The World Is Sick Of Israeli Atrocities...

[Grendelyn]

I don't think there is any doubt that this resolution will pass, even AIPAC influenced America may support it. The world is sick of Israeli atrocities...

Palestinians Israeli occupation must end in 2016 - Yahoo News
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The Palestinians are asking the U.N. Security Council to set a deadline of November 2016 for an Israeli withdrawal from all Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 including East Jerusalem in a new push to achieve independence.
Related Stories

1. Abbas demands end to Israeli occupation 'now' AFP
2. Palestinian leader in new UN bid to end occupation Associated Press
3. Israel-Palestinian 'solution' to be put to UN Security Council AFP
4. West Bank settler group boasts rapid growth Associated Press
5. How Palestinian divisions undercut call for a UN deadline on statehood Christian Science Monitor

The circulation of the draft resolution to council members follows Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' announcement to the U.N. General Assembly last Friday that he would ask the council to set a deadline for a pullout and dictate the ground rules for any talks with Israel.
The draft resolution, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, would affirm the Security Council's determination to contribute to attaining a peaceful solution that ends the Israeli occupation "without delay" and fulfill the vision of two states — "an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable state of Palestine" living side by side with Israel in peace and security in borders based on those before the 1967 Mideast war.

The World Is Sick Of Israeli Atrocities...you say? One can only hope ~ Susan

 

[Kondor3]

I don't think there is any doubt that this resolution will pass, even AIPAC influenced America may support it. The world is sick of Israeli atrocities...

Palestinians Israeli occupation must end in 2016 - Yahoo News
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The Palestinians are asking the U.N. Security Council to set a deadline of November 2016 for an Israeli withdrawal from all Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 including East Jerusalem in a new push to achieve independence.
Related Stories

1. Abbas demands end to Israeli occupation 'now' AFP
2. Palestinian leader in new UN bid to end occupation Associated Press
3. Israel-Palestinian 'solution' to be put to UN Security Council AFP
4. West Bank settler group boasts rapid growth Associated Press
5. How Palestinian divisions undercut call for a UN deadline on statehood Christian Science Monitor

The circulation of the draft resolution to council members follows Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' announcement to the U.N. General Assembly last Friday that he would ask the council to set a deadline for a pullout and dictate the ground rules for any talks with Israel.
The draft resolution, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, would affirm the Security Council's determination to contribute to attaining a peaceful solution that ends the Israeli occupation "without delay" and fulfill the vision of two states — "an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable state of Palestine" living side by side with Israel in peace and security in borders based on those before the 1967 Mideast war.

The World Is Sick Of Israeli Atrocities...you say? One can only hope ~ Susan

The Palestinians can ASK until the cows come home.

Doesn't mean they're gonna get it.

All it takes is one veto.

There will be at least one.

Probably more.

And even if, by some freak chance, one snuck-in under the wire...

The Israelis would merely duplicate it en masse, using it as the template for new print-decorated toilet paper - it would be very fashionable for an Israeli to wipe his ass with a copy of that.

 

[pbel]

I don't think there is any doubt that this resolution will pass, even AIPAC influenced America may support it. The world is sick of Israeli atrocities...

Palestinians Israeli occupation must end in 2016 - Yahoo News
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The Palestinians are asking the U.N. Security Council to set a deadline of November 2016 for an Israeli withdrawal from all Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 including East Jerusalem in a new push to achieve independence.
Related Stories

1. Abbas demands end to Israeli occupation 'now' AFP
2. Palestinian leader in new UN bid to end occupation Associated Press
3. Israel-Palestinian 'solution' to be put to UN Security Council AFP
4. West Bank settler group boasts rapid growth Associated Press
5. How Palestinian divisions undercut call for a UN deadline on statehood Christian Science Monitor

The circulation of the draft resolution to council members follows Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' announcement to the U.N. General Assembly last Friday that he would ask the council to set a deadline for a pullout and dictate the ground rules for any talks with Israel.
The draft resolution, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, would affirm the Security Council's determination to contribute to attaining a peaceful solution that ends the Israeli occupation "without delay" and fulfill the vision of two states — "an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable state of Palestine" living side by side with Israel in peace and security in borders based on those before the 1967 Mideast war.

The World Is Sick Of Israeli Atrocities...you say? One can only hope ~ Susan

The Palestinians can ASK until the cows come home.

Doesn't mean they're gonna get it.

All it takes is one veto.

There will be at least one.

Probably more.

And even if, by some freak chance, one snuck-in under the wire...

The Israelis would merely duplicate it en masse, using it as the template for new print-decorated toilet paper - it would be very fashionable for an Israeli to wipe his ass with a copy of that.[/QUOTE]

I don't think there is any doubt that this resolution will pass, even AIPAC influenced America may support it. The world is sick of Israeli atrocities...

Palestinians Israeli occupation must end in 2016 - Yahoo News
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The Palestinians are asking the U.N. Security Council to set a deadline of November 2016 for an Israeli withdrawal from all Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 including East Jerusalem in a new push to achieve independence.
Related Stories

1. Abbas demands end to Israeli occupation 'now' AFP
2. Palestinian leader in new UN bid to end occupation Associated Press
3. Israel-Palestinian 'solution' to be put to UN Security Council AFP
4. West Bank settler group boasts rapid growth Associated Press
5. How Palestinian divisions undercut call for a UN deadline on statehood Christian Science Monitor

The circulation of the draft resolution to council members follows Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' announcement to the U.N. General Assembly last Friday that he would ask the council to set a deadline for a pullout and dictate the ground rules for any talks with Israel.
The draft resolution, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, would affirm the Security Council's determination to contribute to attaining a peaceful solution that ends the Israeli occupation "without delay" and fulfill the vision of two states — "an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable state of Palestine" living side by side with Israel in peace and security in borders based on those before the 1967 Mideast war.

The World Is Sick Of Israeli Atrocities...you say? One can only hope ~ Susan

The Palestinians can ASK until the cows come home.

Doesn't mean they're gonna get it.

All it takes is one veto.

There will be at least one.

Probably more.

And even if, by some freak chance, one snuck-in under the wire...

The Israelis would merely duplicate it en masse, using it as the template for new print-decorated toilet paper - it would be very fashionable for an Israeli to wipe his ass with a copy of that.

I don't think there is any doubt that this resolution will pass, even AIPAC influenced America may support it. The world is sick of Israeli atrocities...

Palestinians Israeli occupation must end in 2016 - Yahoo News
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The Palestinians are asking the U.N. Security Council to set a deadline of November 2016 for an Israeli withdrawal from all Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 including East Jerusalem in a new push to achieve independence.
Related Stories

1. Abbas demands end to Israeli occupation 'now' AFP
2. Palestinian leader in new UN bid to end occupation Associated Press
3. Israel-Palestinian 'solution' to be put to UN Security Council AFP
4. West Bank settler group boasts rapid growth Associated Press
5. How Palestinian divisions undercut call for a UN deadline on statehood Christian Science Monitor

The circulation of the draft resolution to council members follows Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' announcement to the U.N. General Assembly last Friday that he would ask the council to set a deadline for a pullout and dictate the ground rules for any talks with Israel.
The draft resolution, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, would affirm the Security Council's determination to contribute to attaining a peaceful solution that ends the Israeli occupation "without delay" and fulfill the vision of two states — "an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable state of Palestine" living side by side with Israel in peace and security in borders based on those before the 1967 Mideast war.

The World Is Sick Of Israeli Atrocities...you say? One can only hope ~ Susan

The Palestinians can ASK until the cows come home.

Doesn't mean they're gonna get it.

All it takes is one veto.

There will be at least one.

Probably more.

And even if, by some freak chance, one snuck-in under the wire...

The Israelis would merely duplicate it en masse, using it as the template for new print-decorated toilet paper - it would be very fashionable for an Israeli to wipe his ass with a copy of that.

In honor of Kondor, Israel is going to use his avatar to grace their toilet paper, congrats!

 

[Kondor3]

I don't think there is any doubt that this resolution will pass, even AIPAC influenced America may support it. The world is sick of Israeli atrocities...

Palestinians Israeli occupation must end in 2016 - Yahoo News
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The Palestinians are asking the U.N. Security Council to set a deadline of November 2016 for an Israeli withdrawal from all Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 including East Jerusalem in a new push to achieve independence.
Related Stories

1. Abbas demands end to Israeli occupation 'now' AFP
2. Palestinian leader in new UN bid to end occupation Associated Press
3. Israel-Palestinian 'solution' to be put to UN Security Council AFP
4. West Bank settler group boasts rapid growth Associated Press
5. How Palestinian divisions undercut call for a UN deadline on statehood Christian Science Monitor

The circulation of the draft resolution to council members follows Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' announcement to the U.N. General Assembly last Friday that he would ask the council to set a deadline for a pullout and dictate the ground rules for any talks with Israel.
The draft resolution, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, would affirm the Security Council's determination to contribute to attaining a peaceful solution that ends the Israeli occupation "without delay" and fulfill the vision of two states — "an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable state of Palestine" living side by side with Israel in peace and security in borders based on those before the 1967 Mideast war.

The World Is Sick Of Israeli Atrocities...you say? One can only hope ~ Susan

The Palestinians can ASK until the cows come home.

Doesn't mean they're gonna get it.

All it takes is one veto.

There will be at least one.

Probably more.

And even if, by some freak chance, one snuck-in under the wire...

The Israelis would merely duplicate it en masse, using it as the template for new print-decorated toilet paper - it would be very fashionable for an Israeli to wipe his ass with a copy of that.[/QUOTE]

I don't think there is any doubt that this resolution will pass, even AIPAC influenced America may support it. The world is sick of Israeli atrocities...

Palestinians Israeli occupation must end in 2016 - Yahoo News
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The Palestinians are asking the U.N. Security Council to set a deadline of November 2016 for an Israeli withdrawal from all Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 including East Jerusalem in a new push to achieve independence.
Related Stories

1. Abbas demands end to Israeli occupation 'now' AFP
2. Palestinian leader in new UN bid to end occupation Associated Press
3. Israel-Palestinian 'solution' to be put to UN Security Council AFP
4. West Bank settler group boasts rapid growth Associated Press
5. How Palestinian divisions undercut call for a UN deadline on statehood Christian Science Monitor

The circulation of the draft resolution to council members follows Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' announcement to the U.N. General Assembly last Friday that he would ask the council to set a deadline for a pullout and dictate the ground rules for any talks with Israel.
The draft resolution, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, would affirm the Security Council's determination to contribute to attaining a peaceful solution that ends the Israeli occupation "without delay" and fulfill the vision of two states — "an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable state of Palestine" living side by side with Israel in peace and security in borders based on those before the 1967 Mideast war.

The World Is Sick Of Israeli Atrocities...you say? One can only hope ~ Susan

The Palestinians can ASK until the cows come home.

Doesn't mean they're gonna get it.

All it takes is one veto.

There will be at least one.

Probably more.

And even if, by some freak chance, one snuck-in under the wire...

The Israelis would merely duplicate it en masse, using it as the template for new print-decorated toilet paper - it would be very fashionable for an Israeli to wipe his ass with a copy of that.

I don't think there is any doubt that this resolution will pass, even AIPAC influenced America may support it. The world is sick of Israeli atrocities...

Palestinians Israeli occupation must end in 2016 - Yahoo News
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The Palestinians are asking the U.N. Security Council to set a deadline of November 2016 for an Israeli withdrawal from all Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 including East Jerusalem in a new push to achieve independence.
Related Stories

1. Abbas demands end to Israeli occupation 'now' AFP
2. Palestinian leader in new UN bid to end occupation Associated Press
3. Israel-Palestinian 'solution' to be put to UN Security Council AFP
4. West Bank settler group boasts rapid growth Associated Press
5. How Palestinian divisions undercut call for a UN deadline on statehood Christian Science Monitor

The circulation of the draft resolution to council members follows Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' announcement to the U.N. General Assembly last Friday that he would ask the council to set a deadline for a pullout and dictate the ground rules for any talks with Israel.
The draft resolution, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, would affirm the Security Council's determination to contribute to attaining a peaceful solution that ends the Israeli occupation "without delay" and fulfill the vision of two states — "an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable state of Palestine" living side by side with Israel in peace and security in borders based on those before the 1967 Mideast war.

The World Is Sick Of Israeli Atrocities...you say? One can only hope ~ Susan

The Palestinians can ASK until the cows come home.

Doesn't mean they're gonna get it.

All it takes is one veto.

There will be at least one.

Probably more.

And even if, by some freak chance, one snuck-in under the wire...

The Israelis would merely duplicate it en masse, using it as the template for new print-decorated toilet paper - it would be very fashionable for an Israeli to wipe his ass with a copy of that.

In honor of Kondor, Israel is going to use his avatar to grace their toilet paper, congrats!

Don't overtax your brain trying to be original... stick to copy-catting... it's what you do best.

 

[ChrisL]

Also, Israel has to be concerned with even the children of Palestine. How could you possibly live side by side with people like this???

Child suicide bombers in the Israeli Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

According to the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, in the al-Aqsa Intifada, children were used as "messengers and couriers, and in some cases as fighters and suicide bombers in attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians" during the al-Aqsa Intifada. Fatah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad Movement and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine have all been implicated in involving children in this way. The issue was brought to world attention after a widely televised incident in which a mentally handicapped Palestinian teenager, Hussam Abdo, was disarmed at an Israeli checkpoint.[6] The youngest Palestinian suicide bomber who blew himself up was Issa Bdeir, a 16-year-old high school student from the village of Al Doha. He blew himself up in a park in Rishon LeZion, killing a teenage boy and an elderly man.

According to the Israel Defense Forces, 29 suicide attacks were carried out by youth under the age of 18 in 2000–2003. From May 2001, 22 shootings attacks and attacks using explosive devices were carried out by youth under the age of 18, and more than 40 youths under the age of 18 were involved in attempted suicide bombings that were thwarted (three in 2004).

Ukraine and Russia live side by side.
Georgia and Russia live side by side.
East and West Germany lived side by side.
Ireland and Northern Ireland live side by side.
Bosnia and Serbia live side by side despite the genocide.

No one suggested ethnic cleansing to make it more tolerable.

Are you SERIOUS? Ukraine and Russia, Georgia and Russia? They are fighting still. Egads, I've figured it out. You are willfully blind and deaf.

Yes, they are...HOWEVER - where are the voices calling for ethnic cleansing of one of the sides so the other can live "peaceably" with those "savages"?

They are living side by side and eventually will have to work it out.

Do you understand the difference between that and ethnic cleansing?

I don't really care about that given the circumstances. I thought we already cleared that up. Since the palestinians refuse to behave themselves, they don't leave Israel with any options. They have been given PLENTY of chances to stop their terror tactics.

 

[Billo_Really]

Don't overtax your brain trying to be original... stick to copy-catting... it's what you do best.

 

[Kondor3]

Now that's funny, child...

Good one, for once...

And an order of magnitude better response than our colleague pbel served up...

I've even got my own brand...

Very cool...

Rolls of that will sit well, side by side, with any rolls featuring a duplicate of any UN Security Council Resolution demanding that Israel retreat back to the 1967 lines by 2016...

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, ChrisL, et al,

There is a bit of truth on both sides here; at least from the intent.

They were given the land by the British. If you want to argue that point, you can argue it all day long. It doesn't change the facts.

Could you prove that point?

(COMMENT)

The territory was not given to either party by anyone. Neither the Arab Palestinians or the Israelis were not given the territorial concessions by the Ottoman Empire, the Allied Powers of WWI, or the UN.

In one case (Israeli) they were given an avenue the UN General Assembly found acceptable, to exercise the right of self-determination; and the Israelis accepted. Conversely, the other case (Arab Palestinian) was given an avenue the UN General Assembly found acceptable, to exercise the right of self-determination; and the Arab Palestinian declined.

The land was neither taken nor given. The world community, having trusteeship, having written the declaration of principles, established the steps preparatory to independence. In one case there was an acceptance of the principles and the steps ---- in the other case a rejection.

The argument, as I mentioned in Post #28 of the Bertrand Russell discussion, that the territory was “given” by a foreign Power to another people for the creation of a new State is not accurate in the representation of the sequence of events. A "foreign power" did not act. The land was never under Palestinian Sovereignty to be taken. And the land was not judged exclusively apportioned to one party or the other. It is the case that the Arab Palestinian chose not to participate in the implementation process.

Most Respectfully,
R

All of the links I have posted say that the territory was partitioned by the UN for 2 states, one Israel and one Palestine, and that was what the UN wished for, and America recognized Israel as a sovereign state immediately (one of my links says 11 minutes after the announcement by Israel).

That is the Propaganda version. We have all heard the story a gazillion times.

The UN voted to partition Palestine. The Jews accepted their state. The Arabs rejected their state. Too bad for them.​

There are some problems with this scenario as it leaves out important information.

The UN did approve the partition of Palestine, however, Resolution 181 was a non binding General Assembly resolution that recommended that the Security Council implement the partition.

Britain, as the mandate, refused to implement the plan because it was not approved by both sides. The Security Council failed to implement the plan voicing the same concerns. The US withdrew its support and was drafting an alternate plan.

Resolution 181 was not implemented. No states were authorized or created. The land allotted for the Jewish state was never transferred.

Resolution 181 didn't happen.

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, ChrisL, et al,

There is a bit of truth on both sides here; at least from the intent.

They were given the land by the British. If you want to argue that point, you can argue it all day long. It doesn't change the facts.

Could you prove that point?

(COMMENT)

The territory was not given to either party by anyone. Neither the Arab Palestinians or the Israelis were not given the territorial concessions by the Ottoman Empire, the Allied Powers of WWI, or the UN.

In one case (Israeli) they were given an avenue the UN General Assembly found acceptable, to exercise the right of self-determination; and the Israelis accepted. Conversely, the other case (Arab Palestinian) was given an avenue the UN General Assembly found acceptable, to exercise the right of self-determination; and the Arab Palestinian declined.

The land was neither taken nor given. The world community, having trusteeship, having written the declaration of principles, established the steps preparatory to independence. In one case there was an acceptance of the principles and the steps ---- in the other case a rejection.

The argument, as I mentioned in Post #28 of the Bertrand Russell discussion, that the territory was “given” by a foreign Power to another people for the creation of a new State is not accurate in the representation of the sequence of events. A "foreign power" did not act. The land was never under Palestinian Sovereignty to be taken. And the land was not judged exclusively apportioned to one party or the other. It is the case that the Arab Palestinian chose not to participate in the implementation process.

Most Respectfully,
R

All of the links I have posted say that the territory was partitioned by the UN for 2 states, one Israel and one Palestine, and that was what the UN wished for, and America recognized Israel as a sovereign state immediately (one of my links says 11 minutes after the announcement by Israel).

That is the Propaganda version. We have all heard the story a gazillion times.

The UN voted to partition Palestine. The Jews accepted their state. The Arabs rejected their state. Too bad for them.​

There are some problems with this scenario as it leaves out important information.

The UN did approve the partition of Palestine, however, Resolution 181 was a non binding General Assembly resolution that recommended that the Security Council implement the partition.

Britain, as the mandate, refused to implement the plan because it was not approved by both sides. The Security Council failed to implement the plan voicing the same concerns. The US withdrew its support and was drafting an alternate plan.

Resolution 181 was not implemented. No states were authorized or created. The land allotted for the Jewish state was never transferred.

Resolution 181 didn't happen.

What happened then, Tinmore?
Where does the UN stand on this issue?

 

[ChrisL]

P F Tinmore, ChrisL, et al,

There is a bit of truth on both sides here; at least from the intent.

They were given the land by the British. If you want to argue that point, you can argue it all day long. It doesn't change the facts.

Could you prove that point?

(COMMENT)

The territory was not given to either party by anyone. Neither the Arab Palestinians or the Israelis were not given the territorial concessions by the Ottoman Empire, the Allied Powers of WWI, or the UN.

In one case (Israeli) they were given an avenue the UN General Assembly found acceptable, to exercise the right of self-determination; and the Israelis accepted. Conversely, the other case (Arab Palestinian) was given an avenue the UN General Assembly found acceptable, to exercise the right of self-determination; and the Arab Palestinian declined.

The land was neither taken nor given. The world community, having trusteeship, having written the declaration of principles, established the steps preparatory to independence. In one case there was an acceptance of the principles and the steps ---- in the other case a rejection.

The argument, as I mentioned in Post #28 of the Bertrand Russell discussion, that the territory was “given” by a foreign Power to another people for the creation of a new State is not accurate in the representation of the sequence of events. A "foreign power" did not act. The land was never under Palestinian Sovereignty to be taken. And the land was not judged exclusively apportioned to one party or the other. It is the case that the Arab Palestinian chose not to participate in the implementation process.

Most Respectfully,
R

All of the links I have posted say that the territory was partitioned by the UN for 2 states, one Israel and one Palestine, and that was what the UN wished for, and America recognized Israel as a sovereign state immediately (one of my links says 11 minutes after the announcement by Israel).

That is the Propaganda version. We have all heard the story a gazillion times.

The UN voted to partition Palestine. The Jews accepted their state. The Arabs rejected their state. Too bad for them.​

There are some problems with this scenario as it leaves out important information.

The UN did approve the partition of Palestine, however, Resolution 181 was a non binding General Assembly resolution that recommended that the Security Council implement the partition.

Britain, as the mandate, refused to implement the plan because it was not approved by both sides. The Security Council failed to implement the plan voicing the same concerns. The US withdrew its support and was drafting an alternate plan.

Resolution 181 was not implemented. No states were authorized or created. The land allotted for the Jewish state was never transferred.

Resolution 181 didn't happen.

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-181.pdf

The resolution was adopted on November 29, 1947 in the General Assembly by a vote of 33-12, with 10
abstentions. Among the supporters were the United States and the Soviet Union,
as well as other nations including France and Australia. The Arab nations,
including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia denounced the plan on the General
Assembly floor and voted as a bloc against Resolution 181 promising to defy its
implementation by force.
The resolution recognized the need for immediate Jewish statehood (and a
parallel Arab state), but the blueprint for peace became a moot issue when the
Arabs refused to accept it. Subsequently, de facto [In Latin: realities] on the
ground in the wake of Arab aggression (and Israel‟s survival) became the basis for
UN efforts to bring peace.
Aware of Arabs‟ past aggression, Resolution 181, in paragraph C, calls on the
Security Council to:
“Determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in
accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the
settlement envisaged by this resolution.” [italics by author]
The ones who sought to alter the settlement envisioned in Resolution 181 by
force, were the Arabs who threatened bloodshed if the United Nations was to
adopt the Resolution:

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, ChrisL, et al,

There is a bit of truth on both sides here; at least from the intent.

They were given the land by the British. If you want to argue that point, you can argue it all day long. It doesn't change the facts.

Could you prove that point?

(COMMENT)

The territory was not given to either party by anyone. Neither the Arab Palestinians or the Israelis were not given the territorial concessions by the Ottoman Empire, the Allied Powers of WWI, or the UN.

In one case (Israeli) they were given an avenue the UN General Assembly found acceptable, to exercise the right of self-determination; and the Israelis accepted. Conversely, the other case (Arab Palestinian) was given an avenue the UN General Assembly found acceptable, to exercise the right of self-determination; and the Arab Palestinian declined.

The land was neither taken nor given. The world community, having trusteeship, having written the declaration of principles, established the steps preparatory to independence. In one case there was an acceptance of the principles and the steps ---- in the other case a rejection.

The argument, as I mentioned in Post #28 of the Bertrand Russell discussion, that the territory was “given” by a foreign Power to another people for the creation of a new State is not accurate in the representation of the sequence of events. A "foreign power" did not act. The land was never under Palestinian Sovereignty to be taken. And the land was not judged exclusively apportioned to one party or the other. It is the case that the Arab Palestinian chose not to participate in the implementation process.

Most Respectfully,
R

All of the links I have posted say that the territory was partitioned by the UN for 2 states, one Israel and one Palestine, and that was what the UN wished for, and America recognized Israel as a sovereign state immediately (one of my links says 11 minutes after the announcement by Israel).

That is the Propaganda version. We have all heard the story a gazillion times.

The UN voted to partition Palestine. The Jews accepted their state. The Arabs rejected their state. Too bad for them.​

There are some problems with this scenario as it leaves out important information.

The UN did approve the partition of Palestine, however, Resolution 181 was a non binding General Assembly resolution that recommended that the Security Council implement the partition.

Britain, as the mandate, refused to implement the plan because it was not approved by both sides. The Security Council failed to implement the plan voicing the same concerns. The US withdrew its support and was drafting an alternate plan.

Resolution 181 was not implemented. No states were authorized or created. The land allotted for the Jewish state was never transferred.

Resolution 181 didn't happen.

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-181.pdf

The resolution was adopted on November 29, 1947 in the General Assembly by a vote of 33-12, with 10
abstentions. Among the supporters were the United States and the Soviet Union,
as well as other nations including France and Australia. The Arab nations,
including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia denounced the plan on the General
Assembly floor and voted as a bloc against Resolution 181 promising to defy its
implementation by force.
The resolution recognized the need for immediate Jewish statehood (and a
parallel Arab state), but the blueprint for peace became a moot issue when the
Arabs refused to accept it. Subsequently, de facto [In Latin: realities] on the
ground in the wake of Arab aggression (and Israel‟s survival) became the basis for
UN efforts to bring peace.
Aware of Arabs‟ past aggression, Resolution 181, in paragraph C, calls on the
Security Council to:
“Determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in
accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the
settlement envisaged by this resolution.” [italics by author]
The ones who sought to alter the settlement envisioned in Resolution 181 by
force, were the Arabs who threatened bloodshed if the United Nations was to
adopt the Resolution:

Looks as if the Ayrabs missed an opportunity. Such a shame.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, ChrisL, et al,

There is a bit of truth on both sides here; at least from the intent.

They were given the land by the British. If you want to argue that point, you can argue it all day long. It doesn't change the facts.

Could you prove that point?

(COMMENT)

The territory was not given to either party by anyone. Neither the Arab Palestinians or the Israelis were not given the territorial concessions by the Ottoman Empire, the Allied Powers of WWI, or the UN.

In one case (Israeli) they were given an avenue the UN General Assembly found acceptable, to exercise the right of self-determination; and the Israelis accepted. Conversely, the other case (Arab Palestinian) was given an avenue the UN General Assembly found acceptable, to exercise the right of self-determination; and the Arab Palestinian declined.

The land was neither taken nor given. The world community, having trusteeship, having written the declaration of principles, established the steps preparatory to independence. In one case there was an acceptance of the principles and the steps ---- in the other case a rejection.

The argument, as I mentioned in Post #28 of the Bertrand Russell discussion, that the territory was “given” by a foreign Power to another people for the creation of a new State is not accurate in the representation of the sequence of events. A "foreign power" did not act. The land was never under Palestinian Sovereignty to be taken. And the land was not judged exclusively apportioned to one party or the other. It is the case that the Arab Palestinian chose not to participate in the implementation process.

Most Respectfully,
R

All of the links I have posted say that the territory was partitioned by the UN for 2 states, one Israel and one Palestine, and that was what the UN wished for, and America recognized Israel as a sovereign state immediately (one of my links says 11 minutes after the announcement by Israel).

That is the Propaganda version. We have all heard the story a gazillion times.

The UN voted to partition Palestine. The Jews accepted their state. The Arabs rejected their state. Too bad for them.​

There are some problems with this scenario as it leaves out important information.

The UN did approve the partition of Palestine, however, Resolution 181 was a non binding General Assembly resolution that recommended that the Security Council implement the partition.

Britain, as the mandate, refused to implement the plan because it was not approved by both sides. The Security Council failed to implement the plan voicing the same concerns. The US withdrew its support and was drafting an alternate plan.

Resolution 181 was not implemented. No states were authorized or created. The land allotted for the Jewish state was never transferred.

Resolution 181 didn't happen.

What happened then, Tinmore?
Where does the UN stand on this issue?

A RES 3236 XXIX of 22 November 1974

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, ChrisL, et al,

There is a bit of truth on both sides here; at least from the intent.

Could you prove that point?

(COMMENT)

The territory was not given to either party by anyone. Neither the Arab Palestinians or the Israelis were not given the territorial concessions by the Ottoman Empire, the Allied Powers of WWI, or the UN.

In one case (Israeli) they were given an avenue the UN General Assembly found acceptable, to exercise the right of self-determination; and the Israelis accepted. Conversely, the other case (Arab Palestinian) was given an avenue the UN General Assembly found acceptable, to exercise the right of self-determination; and the Arab Palestinian declined.

The land was neither taken nor given. The world community, having trusteeship, having written the declaration of principles, established the steps preparatory to independence. In one case there was an acceptance of the principles and the steps ---- in the other case a rejection.

The argument, as I mentioned in Post #28 of the Bertrand Russell discussion, that the territory was “given” by a foreign Power to another people for the creation of a new State is not accurate in the representation of the sequence of events. A "foreign power" did not act. The land was never under Palestinian Sovereignty to be taken. And the land was not judged exclusively apportioned to one party or the other. It is the case that the Arab Palestinian chose not to participate in the implementation process.

Most Respectfully,
R

All of the links I have posted say that the territory was partitioned by the UN for 2 states, one Israel and one Palestine, and that was what the UN wished for, and America recognized Israel as a sovereign state immediately (one of my links says 11 minutes after the announcement by Israel).

That is the Propaganda version. We have all heard the story a gazillion times.

The UN voted to partition Palestine. The Jews accepted their state. The Arabs rejected their state. Too bad for them.​

There are some problems with this scenario as it leaves out important information.

The UN did approve the partition of Palestine, however, Resolution 181 was a non binding General Assembly resolution that recommended that the Security Council implement the partition.

Britain, as the mandate, refused to implement the plan because it was not approved by both sides. The Security Council failed to implement the plan voicing the same concerns. The US withdrew its support and was drafting an alternate plan.

Resolution 181 was not implemented. No states were authorized or created. The land allotted for the Jewish state was never transferred.

Resolution 181 didn't happen.

What happened then, Tinmore?
Where does the UN stand on this issue?

A RES 3236 XXIX of 22 November 1974

O.K. That's a resolution. What was the outcome of the vote?

 

[ChrisL]

P F Tinmore, ChrisL, et al,

There is a bit of truth on both sides here; at least from the intent.

Could you prove that point?

(COMMENT)

The territory was not given to either party by anyone. Neither the Arab Palestinians or the Israelis were not given the territorial concessions by the Ottoman Empire, the Allied Powers of WWI, or the UN.

In one case (Israeli) they were given an avenue the UN General Assembly found acceptable, to exercise the right of self-determination; and the Israelis accepted. Conversely, the other case (Arab Palestinian) was given an avenue the UN General Assembly found acceptable, to exercise the right of self-determination; and the Arab Palestinian declined.

The land was neither taken nor given. The world community, having trusteeship, having written the declaration of principles, established the steps preparatory to independence. In one case there was an acceptance of the principles and the steps ---- in the other case a rejection.

The argument, as I mentioned in Post #28 of the Bertrand Russell discussion, that the territory was “given” by a foreign Power to another people for the creation of a new State is not accurate in the representation of the sequence of events. A "foreign power" did not act. The land was never under Palestinian Sovereignty to be taken. And the land was not judged exclusively apportioned to one party or the other. It is the case that the Arab Palestinian chose not to participate in the implementation process.

Most Respectfully,
R

All of the links I have posted say that the territory was partitioned by the UN for 2 states, one Israel and one Palestine, and that was what the UN wished for, and America recognized Israel as a sovereign state immediately (one of my links says 11 minutes after the announcement by Israel).

That is the Propaganda version. We have all heard the story a gazillion times.

The UN voted to partition Palestine. The Jews accepted their state. The Arabs rejected their state. Too bad for them.​

There are some problems with this scenario as it leaves out important information.

The UN did approve the partition of Palestine, however, Resolution 181 was a non binding General Assembly resolution that recommended that the Security Council implement the partition.

Britain, as the mandate, refused to implement the plan because it was not approved by both sides. The Security Council failed to implement the plan voicing the same concerns. The US withdrew its support and was drafting an alternate plan.

Resolution 181 was not implemented. No states were authorized or created. The land allotted for the Jewish state was never transferred.

Resolution 181 didn't happen.

What happened then, Tinmore?
Where does the UN stand on this issue?

A RES 3236 XXIX of 22 November 1974

Yeah, so? As you can see by the link I posted, the resolution was adopted in 1947, by a majority vote, so you are wrong.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, ChrisL, et al,

There is a bit of truth on both sides here; at least from the intent.

They were given the land by the British. If you want to argue that point, you can argue it all day long. It doesn't change the facts.

Could you prove that point?

(COMMENT)

The territory was not given to either party by anyone. Neither the Arab Palestinians or the Israelis were not given the territorial concessions by the Ottoman Empire, the Allied Powers of WWI, or the UN.

In one case (Israeli) they were given an avenue the UN General Assembly found acceptable, to exercise the right of self-determination; and the Israelis accepted. Conversely, the other case (Arab Palestinian) was given an avenue the UN General Assembly found acceptable, to exercise the right of self-determination; and the Arab Palestinian declined.

The land was neither taken nor given. The world community, having trusteeship, having written the declaration of principles, established the steps preparatory to independence. In one case there was an acceptance of the principles and the steps ---- in the other case a rejection.

The argument, as I mentioned in Post #28 of the Bertrand Russell discussion, that the territory was “given” by a foreign Power to another people for the creation of a new State is not accurate in the representation of the sequence of events. A "foreign power" did not act. The land was never under Palestinian Sovereignty to be taken. And the land was not judged exclusively apportioned to one party or the other. It is the case that the Arab Palestinian chose not to participate in the implementation process.

Most Respectfully,
R

All of the links I have posted say that the territory was partitioned by the UN for 2 states, one Israel and one Palestine, and that was what the UN wished for, and America recognized Israel as a sovereign state immediately (one of my links says 11 minutes after the announcement by Israel).

That is the Propaganda version. We have all heard the story a gazillion times.

The UN voted to partition Palestine. The Jews accepted their state. The Arabs rejected their state. Too bad for them.​

There are some problems with this scenario as it leaves out important information.

The UN did approve the partition of Palestine, however, Resolution 181 was a non binding General Assembly resolution that recommended that the Security Council implement the partition.

Britain, as the mandate, refused to implement the plan because it was not approved by both sides. The Security Council failed to implement the plan voicing the same concerns. The US withdrew its support and was drafting an alternate plan.

Resolution 181 was not implemented. No states were authorized or created. The land allotted for the Jewish state was never transferred.

Resolution 181 didn't happen.

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-181.pdf

The resolution was adopted on November 29, 1947 in the General Assembly by a vote of 33-12, with 10
abstentions. Among the supporters were the United States and the Soviet Union,
as well as other nations including France and Australia. The Arab nations,
including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia denounced the plan on the General
Assembly floor and voted as a bloc against Resolution 181 promising to defy its
implementation by force.
The resolution recognized the need for immediate Jewish statehood (and a
parallel Arab state), but the blueprint for peace became a moot issue when the
Arabs refused to accept it. Subsequently, de facto [In Latin: realities] on the
ground in the wake of Arab aggression (and Israel‟s survival) became the basis for
UN efforts to bring peace.
Aware of Arabs‟ past aggression, Resolution 181, in paragraph C, calls on the
Security Council to:
“Determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in
accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the
settlement envisaged by this resolution.” [italics by author]
The ones who sought to alter the settlement envisioned in Resolution 181 by
force, were the Arabs who threatened bloodshed if the United Nations was to
adopt the Resolution:

From your link:

What resulted was Resolution 181 [known also as the 1947 Partition Plan], a non-binding recommendation to partition Palestine, whose implementation hinged on acceptance by both parties–Arabs and Jews.

Hmmm, just as I stated.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, ChrisL, et al,

There is a bit of truth on both sides here; at least from the intent.

(COMMENT)

The territory was not given to either party by anyone. Neither the Arab Palestinians or the Israelis were not given the territorial concessions by the Ottoman Empire, the Allied Powers of WWI, or the UN.

In one case (Israeli) they were given an avenue the UN General Assembly found acceptable, to exercise the right of self-determination; and the Israelis accepted. Conversely, the other case (Arab Palestinian) was given an avenue the UN General Assembly found acceptable, to exercise the right of self-determination; and the Arab Palestinian declined.

The land was neither taken nor given. The world community, having trusteeship, having written the declaration of principles, established the steps preparatory to independence. In one case there was an acceptance of the principles and the steps ---- in the other case a rejection.

The argument, as I mentioned in Post #28 of the Bertrand Russell discussion, that the territory was “given” by a foreign Power to another people for the creation of a new State is not accurate in the representation of the sequence of events. A "foreign power" did not act. The land was never under Palestinian Sovereignty to be taken. And the land was not judged exclusively apportioned to one party or the other. It is the case that the Arab Palestinian chose not to participate in the implementation process.

Most Respectfully,
R

All of the links I have posted say that the territory was partitioned by the UN for 2 states, one Israel and one Palestine, and that was what the UN wished for, and America recognized Israel as a sovereign state immediately (one of my links says 11 minutes after the announcement by Israel).

That is the Propaganda version. We have all heard the story a gazillion times.

The UN voted to partition Palestine. The Jews accepted their state. The Arabs rejected their state. Too bad for them.​

There are some problems with this scenario as it leaves out important information.

The UN did approve the partition of Palestine, however, Resolution 181 was a non binding General Assembly resolution that recommended that the Security Council implement the partition.

Britain, as the mandate, refused to implement the plan because it was not approved by both sides. The Security Council failed to implement the plan voicing the same concerns. The US withdrew its support and was drafting an alternate plan.

Resolution 181 was not implemented. No states were authorized or created. The land allotted for the Jewish state was never transferred.

Resolution 181 didn't happen.

What happened then, Tinmore?
Where does the UN stand on this issue?

A RES 3236 XXIX of 22 November 1974

Yeah, so? As you can see by the link I posted, the resolution was adopted in 1947, by a majority vote, so you are wrong.

I never said it wasn't. I said it was approved.

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, ChrisL, et al,

There is a bit of truth on both sides here; at least from the intent.

Could you prove that point?

(COMMENT)

The territory was not given to either party by anyone. Neither the Arab Palestinians or the Israelis were not given the territorial concessions by the Ottoman Empire, the Allied Powers of WWI, or the UN.

In one case (Israeli) they were given an avenue the UN General Assembly found acceptable, to exercise the right of self-determination; and the Israelis accepted. Conversely, the other case (Arab Palestinian) was given an avenue the UN General Assembly found acceptable, to exercise the right of self-determination; and the Arab Palestinian declined.

The land was neither taken nor given. The world community, having trusteeship, having written the declaration of principles, established the steps preparatory to independence. In one case there was an acceptance of the principles and the steps ---- in the other case a rejection.

The argument, as I mentioned in Post #28 of the Bertrand Russell discussion, that the territory was “given” by a foreign Power to another people for the creation of a new State is not accurate in the representation of the sequence of events. A "foreign power" did not act. The land was never under Palestinian Sovereignty to be taken. And the land was not judged exclusively apportioned to one party or the other. It is the case that the Arab Palestinian chose not to participate in the implementation process.

Most Respectfully,
R

All of the links I have posted say that the territory was partitioned by the UN for 2 states, one Israel and one Palestine, and that was what the UN wished for, and America recognized Israel as a sovereign state immediately (one of my links says 11 minutes after the announcement by Israel).

That is the Propaganda version. We have all heard the story a gazillion times.

The UN voted to partition Palestine. The Jews accepted their state. The Arabs rejected their state. Too bad for them.​

There are some problems with this scenario as it leaves out important information.

The UN did approve the partition of Palestine, however, Resolution 181 was a non binding General Assembly resolution that recommended that the Security Council implement the partition.

Britain, as the mandate, refused to implement the plan because it was not approved by both sides. The Security Council failed to implement the plan voicing the same concerns. The US withdrew its support and was drafting an alternate plan.

Resolution 181 was not implemented. No states were authorized or created. The land allotted for the Jewish state was never transferred.

Resolution 181 didn't happen.

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-181.pdf

The resolution was adopted on November 29, 1947 in the General Assembly by a vote of 33-12, with 10
abstentions. Among the supporters were the United States and the Soviet Union,
as well as other nations including France and Australia. The Arab nations,
including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia denounced the plan on the General
Assembly floor and voted as a bloc against Resolution 181 promising to defy its
implementation by force.
The resolution recognized the need for immediate Jewish statehood (and a
parallel Arab state), but the blueprint for peace became a moot issue when the
Arabs refused to accept it. Subsequently, de facto [In Latin: realities] on the
ground in the wake of Arab aggression (and Israel‟s survival) became the basis for
UN efforts to bring peace.
Aware of Arabs‟ past aggression, Resolution 181, in paragraph C, calls on the
Security Council to:
“Determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in
accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the
settlement envisaged by this resolution.” [italics by author]
The ones who sought to alter the settlement envisioned in Resolution 181 by
force, were the Arabs who threatened bloodshed if the United Nations was to
adopt the Resolution:

From your link:

What resulted was Resolution 181 [known also as the 1947 Partition Plan], a non-binding recommendation to partition Palestine, whose implementation hinged on acceptance by both parties–Arabs and Jews.

Hmmm, just as I stated.

Doubletalk.

 

[ChrisL]

P F Tinmore, ChrisL, et al,

There is a bit of truth on both sides here; at least from the intent.

Could you prove that point?

(COMMENT)

The territory was not given to either party by anyone. Neither the Arab Palestinians or the Israelis were not given the territorial concessions by the Ottoman Empire, the Allied Powers of WWI, or the UN.

In one case (Israeli) they were given an avenue the UN General Assembly found acceptable, to exercise the right of self-determination; and the Israelis accepted. Conversely, the other case (Arab Palestinian) was given an avenue the UN General Assembly found acceptable, to exercise the right of self-determination; and the Arab Palestinian declined.

The land was neither taken nor given. The world community, having trusteeship, having written the declaration of principles, established the steps preparatory to independence. In one case there was an acceptance of the principles and the steps ---- in the other case a rejection.

The argument, as I mentioned in Post #28 of the Bertrand Russell discussion, that the territory was “given” by a foreign Power to another people for the creation of a new State is not accurate in the representation of the sequence of events. A "foreign power" did not act. The land was never under Palestinian Sovereignty to be taken. And the land was not judged exclusively apportioned to one party or the other. It is the case that the Arab Palestinian chose not to participate in the implementation process.

Most Respectfully,
R

All of the links I have posted say that the territory was partitioned by the UN for 2 states, one Israel and one Palestine, and that was what the UN wished for, and America recognized Israel as a sovereign state immediately (one of my links says 11 minutes after the announcement by Israel).

That is the Propaganda version. We have all heard the story a gazillion times.

The UN voted to partition Palestine. The Jews accepted their state. The Arabs rejected their state. Too bad for them.​

There are some problems with this scenario as it leaves out important information.

The UN did approve the partition of Palestine, however, Resolution 181 was a non binding General Assembly resolution that recommended that the Security Council implement the partition.

Britain, as the mandate, refused to implement the plan because it was not approved by both sides. The Security Council failed to implement the plan voicing the same concerns. The US withdrew its support and was drafting an alternate plan.

Resolution 181 was not implemented. No states were authorized or created. The land allotted for the Jewish state was never transferred.

Resolution 181 didn't happen.

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-181.pdf

The resolution was adopted on November 29, 1947 in the General Assembly by a vote of 33-12, with 10
abstentions. Among the supporters were the United States and the Soviet Union,
as well as other nations including France and Australia. The Arab nations,
including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia denounced the plan on the General
Assembly floor and voted as a bloc against Resolution 181 promising to defy its
implementation by force.
The resolution recognized the need for immediate Jewish statehood (and a
parallel Arab state), but the blueprint for peace became a moot issue when the
Arabs refused to accept it. Subsequently, de facto [In Latin: realities] on the
ground in the wake of Arab aggression (and Israel‟s survival) became the basis for
UN efforts to bring peace.
Aware of Arabs‟ past aggression, Resolution 181, in paragraph C, calls on the
Security Council to:
“Determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in
accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the
settlement envisaged by this resolution.” [italics by author]
The ones who sought to alter the settlement envisioned in Resolution 181 by
force, were the Arabs who threatened bloodshed if the United Nations was to
adopt the Resolution:

From your link:

What resulted was Resolution 181 [known also as the 1947 Partition Plan], a non-binding recommendation to partition Palestine, whose implementation hinged on acceptance by both parties–Arabs and Jews.

Hmmm, just as I stated.

It was adopted and implemented. They ignored the Arabs because they were such arrogant bastards. See below, from the same link I posted last time. Note where it says "following the PASSAGE of . . . "

Arab Aggression Before and After the Adoption of
Resolution 181
Following passage of Resolution 181 by the General Assembly, Arab countries
took the dais to reiterate their absolute rejection of the recommendation and
intention to render implementation of Resolution 181 a moot question by the use
of force. These examples from the transcript of the General Assembly plenary
meeting on November 29, 1947 speak for themselves:
“Mr. JAMALI (Iraq): … We believe that the decision which we have now taken …
undermines peace, justice and democracy. In the name of my Government, I wish
to state that it feels that this decision is antidemocratic, illegal, impractical and
contrary to the Charter … Therefore, in the name of my Government, I wish to
put on record that Iraq does not recognize the validity of this decision, will
reserve freedom of action towards its implementation, and holds those who were
influential in passing it against the free conscience of mankind responsible for the
consequences.”
“Amir. ARSLAN (Syria): … Gentlemen, the Charter is dead. But it did not die a
natural death; it was murdered, and you all know who is guilty. My country will
never recognize such a decision [Partition]. It will never agree to be responsible
for it. Let the consequences be on the heads of others, not on ours.”
“H. R. H. Prince Seif El ISLAM ABDULLAH (Yemen): The Yemen delegation has
stated previously that the partition plan is contrary to justice and to the Charter
of the United Nations. Therefore, the Government of Yemen does not consider
itself bound by such a decision … and will reserve its freedom of action towards
the implementation of this decision.”8

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, ChrisL, et al,

There is a bit of truth on both sides here; at least from the intent.

(COMMENT)

The territory was not given to either party by anyone. Neither the Arab Palestinians or the Israelis were not given the territorial concessions by the Ottoman Empire, the Allied Powers of WWI, or the UN.

In one case (Israeli) they were given an avenue the UN General Assembly found acceptable, to exercise the right of self-determination; and the Israelis accepted. Conversely, the other case (Arab Palestinian) was given an avenue the UN General Assembly found acceptable, to exercise the right of self-determination; and the Arab Palestinian declined.

The land was neither taken nor given. The world community, having trusteeship, having written the declaration of principles, established the steps preparatory to independence. In one case there was an acceptance of the principles and the steps ---- in the other case a rejection.

The argument, as I mentioned in Post #28 of the Bertrand Russell discussion, that the territory was “given” by a foreign Power to another people for the creation of a new State is not accurate in the representation of the sequence of events. A "foreign power" did not act. The land was never under Palestinian Sovereignty to be taken. And the land was not judged exclusively apportioned to one party or the other. It is the case that the Arab Palestinian chose not to participate in the implementation process.

Most Respectfully,
R

All of the links I have posted say that the territory was partitioned by the UN for 2 states, one Israel and one Palestine, and that was what the UN wished for, and America recognized Israel as a sovereign state immediately (one of my links says 11 minutes after the announcement by Israel).

That is the Propaganda version. We have all heard the story a gazillion times.

The UN voted to partition Palestine. The Jews accepted their state. The Arabs rejected their state. Too bad for them.​

There are some problems with this scenario as it leaves out important information.

The UN did approve the partition of Palestine, however, Resolution 181 was a non binding General Assembly resolution that recommended that the Security Council implement the partition.

Britain, as the mandate, refused to implement the plan because it was not approved by both sides. The Security Council failed to implement the plan voicing the same concerns. The US withdrew its support and was drafting an alternate plan.

Resolution 181 was not implemented. No states were authorized or created. The land allotted for the Jewish state was never transferred.

Resolution 181 didn't happen.

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-181.pdf

The resolution was adopted on November 29, 1947 in the General Assembly by a vote of 33-12, with 10
abstentions. Among the supporters were the United States and the Soviet Union,
as well as other nations including France and Australia. The Arab nations,
including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia denounced the plan on the General
Assembly floor and voted as a bloc against Resolution 181 promising to defy its
implementation by force.
The resolution recognized the need for immediate Jewish statehood (and a
parallel Arab state), but the blueprint for peace became a moot issue when the
Arabs refused to accept it. Subsequently, de facto [In Latin: realities] on the
ground in the wake of Arab aggression (and Israel‟s survival) became the basis for
UN efforts to bring peace.
Aware of Arabs‟ past aggression, Resolution 181, in paragraph C, calls on the
Security Council to:
“Determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in
accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the
settlement envisaged by this resolution.” [italics by author]
The ones who sought to alter the settlement envisioned in Resolution 181 by
force, were the Arabs who threatened bloodshed if the United Nations was to
adopt the Resolution:

From your link:

What resulted was Resolution 181 [known also as the 1947 Partition Plan], a non-binding recommendation to partition Palestine, whose implementation hinged on acceptance by both parties–Arabs and Jews.

Hmmm, just as I stated.

It was adopted and implemented. They ignored the Arabs because they were such arrogant bastards. See below, from the same link I posted last time. Note where it says "following the PASSAGE of . . . "

Arab Aggression Before and After the Adoption of
Resolution 181
Following passage of Resolution 181 by the General Assembly, Arab countries
took the dais to reiterate their absolute rejection of the recommendation and
intention to render implementation of Resolution 181 a moot question by the use
of force. These examples from the transcript of the General Assembly plenary
meeting on November 29, 1947 speak for themselves:
“Mr. JAMALI (Iraq): … We believe that the decision which we have now taken …
undermines peace, justice and democracy. In the name of my Government, I wish
to state that it feels that this decision is antidemocratic, illegal, impractical and
contrary to the Charter … Therefore, in the name of my Government, I wish to
put on record that Iraq does not recognize the validity of this decision, will
reserve freedom of action towards its implementation, and holds those who were
influential in passing it against the free conscience of mankind responsible for the
consequences.”
“Amir. ARSLAN (Syria): … Gentlemen, the Charter is dead. But it did not die a
natural death; it was murdered, and you all know who is guilty. My country will
never recognize such a decision [Partition]. It will never agree to be responsible
for it. Let the consequences be on the heads of others, not on ours.”
“H. R. H. Prince Seif El ISLAM ABDULLAH (Yemen): The Yemen delegation has
stated previously that the partition plan is contrary to justice and to the Charter
of the United Nations. Therefore, the Government of Yemen does not consider
itself bound by such a decision … and will reserve its freedom of action towards
the implementation of this decision.”8

Where does it say that resolution 181 was implemented?

 

[ChrisL]

All of the links I have posted say that the territory was partitioned by the UN for 2 states, one Israel and one Palestine, and that was what the UN wished for, and America recognized Israel as a sovereign state immediately (one of my links says 11 minutes after the announcement by Israel).

That is the Propaganda version. We have all heard the story a gazillion times.

The UN voted to partition Palestine. The Jews accepted their state. The Arabs rejected their state. Too bad for them.​

There are some problems with this scenario as it leaves out important information.

The UN did approve the partition of Palestine, however, Resolution 181 was a non binding General Assembly resolution that recommended that the Security Council implement the partition.

Britain, as the mandate, refused to implement the plan because it was not approved by both sides. The Security Council failed to implement the plan voicing the same concerns. The US withdrew its support and was drafting an alternate plan.

Resolution 181 was not implemented. No states were authorized or created. The land allotted for the Jewish state was never transferred.

Resolution 181 didn't happen.

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-181.pdf

The resolution was adopted on November 29, 1947 in the General Assembly by a vote of 33-12, with 10
abstentions. Among the supporters were the United States and the Soviet Union,
as well as other nations including France and Australia. The Arab nations,
including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia denounced the plan on the General
Assembly floor and voted as a bloc against Resolution 181 promising to defy its
implementation by force.
The resolution recognized the need for immediate Jewish statehood (and a
parallel Arab state), but the blueprint for peace became a moot issue when the
Arabs refused to accept it. Subsequently, de facto [In Latin: realities] on the
ground in the wake of Arab aggression (and Israel‟s survival) became the basis for
UN efforts to bring peace.
Aware of Arabs‟ past aggression, Resolution 181, in paragraph C, calls on the
Security Council to:
“Determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in
accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the
settlement envisaged by this resolution.” [italics by author]
The ones who sought to alter the settlement envisioned in Resolution 181 by
force, were the Arabs who threatened bloodshed if the United Nations was to
adopt the Resolution:

From your link:

What resulted was Resolution 181 [known also as the 1947 Partition Plan], a non-binding recommendation to partition Palestine, whose implementation hinged on acceptance by both parties–Arabs and Jews.

Hmmm, just as I stated.

It was adopted and implemented. They ignored the Arabs because they were such arrogant bastards. See below, from the same link I posted last time. Note where it says "following the PASSAGE of . . . "

Arab Aggression Before and After the Adoption of
Resolution 181
Following passage of Resolution 181 by the General Assembly, Arab countries
took the dais to reiterate their absolute rejection of the recommendation and
intention to render implementation of Resolution 181 a moot question by the use
of force. These examples from the transcript of the General Assembly plenary
meeting on November 29, 1947 speak for themselves:
“Mr. JAMALI (Iraq): … We believe that the decision which we have now taken …
undermines peace, justice and democracy. In the name of my Government, I wish
to state that it feels that this decision is antidemocratic, illegal, impractical and
contrary to the Charter … Therefore, in the name of my Government, I wish to
put on record that Iraq does not recognize the validity of this decision, will
reserve freedom of action towards its implementation, and holds those who were
influential in passing it against the free conscience of mankind responsible for the
consequences.”
“Amir. ARSLAN (Syria): … Gentlemen, the Charter is dead. But it did not die a
natural death; it was murdered, and you all know who is guilty. My country will
never recognize such a decision [Partition]. It will never agree to be responsible
for it. Let the consequences be on the heads of others, not on ours.”
“H. R. H. Prince Seif El ISLAM ABDULLAH (Yemen): The Yemen delegation has
stated previously that the partition plan is contrary to justice and to the Charter
of the United Nations. Therefore, the Government of Yemen does not consider
itself bound by such a decision … and will reserve its freedom of action towards
the implementation of this decision.”8

Where does it say that resolution 181 was implemented?

Here, when it was determined that Israel's statehood should not be dependent upon agreement by the Arabs (because everyone knew they would never agree to ANYTHING - just like today - nothing has changed). Nobody liked them then, and nobody likes them now. Below was the determination of people who tried everything to get the Arabs to compromise. So, Israel was allowed to determine it's own destiny, fought the WARS like I mentioned earlier in the thread, won the land.

What's really funny is that the Arabs and palestinians actually WANTED to resurrect Resolution. LOL! Everyone just laughed at them because they are SO ridiculous.

“The coming into existence of Israel does not depend legally upon the Resolution.
The right of a State to exist flows from its factual existence-especially when that
existence is prolonged shows every sign of continuance and is recognised by the
generality of nations.”12
Reviewing Lauterpacht‟s arguments, Professor Stone, a distinguished authority
on the Law of Nations, added that Israel‟s “legitimacy” or the “legal foundation”
for its birth does not reside with the United Nations‟ Partition Plan, which as a
consequence of Arab actions became a dead issue. Professor Stone concluded:
“The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests
(as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people
and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault
by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory
under its stable control.”13