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

[rylah]

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?

For the 100th time -

Because Israel has not yet liberated all of its land.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Well, you might be confusing two issues.

I've provided this to you on several different occasions, and I don't think you grasped the importance.

It is also important to note that there is a set of boundaries the Arab Palestinians want (wishful thinking), and then there is that → which is recognized as the reality (where Israel enforces its sovereignty. And that reality is reinforced each time people from all over the world pass through Israeli Immigration, Customs and Border Security.

RoccoR, you are still ducking my question.

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

(COMMENT)

• To the West of the Jordan River, the border most often depicted is not the 1949 Armistice Line, but rather the current demarcations by the Israelis.

• There are many that simply have never read the Armistice Agreements, so they do not understand the termination. Nor do they understand the difference between a Demarcation Line and a international boundary.

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.
SOURCE: A/RES/25/2625 •

• There are many that use the old Green Line simply because that is the Line used by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) - Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD). The PLO is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people - LAS Rabat Summit - Resolution (28 October 1974). This continues to be recognized even after the change in Status of Palestine in the United Nations of 4 December 2012.

The 1967 border, which is defined as the 1949 Armistice Line along with all legal modification thereto up to June 4th 1967, is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine. A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967. The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the occupied State of Palestine, including East Jerusalem.
SOURCE: PLO-NAD • Borders •

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,

Well, you might be confusing two issues.

I've provided this to you on several different occasions, and I don't think you grasped the importance.

It is also important to note that there is a set of boundaries the Arab Palestinians want (wishful thinking), and then there is that → which is recognized as the reality (where Israel enforces its sovereignty. And that reality is reinforced each time people from all over the world pass through Israeli Immigration, Customs and Border Security.

RoccoR, you are still ducking my question.

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

(COMMENT)

• To the West of the Jordan River, the border most often depicted is not the 1949 Armistice Line, but rather the current demarcations by the Israelis.

• There are many that simply have never read the Armistice Agreements, so they do not understand the termination. Nor do they understand the difference between a Demarcation Line and a international boundary.

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.
SOURCE: A/RES/25/2625 •

• There are many that use the old Green Line simply because that is the Line used by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) - Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD). The PLO is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people - LAS Rabat Summit - Resolution (28 October 1974). This continues to be recognized even after the change in Status of Palestine in the United Nations of 4 December 2012.

The 1967 border, which is defined as the 1949 Armistice Line along with all legal modification thereto up to June 4th 1967, is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine. A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967. The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the occupied State of Palestine, including East Jerusalem.
SOURCE: PLO-NAD • Borders •

Most Respectfully,
R

• To the West of the Jordan River, the border most often depicted is not the 1949 Armistice Line, but rather the current demarcations by the Israelis.

It is still not an international border. It is just a unilaterally imposed line.

• There are many that simply have never read the Armistice Agreements, so they do not understand the termination. Nor do they understand the difference between a Demarcation Line and a international boundary.

An armistice line is not a political or territorial boundary. It is just a line that the Israeli and Jordanian forces are not to cross. Since it is not a border, and it runs through Palestine, it is Palestine on both sides. It is not a border between two countries.

 

[RoccoR]

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

OH, I just don't know what to say...

• To the West of the Jordan River, the border most often depicted is not the 1949 Armistice Line, but rather the current demarcations by the Israelis.

It is still not an international border. It is just a unilaterally imposed line.

(COMMENT)

I have given you the reference for the International Understanding of how to treat an Armistice Line. While it appears you understand something of what it attempts to convey, you seem to not fully understand its meaning.

2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article.

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.

2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized the international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

• There are many that simply have never read the Armistice Agreements, so they do not understand the termination. Nor do they understand the difference between a Demarcation Line and an international boundary.

An armistice line is not a political or territorial boundary. It is just a line that the Israeli and Jordanian forces are not to cross. Since it is not a border, and it runs through Palestine, it is Palestine on both sides. It is not a border between two countries.

(COMMENT)

Yes, well → → → There is not much I can say about what you believe to be true. And, as is cited in the definition, I did not refer to the Armistice Line as a Boundary or Border. As is previously cited, supra, both the Armistice and the International Boundaries are the references you should be using.

As far as the International Boundaries concerned, the treaty defines them (Volume 2042). I fully understand your theory → Palestine on both sides. That has not been address in that fashion. The West Bank, given in the context of those lands that hold the status of → "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967" → have been recognized as Areas "A" - "B" and "C" in the Oslo Accords. And that is what carries the weight of the territorial limits as an agreement: “treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation; Vienna Convention Law Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980)...

In terms of the reality of the day, there is no demarcation line in which the State of Palestine exists on both sides. Not today, not in the mid-1990s, and not immediately after the 1967 Six-Day War → except as was delineated by the Oslo Accords [(Oslo I 1993) Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements] and (Oslo II 1995) Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip] and not altering the Jericho Agreement (1994).

Your theory is just that, some half baked theory that cannot stand the test of reality.




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,

OH, I just don't know what to say...

• To the West of the Jordan River, the border most often depicted is not the 1949 Armistice Line, but rather the current demarcations by the Israelis.

It is still not an international border. It is just a unilaterally imposed line.

(COMMENT)

I have given you the reference for the International Understanding of how to treat an Armistice Line. While it appears you understand something of what it attempts to convey, you seem to not fully understand its meaning.

2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article.

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.

2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized the international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

• There are many that simply have never read the Armistice Agreements, so they do not understand the termination. Nor do they understand the difference between a Demarcation Line and an international boundary.

An armistice line is not a political or territorial boundary. It is just a line that the Israeli and Jordanian forces are not to cross. Since it is not a border, and it runs through Palestine, it is Palestine on both sides. It is not a border between two countries.

(COMMENT)

Yes, well → → → There is not much I can say about what you believe to be true. And, as is cited in the definition, I did not refer to the Armistice Line as a Boundary or Border. As is previously cited, supra, both the Armistice and the International Boundaries are the references you should be using.

As far as the International Boundaries concerned, the treaty defines them (Volume 2042). I fully understand your theory → Palestine on both sides. That has not been address in that fashion. The West Bank, given in the context of those lands that hold the status of → "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967" → have been recognized as Areas "A" - "B" and "C" in the Oslo Accords. And that is what carries the weight of the territorial limits as an agreement: “treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation; Vienna Convention Law Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980)...

In terms of the reality of the day, there is no demarcation line in which the State of Palestine exists on both sides. Not today, not in the mid-1990s, and not immediately after the 1967 Six-Day War → except as was delineated by the Oslo Accords [(Oslo I 1993) Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements] and (Oslo II 1995) Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip] and not altering the Jericho Agreement (1994).

Your theory is just that, some half baked theory that cannot stand the test of reality.




Most Respectfully,
R​

Oslo was not a border treaty. And besides it is dead.

If a line is drawn through Palestine, that is not a border, it is still Palestine on both sides.

What you are trying to say makes no sense.

 

[Sixties Fan]

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

OH, I just don't know what to say...

• To the West of the Jordan River, the border most often depicted is not the 1949 Armistice Line, but rather the current demarcations by the Israelis.

It is still not an international border. It is just a unilaterally imposed line.

(COMMENT)

I have given you the reference for the International Understanding of how to treat an Armistice Line. While it appears you understand something of what it attempts to convey, you seem to not fully understand its meaning.

2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article.

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.

2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized the international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

• There are many that simply have never read the Armistice Agreements, so they do not understand the termination. Nor do they understand the difference between a Demarcation Line and an international boundary.

An armistice line is not a political or territorial boundary. It is just a line that the Israeli and Jordanian forces are not to cross. Since it is not a border, and it runs through Palestine, it is Palestine on both sides. It is not a border between two countries.

(COMMENT)

Yes, well → → → There is not much I can say about what you believe to be true. And, as is cited in the definition, I did not refer to the Armistice Line as a Boundary or Border. As is previously cited, supra, both the Armistice and the International Boundaries are the references you should be using.

As far as the International Boundaries concerned, the treaty defines them (Volume 2042). I fully understand your theory → Palestine on both sides. That has not been address in that fashion. The West Bank, given in the context of those lands that hold the status of → "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967" → have been recognized as Areas "A" - "B" and "C" in the Oslo Accords. And that is what carries the weight of the territorial limits as an agreement: “treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation; Vienna Convention Law Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980)...

In terms of the reality of the day, there is no demarcation line in which the State of Palestine exists on both sides. Not today, not in the mid-1990s, and not immediately after the 1967 Six-Day War → except as was delineated by the Oslo Accords [(Oslo I 1993) Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements] and (Oslo II 1995) Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip] and not altering the Jericho Agreement (1994).

Your theory is just that, some half baked theory that cannot stand the test of reality.




Most Respectfully,
R​

Oslo was not a border treaty. And besides it is dead.

If a line is drawn through Palestine, that is not a border, it is still Palestine on both sides.

What you are trying to say makes no sense.

The Final Borders are Negotiable for when a peace treaty is signed, as it happened with Egypt and Jordan.

Is that clear, now?

 

[Shusha]

If a line is drawn through Palestine, that is not a border, it is still Palestine on both sides.

Your denial of reality is astonishing.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Now you've switched to being a comedian again.

If a line is drawn through Palestine, that is not a border, it is still Palestine on both sides.

(COMMENT)

Any time you draw a demarcation line through a territory in which the sovereignty of one side is different from the other side, that becomes a border. You know this. You also know that your recognition of that border is irrelevant (The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.). That means that without regard to the opinion of the international community, the Arab League, or any member thereof, the border is there.

Now, what happens when you travel across that border and are required to get a visa, or clearance of some type, and you follow those procedures? You have just given your recognition to that state (Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable. - The recognition of a state may be express or tacit.). What does that mean? Well, for one thing, IF you complain that there is a locked and guarded obstacle (a "Wall, fencing or another barrier - for instance) that controls traffic from moving across this barrier, THEN you have just recognized that one-side has different sovereignty over the other side. Each time you pass through an Immigration, Customs, Border Protection and Security Control Point and process through or are restricted in some manner, you have just given recognition. IF you get an entry or exit stamp put in your Passport THEN you have given recognition.

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, Shusha, et al,

Now you've switched to being a comedian again.

If a line is drawn through Palestine, that is not a border, it is still Palestine on both sides.

(COMMENT)

Any time you draw a demarcation line through a territory in which the sovereignty of one side is different from the other side, that becomes a border. You know this. You also know that your recognition of that border is irrelevant (The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.). That means that without regard to the opinion of the international community, the Arab League, or any member thereof, the border is there.

Now, what happens when you travel across that border and are required to get a visa, or clearance of some type, and you follow those procedures? You have just given your recognition to that state (Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable. - The recognition of a state may be express or tacit.). What does that mean? Well, for one thing, IF you complain that there is a locked and guarded obstacle (a "Wall, fencing or another barrier - for instance) that controls traffic from moving across this barrier, THEN you have just recognized that one-side has different sovereignty over the other side. Each time you pass through an Immigration, Customs, Border Protection and Security Control Point and process through or are restricted in some manner, you have just given recognition. IF you get an entry or exit stamp put in your Passport THEN you have given recognition.

Most Respectfully,
R

Any time you draw a demarcation line through a territory in which the sovereignty of one side is different from the other side, that becomes a border.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949​

So, how can this define two different entities? You make no sense.

 

[rylah]

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

Now you've switched to being a comedian again.

If a line is drawn through Palestine, that is not a border, it is still Palestine on both sides.

(COMMENT)

Any time you draw a demarcation line through a territory in which the sovereignty of one side is different from the other side, that becomes a border. You know this. You also know that your recognition of that border is irrelevant (The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.). That means that without regard to the opinion of the international community, the Arab League, or any member thereof, the border is there.

Now, what happens when you travel across that border and are required to get a visa, or clearance of some type, and you follow those procedures? You have just given your recognition to that state (Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable. - The recognition of a state may be express or tacit.). What does that mean? Well, for one thing, IF you complain that there is a locked and guarded obstacle (a "Wall, fencing or another barrier - for instance) that controls traffic from moving across this barrier, THEN you have just recognized that one-side has different sovereignty over the other side. Each time you pass through an Immigration, Customs, Border Protection and Security Control Point and process through or are restricted in some manner, you have just given recognition. IF you get an entry or exit stamp put in your Passport THEN you have given recognition.

Most Respectfully,
R

Any time you draw a demarcation line through a territory in which the sovereignty of one side is different from the other side, that becomes a border.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949​

So, how can this define two different entities? You make no sense.

It's all circular logic.
What stops it, or makes it clear is the definition of Palestine in international law, and the legal obligations, which are still in effect unsuppressed by any other law or UN resolution, upon which the separation of that territory was based.

Palestine was not defined as an Arab state.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Yes, yes. I've seen this before in a 1949 Armistice Agreement. There are a couple of things wrong with you using that example.

• The Armistice Line (a single form of a demarcation Line) was covered by an agreement, not unilateral.

• The Armistice Line did not have two sovereignties, one on each side of the line.

◈ In some cases it had a sovereignty on one side, and occupied territory on the other.

(ex State of Israel on one side and Jordanian Occupied Territory on the other.)​

◈ In some cases it had occupied territory on both sides.

◈ Sometime the territory was actually a FEBA separating tow opponents on trusteeship territory on both sides.​

The term "construed" in this case is essentially saying that the Armistice Line cannot be interpreted in one fashion everywhere.

Any time you draw a demarcation line through a territory in which the sovereignty of one side is different from the other side, that becomes a border.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949​

So, how can this define two different entities? You make no sense.

(COMMENT)

You might make note that the same language does not appear in the:

• Israeli-Syrian General Armistice S/1353/Add.2 of 27 July 1949 •

• Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (3 April 1949) •
Instead, the following language is used. "The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.

• The Armistice of Mudros ended the Hostilities with the Ottoman Empire in the Great War (WWI).

The armistice conditions were indeed draconian for the Turks, however a sense of optimism was maintained by the government and the majority of the public. The most important thing was that the war was over, and this gave relief and hope. Upon his delegation’s return to the capital, Rauf Bey claimed that the armistice did not constitute a surrender, Istanbul was not to be occupied, and there were also no political conditions attached. Ahmet İzzet Pasha was satisfied with the “easy armistice” that was concluded, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mehmed Nabi Bey believed that the armistice “would not violate the sovereign rights of the Ottoman Empire and the terms of the armistice are relatively benign.”
SOURCE: http://www.turkeyswar.com/aftermath/armistice/ •

• In the case of the Lebanese and Syrians, the War for Independence in 1948 has never ended. The separation between Israel and Lebanon is cover by a Letter of Understanding, with the border protected by the UN Force. The border region of the Golan Heights concluded the territorial dispute with Israel annexing the territory.​

It is important to remember, that id diplomacy and politics, there is no true standard, and no situation covered by a single solution.

In the last month or so, we have been talking about "sovereignty" and the companion "territorial integrity." These are real things involving real people and real territory. The Hostile Arab Palestinians cannot claim something does not exist just because they disagree with it. And the Arab Palestinian stance cannot be a zero-sum outcome. Freedom for the Jewish Nation cannot be sacrificed for political expediency --- and --- it is not a case that it can agree to a suicide pact (it cannot surrender its sovereignty). No matter how the outside world may view the Arab Palestinians there is one thing that resonates across the entire theater MENA, the Jewish People are periodically ravished by the Governments and cannot take the chance on forfeiting the Jewish National Home. While the two words → "Home" and "Survival" → do not mean the same thing, in the case of the Jewish National Home and the suvival against a Jihadist and hostile Islamic world backed Arab world is forever linked.

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, Shusha, et al,

Yes, yes. I've seen this before in a 1949 Armistice Agreement. There are a couple of things wrong with you using that example.

• The Armistice Line (a single form of a demarcation Line) was covered by an agreement, not unilateral.

• The Armistice Line did not have two sovereignties, one on each side of the line.

◈ In some cases it had a sovereignty on one side, and occupied territory on the other.

(ex State of Israel on one side and Jordanian Occupied Territory on the other.)​

◈ In some cases it had occupied territory on both sides.

◈ Sometime the territory was actually a FEBA separating tow opponents on trusteeship territory on both sides.​

The term "construed" in this case is essentially saying that the Armistice Line cannot be interpreted in one fashion everywhere.

Any time you draw a demarcation line through a territory in which the sovereignty of one side is different from the other side, that becomes a border.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949​

So, how can this define two different entities? You make no sense.

(COMMENT)

You might make note that the same language does not appear in the:

• Israeli-Syrian General Armistice S/1353/Add.2 of 27 July 1949 •

• Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (3 April 1949) •
Instead, the following language is used. "The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.

• The Armistice of Mudros ended the Hostilities with the Ottoman Empire in the Great War (WWI).

The armistice conditions were indeed draconian for the Turks, however a sense of optimism was maintained by the government and the majority of the public. The most important thing was that the war was over, and this gave relief and hope. Upon his delegation’s return to the capital, Rauf Bey claimed that the armistice did not constitute a surrender, Istanbul was not to be occupied, and there were also no political conditions attached. Ahmet İzzet Pasha was satisfied with the “easy armistice” that was concluded, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mehmed Nabi Bey believed that the armistice “would not violate the sovereign rights of the Ottoman Empire and the terms of the armistice are relatively benign.”
SOURCE: http://www.turkeyswar.com/aftermath/armistice/ •

• In the case of the Lebanese and Syrians, the War for Independence in 1948 has never ended. The separation between Israel and Lebanon is cover by a Letter of Understanding, with the border protected by the UN Force. The border region of the Golan Heights concluded the territorial dispute with Israel annexing the territory.​

It is important to remember, that id diplomacy and politics, there is no true standard, and no situation covered by a single solution.

In the last month or so, we have been talking about "sovereignty" and the companion "territorial integrity." These are real things involving real people and real territory. The Hostile Arab Palestinians cannot claim something does not exist just because they disagree with it. And the Arab Palestinian stance cannot be a zero-sum outcome. Freedom for the Jewish Nation cannot be sacrificed for political expediency --- and --- it is not a case that it can agree to a suicide pact (it cannot surrender its sovereignty). No matter how the outside world may view the Arab Palestinians there is one thing that resonates across the entire theater MENA, the Jewish People are periodically ravished by the Governments and cannot take the chance on forfeiting the Jewish National Home. While the two words → "Home" and "Survival" → do not mean the same thing, in the case of the Jewish National Home and the suvival against a Jihadist and hostile Islamic world backed Arab world is forever linked.

Most Respectfully,
R

In the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements: Palestine was mentioned many times. A place called Israel was not mentioned. Palestine's international borders were mentioned. There were no borders mentioned for Israel. The territory inside Palestine's borders was called Palestine. There was no territory mentioned for Israel.

UN resolutions mention the rights of Palestinians in Palestine including the right to territorial integrity. I have not seen anything like that for Israel.

I have seen nothing where the Palestinians have surrendered, ceded territory, or altered their borders.

I have seen nothing where Israel has legally acquired any territory.

I know you like to post a lot of stuff but you dance around these issues.

 

[Hollie]

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

Yes, yes. I've seen this before in a 1949 Armistice Agreement. There are a couple of things wrong with you using that example.

• The Armistice Line (a single form of a demarcation Line) was covered by an agreement, not unilateral.

• The Armistice Line did not have two sovereignties, one on each side of the line.

◈ In some cases it had a sovereignty on one side, and occupied territory on the other.

(ex State of Israel on one side and Jordanian Occupied Territory on the other.)​

◈ In some cases it had occupied territory on both sides.

◈ Sometime the territory was actually a FEBA separating tow opponents on trusteeship territory on both sides.​

The term "construed" in this case is essentially saying that the Armistice Line cannot be interpreted in one fashion everywhere.

Any time you draw a demarcation line through a territory in which the sovereignty of one side is different from the other side, that becomes a border.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949​

So, how can this define two different entities? You make no sense.

(COMMENT)

You might make note that the same language does not appear in the:

• Israeli-Syrian General Armistice S/1353/Add.2 of 27 July 1949 •

• Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (3 April 1949) •
Instead, the following language is used. "The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.

• The Armistice of Mudros ended the Hostilities with the Ottoman Empire in the Great War (WWI).

The armistice conditions were indeed draconian for the Turks, however a sense of optimism was maintained by the government and the majority of the public. The most important thing was that the war was over, and this gave relief and hope. Upon his delegation’s return to the capital, Rauf Bey claimed that the armistice did not constitute a surrender, Istanbul was not to be occupied, and there were also no political conditions attached. Ahmet İzzet Pasha was satisfied with the “easy armistice” that was concluded, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mehmed Nabi Bey believed that the armistice “would not violate the sovereign rights of the Ottoman Empire and the terms of the armistice are relatively benign.”
SOURCE: http://www.turkeyswar.com/aftermath/armistice/ •

• In the case of the Lebanese and Syrians, the War for Independence in 1948 has never ended. The separation between Israel and Lebanon is cover by a Letter of Understanding, with the border protected by the UN Force. The border region of the Golan Heights concluded the territorial dispute with Israel annexing the territory.​

It is important to remember, that id diplomacy and politics, there is no true standard, and no situation covered by a single solution.

In the last month or so, we have been talking about "sovereignty" and the companion "territorial integrity." These are real things involving real people and real territory. The Hostile Arab Palestinians cannot claim something does not exist just because they disagree with it. And the Arab Palestinian stance cannot be a zero-sum outcome. Freedom for the Jewish Nation cannot be sacrificed for political expediency --- and --- it is not a case that it can agree to a suicide pact (it cannot surrender its sovereignty). No matter how the outside world may view the Arab Palestinians there is one thing that resonates across the entire theater MENA, the Jewish People are periodically ravished by the Governments and cannot take the chance on forfeiting the Jewish National Home. While the two words → "Home" and "Survival" → do not mean the same thing, in the case of the Jewish National Home and the suvival against a Jihadist and hostile Islamic world backed Arab world is forever linked.

Most Respectfully,
R

In the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements: Palestine was mentioned many times. A place called Israel was not mentioned. Palestine's international borders were mentioned. There were no borders mentioned for Israel. The territory inside Palestine's borders was called Palestine. There was no territory mentioned for Israel.

UN resolutions mention the rights of Palestinians in Palestine including the right to territorial integrity. I have not seen anything like that for Israel.

I have seen nothing where the Palestinians have surrendered, ceded territory, or altered their borders.

I have seen nothing where Israel has legally acquired any territory.

I know you like to post a lot of stuff but you dance around these issues.

Were you not paying attention the last dozen times the above was addressed for you?

 

[rylah]

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

Yes, yes. I've seen this before in a 1949 Armistice Agreement. There are a couple of things wrong with you using that example.

• The Armistice Line (a single form of a demarcation Line) was covered by an agreement, not unilateral.

• The Armistice Line did not have two sovereignties, one on each side of the line.

◈ In some cases it had a sovereignty on one side, and occupied territory on the other.

(ex State of Israel on one side and Jordanian Occupied Territory on the other.)​

◈ In some cases it had occupied territory on both sides.

◈ Sometime the territory was actually a FEBA separating tow opponents on trusteeship territory on both sides.​

The term "construed" in this case is essentially saying that the Armistice Line cannot be interpreted in one fashion everywhere.

Any time you draw a demarcation line through a territory in which the sovereignty of one side is different from the other side, that becomes a border.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949​

So, how can this define two different entities? You make no sense.

(COMMENT)

You might make note that the same language does not appear in the:

• Israeli-Syrian General Armistice S/1353/Add.2 of 27 July 1949 •

• Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (3 April 1949) •
Instead, the following language is used. "The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.

• The Armistice of Mudros ended the Hostilities with the Ottoman Empire in the Great War (WWI).

The armistice conditions were indeed draconian for the Turks, however a sense of optimism was maintained by the government and the majority of the public. The most important thing was that the war was over, and this gave relief and hope. Upon his delegation’s return to the capital, Rauf Bey claimed that the armistice did not constitute a surrender, Istanbul was not to be occupied, and there were also no political conditions attached. Ahmet İzzet Pasha was satisfied with the “easy armistice” that was concluded, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mehmed Nabi Bey believed that the armistice “would not violate the sovereign rights of the Ottoman Empire and the terms of the armistice are relatively benign.”
SOURCE: http://www.turkeyswar.com/aftermath/armistice/ •

• In the case of the Lebanese and Syrians, the War for Independence in 1948 has never ended. The separation between Israel and Lebanon is cover by a Letter of Understanding, with the border protected by the UN Force. The border region of the Golan Heights concluded the territorial dispute with Israel annexing the territory.​

It is important to remember, that id diplomacy and politics, there is no true standard, and no situation covered by a single solution.

In the last month or so, we have been talking about "sovereignty" and the companion "territorial integrity." These are real things involving real people and real territory. The Hostile Arab Palestinians cannot claim something does not exist just because they disagree with it. And the Arab Palestinian stance cannot be a zero-sum outcome. Freedom for the Jewish Nation cannot be sacrificed for political expediency --- and --- it is not a case that it can agree to a suicide pact (it cannot surrender its sovereignty). No matter how the outside world may view the Arab Palestinians there is one thing that resonates across the entire theater MENA, the Jewish People are periodically ravished by the Governments and cannot take the chance on forfeiting the Jewish National Home. While the two words → "Home" and "Survival" → do not mean the same thing, in the case of the Jewish National Home and the suvival against a Jihadist and hostile Islamic world backed Arab world is forever linked.

Most Respectfully,
R

In the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements: Palestine was mentioned many times. A place called Israel was not mentioned. Palestine's international borders were mentioned. There were no borders mentioned for Israel. The territory inside Palestine's borders was called Palestine. There was no territory mentioned for Israel.

UN resolutions mention the rights of Palestinians in Palestine including the right to territorial integrity. I have not seen anything like that for Israel.

I have seen nothing where the Palestinians have surrendered, ceded territory, or altered their borders.

I have seen nothing where Israel has legally acquired any territory.

I know you like to post a lot of stuff but you dance around these issues.

The Jewish nation was specifically mentioned, Israel is the representative of the Jewish nation.
Sovereignty was not vested with any other nation, not legally at least.

 

[Shusha]

In the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements: Palestine was mentioned many times. A place called Israel was not mentioned. Palestine's international borders were mentioned. There were no borders mentioned for Israel. The territory inside Palestine's borders was called Palestine. There was no territory mentioned for Israel.

UN resolutions mention the rights of Palestinians in Palestine including the right to territorial integrity. I have not seen anything like that for Israel.

I have seen nothing where the Palestinians have surrendered, ceded territory, or altered their borders.

I have seen nothing where Israel has legally acquired any territory.

I know you like to post a lot of stuff but you dance around these issues.

You have no idea how ridiculous you sound, do you?

The Armistice Agreement is titled The Israel Jordan Armistice Agreement and is signed:

For and on behalf of the Government of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom Signed: Colonel Ahmed Sudki El-Jundi Lieutenant-Colonel Mohamed Maayte

For and on behalf of the Government of Israel Signed: Reuven Shiloah Lieutenant-Colonel Moshe Dayan

The Parties to the agreement are Jordan and Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

In the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements: Palestine was mentioned many times. A place called Israel was not mentioned. Palestine's international borders were mentioned. There were no borders mentioned for Israel. The territory inside Palestine's borders was called Palestine. There was no territory mentioned for Israel.

UN resolutions mention the rights of Palestinians in Palestine including the right to territorial integrity. I have not seen anything like that for Israel.

I have seen nothing where the Palestinians have surrendered, ceded territory, or altered their borders.

I have seen nothing where Israel has legally acquired any territory.

I know you like to post a lot of stuff but you dance around these issues.

You have no idea how ridiculous you sound, do you?

The Armistice Agreement is titled The Israel Jordan Armistice Agreement and is signed:

For and on behalf of the Government of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom Signed: Colonel Ahmed Sudki El-Jundi Lieutenant-Colonel Mohamed Maayte

For and on behalf of the Government of Israel Signed: Reuven Shiloah Lieutenant-Colonel Moshe Dayan

The Parties to the agreement are Jordan and Israel.

You danced around all of the issues, as usual.

 

[Shusha]

In the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements: Palestine was mentioned many times. A place called Israel was not mentioned. Palestine's international borders were mentioned. There were no borders mentioned for Israel. The territory inside Palestine's borders was called Palestine. There was no territory mentioned for Israel.

UN resolutions mention the rights of Palestinians in Palestine including the right to territorial integrity. I have not seen anything like that for Israel.

I have seen nothing where the Palestinians have surrendered, ceded territory, or altered their borders.

I have seen nothing where Israel has legally acquired any territory.

I know you like to post a lot of stuff but you dance around these issues.

You have no idea how ridiculous you sound, do you?

The Armistice Agreement is titled The Israel Jordan Armistice Agreement and is signed:

For and on behalf of the Government of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom Signed: Colonel Ahmed Sudki El-Jundi Lieutenant-Colonel Mohamed Maayte

For and on behalf of the Government of Israel Signed: Reuven Shiloah Lieutenant-Colonel Moshe Dayan

The Parties to the agreement are Jordan and Israel.

You danced around all of the issues, as usual.

On the contrary. I'm arguing once again that the only players in Palestine right up until about 1988 were the existing States.

 

[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 Lines were not about international borders or territorial integrity. It is not even a game of Who's → Who.

◈ Armistice Demarcation Line (ADL) — A geographically defined line from which
disputing or belligerent forces disengage and withdraw to their respective sides
following a truce or cease-fire agreement.​

In the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements: Palestine was mentioned many times. A place called Israel was not mentioned. Palestine's international borders were mentioned. There were no borders mentioned for Israel. The territory inside Palestine's borders was called Palestine. There was no territory mentioned for Israel.

UN resolutions mention the rights of Palestinians in Palestine including the right to territorial integrity. I have not seen anything like that for Israel.

I have seen nothing where the Palestinians have surrendered, ceded territory, or altered their borders.

I have seen nothing where Israel has legally acquired any territory.

I know you like to post a lot of stuff but you dance around these issues.

(COMMENT)

The Armistice Lines were about ending the hostilities by cease-fire. There were only four Armistice Agreements because there were only five parties involved (Israel on one side and the four Arab Countries on the other). IF there was another unforeseen party to the conflict (like the Romulans, Klingons, or Terran Rebellions as an example) THEN the cease-fire would not have been achieved. There would have been still → been someone fighting. But there was not.

There was no surrender by any of the others (like the Romulans, Klingons, Terran Rebellions or Palestinians) to the conflict because there were no other independent warring parties; of a Palestinian character.

◈ On the matter of "legally Acquired Territory," what is that. What form does the Palestinian Title take? (Rhetorical)

◈ The Chinese took Tibet and large sections of the South China Sea. Did anyone bother to ask for those deeds? (Rhetorical)

◈ Russia took the Crimea. I wonder where there deed is? (Rhetorical)​

Or, for that matter, where did the Palestinians ever get the idea that any portion of the Article 16 Territory? They are not mentioned once even in the Treaty of Lausanne.


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,

The Armistice Lines were not about international borders or territorial integrity. It is not even a game of Who's → Who.

◈ Armistice Demarcation Line (ADL) — A geographically defined line from which
disputing or belligerent forces disengage and withdraw to their respective sides
following a truce or cease-fire agreement.​

In the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements: Palestine was mentioned many times. A place called Israel was not mentioned. Palestine's international borders were mentioned. There were no borders mentioned for Israel. The territory inside Palestine's borders was called Palestine. There was no territory mentioned for Israel.

UN resolutions mention the rights of Palestinians in Palestine including the right to territorial integrity. I have not seen anything like that for Israel.

I have seen nothing where the Palestinians have surrendered, ceded territory, or altered their borders.

I have seen nothing where Israel has legally acquired any territory.

I know you like to post a lot of stuff but you dance around these issues.

(COMMENT)

The Armistice Lines were about ending the hostilities by cease-fire. There were only four Armistice Agreements because there were only five parties involved (Israel on one side and the four Arab Countries on the other). IF there was another unforeseen party to the conflict (like the Romulans, Klingons, or Terran Rebellions as an example) THEN the cease-fire would not have been achieved. There would have been still → been someone fighting. But there was not.

There was no surrender by any of the others (like the Romulans, Klingons, Terran Rebellions or Palestinians) to the conflict because there were no other independent warring parties; of a Palestinian character.

◈ On the matter of "legally Acquired Territory," what is that. What form does the Palestinian Title take? (Rhetorical)

◈ The Chinese took Tibet and large sections of the South China Sea. Did anyone bother to ask for those deeds? (Rhetorical)

◈ Russia took the Crimea. I wonder where there deed is? (Rhetorical)​

Or, for that matter, where did the Palestinians ever get the idea that any portion of the Article 16 Territory? They are not mentioned once even in the Treaty of Lausanne.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Planning the terror that created Israel

International Socialist Review