Palestinian identity ?

[Challenger]

Challenger, et al,

This is nonsense.

It was the collective decision of the Arab League to use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state (external interference). A violation of the Article 2(4) Principle of the UN Charter.

Except it wasn't. The Arab league intervened, "...by virtue of their responsibility as members of the Arab League which is a regional organization within the meaning of Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations. The recent disturbances in Palestine further constitute a serious and direct threat to peace and security within the territories of the Arab States themselves. For these reasons, and considering that the security of Palestine is a sacred trust for them, and out of anxiousness to check the further deterioration of the prevailing conditions and to prevent the spread of disorder and lawlessness into the neighbouring Arab lands, and in order to fill the vacuum created by the termination of the Mandate and the failure to replace it by any legally constituted authority, the Arab Governments find themselves compelled to intervene for the sole purpose of restoring peace and security and establishing law and order in Palestine.

The Arab States recognize that the independence and sovereignty of Palestine which was so far subject to the British Mandate has now, with the termination of the Mandate, become established in fact, and maintain that the lawful inhabitants of Palestine are alone competent and entitled to set up an administration in Palestine for the discharge of all governmental functions without any external interference. As soon as that stage is reached the intervention of the Arab States, which is confined to the restoration of peace and establishment of law and order, shall be put an end to, and the sovereign State of Palestine will be competent in co-operation with the other States members of the Arab League, to take every step for the promotion of the welfare and security of its peoples and territory." Arab League Declaration on the intervention in Palestine, 15 May 1948 | Religion :: Science :: Peace

(COMMENT)

All you have to do is merely read UN Security Council Resolution 50, THEN the UN Security Council Resolution 54, to make the determination.

UNSC RES/50 declares in para 11 that "rejected by either party or by both, or If, having been accepted, it is subsequently repudiated or violated, the situation in Palestine will be reconsidered with a view to action under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations." THEN read UNSC RES/54, and you will notice that is says: "Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine. Israel accepted the Truce and the Arab League did not.

I agree that the Arab League used the compelling reason of self-defense (sole purpose of restoring peace and security and establishing law and order), BUT that merely attempts to color the issue. Jordan advanced across their borders to claim the West Bank, while Egypt claimed the Gaza Strip. the real truth was, the League jumped their borders to steal land, which the did and held for two decades.

You can pump-out that disinformation all you want. The fact is, that after using the "restoring peace and security" excuse --- they captured territory that was allocated for the Arab State.

Most Respectfully,
R

The fact is, that "after using the "restoring peace and security" excuse --- they captured territory that was allocated for the Arab State" in order to prevent it falling into the hands of the Zionists (or Abdullah, which was both Syria's and Iraq's primary objective).

The fact that Jordan's Abdullah had already agreed to divide Palestine between the Zionists and himself is irrelevant as regards the intention of the Arab intervention in Palestine. It puts paid to the myth that the Arabs were agressors and intended to "drive the Jews into the sea" or that at any point there was an existential threat to Zionist Israel.

Interesting that the UNSC did not condemn the Arab intervention as agression and the fact that this was two months following the original intervention. Neither do the UNSC resolutions you mention or cite Article 2 (4) of the Charter which indicates the UNSC did not consider the Arab intervention a violation of said article.

As an aside, I wonder who murdered the UN mediator mentioned in the UNSC resolutions in order to prevent him carrying out his function?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Israel was the outcome of a successive series of events moving towards self-determination; just as the hardships of the Arab Palestinians was a consequence of very poor self-actualization.

The difference is in the objective and goals.

• The objective of the Arab Palestinian was to "prevent" the Jewish People from achieving an independent state. (The goal was NOT directed at achieving independence for themselves.) (PREVENTION)

• The objective of the Jewish People was to "achieving" an independent state. (The goal was NOT to prevent or hinder the Arab Palestinian from achieving independence.) (ACHIEVEMENT)
​

Was Israel created as part of the resolution 181 process or was it a unilateral move?

(COMMENT)

Israel was a creation of the Jewish People through their exercise of "collective self-determination;" nation building. It was the national aspiration deemed necessary as a matter of cultural self preservation.

The GA Resolution 181 was the "HOW TO BOOK" by the UN and the recommendations of the Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP). It was the UNSCOP that wrote the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" (the "HOW") and it was the General Assembly that adopted the recommendation as the proper steps (international consensus). BUT is was the Jewish People that initiated the action, completed the process to the extent possible (opposed by Powerful Arab Forces), and declared independence.

It was the collective decision of the Arab League to use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state (external interference). A violation of the Article 2(4) Principle of the UN Charter.

Most Respectfully,
R

The objective of the Arab Palestinian was to "prevent" the Jewish People from achieving an independent state. (The goal was NOT directed at achieving independence for themselves.) (PREVENTION)​

Why do you set up a false premise to base your posts?

The Palestinians consistently lobbied Britain for their independence and self determination. Of course this was consistently ignored. Any move toward independence by the Palestinians was crushed by Britain. Their organizations and institutions were closed down. Their leaders were arrested, exiled, or killed. They were strictly forbidden from forming any means of defense.

You portray this as a lack of desire or competence to gain independence.

LINK ? As the evidence shows the foreign arabs demanded the land be given to them to rule over as they saw fit. They did not want the Jews to be allowed to create a nation because that would be a massive loss of face for them again. The indigenous arab muslims are the ones that stayed on in 1948 and are now full Israeli citizens.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again NONSENSE.

The rights laid down in resolution 3236 had already gained some legitimacy by the time of the Mandate period. The right to self determination was demanded by the Palestinians consistantly at that time.

(COMMENT)

Resolution 3236 was adopted as NON-BINDING in 1974. Even if it was law, it cannot be applied retroactively.

Demonstrate how 1974 NON-BINDING Resolution pertaining to "self-determination" and "independence and sovereignty" (neither having yet been adopted) "already gained some legitimacy by the time of the Mandate period." The Mandate extends safeguards to civil and religious rights --- not "self-determination and sovereignty."

Most Respectfully,
R

Referencing an already existing international law is not the start date for that law. Why are you trying to confuse people?

!948 Palestinian declaration of independence,

I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE,​

Did they just pull that out of their ass?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again NONSENSE.

The rights laid down in resolution 3236 had already gained some legitimacy by the time of the Mandate period. The right to self determination was demanded by the Palestinians consistantly at that time.

(COMMENT)

Resolution 3236 was adopted as NON-BINDING in 1974. Even if it was law, it cannot be applied retroactively.

Demonstrate how 1974 NON-BINDING Resolution pertaining to "self-determination" and "independence and sovereignty" (neither having yet been adopted) "already gained some legitimacy by the time of the Mandate period." The Mandate extends safeguards to civil and religious rights --- not "self-determination and sovereignty."

Most Respectfully,
R

Referencing an already existing international law is not the start date for that law. Why are you trying to confuse people?

!948 Palestinian declaration of independence,

I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE,​

Did they just pull that out of their ass?

So one instance or foreign interference claiming a right that did not exist at that time. Now once again how did the British stop the arab muslims from exercising self determination, as the were practising it all along. The very act of violence is an act of self determination that backfired on the arab musl.ims many times.

 

[American_Jihad]

No, Mr. President -- Values Are Not Universal
The telling example of the Palestinian death cult.
November 30, 2015
P. David Hornik

“An attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share,” was what President Obama called the Paris terror attack. As commentators have pointed out, it’s unfortunately not so; Western values, even including the sanctity of life, are not shared by all of humanity and do not necessarily prevail in some parts of the world.

Here in Israel, where we’ve been under an assault variously dubbed the Knives Intifada or the Children’s Intifada for two months, it’s impossible not to be aware of a lack of universality of values. Many, but not all, of the examples I give below (which, of course, are far from comprehensive) are taken from Palestinian warfare.

Combatants and noncombatants. This is a Western distinction that is often conspicuously lacking in other parts of the world. While Palestinians sometimes attack Israeli security personnel, they more often attack Israeli civilians. Age and gender, of course, are of no consequence; the concept of the “enemy” is tribal and includes any and all Israeli Jews at any and all times. The principle of tribal assault applies, of course, in surrounding countries as well. The only reason Israelis are not massacred on the same scale as Syrians, Iraqis, Sudanese, and others is Israel’s military and security capability. What happened in Paris was a Middle Eastern tribal assault, not just an attack by lone “terrorists.”

Human shields. Whereas Western countries do not use the human-shield strategy, in another part of the world it is increasingly common. Before the 1991 Gulf War, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein detained Westerners and used them as human shields. Hamas has extensively used the strategy in the three Gaza wars (2008-2009, 2012, 2014) with Israel. Hizballah has turned tens of thousands of southern Lebanese villagers into human shields for the next war with Israel, with rocket launchers installed in private homes. Islamic State is, of course, using the strategy in Iraq and Syria. In other words, at least in the cases of Hamas and Hizballah, the combatant-noncombatant distinction is further violated as civilians on one’s own side are “drafted” for a role in combat. Voices of protest are not heard; Hamas remains popular with Palestinians, and Hizballah with Lebanese Shiites.

Children. Not only are “enemy” children attacked, and children on one’s own side “drafted” as human-shield combatants, but children are often turned, explicitly or by encouragement, into warriors. Examples are legion. Among others, Iran sacrificed tens of thousands of Iranian children as soldiers in the Iran-Iraq war. Boko Haram is training and deploying child soldiers as young as 10. In the current Palestinian intifada, as Israeli columnist and author Nadav Shragai reported on Friday:

According to data provided by the Shin Bet security agency, the average age of 80% of the terrorists in the current surge of violence has been 20. The terrorist who stabbed four Israelis in Kiryat Gat on Saturday was only 17. One of the attackers in Pisgat Ze’ev last month was only 12; an 11-year-old and a 14-year-old stabbed a security guard on the Jerusalem light rail this month; and the girls who stabbed a man with scissors at the Jerusalem Mahane Yehuda market this week were 14 and 16.

Babies. In the same article Shragai goes on to report:

now the Palestinian indoctrination mechanism is even recruiting babies…. Dozens of photos of babies and very young children holding knives that someone stuffed into their tiny hands have been littering social media sites, along with war slogans and other violent texts. The juxtaposition between their innocent, sweet faces and the knives and violent language is immensely disturbing.

Disturbing, and not part of “universal values we all share” (pictures here).

Sanctity of medical care. In the Western world, ambulances are used as ambulances and not for other purposes, and injured people are taken to hospitals. But even these are not “universal values.” During the Second Intifada (2000-2004), as this summary notes, terrorists frequently used ambulances as a means to transport bombs, guns and other weapons. Many of the terrorists who triggered suicide bombings in Israel gained access to the country by driving or riding in Red Crescent ambulances.

In a Palestinian terror attack near Hebron on November 15 that killed Rabbi Ya’akov Litman (40) and his son Netanel (18),

...

No, Mr. President -- Values Are Not Universal

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

You are correct in terms of it being a "major right" and the first article. But you are not so right in terms of application.

The Mandate did forbid the ceding of Palestine territory to any foreign power and it was the responsibility of the Mandatory to prevent the placement of Palestine territory under control of the Government of any foreign power. Being from another continent is about as foreign as it gets.

"The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power."

Self-determination is one of the major civil rights. In fact, it is the first civil right called out in the Covenant on Civil Rights.

"Article 1

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations....."

(COMMENT)

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49. That is more than a quarter century ago after Israel declared independence; nearly a decade after the 1967 Six-Day War; and three years after the Yom Kipper War of 1973.

The Mandate of Palestine limits the Mandatory from any action not explicitly approved by the Council of the League Of Nations. However the Mandate did not place any limit on the Council of the League Of Nations or the successor. No Palestinian territory was ceded or leased. Israel assumed sovereignty; in the context of international law, acquisition of territory was by means of asserting of a new sovereignty in the absence of sovereign power. The status of res nullius (prior sovereign has implicitly relinquished sovereignty) with the western powers (acting on behalf of the Allied Powers) affirming a new sovereignty via UN Resolution 273 (III) Admission of Israel to Membership.

The Mandatory DID NOT placed the territory under the control of the Government of any foreign Power. The Mandate placed the British Government with full powers of legislation and of administration as agreed upon by the Allied Powers. The Jewish State of Israel was not established until the withdrawal of the British Government and the termination of the Mandate.

There is no record of an action taken in this regard in contravention to the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is months after the Israeli Declaration.

Referencing an already existing international law is not the start date for that law. Why are you trying to confuse people?

!948 Palestinian declaration of independence,

I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE,​

Did they just pull that out of their ass?

(COMMENT)

This was written in 1948 (4 months after Israeli Independence), three years after the Article I of the UN Charter from which the language originates. In fact, it say it is from the Charter. However, the Arab Palestinians did not have control over the territory.

No non-self-governing institution can just claim sovereignty over a country that is already under another recognized sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Challenge, et al,

No, YOU ARE CORRECT.

The fact is, that "after using the "restoring peace and security" excuse --- they captured territory that was allocated for the Arab State" in order to prevent it falling into the hands of the Zionists (or Abdullah, which was both Syria's and Iraq's primary objective).

The fact that Jordan's Abdullah had already agreed to divide Palestine between the Zionists and himself is irrelevant as regards the intention of the Arab intervention in Palestine. It puts paid to the myth that the Arabs were agressors and intended to "drive the Jews into the sea" or that at any point there was an existential threat to Zionist Israel.

Interesting that the UNSC did not condemn the Arab intervention as agression and the fact that this was two months following the original intervention. Neither do the UNSC resolutions you mention or cite Article 2 (4) of the Charter which indicates the UNSC did not consider the Arab intervention a violation of said article.

As an aside, I wonder who murdered the UN mediator mentioned in the UNSC resolutions in order to prevent him carrying out his function?

(COMMENT)

The UNSC focused on ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION (Chapter VII - Articles 39 and 40).

You will notice that UNSC RES 54 states that:

Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine,

3. Declares that failure by any of the Governments or authorities concerned to comply with the preceding paragraph of this resolution would demonstrate the existence of a breach of the peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter requiting immediate consideration by the Security Council with a view to such further action under Chapter VII of the Charter as may be decided upon by the Council;

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Challenge, et al,

No, YOU ARE CORRECT.

The fact is, that "after using the "restoring peace and security" excuse --- they captured territory that was allocated for the Arab State" in order to prevent it falling into the hands of the Zionists (or Abdullah, which was both Syria's and Iraq's primary objective).

The fact that Jordan's Abdullah had already agreed to divide Palestine between the Zionists and himself is irrelevant as regards the intention of the Arab intervention in Palestine. It puts paid to the myth that the Arabs were agressors and intended to "drive the Jews into the sea" or that at any point there was an existential threat to Zionist Israel.

Interesting that the UNSC did not condemn the Arab intervention as agression and the fact that this was two months following the original intervention. Neither do the UNSC resolutions you mention or cite Article 2 (4) of the Charter which indicates the UNSC did not consider the Arab intervention a violation of said article.

As an aside, I wonder who murdered the UN mediator mentioned in the UNSC resolutions in order to prevent him carrying out his function?

(COMMENT)

The UNSC focused on ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION (Chapter VII - Articles 39 and 40).

You will notice that UNSC RES 54 states that:

Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine,

3. Declares that failure by any of the Governments or authorities concerned to comply with the preceding paragraph of this resolution would demonstrate the existence of a breach of the peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter requiting immediate consideration by the Security Council with a view to such further action under Chapter VII of the Charter as may be decided upon by the Council;

Most Respectfully,
R

There is nothing about the 1948 war that has any affect whatsoever on Palestine's legal status.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is months after the Israeli Declaration.

Referencing an already existing international law is not the start date for that law. Why are you trying to confuse people?

!948 Palestinian declaration of independence,

I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE,​

Did they just pull that out of their ass?

(COMMENT)

This was written in 1948 (4 months after Israeli Independence), three years after the Article I of the UN Charter from which the language originates. In fact, it say it is from the Charter. However, the Arab Palestinians did not have control over the territory.

No non-self-governing institution can just claim sovereignty over a country that is already under another recognized sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is months after the Israeli Declaration.​

So?

Israel claimed no land nor did it define any borders in its declaration of independence.

On the other hand, Palestine claimed its own land defined by its own international borders. There was no conflict between Palestine's declaration and Israel's.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well that depends on what you are talking about.

Challenge, et al,

No, YOU ARE CORRECT.

The fact is, that "after using the "restoring peace and security" excuse --- they captured territory that was allocated for the Arab State" in order to prevent it falling into the hands of the Zionists (or Abdullah, which was both Syria's and Iraq's primary objective).

The fact that Jordan's Abdullah had already agreed to divide Palestine between the Zionists and himself is irrelevant as regards the intention of the Arab intervention in Palestine. It puts paid to the myth that the Arabs were agressors and intended to "drive the Jews into the sea" or that at any point there was an existential threat to Zionist Israel.

Interesting that the UNSC did not condemn the Arab intervention as aggression and the fact that this was two months following the original intervention. Neither do the UNSC resolutions you mention or cite Article 2 (4) of the Charter which indicates the UNSC did not consider the Arab intervention a violation of said article.

As an aside, I wonder who murdered the UN mediator mentioned in the UNSC resolutions in order to prevent him carrying out his function?

(COMMENT)

The UNSC focused on ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION (Chapter VII - Articles 39 and 40).

You will notice that UNSC RES 54 states that:

Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine,

3. Declares that failure by any of the Governments or authorities concerned to comply with the preceding paragraph of this resolution would demonstrate the existence of a breach of the peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter requiting immediate consideration by the Security Council with a view to such further action under Chapter VII of the Charter as may be decided upon by the Council;

Most Respectfully,
R

There is nothing about the 1948 war that has any affect whatsoever on Palestine's legal status.

(COMMENT)

Technically, the Mandate is terminated (15 MAY 48). The remainder of the territory, formerly under the Mandate, became the Jewish State of Israel under siege by the combined forces of the Arab League (creating an Chapter VII --- Article 39 condition) with the Hostile Arab Palestinian irregular insurgents.

S/775 24 May 1948: Arabs claim to have authority over all the area of Palestine as being the political representative of the overwhelming majority of the population. They regard Palestine a one unit. All forces that oppose majority wherever they may be are regarded as unlawful.

To a certain extent --- you are correct. The Arab Palestinians had very little impact on the legal status of post-Partitioned Palestine. The outcome of the Armistice placed the Green Line superimposed on the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA). (Superseded by the Peace Treaties.) The Green Line was dissolved and the permanent international boundaries were established pursuant to the treaties; without prejudice to the violent prone Arab Palestinians. The status would not change until 1988; when without interference from the Israelis, the PLO Declared Independence. It was at that time, the territory beyond the recognized Israeli borders (what was described as occupied since 1967) became the provision State of Palestine.

​

The territory governed under Israeli sovereignty did meet two criteria. For the Declaratory Theory of Sovereignty and the practical application to be effective:

(i) Intention to defend the territory. Such intention must be formally expressed and it must be permanent.
(ii) The territory defended against the Aggressor Arab League and Hostile Arab Palestinians was peaceful, over a significant period.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well that depends on what you are talking about.

Challenge, et al,

No, YOU ARE CORRECT.

The fact is, that "after using the "restoring peace and security" excuse --- they captured territory that was allocated for the Arab State" in order to prevent it falling into the hands of the Zionists (or Abdullah, which was both Syria's and Iraq's primary objective).

The fact that Jordan's Abdullah had already agreed to divide Palestine between the Zionists and himself is irrelevant as regards the intention of the Arab intervention in Palestine. It puts paid to the myth that the Arabs were agressors and intended to "drive the Jews into the sea" or that at any point there was an existential threat to Zionist Israel.

Interesting that the UNSC did not condemn the Arab intervention as aggression and the fact that this was two months following the original intervention. Neither do the UNSC resolutions you mention or cite Article 2 (4) of the Charter which indicates the UNSC did not consider the Arab intervention a violation of said article.

As an aside, I wonder who murdered the UN mediator mentioned in the UNSC resolutions in order to prevent him carrying out his function?

(COMMENT)

The UNSC focused on ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION (Chapter VII - Articles 39 and 40).

You will notice that UNSC RES 54 states that:

Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine,

3. Declares that failure by any of the Governments or authorities concerned to comply with the preceding paragraph of this resolution would demonstrate the existence of a breach of the peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter requiting immediate consideration by the Security Council with a view to such further action under Chapter VII of the Charter as may be decided upon by the Council;

Most Respectfully,
R

There is nothing about the 1948 war that has any affect whatsoever on Palestine's legal status.

(COMMENT)

Technically, the Mandate is terminated (15 MAY 48). The remainder of the territory, formerly under the Mandate, became the Jewish State of Israel under siege by the combined forces of the Arab League (creating an Chapter VII --- Article 39 condition) with the Hostile Arab Palestinian irregular insurgents.

S/775 24 May 1948: Arabs claim to have authority over all the area of Palestine as being the political representative of the overwhelming majority of the population. They regard Palestine a one unit. All forces that oppose majority wherever they may be are regarded as unlawful.

To a certain extent --- you are correct. The Arab Palestinians had very little impact on the legal status of post-Partitioned Palestine. The outcome of the Armistice placed the Green Line superimposed on the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA). (Superseded by the Peace Treaties.) The Green Line was dissolved and the permanent international boundaries were established pursuant to the treaties; without prejudice to the violent prone Arab Palestinians. The status would not change until 1988; when without interference from the Israelis, the PLO Declared Independence. It was at that time, the territory beyond the recognized Israeli borders (what was described as occupied since 1967) became the provision State of Palestine.

View attachment 55951​

The territory governed under Israeli sovereignty did meet two criteria. For the Declaratory Theory of Sovereignty and the practical application to be effective:

(i) Intention to defend the territory. Such intention must be formally expressed and it must be permanent.
(ii) The territory defended against the Aggressor Arab League and Hostile Arab Palestinians was peaceful, over a significant period.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

(ii) The territory defended against the Aggressor Arab League and Hostile Arab Palestinians was peaceful, over a significant period.​

The territory has never been peaceful as required.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, you have it wrong.

(ii) The territory defended against the Aggressor Arab League and Hostile Arab Palestinians was peaceful, over a significant period.​

​

The territory has never been peaceful as required.

(COMMENT)

Today, the physically erected border between Israel and the West Bank is the first area of consideration. The area East of the erected border is considered the West Bank. And you would be correct. That particular area is dominated be Hostile Area Palestinians, and has not been peaceful. However, the West side of the boundary, has not had a history of an insurgency, or a jihadist movement operating and creating a lack of law and order. It has been relatively peaceful; except for Hostile Arab Palestinians that infiltrate.

Similarly, the boundary around the Gaza Strip has a very Hostile Arab Palestinian content. But on the Israeli side of the boundary, there is a remarkable peaceful environment.

In both cases, law and order --- or --- the threat to the peace or acts of aggression, were then --- and are now --- originating largely from Hostile Arab Palestinians in residence outside Israel and mostly from the West Bank, Gaza Strip area.

It should be noted that virtually nothing associated with the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, contributes to a peaceful and positive developing culture.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, you have it wrong.

(ii) The territory defended against the Aggressor Arab League and Hostile Arab Palestinians was peaceful, over a significant period.​

​

The territory has never been peaceful as required.

(COMMENT)

Today, the physically erected border between Israel and the West Bank is the first area of consideration. The area East of the erected border is considered the West Bank. And you would be correct. That particular area is dominated be Hostile Area Palestinians, and has not been peaceful. However, the West side of the boundary, has not had a history of an insurgency, or a jihadist movement operating and creating a lack of law and order. It has been relatively peaceful; except for Hostile Arab Palestinians that infiltrate.

Similarly, the boundary around the Gaza Strip has a very Hostile Arab Palestinian content. But on the Israeli side of the boundary, there is a remarkable peaceful environment.

In both cases, law and order --- or --- the threat to the peace or acts of aggression, were then --- and are now --- originating largely from Hostile Arab Palestinians in residence outside Israel and mostly from the West Bank, Gaza Strip area.

It should be noted that virtually nothing associated with the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, contributes to a peaceful and positive developing culture.

Most Respectfully,
R

I wonder how an area that is occupied and patrolled by the Vicious Israeli Occupier (VIO) can be considered dominated by the occupied. It is "Rocco LogicTM".

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Peacefulness is not based on the violence caused by the War Criminals, terrorist, insurgents, jihadist, etc that infiltrate and target civilians FROM another territory.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well that depends on what you are talking about.

Challenge, et al,

No, YOU ARE CORRECT.

The fact is, that "after using the "restoring peace and security" excuse --- they captured territory that was allocated for the Arab State" in order to prevent it falling into the hands of the Zionists (or Abdullah, which was both Syria's and Iraq's primary objective).

The fact that Jordan's Abdullah had already agreed to divide Palestine between the Zionists and himself is irrelevant as regards the intention of the Arab intervention in Palestine. It puts paid to the myth that the Arabs were agressors and intended to "drive the Jews into the sea" or that at any point there was an existential threat to Zionist Israel.

Interesting that the UNSC did not condemn the Arab intervention as aggression and the fact that this was two months following the original intervention. Neither do the UNSC resolutions you mention or cite Article 2 (4) of the Charter which indicates the UNSC did not consider the Arab intervention a violation of said article.

As an aside, I wonder who murdered the UN mediator mentioned in the UNSC resolutions in order to prevent him carrying out his function?

(COMMENT)

The UNSC focused on ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION (Chapter VII - Articles 39 and 40).

You will notice that UNSC RES 54 states that:

Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine,

3. Declares that failure by any of the Governments or authorities concerned to comply with the preceding paragraph of this resolution would demonstrate the existence of a breach of the peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter requiting immediate consideration by the Security Council with a view to such further action under Chapter VII of the Charter as may be decided upon by the Council;

Most Respectfully,
R

There is nothing about the 1948 war that has any affect whatsoever on Palestine's legal status.

(COMMENT)

Technically, the Mandate is terminated (15 MAY 48). The remainder of the territory, formerly under the Mandate, became the Jewish State of Israel under siege by the combined forces of the Arab League (creating an Chapter VII --- Article 39 condition) with the Hostile Arab Palestinian irregular insurgents.

S/775 24 May 1948: Arabs claim to have authority over all the area of Palestine as being the political representative of the overwhelming majority of the population. They regard Palestine a one unit. All forces that oppose majority wherever they may be are regarded as unlawful.

To a certain extent --- you are correct. The Arab Palestinians had very little impact on the legal status of post-Partitioned Palestine. The outcome of the Armistice placed the Green Line superimposed on the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA). (Superseded by the Peace Treaties.) The Green Line was dissolved and the permanent international boundaries were established pursuant to the treaties; without prejudice to the violent prone Arab Palestinians. The status would not change until 1988; when without interference from the Israelis, the PLO Declared Independence. It was at that time, the territory beyond the recognized Israeli borders (what was described as occupied since 1967) became the provision State of Palestine.

View attachment 55951​

The territory governed under Israeli sovereignty did meet two criteria. For the Declaratory Theory of Sovereignty and the practical application to be effective:

(i) Intention to defend the territory. Such intention must be formally expressed and it must be permanent.
(ii) The territory defended against the Aggressor Arab League and Hostile Arab Palestinians was peaceful, over a significant period.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

(ii) The territory defended against the Aggressor Arab League and Hostile Arab Palestinians was peaceful, over a significant period.​

The territory has never been peaceful as required.

(COMMENT)

Terrorist, insurgents, jihadist and other criminal assailants from the territories outside Israel are not what they are talking about. In fact, if the Hostile Arab Palestinian from the West Bank or Gaza Strip were attempting to alter the course of action or disrupt the sovereign integrity of the State of Israel, then that (by definition) would be terrorism. The peacefulness is base on the acceptance by the Israeli citizens.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, you have it wrong.

(ii) The territory defended against the Aggressor Arab League and Hostile Arab Palestinians was peaceful, over a significant period.​

​

The territory has never been peaceful as required.

(COMMENT)

Today, the physically erected border between Israel and the West Bank is the first area of consideration. The area East of the erected border is considered the West Bank. And you would be correct. That particular area is dominated be Hostile Area Palestinians, and has not been peaceful. However, the West side of the boundary, has not had a history of an insurgency, or a jihadist movement operating and creating a lack of law and order. It has been relatively peaceful; except for Hostile Arab Palestinians that infiltrate.

Similarly, the boundary around the Gaza Strip has a very Hostile Arab Palestinian content. But on the Israeli side of the boundary, there is a remarkable peaceful environment.

In both cases, law and order --- or --- the threat to the peace or acts of aggression, were then --- and are now --- originating largely from Hostile Arab Palestinians in residence outside Israel and mostly from the West Bank, Gaza Strip area.

It should be noted that virtually nothing associated with the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, contributes to a peaceful and positive developing culture.

Most Respectfully,
R

Hogwash!

There is violence all of the time. Most of it is against Palestinians. Your Israeli propaganda just doesn't report it so you wouldn't know.

Israeli goontards in action.

 

[Phoenall]

Challenge, et al,

No, YOU ARE CORRECT.

The fact is, that "after using the "restoring peace and security" excuse --- they captured territory that was allocated for the Arab State" in order to prevent it falling into the hands of the Zionists (or Abdullah, which was both Syria's and Iraq's primary objective).

The fact that Jordan's Abdullah had already agreed to divide Palestine between the Zionists and himself is irrelevant as regards the intention of the Arab intervention in Palestine. It puts paid to the myth that the Arabs were agressors and intended to "drive the Jews into the sea" or that at any point there was an existential threat to Zionist Israel.

Interesting that the UNSC did not condemn the Arab intervention as agression and the fact that this was two months following the original intervention. Neither do the UNSC resolutions you mention or cite Article 2 (4) of the Charter which indicates the UNSC did not consider the Arab intervention a violation of said article.

As an aside, I wonder who murdered the UN mediator mentioned in the UNSC resolutions in order to prevent him carrying out his function?

(COMMENT)

The UNSC focused on ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION (Chapter VII - Articles 39 and 40).

You will notice that UNSC RES 54 states that:

Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine,

3. Declares that failure by any of the Governments or authorities concerned to comply with the preceding paragraph of this resolution would demonstrate the existence of a breach of the peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter requiting immediate consideration by the Security Council with a view to such further action under Chapter VII of the Charter as may be decided upon by the Council;

Most Respectfully,
R

There is nothing about the 1948 war that has any affect whatsoever on Palestine's legal status.

Correct as it was Jewish Palestine as shown by the LoN mandate of Palestine, which gave the land to the Jews. The arab muslims had two choices stay as peaceful Israeli citizens or leave as enemies of Israel. The majority chose the later and are still paying the price today.

Now what exactly was Palestine's legal status in 1948 ?

 

[Phoenall]

Challenge, et al,

No, YOU ARE CORRECT.

The fact is, that "after using the "restoring peace and security" excuse --- they captured territory that was allocated for the Arab State" in order to prevent it falling into the hands of the Zionists (or Abdullah, which was both Syria's and Iraq's primary objective).

The fact that Jordan's Abdullah had already agreed to divide Palestine between the Zionists and himself is irrelevant as regards the intention of the Arab intervention in Palestine. It puts paid to the myth that the Arabs were agressors and intended to "drive the Jews into the sea" or that at any point there was an existential threat to Zionist Israel.

Interesting that the UNSC did not condemn the Arab intervention as agression and the fact that this was two months following the original intervention. Neither do the UNSC resolutions you mention or cite Article 2 (4) of the Charter which indicates the UNSC did not consider the Arab intervention a violation of said article.

As an aside, I wonder who murdered the UN mediator mentioned in the UNSC resolutions in order to prevent him carrying out his function?

(COMMENT)

The UNSC focused on ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION (Chapter VII - Articles 39 and 40).

You will notice that UNSC RES 54 states that:

Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine,

3. Declares that failure by any of the Governments or authorities concerned to comply with the preceding paragraph of this resolution would demonstrate the existence of a breach of the peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter requiting immediate consideration by the Security Council with a view to such further action under Chapter VII of the Charter as may be decided upon by the Council;

Most Respectfully,
R

There is nothing about the 1948 war that has any affect whatsoever on Palestine's legal status.

Correct as it was Jewish Palestine as shown by the LoN mandate of Palestine, which gave the land to the Jews. The arab muslims had two choices stay as peaceful Israeli citizens or leave as enemies of Israel. The majority chose the later and are still paying the price today.

Now what exactly was Palestine's legal status in 1948 ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is months after the Israeli Declaration.

Referencing an already existing international law is not the start date for that law. Why are you trying to confuse people?

!948 Palestinian declaration of independence,

I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE,​

Did they just pull that out of their ass?

(COMMENT)

This was written in 1948 (4 months after Israeli Independence), three years after the Article I of the UN Charter from which the language originates. In fact, it say it is from the Charter. However, the Arab Palestinians did not have control over the territory.

No non-self-governing institution can just claim sovereignty over a country that is already under another recognized sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is months after the Israeli Declaration.​

So?

Israel claimed no land nor did it define any borders in its declaration of independence.

On the other hand, Palestine claimed its own land defined by its own international borders. There was no conflict between Palestine's declaration and Israel's.

What international borders were those, as the only ones at the time were the ones for the Jewish mandate of Palestine. These were the ones implied in the Israeli declaration of independence. As an aside the Egyptian Palestinian declaration was outside influence that had no control or right to make decisions for the arab muslims.

There was a major conflict in the fact that Israel already existed before the Egyptians tried to declare on their land.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, you have it wrong.

(ii) The territory defended against the Aggressor Arab League and Hostile Arab Palestinians was peaceful, over a significant period.​

​

The territory has never been peaceful as required.

(COMMENT)

Today, the physically erected border between Israel and the West Bank is the first area of consideration. The area East of the erected border is considered the West Bank. And you would be correct. That particular area is dominated be Hostile Area Palestinians, and has not been peaceful. However, the West side of the boundary, has not had a history of an insurgency, or a jihadist movement operating and creating a lack of law and order. It has been relatively peaceful; except for Hostile Arab Palestinians that infiltrate.

Similarly, the boundary around the Gaza Strip has a very Hostile Arab Palestinian content. But on the Israeli side of the boundary, there is a remarkable peaceful environment.

In both cases, law and order --- or --- the threat to the peace or acts of aggression, were then --- and are now --- originating largely from Hostile Arab Palestinians in residence outside Israel and mostly from the West Bank, Gaza Strip area.

It should be noted that virtually nothing associated with the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, contributes to a peaceful and positive developing culture.

Most Respectfully,
R

Hogwash!

There is violence all of the time. Most of it is against Palestinians. Your Israeli propaganda just doesn't report it so you wouldn't know.

Israeli goontards in action.

That is what happens to criminals, terrorists and squatters the world over. Like the Palestinians did to the Jews in 1949 when they murdered them to steal their property in the west bank.