The demise of Isreal is imminent!

[Hollie]

The boundaries of "Palestine" between 1922 and 1948, were not borders, but recognized demarcations of the territory which was subject to the Mandate (Order in Council for Palestine, August 1922).

Of course 1922 was before Palestine became a successor state to Turkey. The rules changed after the Treaty of Lausanne.

You are still desperately clinging to the fantasy that the Treaty of Lausanne somehow, magically created your invented “country of Pally’land”.

It didn’t. It’s remarkable that you still attempt to perpetuate that fraud.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The demise of Isreal is imminent!
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh yea, of course...

It is obvious that the Arab Palestinians passed-up and opportunity to be a sovereignty, unto itself, in 1948.

Another Israeli lie.

(COMMENT)

These are the three biggies. This is not including the three times prior to 1923 when asked to join a Tripartite Council on the establishment of self-governing institutions..

Copy and Pastefrom QUORA - Ask a Question

• A/AC.21/7 29 January 1948 •
(d) The text of this resolution was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

“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 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, which was a land-for-peace deal, is important because it has served as the primary foundation for Israel’s strategic defenses in the Middle East for more than 30 years. It has also helped prevent the outbreak of another regional Arab-Israeli war. A similar land-for-peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians would further solidify regional security." (Source: Center for American Progress,
A Land-for-Peace Deal Is Still the Basis for Arab-Israeli Peace Agreements By Ian Bomberg Posted on February 14, 2011[URL='https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/news/2011/02/14/9030/a-land-for-peace-deal-is-still-the-basis-for-arab-israeli-peace-agreements/'] The Situation in Egypt Doesn’t Change What Works in Peacemaking
[/URL]

Originally Answered: How many times have the Palestinians refused to accept having their own state?"
The second time was in the summer of 2000 US President Bill Clinton hosted intense peace talks at Camp David between Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and Israeli leader Ehud Barak,

The third time was in 2008, after extensive talks, then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and presented a comprehensive peace plan. Olmert's plan would have annexed the major Israeli settlements to Israel and in return given equivalent Israeli territory to the Palestinians, and would have divided Jerusalem. It would have created a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Relative to the status of the territory under the administration of the Mandate, the treaty made no difference; other than to legitimize what was already in place.

Indeed, like citizenship, nationality, international borders...

 

[Hollie]

Relative to the status of the territory under the administration of the Mandate, the treaty made no difference; other than to legitimize what was already in place.

Indeed, like citizenship, nationality, international borders...

Indeed, your usual re-writing of history.

 

[P F Tinmore]

A similar land-for-peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians would further solidify regional security."

If Israel returned Palestinian territory, not just little pieces of it, there would be peace.

 

[P F Tinmore]

This is not including the three times prior to 1923 when asked to join a Tripartite Council on the establishment of self-governing institutions..

The Palestinians had to legitimize the colonial project to be included as a minority party.

 

[Shusha]

A similar land-for-peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians would further solidify regional security."

If Israel returned Palestinian territory, not just little pieces of it, there would be peace.

Sure. If one of the parties to the conflict is eliminated there is no conflict. Why should Israel be the one eliminated?

 

[Hollie]

A similar land-for-peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians would further solidify regional security."

If Israel returned Palestinian territory, not just little pieces of it, there would be peace.

Just like there is across the rest of the islamist world. ISIS would invite their Islamist brethren over for tea and cupcakes (as opposed to slaughtering them wholesale), if not for Israel.

Oops.

 

[P F Tinmore]

No "Successor State" was mentioned in the the Treaty of Laussane (1924). Again, I suggest you don't confuse Citizenship and Nationality with sovereign control. They simply are not the same thing.

That term was not mentioned, however, the treaty followed the rules of state succession. Land, nationality, citizenship.

You are grasping at straws.

 

[P F Tinmore]

A similar land-for-peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians would further solidify regional security."

If Israel returned Palestinian territory, not just little pieces of it, there would be peace.

Sure. If one of the parties to the conflict is eliminated there is no conflict. Why should Israel be the one eliminated?

Because Israel is the one inside Palestine.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There was no obligation made to the populations which was formerly subject to Occupied Enemy Territory Administration.

One of the tenets of the Mandates was the non annexation of territory. The territory was ceded to the people of their respective states.

 

[Shusha]

No "Successor State" was mentioned in the the Treaty of Laussane (1924). Again, I suggest you don't confuse Citizenship and Nationality with sovereign control. They simply are not the same thing.

That term was not mentioned, however, the treaty followed the rules of state succession. Land, nationality, citizenship.

There was no immediate successor State. That was the entire reason why the Mandate was put in place. If there was a successor State (meeting all of the requirements of Statehood) -- there would have been no need for a Mandate. The fact that there was land and people (nationals, citizens) does not make for a sovereign Nation. More is required. A government, at the least.

Israel is (now) the successor State. Why? (Because I know your response is going to be: Link?). Israel fulfilled the requirements for Statehood.

 

[Shusha]

A similar land-for-peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians would further solidify regional security."

If Israel returned Palestinian territory, not just little pieces of it, there would be peace.

Sure. If one of the parties to the conflict is eliminated there is no conflict. Why should Israel be the one eliminated?

Because Israel is the one inside Palestine.

Israel IS Palestine.

But, sure, let's go with yours. There are two groups vying for control of "Palestine". By definition a civil war. In nearly all modern examples of civil war between two (or more) distinct ethnic groups within a territory, the solution has been division of the territory and self-determination and sovereignty for both groups. This invariably ends in peace.

So why would you suggest that the only path to peace, in this particular case, is to give one ethnic group complete control? It flies in the face of known successes.

And if only one group's control can lead to peace -- why should it be the Arabs and not the Israelis. So far the Israelis have done a far superior job of ... well, nearly everything except martyrdom.

 

[Shusha]

One of the tenets of the Mandates was the non annexation of territory. The territory was ceded to the people of their respective states.

AGAIN!? (Why do you keep posting outright lies?). The territory was ceded to no one. It was put under the control of the Allied Powers.

The tenet of the Mandate was that no territory be ceded to external powers (meaning external States).

 

[Slyhunter]

A similar land-for-peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians would further solidify regional security."

If Israel returned Palestinian territory, not just little pieces of it, there would be peace.

The Arabs stole that land from the Israelites.

 

[P F Tinmore]

But, sure, let's go with yours. There are two groups vying for control of "Palestine".

Indeed, the native population and the foreign settlers.

You can't squeeze a civil war out of that.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The demise of Isreal is imminent!
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

There is no law or coronation for the line of state succession in regards to territory. Succession (of territory) is determined by the parties to the Treaty of Peace; nationality, citizenship follow from that understanding. For instance, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is a self-governing but unincorporated asset of the US. The policy status as a Protectorate → the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is under the jurisdiction and protection of US Sovereignty.

​

If you look at the language used here, you will see the scope of a treaty in this regard to War Conquests.

No "Successor State" was mentioned in the the Treaty of Laussane (1924). Again, I suggest you don't confuse Citizenship and Nationality with sovereign control. They simply are not the same thing.

That term was not mentioned, however, the treaty followed the rules of state succession. Land, nationality, citizenship.

You are grasping at straws.

(COMMENT)

Just to remind you that → it is not I that is reinterpreting the intent of a hundred year old decision making process. You are attempting to supplant the documented intention to proceed with the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home; putting into effect the Balfour Declaration in the establishment of a self-governing institution for the Jewish people. THAT was the stated intention of the Allied Powers a century ago → and even though it took a strange political route to get there → that is what was done.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Roudy]

More...WINNING!

Pro-Palestinian resolution from New Orleans City Council creates backlash

Pro-Palestinian resolution from New Orleans City Council creates backlash

Mayor Mitch Landrieu, in a statement later Friday, said the resolution was "ill advised, gratuitous and does not reflect the policy of the city of New Orleans..."

Funny... I seem to remember a couple of individuals here swear that American Jews were anti-Israel.

So... how could this happen?

Internet Jihadist propaganda talking points are quite delusional.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel fulfilled the requirements for Statehood.

Not so. Israel did not have, and still does not have, a defined territory.

And, besides that, Israel's "permanent population" were recent colonial settlers.

And, Israel's government was established against the wishes of the vast majority of the people.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The demise of Isreal is imminent!
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

There is no law or coronation for the line of state succession in regards to territory. Succession (of territory) is determined by the parties to the Treaty of Peace; nationality, citizenship follow from that understanding. For instance, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is a self-governing but unincorporated asset of the US. The policy status as a Protectorate → the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is under the jurisdiction and protection of US Sovereignty.

View attachment 171740
​

If you look at the language used here, you will see the scope of a treaty in this regard to War Conquests.

No "Successor State" was mentioned in the the Treaty of Laussane (1924). Again, I suggest you don't confuse Citizenship and Nationality with sovereign control. They simply are not the same thing.

That term was not mentioned, however, the treaty followed the rules of state succession. Land, nationality, citizenship.

You are grasping at straws.

(COMMENT)

Just to remind you that → it is not I that is reinterpreting the intent of a hundred year old decision making process. You are attempting to supplant the documented intention to proceed with the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home; putting into effect the Balfour Declaration in the establishment of a self-governing institution for the Jewish people. THAT was the stated intention of the Allied Powers a century ago → and even though it took a strange political route to get there → that is what was done.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of all that negates the Palestinian's universal, inalienable rights?