Abbas refused peace offer and state in 2008

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Why, I wonder, do you ask.

BTW, if it is for security, why isn't it on the green line?

(COMMENT)

To understand why the question is irrelevant, you have to ask yourself the question: What is the "Green Line?"

The "Green Line" specifically applies to the 1949 Armistice Agreement, a temporary suspension of hostilities between the warring parties (Israel and Jordan); AND the 1949 Armistice Line was not --- and is not --- a political boundary.

Article XII
Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949

1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.

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

The Armistice and the Armistice Line (Green Line) applied to Israel and Jordan. It never applied to any other party.

• On 31 July 1988 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Between 31 July and 15 November, 1988 --- the occupied territory was terra nullius ("nobody's land"); excepted that it was occupied by Israel.

• The Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty was signed on October 26, 1994; and on that signature the Armistice Agreement to which the Green Line had meaning, was no longer in force. Under Article III of the Treaty, the Armistice Line was replaced by permanent, secure and recognized International Boundary between Jordan and Israel delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Roudy]

P F Tinmore, Phoenall, Roudy, et al,

Everyone that is even remotely familiar with counterterrorism, anti-terrorist security and measures to prevent and combat terrorism, is well aware that there is no one countermeasure, like the Israeli Security Barrier (what the Palestinians like to call the "Apartheid Wall" as part of their propaganda effort), is singularly responsible for the mitigation and neutralization of any asymmetric threat.

The UN does not write counterterrorism Intelligence Threat Assessments. There is no "LINK" from the UN, which is directly involved in the containment or the Detection, Exploitation and Neutralization (DEN). The UN OFFICE FOR THE COORDINATION OF HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS (OCHA) periodically publishes its single-sided data dramatizing the effective application of their program to location of HAMAS Activities inside densely populated areas --- and --- endangerment of Palestinians Civilians from the Vicinity of HAMAS target in the effort to “utilize the presence of a vulnerable HAMAS terrorist supporting civilian to render rocket launch points, tunnel entrances, ordnance storage, and facilities used by HAMAS Leaders as command, control, and communications areas or military forces immune from military operations.”

Hamas in call to end suicide bombings

Hamas is to abandon its use of suicide bombers, who have killed almost 300 Israelis, in any future confrontations with Israel, its activists have told The Observer.

Yihiyeh Musa, a Hamas member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, said Hamas had moved into a 'new era' which did not require suicide attacks.

'The suicide bombings happened in an exceptional period and they have now stopped,' he said. 'They came to an end as a change of belief.'

Hamas in call to end suicide bombings
---------------------------------------------
Did Israeli apartheid wall really stop suicide bombings?

On Sunday, Yediot Ahronot cited sources within Israel’s “defense establishment” who estimated that around 6,000 Palestinians cross through gaps in the Wall every month. A lower figure of 20-30,000 Palestinians workers a year is cited by Israeli workers’ advocacy group Kav LaOved (which even at its lower end would still mean almost 400 a week).

Even the founder of Israeli campaign group A Fence for Life has admitted that with “tens of thousands of illegal workers” facing “no problem crossing the gaps in the fence,” the lack of attacks is fundamentally due to “the Palestinians’ choice”.

Israel’s apologists, therefore, want you to believe that a partially completed wall, crossed routinely by at least hundreds of Palestinians every week, is the reason for an almost total reduction in suicide bombing attacks.

Did Israeli apartheid wall really stop suicide bombings?
-------------------------
Israel just can't stop shoveling shit.

It could only be apartheid if it was built in Israel, and was there to keep the non Jews segregated from the rest of the world. The wall stopped the Palestinians from crossing into Israel and so stopped the suicide bombing, look at the complaint put in to the UN in this regard by the Palestinians.

Link?

To what ?

That UN document you mentioned.

(REFERENCES)

I will be honest that, although the commentary that I present here is directly attributable the below listed documents, by the same token I know that in some cases - the point of origin was Israeli Defense Force (IDF):

• Israel’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy and its Effectiveness by Jerry D. Smith at the Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA 93943-5000 MAR 2005.

• Israeli-Palestinian Fatalities Since 2000 - Key Trends* -- United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs AUG 2007

• Israeli Counterterrorism Decision-Making: The Causes and Costs of A-Strategic Incoherence by
Rachel E. Tecott, Wesleyan University, The Honors College --- Class of 2011
​

(COMMENT)

There is a correlation between the reduction of bombings and the increase in border protection countermeasures. And, it is NOT "Apartheid" to institute border, immigration and customs (BIC) controls. Nearly every country has, to some degree, these controls. The association of "Apartheid" and BIC controls is merely Arab-Palestinian trying to incite conflict with and to attach some connection with the Black South African Communities with the terrorist movement of the Palestinians.

There are two graphs that I would like to call your attention to:

View attachment 55341 View attachment 55342​

There is definitely a correlation, but it maybe not one solely attributed to the Security Fence and Barrier singly. It is a total effort of which the Security Fence and Barrier is a key factor.

“Terror” is a subset of insurgency warfare. The concept “terror” encompasses four types of terror, but all employ deliberate violence against civilians in order to obtain political, religious, national, or ideological objectives." (Major General IDF Reserve Yaakov Amidror, former commander of the IDF’s National Defense
College and the IDF Staff and Command College. He is also the former head of the IDF Intelligence Research and Assessment division, with special responsibility for preparing the National Intelligence Assessment. In addition, he served as the military secretary of the Minister of Defense) And clearly MG Amidros believed that a proportional response to Hostile Arab-Palestinians (HoIS) would drag Israel into a war of attrition whose rules will be determined by the HoIS (terrorists) based on accumulated sympathy by playing the virtual victim. "A country like Israel can successfully cope with terrorism and guerrilla tactics only if it retains the ability to respond disproportionately; otherwise, it will find itself fighting according to the enemy’s rules."

Most Respectfully,
R

But according to Tinmore, the Palis arbitrarily decided to stop the suicide bombings. The wall had nothing to do with it! And if you believe that, I have a used car to sell you. Ha ha ha.

 

[Roudy]

P F Tinmore, Phoenall, Roudy, et al,

Everyone that is even remotely familiar with counterterrorism, anti-terrorist security and measures to prevent and combat terrorism, is well aware that there is no one countermeasure, like the Israeli Security Barrier (what the Palestinians like to call the "Apartheid Wall" as part of their propaganda effort), is singularly responsible for the mitigation and neutralization of any asymmetric threat.

The UN does not write counterterrorism Intelligence Threat Assessments. There is not "LINK" from the UN, which is not directly involved in the containment or the Detection, Exploitation and Neutralization (DEN). The UN OFFICE FOR THE COORDINATION OF HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS (OCHA) periodically publishes its single-sided data dramatizing the effective application of their program to location of HAMAS Activities inside densely populated areas --- and --- endangerment of Palestinians Civilians from the Vicinity of HAMAS target in the effort to “utilize the presence of a vulnerable HAMAS terrorist supporting civilian to render rocket launch points, tunnel entrances, ordnance storage, and facilities used by HAMAS Leaders as command, control, and communications areas or military forces immune from military operations.”

It could only be apartheid if it was built in Israel, and was there to keep the non Jews segregated from the rest of the world. The wall stopped the Palestinians from crossing into Israel and so stopped the suicide bombing, look at the complaint put in to the UN in this regard by the Palestinians.

Link?

To what ?

That UN document you mentioned.

(REFERENCES)

I will be honest that, although the commentary that I present here is directly attributable the blow listed documents, by the same token I know that in some cases - the point of origin was Israeli Defense Force (IDF):

• Israel’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy and its Effectiveness by Jerry D. Smith at the Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA 93943-5000 MAR 2005.

• Israeli-Palestinian Fatalities Since 2000 - Key Trends* -- United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs AUG 2007

• Israeli Counterterrorism Decision-Making: The Causes and Costs of A-Strategic Incoherence by
Rachel E. Tecott, Wesleyan University, The Honors College --- Class of 2011
​

(COMMENT)

There is a correlation between the reduction of bombings and the increase in border protection countermeasures. And, it is NOT "Apartheid" to institute border, immigration and customs (BIC) controls. Nearly every country has, to some degree, these controls. The association of "Apartheid" and BIC controls is merely Arab-Palestinian trying to incite conflict with and to attach some connection with the Black South African Communities with the terrorist movement of the Palestinians.

There are two graphs that I would like to call your attention to:

View attachment 55341 View attachment 55342​

There is definitely a correlation, but it maybe not one solely attributed to the Security Fence and Barrier singly. It is a total effort of which the Security Fence and Barrier is a key factor.

“Terror” is a subset of insurgency warfare. The concept “terror” encompasses four types of terror, but all employ deliberate violence against civilians in order to obtain political, religious, national, or ideological objectives." (Major General IDF Reserve Yaakov Amidror, former commander of the IDF’s National Defense
College and the IDF Staff and Command College. He is also the former head of the IDF Intelligence Research and Assessment division, with special responsibility for preparing the National Intelligence Assessment. In addition, he served as the military secretary of the Minister of Defense) And clearly MG Amidros believed that a proportional response to Hostile Arab-Palestinians (HoIS) would drag Israel into a war of attrition whose rules will be determined by the HoIS (terrorists) based on accumulated sympathy by playing the virtual victim. "A country like Israel can successfully cope with terrorism and guerrilla tactics only if it retains the ability to respond disproportionately; otherwise, it will find itself fighting according to the enemy’s rules."

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, sourced from Israel. Not a credible source.

Terrorism? Like this?

BTW, if it is for security, why isn't it on the green line?

Now now, Tinmore, you are in record stating that all of Israel is occupied Palestine. So how exact,y would this so called "green line" make a difference? It sure as hell didn't make a difference in 1967, now did it?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, Phoenall, Roudy, et al,

Everyone that is even remotely familiar with counterterrorism, anti-terrorist security and measures to prevent and combat terrorism, is well aware that there is no one countermeasure, like the Israeli Security Barrier (what the Palestinians like to call the "Apartheid Wall" as part of their propaganda effort), is singularly responsible for the mitigation and neutralization of any asymmetric threat.

The UN does not write counterterrorism Intelligence Threat Assessments. There is not "LINK" from the UN, which is not directly involved in the containment or the Detection, Exploitation and Neutralization (DEN). The UN OFFICE FOR THE COORDINATION OF HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS (OCHA) periodically publishes its single-sided data dramatizing the effective application of their program to location of HAMAS Activities inside densely populated areas --- and --- endangerment of Palestinians Civilians from the Vicinity of HAMAS target in the effort to “utilize the presence of a vulnerable HAMAS terrorist supporting civilian to render rocket launch points, tunnel entrances, ordnance storage, and facilities used by HAMAS Leaders as command, control, and communications areas or military forces immune from military operations.”

Link?

To what ?

That UN document you mentioned.

(REFERENCES)

I will be honest that, although the commentary that I present here is directly attributable the blow listed documents, by the same token I know that in some cases - the point of origin was Israeli Defense Force (IDF):

• Israel’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy and its Effectiveness by Jerry D. Smith at the Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA 93943-5000 MAR 2005.

• Israeli-Palestinian Fatalities Since 2000 - Key Trends* -- United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs AUG 2007

• Israeli Counterterrorism Decision-Making: The Causes and Costs of A-Strategic Incoherence by
Rachel E. Tecott, Wesleyan University, The Honors College --- Class of 2011
​

(COMMENT)

There is a correlation between the reduction of bombings and the increase in border protection countermeasures. And, it is NOT "Apartheid" to institute border, immigration and customs (BIC) controls. Nearly every country has, to some degree, these controls. The association of "Apartheid" and BIC controls is merely Arab-Palestinian trying to incite conflict with and to attach some connection with the Black South African Communities with the terrorist movement of the Palestinians.

There are two graphs that I would like to call your attention to:

View attachment 55341 View attachment 55342​

There is definitely a correlation, but it maybe not one solely attributed to the Security Fence and Barrier singly. It is a total effort of which the Security Fence and Barrier is a key factor.

“Terror” is a subset of insurgency warfare. The concept “terror” encompasses four types of terror, but all employ deliberate violence against civilians in order to obtain political, religious, national, or ideological objectives." (Major General IDF Reserve Yaakov Amidror, former commander of the IDF’s National Defense
College and the IDF Staff and Command College. He is also the former head of the IDF Intelligence Research and Assessment division, with special responsibility for preparing the National Intelligence Assessment. In addition, he served as the military secretary of the Minister of Defense) And clearly MG Amidros believed that a proportional response to Hostile Arab-Palestinians (HoIS) would drag Israel into a war of attrition whose rules will be determined by the HoIS (terrorists) based on accumulated sympathy by playing the virtual victim. "A country like Israel can successfully cope with terrorism and guerrilla tactics only if it retains the ability to respond disproportionately; otherwise, it will find itself fighting according to the enemy’s rules."

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, sourced from Israel. Not a credible source.

Terrorism? Like this?

BTW, if it is for security, why isn't it on the green line?

Now now, Tinmore, you are in record stating that all of Israel is occupied Palestine. So how exact,y would this so called "green line" make a difference? It sure as hell didn't make a difference in 1967, now did it?

That is what history and documents show. Nobody has ever posted anything to the contrary.

The Green Line was specifically not to be a political or territorial boundary. In 1967 it lost all relevance.

It is strange, though, that you cannot find a map without it. Are they trying to fool people? Eastern maps do not include it.

 

[Roudy]

P F Tinmore, Phoenall, Roudy, et al,

Everyone that is even remotely familiar with counterterrorism, anti-terrorist security and measures to prevent and combat terrorism, is well aware that there is no one countermeasure, like the Israeli Security Barrier (what the Palestinians like to call the "Apartheid Wall" as part of their propaganda effort), is singularly responsible for the mitigation and neutralization of any asymmetric threat.

The UN does not write counterterrorism Intelligence Threat Assessments. There is not "LINK" from the UN, which is not directly involved in the containment or the Detection, Exploitation and Neutralization (DEN). The UN OFFICE FOR THE COORDINATION OF HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS (OCHA) periodically publishes its single-sided data dramatizing the effective application of their program to location of HAMAS Activities inside densely populated areas --- and --- endangerment of Palestinians Civilians from the Vicinity of HAMAS target in the effort to “utilize the presence of a vulnerable HAMAS terrorist supporting civilian to render rocket launch points, tunnel entrances, ordnance storage, and facilities used by HAMAS Leaders as command, control, and communications areas or military forces immune from military operations.”

To what ?

That UN document you mentioned.

(REFERENCES)

I will be honest that, although the commentary that I present here is directly attributable the blow listed documents, by the same token I know that in some cases - the point of origin was Israeli Defense Force (IDF):

• Israel’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy and its Effectiveness by Jerry D. Smith at the Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA 93943-5000 MAR 2005.

• Israeli-Palestinian Fatalities Since 2000 - Key Trends* -- United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs AUG 2007

• Israeli Counterterrorism Decision-Making: The Causes and Costs of A-Strategic Incoherence by
Rachel E. Tecott, Wesleyan University, The Honors College --- Class of 2011
​

(COMMENT)

There is a correlation between the reduction of bombings and the increase in border protection countermeasures. And, it is NOT "Apartheid" to institute border, immigration and customs (BIC) controls. Nearly every country has, to some degree, these controls. The association of "Apartheid" and BIC controls is merely Arab-Palestinian trying to incite conflict with and to attach some connection with the Black South African Communities with the terrorist movement of the Palestinians.

There are two graphs that I would like to call your attention to:

View attachment 55341 View attachment 55342​

There is definitely a correlation, but it maybe not one solely attributed to the Security Fence and Barrier singly. It is a total effort of which the Security Fence and Barrier is a key factor.

“Terror” is a subset of insurgency warfare. The concept “terror” encompasses four types of terror, but all employ deliberate violence against civilians in order to obtain political, religious, national, or ideological objectives." (Major General IDF Reserve Yaakov Amidror, former commander of the IDF’s National Defense
College and the IDF Staff and Command College. He is also the former head of the IDF Intelligence Research and Assessment division, with special responsibility for preparing the National Intelligence Assessment. In addition, he served as the military secretary of the Minister of Defense) And clearly MG Amidros believed that a proportional response to Hostile Arab-Palestinians (HoIS) would drag Israel into a war of attrition whose rules will be determined by the HoIS (terrorists) based on accumulated sympathy by playing the virtual victim. "A country like Israel can successfully cope with terrorism and guerrilla tactics only if it retains the ability to respond disproportionately; otherwise, it will find itself fighting according to the enemy’s rules."

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, sourced from Israel. Not a credible source.

Terrorism? Like this?

BTW, if it is for security, why isn't it on the green line?

Now now, Tinmore, you are in record stating that all of Israel is occupied Palestine. So how exact,y would this so called "green line" make a difference? It sure as hell didn't make a difference in 1967, now did it?

That is what history and documents show. Nobody has ever posted anything to the contrary.

The Green Line was specifically not to be a political or territorial boundary. In 1967 it lost all relevance.

It is strange, though, that you cannot find a map without it. Are they trying to fool people? Eastern maps do not include it.

So again, you asked for the the terrorist prevention wall to be built on a line from which Israel was attacked from in 1967, and which the Palestinian leadership doesn't care about since they want all of Israel.

But of course the Arab nations who attacked Israel in 1967 and before never did so in order to create this mythical Palestine. Today's Palestinians are Arab refugees of the Arab nations aggressions against the state of Israel which the Arab states refused to handle, and now blame Israel because they were defeated.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, every time you say "Green Line" or "Armistice Line" you and Palestinians like you, add credibility that where ever the Israelis put the wall, it is placed on territory that was renounced by HM The King of the Hashemite Kingdom.

That is what history and documents show. Nobody has ever posted anything to the contrary.
The Green Line was specifically not to be a political or territorial boundary.

(COMMENT)

The people that support the two-state, need a border to lend an established boundary that would legitimize the Palestinian Government. Otherwise, the Article III of the Peace Treaty takes precedence.

Similarly, a very large segment of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believe in a single-state solution in which the Arab Palestinians acquire by force the entirety of the territory in which the Mandate formerly applied (less Jordan). This would conform to the Religious Pledge and Oath made by the HoAP in 1948, the HoAP National Charter of 1968, the call for Jihad in Covenant of the Islamic Resistance in 1988, AND the reiterated Duty of Jihad and Armed Struggle as articulated by the Islamic Resistance Movement.

Maps are really unimportant and sometimes misleading if interpreted without the written narrative that goes with it.

In 1967 it lost all relevance. It is strange, though, that you cannot find a map without it. Are they trying to fool people? Eastern maps do not include it.

(COMMENT)

The "Green Line" was the boundary used in the Jordanian Occupation in 1949, and later the sovereign Annexation in 1950 in which the Arab Palestinians exercised the right of self-determination in the Jordanian Parliament. However, the treaty is altogether something different. The "Green Line" was valid all the through to 26 October 1994. There after the permanent international boundary between Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom was set by Annex Ia Para 2(I)a.

If you are trying to insist that the "Green Line" has any formal or legal application to any claim the HoAP might make, I would like to hear the justification. The Court refrained from declaring that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank was illegal. See the Opinion Critique.

Separate Opinion of Judge Nabil Elaraby, Section III, available at http://www.icj-cig.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imp_advisory_opinion_separate_Elaraby.htm. This quote and all quotes from Written Statements, Oral Pleadings and the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ in the case are taken from Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 9 July 2004, General List, No. 131. For a transcript of the Advisory Opinion, see Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (2005) 38 (1-2) Is.L.R. 17 (hereinafter: “ICJ Opinion“). - See more at: The ICJ Opinion on the Separation Barrier: Designating the Entire West Bank as "Palestinian Territory" | Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs​

The ICJ Opinion used the 1949 Armistice demarcation line, the so-called “Green Line,” to determine the extent of the “occupied Palestinian territory.” The Court made no reference to the fact that the Armistice Agreement that created the Green Line had terminated and that no Arab state had ever recognized the Green Line as an international boundary, nor had Israel given the line such recognition.

And the Egyptian and Jordanian Governments do not recognize it today, as it is replaced.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Palestinians stopped suicide bombing because Israelis stopped them by building a wall. Palestinian terrorists are no different than the savage terrorists in France today.



Effectiveness
Suicide bombings have decreased since the construction of the barrier.[6][41] Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad have been less able to conduct attacks in Israel, which have decreased in areas where the barrier has been completed.[42][43]

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Israel Security Agency report that in 2002, there were 452 fatalities from terrorist attacks. Before the completion of the first continuous segment (July 2003) from the beginning of the Second Intifada, 73 Palestinian suicide bombings were carried out from the West Bank, killing 293 Israelis and injuring over 1,900. After the completion of the first continuous segment through the end of 2006, there were only 12 attacks based in the West Bank, killing 64 people and wounding 445.[5] Terrorist attacks declined in 2007[5] and 2008[44] to 9 in 2010.[45]

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs predicts that completion of the barrier will continue to prevent terrorist attacks[46] since "[a]n absolute halt in terrorist activities has been noticed in the West Bank areas where the fence has been constructed."[42]

Israeli officials (including the head of the Shin Bet) quoted in the newspaper Maariv have said that in the areas where the barrier was complete, the number of hostile infiltrations has decreased to almost zero. Maariv also stated that Palestinian militants, including a senior member of Islamic Jihad, had confirmed that the barrier made it much harder to conduct attacks inside Israel. Since the completion of the fence in the area of Tulkarm and Qalqilyah in June 2003, there have been no successful attacks from those areas. All attacks were intercepted or the suicide bombers detonated prematurely.[47] In a March 23, 2008 interview, Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Ramadan Shalah complained to the Qatari newspaper Al-Sharq that the separation barrier "limits the ability of the resistance to arrive deep within [Israeli territory] to carry out suicide bombing attacks, but the resistance has not surrendered or become helpless, and is looking for other ways to cope with the requirements of every stage" of the intifada.[48]

Hamas in call to end suicide bombings

Hamas is to abandon its use of suicide bombers, who have killed almost 300 Israelis, in any future confrontations with Israel, its activists have told The Observer.

Yihiyeh Musa, a Hamas member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, said Hamas had moved into a 'new era' which did not require suicide attacks.

'The suicide bombings happened in an exceptional period and they have now stopped,' he said. 'They came to an end as a change of belief.'

Hamas in call to end suicide bombings
---------------------------------------------
Did Israeli apartheid wall really stop suicide bombings?

On Sunday, Yediot Ahronot cited sources within Israel’s “defense establishment” who estimated that around 6,000 Palestinians cross through gaps in the Wall every month. A lower figure of 20-30,000 Palestinians workers a year is cited by Israeli workers’ advocacy group Kav LaOved (which even at its lower end would still mean almost 400 a week).

Even the founder of Israeli campaign group A Fence for Life has admitted that with “tens of thousands of illegal workers” facing “no problem crossing the gaps in the fence,” the lack of attacks is fundamentally due to “the Palestinians’ choice”.

Israel’s apologists, therefore, want you to believe that a partially completed wall, crossed routinely by at least hundreds of Palestinians every week, is the reason for an almost total reduction in suicide bombing attacks.

Did Israeli apartheid wall really stop suicide bombings?
-------------------------
Israel just can't stop shoveling shit.

It could only be apartheid if it was built in Israel, and was there to keep the non Jews segregated from the rest of the world. The wall stopped the Palestinians from crossing into Israel and so stopped the suicide bombing, look at the complaint put in to the UN in this regard by the Palestinians.

Link?

To what ?

That UN document you mentioned.

What UN document that I mentioned, as I said nothing about a UN document ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, Phoenall, Roudy, et al,

Everyone that is even remotely familiar with counterterrorism, anti-terrorist security and measures to prevent and combat terrorism, is well aware that there is no one countermeasure, like the Israeli Security Barrier (what the Palestinians like to call the "Apartheid Wall" as part of their propaganda effort), is singularly responsible for the mitigation and neutralization of any asymmetric threat.

The UN does not write counterterrorism Intelligence Threat Assessments. There is not "LINK" from the UN, which is not directly involved in the containment or the Detection, Exploitation and Neutralization (DEN). The UN OFFICE FOR THE COORDINATION OF HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS (OCHA) periodically publishes its single-sided data dramatizing the effective application of their program to location of HAMAS Activities inside densely populated areas --- and --- endangerment of Palestinians Civilians from the Vicinity of HAMAS target in the effort to “utilize the presence of a vulnerable HAMAS terrorist supporting civilian to render rocket launch points, tunnel entrances, ordnance storage, and facilities used by HAMAS Leaders as command, control, and communications areas or military forces immune from military operations.”

It could only be apartheid if it was built in Israel, and was there to keep the non Jews segregated from the rest of the world. The wall stopped the Palestinians from crossing into Israel and so stopped the suicide bombing, look at the complaint put in to the UN in this regard by the Palestinians.

Link?

To what ?

That UN document you mentioned.

(REFERENCES)

I will be honest that, although the commentary that I present here is directly attributable the blow listed documents, by the same token I know that in some cases - the point of origin was Israeli Defense Force (IDF):

• Israel’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy and its Effectiveness by Jerry D. Smith at the Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA 93943-5000 MAR 2005.

• Israeli-Palestinian Fatalities Since 2000 - Key Trends* -- United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs AUG 2007

• Israeli Counterterrorism Decision-Making: The Causes and Costs of A-Strategic Incoherence by
Rachel E. Tecott, Wesleyan University, The Honors College --- Class of 2011
​

(COMMENT)

There is a correlation between the reduction of bombings and the increase in border protection countermeasures. And, it is NOT "Apartheid" to institute border, immigration and customs (BIC) controls. Nearly every country has, to some degree, these controls. The association of "Apartheid" and BIC controls is merely Arab-Palestinian trying to incite conflict with and to attach some connection with the Black South African Communities with the terrorist movement of the Palestinians.

There are two graphs that I would like to call your attention to:

View attachment 55341 View attachment 55342​

There is definitely a correlation, but it maybe not one solely attributed to the Security Fence and Barrier singly. It is a total effort of which the Security Fence and Barrier is a key factor.

“Terror” is a subset of insurgency warfare. The concept “terror” encompasses four types of terror, but all employ deliberate violence against civilians in order to obtain political, religious, national, or ideological objectives." (Major General IDF Reserve Yaakov Amidror, former commander of the IDF’s National Defense
College and the IDF Staff and Command College. He is also the former head of the IDF Intelligence Research and Assessment division, with special responsibility for preparing the National Intelligence Assessment. In addition, he served as the military secretary of the Minister of Defense) And clearly MG Amidros believed that a proportional response to Hostile Arab-Palestinians (HoIS) would drag Israel into a war of attrition whose rules will be determined by the HoIS (terrorists) based on accumulated sympathy by playing the virtual victim. "A country like Israel can successfully cope with terrorism and guerrilla tactics only if it retains the ability to respond disproportionately; otherwise, it will find itself fighting according to the enemy’s rules."

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, sourced from Israel. Not a credible source.

Terrorism? Like this?

BTW, if it is for security, why isn't it on the green line?

Why should it be, after all Saudis wall is built 20 miles inside Yemen borders

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, Phoenall, Roudy, et al,

Everyone that is even remotely familiar with counterterrorism, anti-terrorist security and measures to prevent and combat terrorism, is well aware that there is no one countermeasure, like the Israeli Security Barrier (what the Palestinians like to call the "Apartheid Wall" as part of their propaganda effort), is singularly responsible for the mitigation and neutralization of any asymmetric threat.

The UN does not write counterterrorism Intelligence Threat Assessments. There is no "LINK" from the UN, which is directly involved in the containment or the Detection, Exploitation and Neutralization (DEN). The UN OFFICE FOR THE COORDINATION OF HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS (OCHA) periodically publishes its single-sided data dramatizing the effective application of their program to location of HAMAS Activities inside densely populated areas --- and --- endangerment of Palestinians Civilians from the Vicinity of HAMAS target in the effort to “utilize the presence of a vulnerable HAMAS terrorist supporting civilian to render rocket launch points, tunnel entrances, ordnance storage, and facilities used by HAMAS Leaders as command, control, and communications areas or military forces immune from military operations.”

It could only be apartheid if it was built in Israel, and was there to keep the non Jews segregated from the rest of the world. The wall stopped the Palestinians from crossing into Israel and so stopped the suicide bombing, look at the complaint put in to the UN in this regard by the Palestinians.

Link?

To what ?

That UN document you mentioned.

(REFERENCES)

I will be honest that, although the commentary that I present here is directly attributable the below listed documents, by the same token I know that in some cases - the point of origin was Israeli Defense Force (IDF):

• Israel’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy and its Effectiveness by Jerry D. Smith at the Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA 93943-5000 MAR 2005.

• Israeli-Palestinian Fatalities Since 2000 - Key Trends* -- United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs AUG 2007

• Israeli Counterterrorism Decision-Making: The Causes and Costs of A-Strategic Incoherence by
Rachel E. Tecott, Wesleyan University, The Honors College --- Class of 2011
​

(COMMENT)

There is a correlation between the reduction of bombings and the increase in border protection countermeasures. And, it is NOT "Apartheid" to institute border, immigration and customs (BIC) controls. Nearly every country has, to some degree, these controls. The association of "Apartheid" and BIC controls is merely Arab-Palestinian trying to incite conflict with and to attach some connection with the Black South African Communities with the terrorist movement of the Palestinians.

There are two graphs that I would like to call your attention to:

View attachment 55341 View attachment 55342​

There is definitely a correlation, but it maybe not one solely attributed to the Security Fence and Barrier singly. It is a total effort of which the Security Fence and Barrier is a key factor.

“Terror” is a subset of insurgency warfare. The concept “terror” encompasses four types of terror, but all employ deliberate violence against civilians in order to obtain political, religious, national, or ideological objectives." (Major General IDF Reserve Yaakov Amidror, former commander of the IDF’s National Defense
College and the IDF Staff and Command College. He is also the former head of the IDF Intelligence Research and Assessment division, with special responsibility for preparing the National Intelligence Assessment. In addition, he served as the military secretary of the Minister of Defense) And clearly MG Amidros believed that a proportional response to Hostile Arab-Palestinians (HoIS) would drag Israel into a war of attrition whose rules will be determined by the HoIS (terrorists) based on accumulated sympathy by playing the virtual victim. "A country like Israel can successfully cope with terrorism and guerrilla tactics only if it retains the ability to respond disproportionately; otherwise, it will find itself fighting according to the enemy’s rules."

Most Respectfully,
R

But according to Tinmore, the Palis arbitrarily decided to stop the suicide bombings. The wall had nothing to do with it! And if you believe that, I have a used car to sell you. Ha ha ha.

Then I have a bridge for sale of which only two exist in the whole world.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, every time you say "Green Line" or "Armistice Line" you and Palestinians like you, add credibility that where ever the Israelis put the wall, it is placed on territory that was renounced by HM The King of the Hashemite Kingdom.

That is what history and documents show. Nobody has ever posted anything to the contrary.
The Green Line was specifically not to be a political or territorial boundary.

(COMMENT)

The people that support the two-state, need a border to lend an established boundary that would legitimize the Palestinian Government. Otherwise, the Article III of the Peace Treaty takes precedence.

Similarly, a very large segment of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believe in a single-state solution in which the Arab Palestinians acquire by force the entirety of the territory in which the Mandate formerly applied (less Jordan). This would conform to the Religious Pledge and Oath made by the HoAP in 1948, the HoAP National Charter of 1968, the call for Jihad in Covenant of the Islamic Resistance in 1988, AND the reiterated Duty of Jihad and Armed Struggle as articulated by the Islamic Resistance Movement.

Maps are really unimportant and sometimes misleading if interpreted without the written narrative that goes with it.

In 1967 it lost all relevance. It is strange, though, that you cannot find a map without it. Are they trying to fool people? Eastern maps do not include it.

(COMMENT)

The "Green Line" was the boundary used in the Jordanian Occupation in 1949, and later the sovereign Annexation in 1950 in which the Arab Palestinians exercised the right of self-determination in the Jordanian Parliament. However, the treaty is altogether something different. The "Green Line" was valid all the through to 26 October 1994. There after the permanent international boundary between Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom was set by Annex Ia Para 2(I)a.

If you are trying to insist that the "Green Line" has any formal or legal application to any claim the HoAP might make, I would like to hear the justification. The Court refrained from declaring that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank was illegal. See the Opinion Critique.

Separate Opinion of Judge Nabil Elaraby, Section III, available at http://www.icj-cig.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imp_advisory_opinion_separate_Elaraby.htm. This quote and all quotes from Written Statements, Oral Pleadings and the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ in the case are taken from Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 9 July 2004, General List, No. 131. For a transcript of the Advisory Opinion, see Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (2005) 38 (1-2) Is.L.R. 17 (hereinafter: “ICJ Opinion“). - See more at: The ICJ Opinion on the Separation Barrier: Designating the Entire West Bank as "Palestinian Territory" | Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs​

The ICJ Opinion used the 1949 Armistice demarcation line, the so-called “Green Line,” to determine the extent of the “occupied Palestinian territory.” The Court made no reference to the fact that the Armistice Agreement that created the Green Line had terminated and that no Arab state had ever recognized the Green Line as an international boundary, nor had Israel given the line such recognition.

And the Egyptian and Jordanian Governments do not recognize it today, as it is replaced.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are working on an incorrect timeline.

Your line:
Jordan occupied the West Bank (Palestinian territory) in 1948.
Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950.
The West Bank became Israeli occupied Jordanian territory in 1967.
Jordan gave up the West Bank in 1994.
Now it is Israeli occupied Palestinian territory.

So, does this mean that Jordan gave the West Bank back to Palestine in 1994?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, every time you say "Green Line" or "Armistice Line" you and Palestinians like you, add credibility that where ever the Israelis put the wall, it is placed on territory that was renounced by HM The King of the Hashemite Kingdom.

That is what history and documents show. Nobody has ever posted anything to the contrary.
The Green Line was specifically not to be a political or territorial boundary.

(COMMENT)

The people that support the two-state, need a border to lend an established boundary that would legitimize the Palestinian Government. Otherwise, the Article III of the Peace Treaty takes precedence.

Similarly, a very large segment of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believe in a single-state solution in which the Arab Palestinians acquire by force the entirety of the territory in which the Mandate formerly applied (less Jordan). This would conform to the Religious Pledge and Oath made by the HoAP in 1948, the HoAP National Charter of 1968, the call for Jihad in Covenant of the Islamic Resistance in 1988, AND the reiterated Duty of Jihad and Armed Struggle as articulated by the Islamic Resistance Movement.

Maps are really unimportant and sometimes misleading if interpreted without the written narrative that goes with it.

In 1967 it lost all relevance. It is strange, though, that you cannot find a map without it. Are they trying to fool people? Eastern maps do not include it.

(COMMENT)

The "Green Line" was the boundary used in the Jordanian Occupation in 1949, and later the sovereign Annexation in 1950 in which the Arab Palestinians exercised the right of self-determination in the Jordanian Parliament. However, the treaty is altogether something different. The "Green Line" was valid all the through to 26 October 1994. There after the permanent international boundary between Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom was set by Annex Ia Para 2(I)a.

If you are trying to insist that the "Green Line" has any formal or legal application to any claim the HoAP might make, I would like to hear the justification. The Court refrained from declaring that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank was illegal. See the Opinion Critique.

Separate Opinion of Judge Nabil Elaraby, Section III, available at http://www.icj-cig.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imp_advisory_opinion_separate_Elaraby.htm. This quote and all quotes from Written Statements, Oral Pleadings and the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ in the case are taken from Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 9 July 2004, General List, No. 131. For a transcript of the Advisory Opinion, see Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (2005) 38 (1-2) Is.L.R. 17 (hereinafter: “ICJ Opinion“). - See more at: The ICJ Opinion on the Separation Barrier: Designating the Entire West Bank as "Palestinian Territory" | Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs​

The ICJ Opinion used the 1949 Armistice demarcation line, the so-called “Green Line,” to determine the extent of the “occupied Palestinian territory.” The Court made no reference to the fact that the Armistice Agreement that created the Green Line had terminated and that no Arab state had ever recognized the Green Line as an international boundary, nor had Israel given the line such recognition.

And the Egyptian and Jordanian Governments do not recognize it today, as it is replaced.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are working on an incorrect timeline.

Your line:
Jordan occupied the West Bank (Palestinian territory) in 1948.
Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950.
The West Bank became Israeli occupied Jordanian territory in 1967.
Jordan gave up the West Bank in 1994.
Now it is Israeli occupied Palestinian territory.

So, does this mean that Jordan gave the West Bank back to Palestine in 1994?

It was not theirs to give to anyone, so they couldn't. It was still mandate land without a sovereign

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, every time you say "Green Line" or "Armistice Line" you and Palestinians like you, add credibility that where ever the Israelis put the wall, it is placed on territory that was renounced by HM The King of the Hashemite Kingdom.

That is what history and documents show. Nobody has ever posted anything to the contrary.
The Green Line was specifically not to be a political or territorial boundary.

(COMMENT)

The people that support the two-state, need a border to lend an established boundary that would legitimize the Palestinian Government. Otherwise, the Article III of the Peace Treaty takes precedence.

Similarly, a very large segment of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believe in a single-state solution in which the Arab Palestinians acquire by force the entirety of the territory in which the Mandate formerly applied (less Jordan). This would conform to the Religious Pledge and Oath made by the HoAP in 1948, the HoAP National Charter of 1968, the call for Jihad in Covenant of the Islamic Resistance in 1988, AND the reiterated Duty of Jihad and Armed Struggle as articulated by the Islamic Resistance Movement.

Maps are really unimportant and sometimes misleading if interpreted without the written narrative that goes with it.

In 1967 it lost all relevance. It is strange, though, that you cannot find a map without it. Are they trying to fool people? Eastern maps do not include it.

(COMMENT)

The "Green Line" was the boundary used in the Jordanian Occupation in 1949, and later the sovereign Annexation in 1950 in which the Arab Palestinians exercised the right of self-determination in the Jordanian Parliament. However, the treaty is altogether something different. The "Green Line" was valid all the through to 26 October 1994. There after the permanent international boundary between Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom was set by Annex Ia Para 2(I)a.

If you are trying to insist that the "Green Line" has any formal or legal application to any claim the HoAP might make, I would like to hear the justification. The Court refrained from declaring that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank was illegal. See the Opinion Critique.

Separate Opinion of Judge Nabil Elaraby, Section III, available at http://www.icj-cig.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imp_advisory_opinion_separate_Elaraby.htm. This quote and all quotes from Written Statements, Oral Pleadings and the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ in the case are taken from Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 9 July 2004, General List, No. 131. For a transcript of the Advisory Opinion, see Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (2005) 38 (1-2) Is.L.R. 17 (hereinafter: “ICJ Opinion“). - See more at: The ICJ Opinion on the Separation Barrier: Designating the Entire West Bank as "Palestinian Territory" | Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs​

The ICJ Opinion used the 1949 Armistice demarcation line, the so-called “Green Line,” to determine the extent of the “occupied Palestinian territory.” The Court made no reference to the fact that the Armistice Agreement that created the Green Line had terminated and that no Arab state had ever recognized the Green Line as an international boundary, nor had Israel given the line such recognition.

And the Egyptian and Jordanian Governments do not recognize it today, as it is replaced.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are working on an incorrect timeline.

Your line:
Jordan occupied the West Bank (Palestinian territory) in 1948.
Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950.
The West Bank became Israeli occupied Jordanian territory in 1967.
Jordan gave up the West Bank in 1994.
Now it is Israeli occupied Palestinian territory.

So, does this mean that Jordan gave the West Bank back to Palestine in 1994?

It was not theirs to give to anyone, so they couldn't. It was still mandate land without a sovereign

And it was not theirs to lose either.

BTW, the Mandate left Palestine in 1948.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, every time you say "Green Line" or "Armistice Line" you and Palestinians like you, add credibility that where ever the Israelis put the wall, it is placed on territory that was renounced by HM The King of the Hashemite Kingdom.

That is what history and documents show. Nobody has ever posted anything to the contrary.
The Green Line was specifically not to be a political or territorial boundary.

(COMMENT)

The people that support the two-state, need a border to lend an established boundary that would legitimize the Palestinian Government. Otherwise, the Article III of the Peace Treaty takes precedence.

Similarly, a very large segment of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believe in a single-state solution in which the Arab Palestinians acquire by force the entirety of the territory in which the Mandate formerly applied (less Jordan). This would conform to the Religious Pledge and Oath made by the HoAP in 1948, the HoAP National Charter of 1968, the call for Jihad in Covenant of the Islamic Resistance in 1988, AND the reiterated Duty of Jihad and Armed Struggle as articulated by the Islamic Resistance Movement.

Maps are really unimportant and sometimes misleading if interpreted without the written narrative that goes with it.

In 1967 it lost all relevance. It is strange, though, that you cannot find a map without it. Are they trying to fool people? Eastern maps do not include it.

(COMMENT)

The "Green Line" was the boundary used in the Jordanian Occupation in 1949, and later the sovereign Annexation in 1950 in which the Arab Palestinians exercised the right of self-determination in the Jordanian Parliament. However, the treaty is altogether something different. The "Green Line" was valid all the through to 26 October 1994. There after the permanent international boundary between Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom was set by Annex Ia Para 2(I)a.

If you are trying to insist that the "Green Line" has any formal or legal application to any claim the HoAP might make, I would like to hear the justification. The Court refrained from declaring that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank was illegal. See the Opinion Critique.

Separate Opinion of Judge Nabil Elaraby, Section III, available at http://www.icj-cig.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imp_advisory_opinion_separate_Elaraby.htm. This quote and all quotes from Written Statements, Oral Pleadings and the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ in the case are taken from Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 9 July 2004, General List, No. 131. For a transcript of the Advisory Opinion, see Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (2005) 38 (1-2) Is.L.R. 17 (hereinafter: “ICJ Opinion“). - See more at: The ICJ Opinion on the Separation Barrier: Designating the Entire West Bank as "Palestinian Territory" | Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs​

The ICJ Opinion used the 1949 Armistice demarcation line, the so-called “Green Line,” to determine the extent of the “occupied Palestinian territory.” The Court made no reference to the fact that the Armistice Agreement that created the Green Line had terminated and that no Arab state had ever recognized the Green Line as an international boundary, nor had Israel given the line such recognition.

And the Egyptian and Jordanian Governments do not recognize it today, as it is replaced.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are working on an incorrect timeline.

Your line:
Jordan occupied the West Bank (Palestinian territory) in 1948.
Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950.
The West Bank became Israeli occupied Jordanian territory in 1967.
Jordan gave up the West Bank in 1994.
Now it is Israeli occupied Palestinian territory.

So, does this mean that Jordan gave the West Bank back to Palestine in 1994?

It was not theirs to give to anyone, so they couldn't. It was still mandate land without a sovereign

And it was not theirs to lose either.

BTW, the Mandate left Palestine in 1948.

No the mandate did not leave in 1948 at all, the British mandatory power left and handed control over to the UN. The Mandate of Palestine is still in existence until the arab muslims make the final step towards free determination

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, every time you say "Green Line" or "Armistice Line" you and Palestinians like you, add credibility that where ever the Israelis put the wall, it is placed on territory that was renounced by HM The King of the Hashemite Kingdom.

That is what history and documents show. Nobody has ever posted anything to the contrary.
The Green Line was specifically not to be a political or territorial boundary.

(COMMENT)

The people that support the two-state, need a border to lend an established boundary that would legitimize the Palestinian Government. Otherwise, the Article III of the Peace Treaty takes precedence.

Similarly, a very large segment of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believe in a single-state solution in which the Arab Palestinians acquire by force the entirety of the territory in which the Mandate formerly applied (less Jordan). This would conform to the Religious Pledge and Oath made by the HoAP in 1948, the HoAP National Charter of 1968, the call for Jihad in Covenant of the Islamic Resistance in 1988, AND the reiterated Duty of Jihad and Armed Struggle as articulated by the Islamic Resistance Movement.

Maps are really unimportant and sometimes misleading if interpreted without the written narrative that goes with it.

In 1967 it lost all relevance. It is strange, though, that you cannot find a map without it. Are they trying to fool people? Eastern maps do not include it.

(COMMENT)

The "Green Line" was the boundary used in the Jordanian Occupation in 1949, and later the sovereign Annexation in 1950 in which the Arab Palestinians exercised the right of self-determination in the Jordanian Parliament. However, the treaty is altogether something different. The "Green Line" was valid all the through to 26 October 1994. There after the permanent international boundary between Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom was set by Annex Ia Para 2(I)a.

If you are trying to insist that the "Green Line" has any formal or legal application to any claim the HoAP might make, I would like to hear the justification. The Court refrained from declaring that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank was illegal. See the Opinion Critique.

Separate Opinion of Judge Nabil Elaraby, Section III, available at http://www.icj-cig.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imp_advisory_opinion_separate_Elaraby.htm. This quote and all quotes from Written Statements, Oral Pleadings and the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ in the case are taken from Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 9 July 2004, General List, No. 131. For a transcript of the Advisory Opinion, see Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (2005) 38 (1-2) Is.L.R. 17 (hereinafter: “ICJ Opinion“). - See more at: The ICJ Opinion on the Separation Barrier: Designating the Entire West Bank as "Palestinian Territory" | Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs​

The ICJ Opinion used the 1949 Armistice demarcation line, the so-called “Green Line,” to determine the extent of the “occupied Palestinian territory.” The Court made no reference to the fact that the Armistice Agreement that created the Green Line had terminated and that no Arab state had ever recognized the Green Line as an international boundary, nor had Israel given the line such recognition.

And the Egyptian and Jordanian Governments do not recognize it today, as it is replaced.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are working on an incorrect timeline.

Your line:
Jordan occupied the West Bank (Palestinian territory) in 1948.
Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950.
The West Bank became Israeli occupied Jordanian territory in 1967.
Jordan gave up the West Bank in 1994.
Now it is Israeli occupied Palestinian territory.

So, does this mean that Jordan gave the West Bank back to Palestine in 1994?

It was not theirs to give to anyone, so they couldn't. It was still mandate land without a sovereign

And it was not theirs to lose either.

BTW, the Mandate left Palestine in 1948.

No the mandate did not leave in 1948 at all, the British mandatory power left and handed control over to the UN. The Mandate of Palestine is still in existence until the arab muslims make the final step towards free determination

Right!!!!

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, every time you say "Green Line" or "Armistice Line" you and Palestinians like you, add credibility that where ever the Israelis put the wall, it is placed on territory that was renounced by HM The King of the Hashemite Kingdom.

(COMMENT)

The people that support the two-state, need a border to lend an established boundary that would legitimize the Palestinian Government. Otherwise, the Article III of the Peace Treaty takes precedence.

Similarly, a very large segment of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believe in a single-state solution in which the Arab Palestinians acquire by force the entirety of the territory in which the Mandate formerly applied (less Jordan). This would conform to the Religious Pledge and Oath made by the HoAP in 1948, the HoAP National Charter of 1968, the call for Jihad in Covenant of the Islamic Resistance in 1988, AND the reiterated Duty of Jihad and Armed Struggle as articulated by the Islamic Resistance Movement.

Maps are really unimportant and sometimes misleading if interpreted without the written narrative that goes with it.
(COMMENT)

The "Green Line" was the boundary used in the Jordanian Occupation in 1949, and later the sovereign Annexation in 1950 in which the Arab Palestinians exercised the right of self-determination in the Jordanian Parliament. However, the treaty is altogether something different. The "Green Line" was valid all the through to 26 October 1994. There after the permanent international boundary between Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom was set by Annex Ia Para 2(I)a.

If you are trying to insist that the "Green Line" has any formal or legal application to any claim the HoAP might make, I would like to hear the justification. The Court refrained from declaring that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank was illegal. See the Opinion Critique.

Separate Opinion of Judge Nabil Elaraby, Section III, available at http://www.icj-cig.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imp_advisory_opinion_separate_Elaraby.htm. This quote and all quotes from Written Statements, Oral Pleadings and the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ in the case are taken from Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 9 July 2004, General List, No. 131. For a transcript of the Advisory Opinion, see Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (2005) 38 (1-2) Is.L.R. 17 (hereinafter: “ICJ Opinion“). - See more at: The ICJ Opinion on the Separation Barrier: Designating the Entire West Bank as "Palestinian Territory" | Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs​

The ICJ Opinion used the 1949 Armistice demarcation line, the so-called “Green Line,” to determine the extent of the “occupied Palestinian territory.” The Court made no reference to the fact that the Armistice Agreement that created the Green Line had terminated and that no Arab state had ever recognized the Green Line as an international boundary, nor had Israel given the line such recognition.

And the Egyptian and Jordanian Governments do not recognize it today, as it is replaced.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are working on an incorrect timeline.

Your line:
Jordan occupied the West Bank (Palestinian territory) in 1948.
Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950.
The West Bank became Israeli occupied Jordanian territory in 1967.
Jordan gave up the West Bank in 1994.
Now it is Israeli occupied Palestinian territory.

So, does this mean that Jordan gave the West Bank back to Palestine in 1994?

It was not theirs to give to anyone, so they couldn't. It was still mandate land without a sovereign

And it was not theirs to lose either.

BTW, the Mandate left Palestine in 1948.

No the mandate did not leave in 1948 at all, the British mandatory power left and handed control over to the UN. The Mandate of Palestine is still in existence until the arab muslims make the final step towards free determination

Right!!!!

Try reading the LoN mandate and see what it says about when the Mandate ends

 

[P F Tinmore]

You are working on an incorrect timeline.

Your line:
Jordan occupied the West Bank (Palestinian territory) in 1948.
Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950.
The West Bank became Israeli occupied Jordanian territory in 1967.
Jordan gave up the West Bank in 1994.
Now it is Israeli occupied Palestinian territory.

So, does this mean that Jordan gave the West Bank back to Palestine in 1994?

It was not theirs to give to anyone, so they couldn't. It was still mandate land without a sovereign

And it was not theirs to lose either.

BTW, the Mandate left Palestine in 1948.

No the mandate did not leave in 1948 at all, the British mandatory power left and handed control over to the UN. The Mandate of Palestine is still in existence until the arab muslims make the final step towards free determination

Right!!!!

Try reading the LoN mandate and see what it says about when the Mandate ends

I have. The LoN stated that the Mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice to the inhabitants (the Palestinians) until they could stand alone. That was the official end game.

Britain, however, never pursued that goal and left accomplishing nothing but starting a never ending war.

 

[Phoenall]

It was not theirs to give to anyone, so they couldn't. It was still mandate land without a sovereign

And it was not theirs to lose either.

BTW, the Mandate left Palestine in 1948.

No the mandate did not leave in 1948 at all, the British mandatory power left and handed control over to the UN. The Mandate of Palestine is still in existence until the arab muslims make the final step towards free determination

Right!!!!

Try reading the LoN mandate and see what it says about when the Mandate ends

I have. The LoN stated that the Mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice to the inhabitants (the Palestinians) until they could stand alone. That was the official end game.

Britain, however, never pursued that goal and left accomplishing nothing but starting a never ending war.

Wrong the LoN mandate did not say that, it said the MANDATORY POWER was to render assistance. The Mandate was the legality behind the mandatory power, you always seem to confuse Britain's role as the mandatory power with the actual mandate. It was not the mandatory powers job to pursue any group in the furtherance of their self determination, just to assist them in their endeavours. This meant that they would not fight for the arab muslims against the Jews which is what you and other muslims believe was the whole point of the Mandate.

 

[P F Tinmore]

And it was not theirs to lose either.

BTW, the Mandate left Palestine in 1948.

No the mandate did not leave in 1948 at all, the British mandatory power left and handed control over to the UN. The Mandate of Palestine is still in existence until the arab muslims make the final step towards free determination

Right!!!!

Try reading the LoN mandate and see what it says about when the Mandate ends

I have. The LoN stated that the Mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice to the inhabitants (the Palestinians) until they could stand alone. That was the official end game.

Britain, however, never pursued that goal and left accomplishing nothing but starting a never ending war.

Wrong the LoN mandate did not say that, it said the MANDATORY POWER was to render assistance. The Mandate was the legality behind the mandatory power, you always seem to confuse Britain's role as the mandatory power with the actual mandate. It was not the mandatory powers job to pursue any group in the furtherance of their self determination, just to assist them in their endeavours. This meant that they would not fight for the arab muslims against the Jews which is what you and other muslims believe was the whole point of the Mandate.

My assessment is correct.

Do you have a link to your load of crap?

 

[Phoenall]

No the mandate did not leave in 1948 at all, the British mandatory power left and handed control over to the UN. The Mandate of Palestine is still in existence until the arab muslims make the final step towards free determination

Right!!!!

Try reading the LoN mandate and see what it says about when the Mandate ends

I have. The LoN stated that the Mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice to the inhabitants (the Palestinians) until they could stand alone. That was the official end game.

Britain, however, never pursued that goal and left accomplishing nothing but starting a never ending war.

Wrong the LoN mandate did not say that, it said the MANDATORY POWER was to render assistance. The Mandate was the legality behind the mandatory power, you always seem to confuse Britain's role as the mandatory power with the actual mandate. It was not the mandatory powers job to pursue any group in the furtherance of their self determination, just to assist them in their endeavours. This meant that they would not fight for the arab muslims against the Jews which is what you and other muslims believe was the whole point of the Mandate.

My assessment is correct.

Do you have a link to your load of crap?

Yes the same one I give you every time the Mandate of Palestine 1923.



The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate


The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;



So are you now calling International law "a load of crap" ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Right!!!!

Try reading the LoN mandate and see what it says about when the Mandate ends

I have. The LoN stated that the Mandate was to render administrative assistance and advice to the inhabitants (the Palestinians) until they could stand alone. That was the official end game.

Britain, however, never pursued that goal and left accomplishing nothing but starting a never ending war.

Wrong the LoN mandate did not say that, it said the MANDATORY POWER was to render assistance. The Mandate was the legality behind the mandatory power, you always seem to confuse Britain's role as the mandatory power with the actual mandate. It was not the mandatory powers job to pursue any group in the furtherance of their self determination, just to assist them in their endeavours. This meant that they would not fight for the arab muslims against the Jews which is what you and other muslims believe was the whole point of the Mandate.

My assessment is correct.

Do you have a link to your load of crap?

Yes the same one I give you every time the Mandate of Palestine 1923.



The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate


The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;



So are you now calling International law "a load of crap" ?

No, I am saying that your misinterpretation is a load of crap.