End the Occupation

[Shusha]

It is probably more important to "stay on point" then to try and find a flaw or loop-hole in the Treaties.

Amen!

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Normally, administrators don't document what DID NOT happen.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I SIS NOT say that; not at all.

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.

Why do you pimp Israeli propaganda?

The Mandate was not Palestine.

(COMMENT)

It is important to understand, and understand the short title for what is means.

§ The first clause in the Preamble for the Mandate for Palestine (1922):

[The Allied] Powers [said:] the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them;
​

§ This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

•√• The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
​

Neither the Mandatory Powers that were appointed of the Convention of Allied Powers, or the Council for the League of Nations had yet made an agreement which the exact boundaries of (what was to become) "Palestine." In 1922 the Boundary Commission Report was yet to be reviewed and accepted by the newly appointed Mandatory Powers. It had been submitted by Lieutenant Colonel N. Paulet, French Army Surveyor, and Lieutenant Colonel S. F. Newcombe, British Army, HM's Royal Engineers, leadership of the Boundary Commission.

This boundary definition was not to change until after the end of hostilities and the establishment of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, following the armed incursion across the frontiers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Uhhh, OK???

This boundary definition was not to change until after the end of hostilities and the establishment of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, following the armed incursion across the frontiers.​

Do you have some links to that?

(COMMENT)

I already gave you the links in the proceeding posts. What boundaries are in effect now are based on the Treaties. Not old Armistice Lines drawn based on the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

It is probably more important to "stay on point" then to try and find a flaw or loop-hole in the Treaties.

Amen!

Agreed, but I see a clear pattern of behavior on the part of the Arab-Moslem terrorist huggers to find some grievance they can extract from history that allows them to invent excuses for greed and their self-inflicted pratfalls. Generations (note the plural) of Arabs-Moslems have known nothing but hate and self-destruction under the banner of islam and gee-had. Hamas and Fatah have built entire infrastructures on welfare fraud and there's a long line of people behind the senior, career criminals who are waiting for their chance to exploit their own welfare fraud entitlement.

What dooms the possibility of any peace with the Arabs-Moslems is the Anwar Sadat Syndrome. Any appearance of compromise on the part an Arab-Moslem will result in that individual losing islamo street-cred. Any appearance of weakness in terms of the Islamic inspired virulent hatred of Jooooos will allow the rats to start gnawing at his feet.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Normally, administrators don't document what DID NOT happen.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I SIS NOT say that; not at all.

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.

Why do you pimp Israeli propaganda?

The Mandate was not Palestine.

(COMMENT)

It is important to understand, and understand the short title for what is means.

§ The first clause in the Preamble for the Mandate for Palestine (1922):

[The Allied] Powers [said:] the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them;
​

§ This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

•√• The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
​

Neither the Mandatory Powers that were appointed of the Convention of Allied Powers, or the Council for the League of Nations had yet made an agreement which the exact boundaries of (what was to become) "Palestine." In 1922 the Boundary Commission Report was yet to be reviewed and accepted by the newly appointed Mandatory Powers. It had been submitted by Lieutenant Colonel N. Paulet, French Army Surveyor, and Lieutenant Colonel S. F. Newcombe, British Army, HM's Royal Engineers, leadership of the Boundary Commission.

This boundary definition was not to change until after the end of hostilities and the establishment of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, following the armed incursion across the frontiers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Uhhh, OK???

This boundary definition was not to change until after the end of hostilities and the establishment of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, following the armed incursion across the frontiers.​

Do you have some links to that?

(COMMENT)

I already gave you the links in the proceeding posts. What boundaries are in effect now are based on the Treaties. Not old Armistice Lines drawn based on the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA).

Most Respectfully,
R

Where did Israel get the authority to claim Palestine's borders?

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Normally, administrators don't document what DID NOT happen.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I SIS NOT say that; not at all.

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.

Why do you pimp Israeli propaganda?

The Mandate was not Palestine.

(COMMENT)

It is important to understand, and understand the short title for what is means.

§ The first clause in the Preamble for the Mandate for Palestine (1922):

[The Allied] Powers [said:] the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them;
​

§ This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

•√• The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
​

Neither the Mandatory Powers that were appointed of the Convention of Allied Powers, or the Council for the League of Nations had yet made an agreement which the exact boundaries of (what was to become) "Palestine." In 1922 the Boundary Commission Report was yet to be reviewed and accepted by the newly appointed Mandatory Powers. It had been submitted by Lieutenant Colonel N. Paulet, French Army Surveyor, and Lieutenant Colonel S. F. Newcombe, British Army, HM's Royal Engineers, leadership of the Boundary Commission.

This boundary definition was not to change until after the end of hostilities and the establishment of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, following the armed incursion across the frontiers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Uhhh, OK???

This boundary definition was not to change until after the end of hostilities and the establishment of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, following the armed incursion across the frontiers.​

Do you have some links to that?

(COMMENT)

I already gave you the links in the proceeding posts. What boundaries are in effect now are based on the Treaties. Not old Armistice Lines drawn based on the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA).

Most Respectfully,
R

Where did Israel get the authority to claim Palestine's borders?

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

Correct, now why did you miss out the part that says the borders will be those of the Mandate of Palestine to be called palestine for the purposes of this treaty ?

You really silly hoping that we wont look deeper into your links to find the parts that show you are wrong. The give away is starting the c&p in the middle of a sentence, monte was good at that and would run crying to mummy when caught out.


As an aside who signed these treaties for the palestinians, as that would be the clincher to prove it was a valid nation.You know like Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon all had people who signed these treaties................

There was no Mandate in 1949.

Yes there was as it cant end until the arab muslims either hand the land to Israel or declare full nation status. You need to stop confusing Britain as the mandatory and the actual mandate that sets out the rules for Britain to follow.

Is that why it was a monumental flop?

it was only a flop for the Arabs-Moslems who were unable to build a functioning society. If you look at the Islamist Middle East today, that dynamic (unable to build a functioning society), is evident still.

 

[rhodescholar]

Wait, watch, and weep.....

Who wants to bet this moron is a banned poster using a new ID? I'll give this pile of shit another two days before it gets banned again.

 

[rhodescholar]

It is probably more important to "stay on point" then to try and find a flaw or loop-hole in the Treaties.

Amen!

Agreed, but I see a clear pattern of behavior on the part of the Arab-Moslem terrorist huggers to find some grievance they can extract from history that allows them to invent excuses for greed and their self-inflicted pratfalls. Generations (note the plural) of Arabs-Moslems have known nothing but hate and self-destruction under the banner of islam and gee-had. Hamas and Fatah have built entire infrastructures on welfare fraud and there's a long line of people behind the senior, career criminals who are waiting for their chance to exploit their own welfare fraud entitlement.

What dooms the possibility of any peace with the Arabs-Moslems is the Anwar Sadat Syndrome. Any appearance of compromise on the part an Arab-Moslem will result in that individual losing islamo street-cred. Any appearance of weakness in terms of the Islamic inspired virulent hatred of Jooooos will allow the rats to start gnawing at his feet.

Once the arab nations attacked in 1948 - and mass ethnically cleansed all of the jews out of their countries, that was that - they had no further right to dictate what the borders would be, etc.

Their hostility has not changed since, and has continued right through today, including against other groups such as the Yazidis, who have suffered horribly under arab muslim mistreatment. The arab muslims have lost all rights to decide how things can / will turn out.

 

[member]

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.

You're kidding, right?

I asked how Israel can end the occupation.

I asked for a definition of what territory Israel occupies.

I asked for a definition of what constitutes "occupation".

I asked for a solution to the conflict.

I asked for a response to a starting point for a permanent boundary between Israel and wanna-be Palestine.

You have not addressed ANY of these issues and have some how managed to go down a rabbit hole expecting the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria to address the question of Israel's permanent international boundaries even though I have demonstrated they not only did not address such issues but deliberately used language to asset that no permanent boundaries were being drawn.

And you accuse ME of ducking the question? Give me a break.


If you want to argue that Israel doesn't exist and gets nothing and that the whole territory from river to sea is Palestine and not Israel and that the only way to end the occupation is for Israel to be eliminated -- just go ahead and say it! Because THAT is exactly purpose of this thread -- to demonstrate that it is impossible for Israel to "end the occupation".

the question of Israel's permanent international boundaries even though I have demonstrated they not only did not address such issues​

Yes they did. You just didn't want to see it.

imagine you telling someone "they don't want to see it."




...you, a terrorist apologist. someone who "pretends not to see" the real "government" of the palestinians....





LoL. hilarious.

 

[montelatici]

It is probably more important to "stay on point" then to try and find a flaw or loop-hole in the Treaties.

Amen!

Agreed, but I see a clear pattern of behavior on the part of the Arab-Moslem terrorist huggers to find some grievance they can extract from history that allows them to invent excuses for greed and their self-inflicted pratfalls. Generations (note the plural) of Arabs-Moslems have known nothing but hate and self-destruction under the banner of islam and gee-had. Hamas and Fatah have built entire infrastructures on welfare fraud and there's a long line of people behind the senior, career criminals who are waiting for their chance to exploit their own welfare fraud entitlement.

What dooms the possibility of any peace with the Arabs-Moslems is the Anwar Sadat Syndrome. Any appearance of compromise on the part an Arab-Moslem will result in that individual losing islamo street-cred. Any appearance of weakness in terms of the Islamic inspired virulent hatred of Jooooos will allow the rats to start gnawing at his feet.

Once the arab nations attacked in 1948 - and mass ethnically cleansed all of the jews out of their countries, that was that - they had no further right to dictate what the borders would be, etc.

Their hostility has not changed since, and has continued right through today, including against other groups such as the Yazidis, who have suffered horribly under arab muslim mistreatment. The arab muslims have lost all rights to decide how things can / will turn out.

The Arab nations intervened to try to prevent the ethnic cleansing by the Jews of the non-Jews, Christians included, the Jews had started the ethnic cleansing well before the intervention. British intelligence documents, recently declassified, prove that your historical revisionism is crap.

"Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'................British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists." But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".




British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948

 

[Hollie]

It is probably more important to "stay on point" then to try and find a flaw or loop-hole in the Treaties.

Amen!

Agreed, but I see a clear pattern of behavior on the part of the Arab-Moslem terrorist huggers to find some grievance they can extract from history that allows them to invent excuses for greed and their self-inflicted pratfalls. Generations (note the plural) of Arabs-Moslems have known nothing but hate and self-destruction under the banner of islam and gee-had. Hamas and Fatah have built entire infrastructures on welfare fraud and there's a long line of people behind the senior, career criminals who are waiting for their chance to exploit their own welfare fraud entitlement.

What dooms the possibility of any peace with the Arabs-Moslems is the Anwar Sadat Syndrome. Any appearance of compromise on the part an Arab-Moslem will result in that individual losing islamo street-cred. Any appearance of weakness in terms of the Islamic inspired virulent hatred of Jooooos will allow the rats to start gnawing at his feet.

Once the arab nations attacked in 1948 - and mass ethnically cleansed all of the jews out of their countries, that was that - they had no further right to dictate what the borders would be, etc.

Their hostility has not changed since, and has continued right through today, including against other groups such as the Yazidis, who have suffered horribly under arab muslim mistreatment. The arab muslims have lost all rights to decide how things can / will turn out.

The Arab nations intervened to try to prevent the ethnic cleansing by the Jews of the non-Jews, Christians included, the Jews had started the ethnic cleansing well before the intervention. British intelligence documents, recently declassified, prove that your historical revisionism is crap.

"Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist stance and declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'................British officials reported later in 1946: "Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists." But they warned: "There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes".




British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948

Yes, yes, dear. You have cut and pasted that article numerous times across numerous threads with the silly claim that "Arab nations intervened to try to prevent the ethnic cleansing by the Jews of the non-Jews". However, we know that the invading Arabs-Moslems attacked the newly formed state of Israel one day after its declaration of statehood. Not just a coincidence and nothing to do with intervening to protect Arabs-Moslems.

You can return to your comatose state, now.

Thanks.

 

[montelatici]

The Jews declaring a state made it clear that the neither the British or the UN would intervene to prevent the Jews from executing their plan for ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims, the Arab League then intervened. Just an historical fact as confirmed by contemporaneous de-classified British intelligence reports.

But run along and believe the fairy tales little girl.

 

[Andylusion]

The Jews declaring a state made it clear that the neither the British or the UN would intervene to prevent the Jews from executing their plan for ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims, the Arab League then intervened. Just an historical fact as confirmed by contemporaneous de-classified British intelligence reports.

But run along and believe the fairy tales little girl.

Yeah, and you are crazy. Especially since there are Muslims and Christians in Israel right now, and are Israeli citizens.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

We can because you failed to post the parts that said there was no nation of palestine just the mandate of palestine

My links did not mention a Mandate. The Mandate left Palestine the year before.

WRONG that was the mandatory power, which you seem to think is the set of rules that had to be followed. The mandate is still in force because the land question is still not settled, and is overlooked by the UN as the successor to the LoN

There may be some truth to that. Britain passed the torch to the UNPC not to Israel.

And when Israel declared independence the torch was passed to them. The mandate was still in force, overseen by the new mandatory ( UNPC) because part of the land was still disputed.


Keep reading the posts and you might get educated to the truth

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I SIS NOT say that; not at all.

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.

Why do you pimp Israeli propaganda?

The Mandate was not Palestine.

(COMMENT)

It is important to understand, and understand the short title for what is means.

§ The first clause in the Preamble for the Mandate for Palestine (1922):

[The Allied] Powers [said:] the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them;
​

§ This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

•√• The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
​

Neither the Mandatory Powers that were appointed of the Convention of Allied Powers, or the Council for the League of Nations had yet made an agreement which the exact boundaries of (what was to become) "Palestine." In 1922 the Boundary Commission Report was yet to be reviewed and accepted by the newly appointed Mandatory Powers. It had been submitted by Lieutenant Colonel N. Paulet, French Army Surveyor, and Lieutenant Colonel S. F. Newcombe, British Army, HM's Royal Engineers, leadership of the Boundary Commission.

This boundary definition was not to change until after the end of hostilities and the establishment of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, following the armed incursion across the frontiers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Uhhh, OK???

This boundary definition was not to change until after the end of hostilities and the establishment of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, following the armed incursion across the frontiers.​

Do you have some links to that?

You are joking right, RIGHT ! ! ! ! have you completely ignored every link from the UN archives that show the arab league invaded the mandate of palestine and then were driven back by the Jews. The accepted boundary was altered by an international treaty signed by the parties involved, and the palestinian signature was obviously missing as it did not exist as a nation.

 

[Phoenall]

The Jews declaring a state made it clear that the neither the British or the UN would intervene to prevent the Jews from executing their plan for ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims, the Arab League then intervened. Just an historical fact as confirmed by contemporaneous de-classified British intelligence reports.

But run along and believe the fairy tales little girl.

And the evidence shows that the only ethnic cleansing has been of Christians by the arab muslims, that is why 90% of the Christian population has gone from gaza and the west bank

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Normally, administrators don't document what DID NOT happen.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I SIS NOT say that; not at all.

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.

Why do you pimp Israeli propaganda?

The Mandate was not Palestine.

(COMMENT)

It is important to understand, and understand the short title for what is means.

§ The first clause in the Preamble for the Mandate for Palestine (1922):

[The Allied] Powers [said:] the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them;
​

§ This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

•√• The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
​

Neither the Mandatory Powers that were appointed of the Convention of Allied Powers, or the Council for the League of Nations had yet made an agreement which the exact boundaries of (what was to become) "Palestine." In 1922 the Boundary Commission Report was yet to be reviewed and accepted by the newly appointed Mandatory Powers. It had been submitted by Lieutenant Colonel N. Paulet, French Army Surveyor, and Lieutenant Colonel S. F. Newcombe, British Army, HM's Royal Engineers, leadership of the Boundary Commission.

This boundary definition was not to change until after the end of hostilities and the establishment of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, following the armed incursion across the frontiers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Uhhh, OK???

This boundary definition was not to change until after the end of hostilities and the establishment of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, following the armed incursion across the frontiers.​

Do you have some links to that?

(COMMENT)

I already gave you the links in the proceeding posts. What boundaries are in effect now are based on the Treaties. Not old Armistice Lines drawn based on the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA).

Most Respectfully,
R

Where did Israel get the authority to claim Palestine's borders?

Link to the palestinian borders that only exist in your fantasy world.

Israel claimed its own borders as declared under international law of 1922

 

[P F Tinmore]

In all that cut and paste frenzy,​

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

We can because you failed to post the parts that said there was no nation of palestine just the mandate of palestine

My links did not mention a Mandate. The Mandate left Palestine the year before.

WRONG that was the mandatory power, which you seem to think is the set of rules that had to be followed. The mandate is still in force because the land question is still not settled, and is overlooked by the UN as the successor to the LoN

There may be some truth to that. Britain passed the torch to the UNPC not to Israel.

And when Israel declared independence the torch was passed to them. The mandate was still in force, overseen by the new mandatory ( UNPC) because part of the land was still disputed.


Keep reading the posts and you might get educated to the truth

And when Israel declared independence the torch was passed to them.​

Link?

because part of the land was still disputed.​

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I SIS NOT say that; not at all.

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.

Why do you pimp Israeli propaganda?

The Mandate was not Palestine.

(COMMENT)

It is important to understand, and understand the short title for what is means.

§ The first clause in the Preamble for the Mandate for Palestine (1922):

[The Allied] Powers [said:] the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them;
​

§ This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

•√• The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
​

Neither the Mandatory Powers that were appointed of the Convention of Allied Powers, or the Council for the League of Nations had yet made an agreement which the exact boundaries of (what was to become) "Palestine." In 1922 the Boundary Commission Report was yet to be reviewed and accepted by the newly appointed Mandatory Powers. It had been submitted by Lieutenant Colonel N. Paulet, French Army Surveyor, and Lieutenant Colonel S. F. Newcombe, British Army, HM's Royal Engineers, leadership of the Boundary Commission.

This boundary definition was not to change until after the end of hostilities and the establishment of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, following the armed incursion across the frontiers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Uhhh, OK???

This boundary definition was not to change until after the end of hostilities and the establishment of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, following the armed incursion across the frontiers.​

Do you have some links to that?

You are joking right, RIGHT ! ! ! ! have you completely ignored every link from the UN archives that show the arab league invaded the mandate of palestine and then were driven back by the Jews. The accepted boundary was altered by an international treaty signed by the parties involved, and the palestinian signature was obviously missing as it did not exist as a nation.

the arab league invaded the mandate of palestine​

Indeed, Palestine not Israel. They did not attack Palestine. They did not attack Israel. So where do you get that they started the war when they did not attack anybody?

BTW, the Mandate left Palestine the day before.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Jews declaring a state made it clear that the neither the British or the UN would intervene to prevent the Jews from executing their plan for ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims, the Arab League then intervened. Just an historical fact as confirmed by contemporaneous de-classified British intelligence reports.

But run along and believe the fairy tales little girl.

And the evidence shows that the only ethnic cleansing has been of Christians by the arab muslims, that is why 90% of the Christian population has gone from gaza and the west bank

Do you have a link to that from somebody who is not attached to Israel?

 

[Hollie]

The Jews declaring a state made it clear that the neither the British or the UN would intervene to prevent the Jews from executing their plan for ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims, the Arab League then intervened. Just an historical fact as confirmed by contemporaneous de-classified British intelligence reports.

But run along and believe the fairy tales little girl.

Your silly ethnic cleansing™ slogan is laughable. It was, in fact, your Islamist heroes who declared war on Israel just one day after declaration of statehood. It was your Arab-Moslem invaders / Crusaders who were intent on ethnic cleansing.

You should understand the history that befuddles you so before doing anything but cutting and pasting.