How can we be sure Judaism's holy sites will be safe?

[P F Tinmore]

"...In other words you don't have jack shit. Why don't you admit that you are blowing smoke out of your ass. Just post a 1948 map of Israel. It is no big thing."

Sigh... what is your major malfunction now, oh petulant, naive, delusional one?

What part of 'wherever the Jews controlled a portion of the old Mandate, there was Israel' do you not understand?

The borders of the Jewish State were ill-defined until the Armistice of 1949, at which time the Green Line borders were recognized by both Israel and the warring Arab powers, and then recognized de facto by the United Nations in its peacekeeping missions.

One can find plenty of maps of the territories controlled by the Jews on May 15, 1948 and in the fighting of the next several weeks, as the Arabs attacked the Jews.

Whatever in the world leads you to believe that any of that old shit has the slightest importance whatsoever to the Realities of Today?

Whatever deficiencies of definition which existed as of May 15, 1948 were remedied in the following weeks, and again, by Israeli force of arms, were reinforced further, in the following year, as the fighting ground to a halt and the Armistice Agreements went into effect.

Whatever rhetorical victory you think you achieve by harping on the precision (or lack thereof) in defining the land-mass claimed by Israel in the earliest going, is, in actuality, and in the Real World in which most of the rest of us live, a phyrric victory at best, and a complete failure to come to grips with the way the Real World works, at worst.

Nice song and dance.

What part of 'wherever the Jews controlled a portion of the old Mandate, there was Israel' do you not understand?

"Controlled" is a term defining occupation not possession. If Israel did not possess the land then the Palestinians had the right to declare their state inside their own international borders.

The "old mandate" did not have any territory.

and then recognized de facto by the United Nations in its peacekeeping missions.

If Israel had any land it would be defined by real borders. The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.

And besides, the armistice lines were not defined until after Palestine's declaration of independence inside its international borders.

What part of my post is incorrect?

 

[Kondor3]

When, oh when, are you going to get it through your head, that you can be entirely right about old legal standings and status, but that those old standings have been swept aside by battlefield victories and subsequent events and the passage of time?

You, and your Palestinian brethren, are wasting your time, dwelling on this old, dead-end shit; you are talking into a dead phone; much of the world really doesn't want to hear this old sour-grapes rationalization any more; it no longer matters.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You go over this at least twice a month.

And, insofar as the so-called Palestinian Declaration of Statehood in 1948 is concerned...

The Jews beat them to it by four months plus change...

They'd already staked-out their claim, the very day that the British Mandate ended...

In grammar school, we used to call that "Dibs"...

"Hey, dummy, Ronnie offered-up his lunch-cookie, and I already called 'dibs'. It's mine!"

The Israelis already had a great deal of land under their control in May 1948 when they declared Statehood...

They merely beat the so-called Palestinians to the punch, when they called 'dibs' first, in connection with the lands that they already owned and occupied.

The Palestinians simply did not have their shit together, and didn't even both trying to 'declare' until four months later...

And by then, they were trying to 'call dibs' on somebody else's piece of the cookie...

A day late, and a shekel short...

As usual...

How about posting a 1948 map of Israel showing the territory Israel staked out before the Palestinian declaration?

(COMMENT)

The Jewish Agency issued their Declaration of Independence, for the State of Israel, which "UNDER PART ONE B FOUR OF RESOLUTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON NOVEMBER 29TH 1947," meaning Resolution 181(II), outlined the Jewish State. The Resolution contained a Map No. 103.1 (b), Annex "A" to the Resolution.

And your typical (PNA Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void.) response will be that the Palestinians don't recognized A/RES/181(II) as implemented.

Then I will respond back with the Palestinian Declaration of Independence says: Despite the historical injustice done to the Palestinian Arab people in its displacement and in being deprived of the right to self-determination following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State, that resolution nevertheless continues to attach conditions to international legitimacy that guarantee the Palestinian Arab people the right to sovereignty and national independence."

Most Respectfully,
R

The Jewish Agency issued their Declaration of Independence, for the State of Israel, which "UNDER PART ONE B FOUR OF RESOLUTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON NOVEMBER 29TH 1947," meaning Resolution 181(II), outlined the Jewish State. The Resolution contained a Map No. 103.1 (b), Annex "A" to the Resolution.

They lied!

Israel had already driven Palestinians out of their homes beyond the proposed 181 borders including Jerusalem before its declaration.

What part of resolution 181 did those liars accept?

 

[Roudy]

It's not a Jewish practice to destroy places of worship. I remember all the churches I saw on my tours of Israel. Didn't the Muslims just recently destroy 60 churches in Egypt?

Its also not a Jewish practise to commit ethnic cleansing, and yet they did just that in 1948, 1949, and 1967.

Israel has clearly changed the Jews. Eichmann himself said that if he was a Jew, he would be an extreme Zionist.

Using turnspeak is something Geobbles would be proud of.

Using Sophisticated Middle-East Turnspeak (excerpt fr. ch. 18 in 'From Time Immemorial' by Joan Peters)

The “Palestinian Problem,” no new phenomenon, is but the pan-Arab enmity by another name. The Arab refugees’ manipulation at the cruel whim of leaders in the Arab world is traditional, in earlier days, too, Arabs were periodically whipped into fanatically anti-Jewish onslaughts. What is new is the sophisticated use of Middle-East turnspeak,* twisted rhetoric artfully aimed at the hearts and minds of the West, originated by the Arabs, and rivaling the Soviets, who are veterans of “semantic infiltration” and the word war. Just as, in their lexicon, totalitarianism translates into “democracy,” and degradation becomes “freedom,” so has the flawed but democratic Israel been branded “Zionist imperialist” and “racist.” So has the carving of Jordan out of the internationally Mandated “Jewish National Home” during the Mandatory period been transformed into the notion that “Israel is all of Palestine”—the “homeland” of all the Arab refugees It is 1984, where as George Orwell wrote, [18-21]
War is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength.

According to turnspeak those Arab migrants and immigrants who, in Sir John Hope Simpson’s words, committed the “injustice” of “taking the places” of Jews in the “Jewish National Home” are today’s “displaced” Arab Palestinian people, “excluded” from the Jewish-settled area of Western Palestine, their “homeland since time immemorial.” The free world
is targeted for deception by the twisted speech of Arab propaganda.

From past history it is apparent that the Arab-Muslim world would not, without prodding and pressure, perhaps, from the rest of the world, accept an infidel or non-Muslim minority community as equals; as Arabs say, the land is forever Arab. Arab writers frankly recognize that the world, however cynical, would not take kindly to an abrupt or “quick” destruction of Israel. By promoting “Palestinian nationalism” through the publicized and orchestrated violence of “guerrilla attacks,” as the Arab writer al-Ayubi wrote in the early 1970’s that they should, the Arabs had changed the perception of reality from the xenophobic and powerful Arab world pitted against the tiny Jewish state into the image of one tiny nation of Israel against an equally tiny nation of “Palestine.” Israel is portrayed, then, as all of “Palestine,” the giant “aggressor.”

A technique of propaganda Turnspeak

The term was first used by journalists to describe German propaganda after it invaded Czechoslovakia in March of 1939. To win sympathy for their invasion, the Germans practiced what has become known as "turnspeak". They turned the blame back on the Czechs for trying to precipitate an all-out war in the region. In other words, the Czechs in their attempt to hang onto their land were ready to plunge all of Europe into war.
How did the rest of Europe respond to this lie? They believed it. World leaders decided that something had to be done to preserve peace at any cost.

Author William Shirer, who was a reporter in Europe at the time, distilled the truth simply when he wrote, "Thus the plight of the German minority in Czechoslovakia was merely a pretext...for cooking up a stew in a land he [Hitler] coveted, undermining it, confusing and misleading its friends and concealing his real purpose...to destroy the Czechoslovak state and grab its territories..." 1

The Arab claim that Jews are "Nazis" is not without motive. They are trying to obscure their own close connection with the Nazis. During World War II leading Muslims including Haj Amin al-Husseini worked for the Nazis in Germany and called for a intifada against Britain. Haji Amin al-Husseini was the grand mufti of Jerusalem, as well as Yasser Arafat's close relative and mentor
The Arabs, especially Iraq, sided with Germany during W.W.II. In May 1941, Haj Amin al-Husseini issued a fatwa - "summons to a holy war against Britain". The Mufti's widely heralded proclamation against Britain was declared in Iraq, and was instrumental in his 1941 pro-Nazi intifada in Iraqi. The Mufti also requested Arab-Americans not to support FDR.

Yasser Arafat's actual name is Abd al-Rahman abd al-Rauf Arafat al-Qud al-Husseini. He shortened it to obscure his kinship with the notorious Nazi and Mufti of Jerusalem.2

 

[Roudy]

Link? And why would anyone care what Eichmann said?

Adolf Eichmann said in his memoirs shortly before being captured by the Israelis:

"In the years that followed I often said to Jews with whom I had dealings with that, had I been a Jew, I would have been a fanatical Zionist. I could not imagine being anything else. In fact, I would have been the most fanatical Zionist possible."

LIFE - Google Books

page 22

Amin Al Husseini: Nazi Father of Jihad, Al Qaeda, Arafat, Saddam Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood - Tell The Children The Truth - Homepage

 

[RoccoR]

Kondor3, et al,

This is a trick.

"...If Israel had any land it would be defined by real borders. The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.

And besides, the armistice lines were not defined until after Palestine's declaration of independence inside its international borders."

My maps were intended to demonstrate the areas under Jewish control on May 15, 1948, the day they declared Indepencence.

Rocco's refocusing of our attention upon the Israeli claims to the maps of UN Resolution 181 are sufficient to the day and remedy any shortcomings in my own physical-holdings focus.

Consequently, the Jews staked-out a claim that did, indeed, have precise map references, on May 15, 1948, and which pre-dated those of the Palestinians four months later.

None of that other horseshit matters a damn.

Otherwise, the Palestinians would be the rulers of that land, and not its lost and fading past.

Consequently, the Jews staked-out a claim that did, indeed, have precise map references, on May 15, 1948, and which pre-dated those of the Palestinians four months later.

Got a 1948 map of Israel showing the territory staked out?

(COMMENT)

P F Tinmore knows that the Armistice Commission did not create the next Map until 1949. He purposely asks for something that makes not difference to the discussion.

In May 48, Israel starts from the A/RES/181 MAP. It was a pre-determined point of reference worked out by the UN Commission on Palestine process; a process which the Arab Higher Committee (puppet of the Arab League) refused to participate.

During the conflict 1948-1949 War, the actual lines of control fluctuated. You cannot draw a map that moves. The 12/31/1949 Armistice lines of 1949 - Map 547.1 which was altered again in 1967 by 11/01/1978 Territory occupied by Israel in 1967 and UN peacekeeping forces - Map 3014, prior to Treaties. Now the General Map is a variation of the 06/11/1997 Territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 - Map 3243 Rev 4.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, of course they did! (Chuckle!)

They lied!

Israel had already driven Palestinians out of their homes beyond the proposed 181 borders including Jerusalem before its declaration.

What part of resolution 181 did those liars accept?

(COMMENT)

They accepted all the applicable provisions. The War of Independence interrupted the actual application.

Again, the Arab Palestinian and Arab League, shot themselves in the foot.

(SIDEBAR)

I find it strange at how often you use that phrase: They lied!

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Kondor3, et al,

This is a trick.

My maps were intended to demonstrate the areas under Jewish control on May 15, 1948, the day they declared Indepencence.

Rocco's refocusing of our attention upon the Israeli claims to the maps of UN Resolution 181 are sufficient to the day and remedy any shortcomings in my own physical-holdings focus.

Consequently, the Jews staked-out a claim that did, indeed, have precise map references, on May 15, 1948, and which pre-dated those of the Palestinians four months later.

None of that other horseshit matters a damn.

Otherwise, the Palestinians would be the rulers of that land, and not its lost and fading past.

Consequently, the Jews staked-out a claim that did, indeed, have precise map references, on May 15, 1948, and which pre-dated those of the Palestinians four months later.

Got a 1948 map of Israel showing the territory staked out?

(COMMENT)

P F Tinmore knows that the Armistice Commission did not create the next Map until 1949. He purposely asks for something that makes not difference to the discussion.

In May 48, Israel starts from the A/RES/181 MAP. It was a pre-determined point of reference worked out by the UN Commission on Palestine process; a process which the Arab Higher Committee (puppet of the Arab League) refused to participate.

During the conflict 1948-1949 War, the actual lines of control fluctuated. You cannot draw a map that moves. The 12/31/1949 Armistice lines of 1949 - Map 547.1 which was altered again in 1967 by 11/01/1978 Territory occupied by Israel in 1967 and UN peacekeeping forces - Map 3014, prior to Treaties. Now the General Map is a variation of the 06/11/1997 Territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 - Map 3243 Rev 4.

Most Respectfully,
R

Areas of occupation move. Legitimate borders do not without a treaty or agreement by those who own those borders.

The armistice lines are specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries because no territory was transferred.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, of course they did! (Chuckle!)

They lied!

Israel had already driven Palestinians out of their homes beyond the proposed 181 borders including Jerusalem before its declaration.

What part of resolution 181 did those liars accept?

(COMMENT)

They accepted all the applicable provisions. The War of Independence interrupted the actual application.

Again, the Arab Palestinian and Arab League, shot themselves in the foot.

(SIDEBAR)

I find it strange at how often you use that phrase: They lied!

Most Respectfully,
R

They accepted all the applicable provisions. The War of Independence interrupted the actual application.

Another Israeli lie.

Israel had already driven Palestinians out of their homes beyond the proposed 181 borders including Jerusalem before its declaration.

Israel violated the rights of the non Jewish population.

Israel violated the proposed 181 borders.

Israel violated the international city of Jerusalem.

All of this was before they lied about accepting resolution 181.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In each bit of propaganda, there is a bit of truth. But there is a greater truth that is often conveniently left out.

Kondor3, et al,

This is a trick.

Got a 1948 map of Israel showing the territory staked out?

(COMMENT)

P F Tinmore knows that the Armistice Commission did not create the next Map until 1949. He purposely asks for something that makes not difference to the discussion.

In May 48, Israel starts from the A/RES/181 MAP. It was a pre-determined point of reference worked out by the UN Commission on Palestine process; a process which the Arab Higher Committee (puppet of the Arab League) refused to participate.

During the conflict 1948-1949 War, the actual lines of control fluctuated. You cannot draw a map that moves. The 12/31/1949 Armistice lines of 1949 - Map 547.1 which was altered again in 1967 by 11/01/1978 Territory occupied by Israel in 1967 and UN peacekeeping forces - Map 3014, prior to Treaties. Now the General Map is a variation of the 06/11/1997 Territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 - Map 3243 Rev 4.

Most Respectfully,
R

Areas of occupation move. Legitimate borders do not without a treaty or agreement by those who own those borders.

The armistice lines are specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries because no territory was transferred.

(COMMENT)

Your bit of truth is, they are not permanent borders. But in practice, they are treated the same. The difference is in the indemnification. A border is secured by Treaty, and an Armistice is indemnified by the UN, regional security cooperative, or between waring parties. In this case, primarily the UN.

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.

SOURCE:
http://www.unrol.org/files/3dda1f104.pdf
............................ OR ............................
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/2625(XXV)

The Armistice Lines, as outlined below, are what is recognized by the State of Palestine.

During the course of the 1948 war, the Israeli forces occupied additional territory beyond that allocated to the Jewish State in the UN Partition Plan, totalling approximately half of the territory alloted to the Arab State, in addition to the western part of Jerusalem. After the war, Israel extended its laws and regulations to those territories and never withdrew to the partition lines. As a result, approximately 78% of the territory of Palestine came under Israeli control. The remaining areas of Palestine, approximately 22%, came under Arab control (Jordan and Egypt).

In the course of 1949, and with UN mediation, Israel concluded armistice agreements with Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon. The armistice agreements were based on military considerations and do not prejudice the rights, claims and positions of the parties with regard to the settlement of the Palestine Question.

The Hashemite Jordan Kingdom-Israel General Armistice Agreement set a line of what came to be known as the West Bank , which includes East Jerusalem , which came under Jordanian control (there is also a so-called “no man's land” which separates East Jerusalem from West Jerusalem). The Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement set a line of what came to be known as the Gaza Strip , which came under Egyptian control.

Both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (along with the Sinai and the Syrian Golan) were occupied by Israel in the 1967 War until today.

GEOGRAPHY of the Occupied Palestinian Territory

West Bank, including East Jerusalem

Location : Middle East, west of Jordan

Geographic Coordinates : 32 00 N, 35 15 E

Total Area : 5, 860 sq. km.
*includes the northwest quarter of the Dead Sea

Land Area : 5, 640 sq. km.
*includes the “No-man's Land” separating East & West Jerusalem

Land Boundaries
Total : 404 km
Border Countries : Israel 307 km (1949 Armistice Line), Jordan 97 km
Coastline : 0 km (landlocked)

Major Cities : East Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron (Al-Khalil), Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin, Tulkarem, Qalqiliya

Climate : Mediterranean with hot, dry summers and short, wet, cool winters

Geology : Mostly rugged dissected upland, with some vegetation in the east but barren in the west; surface rocks are most marine sediments, limestone and chalk. Because most rocks are porous, most water is contained in underground rock layers forming aquifer systems.

Lowest point : Dead Sea –408 m
Hightest Point : Tall Asur 1, 022 m​

Gaza Strip

Location : Middle East, bordering the Mediterranean Sea to the West, between Israel and Egypt

Geographic Coordinates : 31 25 N, 34 20 E

Total Area : 360 sq. km.
Land Area : 360 sq. km.
Water : 0 sq. km.

Land Boundaries
Total: 62 km
Border Countries : Israel 51 km., Egypt 11 km

Coastline : 40 km.

Major Cities : Gaza, Beit Hanoun, Deir al-Balah, Khan Yunis, Rafah

Climate : Mediterranean, temperate, mild winters, dry and hot summers

Geology : flat to rolling, sand and dune covered coastal plain

Lowest Point : Mediterranean Sea 0 m
Hightest Point : Joz Abu ‘Awdah 105 m​

SOURCE: Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines...

OK, the armistice line around the West Bank, for example, states That Israeli forces stay on their side of the line and Jordanian forces stay on their side.

But it is Palestine on both sides of the line. How can the Palestinians violate that line?

 

[P F Tinmore]

During the course of the 1948 war, the Israeli forces occupied additional territory beyond that allocated to the Jewish State in the UN Partition Plan

Indeed, and since no land was transferred by the partition plan, Israel occupies all of that territory.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

That is a misperception.

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines...

OK, the armistice line around the West Bank, for example, states That Israeli forces stay on their side of the line and Jordanian forces stay on their side.

But it is Palestine on both sides of the line. How can the Palestinians violate that line?

(OBSERVATION)

I noticed that the Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations took down all their maps. It would have been much easier to explain with their maps.

(COMMENT)

It is NOT Palestine on both sides of the Armistice Line.

The Armistice Line is a Demarcation Line. Until a Treaty alters the reality of that line, it is what it is; Israel on one side and Palestine on the other. There is no case where the Palestinians have both sides of the line; otherwise it would not be a demarcation.

Look at the link: You will notice in Paragraph 1(i), there is a BLUE Marked link, just as I have reproduced. It will take you to a Map that was an attachment to this very Security Council Resolution. It gives a representation of the Armistice Line; Israeli on one side and Palestinian on the other.

Resolution 242 (1967)
of 22 November 1967​

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

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

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

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

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;​

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
Adopted unanimously at the 1382nd meeting.​

SOURCE: Resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Transfer...

During the course of the 1948 war, the Israeli forces occupied additional territory beyond that allocated to the Jewish State in the UN Partition Plan

Indeed, and since no land was transferred by the partition plan, Israel occupies all of that territory.

(COMMENT)

The establishment of sovereignty is not a "real estate" deal. There is no transfer of property; not for any of the 9 Arab Countries Created by the Allied Powers/LoN/UN. What do you think they did, give King Abdullah a deed to the Hashemite Kingdom? No, it doesn't work that way.

Lose that term from your vocabulary. That is simply not a concept in play.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Look at the link: You will notice in Paragraph 1(i), there is a BLUE Marked link, just as I have reproduced. It will take you to a Map that was an attachment to this very Security Council Resolution. It gives a representation of the Armistice Line; Israeli on one side and Palestinian on the other.

Indeed, and a disclaimer on the legal status of country, territory, or boundaries.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Transfer...

During the course of the 1948 war, the Israeli forces occupied additional territory beyond that allocated to the Jewish State in the UN Partition Plan

Indeed, and since no land was transferred by the partition plan, Israel occupies all of that territory.

(COMMENT)

The establishment of sovereignty is not a "real estate" deal. There is no transfer of property; not for any of the 9 Arab Countries Created by the Allied Powers/LoN/UN. What do you think they did, give King Abdullah a deed to the Hashemite Kingdom? No, it doesn't work that way.

Lose that term from your vocabulary. That is simply not a concept in play.

Most Respectfully,
R

You can have sovereignty over territory that is not yours?

Interesting legal concept.

Got a link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is NOT Palestine on both sides of the Armistice Line.

The UN armistice agreements say it is.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; et al,

That is another thing you keep bring up, and don't understand.

Look at the link: You will notice in Paragraph 1(i), there is a BLUE Marked link, just as I have reproduced. It will take you to a Map that was an attachment to this very Security Council Resolution. It gives a representation of the Armistice Line; Israeli on one side and Palestinian on the other.

Indeed, and a disclaimer on the legal status of country, territory, or boundaries.

(COMMENT)

It is saying that the Office of the Secretariat may have reproduced the Map, but wasn't the proponent for the Map. In this case, the Map was commissioned by a separate proponent [UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967)]. The Secretariat is the Administrative Office that ran the copy machine and posted the Map to the Website.

Additionally, it is not a high resolution map. So the larger the scale, the more inaccurate it is. So you cannot tell from this scale exactly where the demarcation line is. You generally see that on the Survey Map at 1:25000 scale or closer.

It is clear you can read the words, you simply are not interpreting the meaning correctly. Nearly all reproduced documents of an official nature have such general disclaimers on them to point to the originator of the document.

The Allied Powers set the borders for nearly the entire region. Anyplace on the map where you see a bunch of straight line borders, is a surveyed border by the original Mandatories and Protectorates.

That is another concept you need to lose.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UN would never say that.

It is NOT Palestine on both sides of the Armistice Line.

The UN armistice agreements say it is.

(COMMENT)

An Armistice Line is meaningless if the same side is on each side.

Get it together.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What are you playing at?

P F Tinmore, et al,

Transfer...

Indeed, and since no land was transferred by the partition plan, Israel occupies all of that territory.

(COMMENT)

The establishment of sovereignty is not a "real estate" deal. There is no transfer of property; not for any of the 9 Arab Countries Created by the Allied Powers/LoN/UN. What do you think they did, give King Abdullah a deed to the Hashemite Kingdom? No, it doesn't work that way.

Lose that term from your vocabulary. That is simply not a concept in play.

Most Respectfully,
R

You can have sovereignty over territory that is not yours?

Interesting legal concept.

Got a link?

(COMMENT)

I own a home. I have a deed. The property is mine; I own it. But it is the sovereign territory of the United States of America.

Sovereignty and property transfers (ownership) are two entirely different things.

Most Respectfully,
R