Finally, Israel and Palestine is a US election issue.

"...but they are the ones that were driven from their homes and relegated to refugee camps."

I mean, what a shame that the Arabs-Moslem squatters were forced from their homes in 1948 when the failed genocide by the Arab-Moslem armies was begun.

And, I think we can agree that the treatment of the Pal'istanians by the Arab-Moslem world is terrible. Those Pal'istanian internment camps in Jordan and elsewhere in the Arab-Moslem Middle East..., oh, the humanity, (sniff sniff).

Thank you for agreeing that the native people of Palestine were forced from their homes by European invaders.

I never agreed to that. Your reading comprehension skills are lacking.

As you should know, the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters were not "native people".

How can the people that were living in Palestine for thousands of years before the Europeans arrived be squatters. How can people born in Europe be natives of Palestine. Do you have a different definition of native than the standard one?
It's like shoving Shit Uphill with the Squatter Hollie..........To dialogue Monte with Hollie we have to decide if it's worth the effort.....in my opinion its NOT..steve..Keep up the great work,I trust the family are well Monte

Everything is fine here, how are things down under? But you're right, time to disengage from discussions with mollusk intelligence level posters.






Does that mean we have to leave you two to entertain each other
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

Well that is not true either. First off, NOTHING in an Armistice is forever. An Armistice may stay in place indefinitely --- but it is not a permanent arrangement.

OK, but the Palestinian's statement is the land of Palestine after the Mandate failed and left. The confirmation of this defined territory can be found in the 1949 UN armistice agreements.
(REFERENCE)


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

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

(COMMENT)

The original Armistice Line between Israel and Lebanon actually follow the Paulet-Newcombe Agreement established to delineate the Boundaries between the French and British Mandates.

Paulet–Newcombe Agreement said:
The Paulet–Newcombe Agreement or Paulet-Newcombe Line, also known as the Franco-British Boundary Agreements, were a sequence of agreements signed between 1920-23 between the British and French governments regarding the position and nature of the boundary between the Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia, attributed to Great Britain, and the Mandate of Syria and the Lebanon, attributed to France. The agreements fixed the line of the Syrian-Palestinian border (now the Syrian-Israeli border) between the Mediterranean Sea and the town of Al-Hamma. The agreement takes its name from French Lieutenant Colonel N. Paulet and British Lieutenant Colonel S. F. Newcombe, who were appointed to lead the Boundary Commission.

International Boundary Study No. 75 – February 15 said:
The Israel-Lebanon frontier should be shown on official United States maps only as an armistice line. It should never be symbolized as an international boundary except where the scale of the map is so small that differentiations in categories can not be made.

I gather you are trying to establish that the boundary between the territory to which the French Mandate applied and the territory to which the British Mandate applied, establishes some kind of formal existence of a country of Palestine for which the Palestinians of today may lay claim.

This would be wrong.

Remember, the establishment of the Armistice Line follows a line that the Allied Powers established as a Result of the Sykes-Picot treaty. It has absolutely nothing to do with any claim that the Arab Palestinians may lay claim to. For every purpose, it was still territory to which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic relinquished all title and rights to the Allied Powers --- NOT any Arab Palestinian Authority. The segments of the Armistice Lines that confront the Egyptian and Jordanian, the Armistice would remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved. This was accomplished and the Armistice Line was dissolved into history, replaced by permanent international boundaries.

The wording and use of the name "Palestine" was an attempt by Arab League parties to avoid the recognition of the State of Israel or the Jewish State as pledge in the Arab Higher Committee letter in February, where in the Arab Palestinians again rejected the recommendations adopted by the UN.

At no time does any Allied Power pass any independence or sovereignty to the territory under Mandate or Trusteeship; except for that granted by the Mandatory in the Alliance Treaty of 1946; specifically to Jordan with the Emir as the sovereign.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

Well that is not true either. First off, NOTHING in an Armistice is forever. An Armistice may stay in place indefinitely --- but it is not a permanent arrangement.

OK, but the Palestinian's statement is the land of Palestine after the Mandate failed and left. The confirmation of this defined territory can be found in the 1949 UN armistice agreements.
(REFERENCE)


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

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

(COMMENT)

The original Armistice Line between Israel and Lebanon actually follow the Paulet-Newcombe Agreement established to delineate the Boundaries between the French and British Mandates.

Paulet–Newcombe Agreement said:
The Paulet–Newcombe Agreement or Paulet-Newcombe Line, also known as the Franco-British Boundary Agreements, were a sequence of agreements signed between 1920-23 between the British and French governments regarding the position and nature of the boundary between the Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia, attributed to Great Britain, and the Mandate of Syria and the Lebanon, attributed to France. The agreements fixed the line of the Syrian-Palestinian border (now the Syrian-Israeli border) between the Mediterranean Sea and the town of Al-Hamma. The agreement takes its name from French Lieutenant Colonel N. Paulet and British Lieutenant Colonel S. F. Newcombe, who were appointed to lead the Boundary Commission.

International Boundary Study No. 75 – February 15 said:
The Israel-Lebanon frontier should be shown on official United States maps only as an armistice line. It should never be symbolized as an international boundary except where the scale of the map is so small that differentiations in categories can not be made.

I gather you are trying to establish that the boundary between the territory to which the French Mandate applied and the territory to which the British Mandate applied, establishes some kind of formal existence of a country of Palestine for which the Palestinians of today may lay claim.

This would be wrong.

Remember, the establishment of the Armistice Line follows a line that the Allied Powers established as a Result of the Sykes-Picot treaty. It has absolutely nothing to do with any claim that the Arab Palestinians may lay claim to. For every purpose, it was still territory to which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic relinquished all title and rights to the Allied Powers --- NOT any Arab Palestinian Authority. The segments of the Armistice Lines that confront the Egyptian and Jordanian, the Armistice would remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved. This was accomplished and the Armistice Line was dissolved into history, replaced by permanent international boundaries.

The wording and use of the name "Palestine" was an attempt by Arab League parties to avoid the recognition of the State of Israel or the Jewish State as pledge in the Arab Higher Committee letter in February, where in the Arab Palestinians again rejected the recommendations adopted by the UN.

At no time does any Allied Power pass any independence or sovereignty to the territory under Mandate or Trusteeship; except for that granted by the Mandatory in the Alliance Treaty of 1946; specifically to Jordan with the Emir as the sovereign.

Most Respectfully,
R
The agreements fixed the line of the Syrian-Palestinian border (now the Syrian-Israeli border)​

What treaty changed that from a Palestinian border to an Israeli border?
 
But here we are in an American election year and Bernie Sanders is calling for a more “even-handed” approach to the Palestinians; Vice President Joe Biden has expressed his “overwhelming frustration” with Benjamin Netanyahu; even Hillary Clinton – who, of course, is going to be the next US President – has managed (just) to refer to “damaging actions” by Israel, “including with respect to settlements”.

Not exactly earth-shattering stuff, and they’ve all uttered the usual prayers. America is committed to Israel’s security which is “non-negotiable” (Clinton) and the US is Israel’s “only absolute friend” (Biden). The future President Clinton picked up 56 rounds of applause when she addressed Aipac, Israel’s most powerful lobbyists, in New York last month – that’s 18 more rounds than Netanyahu got when he addressed Congress a year ago, but he also received 23 standing ovations from the would-be Knesset members who represent American voters.

Let’s not get romantic. La Clinton even offered “a new 10-year defence memorandum of understanding” with Israel to Aipac, made the usual references to “Palestinian terrorists” and “Iran’s continued aggression”, and repeated the mantra that “Israel and America are seen as a light unto the nations” – albeit not, perhaps, unto the Palestinian ‘nation’.

“I would vigorously oppose any attempt by outside parties,” she announced, “to impose a solution, including by the UN Security Council”. In other words, goodbye to UN Security Council Resolution 242 – Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967 – which was supposed to be the foundation stone of the whole wretched peace process.

Yet the shift in emphasis is clearly there. Sanders is Jewish – his father was an immigrant from eastern Europe – and most of his family died in the Nazi Holocaust. You might expect he would try to outgun Hillary in her support for Israel. Yet he accused her of devoting “only one sentence... that even mentioned the Palestinian people” in her Aipac hug-in, only “one line on the Palestinian people”.

This was not strictly accurate, although a close reading of La Clinton’s text shows that her references to Palestinians were more in the form of an appendage to Israeli security than a denunciation of Palestinian “suffering” – a word that Sanders has actually used about the occupied Arabs of Palestine.

Bernie believes “Israel must have the right to exist in peace and security, just as the Palestinians must have the right to a homeland in which they and they alone control their political system and their economy”. To that extent, it’s the usual stuff: no mention of Palestinian security – that will be left to Israel – but they can do what they like inside their pathetic little “homeland”.

Robert Fisk: Finally, Israel and Palestine is a US election issue. It's about time
who knows what might happen?
Satanic how the existence of Jews animates his minions into a frenzy over a strip of desert land smaller than San Diego County.
 
But here we are in an American election year and Bernie Sanders is calling for a more “even-handed” approach to the Palestinians; Vice President Joe Biden has expressed his “overwhelming frustration” with Benjamin Netanyahu; even Hillary Clinton – who, of course, is going to be the next US President – has managed (just) to refer to “damaging actions” by Israel, “including with respect to settlements”.

Not exactly earth-shattering stuff, and they’ve all uttered the usual prayers. America is committed to Israel’s security which is “non-negotiable” (Clinton) and the US is Israel’s “only absolute friend” (Biden). The future President Clinton picked up 56 rounds of applause when she addressed Aipac, Israel’s most powerful lobbyists, in New York last month – that’s 18 more rounds than Netanyahu got when he addressed Congress a year ago, but he also received 23 standing ovations from the would-be Knesset members who represent American voters.

Let’s not get romantic. La Clinton even offered “a new 10-year defence memorandum of understanding” with Israel to Aipac, made the usual references to “Palestinian terrorists” and “Iran’s continued aggression”, and repeated the mantra that “Israel and America are seen as a light unto the nations” – albeit not, perhaps, unto the Palestinian ‘nation’.

“I would vigorously oppose any attempt by outside parties,” she announced, “to impose a solution, including by the UN Security Council”. In other words, goodbye to UN Security Council Resolution 242 – Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967 – which was supposed to be the foundation stone of the whole wretched peace process.

Yet the shift in emphasis is clearly there. Sanders is Jewish – his father was an immigrant from eastern Europe – and most of his family died in the Nazi Holocaust. You might expect he would try to outgun Hillary in her support for Israel. Yet he accused her of devoting “only one sentence... that even mentioned the Palestinian people” in her Aipac hug-in, only “one line on the Palestinian people”.

This was not strictly accurate, although a close reading of La Clinton’s text shows that her references to Palestinians were more in the form of an appendage to Israeli security than a denunciation of Palestinian “suffering” – a word that Sanders has actually used about the occupied Arabs of Palestine.

Bernie believes “Israel must have the right to exist in peace and security, just as the Palestinians must have the right to a homeland in which they and they alone control their political system and their economy”. To that extent, it’s the usual stuff: no mention of Palestinian security – that will be left to Israel – but they can do what they like inside their pathetic little “homeland”.

Robert Fisk: Finally, Israel and Palestine is a US election issue. It's about time
who knows what might happen?
Satanic how the existence of Jews animates his minions into a frenzy over a strip of desert land smaller than San Diego County.

I have to assume this is the truth. I have to! When you see all the lands that the Arabs have, some that are far more ideal, more natural resources, more beautiful, more fertile..... it's insane. The Islamic countries of the world, have some of the best real-estate on the planet.

But no no no no...... We must have this itty bitty little strip of land. Why? It has no oil. It has no lumber. Most of it is wasteland. Why??? It's not like you can use the dead sea for fishing. The Negev isn't useful for anything. You can't farm it. Most of the other areas are too rocky.

What big reason do they have, to want that particular bit of land? Only one.... to kill jews. That's it. A Satanic lust for murder and death is the only reason I can find.
 
9/11 inside job, montelatici, et al,

Oh, more whining.

(COMMENT)

And I suppose that the Arab Palestinian is clean as the driven snow; 99 and 44 one-hundredths percent pure. And the Arab Palestinians never attacked the Olympics, and the Palestinians never killed a single American, and the Palestinians never hijacked a single plane or committed piracy on the high seas. I suppose that the Palestinians never committed a suicide bombing in against a purely civilian target, never attacked a school bus or the infirm or disabled. And I suppose that the Arab Palestinian did not fire a single rocket indiscriminately into Israel.

I suppose that all these civilians were located away from Arab Palestinian paramilitary activities. I suppose that there were not paramilitary targets in close proximity to densely populated civilian vicinities.

The lack of military prowess and the ineffectiveness of paramilitary activities and terrorist operations is no excuse. The Arab Palestinian Terrorist have said many times that they would kill more Israeli civilians if they could. It has only been within the last week that we discussed how the barbaric and bloodthirsty Arab Palestinians want to legitimize the Arabs in killing civilians.

If the international community places a moratorium on the prohibition against directly targeting the civilian population (as suggested), that would make your whole argument here invalid and immaterial. That would place the Arab Palestinian Population in great peril; not that the Israelis would intentionally target innocent civilians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course the Palestinians are not "as clean as the driven snow" but they are the ones that were driven from their homes and relegated to refugee camps. It is not unnatural for people that have undergone the horrors they have undergone to lash out. The Palestinians, after all, are not behaving any differently than the non-whites in South Africa and Rhodesia, the FLN in Algeria, the Tamils, the IRA, etc., etc. What bothers me are people such as yourself that will not ever admit that the migration of European Jews to Palestine and their success (with the help of the West in general) in evicting the native people and creating a state at the expense of the native people has no bearing on the behavior of the non-Jews (Muslims and Christians) of Palestine.

"...but they are the ones that were driven from their homes and relegated to refugee camps."

I mean, what a shame that the Arabs-Moslem squatters were forced from their homes in 1948 when the failed genocide by the Arab-Moslem armies was begun.

And, I think we can agree that the treatment of the Pal'istanians by the Arab-Moslem world is terrible. Those Pal'istanian internment camps in Jordan and elsewhere in the Arab-Moslem Middle East..., oh, the humanity, (sniff sniff).
Cretin is as CRETIN speaks





And only a full blown cretin would write citizen as you did
Not at all,it was deliberate...see you around Phoe
 
But here we are in an American election year and Bernie Sanders is calling for a more “even-handed” approach to the Palestinians; Vice President Joe Biden has expressed his “overwhelming frustration” with Benjamin Netanyahu; even Hillary Clinton – who, of course, is going to be the next US President – has managed (just) to refer to “damaging actions” by Israel, “including with respect to settlements”. ....
And they wonder why the US are being run down - with so many assholes, running for the Casa Blanca, it is, actually, no wonder at all, of course.
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

Well that is not true either. First off, NOTHING in an Armistice is forever. An Armistice may stay in place indefinitely --- but it is not a permanent arrangement.

OK, but the Palestinian's statement is the land of Palestine after the Mandate failed and left. The confirmation of this defined territory can be found in the 1949 UN armistice agreements.
(REFERENCE)


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

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

(COMMENT)

The original Armistice Line between Israel and Lebanon actually follow the Paulet-Newcombe Agreement established to delineate the Boundaries between the French and British Mandates.

Paulet–Newcombe Agreement said:
The Paulet–Newcombe Agreement or Paulet-Newcombe Line, also known as the Franco-British Boundary Agreements, were a sequence of agreements signed between 1920-23 between the British and French governments regarding the position and nature of the boundary between the Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia, attributed to Great Britain, and the Mandate of Syria and the Lebanon, attributed to France. The agreements fixed the line of the Syrian-Palestinian border (now the Syrian-Israeli border) between the Mediterranean Sea and the town of Al-Hamma. The agreement takes its name from French Lieutenant Colonel N. Paulet and British Lieutenant Colonel S. F. Newcombe, who were appointed to lead the Boundary Commission.

International Boundary Study No. 75 – February 15 said:
The Israel-Lebanon frontier should be shown on official United States maps only as an armistice line. It should never be symbolized as an international boundary except where the scale of the map is so small that differentiations in categories can not be made.

I gather you are trying to establish that the boundary between the territory to which the French Mandate applied and the territory to which the British Mandate applied, establishes some kind of formal existence of a country of Palestine for which the Palestinians of today may lay claim.

This would be wrong.

Remember, the establishment of the Armistice Line follows a line that the Allied Powers established as a Result of the Sykes-Picot treaty. It has absolutely nothing to do with any claim that the Arab Palestinians may lay claim to. For every purpose, it was still territory to which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic relinquished all title and rights to the Allied Powers --- NOT any Arab Palestinian Authority. The segments of the Armistice Lines that confront the Egyptian and Jordanian, the Armistice would remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved. This was accomplished and the Armistice Line was dissolved into history, replaced by permanent international boundaries.

The wording and use of the name "Palestine" was an attempt by Arab League parties to avoid the recognition of the State of Israel or the Jewish State as pledge in the Arab Higher Committee letter in February, where in the Arab Palestinians again rejected the recommendations adopted by the UN.

At no time does any Allied Power pass any independence or sovereignty to the territory under Mandate or Trusteeship; except for that granted by the Mandatory in the Alliance Treaty of 1946; specifically to Jordan with the Emir as the sovereign.

Most Respectfully,
R
The agreements fixed the line of the Syrian-Palestinian border (now the Syrian-Israeli border)​

What treaty changed that from a Palestinian border to an Israeli border?





The Armistice treaty of course, as Israel was not in existence until may 15 1948. Just as Palestine the nation did not exist until 1988. Unless you can produce a treaty that delineates the borders of the nation of Palestine singed by a Palestinian authority and either a LoN authority or an Ottoman authority.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top