PLO leadership votes to suspend security cooperation with Israel

[CMike]

Abbas is yet to make the final decision but it looks likely...

A shrewd political move by the PLO in the wake of Nut&yahoo in congress?

Pressure on Nut&yahoo in the upcoming elections?

Suicide for the PLO?

Strangulation of Hamas from within?

PLO leadership votes to suspend security cooperation with Israel World news The Guardian

That's good. The security coordination violates domestic and international law.

The Palestinians regularly protest against the PA for working for Israel.

Creative. Not true, but creative.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is interesting.

Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders.

(REFERENCE)

S/RES/242 22 November 1967

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;​

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;​

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.​

(COMMENT)

The Security Council Resolution 242, is not that complicated. But contains some ambiguous language; like "should include the application." But even more in question is, in 1967, when the Resolution was written, who were the parties to the conflict?

In fact, the Resolution (as P F Tinmore points out) does not require "Palestine" to do anything (Palestine and the Palestinians are not mentioned once in the resolution). In 1967, the parties to the conflict were the Israelis (the only member nation actually named in the Resolution), Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptians. So, P F Tinmore's statement is absolutely correct --- 'Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders." Palestine and the Palestinians are not parties to the conflict in question. They are completely out of the equation and have no vested interest in the Resolution. At the time of the Resolution the people of Gaza were under occupation by the Egyptian Military Governorship. At the time of the Resolution, the people of the West Bank were under Jordanian sovereignty.

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

√ No time frame specified.​

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

√ The Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979 answers the issue of the Gaza Strip.
√ The Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel, 27 January 1995, answers the issue of the West Bank.
​

It should be noted that the Armistice Arrangements date back to 1949 and the War of Independence for the State of Israel. While the "War" has never come to a conclusion between Israel and the aggressor nations of Syria and Lebanon, the Treaties effectively ended the conflict with the aggressors of Egypt and Jordan. While Resolution 242 is answered by the treaties --- pertaining to the 1967 Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, there may still be some application to the relations with Lebanon and Syria.

Relative to the "refugee problem:"

There are no refugees pertaining to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Refugees are defined by Paragraph 1 - Article 1 (as delineated by Paragraph 2 - Article 1) of the CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF STATELESS PERSONS of 1954. However the formerly displaced Arab Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West Bank may categorize themselves IAW Article 1, it is overturned by Article 2:

2. This Convention shall not apply:

(i) To persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance so long as they are receiving such protection or assistance;

(ii) To persons who are recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which they have taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country;

(iii)To persons with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:

(a) They have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provisions in respect of such crimes;

(b) They have committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of their residence prior to their admission to that country;

(c) They have been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.​

​

There would be very few did not fall under Article 1, Paragraph 2ii, in which the one-time refugee were recognized by the country of Egypt or Jordan and taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of Egyptian or Jordanian nationality.

• Coverage under the All-Palestine Government from 1949 until 1959.
• Coverage under Jordanian Citizenship 1950 to 1988.
• Coverage under the State of Palestine from 1988 to Present.

Thus, in many respect, and for a number of reasons, the UNSC Resolution 242 has no true application to the Palestinian, except as it pertains to the standing realtive to an authentic "occupation."

Most Respectfully,
R

​

May I disagree with you on this as the P.A. in signing the many U.N. charters has stated that it will adhere to the terms of UN res 242 in its entirety believing that the French translation covers their claims to the land from the river to the sea and from north to south. So 242 does apply to the Palestinians and they have to negotiate mutual borders whether they like it or not.

The Palestinians do not have to do anything. There is nothing that needs to be negotiated.

They had to show they were capable of self determination and the anility to form a government, read the Mandate for Palestine. Then they had to act as peaceful neighbours and engage in mutual debate and negotiations. You forget that they elected to be held accountable by UN res 242 in their declaration of 1988

Palestinian Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Consequences
The declaration was accompanied by a PNC call for multilateral negotiations on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 242. This call was later termed "the Historic Compromise",[11] as it implied acceptance of the "two-state solution", namely that it no longer questioned the legitimacy of the State of Israel.[10] The PNC's political communiqué accompanying the declaration called only for withdrawal from "Arab Jerusalem" and the other "Arab territories occupied."[12] Yasser Arafat's statements in Geneva a month later[13][14] were accepted by the United States as sufficient to remove the ambiguities it saw in the declaration and to fulfill the longheld conditions for open dialogue with the United States.




So you see they had agreed to mutually negotiated borders as laid down in UN res 242

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

Where does resolution 242 say what borders should be negotiated and by whom?

See above where it is highlighted. Until the PLO accepted UN res 242 as law the Palestinians did not need to do anything but exist the best they could. Once they agreed to all the UN charters and resolutions then they became part of the problem and needed to negotiate mutual borders with ALL OF THEIR NEIGHBOURS. Haven't you read UN res 242 and the UN charter ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is interesting.

(REFERENCE)

S/RES/242 22 November 1967

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;​

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;​

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.​

(COMMENT)

The Security Council Resolution 242, is not that complicated. But contains some ambiguous language; like "should include the application." But even more in question is, in 1967, when the Resolution was written, who were the parties to the conflict?

In fact, the Resolution (as P F Tinmore points out) does not require "Palestine" to do anything (Palestine and the Palestinians are not mentioned once in the resolution). In 1967, the parties to the conflict were the Israelis (the only member nation actually named in the Resolution), Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptians. So, P F Tinmore's statement is absolutely correct --- 'Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders." Palestine and the Palestinians are not parties to the conflict in question. They are completely out of the equation and have no vested interest in the Resolution. At the time of the Resolution the people of Gaza were under occupation by the Egyptian Military Governorship. At the time of the Resolution, the people of the West Bank were under Jordanian sovereignty.

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

√ No time frame specified.​

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

√ The Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979 answers the issue of the Gaza Strip.
√ The Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel, 27 January 1995, answers the issue of the West Bank.
​

It should be noted that the Armistice Arrangements date back to 1949 and the War of Independence for the State of Israel. While the "War" has never come to a conclusion between Israel and the aggressor nations of Syria and Lebanon, the Treaties effectively ended the conflict with the aggressors of Egypt and Jordan. While Resolution 242 is answered by the treaties --- pertaining to the 1967 Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, there may still be some application to the relations with Lebanon and Syria.

Relative to the "refugee problem:"

There are no refugees pertaining to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Refugees are defined by Paragraph 1 - Article 1 (as delineated by Paragraph 2 - Article 1) of the CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF STATELESS PERSONS of 1954. However the formerly displaced Arab Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West Bank may categorize themselves IAW Article 1, it is overturned by Article 2:

​

There would be very few did not fall under Article 1, Paragraph 2ii, in which the one-time refugee were recognized by the country of Egypt or Jordan and taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of Egyptian or Jordanian nationality.

• Coverage under the All-Palestine Government from 1949 until 1959.
• Coverage under Jordanian Citizenship 1950 to 1988.
• Coverage under the State of Palestine from 1988 to Present.

Thus, in many respect, and for a number of reasons, the UNSC Resolution 242 has no true application to the Palestinian, except as it pertains to the standing realtive to an authentic "occupation."

Most Respectfully,
R

​

May I disagree with you on this as the P.A. in signing the many U.N. charters has stated that it will adhere to the terms of UN res 242 in its entirety believing that the French translation covers their claims to the land from the river to the sea and from north to south. So 242 does apply to the Palestinians and they have to negotiate mutual borders whether they like it or not.

The Palestinians do not have to do anything. There is nothing that needs to be negotiated.

They had to show they were capable of self determination and the anility to form a government, read the Mandate for Palestine. Then they had to act as peaceful neighbours and engage in mutual debate and negotiations. You forget that they elected to be held accountable by UN res 242 in their declaration of 1988

Palestinian Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Consequences
The declaration was accompanied by a PNC call for multilateral negotiations on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 242. This call was later termed "the Historic Compromise",[11] as it implied acceptance of the "two-state solution", namely that it no longer questioned the legitimacy of the State of Israel.[10] The PNC's political communiqué accompanying the declaration called only for withdrawal from "Arab Jerusalem" and the other "Arab territories occupied."[12] Yasser Arafat's statements in Geneva a month later[13][14] were accepted by the United States as sufficient to remove the ambiguities it saw in the declaration and to fulfill the longheld conditions for open dialogue with the United States.




So you see they had agreed to mutually negotiated borders as laid down in UN res 242

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

Where does resolution 242 say what borders should be negotiated and by whom?

See above where it is highlighted. Until the PLO accepted UN res 242 as law the Palestinians did not need to do anything but exist the best they could. Once they agreed to all the UN charters and resolutions then they became part of the problem and needed to negotiate mutual borders with ALL OF THEIR NEIGHBOURS. Haven't you read UN res 242 and the UN charter ?

I have. Where do they say what you say?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel has border police but no borders.

What is their job actually.

To police their borders as laid down under International law. Or do you forget that Israel has International borders mutually agreed with its neighbours ?

Egypt and Jordan, maybe; Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, not so much.

With Syria they have armistice lines, with Lebanon they have armistice lines and treaties. With Palestine they have nothing until the borders are mutually agreed as stipulated in UN res 242 which the Palestinians stupidly agreed to be ruled by.

Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders.

It requires them to negotiate mutual borders, and seeing as it has no actual borders with anyone then it does. Name the treaty that gave them these fantasy borders and show who signed to accept them on behalf of the Palestinian nation. But remember the LoN borders were not for the nation of Palestine but for the Mandate for Palestine.

The Mandate owned no land. It held Palestine in trust.

Trustees do not own the property they hold in trust. Therefore they cannot have borders.

 

[Phoenall]

May I disagree with you on this as the P.A. in signing the many U.N. charters has stated that it will adhere to the terms of UN res 242 in its entirety believing that the French translation covers their claims to the land from the river to the sea and from north to south. So 242 does apply to the Palestinians and they have to negotiate mutual borders whether they like it or not.

The Palestinians do not have to do anything. There is nothing that needs to be negotiated.

They had to show they were capable of self determination and the anility to form a government, read the Mandate for Palestine. Then they had to act as peaceful neighbours and engage in mutual debate and negotiations. You forget that they elected to be held accountable by UN res 242 in their declaration of 1988

Palestinian Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Consequences
The declaration was accompanied by a PNC call for multilateral negotiations on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 242. This call was later termed "the Historic Compromise",[11] as it implied acceptance of the "two-state solution", namely that it no longer questioned the legitimacy of the State of Israel.[10] The PNC's political communiqué accompanying the declaration called only for withdrawal from "Arab Jerusalem" and the other "Arab territories occupied."[12] Yasser Arafat's statements in Geneva a month later[13][14] were accepted by the United States as sufficient to remove the ambiguities it saw in the declaration and to fulfill the longheld conditions for open dialogue with the United States.




So you see they had agreed to mutually negotiated borders as laid down in UN res 242

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

Where does resolution 242 say what borders should be negotiated and by whom?

See above where it is highlighted. Until the PLO accepted UN res 242 as law the Palestinians did not need to do anything but exist the best they could. Once they agreed to all the UN charters and resolutions then they became part of the problem and needed to negotiate mutual borders with ALL OF THEIR NEIGHBOURS. Haven't you read UN res 242 and the UN charter ?

I have. Where do they say what you say?

Highlighted above or cant you read, UN res 242 calls for all parties to line in peace WITHIN SECURE AND RECOGNIZED BORDERS. The only way the borders can be recognised is by treaty negotiations that the Palestinians are refusing to take part in less than a year after LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH that they would

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinians do not have to do anything. There is nothing that needs to be negotiated.

They had to show they were capable of self determination and the anility to form a government, read the Mandate for Palestine. Then they had to act as peaceful neighbours and engage in mutual debate and negotiations. You forget that they elected to be held accountable by UN res 242 in their declaration of 1988

Palestinian Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Consequences
The declaration was accompanied by a PNC call for multilateral negotiations on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 242. This call was later termed "the Historic Compromise",[11] as it implied acceptance of the "two-state solution", namely that it no longer questioned the legitimacy of the State of Israel.[10] The PNC's political communiqué accompanying the declaration called only for withdrawal from "Arab Jerusalem" and the other "Arab territories occupied."[12] Yasser Arafat's statements in Geneva a month later[13][14] were accepted by the United States as sufficient to remove the ambiguities it saw in the declaration and to fulfill the longheld conditions for open dialogue with the United States.




So you see they had agreed to mutually negotiated borders as laid down in UN res 242

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

Where does resolution 242 say what borders should be negotiated and by whom?

See above where it is highlighted. Until the PLO accepted UN res 242 as law the Palestinians did not need to do anything but exist the best they could. Once they agreed to all the UN charters and resolutions then they became part of the problem and needed to negotiate mutual borders with ALL OF THEIR NEIGHBOURS. Haven't you read UN res 242 and the UN charter ?

I have. Where do they say what you say?

Highlighted above or cant you read, UN res 242 calls for all parties to line in peace WITHIN SECURE AND RECOGNIZED BORDERS. The only way the borders can be recognised is by treaty negotiations that the Palestinians are refusing to take part in less than a year after LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH that they would

The Palestinians have the right to negotiate their borders?

Nowhere does it say that they have to.

 

[Phoenall]

To police their borders as laid down under International law. Or do you forget that Israel has International borders mutually agreed with its neighbours ?

Egypt and Jordan, maybe; Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, not so much.

With Syria they have armistice lines, with Lebanon they have armistice lines and treaties. With Palestine they have nothing until the borders are mutually agreed as stipulated in UN res 242 which the Palestinians stupidly agreed to be ruled by.

Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders.

It requires them to negotiate mutual borders, and seeing as it has no actual borders with anyone then it does. Name the treaty that gave them these fantasy borders and show who signed to accept them on behalf of the Palestinian nation. But remember the LoN borders were not for the nation of Palestine but for the Mandate for Palestine.

The Mandate owned no land. It held Palestine in trust.

Trustees do not own the property they hold in trust. Therefore they cannot have borders.

Not according to 1919 International law, under that law it owned the land originally owned by the Ottoman empire to do with as it pleased. It gave 99% of that land to arab muslims and Persian muslims leaving 1% for the Jews of the world to call their homeland. Then there can not be any international borders of Palestine set by the LON mandate can there. You cant have it both ways either the LON Mandate created international borders or it did not have the authority

 

[Phoenall]

To police their borders as laid down under International law. Or do you forget that Israel has International borders mutually agreed with its neighbours ?

Egypt and Jordan, maybe; Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, not so much.

With Syria they have armistice lines, with Lebanon they have armistice lines and treaties. With Palestine they have nothing until the borders are mutually agreed as stipulated in UN res 242 which the Palestinians stupidly agreed to be ruled by.

Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders.

It requires them to negotiate mutual borders, and seeing as it has no actual borders with anyone then it does. Name the treaty that gave them these fantasy borders and show who signed to accept them on behalf of the Palestinian nation. But remember the LoN borders were not for the nation of Palestine but for the Mandate for Palestine.

The Mandate owned no land. It held Palestine in trust.

Trustees do not own the property they hold in trust. Therefore they cannot have borders.

The trustees were the British not the LoN

 

[Phoenall]

They had to show they were capable of self determination and the anility to form a government, read the Mandate for Palestine. Then they had to act as peaceful neighbours and engage in mutual debate and negotiations. You forget that they elected to be held accountable by UN res 242 in their declaration of 1988

Palestinian Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Consequences
The declaration was accompanied by a PNC call for multilateral negotiations on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 242. This call was later termed "the Historic Compromise",[11] as it implied acceptance of the "two-state solution", namely that it no longer questioned the legitimacy of the State of Israel.[10] The PNC's political communiqué accompanying the declaration called only for withdrawal from "Arab Jerusalem" and the other "Arab territories occupied."[12] Yasser Arafat's statements in Geneva a month later[13][14] were accepted by the United States as sufficient to remove the ambiguities it saw in the declaration and to fulfill the longheld conditions for open dialogue with the United States.




So you see they had agreed to mutually negotiated borders as laid down in UN res 242

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

Where does resolution 242 say what borders should be negotiated and by whom?

See above where it is highlighted. Until the PLO accepted UN res 242 as law the Palestinians did not need to do anything but exist the best they could. Once they agreed to all the UN charters and resolutions then they became part of the problem and needed to negotiate mutual borders with ALL OF THEIR NEIGHBOURS. Haven't you read UN res 242 and the UN charter ?

I have. Where do they say what you say?

Highlighted above or cant you read, UN res 242 calls for all parties to line in peace WITHIN SECURE AND RECOGNIZED BORDERS. The only way the borders can be recognised is by treaty negotiations that the Palestinians are refusing to take part in less than a year after LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH that they would

The Palestinians have the right to negotiate their borders?

Nowhere does it say that they have to.

Read it again as until they negotiate mutual borders they are in breach of International law, and Israel can claim the land

 

[P F Tinmore]

Egypt and Jordan, maybe; Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, not so much.

With Syria they have armistice lines, with Lebanon they have armistice lines and treaties. With Palestine they have nothing until the borders are mutually agreed as stipulated in UN res 242 which the Palestinians stupidly agreed to be ruled by.

Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders.

It requires them to negotiate mutual borders, and seeing as it has no actual borders with anyone then it does. Name the treaty that gave them these fantasy borders and show who signed to accept them on behalf of the Palestinian nation. But remember the LoN borders were not for the nation of Palestine but for the Mandate for Palestine.

The Mandate owned no land. It held Palestine in trust.

Trustees do not own the property they hold in trust. Therefore they cannot have borders.

Not according to 1919 International law, under that law it owned the land originally owned by the Ottoman empire to do with as it pleased. It gave 99% of that land to arab muslims and Persian muslims leaving 1% for the Jews of the world to call their homeland. Then there can not be any international borders of Palestine set by the LON mandate can there. You cant have it both ways either the LON Mandate created international borders or it did not have the authority

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate took possession of any land.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Where does resolution 242 say what borders should be negotiated and by whom?

See above where it is highlighted. Until the PLO accepted UN res 242 as law the Palestinians did not need to do anything but exist the best they could. Once they agreed to all the UN charters and resolutions then they became part of the problem and needed to negotiate mutual borders with ALL OF THEIR NEIGHBOURS. Haven't you read UN res 242 and the UN charter ?

I have. Where do they say what you say?

Highlighted above or cant you read, UN res 242 calls for all parties to line in peace WITHIN SECURE AND RECOGNIZED BORDERS. The only way the borders can be recognised is by treaty negotiations that the Palestinians are refusing to take part in less than a year after LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH that they would

The Palestinians have the right to negotiate their borders?

Nowhere does it say that they have to.

Read it again as until they negotiate mutual borders they are in breach of International law, and Israel can claim the land

Where does it say that?

 

[Phoenall]

With Syria they have armistice lines, with Lebanon they have armistice lines and treaties. With Palestine they have nothing until the borders are mutually agreed as stipulated in UN res 242 which the Palestinians stupidly agreed to be ruled by.

Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders.

It requires them to negotiate mutual borders, and seeing as it has no actual borders with anyone then it does. Name the treaty that gave them these fantasy borders and show who signed to accept them on behalf of the Palestinian nation. But remember the LoN borders were not for the nation of Palestine but for the Mandate for Palestine.

The Mandate owned no land. It held Palestine in trust.

Trustees do not own the property they hold in trust. Therefore they cannot have borders.

Not according to 1919 International law, under that law it owned the land originally owned by the Ottoman empire to do with as it pleased. It gave 99% of that land to arab muslims and Persian muslims leaving 1% for the Jews of the world to call their homeland. Then there can not be any international borders of Palestine set by the LON mandate can there. You cant have it both ways either the LON Mandate created international borders or it did not have the authority

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate took possession of any land.

LINK ? ? ? ?

 

[Phoenall]

See above where it is highlighted. Until the PLO accepted UN res 242 as law the Palestinians did not need to do anything but exist the best they could. Once they agreed to all the UN charters and resolutions then they became part of the problem and needed to negotiate mutual borders with ALL OF THEIR NEIGHBOURS. Haven't you read UN res 242 and the UN charter ?

I have. Where do they say what you say?

Highlighted above or cant you read, UN res 242 calls for all parties to line in peace WITHIN SECURE AND RECOGNIZED BORDERS. The only way the borders can be recognised is by treaty negotiations that the Palestinians are refusing to take part in less than a year after LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH that they would

The Palestinians have the right to negotiate their borders?

Nowhere does it say that they have to.

Read it again as until they negotiate mutual borders they are in breach of International law, and Israel can claim the land

Where does it say that?

Highlighted above or cant you read, UN res 242 calls for all parties to line in peace WITHIN SECURE AND RECOGNIZED BORDERS. The only way the borders can be recognised is by treaty negotiations that the Palestinians are refusing to take part in less than a year after LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH that they would.


Who owns the land until the Palestinians negotiate the borders ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I have. Where do they say what you say?

Highlighted above or cant you read, UN res 242 calls for all parties to line in peace WITHIN SECURE AND RECOGNIZED BORDERS. The only way the borders can be recognised is by treaty negotiations that the Palestinians are refusing to take part in less than a year after LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH that they would

The Palestinians have the right to negotiate their borders?

Nowhere does it say that they have to.

Read it again as until they negotiate mutual borders they are in breach of International law, and Israel can claim the land

Where does it say that?

Highlighted above or cant you read, UN res 242 calls for all parties to line in peace WITHIN SECURE AND RECOGNIZED BORDERS. The only way the borders can be recognised is by treaty negotiations that the Palestinians are refusing to take part in less than a year after LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH that they would.


Who owns the land until the Palestinians negotiate the borders ?

The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity as stated in UN resolutions.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders.

It requires them to negotiate mutual borders, and seeing as it has no actual borders with anyone then it does. Name the treaty that gave them these fantasy borders and show who signed to accept them on behalf of the Palestinian nation. But remember the LoN borders were not for the nation of Palestine but for the Mandate for Palestine.

The Mandate owned no land. It held Palestine in trust.

Trustees do not own the property they hold in trust. Therefore they cannot have borders.

Not according to 1919 International law, under that law it owned the land originally owned by the Ottoman empire to do with as it pleased. It gave 99% of that land to arab muslims and Persian muslims leaving 1% for the Jews of the world to call their homeland. Then there can not be any international borders of Palestine set by the LON mandate can there. You cant have it both ways either the LON Mandate created international borders or it did not have the authority

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate took possession of any land.

LINK ? ? ? ?

Oh geese, have you never read article 22 of the LoN Covenant?

 

[Phoenall]

Highlighted above or cant you read, UN res 242 calls for all parties to line in peace WITHIN SECURE AND RECOGNIZED BORDERS. The only way the borders can be recognised is by treaty negotiations that the Palestinians are refusing to take part in less than a year after LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH that they would

The Palestinians have the right to negotiate their borders?

Nowhere does it say that they have to.

Read it again as until they negotiate mutual borders they are in breach of International law, and Israel can claim the land

Where does it say that?

Highlighted above or cant you read, UN res 242 calls for all parties to line in peace WITHIN SECURE AND RECOGNIZED BORDERS. The only way the borders can be recognised is by treaty negotiations that the Palestinians are refusing to take part in less than a year after LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH that they would.


Who owns the land until the Palestinians negotiate the borders ?

The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity as stated in UN resolutions.

Who decides were that territorial integrity lies, there are no international mutually agreed borders for the state of Palestine. So will Egyppt, Jordan and Israel allow them to claim their land ?

 

[Phoenall]

It requires them to negotiate mutual borders, and seeing as it has no actual borders with anyone then it does. Name the treaty that gave them these fantasy borders and show who signed to accept them on behalf of the Palestinian nation. But remember the LoN borders were not for the nation of Palestine but for the Mandate for Palestine.

The Mandate owned no land. It held Palestine in trust.

Trustees do not own the property they hold in trust. Therefore they cannot have borders.

Not according to 1919 International law, under that law it owned the land originally owned by the Ottoman empire to do with as it pleased. It gave 99% of that land to arab muslims and Persian muslims leaving 1% for the Jews of the world to call their homeland. Then there can not be any international borders of Palestine set by the LON mandate can there. You cant have it both ways either the LON Mandate created international borders or it did not have the authority

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate took possession of any land.

LINK ? ? ? ?

Oh geese, have you never read article 22 of the LoN Covenant?

Yes and it does not say what you are claiming, it says that the people will be placed under the tutelage of a sovereign nation on behalf of the LEGAL LAND OWNERS the LoN.


So how about this link that shows the LoN did not acquire ownership of the land after the Ottomans were defeated.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Mandate owned no land. It held Palestine in trust.

Trustees do not own the property they hold in trust. Therefore they cannot have borders.

Not according to 1919 International law, under that law it owned the land originally owned by the Ottoman empire to do with as it pleased. It gave 99% of that land to arab muslims and Persian muslims leaving 1% for the Jews of the world to call their homeland. Then there can not be any international borders of Palestine set by the LON mandate can there. You cant have it both ways either the LON Mandate created international borders or it did not have the authority

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate took possession of any land.

LINK ? ? ? ?

Oh geese, have you never read article 22 of the LoN Covenant?

Yes and it does not say what you are claiming, it says that the people will be placed under the tutelage of a sovereign nation on behalf of the LEGAL LAND OWNERS the LoN.


So how about this link that shows the LoN did not acquire ownership of the land after the Ottomans were defeated.

Your post is a lie. The covenant says:

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Everything said is to benefit the people.​

 

[Phoenall]

Not according to 1919 International law, under that law it owned the land originally owned by the Ottoman empire to do with as it pleased. It gave 99% of that land to arab muslims and Persian muslims leaving 1% for the Jews of the world to call their homeland. Then there can not be any international borders of Palestine set by the LON mandate can there. You cant have it both ways either the LON Mandate created international borders or it did not have the authority

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate took possession of any land.

LINK ? ? ? ?

Oh geese, have you never read article 22 of the LoN Covenant?

Yes and it does not say what you are claiming, it says that the people will be placed under the tutelage of a sovereign nation on behalf of the LEGAL LAND OWNERS the LoN.


So how about this link that shows the LoN did not acquire ownership of the land after the Ottomans were defeated.

Your post is a lie. The covenant says:

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Everything said is to benefit the people.​

So where does it say the people other than the Jews, and then where does it say the land was not owned by the LoN ?

Remember the Jews had a prior claim to the Land from the Lon Mandate that said they would be given Palestine as promised.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate took possession of any land.

LINK ? ? ? ?

Oh geese, have you never read article 22 of the LoN Covenant?

Yes and it does not say what you are claiming, it says that the people will be placed under the tutelage of a sovereign nation on behalf of the LEGAL LAND OWNERS the LoN.


So how about this link that shows the LoN did not acquire ownership of the land after the Ottomans were defeated.

Your post is a lie. The covenant says:

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Everything said is to benefit the people.​

So where does it say the people other than the Jews, and then where does it say the land was not owned by the LoN ?

Remember the Jews had a prior claim to the Land from the Lon Mandate that said they would be given Palestine as promised.

Where does it say that the land of Palestine would be given to the Jews?