Nice Deflection
We were discussing the fact that you said ISrael did not win the war
What does it say for RESULT in the link
1948 Arab?Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please share it with us
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Peace Process Antics
- Thread starter Bloodrock44
- Start date
Nice Deflection
We were discussing the fact that you said ISrael did not win the war
What does it say for RESULT in the link
1948 Arab?Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please share it with us
What confuses Tinmore is that Israel won the war but the Arabs held the victory parades. That's a process of saving face and honor. Look at his point of view.
I did. Where does it say that Israel legally acquired any land?
Nice Deflection
We were discussing the fact that you said ISrael did not win the war
What does it say for RESULT in the link
1948 Arab?Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please share it with us
- Dec 6, 2009
- 78,162
- 4,277
- 1,815
I did. Where does it say that Israel legally acquired any land?
Nice Deflection
We were discussing the fact that you said ISrael did not win the war
What does it say for RESULT in the link
1948 Arab?Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please share it with us
The answer to my question would answer your question.
Excellent point that the Zionists keep on provoking the Palestinians into violence. Peace offerings, a security fence & land concessions so they can remain captives in Israel. Is it any wonder why the Palestinians act the way they do? Face it you Zionists, no surrounding Arab country, who know the Palestinians best, ever treated the Palestinians like Israel does.
Talk about pessimism on the Palestinians' part. Mind you, did anyone think they were really keen to get peace? They shoot themselves in the foot at every opportunity.
that is because trhe zionists keep on instigating and doing thigngs to provokle the palestinians.
whnever the palestinians offer to talk or talkl peace the israelis do something to piss of the arabs.
I did. Where does it say that Israel legally acquired any land?
Nice Deflection
We were discussing the fact that you said ISrael did not win the war
What does it say for RESULT in the link
1948 Arab?Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please share it with us
The answer to my question would answer your question.
You're too scared to to share with us what it says under RESULT and TERRITORIAL CHANGES
- Dec 6, 2009
- 78,162
- 4,277
- 1,815
Nice Deflection
We were discussing the fact that you said ISrael did not win the war
What does it say for RESULT in the link
1948 Arab?Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please share it with us
The answer to my question would answer your question.
You're too scared to to share with us what it says under RESULT and TERRITORIAL CHANGES
Not at all. I am asking you to confirm territorial change. I don't see that in your link.
The answer to my question would answer your question.
You're too scared to to share with us what it says under RESULT and TERRITORIAL CHANGES
Not at all. I am asking you to confirm territorial change. I don't see that in your link.
We're talking about who won the war. Why you deflecting ?? Stay on topic
You've provided no proof the the Armistice lines made the war a stalemate.
- Dec 6, 2009
- 78,162
- 4,277
- 1,815
You're too scared to to share with us what it says under RESULT and TERRITORIAL CHANGES
Not at all. I am asking you to confirm territorial change. I don't see that in your link.
We're talking about who won the war. Why you deflecting ?? Stay on topic
You've provided no proof the the Armistice lines made the war a stalemate.
We are. If Israel had won, like it claims, it would be defined by borders. The Palestinian land occupied by Jordan was defined by armistice lines. The Palestinian land occupied by Egypt was defined by armistice lines. The Palestinian land occupied by Israel was defined by armistice lines. The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.
The 1949 UN armistice agreements, that Israel signed, mentioned Palestine many times. A place called Israel was not mentioned. The international borders for Palestine and the surrounding countries were mentioned and unchanged. Borders for Israel were not mentioned. Land that Israel claimed it "won" was still called Palestine.
What documentation do you have that shows something different?
Where did you read that winning a war required borders ?? You keep making claims without backing it up. Now you are talking about things that are not exactly directly related to what we are discussing.And it's not just Israel who says they won the war, it's any one with common sense .
What does it say for RESULT in this link?
1948 Arab?Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What does it say for RESULT in this link?
1948 Arab?Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
This is a standard technique used by pro-Palestinians to suggest that there was a "country" called Palestinian, --- as opposed to --- a Mandate (or former Mandate) of Palestine. The name "Palestine" is often attempted to be taken out of context and used as evidence of a sovereignty or some sort. But make no mistake, it is a Regional Name.
(NOTE)
P F Tinmore is correct in that Armistice Line are rarely the same as political boundaries. It is no less true in this case. (Example: The same is true of the Armistice Line between North Korea and South Korea; but it also doesn't mean that neither country exists.) The boundaries between Egypt and Jordan were made by treaty later. But by the same token, the Armistice is by no means - evidence of a country called Palestine.
(OBSERVATION)
The list of 1949 Armistice Documents:
(NOTE) All the documents were signed on behalf of the Israeli Government and the country concerned; and not by anyone representing the Arab Palestinians.
(MAP COLLECTION)
(UN HISTORICAL EXPLANATION)
(COMMENT)
The Armistice Line rouse is often used by the pro-Palestinian to pretend that there is a defect in the recognition of the State of Israel. It is not a valid argument. However, under the Hamas Covenant and the Palestinian National Charter, the loyal Jihadist is not to recognize the legitimacy of any valid documentation.
Most Respectfully,
R
This is a standard technique used by pro-Palestinians to suggest that there was a "country" called Palestinian, --- as opposed to --- a Mandate (or former Mandate) of Palestine. The name "Palestine" is often attempted to be taken out of context and used as evidence of a sovereignty or some sort. But make no mistake, it is a Regional Name.
Not at all. I am asking you to confirm territorial change. I don't see that in your link.
We're talking about who won the war. Why you deflecting ?? Stay on topic
You've provided no proof the the Armistice lines made the war a stalemate.
We are. If Israel had won, like it claims, it would be defined by borders. The Palestinian land occupied by Jordan was defined by armistice lines. The Palestinian land occupied by Egypt was defined by armistice lines. The Palestinian land occupied by Israel was defined by armistice lines. The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.
The 1949 UN armistice agreements, that Israel signed, mentioned Palestine many times. A place called Israel was not mentioned. The international borders for Palestine and the surrounding countries were mentioned and unchanged. Borders for Israel were not mentioned. Land that Israel claimed it "won" was still called Palestine.
What documentation do you have that shows something different?
(NOTE)
P F Tinmore is correct in that Armistice Line are rarely the same as political boundaries. It is no less true in this case. (Example: The same is true of the Armistice Line between North Korea and South Korea; but it also doesn't mean that neither country exists.) The boundaries between Egypt and Jordan were made by treaty later. But by the same token, the Armistice is by no means - evidence of a country called Palestine.
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.
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.
(OBSERVATION)
The list of 1949 Armistice Documents:
- Egypt on 24 February, Is Titled: EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT and supersedes the Egyptian-Israeli general cease fire agreement entered into by the parties on 24 January 1949.
For and on behalf of the Government of Egypt
For and on behalf of the Government of Israel
For and on behalf of the Government of Israel
- Lebanon on 23 March, Is Titled: LEBANESE-ISRAELI GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF LEBANON
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL
GOVERNMENT OF LEBANON
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL
- Jordan on 3 April, Is Titled: HASHEMITE JORDAN KINGDOM - ISRAEL: GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT
For and on behalf of the
Government of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom
For and on behalf of the
Government of Israel
Government of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom
For and on behalf of the
Government of Israel
- Syria on 20 July. Is Titled: SYRIAN-ISRAELI ARMISTICE DEMARCATION LINE
FROM: Sgan Aloof M. Makleff,
Head of the Israeli delegation
FROM: Colonel Fozi Selo,
Head of the Syrian delegation
Head of the Israeli delegation
FROM: Colonel Fozi Selo,
Head of the Syrian delegation
(NOTE) All the documents were signed on behalf of the Israeli Government and the country concerned; and not by anyone representing the Arab Palestinians.
(MAP COLLECTION)
(UN HISTORICAL EXPLANATION)
On 15 July 1948, the Security Council decided in a resolution that the situation in Palestine constituted a threat to the peace. It ordered a ceasefire and declared that failure to comply would be construed as a breach of the peace requiring immediate consideration of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. In accordance with the resolution, a second truce came into force. By that time, Israel controlled much of the territory allotted to the Arab State by the partition resolution, including the western part of Jerusalem. Egypt and Jordan respectively controlled the remaining portions of the Gaza district and the West Bank of the Jordan River (which included East Jerusalem, with its walled Old City). More fighting took place in October 1948 and March 1949, during which Israel took over other areas, some of which had been allotted to the Arab State. In 1950, Jordan brought the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, formally under its jurisdiction pending a solution to the problem.
The hostilities had created a major humanitarian crisis, with almost 750,000 Palestinians being uprooted from their land and becoming refugees. On 17 September 1948, while in the middle of negotiations between the parties, Count Bernadotte was shot and killed in the Israeli-held sector of Jerusalem. His deputy, Ralph Bunche, of the United States, was appointed as Acting Mediator. Between February and July 1949, under United Nations auspices, armistice agreements were signed between Israel, on the one hand, and Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria on the other. The agreements, which were similar in general content, accepted the establishment of the armistice as an indispensable step towards the restoration of peace in Palestine. They also made clear that the purpose of the armistice was not to establish or recognize any territorial, custodial or other rights, claims or interests of any party. In August of 1949, the Security Council called for UNTSO observers to supervise the armistice. In accordance with Council decisions, UNTSO observers remain stationed in the Middle East to this day.
SOURCE: http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/DPI2499.pdf
(COMMENT)
The Armistice Line rouse is often used by the pro-Palestinian to pretend that there is a defect in the recognition of the State of Israel. It is not a valid argument. However, under the Hamas Covenant and the Palestinian National Charter, the loyal Jihadist is not to recognize the legitimacy of any valid documentation.
Most Respectfully,
R
- Mar 16, 2012
- 59,363
- 17,682
- 2,180
Wow! One of your best responses ever!P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
This is a standard technique used by pro-Palestinians to suggest that there was a "country" called Palestinian, --- as opposed to --- a Mandate (or former Mandate) of Palestine. The name "Palestine" is often attempted to be taken out of context and used as evidence of a sovereignty or some sort. But make no mistake, it is a Regional Name.
We're talking about who won the war. Why you deflecting ?? Stay on topic
You've provided no proof the the Armistice lines made the war a stalemate.
We are. If Israel had won, like it claims, it would be defined by borders. The Palestinian land occupied by Jordan was defined by armistice lines. The Palestinian land occupied by Egypt was defined by armistice lines. The Palestinian land occupied by Israel was defined by armistice lines. The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.
The 1949 UN armistice agreements, that Israel signed, mentioned Palestine many times. A place called Israel was not mentioned. The international borders for Palestine and the surrounding countries were mentioned and unchanged. Borders for Israel were not mentioned. Land that Israel claimed it "won" was still called Palestine.
What documentation do you have that shows something different?
(NOTE)
P F Tinmore is correct in that Armistice Line are rarely the same as political boundaries. It is no less true in this case. (Example: The same is true of the Armistice Line between North Korea and South Korea; but it also doesn't mean that neither country exists.) The boundaries between Egypt and Jordan were made by treaty later. But by the same token, the Armistice is by no means - evidence of a country called Palestine.
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.
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.
(OBSERVATION)
The list of 1949 Armistice Documents:
- Egypt on 24 February, Is Titled: EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT and supersedes the Egyptian-Israeli general cease fire agreement entered into by the parties on 24 January 1949.
For and on behalf of the Government of Egypt
For and on behalf of the Government of Israel
- Lebanon on 23 March, Is Titled: LEBANESE-ISRAELI GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF LEBANON
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL
- Jordan on 3 April, Is Titled: HASHEMITE JORDAN KINGDOM - ISRAEL: GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT
For and on behalf of the
Government of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom
For and on behalf of the
Government of Israel
- Syria on 20 July. Is Titled: SYRIAN-ISRAELI ARMISTICE DEMARCATION LINE
FROM: Sgan Aloof M. Makleff,
Head of the Israeli delegation
FROM: Colonel Fozi Selo,
Head of the Syrian delegation
(NOTE) All the documents were signed on behalf of the Israeli Government and the country concerned; and not by anyone representing the Arab Palestinians.
(MAP COLLECTION)
(UN HISTORICAL EXPLANATION)
On 15 July 1948, the Security Council decided in a resolution that the situation in Palestine constituted a threat to the peace. It ordered a ceasefire and declared that failure to comply would be construed as a breach of the peace requiring immediate consideration of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. In accordance with the resolution, a second truce came into force. By that time, Israel controlled much of the territory allotted to the Arab State by the partition resolution, including the western part of Jerusalem. Egypt and Jordan respectively controlled the remaining portions of the Gaza district and the West Bank of the Jordan River (which included East Jerusalem, with its walled Old City). More fighting took place in October 1948 and March 1949, during which Israel took over other areas, some of which had been allotted to the Arab State. In 1950, Jordan brought the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, formally under its jurisdiction pending a solution to the problem.
The hostilities had created a major humanitarian crisis, with almost 750,000 Palestinians being uprooted from their land and becoming refugees. On 17 September 1948, while in the middle of negotiations between the parties, Count Bernadotte was shot and killed in the Israeli-held sector of Jerusalem. His deputy, Ralph Bunche, of the United States, was appointed as Acting Mediator. Between February and July 1949, under United Nations auspices, armistice agreements were signed between Israel, on the one hand, and Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria on the other. The agreements, which were similar in general content, accepted the establishment of the armistice as an indispensable step towards the restoration of peace in Palestine. They also made clear that the purpose of the armistice was not to establish or recognize any territorial, custodial or other rights, claims or interests of any party. In August of 1949, the Security Council called for UNTSO observers to supervise the armistice. In accordance with Council decisions, UNTSO observers remain stationed in the Middle East to this day.
SOURCE: http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/DPI2499.pdf
(COMMENT)
The Armistice Line rouse is often used by the pro-Palestinian to pretend that there is a defect in the recognition of the State of Israel. It is not a valid argument. However, under the Hamas Covenant and the Palestinian National Charter, the loyal Jihadist is not to recognize the legitimacy of any valid documentation.
Most Respectfully,
R
But do you really think anything you ever post, no matter how well researched and factually / historically correct, are going to make a difference to stuck-on-Hamas-Tinmore?
- Dec 6, 2009
- 78,162
- 4,277
- 1,815
RoccoR said:This is a standard technique used by pro-Palestinians to suggest that there was a "country" called Palestinian, --- as opposed to --- a Mandate (or former Mandate) of Palestine.
The mandate was not a place. It had no land or borders. The mandate was assigned to Palestine to render administrative assistance and advice.
When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there inside its international borders.
- Dec 6, 2009
- 78,162
- 4,277
- 1,815
RoccoR said:The Armistice Line rouse is often used by the pro-Palestinian to pretend that there is a defect in the recognition of the State of Israel.
A state should have a defined territory. Israel does not have a defined territory. Israel sits inside armistice lines. Armistice lines are specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.
There is no "pretend" about it.
- Dec 6, 2009
- 78,162
- 4,277
- 1,815
P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,
(UN HISTORICAL EXPLANATION)
On 15 July 1948, the Security Council decided in a resolution that the situation in Palestine constituted a threat to the peace. It ordered a ceasefire and declared that failure to comply would be construed as a breach of the peace requiring immediate consideration of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. In accordance with the resolution, a second truce came into force. By that time, Israel controlled much of the territory allotted to the Arab State by the partition resolution, including the western part of Jerusalem. Egypt and Jordan respectively controlled the remaining portions of the Gaza district and the West Bank of the Jordan River (which included East Jerusalem, with its walled Old City). More fighting took place in October 1948 and March 1949, during which Israel took over other areas, some of which had been allotted to the Arab State. In 1950, Jordan brought the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, formally under its jurisdiction pending a solution to the problem.
The hostilities had created a major humanitarian crisis, with almost 750,000 Palestinians being uprooted from their land and becoming refugees. On 17 September 1948, while in the middle of negotiations between the parties, Count Bernadotte was shot and killed in the Israeli-held sector of Jerusalem. His deputy, Ralph Bunche, of the United States, was appointed as Acting Mediator. Between February and July 1949, under United Nations auspices, armistice agreements were signed between Israel, on the one hand, and Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria on the other. The agreements, which were similar in general content, accepted the establishment of the armistice as an indispensable step towards the restoration of peace in Palestine. They also made clear that the purpose of the armistice was not to establish or recognize any territorial, custodial or other rights, claims or interests of any party. In August of 1949, the Security Council called for UNTSO observers to supervise the armistice. In accordance with Council decisions, UNTSO observers remain stationed in the Middle East to this day.
SOURCE: http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/DPI2499.pdf
Most Respectfully,
R
Thanks, this is a good read. It shows 65 years of worthless monkey motions by the UN and no peace in sight.
It is a good reason to promote BDS.
P F Tinmore, et al,
You are absolutely correct; grammatically. I should have said the "territory cover by the" the Mandate of Palestine. But, I invariably just shorten it to the Mandate of Palestine.
Now I get to correct you. The Mandate did not leave Palestine, it was terminated. That puts it back into trusteeship with the UN Commission on Palestine (UNCOP); not to the Palestinians.
The Mandate of Palestine (as well as Lebanon and Syria) was special. It was not just to render administrative advice and assistance.
One must remember that the territory called Palestine was artificial; not established by regional or local governments, the indigenous populations, or the greater Arab community. That is, it had no borders until they were declared by the Mandatory in coordination with the Allied Powers and the Mandate Commission. If it wasn't for the Mandatory, there would not have been a defined border for Palestine; but as it was, the Treaty stated that Palestine was "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers." The people that came to be known as Palestinians had no responsibility for the establishments of the boundaries. Those boundaries (size, shape , location) were established purely at the discretion of the Allied Powers.
Most Respectfully,
R
You are absolutely correct; grammatically. I should have said the "territory cover by the" the Mandate of Palestine. But, I invariably just shorten it to the Mandate of Palestine.
(COMMENT)RoccoR said:This is a standard technique used by pro-Palestinians to suggest that there was a "country" called Palestinian, --- as opposed to --- a Mandate (or former Mandate) of Palestine.
The mandate was not a place. It had no land or borders. The mandate was assigned to Palestine to render administrative assistance and advice.
When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there inside its international borders.
Now I get to correct you. The Mandate did not leave Palestine, it was terminated. That puts it back into trusteeship with the UN Commission on Palestine (UNCOP); not to the Palestinians.
The Mandate of Palestine (as well as Lebanon and Syria) was special. It was not just to render administrative advice and assistance.
THE MANDATES SYSTEM said:The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country".
Accordingly, under the terms of the Mandate, the Mandatory is to be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. The Mandate also provides for the recognition as a public body of a Jewish agency which is to advise and co-operate with the administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country. At first and in accordance with the terms of the Mandate, this role was entrusted to the Zionist Organisation; later, however, from 1929 onwards, that organisation was replaced by the "Jewish Agency for Palestine", which includes representatives not only of the Zionist Organisation but also of other Jewish bodies in various countries. In consultation with the Mandatory, this agency takes steps to secure the co-operation of all Jews willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home. While ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, the Administration, for its part, must facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and, in co-operation with the Jewish agency, encourage close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. A nationality law is to be enacted containing provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
SOURCE: LoN/1945.VI.A.1 30 April 1945
One must remember that the territory called Palestine was artificial; not established by regional or local governments, the indigenous populations, or the greater Arab community. That is, it had no borders until they were declared by the Mandatory in coordination with the Allied Powers and the Mandate Commission. If it wasn't for the Mandatory, there would not have been a defined border for Palestine; but as it was, the Treaty stated that Palestine was "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers." The people that came to be known as Palestinians had no responsibility for the establishments of the boundaries. Those boundaries (size, shape , location) were established purely at the discretion of the Allied Powers.
Most Respectfully,
R
- Dec 6, 2009
- 78,162
- 4,277
- 1,815
P F Tinmore, et al,
You are absolutely correct; grammatically. I should have said the "territory cover by the" the Mandate of Palestine. But, I invariably just shorten it to the Mandate of Palestine.
(COMMENT)RoccoR said:This is a standard technique used by pro-Palestinians to suggest that there was a "country" called Palestinian, --- as opposed to --- a Mandate (or former Mandate) of Palestine.
The mandate was not a place. It had no land or borders. The mandate was assigned to Palestine to render administrative assistance and advice.
When the mandate left Palestine, Palestine was still there inside its international borders.
Now I get to correct you. The Mandate did not leave Palestine, it was terminated. That puts it back into trusteeship with the UN Commission on Palestine (UNCOP); not to the Palestinians.
The Mandate of Palestine (as well as Lebanon and Syria) was special. It was not just to render administrative advice and assistance.
THE MANDATES SYSTEM said:The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country".
Accordingly, under the terms of the Mandate, the Mandatory is to be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. The Mandate also provides for the recognition as a public body of a Jewish agency which is to advise and co-operate with the administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country. At first and in accordance with the terms of the Mandate, this role was entrusted to the Zionist Organisation; later, however, from 1929 onwards, that organisation was replaced by the "Jewish Agency for Palestine", which includes representatives not only of the Zionist Organisation but also of other Jewish bodies in various countries. In consultation with the Mandatory, this agency takes steps to secure the co-operation of all Jews willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home. While ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, the Administration, for its part, must facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and, in co-operation with the Jewish agency, encourage close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. A nationality law is to be enacted containing provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
SOURCE: LoN/1945.VI.A.1 30 April 1945
One must remember that the territory called Palestine was artificial; not established by regional or local governments, the indigenous populations, or the greater Arab community. That is, it had no borders until they were declared by the Mandatory in coordination with the Allied Powers and the Mandate Commission. If it wasn't for the Mandatory, there would not have been a defined border for Palestine; but as it was, the Treaty stated that Palestine was "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers." The people that came to be known as Palestinians had no responsibility for the establishments of the boundaries. Those boundaries (size, shape , location) were established purely at the discretion of the Allied Powers.
Most Respectfully,
R
Indeed, the Palestine Mandate was a monumental flop. Its stupid and conflicting goals were unworkable. Britain left Palestine getting shot at by both sides. Britain created a perpetual war then cut and ran.
Then the UN took over and fucked it up even more.
All this death and destruction was completely unnecessary.
P F Tinmore, et al,
Well, we have to disagree here.
Again, it really doesn't matter. For all practical purpose, everyone is using the lines for that purpose, until a solution is resolved. Since the Palestinians don't want a solution, the Occupation can go on indefinitely.
The same process worked for every nation in the region except for the Arabs in Palestine. The 65 years of conflict was purely at the discretion of the Palestinians and the Arab League. It was they who rejected the opportunity for an Arab State, and it was they that provoked war.
At some point, the Arab Palestinian must take the responsibility and assume the consequences for their actions.
Most Respectfully,
R
Well, we have to disagree here.
(COMMENT)RoccoR said:The Armistice Line rouse is often used by the pro-Palestinian to pretend that there is a defect in the recognition of the State of Israel.
A state should have a defined territory. Israel does not have a defined territory. Israel sits inside armistice lines. Armistice lines are specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.
There is no "pretend" about it.
Again, it really doesn't matter. For all practical purpose, everyone is using the lines for that purpose, until a solution is resolved. Since the Palestinians don't want a solution, the Occupation can go on indefinitely.
(COMMENT)Thanks, this is a good read. It shows 65 years of worthless monkey motions by the UN and no peace in sight.
It is a good reason to promote BDS.
The same process worked for every nation in the region except for the Arabs in Palestine. The 65 years of conflict was purely at the discretion of the Palestinians and the Arab League. It was they who rejected the opportunity for an Arab State, and it was they that provoked war.
At some point, the Arab Palestinian must take the responsibility and assume the consequences for their actions.
Most Respectfully,
R
- Dec 6, 2009
- 78,162
- 4,277
- 1,815
P F Tinmore, et al,
Well, we have to disagree here.
(COMMENT)RoccoR said:The Armistice Line rouse is often used by the pro-Palestinian to pretend that there is a defect in the recognition of the State of Israel.
A state should have a defined territory. Israel does not have a defined territory. Israel sits inside armistice lines. Armistice lines are specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.
There is no "pretend" about it.
Again, it really doesn't matter. For all practical purpose, everyone is using the lines for that purpose, until a solution is resolved. Since the Palestinians don't want a solution, the Occupation can go on indefinitely.
(COMMENT)Thanks, this is a good read. It shows 65 years of worthless monkey motions by the UN and no peace in sight.
It is a good reason to promote BDS.
The same process worked for every nation in the region except for the Arabs in Palestine. The 65 years of conflict was purely at the discretion of the Palestinians and the Arab League. It was they who rejected the opportunity for an Arab State, and it was they that provoked war.
At some point, the Arab Palestinian must take the responsibility and assume the consequences for their actions.
Most Respectfully,
R
Not true.
The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when foreigners went to Palestine and started a war.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 120
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 125
- Replies
- 37
- Views
- 334
- Replies
- 50
- Views
- 497
- Replies
- 62
- Views
- 357
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 958
- Views
- 10K
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1
- Replies
- 145
- Views
- 633
- Replies
- 13
- Views
- 81
- Replies
- 33
- Views
- 498
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8164
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 475
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-