC was a no show and did not defend the territory or people under their trust.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

WoW!

Nobody attacked Israel.

(QUESTION)

Is this what you call revisionist history?

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes islamonazi and plain old garden nazi revisionist history. A criminal offence in most of Europe that no lawyer will take up your defence as they are liable to the same punishment