Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border

[rylah]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

No matter how you want to frame nit, the Arab League Aggressors in the 1948-49 Arab - Israeli War was just a pretext for the four principal actors to sweep-in and grab as much territory that they could.


(COMMENT)

Of course, you have to remember that the Arab League, as aggressors, to possession before the implementation of the Article 77 Obligations could be put into effect. However, the Arab League Arggessors bungled that pretty much.

The ethical question is, given that the Arab Palestinians have twisted the facts up so much, where do they get their authority, even as much as the ability for frivolous complaints against the Israelis.

The nature of the complaint completely change when the Treaty is understood to say:

•• "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."

(The Arabs of Palestine WERE NOT concerned parties to the Treaty.)​

Nothing was promised to the Arabs of Palestine, as they were part of the enemy inhabitants of the area. It is not normally the case that the surrender documents after a war, bequeath rewards to the loser population.

Most Respectfully,
R

•• "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."

Where does it say who were the parties concerned?

In the signatures.
Do You also ask others to chew Your food?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I will limit my response to consider only the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip and their relation and status with respect to Israel.

View attachment 260754
​

[
The armistice lines divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.

When did those occupations end?

(COMMENT)

The 1967 Occupation of the sovereign Hashemite Kingdom Holdings of the West Bank and Jerusalem ended on 1 August 1988. The Hashemite Kingdom cut all ties and politically abandon ending the occupation status of the territory.

The Occupation of Egyptian the Gaza Strip holding ending 26 March 1979 with the Peace Agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK. That's two.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I will limit my response to consider only the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip and their relation and status with respect to Israel.

View attachment 260754
​

[
The armistice lines divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.

When did those occupations end?

(COMMENT)

The 1967 Occupation of the sovereign Hashemite Kingdom Holdings of the West Bank and Jerusalem ended on 1 August 1988. The Hashemite Kingdom cut all ties and politically abandon ending the occupation status of the territory.

The Occupation of Egyptian the Gaza Strip holding ending 26 March 1979 with the Peace Agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

Whose sovereign territory was occupied by Jordan and Egypt before 1967?

The only other sovereign which existed in the territory at that time was Israel. So that is the only possible answer.

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, this is rediculous. You know the answer.

Whose sovereign territory was occupied by Jordan and Egypt before 1967?

(REFERENCE)

1 The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:

a. territories now held under mandate;

b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and

c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.

2 It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.

(COMMENT)

Of course you have to remember that the Arab League, as aggressors, to possession before the implementation of the Article 77 Obligations could be put into effect.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course you have to remember that the Arab League, as aggressors, to possession before the implementation of the Article 77 Obligations could be put into effect.

Israeli BS talking point. Nobody invaded Israel.

 

[The Original Tree]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I grasp this; but, don't see the reason for the confusing.

The Security Council resolution neither endorses nor precludes these armistice lines as the definitive political boundaries. However, it calls for withdrawal from occupied territories, the nonacquisition of territory by war, and the establishment of secure and recognized boundaries.

Green Line

The Green Line, so-named because it was drawn with green marker on the maps at the time, designated
the area under Jewish control in Palestine.

The border of Israel prior to the June 1967 Six-Day War delineated as a result of the truce agreements that followed the 1948–1949 Israeli War of Independence. The Green Line, so-named because it was drawn with green marker on the maps at the time, designated the area under Jewish control in Palestine. The Green Line encompassed about 78 percent of Palestinian territory in 1947 before the Israeli War of Independence. Although it delineated a military boundary only, in effect the Green Line actually defined the de facto state borders between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. The sole exception was the municipality of Jerusalem. Israel claimed as sovereign territory the parts of the city administered by Jordan until 1967.

Drawing of the Green Line was based almost exclusively on military considerations. As such, it wreaked havoc on a number of communities, dividing towns and villages and separating farmers from their fields. Jerusalem was especially impacted, being divided into West and East Jerusalem. The Jordanian city of Qalqilyah became virtually an enclave within Israel, while Kibbutz Ramat Rachel was left almost entirely outside of Israeli territory.

So then, why armistice lines and not borders?

(COMMENT)

The Armistice Lines are instruments to neutralize hostile fire (disengage contact between opposing forces) between the belligerents. The Armistic Lines are not intended to be establishing permanent international boundaries between states. At the time of the creation of the Armistice Line, there was NO Independent Government of Palestine. All the territory that was not controlled by Israel, was under the control of one of the four principle Arab League Countries. The Armitice Lines were, by arrangement between the opposing parties, where only to remain in force until a negotiated permanent international boundary was agreed upon by the bellegerents and documented by treaty.

All parties to the conflict → recognise their right and obligation to live in peace with each other as well as with all states within secure and recognised boundaries. The two states affirmed their respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area. This is the meaning of Article XII of the Armistice Agreements: "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved."

And that is exactly what happented.

Most Respectfully,
R

All the territory that was not controlled by Israel, was under the control of one of the four principle Arab League Countries.

The armistice lines divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.

When did those occupations end?

It is the Fake Palestinian Squatters who are occupying Israel.

There are no people found in any historical documents called the "Palestinians". These people are frauds and are nothing more than Jordanians, Syrians and Egyptians.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

No matter how you want to frame nit, the Arab League Aggressors in the 1948-49 Arab - Israeli War was just a pretext for the four principal actors to sweep-in and grab as much territory that they could.


(COMMENT)

Of course, you have to remember that the Arab League, as aggressors, to possession before the implementation of the Article 77 Obligations could be put into effect. However, the Arab League Arggessors bungled that pretty much.

The ethical question is, given that the Arab Palestinians have twisted the facts up so much, where do they get their authority, even as much as the ability for frivolous complaints against the Israelis.

The nature of the complaint completely change when the Treaty is understood to say:

•• "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."

(The Arabs of Palestine WERE NOT concerned parties to the Treaty.)​

Nothing was promised to the Arabs of Palestine, as they were part of the enemy inhabitants of the area. It is not normally the case that the surrender documents after a war, bequeath rewards to the loser population.

Most Respectfully,
R

Nothing was promised to the Arabs of Palestine, as they were part of the enemy inhabitants of the area. It is not normally the case that the surrender documents after a war, bequeath rewards to the loser population.

Palestine was occupied enemy territory until 1924 when it became a non enemy state with no military. Different set of rules under international law.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh → come now. The question keeps reverberating → trying to suggest that the UN had no authority facilitate the disposition of the territory formerly under Mandate. Well, reality is a consequence of several independent actions. None of these actions taken or decisions made (from 1939 to 1948) can be contested by the Arab Palestinian since there was no sovereign entity (a state) that was consulted → or for that matter → even existed. They were not even considered a party to any Armistice or Treaty conceived and executed between the Actual Parties to the conflict.

You keep bringing up Resolution 181 like it means something. Israel also mentioned Resolution 181 in its declaration of independence. Even in fake history it is said that Israel acquired territory beyond that what was allotted in Resolution 181.

However, there was no Resolution 181. There was no territory allotted to a Jewish state. There was no legitimacy given to a Jewish state. Resolution 181 was not implemented by the Security Council as required by the resolution.

So my question remains unanswered. You ducked it again.

So say we all!

• A/43/827-S/20278 of 18 November 1988 •
Despite the historical injustice done to the Palestinian Arab people in its displacement and in being deprived of the right to self-determination following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State, that resolution nevertheless continues to attach conditions to international legitimacy that guarantee the Palestinian Arab people the right to sovereignty and national independence.

SOURCE: Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, as recognized by the international community and represented in the United Nations...

(COMMENT)

You can be in denial all you want. The fact of the matter is the PLO have spoken. GAME OVER

Palestine was already there. It was multi ethnic, multi religious state. The "Arab" state and "Jewish" state were products of the partition that didn't happen. So yeah, there was no "Arab" state.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinian State DID NOT come about simply because the Arab Palestinians rejected any attempt to bring them into the commercial, industrial, economic development of a self-sustaining environment …¬

So my question remains unanswered. You ducked it again.

(COMMENT)

Asked and answered.

​

Where was Israel's territory?
Got a map?

At the end of the day → and when the smoke cleared → it is what it is...

The Arab Palestinians realize that they want, what they perceive, as that which the Israeli have. They have decided to use force to get it.

Today's Territories
View attachment 260697
​

Most Respectfully,
R

They were not even considered a party to any Armistice or Treaty conceived and executed between the Actual Parties to the conflict.

Indeed, Palestine was not a party in the 1948 war. So they had no place in the armistice.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I grasp this; but, don't see the reason for the confusing.

The Security Council resolution neither endorses nor precludes these armistice lines as the definitive political boundaries. However, it calls for withdrawal from occupied territories, the nonacquisition of territory by war, and the establishment of secure and recognized boundaries.

Green Line

The Green Line, so-named because it was drawn with green marker on the maps at the time, designated
the area under Jewish control in Palestine.

The border of Israel prior to the June 1967 Six-Day War delineated as a result of the truce agreements that followed the 1948–1949 Israeli War of Independence. The Green Line, so-named because it was drawn with green marker on the maps at the time, designated the area under Jewish control in Palestine. The Green Line encompassed about 78 percent of Palestinian territory in 1947 before the Israeli War of Independence. Although it delineated a military boundary only, in effect the Green Line actually defined the de facto state borders between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. The sole exception was the municipality of Jerusalem. Israel claimed as sovereign territory the parts of the city administered by Jordan until 1967.

Drawing of the Green Line was based almost exclusively on military considerations. As such, it wreaked havoc on a number of communities, dividing towns and villages and separating farmers from their fields. Jerusalem was especially impacted, being divided into West and East Jerusalem. The Jordanian city of Qalqilyah became virtually an enclave within Israel, while Kibbutz Ramat Rachel was left almost entirely outside of Israeli territory.

So then, why armistice lines and not borders?

(COMMENT)

The Armistice Lines are instruments to neutralize hostile fire (disengage contact between opposing forces) between the belligerents. The Armistic Lines are not intended to be establishing permanent international boundaries between states. At the time of the creation of the Armistice Line, there was NO Independent Government of Palestine. All the territory that was not controlled by Israel, was under the control of one of the four principle Arab League Countries. The Armitice Lines were, by arrangement between the opposing parties, where only to remain in force until a negotiated permanent international boundary was agreed upon by the bellegerents and documented by treaty.

All parties to the conflict → recognise their right and obligation to live in peace with each other as well as with all states within secure and recognised boundaries. The two states affirmed their respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area. This is the meaning of Article XII of the Armistice Agreements: "shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved."

And that is exactly what happented.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Armitice Lines were, by arrangement between the opposing parties, where only to remain in force until a negotiated permanent international boundary was agreed upon by the bellegerents and documented by treaty.

Where does it say that in the armistice agreements?

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

No matter how you want to frame nit, the Arab League Aggressors in the 1948-49 Arab - Israeli War was just a pretext for the four principal actors to sweep-in and grab as much territory that they could.


(COMMENT)

Of course, you have to remember that the Arab League, as aggressors, to possession before the implementation of the Article 77 Obligations could be put into effect. However, the Arab League Arggessors bungled that pretty much.

The ethical question is, given that the Arab Palestinians have twisted the facts up so much, where do they get their authority, even as much as the ability for frivolous complaints against the Israelis.

The nature of the complaint completely change when the Treaty is understood to say:

•• "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."

(The Arabs of Palestine WERE NOT concerned parties to the Treaty.)​

Nothing was promised to the Arabs of Palestine, as they were part of the enemy inhabitants of the area. It is not normally the case that the surrender documents after a war, bequeath rewards to the loser population.

Most Respectfully,
R

Nothing was promised to the Arabs of Palestine, as they were part of the enemy inhabitants of the area. It is not normally the case that the surrender documents after a war, bequeath rewards to the loser population.

Palestine was occupied enemy territory until 1924 when it became a non enemy state with no military. Different set of rules under international law.

"Pal'istan" was not a state. More of your silly rewriting of history.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I can't believe it.

•• "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."

Where does it say who were the parties concerned?

(COMMENT)

“party” means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force;

(OBSERVATION)

Prior to 1974, the no legitimate representative of the Palestinian people was considered as a party to any international agreement concluded between States.

◈ Why, because it was not until 1974 when the independent national authority for the Arab Palestinians was recognized by the Seventh Arab League Summit Conference 28 October 74.

◈ Why, because it was not until November 1988, when The Palestine National Council declared, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.
​

Since the Arab Palestinians did NOT have a "State" in 1974 or even 1988, it did not possess the capacity to conclude treaties. It is not even sure today, that the Arab Palestinians can claim that it can adhere to any of the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. And it is was only seven years ago (2012) that the UN event considered Palestine as a State.

​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I can't believe it.

•• "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."

Where does it say who were the parties concerned?

(COMMENT)

“party” means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force;

(OBSERVATION)

Prior to 1974, the no legitimate representative of the Palestinian people was considered as a party to any international agreement concluded between States.

◈ Why, because it was not until 1974 when the independent national authority for the Arab Palestinians was recognized by the Seventh Arab League Summit Conference 28 October 74.

◈ Why, because it was not until November 1988, when The Palestine National Council declared, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.
​

Since the Arab Palestinians did NOT have a "State" in 1974 or even 1988, it did not possess the capacity to conclude treaties. It is not even sure today, that the Arab Palestinians can claim that it can adhere to any of the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. And it is was only seven years ago (2012) that the UN event considered Palestine as a State.

View attachment 260820
​

Most Respectfully,
R

And it is was only seven years ago (2012) that the UN event considered Palestine as a State.

Is the UN the arbiter as to who is and who is not a state?

Link?

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I can't believe it.

•• "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."

Where does it say who were the parties concerned?

(COMMENT)

“party” means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force;

(OBSERVATION)

Prior to 1974, the no legitimate representative of the Palestinian people was considered as a party to any international agreement concluded between States.

◈ Why, because it was not until 1974 when the independent national authority for the Arab Palestinians was recognized by the Seventh Arab League Summit Conference 28 October 74.

◈ Why, because it was not until November 1988, when The Palestine National Council declared, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.
​

Since the Arab Palestinians did NOT have a "State" in 1974 or even 1988, it did not possess the capacity to conclude treaties. It is not even sure today, that the Arab Palestinians can claim that it can adhere to any of the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. And it is was only seven years ago (2012) that the UN event considered Palestine as a State.

View attachment 260820
​

Most Respectfully,
R

And it is was only seven years ago (2012) that the UN event considered Palestine as a State.

Is the UN the arbiter as to who is and who is not a state?

Link?

Indeed, as an expert in international law, "who" would seem an imprecise term for what defines statehood.

Other than that, does this really need to be another thread of your endless screeching about the existence of Israel and your silly, pandering one-liners?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Your claim is simply without any foundation at all. There is absolutely "misinformation" to claim that: "Nobody invaded Israel." (Pure manipulation of the truth.)

​

Israeli BS talking point. Nobody invaded Israel.

(COMMENT)

The official narrative (political) is toned down. But it is constant with the Military record where, initially, there was a deep intrusion, as seen above.

The first Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949

On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the neighboring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I can't believe it.

•• "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."

Where does it say who were the parties concerned?

(COMMENT)

“party” means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force;

(OBSERVATION)

Prior to 1974, the no legitimate representative of the Palestinian people was considered as a party to any international agreement concluded between States.

◈ Why, because it was not until 1974 when the independent national authority for the Arab Palestinians was recognized by the Seventh Arab League Summit Conference 28 October 74.

◈ Why, because it was not until November 1988, when The Palestine National Council declared, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.
​

Since the Arab Palestinians did NOT have a "State" in 1974 or even 1988, it did not possess the capacity to conclude treaties. It is not even sure today, that the Arab Palestinians can claim that it can adhere to any of the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. And it is was only seven years ago (2012) that the UN event considered Palestine as a State.

View attachment 260820
​

Most Respectfully,
R

And it is was only seven years ago (2012) that the UN event considered Palestine as a State.

Is the UN the arbiter as to who is and who is not a state?

Link?

Indeed, as an expert in international law, "who" would seem an imprecise term for what defines statehood.

Other than that, does this really need to be another thread of your endless screeching about the existence of Israel and your silly, pandering one-liners?

Indeed, PF Tinmore, it is funny.

While I am always impressed with Rocco R's seeming encyclopedic knowledge of the history surrounding the area and his ability to articulate that into a logical sequence of referenced data, do you somehow enjoy your silly one-liners being made the subject of pointing and laughing?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Your claim is simply without any foundation at all. There is absolutely "misinformation" to claim that: "Nobody invaded Israel." (Pure manipulation of the truth.)

View attachment 260826
​

Israeli BS talking point. Nobody invaded Israel.

(COMMENT)

The official narrative (political) is toned down. But it is constant with the Military record where, initially, there was a deep intrusion, as seen above.

The first Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949

On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the neighboring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs.

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't see anything on that map of Palestine marked off as Israeli territory.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Your claim is simply without any foundation at all. There is absolutely "misinformation" to claim that: "Nobody invaded Israel." (Pure manipulation of the truth.)

View attachment 260826
​

Israeli BS talking point. Nobody invaded Israel.

(COMMENT)

The official narrative (political) is toned down. But it is constant with the Military record where, initially, there was a deep intrusion, as seen above.

The first Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949

On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the neighboring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs.

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't see anything on that map of Palestine marked off as Israeli territory.

The Arab-.Moslem invaders discovered very quickly where the Israeli armies marked off Israeli territory.

Another failure for the Islamist gee-had.

 

[Ropey]

Journalists Should Stop Falling For Hamas' Deadly PR Efforts

GCC eliminates top Hamas agents and Iranian proxy leaders.

Targeted killings credited with convincing Hamas leaders to negotiate

They're already negotiating while the Iranian militias attempt to skew the discussions.

Not happening since the leaders of those groups seem to be dying, without any Jews around.

 

[Shusha]

RE: Palestinians Massing At The Israeli Border
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I will limit my response to consider only the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip and their relation and status with respect to Israel.

View attachment 260754
​

[
The armistice lines divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.

When did those occupations end?

(COMMENT)

The 1967 Occupation of the sovereign Hashemite Kingdom Holdings of the West Bank and Jerusalem ended on 1 August 1988. The Hashemite Kingdom cut all ties and politically abandon ending the occupation status of the territory.

The Occupation of Egyptian the Gaza Strip holding ending 26 March 1979 with the Peace Agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

Whose sovereign territory was occupied by Jordan and Egypt before 1967?

The only other sovereign which existed in the territory at that time was Israel. So that is the only possible answer.

Link?

You want me to link to a non-existent sovereign? I'll tell you what, why don't you show me a treaty, any treaty, in which one of the Parties to the agreement was the State or Government of Palestine prior to 1967. Anything you got.

 

[Hollie]

The (wannabe) Islamist invaders again discover where the Israeli border is.

Palestinians mass at Israel border to mark Gaza protest anniversary

The anniversary of the Islamist gee-had failure.

 

[Shusha]

Palestine was occupied enemy territory until 1924 when it became a non enemy state with no military. Different set of rules under international law.

Its like you think the whole Mandate never happened. And that the disposition of territories abandoned by Turkey in 1924 was just a figment of everyone's imagination. And then you make up a whole new reality to suit yourself. But only concerning Israel, of course.