Jets Rookie Speaks at Extreme Anti-Israel Conference

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who's borders?

Prior to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the same could be said of Palestine. It had no borders of its own. It was a regional designation.

There is no in Palestine the former Mandate.

The Mandate owned no land and had no borders of its own. Palestine did not depend on the mandate for its existence and continued to exist after the mandate left Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Again, if any of these arguments had some validity to them, then the Arab/Palestinian should not be afraid to take the claim to court.

Palestinian is a region, not a sovereign nation. It is very much like the description of the Levant.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not true.

A region is an undefined area.

Palestine is defined by international borders.

(COMMENT)

What borders?

v/r
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who's borders?

Prior to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the same could be said of Palestine. It had no borders of its own. It was a regional designation.


(COMMENT)

Again, if any of these arguments had some validity to them, then the Arab/Palestinian should not be afraid to take the claim to court.

Palestinian is a region, not a sovereign nation. It is very much like the description of the Levant.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not true.

A region is an undefined area.

Palestine is defined by international borders.

(COMMENT)

What borders?

v/r
R

Geesh, Rocco, you are starting to sound like MJB.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, if MJB says it is a "undefined" region, then she and I are in agreement with the Ottoman Empire that ruled it for 800 years.

Who's borders?

Not true.

A region is an undefined area.

Palestine is defined by international borders.

(COMMENT)

What borders?

v/r
R

Geesh, Rocco, you are starting to sound like MJB.

(COMMENT)

Palestine is a Region. It was one of many territories contained inside the Levant.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers.

SOURCE: Treaty of Sevres 1920

What we call Palestine today, is an artificial territorial expanse for political convenience. It had no boundaries prior to the Mandate.

In fact, all the surrounding countries, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, are defined today by protectorate devised boundaries. Hence, all the straight lines. With the exception of Egypt, none of the other surrounding countries existed. They are political sovereignties born out of trusteeships (of one sort or another) of the Allied Powers. Even Egypt and the Sudan, as well as Iraq and Kuwait, were modifications of modern times by one or more of the Allied Powers.

The idea that Palestine had some Arab political institution that qualifies as a state or sovereignty, is pure fiction to further the claim that they are defending what is really a nonexistent country.

Surely, if there had been a country called "Palestine," the Ottoman Empire would have known about it; as well as the Allied Powers. If there was any real substance to the claim, someone would have acted on it by now.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sunni Man]

There is always this big drawn out debate about the name of the land.

But the reality is that there were arab people who had been living on and farming the land for countless generations.

Then they had their families generational land and possessions ripped away and became displaced people.

That is the heart of the issue......not the label, legitimate or not, that others have assigned to the territory.

And until that injustice is addressed there will never be peace. ..

 

[Hossfly]

Israel is in "Palestine the former Mandate."

There is no in Palestine the former Mandate.

The Mandate owned no land and had no borders of its own. Palestine did not depend on the mandate for its existence and continued to exist after the mandate left Palestine.

For someone who claims he is not an Arab, Tinnie certainly tries very hard. However, has anyone ever seen Tinnie mention that Jordan got 78 percent of the Palestine Mandate. Why isn' he complaining that the "Palestinians" aren't ruling this huge area instead of the Hashemites from Saudi Arabia? It appears when other Arabs receive something like this, Tinnie has no complaints, but if the Jews receive a tiny part, it is a catastrophe in Tinnie's mind. I sure wish that Tinnie would tell us about this great country of "Palestine" -- such as the names of the kings who ruled the country, the laws that were made, the currency which was used, etc. How about it, Tinnie? Surely since you appear to want us to believe you know so much about the area, you can tell us all about this.

 

[RoccoR]

Sunni Man; et al,

There it is. That is the key.

There is always this big drawn out debate about the name of the land.

But the reality is that there were arab people who had been living on and farming the land for countless generations.

Then they had their families generational land and possessions ripped away and became displaced people.

That is the heart of the issue......not the label, legitimate or not, that others have assigned to the territory.

And until that injustice is addressed there will never be peace. ..

(COMMENT)

This conflict started over the Arab/Palestinian's inability to comply with the will of the United Nations who had trusteeship; and as long as Arab/Palestinian perceives (not that there was one) an "injustice," there will never be peace.

Logically, what can be done?

Containment and quarantine! How do you achieve containment and quarantine? "Continued Occupation" until such time as the Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) accepts the reality that Israel is a sovereign nation. Without regard to the perception held by the HoAP, they will now have to settle with even less than was originally apportioned to them. And absent a commitment to peace, there will be a requirement to maintain the containment and quarantine.

Problem Solved!

It is irrational to think that the enlightened nations of the world are going to withdraw the Independence and Sovereignty of Israel. It is irrational to think that the enlightened nations of the world are going to force a stipulation that would intentionally cause either the outbreak of hostilities or the destruction of the Jewish National Home. That leads to the consequence that must be accepted; no expectation of peace from the HoAP. Knowing this, in order to reduce the spread of violence, containment and quarantine is required. The international community, the proponent for the Partition Plan over a half century ago, must accept the continuation of the conflict and learn to live with the outcome without causing any more injury.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Hossfly, et al,

Why? Because the Arab/Palestinian see this as an Arab controlled nation.

Israel is in "Palestine the former Mandate."

There is no in Palestine the former Mandate.

The Mandate owned no land and had no borders of its own. Palestine did not depend on the mandate for its existence and continued to exist after the mandate left Palestine.

For someone who claims he is not an Arab, Tinnie certainly tries very hard. However, has anyone ever seen Tinnie mention that Jordan got 78 percent of the Palestine Mandate. Why isn' he complaining that the "Palestinians" aren't ruling this huge area instead of the Hashemites from Saudi Arabia? It appears when other Arabs receive something like this, Tinnie has no complaints, but if the Jews receive a tiny part, it is a catastrophe in Tinnie's mind. I sure wish that Tinnie would tell us about this great country of "Palestine" -- such as the names of the kings who ruled the country, the laws that were made, the currency which was used, etc. How about it, Tinnie? Surely since you appear to want us to believe you know so much about the area, you can tell us all about this.

(COMMENT)

We argued this point once before. Many refuse to accept that, included in the original Mandate was "Trans-Jordainia;" even though it says it on the front cover of the Mandate. That is largely because the Mandate, in regards to the Jewish National Home (JNH), exempted the Eastern Portion of the Mandate (Trans-Jordan) from JNH apportionment. It was already allocated for the Hashemite King (by a special Agreement concluded on February 20th, 1928, the British Government recognised the existence of an independent Government in Transjordan). The Mandate Commission's last evaluation of the Palestine and Trans-Jordan Mandate was the Examination of the Annual Report for 1938, was performed on 29 June 1939, just before the outbreak of WWII. On 26 June, 1946, after WWII, the Hashemite Kingdom made application for membership.

There is a belief that the Arab/Palestinian wants to separate the Mandate (Palestine from Trans-Jordan) in order to make it appear that the Arab inhabitants received less than half of the Mandate, when in fact they received 87.5% (77% for Jordan and 10.6% for the remainder), leaving about 12.5% of the original Mandate for the Jewish National Home.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hossfly]

There is always this big drawn out debate about the name of the land.

But the reality is that there were arab people who had been living on and farming the land for countless generations.

Then they had their families generational land and possessions ripped away and became displaced people.

That is the heart of the issue......not the label, legitimate or not, that others have assigned to the territory.

And until that injustice is addressed there will never be peace. ..

Since the ancestors of the Christian Copts are some of the original followers of Jesus, do you think your Sunni Brethren will ever let them live in peace? I wonder if you can tell us why some Egyptian officials told the people in Gaza to come home to Egypt. Could he be telling these people that their roots are originally in Egypt? After World War II, millions of people were displaced, and no doubt these people had ancestors who lived and farmed there for thousands of years (the same as the Hindus whose ancestors lived for thousands of years in that land carved out of India to form Pakistan). Somehow, the displaced Europeans didn't try to kill others but somehow got on with their lives. Isn't it strange, that Muslims (those who are Arabs, Africans, and Asians) seem to have no problem moving to American, Canada and all the different countries in Europe. How could they possibly have left the land that their ancestors had lived on for generations?

 

[Hossfly]

YES FREEDOM 0F SPEECH ENDS WHEN IT INVOLVES ANY CRITICISM OF ISRAEL

Leave Israel Alone - YouTube

Why, eots, how come you never tell us about how the Muslims want it to be a crime to say anything against Islam? Appaently you have no problem with that. And, furthermore, eots, in a Muslim country, your music would be haram. In fact, you might be thrown in jail because of it. Isn't it strange how many posters here bring up articles from the Leftist newspaper Haaretz where many of the authors of such articles are constantly criticizing Israel whereas in Muslim countries reporters are thrown into jails for their opinions. Apparently eots has two sets of rules -- one for Israel and one for the Muslim countries.

 

[sealadaigh]

Sunni Man; et al,

There it is. That is the key.

There is always this big drawn out debate about the name of the land.

But the reality is that there were arab people who had been living on and farming the land for countless generations.

Then they had their families generational land and possessions ripped away and became displaced people.

That is the heart of the issue......not the label, legitimate or not, that others have assigned to the territory.

And until that injustice is addressed there will never be peace. ..

(COMMENT)

This conflict started over the Arab/Palestinian's inability to comply with the will of the United Nations who had trusteeship; and as long as Arab/Palestinian perceives (not that there was one) an "injustice," there will never be peace.

Logically, what can be done?

Containment and quarantine! How do you achieve containment and quarantine? "Continued Occupation" until such time as the Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) accepts the reality that Israel is a sovereign nation. Without regard to the perception held by the HoAP, they will now have to settle with even less than was originally apportioned to them. And absent a commitment to peace, there will be a requirement to maintain the containment and quarantine.

Problem Solved!

It is irrational to think that the enlightened nations of the world are going to withdraw the Independence and Sovereignty of Israel. It is irrational to think that the enlightened nations of the world are going to force a stipulation that would intentionally cause either the outbreak of hostilities or the destruction of the Jewish National Home. That leads to the consequence that must be accepted; no expectation of peace from the HoAP. Knowing this, in order to reduce the spread of violence, containment and quarantine is required. The international community, the proponent for the Partition Plan over a half century ago, must accept the continuation of the conflict and learn to live with the outcome without causing any more injury.

Most Respectfully,
R

whether you like it or not, "enlightened" sounds a bit racist to me, almost a remnant of the time when other human beings were enskaved and owned.

it also smacks of "manifest destiny".

maybe if we back off such designations, we may move closer to solution.

perhaps you might explain yourself because it seems like such self assured superiority may be at the root of many of these conflicts.

most unenlightenedly,
sealadaigh

 

[RoccoR]

reabhloideach, et al,

Well informed: having a sound and open-minded understanding of all the facts, or based on such an understanding.

perhaps you might explain yourself because it seems like such self assured superiority may be at the root of many of these conflicts.

(COMMENT)

While it is possible that a UN Coalition would invade the State of Israel for the purpose of Regime Change, dissolving the Jewish State as it created in GA Res 181(II) and replacing it with a Arab/Palestinian State, it is highly unlikely.

sounds a bit racist to me, almost a remnant of the time when other human beings were enskaved and owned.

(COMMENT)

Hummm, I didn't get that at all. An "enlightened nation" is a nation that is sound and open-minded, making decisions based on facts, logic and critical thinking. I don't understand how that can be considered "racist."

That is an unusual interpretation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, if MJB says it is a "undefined" region, then she and I are in agreement with the Ottoman Empire that ruled it for 800 years.

Who's borders?


(COMMENT)

What borders?

v/r
R

Geesh, Rocco, you are starting to sound like MJB.

(COMMENT)

Palestine is a Region. It was one of many territories contained inside the Levant.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers.

SOURCE: Treaty of Sevres 1920

But Palestine's international borders were defined by 1922 so this is a non issue.

It is only wasting space on the page.

What we call Palestine today, is an artificial territorial expanse for political convenience. It had no boundaries prior to the Mandate.

As was the case for other countries after the war. Is there a point to this statement?

In fact, all the surrounding countries, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, are defined today by protectorate devised boundaries. Hence, all the straight lines. With the exception of Egypt, none of the other surrounding countries existed. They are political sovereignties born out of trusteeships (of one sort or another) of the Allied Powers. Even Egypt and the Sudan, as well as Iraq and Kuwait, were modifications of modern times by one or more of the Allied Powers.

Indeed, but you are leaving out the most important difference. Where the countries listed had borders defined by others, the people became citizens inside those borders and continued to live in their homeland.

It was quite different in Palestine, however. Palestine was overrun by foreigners and most of the natives no longer can live in their homeland.

The idea that Palestine had some Arab political institution that qualifies as a state or sovereignty, is pure fiction to further the claim that they are defending what is really a nonexistent country.

Surely, if there had been a country called "Palestine," the Ottoman Empire would have known about it; as well as the Allied Powers. If there was any real substance to the claim, someone would have acted on it by now.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

reabhloideach, et al,

Well informed: having a sound and open-minded understanding of all the facts, or based on such an understanding.

perhaps you might explain yourself because it seems like such self assured superiority may be at the root of many of these conflicts.

(COMMENT)

While it is possible that a UN Coalition would invade the State of Israel for the purpose of Regime Change, dissolving the Jewish State as it created in GA Res 181(II) and replacing it with a Arab/Palestinian State, it is highly unlikely.

sounds a bit racist to me, almost a remnant of the time when other human beings were enskaved and owned.

(COMMENT)

Hummm, I didn't get that at all. An "enlightened nation" is a nation that is sound and open-minded, making decisions based on facts, logic and critical thinking. I don't understand how that can be considered "racist."

That is an unusual interpretation.

Most Respectfully,
R

While it is possible that a UN Coalition would invade the State of Israel for the purpose of Regime Change, dissolving the Jewish State as it created in GA Res 181...

Why do you keep bringing this up. Resolution 181 transferred no land, defined no borders, and created no states.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Sunni Man; et al,

There it is. That is the key.

There is always this big drawn out debate about the name of the land.

But the reality is that there were arab people who had been living on and farming the land for countless generations.

Then they had their families generational land and possessions ripped away and became displaced people.

That is the heart of the issue......not the label, legitimate or not, that others have assigned to the territory.

And until that injustice is addressed there will never be peace. ..

(COMMENT)

This conflict started over the Arab/Palestinian's inability to comply with the will of the United Nations who had trusteeship; and as long as Arab/Palestinian perceives (not that there was one) an "injustice," there will never be peace.

Logically, what can be done?

Containment and quarantine! How do you achieve containment and quarantine? "Continued Occupation" until such time as the Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) accepts the reality that Israel is a sovereign nation. Without regard to the perception held by the HoAP, they will now have to settle with even less than was originally apportioned to them. And absent a commitment to peace, there will be a requirement to maintain the containment and quarantine.

Problem Solved!

It is irrational to think that the enlightened nations of the world are going to withdraw the Independence and Sovereignty of Israel. It is irrational to think that the enlightened nations of the world are going to force a stipulation that would intentionally cause either the outbreak of hostilities or the destruction of the Jewish National Home. That leads to the consequence that must be accepted; no expectation of peace from the HoAP. Knowing this, in order to reduce the spread of violence, containment and quarantine is required. The international community, the proponent for the Partition Plan over a half century ago, must accept the continuation of the conflict and learn to live with the outcome without causing any more injury.

Most Respectfully,
R

This conflict started over the Arab/Palestinian's inability to comply with the will of the United Nations...

The Palestinians had the right to reject the partition plan. Since the UN had no authority to implement the plan without Palestinian approval they abandoned the plan.

The Palestinians were in complete compliance. They did what they had the right to do.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

GA Resolution 181(II), as recognized by the Palestinians, and the UN, was the basis for the portion of the original partition that the Jewish Agency and Interim Government of Israel accepted. It was an agreement.

The fact that the Palestinians and the Arab Higher Committee rejected it, does not make it any less valid.

reabhloideach, et al,

Well informed: having a sound and open-minded understanding of all the facts, or based on such an understanding.

perhaps you might explain yourself because it seems like such self assured superiority may be at the root of many of these conflicts.

(COMMENT)

While it is possible that a UN Coalition would invade the State of Israel for the purpose of Regime Change, dissolving the Jewish State as it created in GA Res 181(II) and replacing it with a Arab/Palestinian State, it is highly unlikely.


(COMMENT)

Hummm, I didn't get that at all. An "enlightened nation" is a nation that is sound and open-minded, making decisions based on facts, logic and critical thinking. I don't understand how that can be considered "racist."

That is an unusual interpretation.

While it is possible that a UN Coalition would invade the State of Israel for the purpose of Regime Change, dissolving the Jewish State as it created in GA Res 181...

Why do you keep bringing this up. Resolution 181 transferred no land, defined no borders, and created no states.

(COMMENT)

I think your interpretation is somewhat different from that of the UN at the time.

The General Assembly had to determine first of all the criterion on which to base its decision to admit Israel. Ordinarily, applicant States were merely required to comply with the conditions laid down in Article 4 of the Charter. However, in so far as Israel had actually been created in November 1947 by a resolution of the General Assembly (181 (II)), the Assembly had first to consider the cardinal question of whether the new State in its present structure conformed to the previous decisions affecting it which had been adopted by the United Nations itself.

In that connexion, Mr. Malik quoted from section F, part I of the Assembly's resolution of 29 November 1947, which stated that sympathetic consideration should be given to the application for membership of either the Jewish or the Arab State, when the independence of either as envisaged in the plan had become effective and the declaration and undertaking as envisaged in the plan had been signed by either of them.

SOURCE: 54. Application of Israel for admission to membership in the United Nations (A/818) (continued)

This application was recommended for approval by the UN Security Council.

My interpretation, the GA interpretation, and then your interpretation. I guess we agree to disagree.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There was no requirement for Palestinian Approval.

Sunni Man; et al,

There it is. That is the key.

There is always this big drawn out debate about the name of the land.

But the reality is that there were arab people who had been living on and farming the land for countless generations.

Then they had their families generational land and possessions ripped away and became displaced people.

That is the heart of the issue......not the label, legitimate or not, that others have assigned to the territory.

And until that injustice is addressed there will never be peace. ..

(COMMENT)

This conflict started over the Arab/Palestinian's inability to comply with the will of the United Nations who had trusteeship; and as long as Arab/Palestinian perceives (not that there was one) an "injustice," there will never be peace.

Logically, what can be done?

Containment and quarantine! How do you achieve containment and quarantine? "Continued Occupation" until such time as the Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) accepts the reality that Israel is a sovereign nation. Without regard to the perception held by the HoAP, they will now have to settle with even less than was originally apportioned to them. And absent a commitment to peace, there will be a requirement to maintain the containment and quarantine.

Problem Solved!

It is irrational to think that the enlightened nations of the world are going to withdraw the Independence and Sovereignty of Israel. It is irrational to think that the enlightened nations of the world are going to force a stipulation that would intentionally cause either the outbreak of hostilities or the destruction of the Jewish National Home. That leads to the consequence that must be accepted; no expectation of peace from the HoAP. Knowing this, in order to reduce the spread of violence, containment and quarantine is required. The international community, the proponent for the Partition Plan over a half century ago, must accept the continuation of the conflict and learn to live with the outcome without causing any more injury.

Most Respectfully,
R

This conflict started over the Arab/Palestinian's inability to comply with the will of the United Nations...

The Palestinians had the right to reject the partition plan. Since the UN had no authority to implement the plan without Palestinian approval they abandoned the plan.

The Palestinians were in complete compliance. They did what they had the right to do.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the Palestinians had the right to reject the offer (Recorded in A/AC.21/7
29 January 1948).

The authority of the General Assembly to consider the application of Israel was not contingent on Palestinian approval. It was done with the consent of the Security Council.

The outbreak of hostilities was a direct confrontation with will of the General Assembly, for which trusteeship of Palestine was held under Treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

GA Resolution 181(II), as recognized by the Palestinians, and the UN, was the basis for the portion of the original partition that the Jewish Agency and Interim Government of Israel accepted. It was an agreement.

The fact that the Palestinians and the Arab Higher Committee rejected it, does not make it any less valid.

reabhloideach, et al,

Well informed: having a sound and open-minded understanding of all the facts, or based on such an understanding.


(COMMENT)

While it is possible that a UN Coalition would invade the State of Israel for the purpose of Regime Change, dissolving the Jewish State as it created in GA Res 181(II) and replacing it with a Arab/Palestinian State, it is highly unlikely.


(COMMENT)

Hummm, I didn't get that at all. An "enlightened nation" is a nation that is sound and open-minded, making decisions based on facts, logic and critical thinking. I don't understand how that can be considered "racist."

That is an unusual interpretation.

Why do you keep bringing this up. Resolution 181 transferred no land, defined no borders, and created no states.

(COMMENT)

I think your interpretation is somewhat different from that of the UN at the time.

The General Assembly had to determine first of all the criterion on which to base its decision to admit Israel. Ordinarily, applicant States were merely required to comply with the conditions laid down in Article 4 of the Charter. However, in so far as Israel had actually been created in November 1947 by a resolution of the General Assembly (181 (II)), the Assembly had first to consider the cardinal question of whether the new State in its present structure conformed to the previous decisions affecting it which had been adopted by the United Nations itself.

In that connexion, Mr. Malik quoted from section F, part I of the Assembly's resolution of 29 November 1947, which stated that sympathetic consideration should be given to the application for membership of either the Jewish or the Arab State, when the independence of either as envisaged in the plan had become effective and the declaration and undertaking as envisaged in the plan had been signed by either of them.

SOURCE: 54. Application of Israel for admission to membership in the United Nations (A/818) (continued)

This application was recommended for approval by the UN Security Council.

My interpretation, the GA interpretation, and then your interpretation. I guess we agree to disagree.

Most Respectfully,
R

A lot is said when it comes to Israel, however, little of it can be documented as fact.

Resolution 181 had a long list of procedures, commission, and reports. Of course all of this would be documented.

Do you have documents, or is all this just meaningless say so?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think I supplied the links.

GA Resolution 181(II), as recognized by the Palestinians, and the UN, was the basis for the portion of the original partition that the Jewish Agency and Interim Government of Israel accepted. It was an agreement.

The fact that the Palestinians and the Arab Higher Committee rejected it, does not make it any less valid.

Why do you keep bringing this up. Resolution 181 transferred no land, defined no borders, and created no states.

(COMMENT)

I think your interpretation is somewhat different from that of the UN at the time.

The General Assembly had to determine first of all the criterion on which to base its decision to admit Israel. Ordinarily, applicant States were merely required to comply with the conditions laid down in Article 4 of the Charter. However, in so far as Israel had actually been created in November 1947 by a resolution of the General Assembly (181 (II)), the Assembly had first to consider the cardinal question of whether the new State in its present structure conformed to the previous decisions affecting it which had been adopted by the United Nations itself.

In that connexion, Mr. Malik quoted from section F, part I of the Assembly's resolution of 29 November 1947, which stated that sympathetic consideration should be given to the application for membership of either the Jewish or the Arab State, when the independence of either as envisaged in the plan had become effective and the declaration and undertaking as envisaged in the plan had been signed by either of them.

SOURCE: 54. Application of Israel for admission to membership in the United Nations (A/818) (continued)

This application was recommended for approval by the UN Security Council.

My interpretation, the GA interpretation, and then your interpretation. I guess we agree to disagree.

Most Respectfully,
R

A lot is said when it comes to Israel, however, little of it can be documented as fact.

Resolution 181 had a long list of procedures, commission, and reports. Of course all of this would be documented.

Do you have documents, or is all this just meaningless say so?

(QUESTION)

Is there some document you are looking for specifically?

Resolution 181(II) doesn't need and has no requirement for a long list of "procedures, commission, and reports." But I have supplied the end result documents. You wanted the UNSC review and recommendation, I supplied it. You wanted a UNSC Progress Report, I supplied it. You wanted the GA Discussion, I supplied it. You wanted the various GA resolutions, I supplied them. You wanted the Palestinian approval of 181(II), I supplied it.

What are you saying is missing?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There was no requirement for Palestinian Approval.

Sunni Man; et al,

There it is. That is the key.


(COMMENT)

This conflict started over the Arab/Palestinian's inability to comply with the will of the United Nations who had trusteeship; and as long as Arab/Palestinian perceives (not that there was one) an "injustice," there will never be peace.

Logically, what can be done?

Containment and quarantine! How do you achieve containment and quarantine? "Continued Occupation" until such time as the Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) accepts the reality that Israel is a sovereign nation. Without regard to the perception held by the HoAP, they will now have to settle with even less than was originally apportioned to them. And absent a commitment to peace, there will be a requirement to maintain the containment and quarantine.

Problem Solved!

It is irrational to think that the enlightened nations of the world are going to withdraw the Independence and Sovereignty of Israel. It is irrational to think that the enlightened nations of the world are going to force a stipulation that would intentionally cause either the outbreak of hostilities or the destruction of the Jewish National Home. That leads to the consequence that must be accepted; no expectation of peace from the HoAP. Knowing this, in order to reduce the spread of violence, containment and quarantine is required. The international community, the proponent for the Partition Plan over a half century ago, must accept the continuation of the conflict and learn to live with the outcome without causing any more injury.

Most Respectfully,
R

This conflict started over the Arab/Palestinian's inability to comply with the will of the United Nations...

The Palestinians had the right to reject the partition plan. Since the UN had no authority to implement the plan without Palestinian approval they abandoned the plan.

The Palestinians were in complete compliance. They did what they had the right to do.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the Palestinians had the right to reject the offer (Recorded in A/AC.21/7
29 January 1948).

The authority of the General Assembly to consider the application of Israel was not contingent on Palestinian approval. It was done with the consent of the Security Council.

The outbreak of hostilities was a direct confrontation with will of the General Assembly, for which trusteeship of Palestine was held under Treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R

The fact is that Israel was declared in Palestine by foreigners. The UN had nothing to do with it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think I supplied the links.

GA Resolution 181(II), as recognized by the Palestinians, and the UN, was the basis for the portion of the original partition that the Jewish Agency and Interim Government of Israel accepted. It was an agreement.

The fact that the Palestinians and the Arab Higher Committee rejected it, does not make it any less valid.


(COMMENT)

I think your interpretation is somewhat different from that of the UN at the time.



This application was recommended for approval by the UN Security Council.

My interpretation, the GA interpretation, and then your interpretation. I guess we agree to disagree.

Most Respectfully,
R

A lot is said when it comes to Israel, however, little of it can be documented as fact.

Resolution 181 had a long list of procedures, commission, and reports. Of course all of this would be documented.

Do you have documents, or is all this just meaningless say so?

(QUESTION)

Is there some document you are looking for specifically?

Resolution 181(II) doesn't need and has no requirement for a long list of "procedures, commission, and reports." But I have supplied the end result documents. You wanted the UNSC review and recommendation, I supplied it. You wanted a UNSC Progress Report, I supplied it. You wanted the GA Discussion, I supplied it. You wanted the various GA resolutions, I supplied them. You wanted the Palestinian approval of 181(II), I supplied it.

What are you saying is missing?

Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that the UN transferred no land, defined no borders, and created no states. Like I had previously stated.