Can Palestinian's and Israeli's ever be friends?

[Phoenall]

Jews would be free once they all remembered their ancestors and the elders and prosper even more. That's the sole purpose of Israel today.

And to think you accuse Muslims of living in the 7th century?

The freedom You're talking about is sold in Europe under the guise of "rights"...Israel seems to know the game of ME better.

Where it deny's the rights of others.

Because they do, and show it every minute of every day of every year.

Rights that never existed until idiots like you decided to grant them. Then take them away from half of the population because of racial hatreds and brainwashing. Who has the most rights a murderer who kills for pleasure or a hard working family man doing the best for his family. In your world the murderer because he is a palestinian

 

[Phoenall]

Correct I am not Jewish but I support and defend their right to defend themselves from attacks and terrorism. Just as I support and defend the people of Syria's right to defend against attack and terrorism.

So you are officially stating your support for the Assad government?

No I am stating my support for the Syrian people to defend themselves from islamonazi terrorists. If they be Assad's troops or IS scum

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Arab Palestinians claim everything is illegal if they don't agree with it.

All that about land and borders have to be defined by treaty. If the Palestinians had agreed, there would have been a valid treaty. Without the agreement by the Palestinian's, they had nothing. Imposing partition on Palestine by force would have violated the UN's own charter.

(COMMENT)

First, borders do not require a treaty. Second, only two countries can enter into a Treaty (Part I, Article 2a, Law of Treaties). The Palestinians had no country and therefore could not enter into a treaty. The Arab Palestinians had not established sovereignty over the territory in question, therefore could not enter a treaty.

Resolution 181(II) did not impose any partition. It was a set of Steps Preparatory to Independence. The actual country was established under the Charter 1, Article 1(2). The right of self-determination, for the establishment of the Jewish State, was recorded by official cablegram from the Provisional Government pursuant to the Step Preparatory to Independence.

Resolution 181 had died and the US was offering a different proposal when the 1948 war broke out making the whole plan moot.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is always the claim. Yet it could not be further from the truth.

You mentioned in post 44 that the West Bank was Jordanian territory. That is not true. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law. This necessarily means that if one State achieves power over parts of another State’s territory by force or threat of force, the situation must be considered temporary by international law.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf​

It can also be said (and I have) that Israel illegally annexed territory that it occupied in the 1948 war. Israel supporters have danced around this question for years.

(COMMENT)

This is another mistake of fact. The Jordanian King DID NOT annex the West Bank; it was the Joint Jordanian/Palestinian Parliament.

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
SOURCE: Unification of the Two Banks

In fact, this was the Arab Palestinians using their "right of self-determination."

Most Respectfully,
R

First, borders do not require a treaty.​

Link?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Arab Palestinians claim everything is illegal if they don't agree with it.

All that about land and borders have to be defined by treaty. If the Palestinians had agreed, there would have been a valid treaty. Without the agreement by the Palestinian's, they had nothing. Imposing partition on Palestine by force would have violated the UN's own charter.

(COMMENT)

First, borders do not require a treaty. Second, only two countries can enter into a Treaty (Part I, Article 2a, Law of Treaties). The Palestinians had no country and therefore could not enter into a treaty. The Arab Palestinians had not established sovereignty over the territory in question, therefore could not enter a treaty.

Resolution 181(II) did not impose any partition. It was a set of Steps Preparatory to Independence. The actual country was established under the Charter 1, Article 1(2). The right of self-determination, for the establishment of the Jewish State, was recorded by official cablegram from the Provisional Government pursuant to the Step Preparatory to Independence.

Resolution 181 had died and the US was offering a different proposal when the 1948 war broke out making the whole plan moot.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is always the claim. Yet it could not be further from the truth.

You mentioned in post 44 that the West Bank was Jordanian territory. That is not true. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law. This necessarily means that if one State achieves power over parts of another State’s territory by force or threat of force, the situation must be considered temporary by international law.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf​

It can also be said (and I have) that Israel illegally annexed territory that it occupied in the 1948 war. Israel supporters have danced around this question for years.

(COMMENT)

This is another mistake of fact. The Jordanian King DID NOT annex the West Bank; it was the Joint Jordanian/Palestinian Parliament.

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
SOURCE: Unification of the Two Banks

In fact, this was the Arab Palestinians using their "right of self-determination."

Most Respectfully,
R

First, borders do not require a treaty.​

Link?

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


This calls for the negotiations of mutual borders, which has been done with 3 of the 5 nations involved, only Syria and Lebanon have not agreed mutual borders yet.


1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Where does it say anything about negotiating borders?

Lebanon had borders. Syria had borders. Jordan had borders. Egypt had borders. Palestine had borders. All of them undisputed.

What was there to negotiate?

The highlighted part of course

Until they engaged in all out war and those borders became non existent. Palestine the mandate had borders, not Palestine the nation.

Mutual borders that would then enter into International law, Or don't you see the need to set in stone immovable borders ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You cut'n'paste well. But do you know what it means and how to apply it?

And what " peremptory norm of general international law " does Oslo conflict with. Give the law and its date of implementation and how Oslo applies ?
Civilians are at all times entitled to respect for their persons, honour,
family rights, religious convictions, and manners and customs. Their
private property is protected.

The civilian population is in a tense and vulnerable position. The law
states that it must be humanely treated in all circumstances and pro-
tected from any acts of violence, including by third parties. The occupying
power may only put in place such measures of control and security as
may be necessary as a result of the conflict. Collective penalties, measures
of intimidation, terrorism and hostage-taking are prohibited.

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed
by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power
and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent
national authorities from being put under pressure to make conces-
sions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken
its legal rights.

Similarly, the inhabitants of the occupied territory cannot renounce their
rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention. This again is a safeguard.
It prevents the occupying power from exploiting the vulnerability of the
occupied territory by exerting undue pressure to undermine and weaken
the protection which the law affords.

Individual or mass forcible transfers and deportations of the civilian
population from occupied territory are prohibited.

The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian
population into the territory it occupies.

Destruction of property.
The occupying power is not allowed to destroy real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, to the State, to other public authorities or to social or co-operative organizations, except where such destruction is made absolutely necessary by military operations.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf

(COMMENT)

The Oslo Accords are in no way preempting the application of something otherwise legal. What the passage on the concept of a " peremptory norm of general international law " is trying to convey --- is that you cannot (for example) you cannot enforce a contract (the legal instrument) to murder, since murder is always illegal.

Now you might have a case for the exploitation of the influence held by an Occupation Power. But even that is estranged from the truth. Yes, the Oslo Accord I (1993)(Declaration of Principles (DoP) on Interim Self-Government Arrangements) where were put together by Ron Pundak (Israeli), who just passed away in the last year. In diplomatic circles, he was known as the "Warrior for Peace." Pundak was the General Director of an NGO known as the Peres Center for Peace, from 2001 to 2012, focused on improving relations between Israelis and Palestinians. While the DoP was a product of an Israeli, the negotiation effort was not one of coercive atmosphere. The DoP was more than just a framework for the agreements. In it Israel accepted the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the representative of the Palestinians, and the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace. Both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Now there were then, as there has been since 1948, very powerful and influential Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, that focus all their efforts into derailing any mutual agreement between the two belligerents, that would lead to peace. These same powerful and influential Arab interests and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force that which has been made so far and any attempt to make a reasonable effort to negotiate a peaceful settlement in the future. HAMAS is just but one such force, using asymmetric warfare to achieve their political ends that have otherwise been out of reach.

I understand that there are some Arab Palestinians that periodically reaffirm here that the Arab Palestine will not recognize the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Convention, the Mandate of Palestine, and Resolution 181(II), or any outcome that is derived from them. But this again, is the obstinacy of the Arab Palestinian people that want to undermine the decisions made by the Council of the League, the Allied Powers, and the General Assembly. They want to use complaints and conflict, instigated by there own hand, to coerce and pressure set the conditions for ever more fruitless conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

I understand that there are some Arab Palestinians that periodically reaffirm here that the Arab Palestine will not recognize the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Convention, the Mandate of Palestine, and Resolution 181(II), or any outcome that is derived from them.​

And that was one of the biggest successes for the Palestinians. None of those were successful in creating a Jewish state. When the Mandate left Palestine there was nothing legitimate for the Zionists to hang their hat on.

No government was established by the Mandate. Israel had acquired no land from any of those previous activities. No borders were defined. No legitimacy for a Jewish state had been established. There was a lot of talk but all actions had failed.

Once again you make your false claims without any support from any sources, not even biased partisan islamonazi ones.

The Mandate was successful in creating a Jewish state as it enabled the Jews to declare independence of the mandate in 1948. Resolution 181 accepted the Jewish declaration and instituted the nation by UN resolution in 1949. The mandate having been taken over by the UN did establish the Jewish government and gave the nation of Israel legitimacy.
The mandate of Palestine defined the borders of arab Palestine ( trans Jordan ) and Jewish Palestine ( Israel, gaaza, west bank, Jerusalem and the Golan heights ) and these are the International borders as agreed by the LoN in 1923. There was no nation of Palestine prior to 1988

So you are saying the the Palestinians declared a state in 1988 on land that was given to the Jews in 1923?

You don't make any sense.

That is what happened because of 181. In the real world the UN should have told the arab muslims to either accept Israel to the 1923 borders or pack their bags and go

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UN did not "abandon" General Assembly Resolution 181(II)

P F Tinmore, et al,

HAMAS is a product, not of Israeli Policy, but a resulting consequences of Palestinian politico-military actions.

(COMMENT)

When HAMAS (AUG 1988) was born, the month before the State of Palestine (NOV 1988) was declared. The basic content and position of HAMAS has not changed since it was first formally articulated in A/AC.21/10 16 February 1948. In the basic threat issued by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), it is really the foundational content of the the 1988 Covenant. Take the basic points outline in the AHC Threat Letter, and wrap them around fundamentalist Islamic Radical Rhetoric, and you have most of the HAMAS Covenant. And those fundamentals are merely updated and polished a little more in the Political Bureau, Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) Principle Position Paper of 2012.

In August 1988, when HAMAS published the Covenant, there was no Palestinian Territory in Occupation. It was formerly Jordanian Territory which had been severed and abandoned from the nation by Royal Decree.

What we all observe today, is a consequence of the Israeli necessity for a security deterrent against Palestinian Jihadist and Insurgents.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks for the link. It is a good read.

A/AC.21/10 of 16 February 1948

It explains why the UN abandoned resolution 181.

BTW, the rest of your post is a pantload.

(COMMENT)

I know that you want people to believe that, but it is simply not true. One of the more relevant example is:

• "Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947," used in the 2012 Resolution on the Status of Palestine.
• "Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in which, inter alia, it recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish State and an Arab State, with Jerusalem as a corpus separatum, in the 1998 Resolution on the Participation of Palestine in the work of the United Nations.

But even the Arab Palestinians recognize it:

• "The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process." Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General."

I know that it is an inconvenient truth, yet one that demonstrates how confused and segmented the Arab Palestinians are on the issues.

PS: What in Post #44 was inaccurate???

Most Respectfully,
R

All that about land and borders have to be defined by treaty. If the Palestinians had agreed, there would have been a valid treaty. Without the agreement by the Palestinian's, they had nothing. Imposing partition on Palestine by force would have violated the UN's own charter.

Resolution 181 had died and the US was offering a different proposal when the 1948 war broke out making the whole plan moot.
------------
You mentioned in post 44 that the West Bank was Jordanian territory. That is not true. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law. This necessarily means that if one State achieves power over parts of another State’s territory by force or threat of force, the situation must be considered temporary by international law.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf​

It can also be said (and I have) that Israel illegally annexed territory that it occupied in the 1948 war. Israel supporters have danced around this question for years.

Not if the inhabitants agree to accept the annexation and become nationals of that nation

Now when did this become International law, and provide a proper link not some classroom study piece that is neither use nor ornament.

By the way just because you say something does mean it is true, as you have been shown many times in the past.

Not if the inhabitants agree to accept the annexation and become nationals of that nation​

So the people have the sovereignty over their land even though they do not have an independent state.

That's good to know.

No not until they declare their intentions, until that time the International laws of the period are in force.

 

[Billo_Really]

No I am stating my support for the Syrian people to defend themselves from islamonazi terrorists.

That would be the Assad government. And government troops. I don't know if they teach political science in the UK, but the "government" in a democracy, represents the "people". That's why whenever someone is prosecuted for a crime in this country, it's the "People for the State of..." vs __________ .

In summary, you support the Assad government and Israel supports the ISIS rebels. You just admitted you're an enemy of Israel. Fucking anti-Semite, Jew-hater!

If they be Assad's troops or IS scum

If you don't know the difference between government troops and ISIS rebels, why are you even commenting on this subject?

Do you enjoy talking about things you know nothing about?

 

[Billo_Really]

So you are saying the the Palestinians declared a state in 1988 on land that was given to the Jews in 1923?

You don't make any sense.

I think you just discovered a new reality show.................Phun with Phoen!

 

[Phoenall]

No I am stating my support for the Syrian people to defend themselves from islamonazi terrorists.

That would be the Assad government. And government troops. I don't know if they teach political science in the UK, but the "government" in a democracy, represents the "people". That's why whenever someone is prosecuted for a crime in this country, it's the "People for the State of..." vs __________ .

In summary, you support the Assad government and Israel supports the ISIS rebels. You just admitted you're an enemy of Israel. Fucking anti-Semite, Jew-hater!

If they be Assad's troops or IS scum

If you don't know the difference between government troops and ISIS rebels, why are you even commenting on this subject?

Do you enjoy talking about things you know nothing about?

Shows that you cant understand English as democracy as we know it does not represent all the people, just those in power.

Your twisting of my words shows that you have lost another argument and are no longer worth bothering with, but then you will no longer be the centre of attention and could do something stupid

I know the difference alright, but do you ?

 

[Phoenall]

So you are saying the the Palestinians declared a state in 1988 on land that was given to the Jews in 1923?

You don't make any sense.

I think you just discovered a new reality show.................Phun with Phoen!

Are you disputing historical facts ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Arab Palestinians claim everything is illegal if they don't agree with it.

All that about land and borders have to be defined by treaty. If the Palestinians had agreed, there would have been a valid treaty. Without the agreement by the Palestinian's, they had nothing. Imposing partition on Palestine by force would have violated the UN's own charter.

(COMMENT)

First, borders do not require a treaty. Second, only two countries can enter into a Treaty (Part I, Article 2a, Law of Treaties). The Palestinians had no country and therefore could not enter into a treaty. The Arab Palestinians had not established sovereignty over the territory in question, therefore could not enter a treaty.

Resolution 181(II) did not impose any partition. It was a set of Steps Preparatory to Independence. The actual country was established under the Charter 1, Article 1(2). The right of self-determination, for the establishment of the Jewish State, was recorded by official cablegram from the Provisional Government pursuant to the Step Preparatory to Independence.

Resolution 181 had died and the US was offering a different proposal when the 1948 war broke out making the whole plan moot.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is always the claim. Yet it could not be further from the truth.

You mentioned in post 44 that the West Bank was Jordanian territory. That is not true. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law. This necessarily means that if one State achieves power over parts of another State’s territory by force or threat of force, the situation must be considered temporary by international law.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf​

It can also be said (and I have) that Israel illegally annexed territory that it occupied in the 1948 war. Israel supporters have danced around this question for years.

(COMMENT)

This is another mistake of fact. The Jordanian King DID NOT annex the West Bank; it was the Joint Jordanian/Palestinian Parliament.

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
SOURCE: Unification of the Two Banks

In fact, this was the Arab Palestinians using their "right of self-determination."

Most Respectfully,
R

First, borders do not require a treaty.​

Link?

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


This calls for the negotiations of mutual borders, which has been done with 3 of the 5 nations involved, only Syria and Lebanon have not agreed mutual borders yet.


1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Where does it say anything about negotiating borders?

Lebanon had borders. Syria had borders. Jordan had borders. Egypt had borders. Palestine had borders. All of them undisputed.

What was there to negotiate?

The highlighted part of course

It doesn't say anything about negotiating or changing any borders.

Until they engaged in all out war and those borders became non existent. Palestine the mandate had borders, not Palestine the nation.

Wars cannot change borders. Subsequent peace treaties can though not a requirement.

The Mandate was an appointed administration not a place. It had no land or borders.

Mutual borders that would then enter into International law, Or don't you see the need to set in stone immovable borders ?

There were already undisputed international borders. I don't see your point.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Generally speaking, laws do not tell "what you can do" --- but rather --- "what you cannot do." I'm sure that Iwent over this before.

(COMMENT)

For several millennium --- the most common means was "discovery." However, no new land has been discovered in a century. Today --- there are five primary modes of acquisition of territorial sovereignty which are typically dubbed the ‘original’ or ‘traditional’ methods. Each mode of acquisition - is different:

NOTE: Recognizing the importance of the international regulation of territorial disputes, international law has established a range of mechanisms for peaceful settlement. Whether binding in law as such or not or involving third parties such as courts or international organizations or not, such mechanisms will be briefly reviewed in this lecture. ​

• Occupation: Occupation is the intentional acquisition by a state over a territory which at the time of claim not under the sovereignty of any state. There are two requirements:

(1) the territory subject of claim must not be under the sovereignty of any state (terra nullius); and
(2) the state must have effectively occupied the territory, that is, the state claiming the territory must have exercised immediate occupation (corpus occupandi) on the territory after it displayed its intention to occupy (animus occupandi).

Special Source Note: "g. With regard to acquisition of sovereignty by military occupation, in the case of the Ottoman Empire pre-1918 of the Red Sea islands, the Award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the first stage of proceedings, Territorial Sovereignty and Scope of the Dispute, in the case of Eritrea versus Yemen, October 9, 1998, stated that “title had been secured by military occupation, which was lawful by reference to the international law of the day.” (See Page 7 )"

“maps merely constitute information which varies in accuracy from case to case; of themselves, and by virtue solely of their existence, they cannot constitute a territorial title, that is, a document endowed by international law with intrinsic legal force for the purpose of establishing territorial rights."
​

Attribution: INTERNATIONAL LEGAL RULES FOR DECIDING SOVEREIGNTY DISPUTES by J. Ashley Roach
​

• Accretion, is the attainment of sovereignty over new land due to slow movement of natural forces. A contemporary example is the movement of the Rio Grande River between the US and Mexico, in favor of the US.

• Cession, is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another. Concomitant of transfer of territory is the transfer of sovereignty from the owner state to another state. And since cession is a bilateral transaction, the parties involved are states. Cession may also be in the form of exchange of territory or in the form gift or donation or devise.

• Conquest: is acquiring territory by the use of force. The practice before was after conquest, the conqueror annexed the conquered territory to his state. Thus, conquest first takes place followed by annexation. But with the establishment of the United Nations, conquest is no longer acceptable in the international community. However, it is actually still in use today. A classic example is the Crimean Territory. There was first the case of Russian Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire (1783); and then (most recently) the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation (2014).

• Prescription: means continued occupation over a long period of time by one state of territory actually and originally belonging to another state. There are four requirements of prescription:

(1) the possession must be exercised in the form of actual exercise of sovereign authority;
(2) the possession must be peaceful and uninterrupted;
(3) the possession must be public; and
(4) the possession must be for a long period of time.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Rehmani]

They could (and WOULD) if the rest of the world would leave them alone to work out their differences.

That will never happen. The " Arab Peace Plan" calls for the destruction of Israel

Israeli attitude will destroy Israel, to change their attitude they have to be free from their elders who are using them by their brain wash; please see my signature comments.

HOGWASH and islaminazi propaganda because they know they are unable to defeat the Jews. They have tried and failed many times, and even the combined forces of 5 arab nations could not beat Jewish farmers fighting with farm tools and 19C guns.

They could (and WOULD) if the rest of the world would leave them alone to work out their differences.

That will never happen. The " Arab Peace Plan" calls for the destruction of Israel

Israeli attitude will destroy Israel, to change their attitude they have to be free from their elders who are using them by their brain wash; please see my signature comments.

HOGWASH and islaminazi propaganda because they know they are unable to defeat the Jews. They have tried and failed many times, and even the combined forces of 5 arab nations could not beat Jewish farmers fighting with farm tools and 19C guns.

How silly. Must be you are not Jewish.

Correct I am not Jewish but I support and defend their right to defend themselves from attacks and terrorism. Just as I support and defend the people of Syria's right to defend against attack and terrorism.

How silly again, jewish invade Palestine and you defending them. They are killing innocent empty handed people and you are defending them, correct yourself you are more faithful than a jewish.

 

[Rehmani]

Jewish don't anything they are brain wash by their elders.

Not all Jews. Israel is losing a lot of their younger Jewish population, because they don't want to be associated with what their government is doing. And as time goes on, more and more of the Jewish population around the world, is starting to speak out against the foreign policies of the Israeli government. Groups like Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) and Rabbi's for Human Rights, are two that comes to mind.

But getting back to your comment, "...they are brain wash by their elders...", makes me think, in contrast, the comments of the Iranian population (who 70% of them are under the age of 30), say they can't wait for their elders to die off. I remember when I was in my 20's, I didn't listen to anyone over 30.

Without getting too far off topic, this is the Iran today, which looks the same as spring break in Panama City.

For your knowledge Iran was jewish first home 2000 years ago.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Arab Palestinians claim everything is illegal if they don't agree with it.

(COMMENT)

First, borders do not require a treaty. Second, only two countries can enter into a Treaty (Part I, Article 2a, Law of Treaties). The Palestinians had no country and therefore could not enter into a treaty. The Arab Palestinians had not established sovereignty over the territory in question, therefore could not enter a treaty.

Resolution 181(II) did not impose any partition. It was a set of Steps Preparatory to Independence. The actual country was established under the Charter 1, Article 1(2). The right of self-determination, for the establishment of the Jewish State, was recorded by official cablegram from the Provisional Government pursuant to the Step Preparatory to Independence.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is always the claim. Yet it could not be further from the truth.

(COMMENT)

This is another mistake of fact. The Jordanian King DID NOT annex the West Bank; it was the Joint Jordanian/Palestinian Parliament.

In fact, this was the Arab Palestinians using their "right of self-determination."

Most Respectfully,
R

First, borders do not require a treaty.​

Link?

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


This calls for the negotiations of mutual borders, which has been done with 3 of the 5 nations involved, only Syria and Lebanon have not agreed mutual borders yet.


1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Where does it say anything about negotiating borders?

Lebanon had borders. Syria had borders. Jordan had borders. Egypt had borders. Palestine had borders. All of them undisputed.

What was there to negotiate?

The highlighted part of course

It doesn't say anything about negotiating or changing any borders.

Until they engaged in all out war and those borders became non existent. Palestine the mandate had borders, not Palestine the nation.

Wars cannot change borders. Subsequent peace treaties can though not a requirement.

The Mandate was an appointed administration not a place. It had no land or borders.

Mutual borders that would then enter into International law, Or don't you see the need to set in stone immovable borders ?

There were already undisputed international borders. I don't see your point.

So you missed the highlighted part "within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"

Then how did WW1 change the borders of Turkey when they were defeated. Also the borders of Germany were changed after WW1, and after WW2 when Russia took half of Germany.

NOT SO there where the borders of the various mandates and old borders agreed by treaty. The mandate did not say they were set in stone. And sorry to say Palestine as a nation was not included in any borders.

If as you claim they were undisputed why are the arab muslims kicking up such a fuss over the Israeli borders ?

 

[Phoenall]

That will never happen. The " Arab Peace Plan" calls for the destruction of Israel

Israeli attitude will destroy Israel, to change their attitude they have to be free from their elders who are using them by their brain wash; please see my signature comments.

HOGWASH and islaminazi propaganda because they know they are unable to defeat the Jews. They have tried and failed many times, and even the combined forces of 5 arab nations could not beat Jewish farmers fighting with farm tools and 19C guns.

That will never happen. The " Arab Peace Plan" calls for the destruction of Israel

Israeli attitude will destroy Israel, to change their attitude they have to be free from their elders who are using them by their brain wash; please see my signature comments.

HOGWASH and islaminazi propaganda because they know they are unable to defeat the Jews. They have tried and failed many times, and even the combined forces of 5 arab nations could not beat Jewish farmers fighting with farm tools and 19C guns.

How silly. Must be you are not Jewish.

Correct I am not Jewish but I support and defend their right to defend themselves from attacks and terrorism. Just as I support and defend the people of Syria's right to defend against attack and terrorism.

How silly again, jewish invade Palestine and you defending them. They are killing innocent empty handed people and you are defending them, correct yourself you are more faithful than a jewish.

When did the Jewish invade Jewish land then ? remember International law stated that the land was Jewish in 1923.

 

[Phoenall]

Jewish don't anything they are brain wash by their elders.

Not all Jews. Israel is losing a lot of their younger Jewish population, because they don't want to be associated with what their government is doing. And as time goes on, more and more of the Jewish population around the world, is starting to speak out against the foreign policies of the Israeli government. Groups like Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) and Rabbi's for Human Rights, are two that comes to mind.

But getting back to your comment, "...they are brain wash by their elders...", makes me think, in contrast, the comments of the Iranian population (who 70% of them are under the age of 30), say they can't wait for their elders to die off. I remember when I was in my 20's, I didn't listen to anyone over 30.

Without getting too far off topic, this is the Iran today, which looks the same as spring break in Panama City.

For your knowledge Iran was jewish first home 2000 years ago.

How about a link to your claim from an unbiased and non partisan source ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

First, borders do not require a treaty.​

Link?

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


This calls for the negotiations of mutual borders, which has been done with 3 of the 5 nations involved, only Syria and Lebanon have not agreed mutual borders yet.


1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Where does it say anything about negotiating borders?

Lebanon had borders. Syria had borders. Jordan had borders. Egypt had borders. Palestine had borders. All of them undisputed.

What was there to negotiate?

The highlighted part of course

It doesn't say anything about negotiating or changing any borders.

Until they engaged in all out war and those borders became non existent. Palestine the mandate had borders, not Palestine the nation.

Wars cannot change borders. Subsequent peace treaties can though not a requirement.

The Mandate was an appointed administration not a place. It had no land or borders.

Mutual borders that would then enter into International law, Or don't you see the need to set in stone immovable borders ?

There were already undisputed international borders. I don't see your point.

So you missed the highlighted part "within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"

Then how did WW1 change the borders of Turkey when they were defeated. Also the borders of Germany were changed after WW1, and after WW2 when Russia took half of Germany.

NOT SO there where the borders of the various mandates and old borders agreed by treaty. The mandate did not say they were set in stone. And sorry to say Palestine as a nation was not included in any borders.

If as you claim they were undisputed why are the arab muslims kicking up such a fuss over the Israeli borders ?

What Israeli borders are they fussing over?

 

[Phoenall]

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


This calls for the negotiations of mutual borders, which has been done with 3 of the 5 nations involved, only Syria and Lebanon have not agreed mutual borders yet.


1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Where does it say anything about negotiating borders?

Lebanon had borders. Syria had borders. Jordan had borders. Egypt had borders. Palestine had borders. All of them undisputed.

What was there to negotiate?

The highlighted part of course

It doesn't say anything about negotiating or changing any borders.

Until they engaged in all out war and those borders became non existent. Palestine the mandate had borders, not Palestine the nation.

Wars cannot change borders. Subsequent peace treaties can though not a requirement.

The Mandate was an appointed administration not a place. It had no land or borders.

Mutual borders that would then enter into International law, Or don't you see the need to set in stone immovable borders ?

There were already undisputed international borders. I don't see your point.

So you missed the highlighted part "within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"

Then how did WW1 change the borders of Turkey when they were defeated. Also the borders of Germany were changed after WW1, and after WW2 when Russia took half of Germany.

NOT SO there where the borders of the various mandates and old borders agreed by treaty. The mandate did not say they were set in stone. And sorry to say Palestine as a nation was not included in any borders.

If as you claim they were undisputed why are the arab muslims kicking up such a fuss over the Israeli borders ?

What Israeli borders are they fussing over?

The ones delineated in the Mandate for Palestine that I have given you many times in the past are in the Mandate

 

[P F Tinmore]

Where does it say anything about negotiating borders?

Lebanon had borders. Syria had borders. Jordan had borders. Egypt had borders. Palestine had borders. All of them undisputed.

What was there to negotiate?

The highlighted part of course

It doesn't say anything about negotiating or changing any borders.

Until they engaged in all out war and those borders became non existent. Palestine the mandate had borders, not Palestine the nation.

Wars cannot change borders. Subsequent peace treaties can though not a requirement.

The Mandate was an appointed administration not a place. It had no land or borders.

Mutual borders that would then enter into International law, Or don't you see the need to set in stone immovable borders ?

There were already undisputed international borders. I don't see your point.

So you missed the highlighted part "within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"

Then how did WW1 change the borders of Turkey when they were defeated. Also the borders of Germany were changed after WW1, and after WW2 when Russia took half of Germany.

NOT SO there where the borders of the various mandates and old borders agreed by treaty. The mandate did not say they were set in stone. And sorry to say Palestine as a nation was not included in any borders.

If as you claim they were undisputed why are the arab muslims kicking up such a fuss over the Israeli borders ?

What Israeli borders are they fussing over?

The ones delineated in the Mandate for Palestine that I have given you many times in the past are in the Mandate

The Mandate was an appointed administration not a place. It had no land or borders.