Palestinian Peace Proposal

[toastman]

montelatici, et al,

The Allied Powers never claimed sovereignty.

When did the European colonists have sovereign control over any of the territory they claimed, prior to partition?

(COMMENT)

The territories were surrendered to the Allied Powers. The Ottoman Unconditional Surrender 1918 was the essentially the end of the Ottoman engagement in WWI.

Partition has nothing to do with the award or establishment of sovereignty. The Anglo-Jordanian Treaty recognized Sovereignty of the Emir. However, the Jewish exercised self-determination under UN Guidance; moving from non-self governing to self-governing.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, why do you make a point of the fact that the indigenous Christians and Muslims had not had sovereignty? The European colonists hadn't it either. Try to be consistent.

There were no European colonists. That's part of your Palestinian propaganda campaign.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There is a possibility for some agreement here.

There is much confusion over the creation of Israel. I think it is all by design. There are many loose ends that people dance around without presenting anything conclusive.

(COMMENT)

Confusion, yes.

All "conclusions" by definition are subjective. They are either "deductively" or "inductively" derived and solved by some methodology that (in itself) must be evaluated.

One point that sticks out for me is Israel claiming to win land in wars that it experienced no victories.

(COMMENT)

This is often confusing to those people who are not familiar with military and political objectives and the difference between the two.

In the 1948/49 War of Independence for Israel, the essential political objective was to save the nation and its newly established sovereignty within acceptable causality limits. That essential political objective was unequivocally achieved. In diplomatic parlance - THAT IS A WIN. The newly formed Jewish State of Israel has not been required to relinquish (conditionally, unconditionally, or through negotiation) any aspect of its territorially sovereignty. In fact, it actually expanded its territory if evaluated on the grounds of where the original 1949 Armistice Lines were drawn.​

Just as there is a political view on the as of goal achievement, there is a military view. And the military view of "victory" is evaluated on three levels:

• Tactical: The neutralization of a force such that it is no longer a combat threat.
• Operational: Campaign victories yet not sufficient to end the conflict.
• Strategic: A set of tactical and operations victories which disrupt the opponents ability to achieve further advantage in the long-term. A Decisive Stratigic Victory leads to a conclusion of the conflict.

In the last half of the 20th Century, as time and technology has had an impact, the way in which combat and combat outcomes are evolving has forced a change in the way military outcomes are evaluated. Very few conflicts are fought on the basis of "Win or Lose." If the Korean War did not demonstrate this, surely the Vietnam War did, when over 95% of the combat engagements were either decisive tactical victories or decisive operational victories. Yet, from a political and diplomatic standpoint the outcome was unsatisfactory.

In the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict, while the IDF has demonstrated that it can consistently produce military victories across the board, and decisively defeat the opposing Arab forces on a number of different levels, it has yet to achieve the Decisive Strategic Victory that would bring the conflict to a resolution. But there is no question that by 1948, Israel entered into an Armistice with all four major warring parties with a clear military advantage. Similarly, the same can be said for the for the 1967 Six-Day War in which the Israelis were able to adjust the lines forming the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA) and consolidate its positions into much more defendable positions. This proved to be extremely useful in the 1973 Yom Kipper War which was an effective surprise on the part of the Arab Opponents (nine Arab States Involved), launching a two-front coordinated attack, did not turn-out so well for the Hostile Arab Forces. The Egyptian Third Army was surrounded, and their supplies were cut-off. Similarly Syrian Forces endured major setbacks and lost even ore ground to the IDF. Egypt, faced with the loss of an entire Army sought-out the Soviets for help in pressing Israel to accept a cease-fire. While this, again was a very decisive Operational Victory, and a Decisive Defeat for the Arab Forces, it still did not achieve a total end to the Arab-Israel Conflict. The Political and Diplomatic position of the Israelis was somewhat improved, but only marginally.

Today, the Yom Kipper War is more than four decades past. While there is no question that militarily, Israel has come through each of the major conflicts, and all the minor conflict, in the superior military position; it has yet to achieve that final Decisive Strategic Victory. This is in part because, as effective the IDF is, the Political and Diplomatic backbone of Israel is considerably less effective. It is extremely ineffective in dealing with the asymmetric political characteristics of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.

But make no mistake. While there is some truth that Israel has not "Won" the war; which has yet to end. It has continently been "Victorious." Out of the nine (or so) Arab states that have marshaled against Israel on more than one occasion, they have yet been in a position to claim any victories beyond the very few marginal tactical level.

Terminology like "win" or "lose" are early 20th Century descriptions for a world that was far less complicated then today.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

State that declare independence are declaring a change in their status. They are changing status from a "non-self-governing" entity to a "self-governing entity."

Israel declared independence from whom?

With whom did Israel fight its war of independence?

(COMMENT)

Actually, the War of Independence was a "complex war."

• After the Declaration of Independence, the "Civil War" spilled-over into the War of Independence between Israeli Forces and the combined indigenous irregular forces (Holy War Army and Arab Army of Liberation).

• Upon Declaring Independence, a Coalition of Arab Forces attacked. The primary force elements came from the Arab League provided by Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon with additional forces from Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The Irregular Force from Egypt (Muslim Brotherhood) and volunteers from Yemen, Pakistan and Sudan joined in the assault.

There was an Armistice put in place in 1949. The war ended with Egypt and Jordan. However the war is not yet been concluded between Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan and Sudan. The Muslim Brotherhood and the HAMAS are related and it appears that the war is not concluded with them.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is much confusion over the creation of Israel. I think it is all by design. There are many loose ends that people dance around without presenting anything conclusive.

One point that sticks out for me is Israel claiming to win land in wars that it experienced no victories.

The only confused on here is you. These 'loose ends' that you speak of of are 'Tinmore pre requisites'. You have yet to provide any shred of evidence to back them up. Whereas Rocco and I have boatloads of proof to refute your crap.
Not that we need any proof, as this whole debate is pointless. It's like debating whether the sky is blue or not.

 

[montelatici]

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

You are still not showing proof that this is not true.

Oh Tinmore, what are we to do with you. The borrom line is this. Israel exists as a country & Israel is there to stay as a country, whatever it takes. Cheer up & deal with it instead of being so miserable over what is reality.

That's what the Rhodesians and white South Africans said.

What an incredibly dumb comparison.

What's the difference?

If you don't know the difference between Israelis & Israel and Rhodesians & Africa, then you have issues.

There is no difference. All are European colonists.

 

[toastman]

Oh Tinmore, what are we to do with you. The borrom line is this. Israel exists as a country & Israel is there to stay as a country, whatever it takes. Cheer up & deal with it instead of being so miserable over what is reality.

That's what the Rhodesians and white South Africans said.

What an incredibly dumb comparison.

What's the difference?

If you don't know the difference between Israelis & Israel and Rhodesians & Africa, then you have issues.

There is no difference. All are European colonists.

Only in your propaganda filled mind Monti.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There is a possibility for some agreement here.

There is much confusion over the creation of Israel. I think it is all by design. There are many loose ends that people dance around without presenting anything conclusive.

(COMMENT)

Confusion, yes.

All "conclusions" by definition are subjective. They are either "deductively" or "inductively" derived and solved by some methodology that (in itself) must be evaluated.

One point that sticks out for me is Israel claiming to win land in wars that it experienced no victories.

(COMMENT)

This is often confusing to those people who are not familiar with military and political objectives and the difference between the two.

In the 1948/49 War of Independence for Israel, the essential political objective was to save the nation and its newly established sovereignty within acceptable causality limits. That essential political objective was unequivocally achieved. In diplomatic parlance - THAT IS A WIN. The newly formed Jewish State of Israel has not been required to relinquish (conditionally, unconditionally, or through negotiation) any aspect of its territorially sovereignty. In fact, it actually expanded its territory if evaluated on the grounds of where the original 1949 Armistice Lines were drawn.​

Just as there is a political view on the as of goal achievement, there is a military view. And the military view of "victory" is evaluated on three levels:

• Tactical: The neutralization of a force such that it is no longer a combat threat.
• Operational: Campaign victories yet not sufficient to end the conflict.
• Strategic: A set of tactical and operations victories which disrupt the opponents ability to achieve further advantage in the long-term. A Decisive Stratigic Victory leads to a conclusion of the conflict.

In the last half of the 20th Century, as time and technology has had an impact, the way in which combat and combat outcomes are evolving has forced a change in the way military outcomes are evaluated. Very few conflicts are fought on the basis of "Win or Lose." If the Korean War did not demonstrate this, surely the Vietnam War did, when over 95% of the combat engagements were either decisive tactical victories or decisive operational victories. Yet, from a political and diplomatic standpoint the outcome was unsatisfactory.

In the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict, while the IDF has demonstrated that it can consistently produce military victories across the board, and decisively defeat the opposing Arab forces on a number of different levels, it has yet to achieve the Decisive Strategic Victory that would bring the conflict to a resolution. But there is no question that by 1948, Israel entered into an Armistice with all four major warring parties with a clear military advantage. Similarly, the same can be said for the for the 1967 Six-Day War in which the Israelis were able to adjust the lines forming the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA) and consolidate its positions into much more defendable positions. This proved to be extremely useful in the 1973 Yom Kipper War which was an effective surprise on the part of the Arab Opponents (nine Arab States Involved), launching a two-front coordinated attack, did not turn-out so well for the Hostile Arab Forces. The Egyptian Third Army was surrounded, and their supplies were cut-off. Similarly Syrian Forces endured major setbacks and lost even ore ground to the IDF. Egypt, faced with the loss of an entire Army sought-out the Soviets for help in pressing Israel to accept a cease-fire. While this, again was a very decisive Operational Victory, and a Decisive Defeat for the Arab Forces, it still did not achieve a total end to the Arab-Israel Conflict. The Political and Diplomatic position of the Israelis was somewhat improved, but only marginally.

Today, the Yom Kipper War is more than four decades past. While there is no question that militarily, Israel has come through each of the major conflicts, and all the minor conflict, in the superior military position; it has yet to achieve that final Decisive Strategic Victory. This is in part because, as effective the IDF is, the Political and Diplomatic backbone of Israel is considerably less effective. It is extremely ineffective in dealing with the asymmetric political characteristics of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.

But make no mistake. While there is some truth that Israel has not "Won" the war; which has yet to end. It has continently been "Victorious." Out of the nine (or so) Arab states that have marshaled against Israel on more than one occasion, they have yet been in a position to claim any victories beyond the very few marginal tactical level.

Terminology like "win" or "lose" are early 20th Century descriptions for a world that was far less complicated then today.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thank you for the dissertation, however, it did not address my post.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Hummm. I think that it directly discussed both your interrogatives.

There is a possibility for some agreement here.

There is much confusion over the creation of Israel. I think it is all by design. There are many loose ends that people dance around without presenting anything conclusive.

(COMMENT)

Confusion, yes.

All "conclusions" by definition are subjective. They are either "deductively" or "inductively" derived and solved by some methodology that (in itself) must be evaluated.

One point that sticks out for me is Israel claiming to win land in wars that it experienced no victories.

(COMMENT)

This is often confusing to those people who are not familiar with military and political objectives and the difference between the two.

In the 1948/49 War of Independence for Israel, the essential political objective was to save the nation and its newly established sovereignty within acceptable causality limits. That essential political objective was unequivocally achieved. In diplomatic parlance - THAT IS A WIN. The newly formed Jewish State of Israel has not been required to relinquish (conditionally, unconditionally, or through negotiation) any aspect of its territorially sovereignty. In fact, it actually expanded its territory if evaluated on the grounds of where the original 1949 Armistice Lines were drawn.​

Just as there is a political view on the as of goal achievement, there is a military view. And the military view of "victory" is evaluated on three levels:

• Tactical: The neutralization of a force such that it is no longer a combat threat.
• Operational: Campaign victories yet not sufficient to end the conflict.
• Strategic: A set of tactical and operations victories which disrupt the opponents ability to achieve further advantage in the long-term. A Decisive Stratigic Victory leads to a conclusion of the conflict.

In the last half of the 20th Century, as time and technology has had an impact, the way in which combat and combat outcomes are evolving has forced a change in the way military outcomes are evaluated. Very few conflicts are fought on the basis of "Win or Lose." If the Korean War did not demonstrate this, surely the Vietnam War did, when over 95% of the combat engagements were either decisive tactical victories or decisive operational victories. Yet, from a political and diplomatic standpoint the outcome was unsatisfactory.

In the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict, while the IDF has demonstrated that it can consistently produce military victories across the board, and decisively defeat the opposing Arab forces on a number of different levels, it has yet to achieve the Decisive Strategic Victory that would bring the conflict to a resolution. But there is no question that by 1948, Israel entered into an Armistice with all four major warring parties with a clear military advantage. Similarly, the same can be said for the for the 1967 Six-Day War in which the Israelis were able to adjust the lines forming the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA) and consolidate its positions into much more defendable positions. This proved to be extremely useful in the 1973 Yom Kipper War which was an effective surprise on the part of the Arab Opponents (nine Arab States Involved), launching a two-front coordinated attack, did not turn-out so well for the Hostile Arab Forces. The Egyptian Third Army was surrounded, and their supplies were cut-off. Similarly Syrian Forces endured major setbacks and lost even ore ground to the IDF. Egypt, faced with the loss of an entire Army sought-out the Soviets for help in pressing Israel to accept a cease-fire. While this, again was a very decisive Operational Victory, and a Decisive Defeat for the Arab Forces, it still did not achieve a total end to the Arab-Israel Conflict. The Political and Diplomatic position of the Israelis was somewhat improved, but only marginally.

Today, the Yom Kipper War is more than four decades past. While there is no question that militarily, Israel has come through each of the major conflicts, and all the minor conflict, in the superior military position; it has yet to achieve that final Decisive Strategic Victory. This is in part because, as effective the IDF is, the Political and Diplomatic backbone of Israel is considerably less effective. It is extremely ineffective in dealing with the asymmetric political characteristics of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.

But make no mistake. While there is some truth that Israel has not "Won" the war; which has yet to end. It has continently been "Victorious." Out of the nine (or so) Arab states that have marshaled against Israel on more than one occasion, they have yet been in a position to claim any victories beyond the very few marginal tactical level.

Terminology like "win" or "lose" are early 20th Century descriptions for a world that was far less complicated then today.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thank you for the dissertation, however, it did not address my post.

(COMMENT)

And by no means is this a "dissertation" (a new treatise).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Hummm. I think that it directly discussed both your interrogatives.

There is a possibility for some agreement here.

There is much confusion over the creation of Israel. I think it is all by design. There are many loose ends that people dance around without presenting anything conclusive.

(COMMENT)

Confusion, yes.

All "conclusions" by definition are subjective. They are either "deductively" or "inductively" derived and solved by some methodology that (in itself) must be evaluated.

One point that sticks out for me is Israel claiming to win land in wars that it experienced no victories.

(COMMENT)

This is often confusing to those people who are not familiar with military and political objectives and the difference between the two.

In the 1948/49 War of Independence for Israel, the essential political objective was to save the nation and its newly established sovereignty within acceptable causality limits. That essential political objective was unequivocally achieved. In diplomatic parlance - THAT IS A WIN. The newly formed Jewish State of Israel has not been required to relinquish (conditionally, unconditionally, or through negotiation) any aspect of its territorially sovereignty. In fact, it actually expanded its territory if evaluated on the grounds of where the original 1949 Armistice Lines were drawn.​

Just as there is a political view on the as of goal achievement, there is a military view. And the military view of "victory" is evaluated on three levels:

• Tactical: The neutralization of a force such that it is no longer a combat threat.
• Operational: Campaign victories yet not sufficient to end the conflict.
• Strategic: A set of tactical and operations victories which disrupt the opponents ability to achieve further advantage in the long-term. A Decisive Stratigic Victory leads to a conclusion of the conflict.

In the last half of the 20th Century, as time and technology has had an impact, the way in which combat and combat outcomes are evolving has forced a change in the way military outcomes are evaluated. Very few conflicts are fought on the basis of "Win or Lose." If the Korean War did not demonstrate this, surely the Vietnam War did, when over 95% of the combat engagements were either decisive tactical victories or decisive operational victories. Yet, from a political and diplomatic standpoint the outcome was unsatisfactory.

In the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict, while the IDF has demonstrated that it can consistently produce military victories across the board, and decisively defeat the opposing Arab forces on a number of different levels, it has yet to achieve the Decisive Strategic Victory that would bring the conflict to a resolution. But there is no question that by 1948, Israel entered into an Armistice with all four major warring parties with a clear military advantage. Similarly, the same can be said for the for the 1967 Six-Day War in which the Israelis were able to adjust the lines forming the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA) and consolidate its positions into much more defendable positions. This proved to be extremely useful in the 1973 Yom Kipper War which was an effective surprise on the part of the Arab Opponents (nine Arab States Involved), launching a two-front coordinated attack, did not turn-out so well for the Hostile Arab Forces. The Egyptian Third Army was surrounded, and their supplies were cut-off. Similarly Syrian Forces endured major setbacks and lost even ore ground to the IDF. Egypt, faced with the loss of an entire Army sought-out the Soviets for help in pressing Israel to accept a cease-fire. While this, again was a very decisive Operational Victory, and a Decisive Defeat for the Arab Forces, it still did not achieve a total end to the Arab-Israel Conflict. The Political and Diplomatic position of the Israelis was somewhat improved, but only marginally.

Today, the Yom Kipper War is more than four decades past. While there is no question that militarily, Israel has come through each of the major conflicts, and all the minor conflict, in the superior military position; it has yet to achieve that final Decisive Strategic Victory. This is in part because, as effective the IDF is, the Political and Diplomatic backbone of Israel is considerably less effective. It is extremely ineffective in dealing with the asymmetric political characteristics of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.

But make no mistake. While there is some truth that Israel has not "Won" the war; which has yet to end. It has continently been "Victorious." Out of the nine (or so) Arab states that have marshaled against Israel on more than one occasion, they have yet been in a position to claim any victories beyond the very few marginal tactical level.

Terminology like "win" or "lose" are early 20th Century descriptions for a world that was far less complicated then today.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thank you for the dissertation, however, it did not address my post.

(COMMENT)

And by no means is this a "dissertation" (a new treatise).

Most Respectfully,
R

You didn't address my post.

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Hummm. I think that it directly discussed both your interrogatives.

There is a possibility for some agreement here.

There is much confusion over the creation of Israel. I think it is all by design. There are many loose ends that people dance around without presenting anything conclusive.

(COMMENT)

Confusion, yes.

All "conclusions" by definition are subjective. They are either "deductively" or "inductively" derived and solved by some methodology that (in itself) must be evaluated.

One point that sticks out for me is Israel claiming to win land in wars that it experienced no victories.

(COMMENT)

This is often confusing to those people who are not familiar with military and political objectives and the difference between the two.

In the 1948/49 War of Independence for Israel, the essential political objective was to save the nation and its newly established sovereignty within acceptable causality limits. That essential political objective was unequivocally achieved. In diplomatic parlance - THAT IS A WIN. The newly formed Jewish State of Israel has not been required to relinquish (conditionally, unconditionally, or through negotiation) any aspect of its territorially sovereignty. In fact, it actually expanded its territory if evaluated on the grounds of where the original 1949 Armistice Lines were drawn.​

Just as there is a political view on the as of goal achievement, there is a military view. And the military view of "victory" is evaluated on three levels:

• Tactical: The neutralization of a force such that it is no longer a combat threat.
• Operational: Campaign victories yet not sufficient to end the conflict.
• Strategic: A set of tactical and operations victories which disrupt the opponents ability to achieve further advantage in the long-term. A Decisive Stratigic Victory leads to a conclusion of the conflict.

In the last half of the 20th Century, as time and technology has had an impact, the way in which combat and combat outcomes are evolving has forced a change in the way military outcomes are evaluated. Very few conflicts are fought on the basis of "Win or Lose." If the Korean War did not demonstrate this, surely the Vietnam War did, when over 95% of the combat engagements were either decisive tactical victories or decisive operational victories. Yet, from a political and diplomatic standpoint the outcome was unsatisfactory.

In the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict, while the IDF has demonstrated that it can consistently produce military victories across the board, and decisively defeat the opposing Arab forces on a number of different levels, it has yet to achieve the Decisive Strategic Victory that would bring the conflict to a resolution. But there is no question that by 1948, Israel entered into an Armistice with all four major warring parties with a clear military advantage. Similarly, the same can be said for the for the 1967 Six-Day War in which the Israelis were able to adjust the lines forming the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA) and consolidate its positions into much more defendable positions. This proved to be extremely useful in the 1973 Yom Kipper War which was an effective surprise on the part of the Arab Opponents (nine Arab States Involved), launching a two-front coordinated attack, did not turn-out so well for the Hostile Arab Forces. The Egyptian Third Army was surrounded, and their supplies were cut-off. Similarly Syrian Forces endured major setbacks and lost even ore ground to the IDF. Egypt, faced with the loss of an entire Army sought-out the Soviets for help in pressing Israel to accept a cease-fire. While this, again was a very decisive Operational Victory, and a Decisive Defeat for the Arab Forces, it still did not achieve a total end to the Arab-Israel Conflict. The Political and Diplomatic position of the Israelis was somewhat improved, but only marginally.

Today, the Yom Kipper War is more than four decades past. While there is no question that militarily, Israel has come through each of the major conflicts, and all the minor conflict, in the superior military position; it has yet to achieve that final Decisive Strategic Victory. This is in part because, as effective the IDF is, the Political and Diplomatic backbone of Israel is considerably less effective. It is extremely ineffective in dealing with the asymmetric political characteristics of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.

But make no mistake. While there is some truth that Israel has not "Won" the war; which has yet to end. It has continently been "Victorious." Out of the nine (or so) Arab states that have marshaled against Israel on more than one occasion, they have yet been in a position to claim any victories beyond the very few marginal tactical level.

Terminology like "win" or "lose" are early 20th Century descriptions for a world that was far less complicated then today.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thank you for the dissertation, however, it did not address my post.

(COMMENT)

And by no means is this a "dissertation" (a new treatise).

Most Respectfully,
R

You didn't address my post.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Hummm. I think that it directly discussed both your interrogatives.

There is a possibility for some agreement here.

There is much confusion over the creation of Israel. I think it is all by design. There are many loose ends that people dance around without presenting anything conclusive.

(COMMENT)

Confusion, yes.

All "conclusions" by definition are subjective. They are either "deductively" or "inductively" derived and solved by some methodology that (in itself) must be evaluated.

One point that sticks out for me is Israel claiming to win land in wars that it experienced no victories.

(COMMENT)

This is often confusing to those people who are not familiar with military and political objectives and the difference between the two.

In the 1948/49 War of Independence for Israel, the essential political objective was to save the nation and its newly established sovereignty within acceptable causality limits. That essential political objective was unequivocally achieved. In diplomatic parlance - THAT IS A WIN. The newly formed Jewish State of Israel has not been required to relinquish (conditionally, unconditionally, or through negotiation) any aspect of its territorially sovereignty. In fact, it actually expanded its territory if evaluated on the grounds of where the original 1949 Armistice Lines were drawn.​

Just as there is a political view on the as of goal achievement, there is a military view. And the military view of "victory" is evaluated on three levels:

• Tactical: The neutralization of a force such that it is no longer a combat threat.
• Operational: Campaign victories yet not sufficient to end the conflict.
• Strategic: A set of tactical and operations victories which disrupt the opponents ability to achieve further advantage in the long-term. A Decisive Stratigic Victory leads to a conclusion of the conflict.

In the last half of the 20th Century, as time and technology has had an impact, the way in which combat and combat outcomes are evolving has forced a change in the way military outcomes are evaluated. Very few conflicts are fought on the basis of "Win or Lose." If the Korean War did not demonstrate this, surely the Vietnam War did, when over 95% of the combat engagements were either decisive tactical victories or decisive operational victories. Yet, from a political and diplomatic standpoint the outcome was unsatisfactory.

In the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict, while the IDF has demonstrated that it can consistently produce military victories across the board, and decisively defeat the opposing Arab forces on a number of different levels, it has yet to achieve the Decisive Strategic Victory that would bring the conflict to a resolution. But there is no question that by 1948, Israel entered into an Armistice with all four major warring parties with a clear military advantage. Similarly, the same can be said for the for the 1967 Six-Day War in which the Israelis were able to adjust the lines forming the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA) and consolidate its positions into much more defendable positions. This proved to be extremely useful in the 1973 Yom Kipper War which was an effective surprise on the part of the Arab Opponents (nine Arab States Involved), launching a two-front coordinated attack, did not turn-out so well for the Hostile Arab Forces. The Egyptian Third Army was surrounded, and their supplies were cut-off. Similarly Syrian Forces endured major setbacks and lost even ore ground to the IDF. Egypt, faced with the loss of an entire Army sought-out the Soviets for help in pressing Israel to accept a cease-fire. While this, again was a very decisive Operational Victory, and a Decisive Defeat for the Arab Forces, it still did not achieve a total end to the Arab-Israel Conflict. The Political and Diplomatic position of the Israelis was somewhat improved, but only marginally.

Today, the Yom Kipper War is more than four decades past. While there is no question that militarily, Israel has come through each of the major conflicts, and all the minor conflict, in the superior military position; it has yet to achieve that final Decisive Strategic Victory. This is in part because, as effective the IDF is, the Political and Diplomatic backbone of Israel is considerably less effective. It is extremely ineffective in dealing with the asymmetric political characteristics of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.

But make no mistake. While there is some truth that Israel has not "Won" the war; which has yet to end. It has continently been "Victorious." Out of the nine (or so) Arab states that have marshaled against Israel on more than one occasion, they have yet been in a position to claim any victories beyond the very few marginal tactical level.

Terminology like "win" or "lose" are early 20th Century descriptions for a world that was far less complicated then today.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thank you for the dissertation, however, it did not address my post.

(COMMENT)

And by no means is this a "dissertation" (a new treatise).

Most Respectfully,
R

You didn't address my post.

I've already proved with links that Israel won the 1948 war. You provided nothing (as usual) to back up your points.

 

[flacaltenn]

Sorry to interrupt the same ole history feud here. But I have a serious question about the OP..

From the link..
At a special meeting in Gaza on Thursday held on the occasion of Nakba Day, the Palestinian parliament stated that the entire "land of Palestine" is an Islamic endowment, and the Jews have no right to even a single inch of it.

Nakba Day is the day on which Arabs mourn what they view as the "disaster" of the founding of the State of Israel in 1948. It is marked on May 14, the day in 1948 on which Israel became a state.

The parliament also stressed that the "right of return" is a sacred collective and private right and cannot be given up, and added that the Palestinians will never agree to the settlement of the so-called "Palestinian refugees" outside the territory of "Palestine" nor will they ever agree to recognize Israel.

I think this is largely inflammatory BS.. The Pali Parliarment has been pretty much AWOL since the Hamas-Fatah war.. And I'm not aware that it meets in GAZA. (not even sure if it meets at all anymore).. I'm CERTAIN that this sounds just like Hamas dogma. Certainly not that of the Abbas led faction.

And it truly seems that a radio site cheering on Armageddon just might want to mix shit up on purpose. Carry on with ancient history.

The FUTURE resides in Palestine and Israel realizing that peace and prosperity lies in SHARED investment in security and trade and socio-economic cooperation.. Hamas can go to hell. Under current MidEast conditions, An independent Palestine would last about a month before the ISIS flag was flying. Really need to get both sides to mutually recognize their precarious position and agree to mutual defense.

 

[aris2chat]

Sorry to interrupt the same ole history feud here. But I have a serious question about the OP..

From the link..
At a special meeting in Gaza on Thursday held on the occasion of Nakba Day, the Palestinian parliament stated that the entire "land of Palestine" is an Islamic endowment, and the Jews have no right to even a single inch of it.

Nakba Day is the day on which Arabs mourn what they view as the "disaster" of the founding of the State of Israel in 1948. It is marked on May 14, the day in 1948 on which Israel became a state.

The parliament also stressed that the "right of return" is a sacred collective and private right and cannot be given up, and added that the Palestinians will never agree to the settlement of the so-called "Palestinian refugees" outside the territory of "Palestine" nor will they ever agree to recognize Israel.

I think this is largely inflammatory BS.. The Pali Parliarment has been pretty much AWOL since the Hamas-Fatah war.. And I'm not aware that it meets in GAZA. (not even sure if it meets at all anymore).. I'm CERTAIN that this sounds just like Hamas dogma. Certainly not that of the Abbas led faction.

And it truly seems that a radio site cheering on Armageddon just might want to mix shit up on purpose. Carry on with ancient history.

The FUTURE resides in Palestine and Israel realizing that peace and prosperity lies in SHARED investment in security and trade and socio-economic cooperation.. Hamas can go to hell. Under current MidEast conditions, An independent Palestine would last about a month before the ISIS flag was flying. Really need to get both sides to mutually recognize their precarious position and agree to mutual defense.

The 'right of return' is why Abbas does not want refugees in Syria to get safe passage to the WB. He would rather see them die than move to the WB. A bit like Arafat not wanted refugee to leave Tel Zaatar. He ordered them shot rather than leave.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore,

Quit being a wise ass.

Now can we get back to my question that you have been ducking?

(COMMENT)

What is your question?

Most Respectfully,
R

In the case of "Hamas attacks in Palestine;" this is a variation on the Palestinian Theme that "Palestine exists from the river to the sea."​

Do you have anything to prove otherwise?

Mandate of Palestine as enacted by the LoN in 1923, not to be confused with the British Mandate

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, one more time.

The State of Palestine is defined as:

Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfills the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
SOURCE: A/RES/67/19 4 DECEMBER 2012

P F Tinmore,

Quit being a wise ass.

Now can we get back to my question that you have been ducking?

(COMMENT)

What is your question?

Most Respectfully,
R

In the case of "Hamas attacks in Palestine;" this is a variation on the Palestinian Theme that "Palestine exists from the river to the sea."​

Do you have anything to prove otherwise?

(COMMENT)

In the context (the proper context in which this statement was made) the inference being made by the Palestinians is that the "Palestine" as surrendered by the Ottoman Empire to the Allied Powers --- a lesser included, arbitrary geographic area, as determined by the Allied Powers, was somehow:

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

There is no formal agreement, convention, resolution or treaty that stipulates or substantiates these claims made by the former enemy aligned Arab elements of WWI (Central Powers), WWII (Axis Powers), or the regional security threat by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) aligned with the Palestinian Arab Irregular Force (PAIF) (Holy War Army or the Arab Liberation Army) that allocates sovereignty to the HoAP/PAIF of any surrendered territory.

There is a bit of an absurdity here in the HoAP claim.

The outcome was the Partition Plan. The General Assembly adopted a Plan in 1947 which culminated in the Civil War between the Palestinian Arab Irregular Force (PAIF) and Jewish Community Forces/Israel Defense Forces (IDF):

• PAIF: in the 1947-48 led by Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni [killed in operations (April '48) before Israeli Independence] and Hasan Salama. Salama a former member of the Waffen SS and leader in WWII Operations jointly operated by Sicherheitsdienst (SS/SD) and Grand Mufti al-Husseini. It should be noted here that a VERY IMPORTANT aspect of the conflict was encapsulated in the fact that was already known to the Security Forces of the Mandatory and the Jewish Haganah. In addition to his WWII duties for the SS [establishing and supporting the communication and intelligence facilities for the Abwehr (German military intelligence), recruiting and arming anti-British Palestinians] Hasan Salama was tasked with general harassment of the British Mandatory.
• SIDE NOTES:
  • In June 1948 in the early stages of the War for Independence, Hasan Salama was killed after a disastrous engagement with the Haganah in the Battle for Ras el-Ein.
  • Hasan Salama was the father to Ali Hasan Salama, principle planner for the 1972 Olympic Massacre by Black September.

When looking at this from a very practical standpoint, the Allied Powers do not normally bow to the demands made by non-aligned forces that fought on the side of enemy; especially the Axis Powers. Palestine, from the time the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA - 1918) was established --- until --- the termination of the British Mandate (1948), was defined under the Palestine Order in Council as those "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."

The HoAP/PAIF have nothing comparable to this documentary evidence. And in practice, the HoAP/PAIF have no historical past, for more than a thousand years, that they had sovereign control over any of the territory they claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

When did the European colonists have sovereign control over any of the territory they claimed, prior to partition?

When the LoN granted them sovereignty through the Mandate of Palestine in 1923, the same time they granted arab muslims sovereignty of trans Jordan through the mandate of Palestine 1923

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

State that declare independence are declaring a change in their status. They are changing status from a "non-self-governing" entity to a "self-governing entity."

Israel declared independence from whom?

With whom did Israel fight its war of independence?

(COMMENT)

Actually, the War of Independence was a "complex war."

• After the Declaration of Independence, the "Civil War" spilled-over into the War of Independence between Israeli Forces and the combined indigenous irregular forces (Holy War Army and Arab Army of Liberation).

• Upon Declaring Independence, a Coalition of Arab Forces attacked. The primary force elements came from the Arab League provided by Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon with additional forces from Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The Irregular Force from Egypt (Muslim Brotherhood) and volunteers from Yemen, Pakistan and Sudan joined in the assault.

There was an Armistice put in place in 1949. The war ended with Egypt and Jordan. However the war is not yet been concluded between Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan and Sudan. The Muslim Brotherhood and the HAMAS are related and it appears that the war is not concluded with them.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is much confusion over the creation of Israel. I think it is all by design. There are many loose ends that people dance around without presenting anything conclusive.

One point that sticks out for me is Israel claiming to win land in wars that it experienced no victories.

Winning land is a victory, and when the land is unclaimed it is not in breach of any UN resolution or its charter

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, one more time.

The State of Palestine is defined as:

Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfills the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
SOURCE: A/RES/67/19 4 DECEMBER 2012

P F Tinmore,

Quit being a wise ass.

Now can we get back to my question that you have been ducking?

(COMMENT)

What is your question?

Most Respectfully,
R

In the case of "Hamas attacks in Palestine;" this is a variation on the Palestinian Theme that "Palestine exists from the river to the sea."​

Do you have anything to prove otherwise?

(COMMENT)

In the context (the proper context in which this statement was made) the inference being made by the Palestinians is that the "Palestine" as surrendered by the Ottoman Empire to the Allied Powers --- a lesser included, arbitrary geographic area, as determined by the Allied Powers, was somehow:

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

There is no formal agreement, convention, resolution or treaty that stipulates or substantiates these claims made by the former enemy aligned Arab elements of WWI (Central Powers), WWII (Axis Powers), or the regional security threat by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) aligned with the Palestinian Arab Irregular Force (PAIF) (Holy War Army or the Arab Liberation Army) that allocates sovereignty to the HoAP/PAIF of any surrendered territory.

There is a bit of an absurdity here in the HoAP claim.

The outcome was the Partition Plan. The General Assembly adopted a Plan in 1947 which culminated in the Civil War between the Palestinian Arab Irregular Force (PAIF) and Jewish Community Forces/Israel Defense Forces (IDF):

• PAIF: in the 1947-48 led by Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni [killed in operations (April '48) before Israeli Independence] and Hasan Salama. Salama a former member of the Waffen SS and leader in WWII Operations jointly operated by Sicherheitsdienst (SS/SD) and Grand Mufti al-Husseini. It should be noted here that a VERY IMPORTANT aspect of the conflict was encapsulated in the fact that was already known to the Security Forces of the Mandatory and the Jewish Haganah. In addition to his WWII duties for the SS [establishing and supporting the communication and intelligence facilities for the Abwehr (German military intelligence), recruiting and arming anti-British Palestinians] Hasan Salama was tasked with general harassment of the British Mandatory.
• SIDE NOTES:
  • In June 1948 in the early stages of the War for Independence, Hasan Salama was killed after a disastrous engagement with the Haganah in the Battle for Ras el-Ein.
  • Hasan Salama was the father to Ali Hasan Salama, principle planner for the 1972 Olympic Massacre by Black September.

When looking at this from a very practical standpoint, the Allied Powers do not normally bow to the demands made by non-aligned forces that fought on the side of enemy; especially the Axis Powers. Palestine, from the time the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA - 1918) was established --- until --- the termination of the British Mandate (1948), was defined under the Palestine Order in Council as those "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."

The HoAP/PAIF have nothing comparable to this documentary evidence. And in practice, the HoAP/PAIF have no historical past, for more than a thousand years, that they had sovereign control over any of the territory they claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

You are still not showing proof that this is not true.

Irael's declaration of Independence 1948, and the LoN mandate of Palestine 1923

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, one more time.

The State of Palestine is defined as:

Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfills the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
SOURCE: A/RES/67/19 4 DECEMBER 2012

P F Tinmore,

Quit being a wise ass.

(COMMENT)

What is your question?

Most Respectfully,
R

In the case of "Hamas attacks in Palestine;" this is a variation on the Palestinian Theme that "Palestine exists from the river to the sea."​

Do you have anything to prove otherwise?

(COMMENT)

In the context (the proper context in which this statement was made) the inference being made by the Palestinians is that the "Palestine" as surrendered by the Ottoman Empire to the Allied Powers --- a lesser included, arbitrary geographic area, as determined by the Allied Powers, was somehow:

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

There is no formal agreement, convention, resolution or treaty that stipulates or substantiates these claims made by the former enemy aligned Arab elements of WWI (Central Powers), WWII (Axis Powers), or the regional security threat by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) aligned with the Palestinian Arab Irregular Force (PAIF) (Holy War Army or the Arab Liberation Army) that allocates sovereignty to the HoAP/PAIF of any surrendered territory.

There is a bit of an absurdity here in the HoAP claim.

The outcome was the Partition Plan. The General Assembly adopted a Plan in 1947 which culminated in the Civil War between the Palestinian Arab Irregular Force (PAIF) and Jewish Community Forces/Israel Defense Forces (IDF):

• PAIF: in the 1947-48 led by Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni [killed in operations (April '48) before Israeli Independence] and Hasan Salama. Salama a former member of the Waffen SS and leader in WWII Operations jointly operated by Sicherheitsdienst (SS/SD) and Grand Mufti al-Husseini. It should be noted here that a VERY IMPORTANT aspect of the conflict was encapsulated in the fact that was already known to the Security Forces of the Mandatory and the Jewish Haganah. In addition to his WWII duties for the SS [establishing and supporting the communication and intelligence facilities for the Abwehr (German military intelligence), recruiting and arming anti-British Palestinians] Hasan Salama was tasked with general harassment of the British Mandatory.
• SIDE NOTES:
  • In June 1948 in the early stages of the War for Independence, Hasan Salama was killed after a disastrous engagement with the Haganah in the Battle for Ras el-Ein.
  • Hasan Salama was the father to Ali Hasan Salama, principle planner for the 1972 Olympic Massacre by Black September.

When looking at this from a very practical standpoint, the Allied Powers do not normally bow to the demands made by non-aligned forces that fought on the side of enemy; especially the Axis Powers. Palestine, from the time the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA - 1918) was established --- until --- the termination of the British Mandate (1948), was defined under the Palestine Order in Council as those "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."

The HoAP/PAIF have nothing comparable to this documentary evidence. And in practice, the HoAP/PAIF have no historical past, for more than a thousand years, that they had sovereign control over any of the territory they claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

You are still not showing proof that this is not true.

Oh Tinmore, what are we to do with you. The borrom line is this. Israel exists as a country & Israel is there to stay as a country, whatever it takes. Cheer up & deal with it instead of being so miserable over what is reality.

That's what the Rhodesians and white South Africans said.

OFF TOPIC SPAMMING AGAIN

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

The Allied Powers never claimed sovereignty.

When did the European colonists have sovereign control over any of the territory they claimed, prior to partition?

(COMMENT)

The territories were surrendered to the Allied Powers. The Ottoman Unconditional Surrender 1918 was the essentially the end of the Ottoman engagement in WWI.

Partition has nothing to do with the award or establishment of sovereignty. The Anglo-Jordanian Treaty recognized Sovereignty of the Emir. However, the Jewish exercised self-determination under UN Guidance; moving from non-self governing to self-governing.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, why do you make a point of the fact that the indigenous Christians and Muslims had not had sovereignty? The European colonists hadn't it either. Try to be consistent.

They did when they allowed Egypt and Jordan to annexe their lands and take control, that was them declaring their self determination the first time. So you see they give up their rights and then when they fall foul of their own stupidity they demand they be returned retrospectively

 

[Phoenall]

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.

2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim

3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; and it will not be long, God willing.​

You are still not showing proof that this is not true.

Oh Tinmore, what are we to do with you. The borrom line is this. Israel exists as a country & Israel is there to stay as a country, whatever it takes. Cheer up & deal with it instead of being so miserable over what is reality.

That's what the Rhodesians and white South Africans said.

What an incredibly dumb comparison.

What's the difference?

If you don't know the difference between Israelis & Israel and Rhodesians & Africa, then you have issues.

He just has to have the last word.............

 

[MJB12741]

Sorry to interrupt the same ole history feud here. But I have a serious question about the OP..

From the link..
At a special meeting in Gaza on Thursday held on the occasion of Nakba Day, the Palestinian parliament stated that the entire "land of Palestine" is an Islamic endowment, and the Jews have no right to even a single inch of it.

Nakba Day is the day on which Arabs mourn what they view as the "disaster" of the founding of the State of Israel in 1948. It is marked on May 14, the day in 1948 on which Israel became a state.

The parliament also stressed that the "right of return" is a sacred collective and private right and cannot be given up, and added that the Palestinians will never agree to the settlement of the so-called "Palestinian refugees" outside the territory of "Palestine" nor will they ever agree to recognize Israel.

I think this is largely inflammatory BS.. The Pali Parliarment has been pretty much AWOL since the Hamas-Fatah war.. And I'm not aware that it meets in GAZA. (not even sure if it meets at all anymore).. I'm CERTAIN that this sounds just like Hamas dogma. Certainly not that of the Abbas led faction.

And it truly seems that a radio site cheering on Armageddon just might want to mix shit up on purpose. Carry on with ancient history.

The FUTURE resides in Palestine and Israel realizing that peace and prosperity lies in SHARED investment in security and trade and socio-economic cooperation.. Hamas can go to hell. Under current MidEast conditions, An independent Palestine would last about a month before the ISIS flag was flying. Really need to get both sides to mutually recognize their precarious position and agree to mutual defense.

The 'right of return' is why Abbas does not want refugees in Syria to get safe passage to the WB. He would rather see them die than move to the WB. A bit like Arafat not wanted refugee to leave Tel Zaatar. He ordered them shot rather than leave.

No Arab nation will grant their Palestinians a right of return. How relieved they are to have Israel to deal with their Palestinians.