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,

I don't think there is any "deflection" here at all.

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?

(COMMENT)

For the greater part of understanding, the 1949 Armistice Lines represented the adjusted FEBA agreed upon by the warring parties. On one side of the line, Israel established a form of jurisdiction under international
law which became a territory of full and unchallengeable governmental power. We refer to this as "sovereign territory." It is not about the "Armistice Lines" but rather about the territory under full and unchallengeable governmental power. The Sovereign territory is characterized by the power of law-making unrestricted by other external powers (the idea expressed in the UN Charter that its members will not interfere with the domestic jurisdiction of any state). This is key. It is not about who draws a line on a map. It is about which country has the power to make and enforce domestic laws.

The policies that evolved over decades—a creeping process of de facto annexation—stopped short of a wholesale application of Israel’s sovereignty over the Occupied Territories; the legal and political distinctions between the West Bank and Israel were preserved.
SOURCE: New York Book Review • Israel and Annexation by Lawfare • 2018 •

---------------------------------------------------------​

This is what most people have difficulty with:
When we talk about "borders" or (as the treaties say "permanent international boundaries") what we are saying in a short form is a demarcation where (1) on one side is one law (Israeli Domestic Law), and (2) a different law on the other side (Occupation Law, Egyptian Law, Jordanian Law, Lebanese Law, as examples).

---------------------------------------------------------​

Now, this is legal tanglefoot → and a complaint often vocalized by the pro-Arab Palestinian Movement; the complaint there is "apartheid." What would the impact be if → Israeli Lawmakers gave in to the Arab Palestinian complaint and → extended Israel domestic the territories → everyone under one law (the same Israeli domestic law) with all the same Israeli protections for everyone? IF all Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were given all the same rights, privileges, and protections as ordinary Israeli Citizens → THEN how could you tell the difference between one side of the demarcation from the other side? The answer is, you can't. Both sides look the same. Both sides would essentially be de jure Israel (rightful entitlement). This is the Article 25 • CCPR Dilemma, one which presents an interesting problem.

This is generally more complex for most people because of the problems of a pre-determined loyalty to one side or the other.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

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

Well, this is an unfair question to pose to the pro-Arab Palestinian.

Does Israel not have a border with Egypt and Jordan?
Got a link?

(COMMENT)

Most of them do not know what a border is!

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,

I don't think there is any "deflection" here at all.

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?

(COMMENT)

For the greater part of understanding, the 1949 Armistice Lines represented the adjusted FEBA agreed upon by the warring parties. On one side of the line, Israel established a form of jurisdiction under international
law which became a territory of full and unchallengeable governmental power. We refer to this as "sovereign territory." It is not about the "Armistice Lines" but rather about the territory under full and unchallengeable governmental power. The Sovereign territory is characterized by the power of law-making unrestricted by other external powers (the idea expressed in the UN Charter that its members will not interfere with the domestic jurisdiction of any state). This is key. It is not about who draws a line on a map. It is about which country has the power to make and enforce domestic laws.

The policies that evolved over decades—a creeping process of de facto annexation—stopped short of a wholesale application of Israel’s sovereignty over the Occupied Territories; the legal and political distinctions between the West Bank and Israel were preserved.
SOURCE: New York Book Review • Israel and Annexation by Lawfare • 2018 •

---------------------------------------------------------​

This is what most people have difficulty with:
When we talk about "borders" or (as the treaties say "permanent international boundaries") what we are saying in a short form is a demarcation where (1) on one side is one law (Israeli Domestic Law), and (2) a different law on the other side (Occupation Law, Egyptian Law, Jordanian Law, Lebanese Law, as examples).

---------------------------------------------------------​

Now, this is legal tanglefoot → and a complaint often vocalized by the pro-Arab Palestinian Movement; the complaint there is "apartheid." What would the impact be if → Israeli Lawmakers gave in to the Arab Palestinian complaint and → extended Israel domestic the territories → everyone under one law (the same Israeli domestic law) with all the same Israeli protections for everyone? IF all Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were given all the same rights, privileges, and protections as ordinary Israeli Citizens → THEN how could you tell the difference between one side of the demarcation from the other side? The answer is, you can't. Both sides look the same. Both sides would essentially be de jure Israel (rightful entitlement). This is the Article 25 • CCPR Dilemma, one which presents an interesting problem.

This is generally more complex for most people because of the problems of a pre-determined loyalty to one side or the other.

Most Respectfully,
R

Where in all of this smoke is the answer to my simple question?

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

I don't think there is any "deflection" here at all.

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?

(COMMENT)

For the greater part of understanding, the 1949 Armistice Lines represented the adjusted FEBA agreed upon by the warring parties. On one side of the line, Israel established a form of jurisdiction under international
law which became a territory of full and unchallengeable governmental power. We refer to this as "sovereign territory." It is not about the "Armistice Lines" but rather about the territory under full and unchallengeable governmental power. The Sovereign territory is characterized by the power of law-making unrestricted by other external powers (the idea expressed in the UN Charter that its members will not interfere with the domestic jurisdiction of any state). This is key. It is not about who draws a line on a map. It is about which country has the power to make and enforce domestic laws.

The policies that evolved over decades—a creeping process of de facto annexation—stopped short of a wholesale application of Israel’s sovereignty over the Occupied Territories; the legal and political distinctions between the West Bank and Israel were preserved.
SOURCE: New York Book Review • Israel and Annexation by Lawfare • 2018 •

---------------------------------------------------------​

This is what most people have difficulty with:
When we talk about "borders" or (as the treaties say "permanent international boundaries") what we are saying in a short form is a demarcation where (1) on one side is one law (Israeli Domestic Law), and (2) a different law on the other side (Occupation Law, Egyptian Law, Jordanian Law, Lebanese Law, as examples).

---------------------------------------------------------​

Now, this is legal tanglefoot → and a complaint often vocalized by the pro-Arab Palestinian Movement; the complaint there is "apartheid." What would the impact be if → Israeli Lawmakers gave in to the Arab Palestinian complaint and → extended Israel domestic the territories → everyone under one law (the same Israeli domestic law) with all the same Israeli protections for everyone? IF all Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were given all the same rights, privileges, and protections as ordinary Israeli Citizens → THEN how could you tell the difference between one side of the demarcation from the other side? The answer is, you can't. Both sides look the same. Both sides would essentially be de jure Israel (rightful entitlement). This is the Article 25 • CCPR Dilemma, one which presents an interesting problem.

This is generally more complex for most people because of the problems of a pre-determined loyalty to one side or the other.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your daily clunker.

This is key. It is not about who draws a line on a map. It is about which country has the power to make and enforce domestic laws.

Again you are confusing military occupation with sovereignty.

ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​

The question is not about who has the guns but who has the territory.

 

[rylah]

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

I don't think there is any "deflection" here at all.

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?

(COMMENT)

For the greater part of understanding, the 1949 Armistice Lines represented the adjusted FEBA agreed upon by the warring parties. On one side of the line, Israel established a form of jurisdiction under international
law which became a territory of full and unchallengeable governmental power. We refer to this as "sovereign territory." It is not about the "Armistice Lines" but rather about the territory under full and unchallengeable governmental power. The Sovereign territory is characterized by the power of law-making unrestricted by other external powers (the idea expressed in the UN Charter that its members will not interfere with the domestic jurisdiction of any state). This is key. It is not about who draws a line on a map. It is about which country has the power to make and enforce domestic laws.

The policies that evolved over decades—a creeping process of de facto annexation—stopped short of a wholesale application of Israel’s sovereignty over the Occupied Territories; the legal and political distinctions between the West Bank and Israel were preserved.
SOURCE: New York Book Review • Israel and Annexation by Lawfare • 2018 •

---------------------------------------------------------​

This is what most people have difficulty with:
When we talk about "borders" or (as the treaties say "permanent international boundaries") what we are saying in a short form is a demarcation where (1) on one side is one law (Israeli Domestic Law), and (2) a different law on the other side (Occupation Law, Egyptian Law, Jordanian Law, Lebanese Law, as examples).

---------------------------------------------------------​

Now, this is legal tanglefoot → and a complaint often vocalized by the pro-Arab Palestinian Movement; the complaint there is "apartheid." What would the impact be if → Israeli Lawmakers gave in to the Arab Palestinian complaint and → extended Israel domestic the territories → everyone under one law (the same Israeli domestic law) with all the same Israeli protections for everyone? IF all Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were given all the same rights, privileges, and protections as ordinary Israeli Citizens → THEN how could you tell the difference between one side of the demarcation from the other side? The answer is, you can't. Both sides look the same. Both sides would essentially be de jure Israel (rightful entitlement). This is the Article 25 • CCPR Dilemma, one which presents an interesting problem.

This is generally more complex for most people because of the problems of a pre-determined loyalty to one side or the other.

Most Respectfully,
R

Where in all of this smoke is the answer to my simple question?

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

\
PASSIA - MAPS - Palestine - PALESTINE UNDER THE BRITISH MANDATE

Because most of territory originally assigned to the Jewish nation under international law,
is effectively under foreign occupation.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Oh for heaven's sake. Open your mind. The question is not focus on territory. Please read it carefully. Don't get fixated on the associate activities.

BLUF: It is a matter of establishing Self-Governing Institution supported by Law Making Capacities --- neither of which the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (to include Jerusalem) have.

BTW: You will notice that what influence and power the Arab Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip do have is attained through (largely) the civilians either used in the direct action or as shields and hostages for direct action.

The Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (to include Jerusalem) are largely involved criminal acts directed against Israel with the intention of - or calculated to - cause death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population (both sides), or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities, the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population and to compel a government or an international organization to do (or to abstain from doing) some act that furthers the quasi-political objective.

The Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (to include Jerusalem) do not engage seeking to establish any self-governing institutions; but rather to amase wealth and power.

]Again you are confusing military occupation with sovereignty.

ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​

The question is not about who has the guns but who has the territory.

(COMMENT)

I did not mention the armed force at all. That is merely your interpretation.

It is about who makes the laws.

• It is NOT about military force (which may or may not be an element).
• It is NOT about the inhabitants (although often times it can be a part of it).

In this regard, we use the terminology: "Self-governing Institutions"

You may recall, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the establishment of self-Governing Institutions.

Later 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 recognized 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 recognized the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.

• 
  “The British Government desired to establish self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”

In practice, it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.
SOURCE: A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947 •

As you can see, the British were making the law indefinitely simply because the Arab Leadership did not want to participate. You cannot have self-governing institutions if you don't get involved. That is what "SELF-governing " means. In fact, it cannot be a foreign government in the sense that the High Commissioner just replaces the Ottoman Sultan. It did not take over from an Arab Palestinian Ruler.

This nonsense continued into the post-WWII era:

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”

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.
SOURCE: A/AC.21/7 29 January 1948 •

And then we can say again, the non-participatory attitude presented by the Arab Palestinians persisted further into the late 1960s, the 1970s and through to the mid-1990s and the Oslo Accords:

This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.
SOURCE: The Khartoum Resolutions; September 1, 1967 •

Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase.
SOURCE: Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations - July 1, 1968 •

Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.
There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors
SOURCE: Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988 •

Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights,
SOURCE: Khaled Meshal, Hamas' "political" leader 2012 •

There is no sign of “moderation” here, despite Hamas’s description of Islam as a religion of “the middle way (wasatiyyah) and of moderation”. The document aggressively repeats the familiar themes of Hamas ideology – Palestine in its entirety is indivisible, and the rights of the Palestinian people are eternally inalienable. No facts created on the ground by the “Zionist Project” are to be allowed to survive.
SOURCE: by Col. (res.) Dr. Eran Lerman BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 462, May9, 2017 •

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ph3iron]

Ahh yes Israel EXISTS as a Sovereign Nation and no amount of complaining from the Arabs or the Jew haters in the West can change the fact that the UN RECOGNIZED Israel as did most civilized Nation States. After they were created every Arab Nation attacked them and tried in vain to kill all the Jews. Yet Israel prevailed then and now.

Thanks to the uk banker Rothschild
Palestine were one of the few on our side in WWII.
I hear Italy is claiming the uk?
They were there 2000 years ago too.
"If you are not smart enough to get a real job, join the military. Great indoctrination and socialist benefits"
Enjoying the benefits?

 

[ph3iron]

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

Oh for heaven's sake. Open your mind. The question is not focus on territory. Please read it carefully. Don't get fixated on the associate activities.

BLUF: It is a matter of establishing Self-Governing Institution supported by Law Making Capacities --- neither of which the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (to include Jerusalem) have.

BTW: You will notice that what influence and power the Arab Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip do have is attained through (largely) the civilians either used in the direct action or as shields and hostages for direct action.

The Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (to include Jerusalem) are largely involved criminal acts directed against Israel with the intention of - or calculated to - cause death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population (both sides), or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities, the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population and to compel a government or an international organization to do (or to abstain from doing) some act that furthers the quasi-political objective.

The Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (to include Jerusalem) do not engage seeking to establish any self-governing institutions; but rather to amase wealth and power.

]Again you are confusing military occupation with sovereignty.

ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​

The question is not about who has the guns but who has the territory.

(COMMENT)

I did not mention the armed force at all. That is merely your interpretation.

It is about who makes the laws.

• It is NOT about military force (which may or may not be an element).
• It is NOT about the inhabitants (although often times it can be a part of it).

In this regard, we use the terminology: "Self-governing Institutions"

You may recall, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the establishment of self-Governing Institutions.

Later 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 recognized 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 recognized the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.

• 
  “The British Government desired to establish self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”

In practice, it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.
SOURCE: A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947 •

As you can see, the British were making the law indefinitely simply because the Arab Leadership did not want to participate. You cannot have self-governing institutions if you don't get involved. That is what "SELF-governing " means. In fact, it cannot be a foreign government in the sense that the High Commissioner just replaces the Ottoman Sultan. It did not take over from an Arab Palestinian Ruler.

This nonsense continued into the post-WWII era:

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”

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.
SOURCE: A/AC.21/7 29 January 1948 •

And then we can say again, the non-participatory attitude presented by the Arab Palestinians persisted further into the late 1960s, the 1970s and through to the mid-1990s and the Oslo Accords:

This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.
SOURCE: The Khartoum Resolutions; September 1, 1967 •

Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase.
SOURCE: Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations - July 1, 1968 •

Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.
There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors
SOURCE: Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988 •

Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights,
SOURCE: Khaled Meshal, Hamas' "political" leader 2012 •

There is no sign of “moderation” here, despite Hamas’s description of Islam as a religion of “the middle way (wasatiyyah) and of moderation”. The document aggressively repeats the familiar themes of Hamas ideology – Palestine in its entirety is indivisible, and the rights of the Palestinian people are eternally inalienable. No facts created on the ground by the “Zionist Project” are to be allowed to survive.
SOURCE: by Col. (res.) Dr. Eran Lerman BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 462, May9, 2017 •

Most Respectfully,
R

Weeelll.
The first terrorist was the first PM of Israel
Who was the French philosopher?
At the end of a letter
"Apologies for the length. I didn't have time to make it shorter"
Good advice for us cut ant paste all

 

[P F Tinmore]

I did not mention the armed force at all. That is merely your interpretation.

Yes you did.

This is key. It is not about who draws a line on a map. It is about which country has the power to make and enforce domestic laws.​

It's all about the guns, baby.

 

[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

Oh for heaven's sake. Open your mind. The question is not focus on territory. Please read it carefully. Don't get fixated on the associate activities.

BLUF: It is a matter of establishing Self-Governing Institution supported by Law Making Capacities --- neither of which the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (to include Jerusalem) have.

BTW: You will notice that what influence and power the Arab Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip do have is attained through (largely) the civilians either used in the direct action or as shields and hostages for direct action.

The Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (to include Jerusalem) are largely involved criminal acts directed against Israel with the intention of - or calculated to - cause death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population (both sides), or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities, the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population and to compel a government or an international organization to do (or to abstain from doing) some act that furthers the quasi-political objective.

The Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (to include Jerusalem) do not engage seeking to establish any self-governing institutions; but rather to amase wealth and power.

]Again you are confusing military occupation with sovereignty.

ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​

The question is not about who has the guns but who has the territory.

(COMMENT)

I did not mention the armed force at all. That is merely your interpretation.

It is about who makes the laws.

• It is NOT about military force (which may or may not be an element).
• It is NOT about the inhabitants (although often times it can be a part of it).

In this regard, we use the terminology: "Self-governing Institutions"

You may recall, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the establishment of self-Governing Institutions.

Later 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 recognized 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 recognized the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.

• 
  “The British Government desired to establish self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”

In practice, it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.
SOURCE: A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947 •

As you can see, the British were making the law indefinitely simply because the Arab Leadership did not want to participate. You cannot have self-governing institutions if you don't get involved. That is what "SELF-governing " means. In fact, it cannot be a foreign government in the sense that the High Commissioner just replaces the Ottoman Sultan. It did not take over from an Arab Palestinian Ruler.

This nonsense continued into the post-WWII era:

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”

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.
SOURCE: A/AC.21/7 29 January 1948 •

And then we can say again, the non-participatory attitude presented by the Arab Palestinians persisted further into the late 1960s, the 1970s and through to the mid-1990s and the Oslo Accords:

This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.
SOURCE: The Khartoum Resolutions; September 1, 1967 •

Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase.
SOURCE: Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations - July 1, 1968 •

Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.
There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors
SOURCE: Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988 •

Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights,
SOURCE: Khaled Meshal, Hamas' "political" leader 2012 •

There is no sign of “moderation” here, despite Hamas’s description of Islam as a religion of “the middle way (wasatiyyah) and of moderation”. The document aggressively repeats the familiar themes of Hamas ideology – Palestine in its entirety is indivisible, and the rights of the Palestinian people are eternally inalienable. No facts created on the ground by the “Zionist Project” are to be allowed to survive.
SOURCE: by Col. (res.) Dr. Eran Lerman BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 462, May9, 2017 •

Most Respectfully,
R

Your clunker of the day.

You may recall, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the establishment of self-Governing Institutions.

Every attempt at self governing by the Palestinians was smashed by the British military.

That is some heavy duty "administrative assistance and advise."

 

[Shusha]

Every attempt at self governing by the Palestinians was smashed by the British military.

Link?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ ph3iron, et al

Yeah, I get that a lot. But I found that if I don't cite a reference, I'm almost immediately asked for a "link" or otherwise challenged.

Weeelll.
The first terrorist was the first PM of Israel
Who was the French philosopher?
At the end of a letter
"Apologies for the length. I didn't have time to make it shorter"
Good advice for us cut ant paste all

(COMMENT)

Let's see how this works.

David Ben-Gurion was the first PM. He was born in Poland. Immigrated to Palestine in 1906; but was exiled by the Ottoman authorities in WWI. David Ben-Gurion enlisted in the British Army (Jewish volunteers, with a Service Battalion of the Royal Fusiliers).

I think you will find that David Ben-Gurion was still with the Fusiliers during the 1920 Riots, although he may have been recruited shortly afterward. And afterward, came to be a distinguished member of the Histadrut until 1935. In 1935 he became one of the Major Leaders of the Jewish Agency. I think you will find that David Ben-Gurion considered the Irgun "the enemy of the Jewish people" after the bombing of the King David Hotel (British Army HQ).

I think you will find that well before David Ben-Gurion fell in with the Jewish Agency, Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, was the first pronounced leader of a terrorist group; the Palestinian Black Hand.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

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

"Knowledge" is "Power." These are the words engraved in stone on the archway to the high school I attended.

I did not mention the armed force at all. That is merely your interpretation.

Yes you did.

This is key. It is not about who draws a line on a map. It is about which country has the power to make and enforce domestic laws.​

It's all about the guns, baby.

(COMMENT)

Although an armed force does represent a form of power → it is by no means the only form of power.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ph3iron]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ ph3iron, et al

Yeah, I get that a lot. But I found that if I don't cite a reference, I'm almost immediately asked for a "link" or otherwise challenged.

Weeelll.
The first terrorist was the first PM of Israel
Who was the French philosopher?
At the end of a letter
"Apologies for the length. I didn't have time to make it shorter"
Good advice for us cut ant paste all

(COMMENT)

Let's see how this works.

David Ben-Gurion was the first PM. He was born in Poland. Immigrated to Palestine in 1906; but was exiled by the Ottoman authorities in WWI. David Ben-Gurion enlisted in the British Army (Jewish volunteers, with a Service Battalion of the Royal Fusiliers).

I think you will find that David Ben-Gurion was still with the Fusiliers during the 1920 Riots, although he may have been recruited shortly afterward. And afterward, came to be a distinguished member of the Histadrut until 1935. In 1935 he became one of the Major Leaders of the Jewish Agency. I think you will find that David Ben-Gurion considered the Irgun "the enemy of the Jewish people" after the bombing of the King David Hotel (British Army HQ).

I think you will find that well before David Ben-Gurion fell in with the Jewish Agency, Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, was the first pronounced leader of a terrorist group; the Palestinian Black Hand.

Most Respectfully,
R

Appreciate it and I stand corrected for my simple reply (I think)
Must have been my Brit education
Brit Soldiers hanging from trees etc
Complicated but it seems like bens hands were not squeaky clean
Are Begin and Shamir also considered terrorists?

 

[rylah]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ ph3iron, et al

Yeah, I get that a lot. But I found that if I don't cite a reference, I'm almost immediately asked for a "link" or otherwise challenged.

Weeelll.
The first terrorist was the first PM of Israel
Who was the French philosopher?
At the end of a letter
"Apologies for the length. I didn't have time to make it shorter"
Good advice for us cut ant paste all

(COMMENT)

Let's see how this works.

David Ben-Gurion was the first PM. He was born in Poland. Immigrated to Palestine in 1906; but was exiled by the Ottoman authorities in WWI. David Ben-Gurion enlisted in the British Army (Jewish volunteers, with a Service Battalion of the Royal Fusiliers).

I think you will find that David Ben-Gurion was still with the Fusiliers during the 1920 Riots, although he may have been recruited shortly afterward. And afterward, came to be a distinguished member of the Histadrut until 1935. In 1935 he became one of the Major Leaders of the Jewish Agency. I think you will find that David Ben-Gurion considered the Irgun "the enemy of the Jewish people" after the bombing of the King David Hotel (British Army HQ).

I think you will find that well before David Ben-Gurion fell in with the Jewish Agency, Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, was the first pronounced leader of a terrorist group; the Palestinian Black Hand.

Most Respectfully,
R

Appreciate it and I stand corrected for my simple reply (I think)
Must have been my Brit education
Brit Soldiers hanging from trees etc
Complicated but it seems like bens hands were not squeaky clean
Are Begin and Shamir also considered terrorists?

You forget to mention that after Begin hanged those soldiers,
not a single Jew was executed again by the Brits.

 

[rylah]

That's before we even discuss how Brits illegally slashed 77% of the land assigned to the Jewish nation to Arabs, and prevented most of the Jews fleeing WWII from reaching the country, either turning them away or literally putting them in concentration camps in Cyprus.

You know how Brits used to run trains?
They had a spacial carriage at the front of the train where they'd put sons and cousins of Arab sheikhs, of several warring villages, and thus if there were road bombs or a shootout, they were the first in line.

Brits betrayed each and every side, and drew the most ridiculous borders in history, squeezing groups of warring tribes together into impossible borders, and at the same time drew the most ridiculous borders fro big countries, dividing biggest clans into chunks of several new nonexistent national identities that had little to do with actual social structure of the region.

Not that the region was in any way 'quiet' before, and not that Brits don't have also their part, a merit, in spite of all the mess the caused, in actually helping create the most free and happy country in the entire middle east. Not all black and white.

I think Jews and Arabs understood each other well, and knew what to expect from each other,
while neither really understood the Brits, or could predict whom they would abandon or attack in the next battle.

 

[Sixties Fan]

For centuries, Jews have lived alongside their neighbors in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Tunisia, Algeria and other countries, but were seldom treated as equals. Jews were often considered “dhimmis,” which means “protected person” and refers to non-Muslims living in Islamic territory who receive safety in return for paying capital tax. They were subjected to dhimmi laws, which prevented them from serving in the military, bearing arms, riding horses or camels, having houses taller than their Muslim neighbors, or synagogues taller than their neighboring mosques. A dhimmi was also not allowed to give evidence against a Muslim in an Islamic court and a dhimmi’s oath was found unacceptable. While some people even today say that because “dhimmi” is a word that means “protected,” that somehow these laws were good for the Jews and later on, the Christians. In actuality, these Jim Crow-like practices oppressed the Mizrahi Jewish communities. In fact, historically, the times when the Jews seemed the most “safe” was when they were the most subordinate to these laws. Some of the dhimmi laws inspired the genocide of European Jews in the 1940s. In the ninth century, for example, Baghdad’s Caliph al-Mutawakkil designated a yellow badge for Jews, setting a precedent that would be followed centuries later in Nazi Germany.

Not only was Adolf Hitler inspired by dhimmi laws, he even met with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini in 1941. This, of course, was before Israel had been reborn, so Jerusalem belonged to British Mandate Palestine at the time. Among the many things they discussed: how to destroy the Jews of both Europe and the Arab lands. They also discussed their disdain for a Jewish homeland.

How did a German supremacist Nazi dictator get to teaming up with Arab nationalist leader? The same way Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke defends Louis “I’m anti-termite” Farrakhan and his blatant anti-Semitic teachings. A common ideology brings together the strangest of bedfellows. Just as early as 2017, we learned of the neo-Nazis of Germany forming an allyship with Syria’s Assad regime, and Hezbollah in Lebanon, hatred of the West and Israel being their common guiding principle.

One reason why the rebirth of the Jewish homeland is so important is that this evil ideology, though ancient, is very much alive today. 850,000 Mizrahi Jews were expelled from countries like Iraq, Egypt and Syria upon the rebirth of the State of Israel, and 650,000 of them would still be refugees today had it not been for the Jewish state — the very state that Hitler and al-Husseini were very much against, a state that instantly became the largest refugee camp in the Middle East because of the expulsion of Mizrahi Jews from Arab lands. Over half of Israel’s population is Jews of color whose families came as refugees from Middle Eastern and North African countries. And much like their European brethren, they are returning to the land after centuries of being exiled.

Ironically, the same Arab lands that expelled the Jews immediately descended upon Israel to obliterate the nascent state. Arab leaders have always known the multi-ethnic makeup of Israel. They did not attack Israel because they believed the Jews to be colonial expansionists; they attacked because they could not bear the sight of the very people they treated as subhuman now having the dignity of having their own land again. This was also true for Hitler and the Jews living in Germany. That spirit of blind hatred has not gone away.


(full article online)

Hitler knew of the Mizrahi Jews. Why don’t we?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Transjordan comprised 78 per cent of the territory placed under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine after being wrested from 400 years of Ottoman Empire sovereignty during World War One.

Mandatory Palestine was designated in April 1920 by the Principal Allied Powers at the San Remo Conference and in August 1920 by article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres as the location for reconstitution of the ancient and biblical homeland of the Jewish people.

Transjordan’s first Hashemite ruler – Abdullah I – arrived there in November 1920.

Abdullah was en route by train from Hijaz to Syria with armed forces to assist his brother Feisal in his struggle with France to retain power in Syria. Winston Churchill – at France’s request – offered Abdullah an Emirate in Transjordan – which Abdullah gratefully accepted on 11 April 1921.

Feisal was removed from Syria by the French and installed as ruler of Iraq under the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty dated 10 October 1922. France became the Mandatory for the territory comprised in the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon.

These British-Franco machinations cost the Jewish people dearly, when the Mandate for Palestine – adopted unanimously by all 51 members of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 – denied the Jewish people the right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in any part of Transjordan (Eastern Palestine) and restricted that right to the remaining 22 percent (Western Palestine).

The Jews reluctantly accepted this decision. The Arabs didn’t.

In 1946 Transjordan was granted independence by Great Britain.

In 1948 – immediately after the Mandate ended and Jews declared the State of Israel – Transjordan invaded Western Palestine, conquering Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem (comprising 4 per cent of Mandatory Palestine) – and unified these areas with Transjordan to form a new territorial entity – Jordan – encompassing 82 per cent of Mandatory Palestine completely devoid of Jews.

The founding Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) Charter in 1964 specifically excluded any PLO claim to sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.

In the 1967 Six Day War Israel captured Judea and Samaria from Jordan. The PLO – claiming Jordan and Israel to be one indivisible territorial unit – removed its non-claim to sovereignty from the revised 1968 Charter.

In September 1970 the PLO unsuccessfully tried to overthrow Jordan’s Hashemite ruler King Hussein. Israel helped save Hussein.

Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty 1994 (Peace Treaty) – which has withstood many events that could have seen its termination.

(full article online)

Daphne Anson: David Singer: Hashemite Rule in Jordan on Collision Course with Trump and Israel

 

[Sixties Fan]

My Right Word: TransJordan, 1933

 

[P F Tinmore]

RoccoR, you are still ducking my question.

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

I don't think there is any "deflection" here at all.

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?

(COMMENT)

For the greater part of understanding, the 1949 Armistice Lines represented the adjusted FEBA agreed upon by the warring parties. On one side of the line, Israel established a form of jurisdiction under international
law which became a territory of full and unchallengeable governmental power. We refer to this as "sovereign territory." It is not about the "Armistice Lines" but rather about the territory under full and unchallengeable governmental power. The Sovereign territory is characterized by the power of law-making unrestricted by other external powers (the idea expressed in the UN Charter that its members will not interfere with the domestic jurisdiction of any state). This is key. It is not about who draws a line on a map. It is about which country has the power to make and enforce domestic laws.

The policies that evolved over decades—a creeping process of de facto annexation—stopped short of a wholesale application of Israel’s sovereignty over the Occupied Territories; the legal and political distinctions between the West Bank and Israel were preserved.
SOURCE: New York Book Review • Israel and Annexation by Lawfare • 2018 •

---------------------------------------------------------​

This is what most people have difficulty with:
When we talk about "borders" or (as the treaties say "permanent international boundaries") what we are saying in a short form is a demarcation where (1) on one side is one law (Israeli Domestic Law), and (2) a different law on the other side (Occupation Law, Egyptian Law, Jordanian Law, Lebanese Law, as examples).

---------------------------------------------------------​

Now, this is legal tanglefoot → and a complaint often vocalized by the pro-Arab Palestinian Movement; the complaint there is "apartheid." What would the impact be if → Israeli Lawmakers gave in to the Arab Palestinian complaint and → extended Israel domestic the territories → everyone under one law (the same Israeli domestic law) with all the same Israeli protections for everyone? IF all Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were given all the same rights, privileges, and protections as ordinary Israeli Citizens → THEN how could you tell the difference between one side of the demarcation from the other side? The answer is, you can't. Both sides look the same. Both sides would essentially be de jure Israel (rightful entitlement). This is the Article 25 • CCPR Dilemma, one which presents an interesting problem.

This is generally more complex for most people because of the problems of a pre-determined loyalty to one side or the other.

Most Respectfully,
R

Where in all of this smoke is the answer to my simple question?

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