This Is Israel, cnt...

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

A defeat and a loss are two different things. You are asking the wrong question(s).

Just ask yourself.

What did Lebanon lose?
What did Syria lose?
What did Jordan lose?
What did Iraq lose?
What did Egypt lose?

(COMMENT)

It is the more strategic question.

The Arab League forces were essentially trying to negate the implementation of Resolution 181(II), in which, as the PLO-NAD points out, allocated 55% of the remaining territory under the Mandate for Palestine to the Jewish State. And in May 1948, that was the portion that Israel declared independence over. But, at the end of the 1948-1948 conflict, and at the establishment of the Armistice, Israel had operational control over 78% of the territory formerly under the Mandate. The combined effort of the Arab League Forces lost the Arab Palestinian approximately 48% of the portion allocated to the Arab State.

It is not about what the individual Arab Contingents "lost" --- but what they gambled and lost in terms of Arab-Palestinian territorial integrity and sovereignty. The Arab-Palestinians paid the overhead for the tactical failures of the Arab League Forces.

Additionally, the Hashemite Kingdom used the assault to capture about 80% of the West Bank. And the Egyptians used the assault to secure the Gaza Strip. At the end of the 1948-1949 War of Independence, the territory (≈ 45% of the territory formerly under the Mandate) allocated for the Arab State under Resolution 181(II) was completely absorbed. What was not under the control of the Israelis, was under the control of the Jordanians and Egyptians. The Israelis controlled about ≈48% of the Arab State allocation with the remainder (≈ 52% of the Arab State allocation) went to the Egyptians (Gaza Strip) and Jordanians (about ≈ 80% of the West Bank).

It's not about what the combined military resources of the Arab League lost. It is all about what the Arab-Palestinian lost? After all, the Arab League indicated that it was all about protecting the Arab Palestinians and their legacy. At the assumption of the Armistice, what did the Arab Palestinians gain??? NOTHING! They lost control of everything. And, what survivors and walking wound remained of the Arab-Palestinian irregular forces, could not be reconstituted and were essentially rendered totally ineffective. "In October 1948, Jordan gave an order to its forces, the Arab Legion, to surround and forcibly disarm various units of the Holy War Army." This was originally a force of ≈ 50,000 men (not counting the smaller irregulars of the Arab Liberation Army). "In the early summer of 1948 some Druze fighters, mainly from Syria, along with Palestinian Druze from the villages ofDaliyat al-Karmil and Isfiya on Mount Carmel, defected from the Arab Liberation Army to the Israel Defense Forces. These formed the core of the IDF's only Arabic-speaking unit, the Unit of the Minorities."

Pro-Hostile Arab Palestinians often turn the discussion on this question sideways, as to confuse the issue. But make no mistake, in the end, the strategic losses were borne by the Arab-Palestinians. And they were taken advantage of by the Arab League.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

A defeat and a loss are two different things. You are asking the wrong question(s).

Just ask yourself.

What did Lebanon lose?
What did Syria lose?
What did Jordan lose?
What did Iraq lose?
What did Egypt lose?

(COMMENT)

It is the more strategic question.

The Arab League forces were essentially trying to negate the implementation of Resolution 181(II), in which, as the PLO-NAD points out, allocated 55% of the remaining territory under the Mandate for Palestine to the Jewish State. And in May 1948, that was the portion that Israel declared independence over. But, at the end of the 1948-1948 conflict, and at the establishment of the Armistice, Israel had operational control over 78% of the territory formerly under the Mandate. The combined effort of the Arab League Forces lost the Arab Palestinian approximately 48% of the portion allocated to the Arab State.

It is not about what the individual Arab Contingents "lost" --- but what they gambled and lost in terms of Arab-Palestinian territorial integrity and sovereignty. The Arab-Palestinians paid the overhead for the tactical failures of the Arab League Forces.

Additionally, the Hashemite Kingdom used the assault to capture about 80% of the West Bank. And the Egyptians used the assault to secure the Gaza Strip. At the end of the 1948-1949 War of Independence, the territory (≈ 45% of the territory formerly under the Mandate) allocated for the Arab State under Resolution 181(II) was completely absorbed. What was not under the control of the Israelis, was under the control of the Jordanians and Egyptians. The Israelis controlled about ≈48% of the Arab State allocation with the remainder (≈ 52% of the Arab State allocation) went to the Egyptians (Gaza Strip) and Jordanians (about ≈ 80% of the West Bank).

It's not about what the combined military resources of the Arab League lost. It is all about what the Arab-Palestinian lost? After all, the Arab League indicated that it was all about protecting the Arab Palestinians and their legacy. At the assumption of the Armistice, what did the Arab Palestinians gain??? NOTHING! They lost control of everything. And, what survivors and walking wound remained of the Arab-Palestinian irregular forces, could not be reconstituted and were essentially rendered totally ineffective. "In October 1948, Jordan gave an order to its forces, the Arab Legion, to surround and forcibly disarm various units of the Holy War Army." This was originally a force of ≈ 50,000 men (not counting the smaller irregulars of the Arab Liberation Army). "In the early summer of 1948 some Druze fighters, mainly from Syria, along with Palestinian Druze from the villages ofDaliyat al-Karmil and Isfiya on Mount Carmel, defected from the Arab Liberation Army to the Israel Defense Forces. These formed the core of the IDF's only Arabic-speaking unit, the Unit of the Minorities."

Pro-Hostile Arab Palestinians often turn the discussion on this question sideways, as to confuse the issue. But make no mistake, in the end, the strategic losses were borne by the Arab-Palestinians. And they were taken advantage of by the Arab League.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab League forces were essentially trying to negate the implementation of Resolution 181​

That they did. Resolution 181 was never implemented.

That is a win.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UN says otherwise.

That they did. Resolution 181 was never implemented.

That is a win.

(COMMENT)

The fact that the prop-Hostile Arab Palestinian activist and Islamic Resistance Movements have to resort to distorting the truth, sets the stage for the political achievement on the part of the Israelis.

• SOURCE: UN Palestine Commission: UN Department of Public Information --- Press and Publications Bureau Extract: "In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." PAL/169 17 May 1948
​

More importantly is the in two parts:

• First --- the Hostile Arab Palestinians completely avoid the ground truth that they lost all control of any territorial integrity they might have had at the start of the conflict. (That is called a LOSS!)
• Second --- at the time of the Armistice Arrangements, there was no allowance for either an Armistice of future Treaty with any representatives of the Palestinian. That did not happen for another four (4) decades (plus).
​

Now, more than a half century later, the Hostile Arab Palestinians still claim that they cannot achieve their "rights" because they are "occupied."

(QUESTION)

What did the Hostile Arab Palestinians win or gain? (See Posting #61 -- above.)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[pbel]

The Israeli ZioNazis are getting desperate attacking journalists for spreading the truth and depth for Israel's desperation ...
Israeli soldiers assault AFP team at West Bank demo



Israeli soldiers assault AFP team at West Bank demo

58 minutes ago

• 
• 
• 
• 

Content preferences


.
View photo

An Israeli soldier holds his weapon during clashes with Palestinian protesters on March 28, 2015, in the West Bank village of Nabi Saleh (AFP Photo/Abbas Momani)


Beit Furik (Palestinian Territories) (AFP) - Two AFP journalists were assaulted Friday by Israeli soldiers who destroyed and seized their equipment in the occupied West Bank after the funeral of a Palestinian killed by the army.

[paste:font size="5"]Related Stories

1. 
   
   • Palestinian woman shot, dies after attacking Israeli soldier Associated Press
   • Palestinian dies, another shot with tensions high in West Bank AFP
   • Palestinian killed attacking Israeli forces, woman dies Reuters
   • Mother of killed West Bank toddler dies of wounds Reuters
2. The Sprint Family Share Pack Sprint® Sponsored 
   Thank you for your feedback[/paste:font]
   We'll review and make changes needed.Undo
   Why don't you like this ad ?
   
   • It's offensive to me
   • I keep seeing this
   • It's not relevant to me
   • Something else
   Undo
   I don't like this ad

A video journalist with the agency, Italian Andrea Bernardi, was thrown to the ground and jabbed in the side with a weapon.

He was held on the ground by a soldier, one knee compressing his chest, until he managed to show his press card.

Bernardi suffered bruised ribs and an injury under the

 

[docmauser1]

The Israeli ZioNazis are getting desperate attacking journalists for spreading the truth and depth for Israel's desperation ...
Israeli soldiers assault AFP team at West Bank demo


Israeli soldiers assault AFP team at West Bank demo

58 minutes ago

• 
• 
• 
• 

Content preferences


.
View photo

An Israeli soldier holds his weapon during clashes with Palestinian protesters on March 28, 2015, in the West Bank village of Nabi Saleh (AFP Photo/Abbas Momani)


Beit Furik (Palestinian Territories) (AFP) - Two AFP journalists were assaulted Friday by Israeli soldiers who destroyed and seized their equipment in the occupied West Bank after the funeral of a Palestinian killed by the army.

[paste:font size="5"]Related Stories

1. 
   
   • Palestinian woman shot, dies after attacking Israeli soldier Associated Press
   • Palestinian dies, another shot with tensions high in West Bank AFP
   • Palestinian killed attacking Israeli forces, woman dies Reuters
   • Mother of killed West Bank toddler dies of wounds Reuters
2. The Sprint Family Share Pack Sprint® Sponsored 
   Thank you for your feedback[/paste:font]
   We'll review and make changes needed.Undo
   
   A video journalist with the agency, Italian Andrea Bernardi, was thrown to the ground and jabbed in the side with a weapon.
   He was held on the ground by a soldier, one knee compressing his chest, until he managed to show his press card.
   Bernardi suffered bruised ribs and an injury under the

1. So, what had really happened?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UN says otherwise.

That they did. Resolution 181 was never implemented.

That is a win.

(COMMENT)

The fact that the prop-Hostile Arab Palestinian activist and Islamic Resistance Movements have to resort to distorting the truth, sets the stage for the political achievement on the part of the Israelis.

• SOURCE: UN Palestine Commission: UN Department of Public Information --- Press and Publications Bureau Extract: "In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." PAL/169 17 May 1948
​

More importantly is the in two parts:

• First --- the Hostile Arab Palestinians completely avoid the ground truth that they lost all control of any territorial integrity they might have had at the start of the conflict. (That is called a LOSS!)
• Second --- at the time of the Armistice Arrangements, there was no allowance for either an Armistice of future Treaty with any representatives of the Palestinian. That did not happen for another four (4) decades (plus).
​

Now, more than a half century later, the Hostile Arab Palestinians still claim that they cannot achieve their "rights" because they are "occupied."

(QUESTION)

What did the Hostile Arab Palestinians win or gain? (See Posting #61 -- above.)

Most Respectfully,
R

First --- the Hostile Arab Palestinians completely avoid the ground truth that they lost all control of any territorial integrity they might have had at the start of the conflict. (That is called a LOSS!)​

Whenever we talk Israel, the term is always "control" it is never acquire. Control is an occupation term. The UN states that the Palestinians still have the right to territorial integrity.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UN says otherwise.

That they did. Resolution 181 was never implemented.

That is a win.

(COMMENT)

The fact that the prop-Hostile Arab Palestinian activist and Islamic Resistance Movements have to resort to distorting the truth, sets the stage for the political achievement on the part of the Israelis.

• SOURCE: UN Palestine Commission: UN Department of Public Information --- Press and Publications Bureau Extract: "In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." PAL/169 17 May 1948
​

More importantly is the in two parts:

• First --- the Hostile Arab Palestinians completely avoid the ground truth that they lost all control of any territorial integrity they might have had at the start of the conflict. (That is called a LOSS!)
• Second --- at the time of the Armistice Arrangements, there was no allowance for either an Armistice of future Treaty with any representatives of the Palestinian. That did not happen for another four (4) decades (plus).
​

Now, more than a half century later, the Hostile Arab Palestinians still claim that they cannot achieve their "rights" because they are "occupied."

(QUESTION)

What did the Hostile Arab Palestinians win or gain? (See Posting #61 -- above.)

Most Respectfully,
R

First --- the Hostile Arab Palestinians completely avoid the ground truth that they lost all control of any territorial integrity they might have had at the start of the conflict. (That is called a LOSS!)​

Whenever we talk Israel, the term is always "control" it is never acquire. Control is an occupation term. The UN states that the Palestinians still have the right to territorial integrity.

The UN also hosts a singular welfare agency dedicated exclusively to maintaining an invented people with an invented identity who elected an Islamist terrorist organization to manage the worlds greatest welfare fraud.

 

[Billo_Really]

You hardly unnerve me.

I what?

You make no legitimate case against Jewish settlers moving into that region.

Maybe because I wasn't trying to?

Why don't you shove those bullshit strawman arguments up your ass?

You deceive by diversions from troubling facts you care not to address.

What haven't I addressed?

There are scores of points and issues that can be raised where your Arab allies in the region have no answer or look like criminal aggressors. Since 1900!

That makes no sense whatsoever.

BTW, there were no major incidents of violence in that area between Palestinian-Jews and Palestinian-Arabs, until the Zionist migration.

Apparently none of that bothers you? All you have are some numbers that there were more Arab people in the greater region of Palestine than there were Jews or people of other race. Yes, I know that. So what? I cannot belabor your vagueness.

Hey dumbass, you just got done saying there were "...unoccupied tracks of land..." and now you're saying you knew they were "occupied"?

You also inferred the Arab migration occurred after the Jewish migration.

"... caused a huge influx of Arabs from Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, et al." ​

Well, here's thew official migration records from the UN...



...which clearly shows only 7,000 Arabs migrating in during the 20's and over 100,000 Jews moving in that period on time. Now, if there was 750,000 total residents there and Jews made up only 10% of the population, where did the 600,000 non-Jewish residents come from? They certainly didn't migrate in AFTER the Jews, or there would've been records showing such an influx?

The bottom line is, you're a liar and they're not even good lies.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Control is a key aspect of "authority." Sovereign authority is all about the measure of control; just as occupation must have a measure of control. You will notice that, the definition of "Occupation" does not have within it, the word "control."

Article 42. --- Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
​

Inherent in "authority" is power or control --- in a particular and typically political or administrative.

"In evaluating migration and refugees it focuses on the issue of open borders, migration selectivity, the capacity of sovereign states to control entry, the claims of refugees, the relationship between sovereignty and justifiable intervention, and the role of public opinion and morals throughout migration policies.

First --- the Hostile Arab Palestinians completely avoid the ground truth that they lost all control of any territorial integrity they might have had at the start of the conflict. (That is called a LOSS!)

Whenever we talk Israel, the term is always "control" it is never acquire. Control is an occupation term. The UN states that the Palestinians still have the right to territorial integrity.

(COMMENT)

The concept of "acquire" (territorial acquisition) is different from the application of "control;" effective of otherwise. If, Government "A" has established "effective control" over the territory of Government "B" --- THEN --- Government "B" is no longer the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order. It is an inverse relationship. If "A" exercises control over the territory of "B", then "A" negates the sovereignty of "B".

Occupation (which generally requires "effective control") is just ONE of several methods of acquisition; including:

• 1 Accretion
• 2 Cession
• 3 Conquest
• 4 Prescription
• 5 Annexation

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Control is a key aspect of "authority." Sovereign authority is all about the measure of control; just as occupation must have a measure of control. You will notice that, the definition of "Occupation" does not have within it, the word "control."

Article 42. --- Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
​

Inherent in "authority" is power or control --- in a particular and typically political or administrative.

"In evaluating migration and refugees it focuses on the issue of open borders, migration selectivity, the capacity of sovereign states to control entry, the claims of refugees, the relationship between sovereignty and justifiable intervention, and the role of public opinion and morals throughout migration policies.

View attachment 50885​

First --- the Hostile Arab Palestinians completely avoid the ground truth that they lost all control of any territorial integrity they might have had at the start of the conflict. (That is called a LOSS!)

Whenever we talk Israel, the term is always "control" it is never acquire. Control is an occupation term. The UN states that the Palestinians still have the right to territorial integrity.

(COMMENT)

The concept of "acquire" (territorial acquisition) is different from the application of "control;" effective of otherwise. If, Government "A" has established "effective control" over the territory of Government "B" --- THEN --- Government "B" is no longer the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order. It is an inverse relationship. If "A" exercises control over the territory of "B", then "A" negates the sovereignty of "B".

Occupation (which generally requires "effective control") is just ONE of several methods of acquisition; including:

• 1 Accretion
• 2 Cession
• 3 Conquest
• 4 Prescription
• 5 Annexation

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you always pimp Israeli propaganda crap? What is in it for you?

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

It is about rights not about power.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Control is a key aspect of "authority." Sovereign authority is all about the measure of control; just as occupation must have a measure of control. You will notice that, the definition of "Occupation" does not have within it, the word "control."

Article 42. --- Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
​

Inherent in "authority" is power or control --- in a particular and typically political or administrative.

"In evaluating migration and refugees it focuses on the issue of open borders, migration selectivity, the capacity of sovereign states to control entry, the claims of refugees, the relationship between sovereignty and justifiable intervention, and the role of public opinion and morals throughout migration policies.

View attachment 50885​

First --- the Hostile Arab Palestinians completely avoid the ground truth that they lost all control of any territorial integrity they might have had at the start of the conflict. (That is called a LOSS!)

Whenever we talk Israel, the term is always "control" it is never acquire. Control is an occupation term. The UN states that the Palestinians still have the right to territorial integrity.

(COMMENT)

The concept of "acquire" (territorial acquisition) is different from the application of "control;" effective of otherwise. If, Government "A" has established "effective control" over the territory of Government "B" --- THEN --- Government "B" is no longer the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order. It is an inverse relationship. If "A" exercises control over the territory of "B", then "A" negates the sovereignty of "B".

Occupation (which generally requires "effective control") is just ONE of several methods of acquisition; including:

• 1 Accretion
• 2 Cession
• 3 Conquest
• 4 Prescription
• 5 Annexation

Most Respectfully,
R

Which one of those did Israel use again?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

A defeat and a loss are two different things. You are asking the wrong question(s).

Just ask yourself.

What did Lebanon lose?
What did Syria lose?
What did Jordan lose?
What did Iraq lose?
What did Egypt lose?

(COMMENT)

It is the more strategic question.

The Arab League forces were essentially trying to negate the implementation of Resolution 181(II), in which, as the PLO-NAD points out, allocated 55% of the remaining territory under the Mandate for Palestine to the Jewish State. And in May 1948, that was the portion that Israel declared independence over. But, at the end of the 1948-1948 conflict, and at the establishment of the Armistice, Israel had operational control over 78% of the territory formerly under the Mandate. The combined effort of the Arab League Forces lost the Arab Palestinian approximately 48% of the portion allocated to the Arab State.

It is not about what the individual Arab Contingents "lost" --- but what they gambled and lost in terms of Arab-Palestinian territorial integrity and sovereignty. The Arab-Palestinians paid the overhead for the tactical failures of the Arab League Forces.

Additionally, the Hashemite Kingdom used the assault to capture about 80% of the West Bank. And the Egyptians used the assault to secure the Gaza Strip. At the end of the 1948-1949 War of Independence, the territory (≈ 45% of the territory formerly under the Mandate) allocated for the Arab State under Resolution 181(II) was completely absorbed. What was not under the control of the Israelis, was under the control of the Jordanians and Egyptians. The Israelis controlled about ≈48% of the Arab State allocation with the remainder (≈ 52% of the Arab State allocation) went to the Egyptians (Gaza Strip) and Jordanians (about ≈ 80% of the West Bank).

It's not about what the combined military resources of the Arab League lost. It is all about what the Arab-Palestinian lost? After all, the Arab League indicated that it was all about protecting the Arab Palestinians and their legacy. At the assumption of the Armistice, what did the Arab Palestinians gain??? NOTHING! They lost control of everything. And, what survivors and walking wound remained of the Arab-Palestinian irregular forces, could not be reconstituted and were essentially rendered totally ineffective. "In October 1948, Jordan gave an order to its forces, the Arab Legion, to surround and forcibly disarm various units of the Holy War Army." This was originally a force of ≈ 50,000 men (not counting the smaller irregulars of the Arab Liberation Army). "In the early summer of 1948 some Druze fighters, mainly from Syria, along with Palestinian Druze from the villages ofDaliyat al-Karmil and Isfiya on Mount Carmel, defected from the Arab Liberation Army to the Israel Defense Forces. These formed the core of the IDF's only Arabic-speaking unit, the Unit of the Minorities."

Pro-Hostile Arab Palestinians often turn the discussion on this question sideways, as to confuse the issue. But make no mistake, in the end, the strategic losses were borne by the Arab-Palestinians. And they were taken advantage of by the Arab League.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab League forces were essentially trying to negate the implementation of Resolution 181​

That they did. Resolution 181 was never implemented.

That is a win.

How so when the arab league started the violence well before 1947 because they wanted it all. And 181 was implemented in as much as it was a RECCOMENDATION with no enforceability in law.
Once again the arab muslims missed the chance to do something right and are paying the price to this day.

THEY LOST EVERYTHING THEY HELD DEAR AND CAN NEVER LIVE IT DOWN 181 WAS IMPLEMENTED ACCORDING TO UN RECORDS SO THE ARABS HAVE EVEN LOST THAT

 

[Phoenall]

The Israeli ZioNazis are getting desperate attacking journalists for spreading the truth and depth for Israel's desperation ...
Israeli soldiers assault AFP team at West Bank demo


Israeli soldiers assault AFP team at West Bank demo

58 minutes ago

• 
• 
• 
• 

Content preferences


.
View photo

An Israeli soldier holds his weapon during clashes with Palestinian protesters on March 28, 2015, in the West Bank village of Nabi Saleh (AFP Photo/Abbas Momani)


Beit Furik (Palestinian Territories) (AFP) - Two AFP journalists were assaulted Friday by Israeli soldiers who destroyed and seized their equipment in the occupied West Bank after the funeral of a Palestinian killed by the army.

[paste:font size="5"]Related Stories

1. 
   
   • Palestinian woman shot, dies after attacking Israeli soldier Associated Press
   • Palestinian dies, another shot with tensions high in West Bank AFP
   • Palestinian killed attacking Israeli forces, woman dies Reuters
   • Mother of killed West Bank toddler dies of wounds Reuters
2. The Sprint Family Share Pack Sprint® Sponsored 
   Thank you for your feedback[/paste:font]
   We'll review and make changes needed.Undo
   
   A video journalist with the agency, Italian Andrea Bernardi, was thrown to the ground and jabbed in the side with a weapon.
   He was held on the ground by a soldier, one knee compressing his chest, until he managed to show his press card.
   Bernardi suffered bruised ribs and an injury under the

1. So, what had really happened?

Just what I was thinking as well, and were is the video footage allegedly taken. Could pallywood be having problems with the make up turning Shirley temper into an Italian press reporter

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UN says otherwise.

That they did. Resolution 181 was never implemented.

That is a win.

(COMMENT)

The fact that the prop-Hostile Arab Palestinian activist and Islamic Resistance Movements have to resort to distorting the truth, sets the stage for the political achievement on the part of the Israelis.

• SOURCE: UN Palestine Commission: UN Department of Public Information --- Press and Publications Bureau Extract: "In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." PAL/169 17 May 1948
​

More importantly is the in two parts:

• First --- the Hostile Arab Palestinians completely avoid the ground truth that they lost all control of any territorial integrity they might have had at the start of the conflict. (That is called a LOSS!)
• Second --- at the time of the Armistice Arrangements, there was no allowance for either an Armistice of future Treaty with any representatives of the Palestinian. That did not happen for another four (4) decades (plus).
​

Now, more than a half century later, the Hostile Arab Palestinians still claim that they cannot achieve their "rights" because they are "occupied."

(QUESTION)

What did the Hostile Arab Palestinians win or gain? (See Posting #61 -- above.)

Most Respectfully,
R

First --- the Hostile Arab Palestinians completely avoid the ground truth that they lost all control of any territorial integrity they might have had at the start of the conflict. (That is called a LOSS!)​

Whenever we talk Israel, the term is always "control" it is never acquire. Control is an occupation term. The UN states that the Palestinians still have the right to territorial integrity.

And that can not be given to them they have to take it themselves by declaring their intent to abide by the UN charter and resolutions and negotiate peace and mutual borders with their neighbours. So it is the Palestinians standing in their own way and no one else.
Control is subjective as it means that they own or have acquired that land through legal means

 

[docmauser1]

You make no legitimate case against Jewish settlers moving into that region.

Maybe because I wasn't trying to?

Outstanding! There's enough drivel being generated by other ittihadists here as it is.

You deceive by diversions from troubling facts you care not to address.

What haven't I addressed?[/quote]It doesn't matter, really. As long as that "what" isn't addressed, the world will be a safer place, of course.

There are scores of points and issues that can be raised where your Arab allies in the region have no answer or look like criminal aggressors. Since 1900!

That makes no sense whatsoever.[/quote]Palistan-agitpropsters are, like, feminists with their own perception of the reality.

BTW, there were no major incidents of violence in that area between Palestinian-Jews and Palestinian-Arabs, until the Zionist migration.Like a coupla jews here, a coupla jews there, it's all for allah?

Apparently none of that bothers you? All you have are some numbers that there were more Arab people in the greater region of Palestine than there were Jews or people of other race. Yes, I know that. So what? I cannot belabor your vagueness.

Hey dumbass, you just got done saying there were "...unoccupied tracks of land..." and now you're saying you knew they were "occupied"?
You also inferred the Arab migration occurred after the Jewish migration.

"... caused a huge influx of Arabs from Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, et al." ​

Well, here's thew official migration records from the UN...

...which clearly shows only 7,000 Arabs migrating in during the 20's and over 100,000 Jews moving in that period on time. Now, if there was 750,000 total residents there and Jews made up only 10% of the population, where did the 600,000 non-Jewish residents come from? They certainly didn't migrate in AFTER the Jews, or there would've been records showing such an influx?

Yeah right. Mexican "palestinians" wouldn't be migrating northward, if the grass weren't greener on the other side of the fence either. hehe

 

[docmauser1]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Control is a key aspect of "authority." Sovereign authority is all about the measure of control; just as occupation must have a measure of control. You will notice that, the definition of "Occupation" does not have within it, the word "control."

Article 42. --- Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
​

Inherent in "authority" is power or control --- in a particular and typically political or administrative.

"In evaluating migration and refugees it focuses on the issue of open borders, migration selectivity, the capacity of sovereign states to control entry, the claims of refugees, the relationship between sovereignty and justifiable intervention, and the role of public opinion and morals throughout migration policies.

View attachment 50885​

First --- the Hostile Arab Palestinians completely avoid the ground truth that they lost all control of any territorial integrity they might have had at the start of the conflict. (That is called a LOSS!)

Whenever we talk Israel, the term is always "control" it is never acquire. Control is an occupation term. The UN states that the Palestinians still have the right to territorial integrity.

(COMMENT)

The concept of "acquire" (territorial acquisition) is different from the application of "control;" effective of otherwise. If, Government "A" has established "effective control" over the territory of Government "B" --- THEN --- Government "B" is no longer the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order. It is an inverse relationship. If "A" exercises control over the territory of "B", then "A" negates the sovereignty of "B".

Occupation (which generally requires "effective control") is just ONE of several methods of acquisition; including:

• 1 Accretion
• 2 Cession
• 3 Conquest
• 4 Prescription
• 5 Annexation

Most Respectfully,
R

Which one of those did Israel use again?

Who knows. Depends on the palistanian occupation du jour, of course.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UN says otherwise.

That they did. Resolution 181 was never implemented.

That is a win.

(COMMENT)

The fact that the prop-Hostile Arab Palestinian activist and Islamic Resistance Movements have to resort to distorting the truth, sets the stage for the political achievement on the part of the Israelis.

• SOURCE: UN Palestine Commission: UN Department of Public Information --- Press and Publications Bureau Extract: "In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." PAL/169 17 May 1948
​

More importantly is the in two parts:

• First --- the Hostile Arab Palestinians completely avoid the ground truth that they lost all control of any territorial integrity they might have had at the start of the conflict. (That is called a LOSS!)
• Second --- at the time of the Armistice Arrangements, there was no allowance for either an Armistice of future Treaty with any representatives of the Palestinian. That did not happen for another four (4) decades (plus).
​

Now, more than a half century later, the Hostile Arab Palestinians still claim that they cannot achieve their "rights" because they are "occupied."

(QUESTION)

What did the Hostile Arab Palestinians win or gain? (See Posting #61 -- above.)

Most Respectfully,
R

First --- the Hostile Arab Palestinians completely avoid the ground truth that they lost all control of any territorial integrity they might have had at the start of the conflict. (That is called a LOSS!)​

Whenever we talk Israel, the term is always "control" it is never acquire. Control is an occupation term. The UN states that the Palestinians still have the right to territorial integrity.

And that can not be given to them they have to take it themselves by declaring their intent to abide by the UN charter and resolutions and negotiate peace and mutual borders with their neighbours. So it is the Palestinians standing in their own way and no one else.
Control is subjective as it means that they own or have acquired that land through legal means

Link?

 

[Phoenall]

Apart from the massacres in Hebron and Safed prior to 1870 of course, which you have been shown before to be the case and yet ignore the evidence. The arab muslims have been mass murdering Jews since mo'mad committed genocide in medina

P F Tinmore, et al,

Control is a key aspect of "authority." Sovereign authority is all about the measure of control; just as occupation must have a measure of control. You will notice that, the definition of "Occupation" does not have within it, the word "control."

Article 42. --- Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
​

Inherent in "authority" is power or control --- in a particular and typically political or administrative.

"In evaluating migration and refugees it focuses on the issue of open borders, migration selectivity, the capacity of sovereign states to control entry, the claims of refugees, the relationship between sovereignty and justifiable intervention, and the role of public opinion and morals throughout migration policies.

View attachment 50885​

First --- the Hostile Arab Palestinians completely avoid the ground truth that they lost all control of any territorial integrity they might have had at the start of the conflict. (That is called a LOSS!)

Whenever we talk Israel, the term is always "control" it is never acquire. Control is an occupation term. The UN states that the Palestinians still have the right to territorial integrity.

(COMMENT)

The concept of "acquire" (territorial acquisition) is different from the application of "control;" effective of otherwise. If, Government "A" has established "effective control" over the territory of Government "B" --- THEN --- Government "B" is no longer the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order. It is an inverse relationship. If "A" exercises control over the territory of "B", then "A" negates the sovereignty of "B".

Occupation (which generally requires "effective control") is just ONE of several methods of acquisition; including:

• 1 Accretion
• 2 Cession
• 3 Conquest
• 4 Prescription
• 5 Annexation

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you always pimp Israeli propaganda crap? What is in it for you?

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

It is about rights not about power.

Why do you always pimp islamonazi propaganda, lies and crap and try to use agreements that were not in force until the later part of the 20C. Or give only the parts of agreements that can be manipulated to support your islamonazi propaganda, lies andf crap.


IN OTHER WORDS WHAT IS THIS CUT AND PASTE PART OF THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO USE AS IF IT EXISTED 70 YEARS AGO

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Control is a key aspect of "authority." Sovereign authority is all about the measure of control; just as occupation must have a measure of control. You will notice that, the definition of "Occupation" does not have within it, the word "control."

Article 42. --- Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
​

Inherent in "authority" is power or control --- in a particular and typically political or administrative.

"In evaluating migration and refugees it focuses on the issue of open borders, migration selectivity, the capacity of sovereign states to control entry, the claims of refugees, the relationship between sovereignty and justifiable intervention, and the role of public opinion and morals throughout migration policies.

View attachment 50885​

First --- the Hostile Arab Palestinians completely avoid the ground truth that they lost all control of any territorial integrity they might have had at the start of the conflict. (That is called a LOSS!)

Whenever we talk Israel, the term is always "control" it is never acquire. Control is an occupation term. The UN states that the Palestinians still have the right to territorial integrity.

(COMMENT)

The concept of "acquire" (territorial acquisition) is different from the application of "control;" effective of otherwise. If, Government "A" has established "effective control" over the territory of Government "B" --- THEN --- Government "B" is no longer the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order. It is an inverse relationship. If "A" exercises control over the territory of "B", then "A" negates the sovereignty of "B".

Occupation (which generally requires "effective control") is just ONE of several methods of acquisition; including:

• 1 Accretion
• 2 Cession
• 3 Conquest
• 4 Prescription
• 5 Annexation

Most Respectfully,
R

Which one of those did Israel use again?

For what exactly ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UN says otherwise.

That they did. Resolution 181 was never implemented.

That is a win.

(COMMENT)

The fact that the prop-Hostile Arab Palestinian activist and Islamic Resistance Movements have to resort to distorting the truth, sets the stage for the political achievement on the part of the Israelis.

• SOURCE: UN Palestine Commission: UN Department of Public Information --- Press and Publications Bureau Extract: "In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." PAL/169 17 May 1948
​

More importantly is the in two parts:

• First --- the Hostile Arab Palestinians completely avoid the ground truth that they lost all control of any territorial integrity they might have had at the start of the conflict. (That is called a LOSS!)
• Second --- at the time of the Armistice Arrangements, there was no allowance for either an Armistice of future Treaty with any representatives of the Palestinian. That did not happen for another four (4) decades (plus).
​

Now, more than a half century later, the Hostile Arab Palestinians still claim that they cannot achieve their "rights" because they are "occupied."

(QUESTION)

What did the Hostile Arab Palestinians win or gain? (See Posting #61 -- above.)

Most Respectfully,
R

First --- the Hostile Arab Palestinians completely avoid the ground truth that they lost all control of any territorial integrity they might have had at the start of the conflict. (That is called a LOSS!)​

Whenever we talk Israel, the term is always "control" it is never acquire. Control is an occupation term. The UN states that the Palestinians still have the right to territorial integrity.

And that can not be given to them they have to take it themselves by declaring their intent to abide by the UN charter and resolutions and negotiate peace and mutual borders with their neighbours. So it is the Palestinians standing in their own way and no one else.
Control is subjective as it means that they own or have acquired that land through legal means

Link?

Try reading the UN resolutions you pimp that say just this