End the Occupation

[Phoenall]

Everything inside Palestine's international borders to Palestine.

Everything inside Israel's international borders to Israel.

Please define these existing international borders between Israel and Palestine.

The borders of Palestine and the borders of Israel were referenced in the 1949 Armistice Agreements.

You should read them.

You know very well I am sufficiently versed in all the legal documents to discuss them intelligently. There is no need to be snide nor coy.

The agreement between Jordan and Israel states: "... no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations" (Art. II.2), "The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto." (Art. VI.9)

Make your case that anywhere in the agreement there is a differentiation between Palestine and Israel and an international boundary between them.

Good question. Where did they say Israel's borders were?

Here as laid down by the LoN under their rights as sovereigns of the land


Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory:

PALESTINE INTRODUCTORY. POSITION, ETC.
Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.

On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: -

North. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

East. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

South. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

West. – The Mediterranean Sea.




Unless you have a different international law that says otherwise ? The clue is in the heading

designated for the Jewish National Home

 

[Phoenall]

Your sig line: Anti-Zionism is the extremist belief that the Jewish people are not a people, have no history and no rights to a homeland.

Here's the basic flaw about the Jewish Situation: You are not the only people on the planet. The planet was not made exclusively for you. Use a dictionary and look up the word PEOPLE. It means human beings. You were cavemen just like the rest of us before the invention of a written language. What you have done with your Jewishness is to separate yourself from the rest of us. You have become elite. Humans end up hating and killing elitists. You think you're better than the rest of us, and you draw scorn, hostility, and death as a consequence. Simple as.

I don't like your sig. It is essentially hateful and separatist. You are not the kindhearted & honorable person that you pretend to be.

Wow. THANK YOU for that giant spoonful of anti-semitism.

Maybe you can look at my sig again and tell me where I say that Jews are the only people on the planet, that the planet is made exclusivey for us, that we are separate from the rest of you, that we are elite or that I think we are better than the rest of you?

What my sig actually says is that the Jewish people are a people. Do you deny that?

That the Jewish people have a history in the territory in question. Do you deny that?

That the Jewish people have rights to their ancestral homeland. Do you deny that?

My sig is a RESPONSE to those who claim that the Jewish people don't count as a people, have no history in that territory and have no rights to an ancestral homeland or self-determination. My sig is an assertion that the Jewish people have the SAME rights to be treated with dignity and respect that all other peoples have.

So here are your choices:

ALL peoples have the SAME right to dignity and respect.

ALL peoples have the SAME right to dignity and respect except the Jewish people.

NO peoples have rights to dignity and respect.


I pick #1. How about you?

Life on planet earth changes throughout the ages. My white race did not originate in the USA and I don't give a goddamn where the hell it did originate.

I don't care about where your "people" were born. My point was that your people are PEOPLE first before they are Jewish or Muslim or Chinese.

Either assimilate or migrate to where your separatist views are welcomed. I think you'll find fewer & fewer places on earth that will tolerate your separatist "people" or BS.

I do not pity your plight. I pity your mind.

When are you going to assimilate then , as it seems you just want to eradicate those who dont see things the way you do. And the USA is the worst offender for being separatist, just look at the civil problems you are facing today

 

[Phoenall]

Sigh. Let me try framing this in another way. Are Palestinians elitist because they want their own country?

Or as I would put it are immigrants to the US elitist because they want to take another persons lands while stopping them from taking them back ?

 

[Phoenall]

Sigh. Let me try framing this in another way. Are Palestinians elitist because they want their own country?

At what expense SIR?!!!!!!!!!

At what expense do we hold onto a shitty spit of land whilst generation after generation lives in strife & violence & terror?

Move the hell out for PEACE SAKE.

The Israelis are backed by the richest nations on earth.

Screw the whole "people" "our land" horseshit and spare your lives! It ain't worth it. The region is a horrible place to live. It belongs under water.

Are Palestinians elitist for wanting their own country?
Yes, it is purely an ego thing.
If there was no horrible, big bully aggression by Israel and their backers, then they could have their land.
Yes, they are elitist-egoists for being willing to put generation after generation through terror & violence just for a piece of land.
Save yourselves and thrive somewhere else.

So when are you going to move then as you are an even worse case of egotism as you want to be the best, the biggest , the richest and the most hated

 

[Phoenall]

Are Palestinians elitist for wanting their own country?
Yes, it is purely an ego thing.

Ah. So you don't believe in any sort of nationalism. All peoples who attempt to assert their national desires are just elitists and separatists.

I suggest in future you frame it that way rather than only addressing the Jewish people. That way you will appear to be supporting your own fair and reasonable moral principles instead of looking like an anti-semite.

Shusha, present company excepted, I hate all of humanity, and so I don't care if I do come off as anti-semite. But yes, you hit the nail on the head: Nationalism makes me sick. And Palestine is a shining example of what it gets you. Israel, too. Both places are hideous zones.

And how are your views any different then, because from here you are spouting American nationalism along the lines you want

 

[Phoenall]

Good question. Where did they say Israel's borders were?

Well, pertinent to this thread they assert that they do not prejudice any future settlement or negotiation. Which, of course, permits future settlement between the parties and negotiation. Which is the point of this thread. Care to address it? Care to be the one on Team Palestine who actually steps up to try to discuss solutions?

You ducked the question.

No you ducked the many answers given, as you have yet to produce a definitive deliniation of the borders according to the arab muslims

 

[Phoenall]

I predict that by the end of this century America will nuke Israel completely off the map. Someone like Trump, but not Trump, will be in a position of power and represent the voice of those Americans who are fed up to their backteeth with the whole "Jews rule the world" thang and the whole unfairness of Israel being an obvious bully & oppressor of Palestine. We will just say enough is enough. Clear the slate. We're sick of hearing about it. You're a gaping wound that needs cauterized.

Perhaps America will use a neutron bomb...you don't hear much about them anymore...

Not enough of you neo Nazi's to ever be in a position of power strong enough to fulfil the Aryan final solution. By this time the world will be sick and tired of Nazism hidden behind anti zionism and will have wiped out the Nazi's completely.

EXCEPT THE NAZIS WHO LIVE IN ISRAEL I PRESUME

Them as well all 0.1% of the population.

DONT FORGET THAT ANTI ZIONISM IS THE NEW ANTI SEMITISM

 

[Phoenall]

Until such time that BOTH sides decide to talk unambiguously (with the same definitions), I see the dispute lasting indefinitely.

Yep.

It is actually impossible for Israel to unilaterally "end the occupation" until the territory under "occupation" is defined and until the conditions of "occupation" are defined, in treaty with the compliance and acknowledgement of both parties.

Else we end up where we are now -- with self-governing Palestinian territories in Areas A and B and Gaza still considered "occupied".

And, of course, everyone knows this and has known it for decades, hence nearly every legal commentary on the conflict since 181 using the wording, "to be determined in permanent negotiations", or similar.


My suggestion would be something along the lines of a contiguous northern area and a contiguous southern area in the West Bank, with a connecting highway between them. Gaza's boundaries remain as they are.

The point of those boundaries would be to give Palestine contiguous territory with 95% of Arab Palestinians within them, as well as the majority of Area C, except where there are large Jewish settlements.

Obviously there are a whole host of issues to be addressed which come along with this, but would someone on Team Palestine take up the task of addressing why these suggested boundaries may or may not be a fair starting point?

How come you have become such an Authority of the Palestinian-Israeli Schism,when you know so little,Delusions of Grandure ???? Methinks

BECAUSE THIS POSTER LOOKS AT BOTH SIDES, AND NOT JUST THE ISLAMONAZI ONE AS YOU DO

 

[Phoenall]

How come you have become such an Authority of the Palestinian-Israeli Schism,when you know so little,Delusions of Grandure ???? Methinks

Awwww. Come on now, Steve. Don't cop out on me. How do the evil Zionists end the occupation? What territory must they abandon and what conditions must they meet?

Remember you believe in two States for two peoples, right? You very explicitly told me so. We agree. We are on the same side. So...how does this conflict actually get solved? What should Israel do to "end the occupation"?

The two people he means are hamas and fatah with the Jews being the fertiliser for their crops

 

[Phoenall]

Shusha, et al,

Yes, agreed... P F Tinmore has somehow imprinted on the idea that Article 30 (Nationality) trumps Article 16 (Territroy). And that the entire territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine (less everything East of the Jordan River) belongs to the Arab Palestinian.

Where do you think the borders are??? Where???

I second this. P F Tinmore suggested there exist boundaries where it is easily understood which territory is Israel and which is Palestine. So just tell us, FTLOG.

(COMMENT)

Also, he seems to think that under order (I don't know what authority might give it), Israel will just give-up that territory and hand it back to the UN (from which it was prior to independence).

He seems to have this notion that even there is a territorial change in hands, that the appreciation in value will not be born by the Arab Palestinians.

And it appears that someone has told him (or convinced him) that Security Barrier MUST follow the 1949 Armistice Line, that nothing is adjustable.

I think that if the Arab Palestinians had something going for them, the Jewish industrialist would be clambering at the Knesset trying to reach an accommodations. But that certainly does not seem to be the case.

Most Respectfully,
R

P F Tinmore has somehow imprinted on the idea that Article 30 (Nationality) trumps Article 16 (Territroy). And that the entire territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine (less everything East of the Jordan River) belongs to the Arab Palestinian.​

Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne said that the Palestinians would become citizens of Palestine. This complied with international law.

The people are the sovereigns in a territory. (The people of the place not the people from someplace else.)

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise claimed sovereignty over the territory. They held it in trust on the behalf of the people. The Mandate had neither land nor borders. The Mandate had no authority over land or borders. Palestine retained it land and borders after the Mandate left Palestine.

Lausanne Treaty: Part I

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.



Meaning the mandatory put in charge .


Try reading the begining of the above treaty that says the LoN became the lands legal owners, thus destroying your whole POV. By the way where is palestine mentioned in the treaty ?

 

[Phoenall]

I predict that by the end of this century America will nuke Israel completely off the map. Someone like Trump, but not Trump, will be in a position of power and represent the voice of those Americans who are fed up to their backteeth with the whole "Jews rule the world" thang and the whole unfairness of Israel being an obvious bully & oppressor of Palestine. We will just say enough is enough. Clear the slate. We're sick of hearing about it. You're a gaping wound that needs cauterized.

Perhaps America will use a neutron bomb...you don't hear much about them anymore...

Not enough of you neo Nazi's to ever be in a position of power strong enough to fulfil the Aryan final solution. By this time the world will be sick and tired of Nazism hidden behind anti zionism and will have wiped out the Nazi's completely.

EXCEPT THE NAZIS WHO LIVE IN ISRAEL I PRESUME

I don't see Israelis proposing mass slaughter. I *do* see Palestinians proposing pushing Israel into the sea.

Idiot The Zionists and Israel still have already done the Mass Slaughter....and there was No proposing......R U THICK OR WHAT........Fuck what you see....because you are full of shit

And the Jordanians mass murdered more palestinians in one month than Israel has killed in wars and defnding against attack.

You must either be a moron or completely brainwashed

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, it did not. In fact the word "Palestine" is not mention in Article 30. In fact, the word "Palestine" is not mentioned anywhere in the entire treaty.

P F Tinmore has somehow imprinted on the idea that Article 30 (Nationality) trumps Article 16 (Territroy). And that the entire territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine (less everything East of the Jordan River) belongs to the Arab Palestinian.

Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne said that the Palestinians would become citizens of Palestine. This complied with international law.

The people are the sovereigns in a territory. (The people of the place not the people from someplace else.)

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise claimed sovereignty over the territory. They held it in trust on the behalf of the people. The Mandate had neither land nor borders. The Mandate had no authority over land or borders. Palestine retained it land and borders after the Mandate left Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Article 30 does say "nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred." Assuming that the word "state" is interpreted to mean government, THEN: the interpretation would be: nationals of the Territory to which the Mandate Applied.

But in NO CASE has the implication been made that in 1923, there was a "State of Palestine." The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory.

most Respectfully,
R

Actually, it did not. In fact the word "Palestine" is not mention in Article 30.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, or Iraq.

What is your point?

 

[rhodescholar]

So often in this conflict we hear the words "Israel must end the occupation". What does that mean? How will we know when the occupation is ended?

A few things to think about:

How should the territory which is to be under the sovereignty of Israel to be separated from the territory which is to be under the sovereignty of Palestine? Should the border be negotiated? Should it be pre-determined? And why?

What sort of controls at the border crossings are permissible or not permissible? Should the border function as a normal border between States, like between Canada and the US?

What considerations should be made with respect to ethnic populations living in territory which which will ultimately belong to the ethnic group?

Are all solutions to be applied equally to both sides? Why or why not?

What should be the consequences of continuing the conflict after the "occupation" ends?

Is it possible for one side to unilaterally "end the occupation"? How so?

You missed the fundamental question pertaining to this issue, which is......"why"? What difference would it make in this situation in any way?

The arab muslims have proven they will not accept the sovereignty of any other group in the mideast - there are 22 arab muslim-dominated countries despite there being TENS of MILLIONS of non-muslims there, yet none are allowed self-rule. The arabs simply will not accept the rights of other peoples as equal to their own, and in my over 5 decades of dealing with this issue have found that the vast majority of people pushing for an "end to the occupation" 1) have no clue what it really is, or why it started 2) are using it as a fig leaf towards the destruction of Israel 3) will continue to press for further, endless, capitulations by Israel even after it has left the west bank entirely.

So in summary, whenever I see/hear someone screech "end the occupation!" on the few occasions I actually feel like engaging them, I simply ask "why"? They will often respond with some nonsense which I easily crush, like "Israel is illegally there", or "that's the only way for peace to occur," etc.

The pro-arabs can never get past the slogans with any logical arguments; just a cursory review of this forum is proof of that.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, it did not. In fact the word "Palestine" is not mention in Article 30. In fact, the word "Palestine" is not mentioned anywhere in the entire treaty.

P F Tinmore has somehow imprinted on the idea that Article 30 (Nationality) trumps Article 16 (Territroy). And that the entire territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine (less everything East of the Jordan River) belongs to the Arab Palestinian.

Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne said that the Palestinians would become citizens of Palestine. This complied with international law.

The people are the sovereigns in a territory. (The people of the place not the people from someplace else.)

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise claimed sovereignty over the territory. They held it in trust on the behalf of the people. The Mandate had neither land nor borders. The Mandate had no authority over land or borders. Palestine retained it land and borders after the Mandate left Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Article 30 does say "nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred." Assuming that the word "state" is interpreted to mean government, THEN: the interpretation would be: nationals of the Territory to which the Mandate Applied.

But in NO CASE has the implication been made that in 1923, there was a "State of Palestine." The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory.

most Respectfully,
R

Actually, it did not. In fact the word "Palestine" is not mention in Article 30.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, or Iraq.

What is your point?

At least in part, your usual obfuscation with retreat to "... But, ...but,... but,... but what about....", is hardly an argument.

The point being, the invented "state of Pal'istan" that existed only in your imagination is the basis of some bizarre argument you attempt to further. A fictional place is hardly the basis for a rational argument.

 

[rhodescholar]

That could be a rational solution. Unfortunately rationality is powerless to stop fanatics on both sides

The difference is that the so-called "fanatics" are 5% of the Israeli population, and 95% of the arab muslim. Had the arab muslims been tolerant of others' rights, this would have been solved 75 years ago, but as long as they keep pressing for the maximalist solution - where they get everything - this conflict will continue for another 10,000 years until all of the muslims have been liquidated (hopefully, alot sooner).

 

[P F Tinmore]

Good question. Where did they say Israel's borders were?

Well, pertinent to this thread they assert that they do not prejudice any future settlement or negotiation. Which, of course, permits future settlement between the parties and negotiation. Which is the point of this thread. Care to address it? Care to be the one on Team Palestine who actually steps up to try to discuss solutions?

You ducked the question.

No you ducked the many answers given, as you have yet to produce a definitive deliniation of the borders according to the arab muslims

The Parties to the present Agreement, responding to the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948 calling upon them, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine,

and elsewhere shall not violate the international frontier;

follows the signing of this Agreement, at 0500 hours GMT, and shall be beyond the Egypt-Palestine frontier.

2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the Egypt-Palestine frontier to the point of origin.

4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of entering Palestine.

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
-------------------------------------
Responding to the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948,(2) calling upon them, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, to negotiate an armistice;

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
----------------------------------------
Responding to the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948,(2) calling upon them, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, to negotiate an armistice;

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions

The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
--------------------------------------
Responding to the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948,(2) calling upon them, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, to negotiate an armistice;

Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line

The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949

 

[Hollie]

Good question. Where did they say Israel's borders were?

Well, pertinent to this thread they assert that they do not prejudice any future settlement or negotiation. Which, of course, permits future settlement between the parties and negotiation. Which is the point of this thread. Care to address it? Care to be the one on Team Palestine who actually steps up to try to discuss solutions?

You ducked the question.

No you ducked the many answers given, as you have yet to produce a definitive deliniation of the borders according to the arab muslims

The Parties to the present Agreement, responding to the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948 calling upon them, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine,

and elsewhere shall not violate the international frontier;

follows the signing of this Agreement, at 0500 hours GMT, and shall be beyond the Egypt-Palestine frontier.

2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the Egypt-Palestine frontier to the point of origin.

4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of entering Palestine.

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
-------------------------------------
Responding to the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948,(2) calling upon them, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, to negotiate an armistice;

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
----------------------------------------
Responding to the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948,(2) calling upon them, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, to negotiate an armistice;

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions

The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
--------------------------------------
Responding to the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948,(2) calling upon them, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, to negotiate an armistice;

Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line

The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949

In all that cut and paste frenzy, there's an item you missed.

From your link:

"The Security Council,

Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine,.."


Note: bolded emphasis was mine.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Good question. Where did they say Israel's borders were?

Well, pertinent to this thread they assert that they do not prejudice any future settlement or negotiation. Which, of course, permits future settlement between the parties and negotiation. Which is the point of this thread. Care to address it? Care to be the one on Team Palestine who actually steps up to try to discuss solutions?

You ducked the question.

No you ducked the many answers given, as you have yet to produce a definitive deliniation of the borders according to the arab muslims

The Parties to the present Agreement, responding to the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948 calling upon them, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine,

and elsewhere shall not violate the international frontier;

follows the signing of this Agreement, at 0500 hours GMT, and shall be beyond the Egypt-Palestine frontier.

2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the Egypt-Palestine frontier to the point of origin.

4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of entering Palestine.

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
-------------------------------------
Responding to the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948,(2) calling upon them, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, to negotiate an armistice;

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
----------------------------------------
Responding to the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948,(2) calling upon them, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, to negotiate an armistice;

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions

The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
--------------------------------------
Responding to the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948,(2) calling upon them, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, to negotiate an armistice;

Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line

The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949

In all that cut and paste frenzy, there's an item you missed.

From your link:

"The Security Council,

Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine,.."


Note: bolded emphasis was mine.

So?

What were the terms of the truce?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Good question. Where did they say Israel's borders were?

Well, pertinent to this thread they assert that they do not prejudice any future settlement or negotiation. Which, of course, permits future settlement between the parties and negotiation. Which is the point of this thread. Care to address it? Care to be the one on Team Palestine who actually steps up to try to discuss solutions?

You ducked the question.

No you ducked the many answers given, as you have yet to produce a definitive deliniation of the borders according to the arab muslims

The Parties to the present Agreement, responding to the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948 calling upon them, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine,

and elsewhere shall not violate the international frontier;

follows the signing of this Agreement, at 0500 hours GMT, and shall be beyond the Egypt-Palestine frontier.

2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the Egypt-Palestine frontier to the point of origin.

4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of entering Palestine.

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
-------------------------------------
Responding to the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948,(2) calling upon them, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, to negotiate an armistice;

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949
----------------------------------------
Responding to the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948,(2) calling upon them, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, to negotiate an armistice;

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions

The Avalon Project : Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
--------------------------------------
Responding to the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948,(2) calling upon them, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, to negotiate an armistice;

Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line

The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949

In all that cut and paste frenzy, there's an item you missed.

From your link:

"The Security Council,

Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine,.."


Note: bolded emphasis was mine.

In all that cut and paste frenzy,​

You asked. Now you can't say I ducked.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, it did not. In fact the word "Palestine" is not mention in Article 30. In fact, the word "Palestine" is not mentioned anywhere in the entire treaty.

P F Tinmore has somehow imprinted on the idea that Article 30 (Nationality) trumps Article 16 (Territroy). And that the entire territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine (less everything East of the Jordan River) belongs to the Arab Palestinian.

Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne said that the Palestinians would become citizens of Palestine. This complied with international law.

The people are the sovereigns in a territory. (The people of the place not the people from someplace else.)

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise claimed sovereignty over the territory. They held it in trust on the behalf of the people. The Mandate had neither land nor borders. The Mandate had no authority over land or borders. Palestine retained it land and borders after the Mandate left Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Article 30 does say "nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred." Assuming that the word "state" is interpreted to mean government, THEN: the interpretation would be: nationals of the Territory to which the Mandate Applied.

But in NO CASE has the implication been made that in 1923, there was a "State of Palestine." The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory.

most Respectfully,
R

Why do you pimp Israeli propaganda?

The Mandate was not Palestine.