The debates

[P F Tinmore]

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
⁜→ P F Tinemore, et al,

BLUF: Again, you are intentionally mixing apples and oranges... There was NO "lie by omission."

✦ The territory formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine (less Jordan)

That is the territory inside Palestine's international borders. However, nobody ever told anybody that Palestine has international borders. It was a lie by omission.

(COMMENT)

After the Palestine Order in Council (10 August 1922) the term "Palestine meant the limits of the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied. These words of description were short-titled "Palestine."

The Mandate for Palestine which was confirmed, and the terms of which were defined by the Council of the League of Nations, on the 24th day of July, 1922. It is NOT your simple definition. And it did not infer a country or nation.

The Mandatory Power explained this, with people like you in mind, when the clarified the intent of the term "Palestine."

Written and filed for the record was Memorandum "A" • Meaning of the Termination of the Mandate 25 February 1948, which stated in part:​

​

"After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed."​

​

This single Memo has become very important to those that claim the Arab Palestinian Territory had boundaries. The response should be → NO IT DOES NOT. Why? (RHETORICAL). The Allied Powers, through the Mandate, gave all the governmental authority to Great Britain. Now, that was not a true fait accompli for the Arab Palestinians. But as told by the Mandatory Power:

"In 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis."​

The Arab Palestinians rejected the proposal but the Jewish representatives accepted. Similarly, the Arab Higher Committee dispatched the following telegraphic response - received by the Secretary-General on 19 January 1948:

• “ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”

The implication that the Arab Palestinians has some hold on the territory to which the Mandate applied, is just rediculous. I am not sure why the UN Membership placates the Arab Palestinians that suggest that the original boundaries set by the French and British Governments was somehow their; but, the it only persist in general confusion. And the UN Legal Counsel knows this.

EXCERPT: Memom from the Legal Counsel from December 2012:

Prior to December 2012, "Palestine" WAS NOT IDENTIFIED as a State or country." This is very important. While the suggestion that the Armistice Boundary of 4 June 1967 is the delimitation to the Palestinian claim as their territory, it is NOT LIKELY. However, the Arab Palestinians (just) might have and argument to use the lines in place on 4 December 2012 when A/RES/67/19 • The Status of Palestine in the United Nations • was adopted. The ramifications of that would be very dramatic, especially for the Israeli Settlements in Area "C." And then, quite possibly some of Jerusalem (established as the Capital in mid-1980). However, the Israeli Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of the Israel claim on this matter. And that will probably hold (Stare Decisis).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

"In 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.

What was that? Details?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
⁜→ P F Tinemore, et al,

BLUF: Again, you are intentionally mixing apples and oranges... There was NO "lie by omission."

✦ The territory formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine (less Jordan)

That is the territory inside Palestine's international borders. However, nobody ever told anybody that Palestine has international borders. It was a lie by omission.

(COMMENT)

After the Palestine Order in Council (10 August 1922) the term "Palestine meant the limits of the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied. These words of description were short-titled "Palestine."

The Mandate for Palestine which was confirmed, and the terms of which were defined by the Council of the League of Nations, on the 24th day of July, 1922. It is NOT your simple definition. And it did not infer a country or nation.

The Mandatory Power explained this, with people like you in mind, when the clarified the intent of the term "Palestine."

Written and filed for the record was Memorandum "A" • Meaning of the Termination of the Mandate 25 February 1948, which stated in part:​

​

"After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed."​

​

This single Memo has become very important to those that claim the Arab Palestinian Territory had boundaries. The response should be → NO IT DOES NOT. Why? (RHETORICAL). The Allied Powers, through the Mandate, gave all the governmental authority to Great Britain. Now, that was not a true fait accompli for the Arab Palestinians. But as told by the Mandatory Power:

"In 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis."​

The Arab Palestinians rejected the proposal but the Jewish representatives accepted. Similarly, the Arab Higher Committee dispatched the following telegraphic response - received by the Secretary-General on 19 January 1948:

• “ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”

The implication that the Arab Palestinians has some hold on the territory to which the Mandate applied, is just rediculous. I am not sure why the UN Membership placates the Arab Palestinians that suggest that the original boundaries set by the French and British Governments was somehow their; but, the it only persist in general confusion. And the UN Legal Counsel knows this.

EXCERPT: Memom from the Legal Counsel from December 2012:

View attachment 495623

Prior to December 2012, "Palestine" WAS NOT IDENTIFIED as a State or country." This is very important. While the suggestion that the Armistice Boundary of 4 June 1967 is the delimitation to the Palestinian claim as their territory, it is NOT LIKELY. However, the Arab Palestinians (just) might have and argument to use the lines in place on 4 December 2012 when A/RES/67/19 • The Status of Palestine in the United Nations • was adopted. The ramifications of that would be very dramatic, especially for the Israeli Settlements in Area "C." And then, quite possibly some of Jerusalem (established as the Capital in mid-1980). However, the Israeli Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of the Israel claim on this matter. And that will probably hold (Stare Decisis).

Most Respectfully,
R

"After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity

What does that mean?

The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed."

Changed to whom? The UN ducked out.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The implication that the Arab Palestinians has some hold on the territory to which the Mandate applied,

The Mandate was not a place, it was an administration. It had no territory, borders, or sovereignty.

 

[Hollie]

The implication that the Arab Palestinians has some hold on the territory to which the Mandate applied,

The Mandate was not a place, it was an administration. It had no territory, borders, or sovereignty.

What was that? Your usual sidestepping?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Debates
• P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You are looking at the Border Issue all wrong.

Originally the territory was defined along the parameters set by the Allied Powers → "within such boundaries as may be fixed by them." That was the language used by the Principal Allied Powers. The boundaries were not set by the Arabs of Palestine. The various iterations of the Treaties were all the "authority" the Allied Powers needed. And the Arabs of Palestine in reality had very little to say about it. The allied Arabians were much more successful. The British assisted with the - established for the Hashemites their sovereignties (ultimately Jordan and Iraq).

Quit looking for some document. The basic test for a border is the perimeter for which a government makes and enforces laws and extends its protection to its citizen. The Israelis, under the Right of Self-Determination, made the determination as to the perimeter of their sovereign control and domestic jurisdiction.

Your questions about what does this and that mean, who ducked what, or the footprint to which the mandate applied is nice to discuss in the present but have no real impact on the negotiations today.

The borders of Israel are exactly where they are enforced and the outline of Israeli Domestic Law (laws for Israelis made by Israelis). Outside that perimeter is a foreign policy matter (International Law).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Debates
• P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You are looking at the Border Issue all wrong.

Originally the territory was defined along the parameters set by the Allied Powers → "within such boundaries as may be fixed by them." That was the language used by the Principal Allied Powers. The boundaries were not set by the Arabs of Palestine. The various iterations of the Treaties were all the "authority" the Allied Powers needed. And the Arabs of Palestine in reality had very little to say about it. The allied Arabians were much more successful. The British assisted with the - established for the Hashemites their sovereignties (ultimately Jordan and Iraq).

Quit looking for some document. The basic test for a border is the perimeter for which a government makes and enforces laws and extends its protection to its citizen. The Israelis, under the Right of Self-Determination, made the determination as to the perimeter of their sovereign control and domestic jurisdiction.

Your questions about what does this and that mean, who ducked what, or the footprint to which the mandate applied is nice to discuss in the present but have no real impact on the negotiations today.

The borders of Israel are exactly where they are enforced and the outline of Israeli Domestic Law (laws for Israelis made by Israelis). Outside that perimeter is a foreign policy matter (International Law).

Most Respectfully,
R

Quit looking for some document. The basic test for a border is the perimeter for which a government makes and enforces laws and extends its protection to its citizen.

Are you talking about illegal conquest?

 

[Hollie]

RE: The Debates
• P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You are looking at the Border Issue all wrong.

Originally the territory was defined along the parameters set by the Allied Powers → "within such boundaries as may be fixed by them." That was the language used by the Principal Allied Powers. The boundaries were not set by the Arabs of Palestine. The various iterations of the Treaties were all the "authority" the Allied Powers needed. And the Arabs of Palestine in reality had very little to say about it. The allied Arabians were much more successful. The British assisted with the - established for the Hashemites their sovereignties (ultimately Jordan and Iraq).

Quit looking for some document. The basic test for a border is the perimeter for which a government makes and enforces laws and extends its protection to its citizen. The Israelis, under the Right of Self-Determination, made the determination as to the perimeter of their sovereign control and domestic jurisdiction.

Your questions about what does this and that mean, who ducked what, or the footprint to which the mandate applied is nice to discuss in the present but have no real impact on the negotiations today.

The borders of Israel are exactly where they are enforced and the outline of Israeli Domestic Law (laws for Israelis made by Israelis). Outside that perimeter is a foreign policy matter (International Law).

Most Respectfully,
R

Quit looking for some document. The basic test for a border is the perimeter for which a government makes and enforces laws and extends its protection to its citizen.

Are you talking about illegal conquest?

Are you not understanding what is presented to you? <~~~rhetorical BTW

 

[Hollie]

A debate of the live fire kind.

 

[P F Tinmore]

A debate of the live fire kind.

Ah, the Fatah coup against the Palestinian Authority.

 

[Hollie]

A debate of the live fire kind.

Ah, the Fatah coup against the Palestinian Authority.

Who won the debate?

People point and laugh at your conspiracy theories.

 

[Hollie]

Debate with automatic weapons.

 

[Hollie]

Debate using sharp tools and blunt force trauma.

Gaza: Palestinians tortured, summarily killed by Hamas forces during 2014 conflict

Hamas forces carried out a brutal campaign of abductions, torture and unlawful killings against Palestinians accused of “collaborating” with Israel and others during Israel’s military offensive against Gaza in July and August 2014, according to a new report by Amnesty International. ‘Strangling...

www.amnesty.org

Gaza: Hamas killed and tortured, says Amnesty​

Published27 May 2015
Share

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel is destroying itself with its settlement policy​

 

[Hollie]

Debates with guns and Allahu Akbar's

 

[P F Tinmore]

Debates with guns and Allahu Akbar's

Fatah lost the 2006 elections but refused to step down.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Surprising that this major conflict in the world has so few debates.

Only it isn't a major conflict.

There's currently more than thirty armed conflicts in world today and the I/P Conflict rated consistently among the lowest in terms of both ongoing casualties and property loss.

However, it rates highest in terms of discussion and debate, as the content of this board attests. There are an order of magnitude more comments on this conflict compared to any other current armed conflict.

Given both those facts, one has to seriously consider the motivations or someone who is neither Israeli or Palestinian but is nonetheless obsessed with the conflict.

I seriously doubt those motivations are in the interest of a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

What other conflict is a hundred years old and there is no real interest in solving it?

Your marriage

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
⁜→ P F Tinemore, et al,

BLUF: Well, this statement is a subjective comment dependent upon a certain perspective.

Israel is destroying itself with its settlement policy​

(COMMENT)

An alternative perspective might be found in Article V(3) (TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS) found in the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements September 13, 1993 (AKA: Oslo I Accords), agreed to between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.​

I have no recollection of the PLO, or any other Palestinian Organization on the European Union (EU) List of Terrorist Organizatrions (Feb 2021) for that matter, requestion negotiations based on good faith to convene on the subject matter. (Not one in nearly three decades!)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Debates
SUBTOPIC: Recognition
⁜→ P F Tinemore, et al,

BLUF: Well, this statement is a subjective comment dependent upon a certain perspective.

Israel is destroying itself with its settlement policy​

(COMMENT)

An alternative perspective might be found in Article V(3) (TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS) found in the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements September 13, 1993 (AKA: Oslo I Accords), agreed to between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.​

I have no recollection of the PLO, or any other Palestinian Organization on the European Union (EU) List of Terrorist Organizatrions (Feb 2021) for that matter, requestion negotiations based on good faith to convene on the subject matter. (Not one in nearly three decades!)

Most Respectfully,
R

Inalienable rights are non negotiable. The only purpose of the fake peace process is for the Palestinians to negotiate away their rights.