Palestine Loss of Land 1946 - 2000

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Think about it for a minute and ask the tough question.

P F Tinmore, et al,

What kind of confusion are you attempting to lay down here?

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you're just kidding --- right?

(COMMENT)

Actually, that is not at all correct. It is wrong on several levels. So I'll answer on the two most common Arab Palestinian arguments used.

In the case of the West Bank, the Arab Legion (Jordanian Army), fired first when Jordanian forces penetrated and took control of Government House, HQ UN observers, Jerusalem.

In the case of the Gaza Strip, the Egyptian Military cut off the Israelis from using the Titan Straits, and then pushed the UN Peace Keepers out of the way, moving 100,000 troops, 900 Tanks and 800 Artillery Pieces forward.

Nothing in Chapter I, Article 2(4) negated the right of self-defense against an offensive aggressor. You will find that in Chapter VII, Article 51.

The authors of 242 had something altogether different in mind than how the Hostile Arab Palestinians interpret it (as previously explained). And resolution 681 was written in 1990; after the Treaty with Egypt.

Remember, that there are treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994) which totally, 100% --- resolved any question pertaining to the Israeli occupation of Egyptian controlled Gaza Strip or the Jordanian controlled West Bank (until abandon in 1988 to Israeli control). International Boundaries were resolved and delineated.

Most Respectfully,
R

I wasn't talking about the 1967 war.

(COMMENT)

Relative to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the War which started in 1948, was resolved by Treaty [Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994)].

If you think there is a factual mistake here on when and where the discussion is pertaining to --- don't be a smart ass. Say what you mean! In this case, no matter what you mean, any complaint relative to the West Bank and Gaza Strip is wrong --- if you are addressing a complaint in real-time. The Palestinians were not the plaintiffs. They were not parties to the Armistice Arrangements --- and were not party to the treaties.

So, state your objection completely or stay at home.

If you have an argument to be made as to why the Palestinians refused to make peace, then state it. But remember where the International Boundaries are by treaty (without prejudice to the Palestinians).

Most Respectfully,
R

Relative to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the War which started in 1948, was resolved by Treaty [Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994)].

The Palestinians were not the plaintiffs. They were not parties to the Armistice Arrangements --- and were not party to the treaties.​

Indeed.

(COMMENT)

If the conflict was resolved by treaty between the parties involved, then how is it that the Palestinians have any complaint?

••• The Egyptian Treaty left the Gaza Strip in the effective control of the Israelis even before a Palestinian Government was established. (And don't use the All Palestinian Government as an excuse. The Egyptians dissolved the APG in 1959; well before the Egyptians abandon the Gaza Strip to Israeli control.)

••• The The Jordanians abandon the West Bank into Israeli Control in August 1988 (two weeks before the HAMAS Charter was ratified) and several months before the PLO Declaration of Independence.
​

So the realistic question is: Who has cause for complaint with whom?

When the West Bank was abandon by the Jordanians on 31 July 1988 (HM the King cut all ties), WHAT COUTRY had control of that territory?

Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty​

• There mere act of discovery by one state is not enough to confer a title by occupation. There are two requirements:

(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state (terra nullius) --- that is --- used in international law to describe territory which has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty.

Jordan to Cut Key Ties to West Bank : Acts at Request of PLO, Hussein Says, in Attempt to Boost Palestinian Cause
August 01, 1988|MICHAEL ROSS | Times Staff Writer

AMMAN, Jordan — King Hussein said Sunday that he accepts Jordan's separation from the West Bank of the Jordan River and is dismantling his kingdom's "legal and administrative links" to the Israeli-occupied territory at the request of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

In a carefully crafted speech one day after he dissolved the lower house of Parliament, the Jordanian monarch indicated that he was bowing to Arab and, in particular, to PLO pressure to follow a course that Jordan--he implied--does not necessarily believe to be in the Palestinians' best interests.

However, he said, "we respect the wish of the PLO, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, to secede from us in an independent Palestinian state."
​

(ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.​

You asked this before; and the answer has not changed. . And this should be noted that it is not the same thing as taken by force or through the use of force. this is not the same thing as Acquisition by conquest or use of force.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were not a party to the 1948 war even though virtually all of the fighting was inside Palestine.

A UN Security Council Resolution called for an end to the fighting and an armistice.

The UN armistice agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation without a word from the UNPC who were supposed the be the trustee. Occupations do not confer sovereignty. The land remained Palestinian.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory. The land remained Palestinian.

Because they did not exist as such, but the people who were to later become the Palestinians did fight in that war. You mean the Mandate of Palestine as your link states ( the one you use to try and show that Palestine was a nation in 1923 )

Twice as the arab muslims broke the first cease fire, and it was to protect the lives of the arab muslims that the UN did so

The original partition plan had it as 3 separate entities, and because the arab muslims refused to abide by the UN recommendations they lost any hope of holding all the land. Yes it was still mandate of Palestine land, and still is to this day as the arab muslims are refusing to give up their jizya.

Link to the law that says this ?

 

[Shusha]

The Palestinians were not a party to the 1948 war even though virtually all of the fighting was inside Palestine.

Tin, sometimes I have trouble following your line of thinking. Who, in your opinion, were the parties to the 1948 war? And who, in the above sentence, were the "Palestinians", who you claim were not party to the war? Please, be specific.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

The Palestinians were not a party to the 1948 war even though virtually all of the fighting was inside Palestine.

Tin, sometimes I have trouble following your line of thinking. Who, in your opinion, were the parties to the 1948 war? And who, in the above sentence, were the "Palestinians", who you claim were not party to the war? Please, be specific.

Israel, on the one hand. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq on the other. The Palestinians, in Tinmore's view, were the Arab inhabitants in Palestine/Israel (the 750,000 ppl who left).

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinians were not a party to the 1948 war even though virtually all of the fighting was inside Palestine.

Tin, sometimes I have trouble following your line of thinking. Who, in your opinion, were the parties to the 1948 war? And who, in the above sentence, were the "Palestinians", who you claim were not party to the war? Please, be specific.

Indeed, it is called cognitive dissonance.

The forces of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan/Iraq, and Egypt entered Palestine to confront Israeli forces in Palestine.

The Palestinians, of course, were the citizens of Palestine. Palestine had no army so they could not engage in any war. It was a matter of Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians.

The five Arab armies entered Palestine to defend these civilians from military attack.

 

[Shusha]

The forces of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan/Iraq, and Egypt entered Palestine to confront Israeli forces in Palestine.

The Palestinians, of course, were the citizens of Palestine. Palestine had no army so they could not engage in any war. It was a matter of Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians.

The five Arab armies entered Palestine to defend these civilians from military attack.

So the sovereign parties to the war were: Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt and Israel.

 

[Hollie]

The Palestinians were not a party to the 1948 war even though virtually all of the fighting was inside Palestine.

Tin, sometimes I have trouble following your line of thinking. Who, in your opinion, were the parties to the 1948 war? And who, in the above sentence, were the "Palestinians", who you claim were not party to the war? Please, be specific.

Indeed, it is called cognitive dissonance.

The forces of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan/Iraq, and Egypt entered Palestine to confront Israeli forces in Palestine.

The Palestinians, of course, were the citizens of Palestine. Palestine had no army so they could not engage in any war. It was a matter of Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians.

The five Arab armies entered Palestine to defend these civilians from military attack.

What alternate reality are you describing?

Indeed, there was a never a national entity called "Palestine" in the timeline you are so utterly befuddled about.

Indeed, the only description of Pal'istanians as a national identity was a late 1960's invention of Yassir "show me the money" Arafat.

 

[Hollie]

The Palestinians were not a party to the 1948 war even though virtually all of the fighting was inside Palestine.

Tin, sometimes I have trouble following your line of thinking. Who, in your opinion, were the parties to the 1948 war? And who, in the above sentence, were the "Palestinians", who you claim were not party to the war? Please, be specific.

Indeed, it is called cognitive dissonance.

The forces of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan/Iraq, and Egypt entered Palestine to confront Israeli forces in Palestine.

The Palestinians, of course, were the citizens of Palestine. Palestine had no army so they could not engage in any war. It was a matter of Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians.

The five Arab armies entered Palestine to defend these civilians from military attack.

That's so silly.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinians were not a party to the 1948 war even though virtually all of the fighting was inside Palestine.

Tin, sometimes I have trouble following your line of thinking. Who, in your opinion, were the parties to the 1948 war? And who, in the above sentence, were the "Palestinians", who you claim were not party to the war? Please, be specific.

Indeed, it is called cognitive dissonance.

The forces of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan/Iraq, and Egypt entered Palestine to confront Israeli forces in Palestine.

The Palestinians, of course, were the citizens of Palestine. Palestine had no army so they could not engage in any war. It was a matter of Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians.

The five Arab armies entered Palestine to defend these civilians from military attack.

What alternate reality are you describing?

Indeed, there was a never a national entity called "Palestine" in the timeline you are so utterly befuddled about.

Indeed, the only description of Pal'istanians as a national identity was a late 1960's invention of Yassir "show me the money" Arafat.

In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law... showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”. The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottomans and other peoples. Indeed, Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constituted the legal bond which connected individuals to collectively form a people as an element of a state.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

 

[Hollie]

The Palestinians were not a party to the 1948 war even though virtually all of the fighting was inside Palestine.

Tin, sometimes I have trouble following your line of thinking. Who, in your opinion, were the parties to the 1948 war? And who, in the above sentence, were the "Palestinians", who you claim were not party to the war? Please, be specific.

Indeed, it is called cognitive dissonance.

The forces of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan/Iraq, and Egypt entered Palestine to confront Israeli forces in Palestine.

The Palestinians, of course, were the citizens of Palestine. Palestine had no army so they could not engage in any war. It was a matter of Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians.

The five Arab armies entered Palestine to defend these civilians from military attack.

What alternate reality are you describing?

Indeed, there was a never a national entity called "Palestine" in the timeline you are so utterly befuddled about.

Indeed, the only description of Pal'istanians as a national identity was a late 1960's invention of Yassir "show me the money" Arafat.

In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law... showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”. The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottomans and other peoples. Indeed, Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constituted the legal bond which connected individuals to collectively form a people as an element of a state.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

Historic Palestine as we know it today is derived from a map drawn up by the British at the end of World War I—in particular by British Christians whose understanding of the geography of Palestine was largely based on the Bible, which, as we all know, is derived from the Jews.

So, it is the height of irony when we hear the militant Islamists of Hamas insisting that any compromise about the land that constitutes “historic Palestine” is impossible, for, as they argue, the entire land is a waqf, or Islamic trust, bestowed by God. Think about it: a border drawn by British Christians based on their reading of the Jewish Bible is now interpreted by Muslim fundamentalists as God-given and unchangeable!

But surely, for many centuries before the land fell into British hands, there must have been a country called Palestine, right? That’s what I was told by a group of high school students recently when I gave a lecture on the origins of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The students cannot be faulted for thinking that; after all, we all seem to accept the terminology of “historic Palestine,” don’t we?

In fact, historically, there was never an independent country named Palestine. There was for a time a Roman province named Palestine, when the Romans bestowed that name in the second century A.D. on an area that was previously called Judea, and which had been sovereign for a time. Having defeated the Jews in what the ancient historian Josephus labeled “the Jewish Wars,” the Romans then expelled the Jews from Jerusalem and renamed the province after the Jews’ historic archenemy, the Philistines.

- See more at: The Ironic History of Palestine

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinians were not a party to the 1948 war even though virtually all of the fighting was inside Palestine.

Tin, sometimes I have trouble following your line of thinking. Who, in your opinion, were the parties to the 1948 war? And who, in the above sentence, were the "Palestinians", who you claim were not party to the war? Please, be specific.

Indeed, it is called cognitive dissonance.

The forces of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan/Iraq, and Egypt entered Palestine to confront Israeli forces in Palestine.

The Palestinians, of course, were the citizens of Palestine. Palestine had no army so they could not engage in any war. It was a matter of Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians.

The five Arab armies entered Palestine to defend these civilians from military attack.

What alternate reality are you describing?

Indeed, there was a never a national entity called "Palestine" in the timeline you are so utterly befuddled about.

Indeed, the only description of Pal'istanians as a national identity was a late 1960's invention of Yassir "show me the money" Arafat.

In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law... showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”. The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottomans and other peoples. Indeed, Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constituted the legal bond which connected individuals to collectively form a people as an element of a state.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

Historic Palestine as we know it today is derived from a map drawn up by the British at the end of World War I—in particular by British Christians whose understanding of the geography of Palestine was largely based on the Bible, which, as we all know, is derived from the Jews.

So, it is the height of irony when we hear the militant Islamists of Hamas insisting that any compromise about the land that constitutes “historic Palestine” is impossible, for, as they argue, the entire land is a waqf, or Islamic trust, bestowed by God. Think about it: a border drawn by British Christians based on their reading of the Jewish Bible is now interpreted by Muslim fundamentalists as God-given and unchangeable!

But surely, for many centuries before the land fell into British hands, there must have been a country called Palestine, right? That’s what I was told by a group of high school students recently when I gave a lecture on the origins of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The students cannot be faulted for thinking that; after all, we all seem to accept the terminology of “historic Palestine,” don’t we?

In fact, historically, there was never an independent country named Palestine. There was for a time a Roman province named Palestine, when the Romans bestowed that name in the second century A.D. on an area that was previously called Judea, and which had been sovereign for a time. Having defeated the Jews in what the ancient historian Josephus labeled “the Jewish Wars,” the Romans then expelled the Jews from Jerusalem and renamed the province after the Jews’ historic archenemy, the Philistines.

- See more at: The Ironic History of Palestine

And that changes my post how.

 

[Hollie]

Tin, sometimes I have trouble following your line of thinking. Who, in your opinion, were the parties to the 1948 war? And who, in the above sentence, were the "Palestinians", who you claim were not party to the war? Please, be specific.

Indeed, it is called cognitive dissonance.

The forces of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan/Iraq, and Egypt entered Palestine to confront Israeli forces in Palestine.

The Palestinians, of course, were the citizens of Palestine. Palestine had no army so they could not engage in any war. It was a matter of Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians.

The five Arab armies entered Palestine to defend these civilians from military attack.

What alternate reality are you describing?

Indeed, there was a never a national entity called "Palestine" in the timeline you are so utterly befuddled about.

Indeed, the only description of Pal'istanians as a national identity was a late 1960's invention of Yassir "show me the money" Arafat.

In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law... showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”. The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottomans and other peoples. Indeed, Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constituted the legal bond which connected individuals to collectively form a people as an element of a state.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

Historic Palestine as we know it today is derived from a map drawn up by the British at the end of World War I—in particular by British Christians whose understanding of the geography of Palestine was largely based on the Bible, which, as we all know, is derived from the Jews.

So, it is the height of irony when we hear the militant Islamists of Hamas insisting that any compromise about the land that constitutes “historic Palestine” is impossible, for, as they argue, the entire land is a waqf, or Islamic trust, bestowed by God. Think about it: a border drawn by British Christians based on their reading of the Jewish Bible is now interpreted by Muslim fundamentalists as God-given and unchangeable!

But surely, for many centuries before the land fell into British hands, there must have been a country called Palestine, right? That’s what I was told by a group of high school students recently when I gave a lecture on the origins of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The students cannot be faulted for thinking that; after all, we all seem to accept the terminology of “historic Palestine,” don’t we?

In fact, historically, there was never an independent country named Palestine. There was for a time a Roman province named Palestine, when the Romans bestowed that name in the second century A.D. on an area that was previously called Judea, and which had been sovereign for a time. Having defeated the Jews in what the ancient historian Josephus labeled “the Jewish Wars,” the Romans then expelled the Jews from Jerusalem and renamed the province after the Jews’ historic archenemy, the Philistines.

- See more at: The Ironic History of Palestine

And that changes my post how.

It corrects the false representation in your cut and paste that the geographic area termed "Palestine" was ever a state.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Indeed, it is called cognitive dissonance.

The forces of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan/Iraq, and Egypt entered Palestine to confront Israeli forces in Palestine.

The Palestinians, of course, were the citizens of Palestine. Palestine had no army so they could not engage in any war. It was a matter of Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians.

The five Arab armies entered Palestine to defend these civilians from military attack.

What alternate reality are you describing?

Indeed, there was a never a national entity called "Palestine" in the timeline you are so utterly befuddled about.

Indeed, the only description of Pal'istanians as a national identity was a late 1960's invention of Yassir "show me the money" Arafat.

In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law... showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”. The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottomans and other peoples. Indeed, Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constituted the legal bond which connected individuals to collectively form a people as an element of a state.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

Historic Palestine as we know it today is derived from a map drawn up by the British at the end of World War I—in particular by British Christians whose understanding of the geography of Palestine was largely based on the Bible, which, as we all know, is derived from the Jews.

So, it is the height of irony when we hear the militant Islamists of Hamas insisting that any compromise about the land that constitutes “historic Palestine” is impossible, for, as they argue, the entire land is a waqf, or Islamic trust, bestowed by God. Think about it: a border drawn by British Christians based on their reading of the Jewish Bible is now interpreted by Muslim fundamentalists as God-given and unchangeable!

But surely, for many centuries before the land fell into British hands, there must have been a country called Palestine, right? That’s what I was told by a group of high school students recently when I gave a lecture on the origins of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The students cannot be faulted for thinking that; after all, we all seem to accept the terminology of “historic Palestine,” don’t we?

In fact, historically, there was never an independent country named Palestine. There was for a time a Roman province named Palestine, when the Romans bestowed that name in the second century A.D. on an area that was previously called Judea, and which had been sovereign for a time. Having defeated the Jews in what the ancient historian Josephus labeled “the Jewish Wars,” the Romans then expelled the Jews from Jerusalem and renamed the province after the Jews’ historic archenemy, the Philistines.

- See more at: The Ironic History of Palestine

And that changes my post how.

It corrects the false representation in your cut and paste that the geographic area termed "Palestine" was ever a state.

Where does it say that?

 

[Hollie]

What alternate reality are you describing?

Indeed, there was a never a national entity called "Palestine" in the timeline you are so utterly befuddled about.

Indeed, the only description of Pal'istanians as a national identity was a late 1960's invention of Yassir "show me the money" Arafat.

In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law... showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”. The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottomans and other peoples. Indeed, Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constituted the legal bond which connected individuals to collectively form a people as an element of a state.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

Historic Palestine as we know it today is derived from a map drawn up by the British at the end of World War I—in particular by British Christians whose understanding of the geography of Palestine was largely based on the Bible, which, as we all know, is derived from the Jews.

So, it is the height of irony when we hear the militant Islamists of Hamas insisting that any compromise about the land that constitutes “historic Palestine” is impossible, for, as they argue, the entire land is a waqf, or Islamic trust, bestowed by God. Think about it: a border drawn by British Christians based on their reading of the Jewish Bible is now interpreted by Muslim fundamentalists as God-given and unchangeable!

But surely, for many centuries before the land fell into British hands, there must have been a country called Palestine, right? That’s what I was told by a group of high school students recently when I gave a lecture on the origins of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The students cannot be faulted for thinking that; after all, we all seem to accept the terminology of “historic Palestine,” don’t we?

In fact, historically, there was never an independent country named Palestine. There was for a time a Roman province named Palestine, when the Romans bestowed that name in the second century A.D. on an area that was previously called Judea, and which had been sovereign for a time. Having defeated the Jews in what the ancient historian Josephus labeled “the Jewish Wars,” the Romans then expelled the Jews from Jerusalem and renamed the province after the Jews’ historic archenemy, the Philistines.

- See more at: The Ironic History of Palestine

And that changes my post how.

It corrects the false representation in your cut and paste that the geographic area termed "Palestine" was ever a state.

Where does it say that?

In the article.

 

[P F Tinmore]

In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law... showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”. The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottomans and other peoples. Indeed, Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constituted the legal bond which connected individuals to collectively form a people as an element of a state.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

Historic Palestine as we know it today is derived from a map drawn up by the British at the end of World War I—in particular by British Christians whose understanding of the geography of Palestine was largely based on the Bible, which, as we all know, is derived from the Jews.

So, it is the height of irony when we hear the militant Islamists of Hamas insisting that any compromise about the land that constitutes “historic Palestine” is impossible, for, as they argue, the entire land is a waqf, or Islamic trust, bestowed by God. Think about it: a border drawn by British Christians based on their reading of the Jewish Bible is now interpreted by Muslim fundamentalists as God-given and unchangeable!

But surely, for many centuries before the land fell into British hands, there must have been a country called Palestine, right? That’s what I was told by a group of high school students recently when I gave a lecture on the origins of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The students cannot be faulted for thinking that; after all, we all seem to accept the terminology of “historic Palestine,” don’t we?

In fact, historically, there was never an independent country named Palestine. There was for a time a Roman province named Palestine, when the Romans bestowed that name in the second century A.D. on an area that was previously called Judea, and which had been sovereign for a time. Having defeated the Jews in what the ancient historian Josephus labeled “the Jewish Wars,” the Romans then expelled the Jews from Jerusalem and renamed the province after the Jews’ historic archenemy, the Philistines.

- See more at: The Ironic History of Palestine

And that changes my post how.

It corrects the false representation in your cut and paste that the geographic area termed "Palestine" was ever a state.

Where does it say that?

In the article.

 

[RoccoR]

Shusha, P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

Yes, this is quite close, with forces of the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee versus Israel:

Adjacent Border countries of the Arab League

• Egypt
• Jordan
• Syria
• Lebanon
​

Non-Adjacent Border contributing Direct Military Forces

• Iraq
• Saudi Arabia
• Yemen
​

Volunteers Forces:

Arab Liberation Army (Arab League Volunteers)
Holy War Army (Palestinian Arab Irregular Force)
​

The forces of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan/Iraq, and Egypt entered Palestine to confront Israeli forces in Palestine.

The Palestinians, of course, were the citizens of Palestine. Palestine had no army so they could not engage in any war. It was a matter of Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians.

The five Arab armies entered Palestine to defend these civilians from military attack.

So the sovereign parties to the war were: Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt and Israel.

(COMMENT)

There were a number of different reasons for the Arab League Invasion, crossing the sovereign line of departure of Arab Territories and into the territory formerly under the mandate. The HM the Hashemite King of Jordan, put it forth in the May Cable, the need to protect the Arab Palestinians from harm. But politically, there was a latent agenda by both Egypt and Jordan to exploit the chaos and acquire as much territory as possible. Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip and Jordan occupied the West Bank.

In October of 1948, after the Holy War Army (HWA) was seriously attrited in the Qastal Hill Battle (Tel Aviv-Jerusalem road), the Jordanian Army (Arab Legion) demilitarized the HWA, which was never reconstituted. In late 1948, during battles to defend the Upper Galilee from Israeli control, the Israelis inflicted very heavy casualties on the Arab Liberation Army (ALA); rendering it combat ineffective. The ALA was forced to withdraw from the field into Lebanon where it was demilitarized.

By the time of the 1949 Armistice Agreements, there was no territory under the effective control of any legitimate Palestinian Government Forces. Even if the remnants of the Palestinian Volunteers has been able to reconstitute, it faced two obstacles:

• There was a de-NAZIfication effort underway by the Allied Powers. It is unlikely that the UN would negotiate with with the Leaders of the ALA, Commanded by a former Wehrmacht Colonel; or the HWA with former Special Commando officers of the Waffen SS in the leadership.

• An armistice is a formal agreement of warring parties to stop fighting. It is not necessarily the end of a war, since it may constitute only a cessation of hostilities while an attempt is made to negotiate a lasting peace." Armistice Agreements are customarily signed by the Military Commanders representing the individual warring parties. This is no less true for the Arab League as anywhere else. But there was no Palestinian force, and no a Palestinian Commander to directly represent the Arab-Palestinians.

∆ Lebanon:

Lieutenant-Colonel Toufic Salem Commandant J. Harb​

∆ Syria:

Colonel Fozi Selo
Lieutenant-Colonel Mohamed Nasser
Captain Afif Bizri​

∆ Jordan:

Colonel Ahmed Sudki El-Jundi
Lieutenant-Colonel Mohamed Maayte​

∆ Egypt:

Colonel Seif El Dine,
Colonel Rahmani
​

Some have made the Argument that, at the time, the All Palestine Government (APG) was in the Gaza Strip. And while this is true, that the time of the Armistice, the Gaza Strip was under the effective control of the Egyptian Military Occupation Commander, which provided the umbrella protection for the APG. Egypt (not Palestinians) --- then represented the Provisional APG. The APG, in its provisional status, was later dissolved by the Egyptian Government (1959).

As is not uncommon with Arab Nations, the transition of governments is often traumatic. Of the four adjacent Arab States to Israel (Egypt • Jordan • Syria • Lebanon)
and the territories formerly under mandate, Lebanon had a 15 year Civil War; with about one-sixth of the country effectively controlled by Hezbollah Terrorists. Egypt is current under a Military Government (Sadat assassinated 1981, Mubarak deposed Mr & Mrs Mubarak suffered Heart Attacks while in Police Custody and Interrogation, Morsi was deposed 2011). Syria is in chaos with several factions fighting for control. Jordan was the subject of an attempted government takeover in 1970, accompanied by several assassination attempts on the King by Palestinians. The most stable government, with the highest level of human development in the region is Israel -- under constant assault by Arab Opponents.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

The Palestinians were not a party to the 1948 war even though virtually all of the fighting was inside Palestine.

Tin, sometimes I have trouble following your line of thinking. Who, in your opinion, were the parties to the 1948 war? And who, in the above sentence, were the "Palestinians", who you claim were not party to the war? Please, be specific.

Indeed, it is called cognitive dissonance.

The forces of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan/Iraq, and Egypt entered Palestine to confront Israeli forces in Palestine.

The Palestinians, of course, were the citizens of Palestine. Palestine had no army so they could not engage in any war. It was a matter of Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians.

The five Arab armies entered Palestine to defend these civilians from military attack.

The problem being that those same armies had already mobilised and entered the Mandate of Palestine with the intent of usurping the Jews legal bid for independence and statehood. They had already stated their aim was to wipe out the Jews and take the land as arab muslim to create a pan arab caliphate in the M.E. The combined forces of 5 arab nations along with insurgents and irregulars were utterly destroyed by the Jewish forces, so much so that 750,000 arab soldiers turned tail and ran like the cowards they are. These forces feared for their lives so they deserted from their armies and pretended to be Palestinian refugees.


Those are the facts

 

[Phoenall]

The Palestinians were not a party to the 1948 war even though virtually all of the fighting was inside Palestine.

Tin, sometimes I have trouble following your line of thinking. Who, in your opinion, were the parties to the 1948 war? And who, in the above sentence, were the "Palestinians", who you claim were not party to the war? Please, be specific.

Indeed, it is called cognitive dissonance.

The forces of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan/Iraq, and Egypt entered Palestine to confront Israeli forces in Palestine.

The Palestinians, of course, were the citizens of Palestine. Palestine had no army so they could not engage in any war. It was a matter of Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians.

The five Arab armies entered Palestine to defend these civilians from military attack.

What alternate reality are you describing?

Indeed, there was a never a national entity called "Palestine" in the timeline you are so utterly befuddled about.

Indeed, the only description of Pal'istanians as a national identity was a late 1960's invention of Yassir "show me the money" Arafat.

In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law... showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”. The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottomans and other peoples. Indeed, Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constituted the legal bond which connected individuals to collectively form a people as an element of a state.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

Sorry but not a valid source as the author alter and manipulates official documents to meet with his and yours POV. The treaty of Lausanne does not mention palestine by name, and the nationality was that of the mandatory power as no state of Palestine was in existence. The legality of Palestine was that of the MANDATE OF PALESTINE that set out the borders of said mandate.


To settle this dispute once and for all produce the treaty in full that names Palestine as a nation prior to 1988 that was accepted by the UN/LoN with the signature appended to the document of the official ruler/leader of Palestine. A photograph of this ruler/leader would also help along with his official residence. Failure to accept this request shows that you are LYING because you want to disinherit the Jews of their homeland and will go to any lengths to peddle your anti semitic hatred.

 

[Phoenall]

Tin, sometimes I have trouble following your line of thinking. Who, in your opinion, were the parties to the 1948 war? And who, in the above sentence, were the "Palestinians", who you claim were not party to the war? Please, be specific.

Indeed, it is called cognitive dissonance.

The forces of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan/Iraq, and Egypt entered Palestine to confront Israeli forces in Palestine.

The Palestinians, of course, were the citizens of Palestine. Palestine had no army so they could not engage in any war. It was a matter of Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians.

The five Arab armies entered Palestine to defend these civilians from military attack.

What alternate reality are you describing?

Indeed, there was a never a national entity called "Palestine" in the timeline you are so utterly befuddled about.

Indeed, the only description of Pal'istanians as a national identity was a late 1960's invention of Yassir "show me the money" Arafat.

In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law... showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”. The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottomans and other peoples. Indeed, Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constituted the legal bond which connected individuals to collectively form a people as an element of a state.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

Historic Palestine as we know it today is derived from a map drawn up by the British at the end of World War I—in particular by British Christians whose understanding of the geography of Palestine was largely based on the Bible, which, as we all know, is derived from the Jews.

So, it is the height of irony when we hear the militant Islamists of Hamas insisting that any compromise about the land that constitutes “historic Palestine” is impossible, for, as they argue, the entire land is a waqf, or Islamic trust, bestowed by God. Think about it: a border drawn by British Christians based on their reading of the Jewish Bible is now interpreted by Muslim fundamentalists as God-given and unchangeable!

But surely, for many centuries before the land fell into British hands, there must have been a country called Palestine, right? That’s what I was told by a group of high school students recently when I gave a lecture on the origins of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The students cannot be faulted for thinking that; after all, we all seem to accept the terminology of “historic Palestine,” don’t we?

In fact, historically, there was never an independent country named Palestine. There was for a time a Roman province named Palestine, when the Romans bestowed that name in the second century A.D. on an area that was previously called Judea, and which had been sovereign for a time. Having defeated the Jews in what the ancient historian Josephus labeled “the Jewish Wars,” the Romans then expelled the Jews from Jerusalem and renamed the province after the Jews’ historic archenemy, the Philistines.

- See more at: The Ironic History of Palestine

And that changes my post how.

It shows that it is a pack of islamonazi propaganda and lies of course, but then you already knew this but you have nothing else to fall back on

 

[Phoenall]

Historic Palestine as we know it today is derived from a map drawn up by the British at the end of World War I—in particular by British Christians whose understanding of the geography of Palestine was largely based on the Bible, which, as we all know, is derived from the Jews.

So, it is the height of irony when we hear the militant Islamists of Hamas insisting that any compromise about the land that constitutes “historic Palestine” is impossible, for, as they argue, the entire land is a waqf, or Islamic trust, bestowed by God. Think about it: a border drawn by British Christians based on their reading of the Jewish Bible is now interpreted by Muslim fundamentalists as God-given and unchangeable!

But surely, for many centuries before the land fell into British hands, there must have been a country called Palestine, right? That’s what I was told by a group of high school students recently when I gave a lecture on the origins of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The students cannot be faulted for thinking that; after all, we all seem to accept the terminology of “historic Palestine,” don’t we?

In fact, historically, there was never an independent country named Palestine. There was for a time a Roman province named Palestine, when the Romans bestowed that name in the second century A.D. on an area that was previously called Judea, and which had been sovereign for a time. Having defeated the Jews in what the ancient historian Josephus labeled “the Jewish Wars,” the Romans then expelled the Jews from Jerusalem and renamed the province after the Jews’ historic archenemy, the Philistines.

- See more at: The Ironic History of Palestine

And that changes my post how.

It corrects the false representation in your cut and paste that the geographic area termed "Palestine" was ever a state.

Where does it say that?

In the article.

Cant you read English, is that where you have so much trouble understanding that there was never a state of Palestine prior to 1988.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinians were not a party to the 1948 war even though virtually all of the fighting was inside Palestine.

Tin, sometimes I have trouble following your line of thinking. Who, in your opinion, were the parties to the 1948 war? And who, in the above sentence, were the "Palestinians", who you claim were not party to the war? Please, be specific.

Indeed, it is called cognitive dissonance.

The forces of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan/Iraq, and Egypt entered Palestine to confront Israeli forces in Palestine.

The Palestinians, of course, were the citizens of Palestine. Palestine had no army so they could not engage in any war. It was a matter of Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians.

The five Arab armies entered Palestine to defend these civilians from military attack.

What alternate reality are you describing?

Indeed, there was a never a national entity called "Palestine" in the timeline you are so utterly befuddled about.

Indeed, the only description of Pal'istanians as a national identity was a late 1960's invention of Yassir "show me the money" Arafat.

In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law... showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship”. The inclusion of Palestinian nationality in the text of the Palestine Mandate was the first step towards an international recognition of the Palestinian people as distinct from the Ottomans and other peoples. Indeed, Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constituted the legal bond which connected individuals to collectively form a people as an element of a state.

The status of Palestine and the nationality of its inhabitants were finally settled by the Treaty of Lausanne from the international law perspective. In a report submitted to the League of Nations, the British Government rightly pointed out: “The ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne in Aug., 1924, finally regularised the international status of Palestine”. And, thereafter, “Palestine could, at last, obtain a separate nationality”.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf

Sorry but not a valid source as the author alter and manipulates official documents to meet with his and yours POV. The treaty of Lausanne does not mention palestine by name, and the nationality was that of the mandatory power as no state of Palestine was in existence. The legality of Palestine was that of the MANDATE OF PALESTINE that set out the borders of said mandate.


To settle this dispute once and for all produce the treaty in full that names Palestine as a nation prior to 1988 that was accepted by the UN/LoN with the signature appended to the document of the official ruler/leader of Palestine. A photograph of this ruler/leader would also help along with his official residence. Failure to accept this request shows that you are LYING because you want to disinherit the Jews of their homeland and will go to any lengths to peddle your anti semitic hatred.

WOW, so much Israeli propaganda all at once.

Sorry but not a valid source as the author alter and manipulates official documents to meet with his and yours POV.​

Examples?