Palestine Today

[Mindful]

The Political importance of the Hostile Arab Palestinians to try and establish meaning to the Palestine's irrational "international borders that were defined by treaties in 1922" is because the hardline Arab Palestinians wan the Palestine Charter to have meaning:

• Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
By locking into this concept, the implication is that the State of Israel is (in some fashion) illegal.

Indeed, and nobody has offered any evidence to refute that assertion.

What assertion?

That Palestine has international borders.

No such place.

 

[Hollie]

The Political importance of the Hostile Arab Palestinians to try and establish meaning to the Palestine's irrational "international borders that were defined by treaties in 1922" is because the hardline Arab Palestinians wan the Palestine Charter to have meaning:

• Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
By locking into this concept, the implication is that the State of Israel is (in some fashion) illegal.

Indeed, and nobody has offered any evidence to refute that assertion.

Indeed, it is curious that you have assigned "international borders" to your invented "country of Pal'istan" where none exist.

Article V

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

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949​

It was the same for other agreements.

In your desperation, you just make up your own definitions as you go along.

Do a search regarding Mandate Palestine and French Mandate for Syria and lebanon.

What about them?

I use actual documents. You use???

Indeed, you don't understand what you cut and paste.

As you have claimed repeatedly, "The Mandate for Palestine possessed no territory." So, where and when did these "international borders" get established?

Did you ever make an attempt to understand the Mandatory systems I noted you should study?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Political importance of the Hostile Arab Palestinians to try and establish meaning to the Palestine's irrational "international borders that were defined by treaties in 1922" is because the hardline Arab Palestinians wan the Palestine Charter to have meaning:

• Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
By locking into this concept, the implication is that the State of Israel is (in some fashion) illegal.

Indeed, and nobody has offered any evidence to refute that assertion.

What assertion?

That Palestine has international borders.

No such place.

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Indeed, and nobody has offered any evidence to refute that assertion.

Indeed, it is curious that you have assigned "international borders" to your invented "country of Pal'istan" where none exist.

Article V

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

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949​

It was the same for other agreements.

In your desperation, you just make up your own definitions as you go along.

Do a search regarding Mandate Palestine and French Mandate for Syria and lebanon.

What about them?

I use actual documents. You use???

Indeed, you don't understand what you cut and paste.

As you have claimed repeatedly, "The Mandate for Palestine possessed no territory." So, where and when did these "international borders" get established?

Did you ever make an attempt to understand the Mandatory systems I noted you should study?

As you have claimed repeatedly, "The Mandate for Palestine possessed no territory."

It didn't. The Mandate was an administration not a place.

 

[Hollie]

Indeed, it is curious that you have assigned "international borders" to your invented "country of Pal'istan" where none exist.

Article V

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

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949​

It was the same for other agreements.

In your desperation, you just make up your own definitions as you go along.

Do a search regarding Mandate Palestine and French Mandate for Syria and lebanon.

What about them?

I use actual documents. You use???

Indeed, you don't understand what you cut and paste.

As you have claimed repeatedly, "The Mandate for Palestine possessed no territory." So, where and when did these "international borders" get established?

Did you ever make an attempt to understand the Mandatory systems I noted you should study?

As you have claimed repeatedly, "The Mandate for Palestine possessed no territory."

It didn't. The Mandate was an administration not a place.

That's a start.

Lets move forward. Did you notice the article you linked to is entitled

"Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949"

Back to my earlier question; when and where were your claimed "international borders of Palestine" established?

Link?

BTW, all your whining has been addressed here:
The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

 

[Mindful]

The Political importance of the Hostile Arab Palestinians to try and establish meaning to the Palestine's irrational "international borders that were defined by treaties in 1922" is because the hardline Arab Palestinians wan the Palestine Charter to have meaning:

• Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
By locking into this concept, the implication is that the State of Israel is (in some fashion) illegal.

Indeed, and nobody has offered any evidence to refute that assertion.

What assertion?

That Palestine has international borders.

No such place.

Link?

Link?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

There are two, and only two types of statements, which can be meaningful assertions: • those that are TRUE, and • those that are FALSE.

When I make an assertion, I attempt to accompany it with some verifiable source and the logic that makes it valuable to us. As I have done in Posting #1593, without writing a dissertation,

But as you have done here, you have made a "bare assertion" (one with no supporting history or documentation). It is TRUE only because you say it is TRUE.

The Political importance of the Hostile Arab Palestinians to try and establish meaning to the Palestine's irrational "international borders that were defined by treaties in 1922" is because the hardline Arab Palestinians wan the Palestine Charter to have meaning:

• Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
By locking into this concept, the implication is that the State of Israel is (in some fashion) illegal.

Indeed, and nobody has offered any evidence to refute that assertion.

(COMMENT)

Whether or not the philosophical aspect of your argument is sound and valid, the "reality" [(actual existence of the State of Israel) or existence) and (the non-existence of the Arab Palestinian control borders)] inside the Palestinian Charter description is self-explanatory; speaks for itself.

In 1949, when the Armistice Agreements were exchanged, the Arab counterparts in the Armistice exchange did not recognize an entity called Palestine as meaningful. In 1979, the Treaty between the Government of
of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of Israel, recognized the boundary as that of the
"former mandated territory of Palestine." Similarly, in 1994 with the Treaty between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel, was "delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate." While the two treaties were executed without prejudice, Palestine was not represented or recognized. And again in 2000, “the international boundary between Israel and Lebanon was established pursuant to the 1923 Agreement between France and Great Britain ...”, making no reference to and Palestinian national entity (the word Palestine not mentioned once).

I would suspect that had there been a self-governing Palestine in ANY of these examples, there would be some mention of it.

I cannot prove the negative in this case; but, I can demonstrate that there was no affirmation:

• No Armistice with Palestine.
• No Treaty with Palestine.
• No Border control with Palestine.
• No Border Agreement with Palestine.

We are not even sure that the State of Palestine exists even today; or at least not without consequences. See: UN MEMO (Only 4 pages long): Issues Related to General Assembly Resolution 67/19 on the Status of Palestine in the Unted Nations.

I'm sure you all have seen this; but it is here as a reminder. I think the MEMO is well worth reading.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

It didn't. The Mandate was an administration not a place.

And "Palestine" was/is a place and not a sovereign.

 

[Shusha]

Article V

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

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949​

It was the same for other agreements.

You keep plucking individual phrases out of agreements and using them to assert a falsehood which is not demonstrated in the agreement when seen as a whole. Who are the Parties to the Armistice Agreement you bring up here? Who are the sovereigns who are negotiating a treaty between them? Lebanon and Israel. There are no other Parties to the agreement. There is no Palestinian sovereign in play here.

One would think that if "Palestine" was a sovereign that they would be a Party to the agreement concerning their sovereign territory. Why weren't they, then? If they existed as a sovereign, why were they not Party to any of the agreements?

Newsflash -- use of the term "Palestine" as a geographical descriptor does not in any way create a sovereign nation. Nor does it prove the existence of a sovereign State.

 

[P F Tinmore]

And again in 2000, “the international boundary between Israel and Lebanon was established pursuant to the 1923 Agreement between France and Great Britain ...”

This is misleading. For one, there was no Israel in 1923. That was the border between Palestine and Lebanon.

There was no Israel border there in 2000. They created a "Blue Line" for Israel to withdraw over similar to the "Green Line" that was created in 1949 because Israel has no border there. Israel still has no border with Lebanon. Israel only has say so borders.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You keep plucking individual phrases out of agreements and using them to assert a falsehood which is not demonstrated in the agreement when seen as a whole. Who are the Parties to the Armistice Agreement you bring up here?

The Armistice Agreements restricted the actions and movements of armed forces involved in the 1848 war. Even though the war was fought in Palestine, they were not a party to that war.

The Armistice Agreements mentioned Palestine several times. A place called Israel was not mentioned.

The Armistice Agreements mentioned Palestine's international borders. No borders were mentioned for Israel.

The land inside Palestine's borders was called Palestine. No land called Israel was mentioned.

Palestine was divided into three areas of occupation.

 

[Hollie]

You keep plucking individual phrases out of agreements and using them to assert a falsehood which is not demonstrated in the agreement when seen as a whole. Who are the Parties to the Armistice Agreement you bring up here?

The Armistice Agreements restricted the actions and movements of armed forces involved in the 1848 war. Even though the war was fought in Palestine, they were not a party to that war.

The Armistice Agreements mentioned Palestine several times. A place called Israel was not mentioned.

The Armistice Agreements mentioned Palestine's international borders. No borders were mentioned for Israel.

The land inside Palestine's borders was called Palestine. No land called Israel was mentioned.

Palestine was divided into three areas of occupation.

Did you forget that you posted a link to an article entitled:

"Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949"

The above appears to mention Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You keep plucking individual phrases out of agreements and using them to assert a falsehood which is not demonstrated in the agreement when seen as a whole. Who are the Parties to the Armistice Agreement you bring up here?

The Armistice Agreements restricted the actions and movements of armed forces involved in the 1848 war. Even though the war was fought in Palestine, they were not a party to that war.

The Armistice Agreements mentioned Palestine several times. A place called Israel was not mentioned.

The Armistice Agreements mentioned Palestine's international borders. No borders were mentioned for Israel.

The land inside Palestine's borders was called Palestine. No land called Israel was mentioned.

Palestine was divided into three areas of occupation.

Did you forget that you posted a link to an article entitled:

"Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949"

The above appears to mention Israel.

Israeli not Israel.

If one side of the border is Lebanon and the other side is Palestine, where is Israel?

 

[Hollie]

You keep plucking individual phrases out of agreements and using them to assert a falsehood which is not demonstrated in the agreement when seen as a whole. Who are the Parties to the Armistice Agreement you bring up here?

The Armistice Agreements restricted the actions and movements of armed forces involved in the 1848 war. Even though the war was fought in Palestine, they were not a party to that war.

The Armistice Agreements mentioned Palestine several times. A place called Israel was not mentioned.

The Armistice Agreements mentioned Palestine's international borders. No borders were mentioned for Israel.

The land inside Palestine's borders was called Palestine. No land called Israel was mentioned.

Palestine was divided into three areas of occupation.

Did you forget that you posted a link to an article entitled:

"Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949"

The above appears to mention Israel.

Israeli not Israel.

If one side of the border is Lebanon and the other side is Palestine, where is Israel?

Did you forget that you posted a link to an article entitled:

"Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949".

Odd how your re-writing of the document suddenly changed Lebanese to Lebanon.

If one side of the border is Lebanese and the other Israeli, I suppose that means, well, you know, that you’re making a distinction that can only be made by someone who has fallen down and knocked themselves senseless.

 

[Shusha]

Israeli not Israel.

If one side of the border is Lebanon and the other side is Palestine, where is Israel?

Israel would be the sovereign over the geographical territory formerly known as Palestine. The only sovereigns (Parties to the agreement) are Lebanon and Israel. There were no other sovereigns. There are no other sovereigns.

This is apparent in subsequent peace agreements, including the Israel-Lebanon Peace Agreement of May 17, 1983 which states in Article 1:

ARTICLE I

1. The Parties agree and undertake to respect the sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of each other. They consider the existing international boundary between Israel and Lebanon inviolable. (emphasis mine)


Where is the State of Palestine in all this? Why is Lebanon negotiating with Israel; creating treaties with Israel if a State of Palestine exists? (Hint: it doesn't exist).

 

[P F Tinmore]

Odd how your re-writing of the document suddenly changed Lebanese to Lebanon.

That was a copy/paste. I did not change anything.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israeli not Israel.

If one side of the border is Lebanon and the other side is Palestine, where is Israel?

Israel would be the sovereign over the geographical territory formerly known as Palestine. The only sovereigns (Parties to the agreement) are Lebanon and Israel. There were no other sovereigns. There are no other sovereigns.

This is apparent in subsequent peace agreements, including the Israel-Lebanon Peace Agreement of May 17, 1983 which states in Article 1:

ARTICLE I

1. The Parties agree and undertake to respect the sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of each other. They consider the existing international boundary between Israel and Lebanon inviolable. (emphasis mine)


Where is the State of Palestine in all this? Why is Lebanon negotiating with Israel; creating treaties with Israel if a State of Palestine exists? (Hint: it doesn't exist).

Why is Lebanon negotiating with Israel;

Egypt and Jordan were both paid to do it. The US is dumping money into Lebanon to influence it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

Odd how your re-writing of the document suddenly changed Lebanese to Lebanon.

That was a copy/paste. I did not change anything.

I guess you just can’t admit to your dishonesty.

 

[Hollie]

Israeli not Israel.

If one side of the border is Lebanon and the other side is Palestine, where is Israel?

Israel would be the sovereign over the geographical territory formerly known as Palestine. The only sovereigns (Parties to the agreement) are Lebanon and Israel. There were no other sovereigns. There are no other sovereigns.

This is apparent in subsequent peace agreements, including the Israel-Lebanon Peace Agreement of May 17, 1983 which states in Article 1:

ARTICLE I

1. The Parties agree and undertake to respect the sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of each other. They consider the existing international boundary between Israel and Lebanon inviolable. (emphasis mine)


Where is the State of Palestine in all this? Why is Lebanon negotiating with Israel; creating treaties with Israel if a State of Palestine exists? (Hint: it doesn't exist).

Why is Lebanon negotiating with Israel;

Egypt and Jordan were both paid to do it. The US is dumping money into Lebanon to influence it.

Another of your silly conspiracy theories.