Your solution to the ME crisis

[Saigon]

"...the UN recognizes borders that the UN specifically said were not to be considered borders. Could someone explain how that happened?"

1. force of arms?

2. the passage of time?

3. people changing their minds?

4. concessions to Reality?

I agree. And people just accepting the status quo.

The 1967 Green Line is a good starting also because it broadly reflects political and historical boundaries. I still think it is the basis for any future settlements, plus or minus some shifts in demographics.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"...the UN recognizes borders that the UN specifically said were not to be considered borders. Could someone explain how that happened?"

1. force of arms?

2. the passage of time?

3. people changing their minds?

4. concessions to Reality?

5. path of least resistance?

6. weariness and oversight exhaustion?

1. force of arms?

Indeed, the acquisition of land through the threat or use of force is illegal.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, Kondor3, et al,

You cannot keep using old documentation. You've got to move forward.

"...the UN recognizes borders that the UN specifically said were not to be considered borders. Could someone explain how that happened?"

1. force of arms?

2. the passage of time?

3. people changing their minds?

4. concessions to Reality?

5. path of least resistance?

6. weariness and oversight exhaustion?

1. force of arms?

Indeed, the acquisition of land through the threat or use of force is illegal.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians recognized the legitimacy of GA Resolution 181(II). That set the initial ground; borders and all. But subsequent to that, there were a few wars (force of arms). These wars (fought on Arab & Palestinian provocation) resulted in new borders being established by treaties.

We've discussed this before and outlined each set of borders. They are real. They exist. They are something that everyone has to deal with.

We also know what is considered Gaza and the West Bank. We also know what Jerusalem is and its boundaries.

The UN recognizes the Treaties between Israel and Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan. It has established an Armistice Line with Syria. It is all documented.

If you are going to bring-up borders that you think are contested, lets be specific. Which ones are you talking about?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[proudveteran06]

"...the UN recognizes borders that the UN specifically said were not to be considered borders. Could someone explain how that happened?"

1. force of arms?

2. the passage of time?

3. people changing their minds?

4. concessions to Reality?

5. path of least resistance?

6. weariness and oversight exhaustion?

1. force of arms?

Indeed, the acquisition of land through the threat or use of force is illegal.

Yawn.... Regardless of what you " think" , the UN recognized the State of Israel May 14, 1948. Abbas ( or whoever) can bang their heads all they want. They have to realize that " Right of Return" is dead and is never going to happen.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, Kondor3, et al,

You cannot keep using old documentation. You've got to move forward.

1. force of arms?

2. the passage of time?

3. people changing their minds?

4. concessions to Reality?

5. path of least resistance?

6. weariness and oversight exhaustion?

1. force of arms?

Indeed, the acquisition of land through the threat or use of force is illegal.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians recognized the legitimacy of GA Resolution 181(II). That set the initial ground; borders and all. But subsequent to that, there were a few wars (force of arms). These wars (fought on Arab & Palestinian provocation) resulted in new borders being established by treaties.

We've discussed this before and outlined each set of borders. They are real. They exist. They are something that everyone has to deal with.

We also know what is considered Gaza and the West Bank. We also know what Jerusalem is and its boundaries.

The UN recognizes the Treaties between Israel and Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan. It has established an Armistice Line with Syria. It is all documented.

If you are going to bring-up borders that you think are contested, lets be specific. Which ones are you talking about?

Most Respectfully,
R

We've discussed this before and outlined each set of borders.

We have but you have yet to provide any agreement between Israel and Palestine changing Palestine's land or borders.

 

[proudveteran06]

httIn 2011, President Barak Obama called on Israel to use the 1967 lines as a basis for peace negotiations and assured that Israel's strategic depth would be maintained through "mutually agreed land swaps." "Israeli and Palestinians," Obama pledged, "will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4th, 1967.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made clear that he is ready and willing to negotiate the border as President Obama said, and he maintains that Israel cannot be expected to move back to the 1967 lines. “I am willing to make painful compromises to achieve peace,” Netanyahu said before a joint session of Congress on May 24, 2011. “I recognize that in a genuine peace, [Israel] will be required to give up parts of the Jewish homeland.”


The Palestinians refuse to " negotiate" on this basis? Hope so ! There will never be a " palestinian state"

 

[proudveteran06]

Fact Sheet #6: The ‘67 Border

See above; Forgot to put link there. Sorry !

In 2011, President Barak Obama called on Israel to use the 1967 lines as a basis for peace negotiations and assured that Israel's strategic depth would be maintained through "mutually agreed land swaps." "Israeli and Palestinians," Obama pledged, "will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4th, 1967.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made clear that he is ready and willing to negotiate the border as President Obama said, and he maintains that Israel cannot be expected to move back to the 1967 lines. “I am willing to make painful compromises to achieve peace,” Netanyahu said before a joint session of Congress on May 24, 2011. “I recognize that in a genuine peace, [Israel] will be required to give up parts of the Jewish homeland.”

 

[P F Tinmore]

1. force of arms?

2. the passage of time?

3. people changing their minds?

4. concessions to Reality?

5. path of least resistance?

6. weariness and oversight exhaustion?

1. force of arms?

Indeed, the acquisition of land through the threat or use of force is illegal.

Yawn.... Regardless of what you " think" , the UN recognized the State of Israel May 14, 1948. Abbas ( or whoever) can bang their heads all they want. They have to realize that " Right of Return" is dead and is never going to happen.

It is not what I "think."

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war...

S/RES/242 (1967) of 22 November 1967

Don't you read your own links?

 

[Mom]

What the fuck is your problem?

Look, any land occupied by arabs is a waste of really good sand. We already have troops in Saudi Arabia, so let's kick their ass and take their oil, after all, didn't most of the 9/11 hijackers come from there? We would also be doing their women a massive favour.

Are you saying that we wouldn't be doing their women a massive favour by liberating Saudi Arabia? Look, we already get their oil, and our army is already there, so let's just stop paying for the oil and just take it, as protection money, if you will. Then install some puppet dictator (for a short while) who'll democratize the country and kick out all the fat fucking sheiks and their burqas? What's your problem with that?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an interesting challenge.

Indeed, the acquisition of land through the threat or use of force is illegal.

(QUESTION)

• Can you actually cite the International Law that says this?
  
• If this is true, what was the purpose of the attacks on Israeli Sovereignty in 1967 and 1973? If the Arab Nations had won, would they not just have to give it back?

(SIDEBAR)

REFERENCE:

Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States
DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CO

1. Solemnly proclaims the following principles:​

The principle that States (the Arab Legions that attacked Israel in 1948, were preparing to attack Israel in 1967, and launched a sneak attack in 1973) shall refrain in their international ~ relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Every State (including the Arab Legions that attacked Israel in 1948, were preparing to attack Israel in 1967, and launched a sneak attack in 1973) has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State (Israel as recognized by GA Res 181(II) and subsequent Treaties), or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.

A war (Arab attacks Israel in 1948, were preparing to attack Israel in 1967, and launched a sneak attack in 1973) of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.

In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda (Hamas Charter/Hezbollah Covenant) for wars of aggression.

Every State (the Arab Legions that attacked Israel in 1948, were preparing to attack Israel in 1967, and launched a sneak attack in 1973) has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State (Israel as recognized by GA Res 181(II) and subsequent Treaties) or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.​

The consistent use of this to justify the accusation that Israel is in violation of International Law is very arguable.

I don't think you are going to find a prohibition that fits. The Declaration of Principles applies to open aggression as in the Sneak Attack of 1973 or the military buildup (prelude to war) in 1967. But is doesn't apply to the territory lost by the aggressor nations (the Arab League). In fact, after most wars, the losing aggressor must make payments to the winner for the cost of the war.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

"...the acquisition of land through the threat or use of force is illegal."

So? It's what happens when you shove a tiny nation's (Israel's) back against the wall (in 1967) and they not only hit back but they completely defeat you and decide to keep much of what they won.

Do you really expect the Arab Cavalry to come riding over the hill to rescue Palestine? Barring that, you're stuck with the Israelis, and I doubt they care much what you or I think, in that context.

 

[proudveteran06]

Indeed, the acquisition of land through the threat or use of force is illegal.

Yawn.... Regardless of what you " think" , the UN recognized the State of Israel May 14, 1948. Abbas ( or whoever) can bang their heads all they want. They have to realize that " Right of Return" is dead and is never going to happen.

It is not what I "think."

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war...

S/RES/242 (1967) of 22 November 1967

Don't you read your own links?

I do read my own links. Your " point" was that the UN never did or should have recognized Israel. My point is that the UN does recognize Israel has the right to exist regardless of what you " think".

Regardless, " Right of Return" and the 67 Borders, no access to E. Jerusalem is not going to happen.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an interesting challenge.

Indeed, the acquisition of land through the threat or use of force is illegal.

(QUESTION)

• Can you actually cite the International Law that says this?
  
• If this is true, what was the purpose of the attacks on Israeli Sovereignty in 1967 and 1973? If the Arab Nations had won, would they not just have to give it back?

(SIDEBAR)

REFERENCE:

Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States
DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CO

1. Solemnly proclaims the following principles:​

The principle that States (the Arab Legions that attacked Israel in 1948, were preparing to attack Israel in 1967, and launched a sneak attack in 1973) shall refrain in their international ~ relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Every State (including the Arab Legions that attacked Israel in 1948, were preparing to attack Israel in 1967, and launched a sneak attack in 1973) has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State (Israel as recognized by GA Res 181(II) and subsequent Treaties), or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.

A war (Arab attacks Israel in 1948, were preparing to attack Israel in 1967, and launched a sneak attack in 1973) of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.

In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda (Hamas Charter/Hezbollah Covenant) for wars of aggression.

Every State (the Arab Legions that attacked Israel in 1948, were preparing to attack Israel in 1967, and launched a sneak attack in 1973) has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State (Israel as recognized by GA Res 181(II) and subsequent Treaties) or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.​

The consistent use of this to justify the accusation that Israel is in violation of International Law is very arguable.

I don't think you are going to find a prohibition that fits. The Declaration of Principles applies to open aggression as in the Sneak Attack of 1973 or the military buildup (prelude to war) in 1967. But is doesn't apply to the territory lost by the aggressor nations (the Arab League). In fact, after most wars, the losing aggressor must make payments to the winner for the cost of the war.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

The problem is that Israel has no territory.

(the Arab Legions that attacked Israel in 1948, ...

Could you provide a 1948 map of Israel? I believe you are incorrect.

 

[proudveteran06]

S/RES/242 (1967) of 22 November 1967

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

Code for " Right of Return" which is not going to happen either.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yawn.... Regardless of what you " think" , the UN recognized the State of Israel May 14, 1948. Abbas ( or whoever) can bang their heads all they want. They have to realize that " Right of Return" is dead and is never going to happen.

It is not what I "think."

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war...

S/RES/242 (1967) of 22 November 1967

Don't you read your own links?

I do read my own links. Your " point" was that the UN never did or should have recognized Israel. My point is that the UN does recognize Israel has the right to exist regardless of what you " think".

Regardless, " Right of Return" and the 67 Borders, no access to E. Jerusalem is not going to happen.

The question is why does the UN recognize Israel using fake borders?

Why would they do that?

 

[proudveteran06]

It is not what I "think."



Don't you read your own links?

I do read my own links. Your " point" was that the UN never did or should have recognized Israel. My point is that the UN does recognize Israel has the right to exist regardless of what you " think".

Regardless, " Right of Return" and the 67 Borders, no access to E. Jerusalem is not going to happen.

The question is why does the UN recognize Israel using fake borders?

Why would they do that?

In your " world" Israel shouldn't have Borders because it shouldn't exist. Does that answer your question? If the UN Borders are " fake" then Israel does not have to recognize those " borders" that even you have to admit never existed in the first place.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

I do read my own links. Your " point" was that the UN never did or should have recognized Israel. My point is that the UN does recognize Israel has the right to exist regardless of what you " think".

Regardless, " Right of Return" and the 67 Borders, no access to E. Jerusalem is not going to happen.

The question is why does the UN recognize Israel using fake borders?

Why would they do that?

In your " world" Israel shouldn't have Borders because it shouldn't exist. Does that answer your question? If the UN Borders are " fake" then Israel does not have to recognize those " borders" that even you have to admit never existed in the first place.

So let's cut to the chase, after all this useless philosophy: Tinmore believes the thriving nation of Israel should be destroyed, most of the Jews there should go to Europe, and a 23rd Arab nation, with no distinct personality, should replace the one Jewish country in the whole world. Not happening.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I do read my own links. Your " point" was that the UN never did or should have recognized Israel. My point is that the UN does recognize Israel has the right to exist regardless of what you " think".

Regardless, " Right of Return" and the 67 Borders, no access to E. Jerusalem is not going to happen.

The question is why does the UN recognize Israel using fake borders?

Why would they do that?

In your " world" Israel shouldn't have Borders because it shouldn't exist. Does that answer your question? If the UN Borders are " fake" then Israel does not have to recognize those " borders" that even you have to admit never existed in the first place.

The UN stated that they are not borders. Israel does not recognize them as borders. The Palestinians, except for maybe a few oligarchs around Ramallah, do not recognize them as borders.

Why does the UN recognize Israel using fake borders?

 

[proudveteran06]

The question is why does the UN recognize Israel using fake borders?

Why would they do that?

In your " world" Israel shouldn't have Borders because it shouldn't exist. Does that answer your question? If the UN Borders are " fake" then Israel does not have to recognize those " borders" that even you have to admit never existed in the first place.

The UN stated that they are not borders. Israel does not recognize them as borders. The Palestinians, except for maybe a few oligarchs around Ramallah, do not recognize them as borders.

Why does the UN recognize Israel using fake borders?

The UN stated they were not Borders so by your own admission Israel doesn't have to adhere to them. The Palestinians do not recognize them as Borders proving indrectly by your own admission they don't believe Israel has the Right to Exist.

Ironically, Israel DID Recognize them as " borders" before the Arabs initiated the 67 War because they clearly did not.

 

[proudveteran06]

Six-Day War: Background & Overview

Israel recognized the " 67 Borders" until this event. Obviously, the Arabs did not.That expression? Oh yeah.... " WE REAP WHAT WE SOW" lol