Palestinian Peace Proposal

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you are trying to change the argument.

Did the Covenant say certain communities except for Palestine.

I didn't see that in there.

(COMMENT)

First, the Covenant never mentions "Palestine." So why would it make it an exception?

Second, the argument, as specified in Posting #342 was that: "It also had provisional statehood per the League of Nations." And I argue this to be inaccurate; and stated why I believe it to be so.

Most Respectfully,
R

No, Palestine had provisional statehood per the League of Nations Covenant, in no way did you demonstrate that this was inaccurate. In fact, Lord Curzon's clarification further confirms that you are full of shit, Rocco.

What's really funny is that you think you have refuted Rocco's post, but really all you did was make a fool of yourself again.
It's not Rocco's fault you can't accept the truth.

 

[Phoenall]

...No, Palestine had provisional statehood per the League of Nations Covenant, in no way did you demonstrate that this was inaccurate. In fact, Lord Curzon's clarification further confirms that you are full of shit, Rocco.

"provisional" statehood?

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha !!!

Uhhhhh... yeah... I had an old girlfriend or two to whom I was "provisionally" committed... I got what I wanted... they got most of what they wanted... except real 'statehood'.

In the end, they figured it out, and moved on... making room for the real 'statehoodl' which followed (which involved someone different and which looked nothing like their un-realized vision).

"Provisional" statehood?

Is that the best you've got, boy?

Either you're a state, or you're not.

Either the so-called Palestinians were a recognizable people (a tribe, an ethnicity, etc.) or they were not - and they were not - a ragtag and diverse collection of tribals drifting into the region in the century or so spanning 1850-1950, to work for newly-arrived Jewish settler-farms and shops... mixed with some long-term residents of the region.

Either the so-called Palestinians were an autonomous, self-governing polity or they were not - and they were not - they've never been numerous enough or competent enough to obtain and sustain self-rule or home-rule.

And - given their scattered and diverse origins and status - and given their political incompetency - others (the LoN, the Brits, the UN, et al) made their decisions for them, like the little children they were (and still are) in a political context.

Hell, they only hold two postage-stamp -sized slivers of land - the West Bank and Gaza - and they still can't hold themselves together - and have been fighting tooth-and-nail (Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah) amongst themselves and hate each other almost as much as they hate the Jews of Israel.

Who gives a shit, what they want, and who gives a shit, how badly they twist and warp and try (and fail) to re-write history, to suit their purposes?

They're under-performers and oath-breakers and killers of their own civilian men, women and children.

They're losers.

To hell with them.

Literally.

They've lost.

Years ago.

Time to stop beating their Neanderthal skulls against the wall.

Time to leave.

They've lost.​

Big fat lie. Look in the news. The war continues.

Israel hasn't won shit.

They have won more than the arab muslims have just by looking at the size holdings now compared to 1948. And I am not talking about the occupied territories from 1967 either. Who has a seat in the UN as a full member, who has a viable economy, who has shown full free determination and who has a proper nation.

When Israel occupied Palestine is not disputed.

But when Israel won (legally acquired) land has not been proven.

If it is not disputed then you can give the exact date that Israel occupied Palestine ?

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, Kondor3, P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not accurate.

(COMMENT)

Palestine was NOT necessarily given provisional recognition by the Covenant; but it had potential.

The Covenant never mentions Palestine even once in the text. What it says is:

​

The word "certain" implies "not all." If they would have meant that all communities were provisionally recognized, then the would have said: "ALL." But they did not. In the case of the Mandate for Palestine, certainly Trans-Jordan, which was promised to the Sharif of Mecca as a Kingdom for one of his sons, was "provisionally recognized."

Second, the Arab Higher Committee was demanding the entire expanse under the Mandate (from the River to the Sea). Nothing of the sort was promised in the Covenant.

The Political History of Palestine under

British Administration
-----
Memorandum by
His Britannic Majesty's Government
presented in 1947
to the United Nations Special Committee
on Palestine
Published at Jerusalem, 1947​

87. The members of the Peel Commission were led by their diagnosis of the situation in Palestine to the conclusion that the obligations imposed upon the Mandatory by the terms of the Mandate were mutually irreconcilable.​

“To put it in one sentence, we cannot-in Palestine as it now is-both concede the Arab claim to self-government and secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home.”​

​

88. In these circumstances the maintenance of the Mandate would mean the indefinite continuance of unrest and disturbance. The Commission therefore recommended that His Majesty’s Government should take steps to terminate the Mandate and to partition the country in such a way as to create an independent Jewish State in the north and west, and to incorporate most of the remaining territory in Trans-Jordan.​

“Manifestly”, the Commission wrote, “the problem cannot be solved by giving either the Arabs or the Jews all they want. The answer to the question ‘which of them in the end will govern Palestine?’ must surely be ‘Neither.’ We do not think that any fair-minded statesman would suppose, now that the hope of harmony between the races has proved untenable, that Britain ought either to hand over to Arab rule 400,000 Jews, whose entry into Palestine has been for the most part facilitated by the British Government and approved by the League of Nations; or that, if the Jews should become a majority, a million or so of Arabs should be handed over to their rule. But, while neither race can justly rule all Palestine, we see no reason why, if it were practicable, each race should not rule part of it.”​

89. The Commission believed that partition on the lines they proposed, while demanding from both Arabs and Jews some sacrifice of their aspirations, would confer on each of them substantial advantages. A large part of the Arab population would obtain its independence, and would be finally delivered from the possibility of ultimate subjection to Jewish rule. The Jews, conversely, would be secured against the possibility of subjection to Arab rule, and would be free to determine their own rate of immigration. To both peoples partition would offer the prospect of peace. “it is surely worth some sacrifice on both sides if the quarrel which the Mandate started could be ended with its termination.”​

129. The twelve members of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, working with a time limit of 120 days, held their first meeting in Washington on 4th January, 1946, and signed an unanimous Report at Lausanne on 20th April.​

The committee recommended that the constitutional future of Palestine should be based on three principles:-​

I. That Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not dominate Jew in Palestine​

II. That Palestine shall be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab state.​

III. That the form of government ultimately to be established, shall, under international guarantees, fully protect and preserve the interests in the Holy land of Christendom and of the Moslem and Jewish Faiths.​

Third, the Arab Palestinians never stipulated that they were able to "stand alone;" nor did they practically demonstrate the required criteria.

It was not intended, that the remainder of the Mandate be dominated by Arab Palestinian rule. Palestine (less the Article 25 carve-out for Jordan) was not going to be totally ruled under Arab Sovereignty.

The Question is: What are YOU talking about?

Most Respectfully,
R

87. The members of the Peel Commission were led by their diagnosis of the situation in Palestine to the conclusion that the obligations imposed upon the Mandatory by the terms of the Mandate were mutually irreconcilable.​

Indeed, their stupid plan was a big flop. So they planned for partition which was also a big flop.

When Britain stuck the UN with the problem, the UN suggested partition that had already flopped and they knew it was going to flop too but they did it anyway and it flopped.

It is amazing how much stupidity can be assembled into such a small group of people

The first partition gave the arab muslims the majority of Palestine, and that was acceptable. What was never acceptable was the Jews owning land in Palestine and having a national home, even after the then leader of the arab muslims had agreed to The Jews having a small part of Palestine. So as any sane intelligent person can see the problem has always been one created by the arab muslims through greed and religious commands

That is not the point but keep slinging that shit.

It is the whole point and you are too hateful to accept it. The problems did not start in 1967, 1948, 1931,1929, 1923 or 1875. They started in 635C.E. when Mohamed went on a witch hunt to steal the land and property of the Jews in Medina. He issued the command to "KILL THE JEWS" and that is what the muslims have been doing since.

So, for over a thousand years no Jews attempted to reclaim their land?

Then a bunch of Europeans who had no ancestors from the land claimed it to be theirs.

Nor did any arab muslim, until the LoN made the National Home of the Jews a possibility and suddenly they had owned the land for over 2000 years. Now arab muslims that had never even seen Palestine are claiming they lived there for eternity.

You forget that under International law of 1923 the Jews were granted sovereignty of 22% of Palestine, at the same time arab muslims were granted 78% of Palestine.

 

[Kondor3]

They've lost.

Big fat lie. Look in the news. The war continues. Israel hasn't won shit.

If you say so, Tinny...

Trouble is, your (side's) own propaganda maps tell us a far different story...

And the beat-down that Hamas just received last summer...

...put a cap in their ass.

By any sane standard, that's a loss...

Then again, I keep forgetting that the beneficiaries of your fifth-columnist advocacy are not 'sane'...

So, it becomes a Mad Dog Hunt, rather than a War...

An equally acceptable End-Game approach.

The Reconquista continues apace...

Annexation and consolidation continue...

The universe continues to unfold as it should.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you are trying to change the argument.

Did the Covenant say certain communities except for Palestine.

I didn't see that in there.

(COMMENT)

First, the Covenant never mentions "Palestine." So why would it make it an exception?

Second, the argument, as specified in Posting #342 was that: "It also had provisional statehood per the League of Nations." And I argue this to be inaccurate; and stated why I believe it to be so.

Most Respectfully,
R

No, Palestine had provisional statehood per the League of Nations Covenant, in no way did you demonstrate that this was inaccurate. In fact, Lord Curzon's clarification further confirms that you are full of shit, Rocco.

What's really funny is that you think you have refuted Rocco's post, but really all you did was make a fool of yourself again.
It's not Rocco's fault you can't accept the truth.

Toast, making things up doesn't make them true. Rocco is just blustering, knows he is wrong. Lord Curzon's letter just reconfirms that Palestine was assigned to Britain as a Class A mandate, although is not needed as the Covenant itself confirms the fact.

Article 22 of the Covenant established the Mandates System, it was founded on the concept of the development of such territories under the protection and tutelage of an advanced nation. The degree of tutelage was to depend on the extent of political development of the people in the territory concerned. The most developed were classified as 'A' Mandates, the less developed as 'B', and the least developed as 'C'.

The clause below applied to Palestine just as much as it applied to Trans-Jordania, Iraq, Syria etc.

• 
  "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

Palestine was in not excluded from the provision. Palestine was certainly not less developed than Trans-Jordania.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you are trying to change the argument.

Did the Covenant say certain communities except for Palestine.

I didn't see that in there.

(COMMENT)

First, the Covenant never mentions "Palestine." So why would it make it an exception?

Second, the argument, as specified in Posting #342 was that: "It also had provisional statehood per the League of Nations." And I argue this to be inaccurate; and stated why I believe it to be so.

Most Respectfully,
R

No, Palestine had provisional statehood per the League of Nations Covenant, in no way did you demonstrate that this was inaccurate. In fact, Lord Curzon's clarification further confirms that you are full of shit, Rocco.

What's really funny is that you think you have refuted Rocco's post, but really all you did was make a fool of yourself again.
It's not Rocco's fault you can't accept the truth.

Toast, making things up doesn't make them true. Rocco is just blustering, knows he is wrong. Lord Curzon's letter just reconfirms that Palestine was assigned to Britain as a Class A mandate, although is not needed as the Covenant itself confirms the fact.

Article 22 of the Covenant established the Mandates System, it was founded on the concept of the development of such territories under the protection and tutelage of an advanced nation. The degree of tutelage was to depend on the extent of political development of the people in the territory concerned. The most developed were classified as 'A' Mandates, the less developed as 'B', and the least developed as 'C'.

The clause below applied to Palestine just as much as it applied to Trans-Jordania, Iraq, Syria etc.

• 
  "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

Palestine was in not excluded from the provision. Palestine was certainly not less developed than Trans-Jordania.

"making things up doesn't make them true"

What the hell do you think I've been trying to tell for for the last several months ??? Making up crap is what you do every time you post here.

 

[P F Tinmore]

...No, Palestine had provisional statehood per the League of Nations Covenant, in no way did you demonstrate that this was inaccurate. In fact, Lord Curzon's clarification further confirms that you are full of shit, Rocco.

"provisional" statehood?

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha !!!

Uhhhhh... yeah... I had an old girlfriend or two to whom I was "provisionally" committed... I got what I wanted... they got most of what they wanted... except real 'statehood'.

In the end, they figured it out, and moved on... making room for the real 'statehoodl' which followed (which involved someone different and which looked nothing like their un-realized vision).

"Provisional" statehood?

Is that the best you've got, boy?

Either you're a state, or you're not.

Either the so-called Palestinians were a recognizable people (a tribe, an ethnicity, etc.) or they were not - and they were not - a ragtag and diverse collection of tribals drifting into the region in the century or so spanning 1850-1950, to work for newly-arrived Jewish settler-farms and shops... mixed with some long-term residents of the region.

Either the so-called Palestinians were an autonomous, self-governing polity or they were not - and they were not - they've never been numerous enough or competent enough to obtain and sustain self-rule or home-rule.

And - given their scattered and diverse origins and status - and given their political incompetency - others (the LoN, the Brits, the UN, et al) made their decisions for them, like the little children they were (and still are) in a political context.

Hell, they only hold two postage-stamp -sized slivers of land - the West Bank and Gaza - and they still can't hold themselves together - and have been fighting tooth-and-nail (Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah) amongst themselves and hate each other almost as much as they hate the Jews of Israel.

Who gives a shit, what they want, and who gives a shit, how badly they twist and warp and try (and fail) to re-write history, to suit their purposes?

They're under-performers and oath-breakers and killers of their own civilian men, women and children.

They're losers.

To hell with them.

Literally.

They've lost.

Years ago.

Time to stop beating their Neanderthal skulls against the wall.

Time to leave.

They've lost.​

Big fat lie. Look in the news. The war continues.

Israel hasn't won shit.

They have won more than the arab muslims have just by looking at the size holdings now compared to 1948. And I am not talking about the occupied territories from 1967 either. Who has a seat in the UN as a full member, who has a viable economy, who has shown full free determination and who has a proper nation.

When Israel occupied Palestine is not disputed.

But when Israel won (legally acquired) land has not been proven.

That's because acquiring land is not and has never been the issue. It's something you made up and you yourself have yet to prove that it is pre requisite for statehood.
Keep it up with your usual lies Tinmore, keep it up.

I didn't make it up.It is part of the final status negotiations.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you are trying to change the argument.

Did the Covenant say certain communities except for Palestine.

I didn't see that in there.

(COMMENT)

First, the Covenant never mentions "Palestine." So why would it make it an exception?

Second, the argument, as specified in Posting #342 was that: "It also had provisional statehood per the League of Nations." And I argue this to be inaccurate; and stated why I believe it to be so.

Most Respectfully,
R

No, Palestine had provisional statehood per the League of Nations Covenant, in no way did you demonstrate that this was inaccurate. In fact, Lord Curzon's clarification further confirms that you are full of shit, Rocco.

What's really funny is that you think you have refuted Rocco's post, but really all you did was make a fool of yourself again.
It's not Rocco's fault you can't accept the truth.

Toast, making things up doesn't make them true. Rocco is just blustering, knows he is wrong. Lord Curzon's letter just reconfirms that Palestine was assigned to Britain as a Class A mandate, although is not needed as the Covenant itself confirms the fact.

Article 22 of the Covenant established the Mandates System, it was founded on the concept of the development of such territories under the protection and tutelage of an advanced nation. The degree of tutelage was to depend on the extent of political development of the people in the territory concerned. The most developed were classified as 'A' Mandates, the less developed as 'B', and the least developed as 'C'.

The clause below applied to Palestine just as much as it applied to Trans-Jordania, Iraq, Syria etc.

• 
  "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

Palestine was in not excluded from the provision. Palestine was certainly not less developed than Trans-Jordania.

"making things up doesn't make them true"

What the hell do you think I've been trying to tell for for the last several months ??? Making up crap is what you do every time you post here.

I only post fact. You only post propaganda. That's a fact.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you are trying to change the argument.

(COMMENT)

First, the Covenant never mentions "Palestine." So why would it make it an exception?

Second, the argument, as specified in Posting #342 was that: "It also had provisional statehood per the League of Nations." And I argue this to be inaccurate; and stated why I believe it to be so.

Most Respectfully,
R

No, Palestine had provisional statehood per the League of Nations Covenant, in no way did you demonstrate that this was inaccurate. In fact, Lord Curzon's clarification further confirms that you are full of shit, Rocco.

What's really funny is that you think you have refuted Rocco's post, but really all you did was make a fool of yourself again.
It's not Rocco's fault you can't accept the truth.

Toast, making things up doesn't make them true. Rocco is just blustering, knows he is wrong. Lord Curzon's letter just reconfirms that Palestine was assigned to Britain as a Class A mandate, although is not needed as the Covenant itself confirms the fact.

Article 22 of the Covenant established the Mandates System, it was founded on the concept of the development of such territories under the protection and tutelage of an advanced nation. The degree of tutelage was to depend on the extent of political development of the people in the territory concerned. The most developed were classified as 'A' Mandates, the less developed as 'B', and the least developed as 'C'.

The clause below applied to Palestine just as much as it applied to Trans-Jordania, Iraq, Syria etc.

• 
  "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

Palestine was in not excluded from the provision. Palestine was certainly not less developed than Trans-Jordania.

"making things up doesn't make them true"

What the hell do you think I've been trying to tell for for the last several months ??? Making up crap is what you do every time you post here.

I only post fact. You only post propaganda. That's a fact.

Not only are you a massive propagandist , but you are clearly a uneducated moron. I would be surprised if you have a high school diploma.

Sorry Monti, but you truly are a dumbass ! BIG time !

 

[toastman]

"provisional" statehood?

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha !!!

Uhhhhh... yeah... I had an old girlfriend or two to whom I was "provisionally" committed... I got what I wanted... they got most of what they wanted... except real 'statehood'.

In the end, they figured it out, and moved on... making room for the real 'statehoodl' which followed (which involved someone different and which looked nothing like their un-realized vision).

"Provisional" statehood?

Is that the best you've got, boy?

Either you're a state, or you're not.

Either the so-called Palestinians were a recognizable people (a tribe, an ethnicity, etc.) or they were not - and they were not - a ragtag and diverse collection of tribals drifting into the region in the century or so spanning 1850-1950, to work for newly-arrived Jewish settler-farms and shops... mixed with some long-term residents of the region.

Either the so-called Palestinians were an autonomous, self-governing polity or they were not - and they were not - they've never been numerous enough or competent enough to obtain and sustain self-rule or home-rule.

And - given their scattered and diverse origins and status - and given their political incompetency - others (the LoN, the Brits, the UN, et al) made their decisions for them, like the little children they were (and still are) in a political context.

Hell, they only hold two postage-stamp -sized slivers of land - the West Bank and Gaza - and they still can't hold themselves together - and have been fighting tooth-and-nail (Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah) amongst themselves and hate each other almost as much as they hate the Jews of Israel.

Who gives a shit, what they want, and who gives a shit, how badly they twist and warp and try (and fail) to re-write history, to suit their purposes?

They're under-performers and oath-breakers and killers of their own civilian men, women and children.

They're losers.

To hell with them.

Literally.

They've lost.

Years ago.

Time to stop beating their Neanderthal skulls against the wall.

Time to leave.

They've lost.​

Big fat lie. Look in the news. The war continues.

Israel hasn't won shit.

They have won more than the arab muslims have just by looking at the size holdings now compared to 1948. And I am not talking about the occupied territories from 1967 either. Who has a seat in the UN as a full member, who has a viable economy, who has shown full free determination and who has a proper nation.

When Israel occupied Palestine is not disputed.

But when Israel won (legally acquired) land has not been proven.

That's because acquiring land is not and has never been the issue. It's something you made up and you yourself have yet to prove that it is pre requisite for statehood.
Keep it up with your usual lies Tinmore, keep it up.

I didn't make it up.It is part of the final status negotiations.

You did make up the 'acquiring land' crap and claim it was needed for Israel to declare independence.

"It is part of the final status negotiations" Can you post it ?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are so close to being right, I almost hate to jump in. But...

That's because acquiring land is not and has never been the issue. It's something you made up and you yourself have yet to prove that it is pre requisite for statehood.
Keep it up with your usual lies Tinmore, keep it up.

I didn't make it up.It is part of the final status negotiations.

(COMMENT)

Clarification #1: The "Permanent Status of Negotiations" is a diplomatic aspect agreed upon in the Oslo Accords (I and II). It only applies to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) after June 1967 (Six Day War).

Clarification #2: The binding Charter, Article 2(4) (1945), stipulates that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." The Hostile Arab Palestinian use this as their justification:

• Arab Claim: In violation of the UN Partition Plan, Israel took an extra 15% of the land in 1948, and then, following the 1967 war, Israel confiscated East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
• Arab Claim: That the occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem since 1967 violate the Charter.

These claims have yet to be litigated or negotiated.

• In the first case, the Arab League was the aggressor. The first use of force was the attack by the Coalition of the Arab Forces.
• In the second case, Egypt was the aggressor and the first use of force was the closure of the Tiran Strait (which separate the Gulf of Aqaba from the Red Sea) to commercial traffic on the high seas --- in violation of the Armistice and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The first is consequence of unconditional War reparations for the 1948/49 unsuccessful attempt by the Arab League to collapse the Israeli Government. Such are payments in kind intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war that the Arab League initiated. While such war reparations usually refers to money or goods means of settlement, since Lebanon and Syria refused to negotiate a permanent peace arrangement (and Egypt and Jordan settled separately) than such occupation and inclusion of land was considered acceptable given the Armistice Lines acceptance which enclosed the lands. Should Lebanon and Syria at some later date wish to open negotiations for peace, the issue can be reopened. (Most informed observers think that neither Lebanon or Syria will ever negotiate for peace as long as Hezbollah remains the dominant Hostile actor in the region. Israel will have to wait for the collapse of both nations; which could happen given Iranian and ISIS/DEASH advances and the inability for the Arab League to render any meaning opposition. Once these two nations fall to a new regime, the matter of the territorial dispute will become no practical value or diplomatic meaning --- as the new regime can only claim sovereignty over that which they control.)

The later was settled by Treaty in 1979 with Egypt and support by the 1994 Treaty with Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

They've lost.​

Big fat lie. Look in the news. The war continues.

Israel hasn't won shit.

They have won more than the arab muslims have just by looking at the size holdings now compared to 1948. And I am not talking about the occupied territories from 1967 either. Who has a seat in the UN as a full member, who has a viable economy, who has shown full free determination and who has a proper nation.

When Israel occupied Palestine is not disputed.

But when Israel won (legally acquired) land has not been proven.

That's because acquiring land is not and has never been the issue. It's something you made up and you yourself have yet to prove that it is pre requisite for statehood.
Keep it up with your usual lies Tinmore, keep it up.

I didn't make it up.It is part of the final status negotiations.

You did make up the 'acquiring land' crap and claim it was needed for Israel to declare independence.

"It is part of the final status negotiations" Can you post it ?

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are so close to being right, I almost hate to jump in. But...

That's because acquiring land is not and has never been the issue. It's something you made up and you yourself have yet to prove that it is pre requisite for statehood.
Keep it up with your usual lies Tinmore, keep it up.

I didn't make it up.It is part of the final status negotiations.

(COMMENT)

Clarification #1: The "Permanent Status of Negotiations" is a diplomatic aspect agreed upon in the Oslo Accords (I and II). It only applies to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) after June 1967 (Six Day War).

Clarification #2: The binding Charter, Article 2(4) (1945), stipulates that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." The Hostile Arab Palestinian use this as their justification:

• Arab Claim: In violation of the UN Partition Plan, Israel took an extra 15% of the land in 1948, and then, following the 1967 war, Israel confiscated East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
• Arab Claim: That the occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem since 1967 violate the Charter.

These claims have yet to be litigated or negotiated.

• In the first case, the Arab League was the aggressor. The first use of force was the attack by the Coalition of the Arab Forces.
• In the second case, Egypt was the aggressor and the first use of force was the closure of the Tiran Strait (which separate the Gulf of Aqaba from the Red Sea) to commercial traffic on the high seas --- in violation of the Armistice and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The first is consequence of unconditional War reparations for the 1948/49 unsuccessful attempt by the Arab League to collapse the Israeli Government. Such are payments in kind intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war that the Arab League initiated. While such war reparations usually refers to money or goods means of settlement, since Lebanon and Syria refused to negotiate a permanent peace arrangement (and Egypt and Jordan settled separately) than such occupation and inclusion of land was considered acceptable given the Armistice Lines acceptance which enclosed the lands. Should Lebanon and Syria at some later date wish to open negotiations for peace, the issue can be reopened. (Most informed observers think that neither Lebanon or Syria will ever negotiate for peace as long as Hezbollah remains the dominant Hostile actor in the region. Israel will have to wait for the collapse of both nations; which could happen given Iranian and ISIS/DEASH advances and the inability for the Arab League to render any meaning opposition. Once these two nations fall to a new regime, the matter of the territorial dispute will become no practical value or diplomatic meaning --- as the new regime can only claim sovereignty over that which they control.)

The later was settled by Treaty in 1979 with Egypt and support by the 1994 Treaty with Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

WTF.

 

[toastman]

They have won more than the arab muslims have just by looking at the size holdings now compared to 1948. And I am not talking about the occupied territories from 1967 either. Who has a seat in the UN as a full member, who has a viable economy, who has shown full free determination and who has a proper nation.

When Israel occupied Palestine is not disputed.

But when Israel won (legally acquired) land has not been proven.

That's because acquiring land is not and has never been the issue. It's something you made up and you yourself have yet to prove that it is pre requisite for statehood.
Keep it up with your usual lies Tinmore, keep it up.

I didn't make it up.It is part of the final status negotiations.

You did make up the 'acquiring land' crap and claim it was needed for Israel to declare independence.

"It is part of the final status negotiations" Can you post it ?

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are so close to being right, I almost hate to jump in. But...

That's because acquiring land is not and has never been the issue. It's something you made up and you yourself have yet to prove that it is pre requisite for statehood.
Keep it up with your usual lies Tinmore, keep it up.

I didn't make it up.It is part of the final status negotiations.

(COMMENT)

Clarification #1: The "Permanent Status of Negotiations" is a diplomatic aspect agreed upon in the Oslo Accords (I and II). It only applies to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) after June 1967 (Six Day War).

Clarification #2: The binding Charter, Article 2(4) (1945), stipulates that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." The Hostile Arab Palestinian use this as their justification:

• Arab Claim: In violation of the UN Partition Plan, Israel took an extra 15% of the land in 1948, and then, following the 1967 war, Israel confiscated East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
• Arab Claim: That the occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem since 1967 violate the Charter.

These claims have yet to be litigated or negotiated.

• In the first case, the Arab League was the aggressor. The first use of force was the attack by the Coalition of the Arab Forces.
• In the second case, Egypt was the aggressor and the first use of force was the closure of the Tiran Strait (which separate the Gulf of Aqaba from the Red Sea) to commercial traffic on the high seas --- in violation of the Armistice and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The first is consequence of unconditional War reparations for the 1948/49 unsuccessful attempt by the Arab League to collapse the Israeli Government. Such are payments in kind intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war that the Arab League initiated. While such war reparations usually refers to money or goods means of settlement, since Lebanon and Syria refused to negotiate a permanent peace arrangement (and Egypt and Jordan settled separately) than such occupation and inclusion of land was considered acceptable given the Armistice Lines acceptance which enclosed the lands. Should Lebanon and Syria at some later date wish to open negotiations for peace, the issue can be reopened. (Most informed observers think that neither Lebanon or Syria will ever negotiate for peace as long as Hezbollah remains the dominant Hostile actor in the region. Israel will have to wait for the collapse of both nations; which could happen given Iranian and ISIS/DEASH advances and the inability for the Arab League to render any meaning opposition. Once these two nations fall to a new regime, the matter of the territorial dispute will become no practical value or diplomatic meaning --- as the new regime can only claim sovereignty over that which they control.)

The later was settled by Treaty in 1979 with Egypt and support by the 1994 Treaty with Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

WTF.

Did you not understand the question?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well,

WTF.

(COMMENT)

You don't think that the Hostile Arab Palestinians are not going to end up paying something for the near 70 years of war; do you?

And you don't think that Lebanon and Jordan are not on the ISIS menu ISIS, do you?

Given enough time, maybe Israel will not have to continue occupation, if the Radical Islamic Movements continue their successes.

You cannot look at the Arab-Israeli Conflict outcome in isolation of what is happening around them.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well,

WTF.

(COMMENT)

You don't think that the Hostile Arab Palestinians are not going to end up paying something for the near 70 years of war; do you?

And you don't think that Lebanon and Jordan are not on the ISIS menu ISIS, do you?

Given enough time, maybe Israel will not have to continue occupation, if the Radical Islamic Movements continue their successes.

You cannot look at the Arab-Israeli Conflict outcome in isolation of what is happening around them.

Most Respectfully,
R

You don't think that the Hostile Arab Palestinians are not going to end up paying something for the near 70 years of war; do you?​

Of course not. It is Israel's war.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you are trying to change the argument.

Did the Covenant say certain communities except for Palestine.

I didn't see that in there.

(COMMENT)

First, the Covenant never mentions "Palestine." So why would it make it an exception?

Second, the argument, as specified in Posting #342 was that: "It also had provisional statehood per the League of Nations." And I argue this to be inaccurate; and stated why I believe it to be so.

Most Respectfully,
R

No, Palestine had provisional statehood per the League of Nations Covenant, in no way did you demonstrate that this was inaccurate. In fact, Lord Curzon's clarification further confirms that you are full of shit, Rocco.

What's really funny is that you think you have refuted Rocco's post, but really all you did was make a fool of yourself again.
It's not Rocco's fault you can't accept the truth.

Toast, making things up doesn't make them true. Rocco is just blustering, knows he is wrong. Lord Curzon's letter just reconfirms that Palestine was assigned to Britain as a Class A mandate, although is not needed as the Covenant itself confirms the fact.

Article 22 of the Covenant established the Mandates System, it was founded on the concept of the development of such territories under the protection and tutelage of an advanced nation. The degree of tutelage was to depend on the extent of political development of the people in the territory concerned. The most developed were classified as 'A' Mandates, the less developed as 'B', and the least developed as 'C'.

The clause below applied to Palestine just as much as it applied to Trans-Jordania, Iraq, Syria etc.

• 
  "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

Palestine was in not excluded from the provision. Palestine was certainly not less developed than Trans-Jordania.

IDIOT don't you realise that trans Jordan was created to take care of the arab muslim needs, which is why it was referred to as arab Palestine by the LoN. And the letter said no such thing did it, so it is you reading things that just are not there so you can argue from your Catholic Jew Hatred pulpit. As history has proven the arab muslims are still not capable of free determination and of forming a working government capable of allowing them to stand on their own feet. This was the case in 1920, 1948, 1967, 1988 and now 2015, unless you can show a time when they did manage to stand on their own ?

 

[Phoenall]

"provisional" statehood?

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha !!!

Uhhhhh... yeah... I had an old girlfriend or two to whom I was "provisionally" committed... I got what I wanted... they got most of what they wanted... except real 'statehood'.

In the end, they figured it out, and moved on... making room for the real 'statehoodl' which followed (which involved someone different and which looked nothing like their un-realized vision).

"Provisional" statehood?

Is that the best you've got, boy?

Either you're a state, or you're not.

Either the so-called Palestinians were a recognizable people (a tribe, an ethnicity, etc.) or they were not - and they were not - a ragtag and diverse collection of tribals drifting into the region in the century or so spanning 1850-1950, to work for newly-arrived Jewish settler-farms and shops... mixed with some long-term residents of the region.

Either the so-called Palestinians were an autonomous, self-governing polity or they were not - and they were not - they've never been numerous enough or competent enough to obtain and sustain self-rule or home-rule.

And - given their scattered and diverse origins and status - and given their political incompetency - others (the LoN, the Brits, the UN, et al) made their decisions for them, like the little children they were (and still are) in a political context.

Hell, they only hold two postage-stamp -sized slivers of land - the West Bank and Gaza - and they still can't hold themselves together - and have been fighting tooth-and-nail (Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah) amongst themselves and hate each other almost as much as they hate the Jews of Israel.

Who gives a shit, what they want, and who gives a shit, how badly they twist and warp and try (and fail) to re-write history, to suit their purposes?

They're under-performers and oath-breakers and killers of their own civilian men, women and children.

They're losers.

To hell with them.

Literally.

They've lost.

Years ago.

Time to stop beating their Neanderthal skulls against the wall.

Time to leave.

They've lost.​

Big fat lie. Look in the news. The war continues.

Israel hasn't won shit.

They have won more than the arab muslims have just by looking at the size holdings now compared to 1948. And I am not talking about the occupied territories from 1967 either. Who has a seat in the UN as a full member, who has a viable economy, who has shown full free determination and who has a proper nation.

When Israel occupied Palestine is not disputed.

But when Israel won (legally acquired) land has not been proven.

That's because acquiring land is not and has never been the issue. It's something you made up and you yourself have yet to prove that it is pre requisite for statehood.
Keep it up with your usual lies Tinmore, keep it up.

I didn't make it up.It is part of the final status negotiations.

And possession is 9 tenths of the law

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you are trying to change the argument.

(COMMENT)

First, the Covenant never mentions "Palestine." So why would it make it an exception?

Second, the argument, as specified in Posting #342 was that: "It also had provisional statehood per the League of Nations." And I argue this to be inaccurate; and stated why I believe it to be so.

Most Respectfully,
R

No, Palestine had provisional statehood per the League of Nations Covenant, in no way did you demonstrate that this was inaccurate. In fact, Lord Curzon's clarification further confirms that you are full of shit, Rocco.

What's really funny is that you think you have refuted Rocco's post, but really all you did was make a fool of yourself again.
It's not Rocco's fault you can't accept the truth.

Toast, making things up doesn't make them true. Rocco is just blustering, knows he is wrong. Lord Curzon's letter just reconfirms that Palestine was assigned to Britain as a Class A mandate, although is not needed as the Covenant itself confirms the fact.

Article 22 of the Covenant established the Mandates System, it was founded on the concept of the development of such territories under the protection and tutelage of an advanced nation. The degree of tutelage was to depend on the extent of political development of the people in the territory concerned. The most developed were classified as 'A' Mandates, the less developed as 'B', and the least developed as 'C'.

The clause below applied to Palestine just as much as it applied to Trans-Jordania, Iraq, Syria etc.

• 
  "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

Palestine was in not excluded from the provision. Palestine was certainly not less developed than Trans-Jordania.

"making things up doesn't make them true"

What the hell do you think I've been trying to tell for for the last several months ??? Making up crap is what you do every time you post here.

I only post fact. You only post propaganda. That's a fact.

Wrong way round again freddy boy you only ever post propaganda, and then stop using it once it is taken apart and shown to be different to what the rest of the link states.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well,

WTF.

(COMMENT)

You don't think that the Hostile Arab Palestinians are not going to end up paying something for the near 70 years of war; do you?

And you don't think that Lebanon and Jordan are not on the ISIS menu ISIS, do you?

Given enough time, maybe Israel will not have to continue occupation, if the Radical Islamic Movements continue their successes.

You cannot look at the Arab-Israeli Conflict outcome in isolation of what is happening around them.

Most Respectfully,
R

You don't think that the Hostile Arab Palestinians are not going to end up paying something for the near 70 years of war; do you?​

Of course not. It is Israel's war.

Who declared war originally ? And give a verifiable link to prove it ?

 

[Kondor3]

...And possession is 9 tenths of the law

More like 10 tenths, in this case... all the impotent whining in the world to the contrary notwithstanding.

It's what comes of the Nakba - a.k.a. "The Great Arab Skeddadle of 1948"

The lesson?

"He who pisses his pants, then runs away, lives to regret it, for many a day."

( "A coward dies a thousand deaths - a brave man dies but once." )

The shit-head Palestinians probably should have stood their ground while they could, rather than running like rabbits and trusting that their so-called noble Arab brethren would honor their promises to drive the Jews into the Mediterranean on their behalf, while they hid behind the skirts of their women in refugee camps.

Effective title to the land has changed, through victory on the battlefield.

If you care to dispute the title, you must resort to the same court.

Battle.

Feel free to try.

Again.

Each time you(r side) try, the coast of failure grows exponentially, doesn't it?

One clear indicator of insanity? Repeating the same behaviors over and over again, expecting a different result each time.

Foolish Palestinian Neanderthals.

Leave.

Or wither on the vine and die.

Either outcome it acceptable.

The choice is yours.