Palestine a state?

[P F Tinmore]

if you wish to discuss international law, then we can, but UN resolutions are not law. Under international law, the "occupied" territory is not even occupied. It was not taken in war from a recognized and sovereign state. It is, at best, disputed. Thus, legally, Israel is not an occupier, and force used in resistance to a non-occupier is purely terroristic. But hey, that's just law. We can go back to non-binding resolutions if you'd like.

I realize that Israel has spent its whole life denying the existence of Palestine. Let's look at some facts on this issue.

The 1949 UN armistice agreements took place after UN resolution 181, after Israel declared itself to be a state, after the end of the British Palestine Mandate, and after the end of the 1948 war.

The agreements mentioned Palestine many times. There was no mention of a place called Israel.

Palestine's international borders were mentioned but no changes were mentioned from when they were defined in 1922. There was no mention of any borders for Israel.

Israel claims that the "Arabs" lost the 1948 war and Israel won land.

That is not true. The UN security Council passed a resolution calling for an armistice. Nobody won and nobody lost that war. No land was transferred and no borders were changed. All land and borders remained the same as they were in 1922.

 

[irosie91]

wrong again tinnie---the UN did not exist in 1922 BORDERS are still in dispute and you and your fellow islamo nazi pigs do not even recognize the "EXISTENCE OF THE ZIONIST ENTITY"

 

[P F Tinmore]

wrong again tinnie---the UN did not exist in 1922 BORDERS are still in dispute and you and your fellow islamo nazi pigs do not even recognize the "EXISTENCE OF THE ZIONIST ENTITY"

I did not say that the UN defined the borders. The League of Nations defined Palestine's international borders in 1922.

The UN merely mentioned those borders to reference the location of the armistice lines.

 

[rosends]

The 1949 UN armistice agreements took place after UN resolution 181, after Israel declared itself to be a state, after the end of the British Palestine Mandate, and after the end of the 1948 war.

The agreements mentioned Palestine many times. There was no mention of a place called Israel.

Really?

Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
U.N. doc. S/1264/Rev. 1, Dee. 13, 1949
Article 6, section 3. "Israeli"

Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
U.N doc. S/1302/Rev. 1, June 20,1949
Article 6 section 5. "Government of Israel "

Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949
U.N. doc. S/1353/Rev. 1.
Article 5, section 1. "Israeli"

 

[irosie91]

Poor tinnie has nothing but is game of semantics----for 2000 years "PALESTINE" was simply another name for Israel/judea and the word "PALESTINIAN" meant a jew living there No "arab" was called a "palestinian" and no arab called HIMSELF a "palestinian" Yet NOW simply because a bunch of muslim arabs have DECIDED to call themselves "palestinians' approximately 50 years ago-------TINNIE INSISTS THAT THEY OWN PALESTINE (aka judea/israel)

 

[P F Tinmore]

The 1949 UN armistice agreements took place after UN resolution 181, after Israel declared itself to be a state, after the end of the British Palestine Mandate, and after the end of the 1948 war.

The agreements mentioned Palestine many times. There was no mention of a place called Israel.

Really?

Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
U.N. doc. S/1264/Rev. 1, Dee. 13, 1949
Article 6, section 3. "Israeli"

Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
U.N doc. S/1302/Rev. 1, June 20,1949
Article 6 section 5. "Government of Israel "

Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949
U.N. doc. S/1353/Rev. 1.
Article 5, section 1. "Israeli"

Indeed Israeli forces were mentioned but Israel, as a place, was not.

The government of Israel was mentioned, but the location of Israel was never mentioned.

However the Jordanian agreement did say:

"(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined..."

Doesn't Israel say that is part of Israel? When did that happen?

 

[rosends]

The 1949 UN armistice agreements took place after UN resolution 181, after Israel declared itself to be a state, after the end of the British Palestine Mandate, and after the end of the 1948 war.

The agreements mentioned Palestine many times. There was no mention of a place called Israel.

Really?

Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
U.N. doc. S/1264/Rev. 1, Dee. 13, 1949
Article 6, section 3. "Israeli"

Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
U.N doc. S/1302/Rev. 1, June 20,1949
Article 6 section 5. "Government of Israel "

Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949
U.N. doc. S/1353/Rev. 1.
Article 5, section 1. "Israeli"

Indeed Israeli forces were mentioned but Israel, as a place, was not.

The government of Israel was mentioned, but the location of Israel was never mentioned.

However the Jordanian agreement did say:

"(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined..."

Doesn't Israel say that is part of Israel? When did that happen?

oh. There was a government of a place that didn't exist. I see. There were ceasefire demarcation lines between 2 parties when one didn't exist.

Your argument is one of nomenclature. You are claiming that because the armistice, a temporary set of cease fire lines built generally around the Mandated Palestine (a British holding), and not intended to be a political border, does not use the name of a political entity, that entity doesn't exist? Borders were to be determined through negotiations and, as Lausanne showed, negotiations were deadlocked.

 

[toastman]

if you wish to discuss international law, then we can, but UN resolutions are not law. Under international law, the "occupied" territory is not even occupied. It was not taken in war from a recognized and sovereign state. It is, at best, disputed. Thus, legally, Israel is not an occupier, and force used in resistance to a non-occupier is purely terroristic. But hey, that's just law. We can go back to non-binding resolutions if you'd like.

I realize that Israel has spent its whole life denying the existence of Palestine. Let's look at some facts on this issue.

The 1949 UN armistice agreements took place after UN resolution 181, after Israel declared itself to be a state, after the end of the British Palestine Mandate, and after the end of the 1948 war.

The agreements mentioned Palestine many times. There was no mention of a place called Israel.

Palestine's international borders were mentioned but no changes were mentioned from when they were defined in 1922. There was no mention of any borders for Israel.

Israel claims that the "Arabs" lost the 1948 war and Israel won land.

That is not true. The UN security Council passed a resolution calling for an armistice. Nobody won and nobody lost that war. No land was transferred and no borders were changed. All land and borders remained the same as they were in 1922.

Actually, its the Islamic monkeys that don't recognize Israel

 

[P F Tinmore]

Really?

Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949
U.N. doc. S/1264/Rev. 1, Dee. 13, 1949
Article 6, section 3. "Israeli"

Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949
U.N doc. S/1302/Rev. 1, June 20,1949
Article 6 section 5. "Government of Israel "

Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949
U.N. doc. S/1353/Rev. 1.
Article 5, section 1. "Israeli"

Indeed Israeli forces were mentioned but Israel, as a place, was not.

The government of Israel was mentioned, but the location of Israel was never mentioned.

However the Jordanian agreement did say:

"(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined..."

Doesn't Israel say that is part of Israel? When did that happen?

oh. There was a government of a place that didn't exist. I see. There were ceasefire demarcation lines between 2 parties when one didn't exist.

Your argument is one of nomenclature. You are claiming that because the armistice, a temporary set of cease fire lines built generally around the Mandated Palestine (a British holding), and not intended to be a political border, does not use the name of a political entity, that entity doesn't exist? Borders were to be determined through negotiations and, as Lausanne showed, negotiations were deadlocked.

The mandate had been gone for almost a year but Palestine was still there. The existence of Palestine was separate from the mandate.

Where did it say that the borders were to be determined in negotiations? Have negotiations ever happened?

 

[rosends]

Indeed Israeli forces were mentioned but Israel, as a place, was not.

The government of Israel was mentioned, but the location of Israel was never mentioned.

However the Jordanian agreement did say:

"(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined..."

Doesn't Israel say that is part of Israel? When did that happen?

oh. There was a government of a place that didn't exist. I see. There were ceasefire demarcation lines between 2 parties when one didn't exist.

Your argument is one of nomenclature. You are claiming that because the armistice, a temporary set of cease fire lines built generally around the Mandated Palestine (a British holding), and not intended to be a political border, does not use the name of a political entity, that entity doesn't exist? Borders were to be determined through negotiations and, as Lausanne showed, negotiations were deadlocked.

The mandate had been gone for almost a year but Palestine was still there. The existence of Palestine was separate from the mandate.

Where did it say that the borders were to be determined in negotiations? Have negotiations ever happened?

are you not familiar with the Lausanne Conference?
did you not read the armistice agreements (which did not end the state of war)? things like "The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question."

unless you think that "ultimate settlement" is a reference to future military actions.

 

[P F Tinmore]

oh. There was a government of a place that didn't exist. I see. There were ceasefire demarcation lines between 2 parties when one didn't exist.

Your argument is one of nomenclature. You are claiming that because the armistice, a temporary set of cease fire lines built generally around the Mandated Palestine (a British holding), and not intended to be a political border, does not use the name of a political entity, that entity doesn't exist? Borders were to be determined through negotiations and, as Lausanne showed, negotiations were deadlocked.

The mandate had been gone for almost a year but Palestine was still there. The existence of Palestine was separate from the mandate.

Where did it say that the borders were to be determined in negotiations? Have negotiations ever happened?

are you not familiar with the Lausanne Conference?
did you not read the armistice agreements (which did not end the state of war)? things like "The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question."

unless you think that "ultimate settlement" is a reference to future military actions.

As far as I can tell the Lausanne Conference was a complete flop.

The armistice lines are not borders. It is interesting, though, that a state must have borders. Since Israel has none the UN uses the armistice lines that the UN armistice agreements say are not borders. I think Israel is the only country in the world that has no borders so the UN uses fake borders.

 

[docmauser1]

The 1949 UN armistice agreements took place after UN resolution 181, after Israel declared itself to be a state, after the end of the British Palestine Mandate, and after the end of the 1948 war. The agreements mentioned Palestine many times. There was no mention of a place called Israel. Palestine's international borders were mentioned but no changes were mentioned from when they were defined in 1922. There was no mention of any borders for Israel. Israel claims that the "Arabs" lost the 1948 war and Israel won land. That is not true. The UN security Council passed a resolution calling for an armistice. Nobody won and nobody lost that war. No land was transferred and no borders were changed. All land and borders remained the same as they were in 1922.

Cool, so, who was that shakh, emir, sultan, pasha, effendi, president, prime-minister of that "state"?

 

[irosie91]

Leave tinnie alone He has already stated that he "does not believe in state" whatever the hell that means----he refuses to explain

 

[rosends]

The mandate had been gone for almost a year but Palestine was still there. The existence of Palestine was separate from the mandate.

Where did it say that the borders were to be determined in negotiations? Have negotiations ever happened?

are you not familiar with the Lausanne Conference?
did you not read the armistice agreements (which did not end the state of war)? things like "The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question."

unless you think that "ultimate settlement" is a reference to future military actions.

As far as I can tell the Lausanne Conference was a complete flop.

The armistice lines are not borders. It is interesting, though, that a state must have borders. Since Israel has none the UN uses the armistice lines that the UN armistice agreements say are not borders. I think Israel is the only country in the world that has no borders so the UN uses fake borders.

I agree with both your statements -- Lausanne was a flop and, for much the same reason, negotiations since then have been flops.

And I think that temporary lines became defacto borders for good and for bad and Israel might very well be the only country using fake borders. I honestly don't know.

 

[Jos]

if you wish to discuss international law, then we can, but UN resolutions are not law. Under international law, the "occupied" territory is not even occupied. It was not taken in war from a recognized and sovereign state. It is, at best, disputed. Thus, legally, Israel is not an occupier, and force used in resistance to a non-occupier is purely terroristic. But hey, that's just law. We can go back to non-binding resolutions if you'd like.

The Israeli-occupied territories are the territories which have been designated as occupied territory by the United Nations and other international organizations, governments and others to refer to the territory seized by Israel during the Six-Day War of 1967 from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. They consist of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem; the Gaza Strip, (though Israel disputes this and argues that since the implementation of its disengagement from Gaza in 2005 it no longer occupies the territory); much of the Golan Heights; and, until 1982, the Sinai Peninsula. The West Bank and Gaza Strip are also referred to as the Palestinian territories or "Occupied Palestinian Territory". The Palestinian Authority, the EU,[1] the International Court of Justice,[2] the UN General Assembly[3] and the UN Security Council[4] consider East Jerusalem to be part of the West Bank and occupied by Israel; Israel considers all of Jerusalem to be its capital and sovereign territory.

Israeli governments have preferred the term "disputed territories" in the case of the West Bank.[5][6] The Israeli High Court of Justice has ruled that Israel holds the West Bank under "belligerent occupation". The International Court of Justice,[2] the UN General Assembly[3] and the United Nations Security Council regards Israel as the "Occupying Power"

Israeli-occupied territories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rosends]

if you wish to discuss international law, then we can, but UN resolutions are not law. Under international law, the "occupied" territory is not even occupied. It was not taken in war from a recognized and sovereign state. It is, at best, disputed. Thus, legally, Israel is not an occupier, and force used in resistance to a non-occupier is purely terroristic. But hey, that's just law. We can go back to non-binding resolutions if you'd like.

The Israeli-occupied territories are the territories which have been designated as occupied territory by the United Nations and other international organizations, governments and others to refer to the territory seized by Israel during the Six-Day War of 1967 from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. They consist of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem; the Gaza Strip, (though Israel disputes this and argues that since the implementation of its disengagement from Gaza in 2005 it no longer occupies the territory); much of the Golan Heights; and, until 1982, the Sinai Peninsula. The West Bank and Gaza Strip are also referred to as the Palestinian territories or "Occupied Palestinian Territory". The Palestinian Authority, the EU,[1] the International Court of Justice,[2] the UN General Assembly[3] and the UN Security Council[4] consider East Jerusalem to be part of the West Bank and occupied by Israel; Israel considers all of Jerusalem to be its capital and sovereign territory.

Israeli governments have preferred the term "disputed territories" in the case of the West Bank.[5][6] The Israeli High Court of Justice has ruled that Israel holds the West Bank under "belligerent occupation". The International Court of Justice,[2] the UN General Assembly[3] and the United Nations Security Council regards Israel as the "Occupying Power"

Israeli-occupied territories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yes, I have read it.
Have you read From "Occupied Territories" to "Disputed Territories," by Dore Gold ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

are you not familiar with the Lausanne Conference?
did you not read the armistice agreements (which did not end the state of war)? things like "The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question."

unless you think that "ultimate settlement" is a reference to future military actions.

As far as I can tell the Lausanne Conference was a complete flop.

The armistice lines are not borders. It is interesting, though, that a state must have borders. Since Israel has none the UN uses the armistice lines that the UN armistice agreements say are not borders. I think Israel is the only country in the world that has no borders so the UN uses fake borders.

I agree with both your statements -- Lausanne was a flop and, for much the same reason, negotiations since then have been flops.

And I think that temporary lines became defacto borders for good and for bad and Israel might very well be the only country using fake borders. I honestly don't know.

The border issue is a problem for Israel.

ARTICLE 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933

Without borders, Israel has no defined territory. That is not the only problem. Israel's "permanent population" was virtually all recent immigrants. And Israel was created by foreigners without the consent of the people. This was a violation of the people's right to self determination.

 

[rosends]

As far as I can tell the Lausanne Conference was a complete flop.

The armistice lines are not borders. It is interesting, though, that a state must have borders. Since Israel has none the UN uses the armistice lines that the UN armistice agreements say are not borders. I think Israel is the only country in the world that has no borders so the UN uses fake borders.

I agree with both your statements -- Lausanne was a flop and, for much the same reason, negotiations since then have been flops.

And I think that temporary lines became defacto borders for good and for bad and Israel might very well be the only country using fake borders. I honestly don't know.

The border issue is a problem for Israel.

ARTICLE 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933

Without borders, Israel has no defined territory. That is not the only problem. Israel's "permanent population" was virtually all recent immigrants. And Israel was created by foreigners without the consent of the people. This was a violation of the people's right to self determination.

the border problem is a HUGE issue, no doubt. Your second point about the "permanent" population is a bit stickier. Countries get immigrants all over -- the US has them as a backbone. And immigration in the region is not limited to Jews, nor is it a recent phenomenon. The question would be when to roll the clock back and claim that people there are original or exclusively the permanent residents. The various eye witness accounts and census data paints a variety of different and often contradictory pictures of the demographic composition, and even that composition came only as a result of forced expulsions and violence (and therefore a loss of self-determination). There are those who claim that the language of the UN recognized a re-constituting of a particular claim, thereby establishing the roll back date to be almost biblical. I'm not saying that that is persuasive but are there other dates which work better and are persuasive?

 

[irosie91]

be not deceived rosends-----tinnie has expressed his definitive POV-----nothing can exist unless muslims agree to it------because there are LOTS OF MUSLIMS in the world Even if that LOTS OF MUSLIMS is the result of genocide BY muslims of hundreds of millions----of the "OTHERS" muslims must rule all "others"