Palestinians signed to join Rome Statute.

[aris2chat]

....and hamas is celebrating the paris terrorists.

Protests in Nigeria against Charlie have killed more people than were killed in Paris.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Armistice arrangements do not set the borders, rather it sets zone of military control.

Well Rocco, we are in agreement.

Indeed, armistice agreements do not set borders. In fact the UN has no authority over borders. It cannot establish borders or change existing borders. It can, and does, reference already existing borders as it did when it mentioned Palestine's international borders in the 1949 armistice agreements.

Consequently, the armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. As you say, the armistice lines set zones of military control. The armistice lines divided Palestine into three areas of military occupation.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, I think you are interpreting something in the Armistice Agreements between Israel and the four principle warring Arab Parties (Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt) that is not stated.

P F Tinmore, et al,

This would not be correct.

From what I can tell the Palestinians declared independence on Palestinian land. This was later confirmed by the UN.

(COMMENT)

The language used by the All Palestine Government (APG) was:

DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE (A/C.1/330 14 October 1948)​

This APG declaration (28 September 1948) was interpreted to include the entire landscape of the territory formerly under the Mandate at the time of termination (excluding Jordan). This would include the landscape in the landscape the Jewish Agency, in agreement the UN Palestine Commission (the successor government to the Mandatory), declared independence over IAW Resolution 181(II), on 15 May 1948 (four month prior). To my knowledge, the UN gave no acknowledgement or concurrence to the APG declaration.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians indirectly said that independence was to be inside their international borders. (Referencing the Mandate that was assigned to Palestine and therefore worked inside Palestine's borders.) Those borders seemed to be intact according to the 1949 UN armistice agreements.

The UN in its armistice agreements makes no note of, and actually contradicts, any land for Israel in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

First, there is no Armistice Agreement with any entity known as "Palestine." There was no such party to the conflict. So, of course there would be no contradiction in the language.

Relative to the Armistice Agreements, the only two that remain in force are the one's with Syria and Lebanon. The Armistice Arrangements with both Egypt and Jordan were overtaken by Peace Treaties.

Originally Posted by Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty
Article II

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.​

Originally Posted by Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty
Article 3 - International Boundary

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.​

Your will note that the language is quite different and most important to today's Palestinian, as this treaties actually have an impact on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In the case of the Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty, the language used is: "the former mandated territory of Palestine." In the case of the Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty, the language used is: "definition under the Mandate." Again, there is no contradiction, because there was no entity known as "Palestine" involved in the treaty arrangement.

The borders you point out, "borders seemed to be intact according to the 1949 UN armistice agreements" were territorial borders that were formerly under the Mandate of Palestine, and have no bearing on the jurisdiction of the All Palestine Government claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

"borders seemed to be intact according to the 1949 UN armistice agreements" were territorial borders that were formerly under the Mandate of Palestine,​

The armistice agreements did not mention the mandate. The mandate left Palestine almost a year before the armistice agreements. Palestine was still there. The borders were still there. Just as they were before the mandate. The mandate held Palestine in trust and had no authority to give away territory or change borders. Palestine belonged to the Palestinians as was the case before the mandate.

(COMMENT)

The idea that Palestine (as determined by the Allied Powers) existed before the Mandate and was sovereign to the Palestinian People is simply wrong.

v/r
R

Palestine existed at the time that the mandate started. The mandate was assigned to Palestine so Palestine had to have been there first.

Palestine was born under occupation and has been occupied ever since. They have always been denied the exercise of their rights by foreign powers.

This, however, does not negate those rights.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Armistice arrangements do not set the borders, rather it sets zone of military control.

Well Rocco, we are in agreement.

Indeed, armistice agreements do not set borders. In fact the UN has no authority over borders. It cannot establish borders or change existing borders. It can, and does, reference already existing borders as it did when it mentioned Palestine's international borders in the 1949 armistice agreements.

Consequently, the armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. As you say, the armistice lines set zones of military control. The armistice lines divided Palestine into three areas of military occupation.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, I think you are interpreting something in the Armistice Agreements between Israel and the four principle warring Arab Parties (Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt) that is not stated.

P F Tinmore, et al,

This would not be correct.

(COMMENT)

The language used by the All Palestine Government (APG) was:

DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE (A/C.1/330 14 October 1948)​

This APG declaration (28 September 1948) was interpreted to include the entire landscape of the territory formerly under the Mandate at the time of termination (excluding Jordan). This would include the landscape in the landscape the Jewish Agency, in agreement the UN Palestine Commission (the successor government to the Mandatory), declared independence over IAW Resolution 181(II), on 15 May 1948 (four month prior). To my knowledge, the UN gave no acknowledgement or concurrence to the APG declaration.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians indirectly said that independence was to be inside their international borders. (Referencing the Mandate that was assigned to Palestine and therefore worked inside Palestine's borders.) Those borders seemed to be intact according to the 1949 UN armistice agreements.

The UN in its armistice agreements makes no note of, and actually contradicts, any land for Israel in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

First, there is no Armistice Agreement with any entity known as "Palestine." There was no such party to the conflict. So, of course there would be no contradiction in the language.

Relative to the Armistice Agreements, the only two that remain in force are the one's with Syria and Lebanon. The Armistice Arrangements with both Egypt and Jordan were overtaken by Peace Treaties.

Originally Posted by Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty
Article II

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.​

Originally Posted by Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty
Article 3 - International Boundary

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.​

Your will note that the language is quite different and most important to today's Palestinian, as this treaties actually have an impact on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In the case of the Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty, the language used is: "the former mandated territory of Palestine." In the case of the Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty, the language used is: "definition under the Mandate." Again, there is no contradiction, because there was no entity known as "Palestine" involved in the treaty arrangement.

The borders you point out, "borders seemed to be intact according to the 1949 UN armistice agreements" were territorial borders that were formerly under the Mandate of Palestine, and have no bearing on the jurisdiction of the All Palestine Government claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

"borders seemed to be intact according to the 1949 UN armistice agreements" were territorial borders that were formerly under the Mandate of Palestine,​

The armistice agreements did not mention the mandate. The mandate left Palestine almost a year before the armistice agreements. Palestine was still there. The borders were still there. Just as they were before the mandate. The mandate held Palestine in trust and had no authority to give away territory or change borders. Palestine belonged to the Palestinians as was the case before the mandate.

(COMMENT)

The idea that Palestine (as determined by the Allied Powers) existed before the Mandate and was sovereign to the Palestinian People is simply wrong.

v/r
R

Palestine existed at the time that the mandate. The mandate was assigned to Palestine so Palestine had to have been there first.

Palestine was born under occupation and has been occupied ever since. They have always been denied the exercise of their rights by foreign powers.

This, however, does not negate those rights.

The place known as Palestine became the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, there was no nation or state of Palestine when the mandate was created. Yes Palestine was born under ROMAN occupation as it was the Romans that named it so as an insult to the Jews. The Palestinians have exercised their rights from 1948 when they joined the arab league invasion and attack on Israel, then when they agreed to become Jordanian citizens. Later they did the same when they decided to overthrow the rulers of Jordan and set up an Islamic state with Arafat as its leader. When Jordan cast them loose and evicted them they once again exercised their rights and resorted to violent means of gaining land and invaded Lebanon. Now they are the pariahs on the M.E. relying on LIARS to claim their rights have been taken away from them by the Jews, Americans, British, French, U.N. and other arabs, when the reality is they have used and abused their rights to the point that they are not wanted by any nation as neighbours.

This does not negate their rights, but they themselves have negated them no one else

 

[aris2chat]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Armistice arrangements do not set the borders, rather it sets zone of military control.

Well Rocco, we are in agreement.

Indeed, armistice agreements do not set borders. In fact the UN has no authority over borders. It cannot establish borders or change existing borders. It can, and does, reference already existing borders as it did when it mentioned Palestine's international borders in the 1949 armistice agreements.

Consequently, the armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. As you say, the armistice lines set zones of military control. The armistice lines divided Palestine into three areas of military occupation.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, I think you are interpreting something in the Armistice Agreements between Israel and the four principle warring Arab Parties (Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt) that is not stated.

The Palestinians indirectly said that independence was to be inside their international borders. (Referencing the Mandate that was assigned to Palestine and therefore worked inside Palestine's borders.) Those borders seemed to be intact according to the 1949 UN armistice agreements.

The UN in its armistice agreements makes no note of, and actually contradicts, any land for Israel in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

First, there is no Armistice Agreement with any entity known as "Palestine." There was no such party to the conflict. So, of course there would be no contradiction in the language.

Relative to the Armistice Agreements, the only two that remain in force are the one's with Syria and Lebanon. The Armistice Arrangements with both Egypt and Jordan were overtaken by Peace Treaties.

Originally Posted by Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty
Article II

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.​

Originally Posted by Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty
Article 3 - International Boundary

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.​

Your will note that the language is quite different and most important to today's Palestinian, as this treaties actually have an impact on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In the case of the Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty, the language used is: "the former mandated territory of Palestine." In the case of the Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty, the language used is: "definition under the Mandate." Again, there is no contradiction, because there was no entity known as "Palestine" involved in the treaty arrangement.

The borders you point out, "borders seemed to be intact according to the 1949 UN armistice agreements" were territorial borders that were formerly under the Mandate of Palestine, and have no bearing on the jurisdiction of the All Palestine Government claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

"borders seemed to be intact according to the 1949 UN armistice agreements" were territorial borders that were formerly under the Mandate of Palestine,​

The armistice agreements did not mention the mandate. The mandate left Palestine almost a year before the armistice agreements. Palestine was still there. The borders were still there. Just as they were before the mandate. The mandate held Palestine in trust and had no authority to give away territory or change borders. Palestine belonged to the Palestinians as was the case before the mandate.

(COMMENT)

The idea that Palestine (as determined by the Allied Powers) existed before the Mandate and was sovereign to the Palestinian People is simply wrong.

v/r
R

Palestine existed at the time that the mandate. The mandate was assigned to Palestine so Palestine had to have been there first.

Palestine was born under occupation and has been occupied ever since. They have always been denied the exercise of their rights by foreign powers.

This, however, does not negate those rights.

The place known as Palestine became the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, there was no nation or state of Palestine when the mandate was created. Yes Palestine was born under ROMAN occupation as it was the Romans that named it so as an insult to the Jews. The Palestinians have exercised their rights from 1948 when they joined the arab league invasion and attack on Israel, then when they agreed to become Jordanian citizens. Later they did the same when they decided to overthrow the rulers of Jordan and set up an Islamic state with Arafat as its leader. When Jordan cast them loose and evicted them they once again exercised their rights and resorted to violent means of gaining land and invaded Lebanon. Now they are the pariahs on the M.E. relying on LIARS to claim their rights have been taken away from them by the Jews, Americans, British, French, U.N. and other arabs, when the reality is they have used and abused their rights to the point that they are not wanted by any nation as neighbours.

This does not negate their rights, but they themselves have negated them no one else

Under the romans there were three districts call palestia, it was not a singular place. Later instead of saying middle or near east the region was called syria or palestine. Those were not nations or nationalities.