The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

◈ The Armistice with Syria was overtaken by the Annexation of the Golan Heights.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory. The world still recognizes the Golan as Syrian territory. As they should.

(COMMENT)

• International Law says:

ARTICLE 6 • Convention on Rights and Duties of States •
The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.​

In this regard, it is pure disinformation to suggest that the recognition by the "World" affects the reality of the ground truth.

"Acts of Aggression" are different from the "Acts necessary for Defense." The territory was assumed as a result of the active pursuit of Hostile Military Forces. The Golan Height were occupied to deny Hostile Military Forces from gaining the high ground (military advantage). Since Israel determined that there would be no future in which the High Ground would give a military advantage to the enemy, it would be occupied forever (no expected termination). Therefore, it would be best in the long term to Annex the ground, so as to avail it to the laws and care → the entirety of the nation.

It may be a topic of disagreement, but it will be the best for all concerned.

And, already, the nations operating in the immediate vicinity of the Golan Heights recognize the sovereign control, both in the air defense and ground situations.

Most Respectively,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Sometimes I get so confused.

◈ The Arab Palestinians are charging the border, but they did not lose anything. What's that about?

◈ The Hostile Arab Palestinians keep showing this (inaccurate) chart. Yet they did not lose anything. What's that about?

​

Pfffft, Israeli talking points. The fighting ended when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. Nobody won or lost that war. Consequently, nobody won or lost any land. In 1949 the UN carved Palestine into three areas of occupation.

(COMMENT)

◈ The "cessation of hostilities" and the "end of a conflict" are entirely two different things.

◈ Relative to the 1949 Armistice Arrangements, two Armistice Agreements have been supercededd by Peace Treaties (Egyptian and Jordanian issues).

◈ Relative to the 1949 Armistice, the year 2000 Agreement Letter essentially overtakes the Armistice. The letter is found at A/54/914 S/2000/564 12 June 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General and the arrangement is still one of peace.

◈ The Armistice with Syria was overtaken by the Annexation of the Golan Heights.​

Back in 1949, a lot of things were true or different from today. However, the four arrangements were independent of each other and none of them were carve-outs; although I understand what you mean. None of the Agrrementstoday are active in the sense they were before each was negated by a follow-on agreement. They are great historical documents, but each has been legally replaced.

The demarcations of the Armistice Lines have no validity today.

Pfffft, Israeli talking points. The fighting ended when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. Nobody won or lost that war. Consequently nobody won or lost any land. In 1949 the UN carved Palestine into three areas of occupation.

(COMMENT)

◈ I would be ever so greatfulif you could send me the link to the imfamous "Talk Point Memo" (TPM) you have mentioned so often as some sort of response to facts I mention.

◈ IF "Nobody won or lost that war," then what is the current dispute about?​

My understanding is that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have nine major areas of concern.

• Borders
• Jerusalem
• Refugees
• Political Prisoners
• Water
• Security
• Economy
• State to State
• Claims Resolution

"The Palestinian position seeks to end Israeli occupation, exercise the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and establish an independent, viable and sovereign state on the 1967 borders."

There are so many things at issue (that have not been lost), with my limited capacity, I can only tackle one at a time. If you have a specific in which you want to hold a discussion as to whether or not the HoAP has a sound and valid complaint, then, by all means, let's tackle them one at a time.

Most Respectfully,
R

There are so many things at issue (that have not been lost), with my limited capacity, I can only tackle one at a time. If you have a specific in which you want to hold a discussion as to whether or not the HoAP has a sound and valid complaint, then, by all means, let's tackle them one at a time.

That is a good idea. Take one little issue at a time that way we will not have to search through a data dump trying to find something relevant.

In Israel's declaration of independence, they did not define their territory. They did mention the partition resolution but never claimed those recommended borders. Since that resolution was rejected and never implemented, I wonder why it was even mentioned.`

In the drafting documents for Israel's request for UN membership other countries were concerned about this lack of defined territory. They were also concerned about Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory and other issues like implementing resolution 194.

To my knowledge, none of these issues have been resolved.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

◈ The Armistice with Syria was overtaken by the Annexation of the Golan Heights.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory. The world still recognizes the Golan as Syrian territory. As they should.

(COMMENT)

• International Law says:

ARTICLE 6 • Convention on Rights and Duties of States •
The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.​

In this regard, it is pure disinformation to suggest that the recognition by the "World" affects the reality of the ground truth.

"Acts of Aggression" are different from the "Acts necessary for Defense." The territory was assumed as a result of the active pursuit of Hostile Military Forces. The Golan Height were occupied to deny Hostile Military Forces from gaining the high ground (military advantage). Since Israel determined that there would be no future in which the High Ground would give a military advantage to the enemy, it would be occupied forever (no expected termination). Therefore, it would be best in the long term to Annex the ground, so as to avail it to the laws and care → the entirety of the nation.

It may be a topic of disagreement, but it will be the best for all concerned.

And, already, the nations operating in the immediate vicinity of the Golan Heights recognize the sovereign control, both in the air defense and ground situations.

Most Respectively,
R

In this regard, it is pure disinformation to suggest that the recognition by the "World" affects the reality of the ground truth.

The reality on the ground is that the Golan is inside Syria's international borders. International borders cannot be changed unilaterally.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

There is you reading a book and say--- this is the way it should be. Then there is what actually happens.

In this regard, it is pure disinformation to suggest that the recognition by the "World" affects the reality of the ground truth.

The reality on the ground is that the Golan is inside Syria's international borders. International borders cannot be changed unilaterally.

(COMMENT)

The world isn't prefect. And your interpretation of what should be, is very questionable.

Now the Golan Heights (annexed nearly 4 decades ago) may not be recognized politically or legally in some eyes, but make no mistake, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan all know not to cross the Israeli Air Defense Zone over the Golan Height. And that is "recognition."

And under international law → recognition is NOT necessary for the establishment of sovereign control (state). It is what it is. And it is as real as China annexing Tibet, Russia annexing the Crimea, or the Svalbard Islands in 1925, annexed by Norway.

And, the Arab Palestinians, as dangerous as they are, will probably not see any lifting of Article 42 Effective Control.

Most Respectively,
R

 

[Shusha]

The reality on the ground is that the Golan is inside Syria's international borders. International borders cannot be changed unilaterally.

Sure. And that is why there are dozens of border disputes and contested areas all over the world. Mostly the disputes just sit there and no one cares. Eventually, some of them get solved with a treaty. Shrug.

Have you heard about the dispute of Hans Island between Denmark and Canada? Every time we visit the island we leave a bottle of Canadian whiskey. Every time they visit the island they leave a bottle of Schnapps. Spirits war.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ Shusha, P F Tinmore, et al,

Just as the JCS Mmo indicated, it is a matter of establishing a defendable border.

The "law" assumes that most countries are not going to attack their neighbors. Syria has been found wanting in terms of "trust." Syria has used the Golan Heights to establish a military advantage in the offensive role.

When the Yom Kippur war broke out in 1973, more than 1,400 Syrians tanks poured into the Golan. Opposing them were just 170 Israeli tanks, led by Lt. Avigdor Kahalani. At first, the Syrians seemed poised to push into the Jordan Valley. Over several weeks of intensive fighting and suffering horrendous casualties, Kahalani managed to hold off the Syrian attack and eventually push them out of the Golan.
STORY SOURCE: By Avrohom Shmuel Lewin JNS

It is an unacceptable risk to allow the Syrian to maintain the Golan Height.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ Shusha, P F Tinmore, et al,

Just as the JCS Mmo indicated, it is a matter of establishing a defendable border.

The "law" assumes that most countries are not going to attack their neighbors. Syria has been found wanting in terms of "trust." Syria has used the Golan Heights to establish a military advantage in the offensive role.

When the Yom Kippur war broke out in 1973, more than 1,400 Syrians tanks poured into the Golan. Opposing them were just 170 Israeli tanks, led by Lt. Avigdor Kahalani. At first, the Syrians seemed poised to push into the Jordan Valley. Over several weeks of intensive fighting and suffering horrendous casualties, Kahalani managed to hold off the Syrian attack and eventually push them out of the Golan.
STORY SOURCE: By Avrohom Shmuel Lewin JNS

It is an unacceptable risk to allow the Syrian to maintain the Golan Height.

Most Respectfully,
R

It doesn't matter. You cannot unilaterally change someone else's international borders.

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ Shusha, P F Tinmore, et al,

Just as the JCS Mmo indicated, it is a matter of establishing a defendable border.

The "law" assumes that most countries are not going to attack their neighbors. Syria has been found wanting in terms of "trust." Syria has used the Golan Heights to establish a military advantage in the offensive role.

When the Yom Kippur war broke out in 1973, more than 1,400 Syrians tanks poured into the Golan. Opposing them were just 170 Israeli tanks, led by Lt. Avigdor Kahalani. At first, the Syrians seemed poised to push into the Jordan Valley. Over several weeks of intensive fighting and suffering horrendous casualties, Kahalani managed to hold off the Syrian attack and eventually push them out of the Golan.
STORY SOURCE: By Avrohom Shmuel Lewin JNS

It is an unacceptable risk to allow the Syrian to maintain the Golan Height.

Most Respectfully,
R

It doesn't matter. You cannot unilaterally change someone else's international borders.

And you say it in such a natural way.

What do you think Egypt and Jordan were doing in 1948 when they invaded and took Gaza and Judea and Samaria?

Oh, by the way, the official "International Borders" have not yet been drawn. But since the Arabs choose to attack and take.....and never negotiate, it is more than possible that there will never be a negotiation and Israel may have to take unilateral actions.

Let us put it this way.

Israel GAVE all of Gaza to the Arabs, regardless of how safe it would have been to Israel. It will NOT make the same mistake with the Golan Heights where the Syrians did attack Israelis from above on a basically daily basis.

Syria has no claims to the Golan Heights since it chose to use it to launch attacks on Israeli civilians for the 19 years it had the area in its possession.

The Arabs did it with Jewish Land. And of course there is no complaint from anyone about the Arabs keeping land they have stolen from the Jews. No matter how much of it they took.

(Oh, and there is also the 78% of stolen Jewish land of TransJordan. See how easy it is for SOME groups to just take and define what their "international borders" are going to be?

 

[Shusha]

It doesn't matter. You cannot unilaterally change someone else's international borders.

Syria unilaterally violated Israel's borders and attacked her. The change was a result of the ensuing conflict. It was Syria which was the precipitating actor here.

 

[RoccoR]

ct of aggression RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

There is something wrong here!

In the drafting documents for Israel's request for UN membership other countries were concerned about this lack of defined territory. They were also concerned about Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory and other issues like implementing resolution 194.

To my knowledge, none of these issues have been resolved.

(COMMENT)

I grant you that in 1949, when the application was being vetted through the Security Council and then the General Assembly, there was quite a debate about the requirement for a "defined territory" in statehood affects the (Article 1, Convention on Rights and Duties of States • Montevideo Convention • ). That "statehood" is a prerequisite for full "membership" in the UN.

Recognized international boundaries come into being in one of three ways: Two bordering countries can agree on them by treaty, a newly independent country can inherit the boundaries drawn by a previous colonial power, or, finally, internal boundaries may be held over after a country splits up to form new international borders.

Respecting these boundaries is a bedrock of international norms, though hardly an absolute. In extreme cases, such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and enslavement, even a recognized international border cannot provide legal immunity from foreign attack. That, at least, was the justification for the Kosovo War, which began 20 years ago this week.

Israel presents a special case when it comes to borders, as the new country did not unequivocally inherit the borders of the land’s previous British and Ottoman rulers, nor was there a chance for bilateral treaties to establish new ones since all of its neighbors rejected its very existence for the first four decades after independence.

The Golan Heights and the Depths of Hypocrisy

(COMMENT)

The Jewish State made application for the membership in September 1948, however the Arab League 'vs' Israel conflict created a problem in that the Armistice Boundaries (1949) did not quite conform with the borders invisioned by A/RES/181 (II). The Arab League attempted to use these artificially induced discrepencies (through acts of aggression) to interfere and delay the application and acceptance process for membership; having failed politically, diplomatically, and militarily in their attempt to deny the Jewish people of in their ability to exercise their right to sovereignty and territorial integrity.

◈ Statehood is unaffected by "recognition." It neither enhances or detract the issue.

◈ The current activity opposing Israel and its territorial integrity is totally inconistant with A/RES/2131 (XX) Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty.

✦ No State (Arab Palestinians) has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State (Israel). Consequently, armed intervention (There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. --- Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.) and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State (Israel) or against its political, economic (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement) and cultural elements, are condemned.

✦ No State (Arab Palestinians) may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State (Israel) in order to obtain from it the subordination of (Jewish People) the exercise of its sovereign rights. The Jewish People hold exclusive rule in the territory it maintains with regard to its own sovereignty.

✦ The use of force to deprive (Jewish) peoples of their national identity constitutes a violation of their inalienable rights and of the principle of non-intervention. All States (Arab Palestinians) shall respect the right of self-determination and independence of (the Jewish) peoples and nations, to be freely exercised without any foreign pressure, and with absolute respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
​

Finally, the explicit inference → "even a recognized international border cannot provide legal immunity from foreign attack." → is a direct threat levied against the Jewish State. It is at variance to the Interanational Law:

Article 2 UN CHATER
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

ct of aggression RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

There is something wrong here!

In the drafting documents for Israel's request for UN membership other countries were concerned about this lack of defined territory. They were also concerned about Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory and other issues like implementing resolution 194.

To my knowledge, none of these issues have been resolved.

(COMMENT)

I grant you that in 1949, when the application was being vetted through the Security Council and then the General Assembly, there was quite a debate about the requirement for a "defined territory" in statehood affects the (Article 1, Convention on Rights and Duties of States • Montevideo Convention • ). That "statehood" is a prerequisite for full "membership" in the UN.

Recognized international boundaries come into being in one of three ways: Two bordering countries can agree on them by treaty, a newly independent country can inherit the boundaries drawn by a previous colonial power, or, finally, internal boundaries may be held over after a country splits up to form new international borders.

Respecting these boundaries is a bedrock of international norms, though hardly an absolute. In extreme cases, such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and enslavement, even a recognized international border cannot provide legal immunity from foreign attack. That, at least, was the justification for the Kosovo War, which began 20 years ago this week.

Israel presents a special case when it comes to borders, as the new country did not unequivocally inherit the borders of the land’s previous British and Ottoman rulers, nor was there a chance for bilateral treaties to establish new ones since all of its neighbors rejected its very existence for the first four decades after independence.

The Golan Heights and the Depths of Hypocrisy

(COMMENT)

The Jewish State made application for the membership in September 1948, however the Arab League 'vs' Israel conflict created a problem in that the Armistice Boundaries (1949) did not quite conform with the borders invisioned by A/RES/181 (II). The Arab League attempted to use these artificially induced discrepencies (through acts of aggression) to interfere and delay the application and acceptance process for membership; having failed politically, diplomatically, and militarily in their attempt to deny the Jewish people of in their ability to exercise their right to sovereignty and territorial integrity.

◈ Statehood is unaffected by "recognition." It neither enhances or detract the issue.

◈ The current activity opposing Israel and its territorial integrity is totally inconistant with A/RES/2131 (XX) Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty.

✦ No State (Arab Palestinians) has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State (Israel). Consequently, armed intervention (There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. --- Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.) and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State (Israel) or against its political, economic (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement) and cultural elements, are condemned.

✦ No State (Arab Palestinians) may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State (Israel) in order to obtain from it the subordination of (Jewish People) the exercise of its sovereign rights. The Jewish People hold exclusive rule in the territory it maintains with regard to its own sovereignty.

✦ The use of force to deprive (Jewish) peoples of their national identity constitutes a violation of their inalienable rights and of the principle of non-intervention. All States (Arab Palestinians) shall respect the right of self-determination and independence of (the Jewish) peoples and nations, to be freely exercised without any foreign pressure, and with absolute respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
​

Finally, the explicit inference → "even a recognized international border cannot provide legal immunity from foreign attack." → is a direct threat levied against the Jewish State. It is at variance to the Interanational Law:

Article 2 UN CHATER
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​

Most Respectfully,
R

The Jewish State made application for the membership in September 1948, however the Arab League 'vs' Israel conflict created a problem in that the Armistice Boundaries (1949) did not quite conform with the borders invisioned by A/RES/181 (II).

The conflict was not the problem. The five Arab states lost no land in that war. Their borders were not in dispute. Here is the problem. Resolution 181 did not happen. Neither Israel, Palestine, not the UN, or anyone else, recognize those proposed borders as Israel's borders. The armistice lines were specifically not to by political or territorial boundaries.

There is nothing inside Palestine that can be called an Israeli border. So, where is Israel?

 

[Hollie]

ct of aggression RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

There is something wrong here!

In the drafting documents for Israel's request for UN membership other countries were concerned about this lack of defined territory. They were also concerned about Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory and other issues like implementing resolution 194.

To my knowledge, none of these issues have been resolved.

(COMMENT)

I grant you that in 1949, when the application was being vetted through the Security Council and then the General Assembly, there was quite a debate about the requirement for a "defined territory" in statehood affects the (Article 1, Convention on Rights and Duties of States • Montevideo Convention • ). That "statehood" is a prerequisite for full "membership" in the UN.

Recognized international boundaries come into being in one of three ways: Two bordering countries can agree on them by treaty, a newly independent country can inherit the boundaries drawn by a previous colonial power, or, finally, internal boundaries may be held over after a country splits up to form new international borders.

Respecting these boundaries is a bedrock of international norms, though hardly an absolute. In extreme cases, such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and enslavement, even a recognized international border cannot provide legal immunity from foreign attack. That, at least, was the justification for the Kosovo War, which began 20 years ago this week.

Israel presents a special case when it comes to borders, as the new country did not unequivocally inherit the borders of the land’s previous British and Ottoman rulers, nor was there a chance for bilateral treaties to establish new ones since all of its neighbors rejected its very existence for the first four decades after independence.

The Golan Heights and the Depths of Hypocrisy

(COMMENT)

The Jewish State made application for the membership in September 1948, however the Arab League 'vs' Israel conflict created a problem in that the Armistice Boundaries (1949) did not quite conform with the borders invisioned by A/RES/181 (II). The Arab League attempted to use these artificially induced discrepencies (through acts of aggression) to interfere and delay the application and acceptance process for membership; having failed politically, diplomatically, and militarily in their attempt to deny the Jewish people of in their ability to exercise their right to sovereignty and territorial integrity.

◈ Statehood is unaffected by "recognition." It neither enhances or detract the issue.

◈ The current activity opposing Israel and its territorial integrity is totally inconistant with A/RES/2131 (XX) Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty.

✦ No State (Arab Palestinians) has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State (Israel). Consequently, armed intervention (There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. --- Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.) and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State (Israel) or against its political, economic (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement) and cultural elements, are condemned.

✦ No State (Arab Palestinians) may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State (Israel) in order to obtain from it the subordination of (Jewish People) the exercise of its sovereign rights. The Jewish People hold exclusive rule in the territory it maintains with regard to its own sovereignty.

✦ The use of force to deprive (Jewish) peoples of their national identity constitutes a violation of their inalienable rights and of the principle of non-intervention. All States (Arab Palestinians) shall respect the right of self-determination and independence of (the Jewish) peoples and nations, to be freely exercised without any foreign pressure, and with absolute respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
​

Finally, the explicit inference → "even a recognized international border cannot provide legal immunity from foreign attack." → is a direct threat levied against the Jewish State. It is at variance to the Interanational Law:

Article 2 UN CHATER
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​

Most Respectfully,
R

The Jewish State made application for the membership in September 1948, however the Arab League 'vs' Israel conflict created a problem in that the Armistice Boundaries (1949) did not quite conform with the borders invisioned by A/RES/181 (II).

The conflict was not the problem. The five Arab states lost no land in that war. Their borders were not in dispute. Here is the problem. Resolution 181 did not happen. Neither Israel, Palestine, not the UN, or anyone else, recognize those proposed borders as Israel's borders. The armistice lines were specifically not to by political or territorial boundaries.

There is nothing inside Palestine that can be called an Israeli border. So, where is Israel?

Just your usual whining about the existence of Israel. Hamas, Fatah and others can show you precisely where the Israeli border is.

Stop whining.

 

[Shusha]

There is nothing inside Palestine that can be called an Israeli border. So, where is Israel?

What about the border between Israel and Jordan?

 

[Hollie]

There is nothing inside Palestine that can be called an Israeli border. So, where is Israel?

What about the border between Israel and Jordan?

He will deny it exists.

His whining about Res.184 and Israeli borders established by Treaty have been addressed for him countless times before. He denies his denial.

He cuts and pastes the same whiny complaints endlessly because it placates his need to deny the existence of Israel.

 

[Shusha]

There is nothing inside Palestine that can be called an Israeli border. So, where is Israel?

What about the border between Israel and Jordan?

He will deny it exists.

His whining about Res.184 and Israeli borders established by Treaty have been addressed for him countless times before. He denies his denial.

He cuts and pastes the same whiny complaints endlessly because it placates his need to deny the existence of Israel.

Oh, totally.

See, ALL the borders are legitimate except anything that says "Israel". Those are all automatically not legit. Because....Israel.

He claims that it is impossible for a State of Israel to come into being and to exist. Because ... Israel.

He is claiming that a State of Palestine, uniquely in the world, because ... Israel (read: Jews), has absolutely permanent, inviolable borders that can never, ever be changed.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah Yeah. Here we go, I think you'll like my alternative history better. It has much more credibility.

The conflict was not the problem. The five Arab states lost no land in that war. Their borders were not in dispute. Here is the problem. Resolution 181 did not happen. Neither Israel, Palestine, not the UN, or anyone else, recognize those proposed borders as Israel's borders. The armistice lines were specifically not to by political or territorial boundaries.

There is nothing inside Palestine that can be called an Israeli border. So, where is Israel?

(COMMENT)

I agree, the Green Line (which do not exist anymore) are, by definition, not borders. All borders are demarcation lines, but all demarcation lines are not borders.

Another point you get confused is that the Arab League could not lose any territory because contrary to international law, they crossed into the Trustee Territory and Israel. HOWEVER! In the case of the 1948 conflict, while they did not lose any territory, they attempted to snatch and grab territory. Jordan secured the Werst Bank and the Egyptians secured the Gaza Strip. The Arab Palestinians could not lose any territory because they had no stake in the game.

If you go to the Middle East, and you run into an official wearing this patch, I want you to free to express yourself and tell them all about your concept about these various notions here. I will be especially interested in how they take the notion that there are no borders. I wonder if we should consult the protesters in Gaza?

​

The denial of reality is not really a good mental sign on the side of sanity.

It is the appearance of being a psychologically uncomfortable truth. You are just one-step away from the "Flat Earth" believers.

I wonder:

✪ "In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been "implemented." (PAL/196 17 May 1948)​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah Yeah. Here we go, I think you'll like my alternative history better. It has much more credibility.

The conflict was not the problem. The five Arab states lost no land in that war. Their borders were not in dispute. Here is the problem. Resolution 181 did not happen. Neither Israel, Palestine, not the UN, or anyone else, recognize those proposed borders as Israel's borders. The armistice lines were specifically not to by political or territorial boundaries.

There is nothing inside Palestine that can be called an Israeli border. So, where is Israel?

(COMMENT)

I agree, the Green Line (which do not exist anymore) are, by definition, not borders. All borders are demarcation lines, but all demarcation lines are not borders.

Another point you get confused is that the Arab League could not lose any territory because contrary to international law, they crossed into the Trustee Territory and Israel. HOWEVER! In the case of the 1948 conflict, while they did not lose any territory, they attempted to snatch and grab territory. Jordan secured the Werst Bank and the Egyptians secured the Gaza Strip. The Arab Palestinians could not lose any territory because they had no stake in the game.

If you go to the Middle East, and you run into an official wearing this patch, I want you to free to express yourself and tell them all about your concept about these various notions here. I will be especially interested in how they take the notion that there are no borders. I wonder if we should consult the protesters in Gaza?

View attachment 253920
​

The denial of reality is not really a good mental sign on the side of sanity.

It is the appearance of being a psychologically uncomfortable truth. You are just one-step away from the "Flat Earth" believers.

I wonder:

✪ "In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been "implemented." (PAL/196 17 May 1948)​

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy deflection, Batman!!!

I agree, the Green Line (which do not exist anymore) are, by definition, not borders. All borders are demarcation lines, but all demarcation lines are not borders.

So then, why do all maps of Israel use these lines that are specifically not to be borders?

 

[Hollie]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah Yeah. Here we go, I think you'll like my alternative history better. It has much more credibility.

The conflict was not the problem. The five Arab states lost no land in that war. Their borders were not in dispute. Here is the problem. Resolution 181 did not happen. Neither Israel, Palestine, not the UN, or anyone else, recognize those proposed borders as Israel's borders. The armistice lines were specifically not to by political or territorial boundaries.

There is nothing inside Palestine that can be called an Israeli border. So, where is Israel?

(COMMENT)

I agree, the Green Line (which do not exist anymore) are, by definition, not borders. All borders are demarcation lines, but all demarcation lines are not borders.

Another point you get confused is that the Arab League could not lose any territory because contrary to international law, they crossed into the Trustee Territory and Israel. HOWEVER! In the case of the 1948 conflict, while they did not lose any territory, they attempted to snatch and grab territory. Jordan secured the Werst Bank and the Egyptians secured the Gaza Strip. The Arab Palestinians could not lose any territory because they had no stake in the game.

If you go to the Middle East, and you run into an official wearing this patch, I want you to free to express yourself and tell them all about your concept about these various notions here. I will be especially interested in how they take the notion that there are no borders. I wonder if we should consult the protesters in Gaza?

View attachment 253920
​

The denial of reality is not really a good mental sign on the side of sanity.

It is the appearance of being a psychologically uncomfortable truth. You are just one-step away from the "Flat Earth" believers.

I wonder:

✪ "In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been "implemented." (PAL/196 17 May 1948)​

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy deflection, Batman!!!

I agree, the Green Line (which do not exist anymore) are, by definition, not borders. All borders are demarcation lines, but all demarcation lines are not borders.

So then, why do all maps of Israel use these lines that are specifically not to be borders?

Why do you assume they are not borders?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah Yeah. Here we go, I think you'll like my alternative history better. It has much more credibility.

The conflict was not the problem. The five Arab states lost no land in that war. Their borders were not in dispute. Here is the problem. Resolution 181 did not happen. Neither Israel, Palestine, not the UN, or anyone else, recognize those proposed borders as Israel's borders. The armistice lines were specifically not to by political or territorial boundaries.

There is nothing inside Palestine that can be called an Israeli border. So, where is Israel?

(COMMENT)

I agree, the Green Line (which do not exist anymore) are, by definition, not borders. All borders are demarcation lines, but all demarcation lines are not borders.

Another point you get confused is that the Arab League could not lose any territory because contrary to international law, they crossed into the Trustee Territory and Israel. HOWEVER! In the case of the 1948 conflict, while they did not lose any territory, they attempted to snatch and grab territory. Jordan secured the Werst Bank and the Egyptians secured the Gaza Strip. The Arab Palestinians could not lose any territory because they had no stake in the game.

If you go to the Middle East, and you run into an official wearing this patch, I want you to free to express yourself and tell them all about your concept about these various notions here. I will be especially interested in how they take the notion that there are no borders. I wonder if we should consult the protesters in Gaza?

View attachment 253920
​

The denial of reality is not really a good mental sign on the side of sanity.

It is the appearance of being a psychologically uncomfortable truth. You are just one-step away from the "Flat Earth" believers.

I wonder:

✪ "In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been "implemented." (PAL/196 17 May 1948)​

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy deflection, Batman!!!

I agree, the Green Line (which do not exist anymore) are, by definition, not borders. All borders are demarcation lines, but all demarcation lines are not borders.

So then, why do all maps of Israel use these lines that are specifically not to be borders?

Why do you assume they are not borders?

Why do you assume they are?

Got a link?

 

[Hollie]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah Yeah. Here we go, I think you'll like my alternative history better. It has much more credibility.

The conflict was not the problem. The five Arab states lost no land in that war. Their borders were not in dispute. Here is the problem. Resolution 181 did not happen. Neither Israel, Palestine, not the UN, or anyone else, recognize those proposed borders as Israel's borders. The armistice lines were specifically not to by political or territorial boundaries.

There is nothing inside Palestine that can be called an Israeli border. So, where is Israel?

(COMMENT)

I agree, the Green Line (which do not exist anymore) are, by definition, not borders. All borders are demarcation lines, but all demarcation lines are not borders.

Another point you get confused is that the Arab League could not lose any territory because contrary to international law, they crossed into the Trustee Territory and Israel. HOWEVER! In the case of the 1948 conflict, while they did not lose any territory, they attempted to snatch and grab territory. Jordan secured the Werst Bank and the Egyptians secured the Gaza Strip. The Arab Palestinians could not lose any territory because they had no stake in the game.

If you go to the Middle East, and you run into an official wearing this patch, I want you to free to express yourself and tell them all about your concept about these various notions here. I will be especially interested in how they take the notion that there are no borders. I wonder if we should consult the protesters in Gaza?

View attachment 253920
​

The denial of reality is not really a good mental sign on the side of sanity.

It is the appearance of being a psychologically uncomfortable truth. You are just one-step away from the "Flat Earth" believers.

I wonder:

✪ "In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been "implemented." (PAL/196 17 May 1948)​

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy deflection, Batman!!!

I agree, the Green Line (which do not exist anymore) are, by definition, not borders. All borders are demarcation lines, but all demarcation lines are not borders.

So then, why do all maps of Israel use these lines that are specifically not to be borders?

Why do you assume they are not borders?

Why do you assume they are?

Got a link?

Why do you assume they are not?

Does Israel not have a border with Egypt and Jordan?

Got a link?