End the Occupation

[Hollie]

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.

Indeed, there was no mythical "state of Pal'istan". You're forever befuddled by contingent history.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I SIS NOT say that; not at all.

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.

Indeed, there was no mythical "state of Pal'istan". You're forever befuddled by contingent history.

Israeli propaganda.

Recognizing​

that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Expressing its grave concern that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

Notice that "state" is not mentioned. A state is the result of self determination not a prerequisite. That there was no state (which is just a political opinion) is irrelevant. Israel keeps pounding on it like it means something.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I SIS NOT say that; not at all.

(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.

Indeed, there was no mythical "state of Pal'istan". You're forever befuddled by contingent history.

Israeli propaganda.

Recognizing
that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Expressing its grave concern that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

Notice that "state" is not mentioned. A state is the result of self determination not a prerequisite. That there was no state (which is just a political opinion) is irrelevant. Israel keeps pounding on it like it means something.

A state is the result of self determination....

Something the Arabs-Moslems could not, and still have not achieved.

Indeed, your invented state of Pal'istan was, and still is, only in your imagination.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

Indeed, there was no mythical "state of Pal'istan". You're forever befuddled by contingent history.

Israeli propaganda.

Recognizing
that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Expressing its grave concern that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

Notice that "state" is not mentioned. A state is the result of self determination not a prerequisite. That there was no state (which is just a political opinion) is irrelevant. Israel keeps pounding on it like it means something.

A state is the result of self determination....

Something the Arabs-Moslems could not, and still have not achieved.

Indeed, your invented state of Pal'istan was, and still is, only in your imagination.

OK, but the Palestinians still have the same rights either way.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Indeed, there was no mythical "state of Pal'istan". You're forever befuddled by contingent history.

Israeli propaganda.

Recognizing
that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Expressing its grave concern that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

Notice that "state" is not mentioned. A state is the result of self determination not a prerequisite. That there was no state (which is just a political opinion) is irrelevant. Israel keeps pounding on it like it means something.

A state is the result of self determination....

Something the Arabs-Moslems could not, and still have not achieved.

Indeed, your invented state of Pal'istan was, and still is, only in your imagination.

OK, but the Palestinians still have the same rights either way.

Actually, no. You may believe that: "Israel will exist, and will continue to exist, until Islam abolishes it, as it abolished that which was before it." [From the words of] The martyr, Imam Hasan al-Banna', Allah's mercy be upon him. [2],

However, your Death Cult has met a stronger, determined foe.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I SIS NOT say that; not at all.

(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.

Indeed, there was no mythical "state of Pal'istan". You're forever befuddled by contingent history.

Israeli propaganda.

Recognizing
that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Expressing its grave concern that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

Notice that "state" is not mentioned. A state is the result of self determination not a prerequisite. That there was no state (which is just a political opinion) is irrelevant. Israel keeps pounding on it like it means something.

Because the arab muslims have refused to accept free determination because other arab muslims are deny them the right to do so. You bang on about how Israel is denying them this right and yet cant provide any evidence of this, all you produce is Israel's defence when they are fired on by arab muslim terrorists.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Indeed, there was no mythical "state of Pal'istan". You're forever befuddled by contingent history.

Israeli propaganda.

Recognizing
that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Expressing its grave concern that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

Notice that "state" is not mentioned. A state is the result of self determination not a prerequisite. That there was no state (which is just a political opinion) is irrelevant. Israel keeps pounding on it like it means something.

A state is the result of self determination....

Something the Arabs-Moslems could not, and still have not achieved.

Indeed, your invented state of Pal'istan was, and still is, only in your imagination.

OK, but the Palestinians still have the same rights either way.

As do the Jews NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE FROM to live in Israel. The international laws are explicit in this and you want to deny the Jews their rights under these laws. For the record illegal immigrants have no legal rights to any of the land they inhabit if you look at international law and UN rules in this regard, and the evidence shows that the majority of palestinians are illegal immigrants

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I do not have a "link" because you (general) do not get links for something that did no happen.

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.

Uhhh, OK???

Do you have some links to that?

(COMMENT)

In 1922 the Mandatory and the Council agreed on the definition of "the Mandate for Palestine" (AKA: Palestine), and made notice in Paragraph 1 of the Palestine Order in Council.

Israel, a separate and independent Jewish State, was created in declarative fashion (self-determination) on the recommendation of the General Assembly. As a result of the use of force by the Arab League, and the successful defense by Israeli Forces, a set of Armistice Lines were drawn in 1949. The Armistice Lines became the demarcation between the extension of Sovereign Authority of the State of Israel, and the Sovereign Authorities of Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan (legitimized by annexation in 1950); PLUS the effective control of the Egyptian Military Government in Gaza. So, there was a shift in the area to which the Government of Israel began to exercise Sovereign Control after the Armistice agreements [Map #3067 (1963)]

With only minor variations, the Map #3067 (1983), demonstrates the State of Israel as declared on 14/15 May 1948 and the end state of the territory after the implementation of the Armistice (but before the 1967 Six Day War).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I do not have a "link" because you (general) do not get links for something that did no happen.

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.

Uhhh, OK???

Do you have some links to that?

(COMMENT)

In 1922 the Mandatory and the Council agreed on the definition of "the Mandate for Palestine" (AKA: Palestine), and made notice in Paragraph 1 of the Palestine Order in Council.

Israel, a separate and independent Jewish State, was created in declarative fashion (self-determination) on the recommendation of the General Assembly. As a result of the use of force by the Arab League, and the successful defense by Israeli Forces, a set of Armistice Lines were drawn in 1949. The Armistice Lines became the demarcation between the extension of Sovereign Authority of the State of Israel, and the Sovereign Authorities of Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan (legitimized by annexation in 1950); PLUS the effective control of the Egyptian Military Government in Gaza. So, there was a shift in the area to which the Government of Israel began to exercise Sovereign Control after the Armistice agreements [Map #3067 (1963)]

View attachment 94179​

With only minor variations, the Map #3067 (1983), demonstrates the State of Israel as declared on 14/15 May 1948 and the end state of the territory after the implementation of the Armistice (but before the 1967 Six Day War).

Most Respectfully,
R

But the armistice lines were never political or territorial borders. However, they are used to define Israel's "sovereignty." You would think that a real country would have real borders.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

If Israel maintains Sovereignty and formal control over an area, does does not matter what you call that perimeter.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I do not have a "link" because you (general) do not get links for something that did no happen.

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.

Uhhh, OK???

Do you have some links to that?

(COMMENT)

In 1922 the Mandatory and the Council agreed on the definition of "the Mandate for Palestine" (AKA: Palestine), and made notice in Paragraph 1 of the Palestine Order in Council.

Israel, a separate and independent Jewish State, was created in declarative fashion (self-determination) on the recommendation of the General Assembly. As a result of the use of force by the Arab League, and the successful defense by Israeli Forces, a set of Armistice Lines were drawn in 1949. The Armistice Lines became the demarcation between the extension of Sovereign Authority of the State of Israel, and the Sovereign Authorities of Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan (legitimized by annexation in 1950); PLUS the effective control of the Egyptian Military Government in Gaza. So, there was a shift in the area to which the Government of Israel began to exercise Sovereign Control after the Armistice agreements [Map #3067 (1963)]

View attachment 94179​

With only minor variations, the Map #3067 (1983), demonstrates the State of Israel as declared on 14/15 May 1948 and the end state of the territory after the implementation of the Armistice (but before the 1967 Six Day War).

Most Respectfully,
R

But the armistice lines were never political or territorial borders. However, they are used to define Israel's "sovereignty." You would think that a real country would have real borders.

(COMMENT)

Israel does have real borders! Real borders.

• Egyptian Treaty: See

Article II. The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recog nized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, 1 without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.
​

• Jordanian Treaty: See:

Article 3 - International Boundary

1. The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized international boundary between Jordan and Israel, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.
3. The Parties recognize the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.
4. The demarcation of the boundary will take place as set forth in Appendix (I) to Annex I and will be concluded not later than 9 months after the signing of the Treaty.
5. It is agreed that where the boundary follows a river, in the event of natural changes in the course of the flow of the river as described in Annex I (a), the boundary shall follow the new course of the flow. In the event of any other changes the boundary shall not be affected unless otherwise agreed.
6. Immediately upon the exchange of the instruments of ratification of this Treaty, each Party will deploy on its side of the international boundary as defined in Annex I (a).
7. The parties shall, upon the signature of the Treaty, enter into negotiations to conclude, within 9 months, an agreement on the delimitation of their maritime boundary in the Gulf of Aqaba.
8. Taking into account the special circumstances of the Baqura/Naharayim area, which is under Jordanian sovereignty, with Israeli private ownership rights, the Parties agree to apply the provisions set out in Annex I (b).
9. With respect to the Al-Ghamr/Zofar area, the provisions set out in Annex I (c) will apply.
​

• Lebanon UNIFIL Maintenance of Blue Line: I like the Map Better:

​

• Syria is a failed State in Chaos.​

The General situation of the Boundaries are expressed on the Map below. The Lebanese Border is Maintained by UNFIL. The Syrian Boundary is fully protected by the IDF. The Egyptian and Jordanian Boundaries are mutually agreed upon by treaty.

​

You may call them anything you want (it makes no difference). But anyone that violates any point along the border --- do so at their own peril.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I do not have a "link" because you (general) do not get links for something that did no happen.

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.

Uhhh, OK???

Do you have some links to that?

(COMMENT)

In 1922 the Mandatory and the Council agreed on the definition of "the Mandate for Palestine" (AKA: Palestine), and made notice in Paragraph 1 of the Palestine Order in Council.

Israel, a separate and independent Jewish State, was created in declarative fashion (self-determination) on the recommendation of the General Assembly. As a result of the use of force by the Arab League, and the successful defense by Israeli Forces, a set of Armistice Lines were drawn in 1949. The Armistice Lines became the demarcation between the extension of Sovereign Authority of the State of Israel, and the Sovereign Authorities of Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan (legitimized by annexation in 1950); PLUS the effective control of the Egyptian Military Government in Gaza. So, there was a shift in the area to which the Government of Israel began to exercise Sovereign Control after the Armistice agreements [Map #3067 (1963)]

View attachment 94179​

With only minor variations, the Map #3067 (1983), demonstrates the State of Israel as declared on 14/15 May 1948 and the end state of the territory after the implementation of the Armistice (but before the 1967 Six Day War).

Most Respectfully,
R

But the armistice lines were never political or territorial borders. However, they are used to define Israel's "sovereignty." You would think that a real country would have real borders.

And they just so happen to mirror the mandate of palestine borders that you claim are the nation of palestines borders because some islamonazi propagandist altered the words of treaties to show they were. If they were never political or territorial borders then you cant claim them for the nation of palestine can you.

ONE BIG GOTCHA OUT OF YOUR OWN KEYBOARD

 

[Shusha]

OK, but the Palestinians still have the same rights either way.

So do the Jewish people. It really is that simple.

So can we just decide on the borders already and be done with it? Stop worrying about the past and start looking toward a future.

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

WARNING
THIS IS A MUSE. IF YOU ARE SHORT OF TIME,
PASS THIS COMMENT ON BYE.​

The dilemma here is that there are a few people (radicals within any given population) that are of the mistaken impression that there must be some documentation (proof sometimes called a "LINK") which demonstrates (this or that) territory belongs to one group (or another) of people; a population (opponent) that takes, occupies, or holds some territory without necessarily having political or right of possession, or as distinguished from the (in simple terms: owner).

We've spent a considerable amount of time arguing about the rights of the "habitual inhabitants" (in this case Arabs which claim the status of original inhabitants) having a superior right to claim parcels of land (the territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine) over the "Jewish People" which lawfully emigrated to the same territory. Further, the habitual inhabitant also argues that more States refused to recognize territorial acquisition specifically because the principle of self-determination had been ignored.

[There are several "Old School" diplomats on both sides of Western - Middle Eastern that subscribe to that notion. The US suggested that other nations should not recognize the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights. And may have heard of the famous Khartoum Resolutions that adopted the "Three NO's" Policy (No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.) Several nations have indicated that theywill follow Canada's lead and will never recognize the illegal annexation of Crimea. How counter-productive is this policy. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, not only are we adopting a policy to ignore reality --- but instead of encouraging dialog, we set the conditions that discourage dialog.
​

In these modern of contemporary times, most territorial acquisitions are initiated principally by a State --- without consultation with the population concerned. This was the case in several actions in the Palestine debacle. While the Annexation of the West Bank in 1950 the the Hashemite Kingdom, many are convinced that is was illegal. And it is was illegal, how would that have changed outcome? Most of the Discussion Group Members here support the principle of self-determination (in one form or another) --- do so because they are of the opinion that a consensus decision - which is representative of the entire international community - is required.

YET! They confound the discussion by mixing a principle of international law that territory and other property remains hands of the State that obtains territory --- something without necessarily having ownership, or as distinguished from the possessor --- at the end of a conflict; unless otherwise provided for by treaty. This are the twin notions of uti possidetis and the end-state possessor.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

et al,

WARNING
THIS IS A MUSE. IF YOU ARE SHORT OF TIME,
PASS THIS COMMENT ON BYE.​

The dilemma here is that there are a few people (radicals within any given population) that are of the mistaken impression that there must be some documentation (proof sometimes called a "LINK") which demonstrates (this or that) territory belongs to one group (or another) of people; a population (opponent) that takes, occupies, or holds some territory without necessarily having political or right of possession, or as distinguished from the (in simple terms: owner).

We've spent a considerable amount of time arguing about the rights of the "habitual inhabitants" (in this case Arabs which claim the status of original inhabitants) having a superior right to claim parcels of land (the territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine) over the "Jewish People" which lawfully emigrated to the same territory. Further, the habitual inhabitant also argues that more States refused to recognize territorial acquisition specifically because the principle of self-determination had been ignored.

[There are several "Old School" diplomats on both sides of Western - Middle Eastern that subscribe to that notion. The US suggested that other nations should not recognize the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights. And may have heard of the famous Khartoum Resolutions that adopted the "Three NO's" Policy (No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.) Several nations have indicated that theywill follow Canada's lead and will never recognize the illegal annexation of Crimea. How counter-productive is this policy. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, not only are we adopting a policy to ignore reality --- but instead of encouraging dialog, we set the conditions that discourage dialog.
​

In these modern of contemporary times, most territorial acquisitions are initiated principally by a State --- without consultation with the population concerned. This was the case in several actions in the Palestine debacle. While the Annexation of the West Bank in 1950 the the Hashemite Kingdom, many are convinced that is was illegal. And it is was illegal, how would that have changed outcome? Most of the Discussion Group Members here support the principle of self-determination (in one form or another) --- do so because they are of the opinion that a consensus decision - which is representative of the entire international community - is required.

YET! They confound the discussion by mixing a principle of international law that territory and other property remains hands of the State that obtains territory --- something without necessarily having ownership, or as distinguished from the possessor --- at the end of a conflict; unless otherwise provided for by treaty. This are the twin notions of uti possidetis and the end-state possessor.

Most Respectfully,
R

We've spent a considerable amount of time arguing about the rights of the "habitual inhabitants" having a superior right to claim parcels of land over the "Jewish People" which lawfully emigrated to the same territory.​

In Palestine, the nationality and Immigration laws were imposed on them at the point of a gun by a foreign power. The Palestinians, and rightly so, consider this a violation of their rights.

Foreigners established a government in Palestine at the point of a gun in direct opposition of the vast majority of the people.

Foreign troops rolled through Palestinian neighborhoods, towns, and villages expelling the inhabitants and claiming the land for themselves.

 

[Shusha]

We've spent a considerable amount of time arguing about the rights of the "habitual inhabitants" having a superior right to claim parcels of land over the "Jewish People" which lawfully emigrated to the same territory.​

In Palestine, the nationality and Immigration laws were imposed on them at the point of a gun by a foreign power. The Palestinians, and rightly so, consider this a violation of their rights.

Foreigners established a government in Palestine at the point of a gun in direct opposition of the vast majority of the people.

Foreign troops rolled through Palestinian neighborhoods, towns, and villages expelling the inhabitants and claiming the land for themselves.

And you think the Diaspora isn't considered a violation of their rights by the Jewish people?

You don't think the expulsion of the Jewish people from their land by foreign invaders is a violation of their rights?

 

[P F Tinmore]

We've spent a considerable amount of time arguing about the rights of the "habitual inhabitants" having a superior right to claim parcels of land over the "Jewish People" which lawfully emigrated to the same territory.​

In Palestine, the nationality and Immigration laws were imposed on them at the point of a gun by a foreign power. The Palestinians, and rightly so, consider this a violation of their rights.

Foreigners established a government in Palestine at the point of a gun in direct opposition of the vast majority of the people.

Foreign troops rolled through Palestinian neighborhoods, towns, and villages expelling the inhabitants and claiming the land for themselves.

And you think the Diaspora isn't considered a violation of their rights by the Jewish people?

You don't think the expulsion of the Jewish people from their land by foreign invaders is a violation of their rights?

OK, but few if any Jews "returning" to Israel have any ancestors who were expelled from that area.

 

[Hollie]

et al,

WARNING
THIS IS A MUSE. IF YOU ARE SHORT OF TIME,
PASS THIS COMMENT ON BYE.​

The dilemma here is that there are a few people (radicals within any given population) that are of the mistaken impression that there must be some documentation (proof sometimes called a "LINK") which demonstrates (this or that) territory belongs to one group (or another) of people; a population (opponent) that takes, occupies, or holds some territory without necessarily having political or right of possession, or as distinguished from the (in simple terms: owner).

We've spent a considerable amount of time arguing about the rights of the "habitual inhabitants" (in this case Arabs which claim the status of original inhabitants) having a superior right to claim parcels of land (the territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine) over the "Jewish People" which lawfully emigrated to the same territory. Further, the habitual inhabitant also argues that more States refused to recognize territorial acquisition specifically because the principle of self-determination had been ignored.

[There are several "Old School" diplomats on both sides of Western - Middle Eastern that subscribe to that notion. The US suggested that other nations should not recognize the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights. And may have heard of the famous Khartoum Resolutions that adopted the "Three NO's" Policy (No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.) Several nations have indicated that theywill follow Canada's lead and will never recognize the illegal annexation of Crimea. How counter-productive is this policy. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, not only are we adopting a policy to ignore reality --- but instead of encouraging dialog, we set the conditions that discourage dialog.
​

In these modern of contemporary times, most territorial acquisitions are initiated principally by a State --- without consultation with the population concerned. This was the case in several actions in the Palestine debacle. While the Annexation of the West Bank in 1950 the the Hashemite Kingdom, many are convinced that is was illegal. And it is was illegal, how would that have changed outcome? Most of the Discussion Group Members here support the principle of self-determination (in one form or another) --- do so because they are of the opinion that a consensus decision - which is representative of the entire international community - is required.

YET! They confound the discussion by mixing a principle of international law that territory and other property remains hands of the State that obtains territory --- something without necessarily having ownership, or as distinguished from the possessor --- at the end of a conflict; unless otherwise provided for by treaty. This are the twin notions of uti possidetis and the end-state possessor.

Most Respectfully,
R

We've spent a considerable amount of time arguing about the rights of the "habitual inhabitants" having a superior right to claim parcels of land over the "Jewish People" which lawfully emigrated to the same territory.​

In Palestine, the nationality and Immigration laws were imposed on them at the point of a gun by a foreign power. The Palestinians, and rightly so, consider this a violation of their rights.

Foreigners established a government in Palestine at the point of a gun in direct opposition of the vast majority of the people.

Foreign troops rolled through Palestinian neighborhoods, towns, and villages expelling the inhabitants and claiming the land for themselves.

OK, so you want to re-write history. The geographic area called Palestine (not the country of Pal'istan you believe exists and existed), has been the subject of many incursions, rulers and conquests. However, just a guess here, but given your insensate Jew hatred I'll go out on a limb and suppose you want to retroactively change only a more recent version of history.

 

[Shusha]

OK, but few if any Jews "returning" to Israel have any ancestors who were expelled from that area.

First and foremost that is not true. It is simply bullshit denial of reality. But even more its a bullshit denial of reality intended to disenfranchise the Jewish people from their history.

The desire for self-determination of a group is not based on individual's DNA. Its based on people's association with that group, their sense of belonging, their being part of that group's story.

And not one of us who consider ourselves as part of the Jewish people came to be in this place because we have the "right" or the "wrong" DNA. We came to be in this place because we know that we belong here. And because we were accepted here. We ARE part of the Jewish story. Part of self-determination is self-identification.

By making the response that you did -- you deny our rights, you deny our Diaspora, you deny our narrative and you tell us that our story, our group, our rights, our history, our belonging DO NOT MATTER.

And I'm telling you that it does matter. And no one, NO ONE, has a right to tell us who does and who does not belong to the Jewish people. The only people who get to decide that are the Jewish people.

 

[Kondor3]

End the Occupation?

Agreed.

The Squatter (So-Called) Palestinians should pack up and leave Eretz Yisrael immediately.

 

[P F Tinmore]

OK, but few if any Jews "returning" to Israel have any ancestors who were expelled from that area.

First and foremost that is not true. It is simply bullshit denial of reality. But even more its a bullshit denial of reality intended to disenfranchise the Jewish people from their history.

The desire for self-determination of a group is not based on individual's DNA. Its based on people's association with that group, their sense of belonging, their being part of that group's story.

And not one of us who consider ourselves as part of the Jewish people came to be in this place because we have the "right" or the "wrong" DNA. We came to be in this place because we know that we belong here. And because we were accepted here. We ARE part of the Jewish story. Part of self-determination is self-identification.

By making the response that you did -- you deny our rights, you deny our Diaspora, you deny our narrative and you tell us that our story, our group, our rights, our history, our belonging DO NOT MATTER.

And I'm telling you that it does matter. And no one, NO ONE, has a right to tell us who does and who does not belong to the Jewish people. The only people who get to decide that are the Jewish people.

Are you trying to say that my post is not true?