Recognition not territory

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of an irrational people that cannot makeup their mind. Moving into a land of both shadow and darkness, and a journey into a horrific land where you unlock the door to armed struggle, resistance, jihad, cowardice, barbarism and terrorism. Next stop, the Arab Palestine!

Yeah, sometimes I feel like I just crossed over.

The Palestinians (?) offered to cede 78% of Palestine to Israel. Israel refused the offer so Israel still legally has nothing.

(COMMENT)

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.

Everyone in the region understands the scope and nature of Israel's territorial sovereignty, zones of authority and effective control. All the people from the Black Sea to the Gulf of Aden, and From the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, that there is a line you cross when you will be scrutinized by the Israelis prior to entry.

At no time dd the Arab Palestinians offer anything but hostility, violence and combative behaviors. They could have made a difference, but they declined to participate. The Arab Palestinians cannot government, laws and effective control if they choose not to participate in government when offered.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

aris2chat, et al,

Well it may certainly be said that the issue of "recognition" as a "Jewish State" (Part I Section "F" - Admission to Membership in UN - A/RES/181(II - independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan) 29 November 1947); and "having received and examined the report of the Special Committee including a number of unanimous recommendations and a plan of partition with economic union approved by the majority of the Special Committee, was always an important question and concept.

While the exact origin of the concept is not truly known, what is known is that Theodor Herzl set the framework for a "Jewish Nation" in a 1896 handout titled: "The Jewish State."

And from the view of the Allied Powers, this "Question of Palestine" is at least as old as the UK Balfour Declaration itself; nearly a century ago --- which mentions the "national home for the Jewish people." Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine says it more clearly: "as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home."

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may 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.
Primary Sources: San Remo Resolution Published April 25, 1920 --- QUOTE From: Article of the Council on Foreign Relations
​

Israel: Conflict over recognition, not territory · 3y
The Palestinians have rejected Netanyahu's demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, saying that would undermine the rights of Israel's Arab minority as well as millions of refugees whose families lost properties during ... but said that for talks ...

>>David Pollock House Foreign Affairs hearing: Arab FMs agreed to "Jewish state" recognition during 2013-4 talks; Palestinians said no<<

Other than Israel and Israelis to disappear off the face of the earth, Palestinians don't seem to know or agree on what they do actually want.

Throw it all against the wall and see what sticks.

How do you talk to or make an agreement when Palestinians can't agree and the "demands" keep shifting from day to day?

(COMMENT)

If it has been said once --- it has been said a ziillion times. "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states." (Article 3 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention)

What is interesting is that the distinction that the Arab Palestinian draws between the difference of recognizing the "State of Israel" and that of the "Jewish State of Israel" or event the simple title of "Jewish State." What was clearly stated by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in a 9 September 1993 Letter to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was that: "The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security."

They make the distinction with "Jewish" affiliation. This position dates back to a time before the Independence of Israel. It was a firm political position the Arab Higher Committee outline when asked to participate in the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" that the Palestinians rejected stating (in part):

"The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense." (AHC Letter 6 February 1948 to Sec-Gen UN)
​

So we have it. The Arab Palestinians reject the notion of a "Jewish State" by do recognized "Israel's" right to exist. The PLO-Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) presents it like this:

"On November 15, 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) declared independence of the State of Palestine on all Palestinian land occupied by Israel in 1967, which constitutes 22 percent of historic Palestine. This was a historic, difficult and very painful compromise following decades of Palestinian internal discussion. On the same date, the PLO committed itself to upholding all UN resolutions, thus accepting the two-state solution." Source: PLO-NAD 2 May 2016
​

What is even a little more interesting is that:

"Israel has never endorsed the two-state solution as an official government policy and was not willing to accept a historical compromise on the basis of the two state solution on the 1967 border and to recognize the full scope of Palestinian rights under international law."
Source: PLO-NAD 2 May 2016
​

This claim is a trick. This is a way by which the Arab Palestinian can hamper the process of negotiations to reach a final status agreement on permanent status issues. This simple agreement will be used against the Israelis on the matters of: Borders, Jerusalem, and Refugees. This is a disguise to paint the Israelis as unreasonable, when (in fact) the Arab Palestinians are attempting to apply pre-conditions to the individual issues.

It is much safer for the Israelis to sit back and wait for the Arab Palestinians to make a good faith offer then to become entangled into some pre-negotiation dilemma.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians (?) offered to cede 78% of Palestine to Israel. Israel refused the offer so Israel still legally has nothing.

LINK

as Israel offered 93% of Palestine to the arab muslims and they demanded 100% plus Israel along with every Jew born after 1875 to be deported from the land.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of an irrational people that cannot makeup their mind. Moving into a land of both shadow and darkness, and a journey into a horrific land where you unlock the door to armed struggle, resistance, jihad, cowardice, barbarism and terrorism. Next stop, the Arab Palestine!

Yeah, sometimes I feel like I just crossed over.

The Palestinians (?) offered to cede 78% of Palestine to Israel. Israel refused the offer so Israel still legally has nothing.

(COMMENT)

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.

Everyone in the region understands the scope and nature of Israel's territorial sovereignty, zones of authority and effective control. All the people from the Black Sea to the Gulf of Aden, and From the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, that there is a line you cross when you will be scrutinized by the Israelis prior to entry.

At no time dd the Arab Palestinians offer anything but hostility, violence and combative behaviors. They could have made a difference, but they declined to participate. The Arab Palestinians cannot government, laws and effective control if they choose not to participate in government when offered.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.​

The UN says different from the Israeli propaganda that you are reading from.

Nice deflection, though.

 

[P F Tinmore]

aris2chat, et al,

Well it may certainly be said that the issue of "recognition" as a "Jewish State" (Part I Section "F" - Admission to Membership in UN - A/RES/181(II - independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan) 29 November 1947); and "having received and examined the report of the Special Committee including a number of unanimous recommendations and a plan of partition with economic union approved by the majority of the Special Committee, was always an important question and concept.

While the exact origin of the concept is not truly known, what is known is that Theodor Herzl set the framework for a "Jewish Nation" in a 1896 handout titled: "The Jewish State."

And from the view of the Allied Powers, this "Question of Palestine" is at least as old as the UK Balfour Declaration itself; nearly a century ago --- which mentions the "national home for the Jewish people." Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine says it more clearly: "as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home."

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may 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.
Primary Sources: San Remo Resolution Published April 25, 1920 --- QUOTE From: Article of the Council on Foreign Relations
​

Israel: Conflict over recognition, not territory · 3y
The Palestinians have rejected Netanyahu's demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, saying that would undermine the rights of Israel's Arab minority as well as millions of refugees whose families lost properties during ... but said that for talks ...

>>David Pollock House Foreign Affairs hearing: Arab FMs agreed to "Jewish state" recognition during 2013-4 talks; Palestinians said no<<

Other than Israel and Israelis to disappear off the face of the earth, Palestinians don't seem to know or agree on what they do actually want.

Throw it all against the wall and see what sticks.

How do you talk to or make an agreement when Palestinians can't agree and the "demands" keep shifting from day to day?

(COMMENT)

If it has been said once --- it has been said a ziillion times. "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states." (Article 3 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention)

What is interesting is that the distinction that the Arab Palestinian draws between the difference of recognizing the "State of Israel" and that of the "Jewish State of Israel" or event the simple title of "Jewish State." What was clearly stated by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in a 9 September 1993 Letter to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was that: "The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security."

They make the distinction with "Jewish" affiliation. This position dates back to a time before the Independence of Israel. It was a firm political position the Arab Higher Committee outline when asked to participate in the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" that the Palestinians rejected stating (in part):

"The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense." (AHC Letter 6 February 1948 to Sec-Gen UN)
​

So we have it. The Arab Palestinians reject the notion of a "Jewish State" by do recognized "Israel's" right to exist. The PLO-Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) presents it like this:

"On November 15, 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) declared independence of the State of Palestine on all Palestinian land occupied by Israel in 1967, which constitutes 22 percent of historic Palestine. This was a historic, difficult and very painful compromise following decades of Palestinian internal discussion. On the same date, the PLO committed itself to upholding all UN resolutions, thus accepting the two-state solution." Source: PLO-NAD 2 May 2016
​

What is even a little more interesting is that:

"Israel has never endorsed the two-state solution as an official government policy and was not willing to accept a historical compromise on the basis of the two state solution on the 1967 border and to recognize the full scope of Palestinian rights under international law."
Source: PLO-NAD 2 May 2016
​

This claim is a trick. This is a way by which the Arab Palestinian can hamper the process of negotiations to reach a final status agreement on permanent status issues. This simple agreement will be used against the Israelis on the matters of: Borders, Jerusalem, and Refugees. This is a disguise to paint the Israelis as unreasonable, when (in fact) the Arab Palestinians are attempting to apply pre-conditions to the individual issues.

It is much safer for the Israelis to sit back and wait for the Arab Palestinians to make a good faith offer then to become entangled into some pre-negotiation dilemma.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians (?) offered to cede 78% of Palestine to Israel. Israel refused the offer so Israel still legally has nothing.

LINK

as Israel offered 93% of Palestine to the arab muslims and they demanded 100% plus Israel along with every Jew born after 1875 to be deported from the land.

Israel can't offer anything to the Palestinians. They have nothing to offer.

 

[RoccoR]

"P F Tinmore, et al,

UN Legal said no such thing.

The UN was not around when these decision were made.

It was always the intention of the concerned leadership that the Arabs and the Jewish people, --- realizing that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations.

There is no agreement treaty, or binding arrangement between the Allied Powers and the Arabs of Palestine, except as was attended in the between the UK and Jordan.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of an irrational people that cannot makeup their mind. Moving into a land of both shadow and darkness, and a journey into a horrific land where you unlock the door to armed struggle, resistance, jihad, cowardice, barbarism and terrorism. Next stop, the Arab Palestine!

Yeah, sometimes I feel like I just crossed over.

The Palestinians (?) offered to cede 78% of Palestine to Israel. Israel refused the offer so Israel still legally has nothing.

(COMMENT)

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.

Everyone in the region understands the scope and nature of Israel's territorial sovereignty, zones of authority and effective control. All the people from the Black Sea to the Gulf of Aden, and From the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, that there is a line you cross when you will be scrutinized by the Israelis prior to entry.

At no time dd the Arab Palestinians offer anything but hostility, violence and combative behaviors. They could have made a difference, but they declined to participate. The Arab Palestinians cannot government, laws and effective control if they choose not to participate in government when offered.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.​

The UN says different from the Israeli propaganda that you are reading from.

Nice deflection, though.

(THE TITLE and RIGHT)

ARTICLE 16 The Lausanne Treaty ​

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

Which superseded the previous surrender paragraph:

ARTICLE 132 Treaty of Sevres

Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.​

Which superseded the previous surrender paragraph:

CLAUSE 16 The Armistice of Mudros

Surrender of all garrisons in Hejaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cilicia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause 5.​

There is absolutely "NO DEFECTION" here. I know that you think I live and breathe Israeli outlets, but these claims are highlighted from other sources.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of an irrational people that cannot makeup their mind. Moving into a land of both shadow and darkness, and a journey into a horrific land where you unlock the door to armed struggle, resistance, jihad, cowardice, barbarism and terrorism. Next stop, the Arab Palestine!

Yeah, sometimes I feel like I just crossed over.

The Palestinians (?) offered to cede 78% of Palestine to Israel. Israel refused the offer so Israel still legally has nothing.

(COMMENT)

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.

Everyone in the region understands the scope and nature of Israel's territorial sovereignty, zones of authority and effective control. All the people from the Black Sea to the Gulf of Aden, and From the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, that there is a line you cross when you will be scrutinized by the Israelis prior to entry.

At no time dd the Arab Palestinians offer anything but hostility, violence and combative behaviors. They could have made a difference, but they declined to participate. The Arab Palestinians cannot government, laws and effective control if they choose not to participate in government when offered.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.​

The UN says different from the Israeli propaganda that you are reading from.

Nice deflection, though.

How about a link tjhat says the UN has bestowed another nations lands on the palestinians then, because that is what you have just stated is the case. Which is a breach of international law and a breach of the UN charter, as the UN does not have the authority to turn around international law on a whim and grant your land to another person.

Whan after 1923 did the palestinians acquire title to the land of Jewish palestine, and under what international law or treaty was this done ?



I think you are confused with reccomendationa and demands again

 

[Phoenall]

aris2chat, et al,

Well it may certainly be said that the issue of "recognition" as a "Jewish State" (Part I Section "F" - Admission to Membership in UN - A/RES/181(II - independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan) 29 November 1947); and "having received and examined the report of the Special Committee including a number of unanimous recommendations and a plan of partition with economic union approved by the majority of the Special Committee, was always an important question and concept.

While the exact origin of the concept is not truly known, what is known is that Theodor Herzl set the framework for a "Jewish Nation" in a 1896 handout titled: "The Jewish State."

And from the view of the Allied Powers, this "Question of Palestine" is at least as old as the UK Balfour Declaration itself; nearly a century ago --- which mentions the "national home for the Jewish people." Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine says it more clearly: "as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home."

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may 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.
Primary Sources: San Remo Resolution Published April 25, 1920 --- QUOTE From: Article of the Council on Foreign Relations
​

Israel: Conflict over recognition, not territory · 3y
The Palestinians have rejected Netanyahu's demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, saying that would undermine the rights of Israel's Arab minority as well as millions of refugees whose families lost properties during ... but said that for talks ...

>>David Pollock House Foreign Affairs hearing: Arab FMs agreed to "Jewish state" recognition during 2013-4 talks; Palestinians said no<<

Other than Israel and Israelis to disappear off the face of the earth, Palestinians don't seem to know or agree on what they do actually want.

Throw it all against the wall and see what sticks.

How do you talk to or make an agreement when Palestinians can't agree and the "demands" keep shifting from day to day?

(COMMENT)

If it has been said once --- it has been said a ziillion times. "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states." (Article 3 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention)

What is interesting is that the distinction that the Arab Palestinian draws between the difference of recognizing the "State of Israel" and that of the "Jewish State of Israel" or event the simple title of "Jewish State." What was clearly stated by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in a 9 September 1993 Letter to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was that: "The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security."

They make the distinction with "Jewish" affiliation. This position dates back to a time before the Independence of Israel. It was a firm political position the Arab Higher Committee outline when asked to participate in the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" that the Palestinians rejected stating (in part):

"The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense." (AHC Letter 6 February 1948 to Sec-Gen UN)
​

So we have it. The Arab Palestinians reject the notion of a "Jewish State" by do recognized "Israel's" right to exist. The PLO-Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) presents it like this:

"On November 15, 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) declared independence of the State of Palestine on all Palestinian land occupied by Israel in 1967, which constitutes 22 percent of historic Palestine. This was a historic, difficult and very painful compromise following decades of Palestinian internal discussion. On the same date, the PLO committed itself to upholding all UN resolutions, thus accepting the two-state solution." Source: PLO-NAD 2 May 2016
​

What is even a little more interesting is that:

"Israel has never endorsed the two-state solution as an official government policy and was not willing to accept a historical compromise on the basis of the two state solution on the 1967 border and to recognize the full scope of Palestinian rights under international law."
Source: PLO-NAD 2 May 2016
​

This claim is a trick. This is a way by which the Arab Palestinian can hamper the process of negotiations to reach a final status agreement on permanent status issues. This simple agreement will be used against the Israelis on the matters of: Borders, Jerusalem, and Refugees. This is a disguise to paint the Israelis as unreasonable, when (in fact) the Arab Palestinians are attempting to apply pre-conditions to the individual issues.

It is much safer for the Israelis to sit back and wait for the Arab Palestinians to make a good faith offer then to become entangled into some pre-negotiation dilemma.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians (?) offered to cede 78% of Palestine to Israel. Israel refused the offer so Israel still legally has nothing.

LINK

as Israel offered 93% of Palestine to the arab muslims and they demanded 100% plus Israel along with every Jew born after 1875 to be deported from the land.

Israel can't offer anything to the Palestinians. They have nothing to offer.

They have international title to the land going back to 1923 that cant be withdrawn by anyone , all you have is the rambling of an islamic propagandist and the heavily manipulated words of his thesis based on personal views and LIES.


It is the palestinians that have no legal or moral right to the land under many international laws and should be forcibly evicted as the LoN treaties state would be the case when both arab palestine and Jewish palestine were independent of the mandate of palestine

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of an irrational people that cannot makeup their mind. Moving into a land of both shadow and darkness, and a journey into a horrific land where you unlock the door to armed struggle, resistance, jihad, cowardice, barbarism and terrorism. Next stop, the Arab Palestine!

Yeah, sometimes I feel like I just crossed over.

The Palestinians (?) offered to cede 78% of Palestine to Israel. Israel refused the offer so Israel still legally has nothing.

(COMMENT)

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.

Everyone in the region understands the scope and nature of Israel's territorial sovereignty, zones of authority and effective control. All the people from the Black Sea to the Gulf of Aden, and From the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, that there is a line you cross when you will be scrutinized by the Israelis prior to entry.

At no time dd the Arab Palestinians offer anything but hostility, violence and combative behaviors. They could have made a difference, but they declined to participate. The Arab Palestinians cannot government, laws and effective control if they choose not to participate in government when offered.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.​

The UN says different from the Israeli propaganda that you are reading from.

Nice deflection, though.

How about a link tjhat says the UN has bestowed another nations lands on the palestinians then, because that is what you have just stated is the case. Which is a breach of international law and a breach of the UN charter, as the UN does not have the authority to turn around international law on a whim and grant your land to another person.

Whan after 1923 did the palestinians acquire title to the land of Jewish palestine, and under what international law or treaty was this done ?



I think you are confused with reccomendationa and demands again

Could you provide a document mentioning a "Jewish Palestine?"

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of an irrational people that cannot makeup their mind. Moving into a land of both shadow and darkness, and a journey into a horrific land where you unlock the door to armed struggle, resistance, jihad, cowardice, barbarism and terrorism. Next stop, the Arab Palestine!

Yeah, sometimes I feel like I just crossed over.

The Palestinians (?) offered to cede 78% of Palestine to Israel. Israel refused the offer so Israel still legally has nothing.

(COMMENT)

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.

Everyone in the region understands the scope and nature of Israel's territorial sovereignty, zones of authority and effective control. All the people from the Black Sea to the Gulf of Aden, and From the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, that there is a line you cross when you will be scrutinized by the Israelis prior to entry.

At no time dd the Arab Palestinians offer anything but hostility, violence and combative behaviors. They could have made a difference, but they declined to participate. The Arab Palestinians cannot government, laws and effective control if they choose not to participate in government when offered.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.​

The UN says different from the Israeli propaganda that you are reading from.

Nice deflection, though.

How about a link tjhat says the UN has bestowed another nations lands on the palestinians then, because that is what you have just stated is the case. Which is a breach of international law and a breach of the UN charter, as the UN does not have the authority to turn around international law on a whim and grant your land to another person.

Whan after 1923 did the palestinians acquire title to the land of Jewish palestine, and under what international law or treaty was this done ?



I think you are confused with reccomendationa and demands again

Could you provide a document mentioning a "Jewish Palestine?"

You mean like this


Mandate For Palestine


Political right to self-determination as a polity for Arabs, were guaranteed by the League of Nations, in four other mandates: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Trans-Jordan.

Any attempt to negate the Jewish people’s rights to Palestine, and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations, is in serious conflict with the Mandate’s legal framework, set up on this date 90 years ago.

Until the United Nations remembers and accepts these obligations, a genuine peace between an Israeli government and its Arab neighbors is likely to remain elusive.

 

[aris2chat]

aris2chat, et al,

Well it may certainly be said that the issue of "recognition" as a "Jewish State" (Part I Section "F" - Admission to Membership in UN - A/RES/181(II - independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan) 29 November 1947); and "having received and examined the report of the Special Committee including a number of unanimous recommendations and a plan of partition with economic union approved by the majority of the Special Committee, was always an important question and concept.

While the exact origin of the concept is not truly known, what is known is that Theodor Herzl set the framework for a "Jewish Nation" in a 1896 handout titled: "The Jewish State."

And from the view of the Allied Powers, this "Question of Palestine" is at least as old as the UK Balfour Declaration itself; nearly a century ago --- which mentions the "national home for the Jewish people." Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine says it more clearly: "as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home."

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may 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.
Primary Sources: San Remo Resolution Published April 25, 1920 --- QUOTE From: Article of the Council on Foreign Relations
​

Israel: Conflict over recognition, not territory · 3y
The Palestinians have rejected Netanyahu's demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, saying that would undermine the rights of Israel's Arab minority as well as millions of refugees whose families lost properties during ... but said that for talks ...

>>David Pollock House Foreign Affairs hearing: Arab FMs agreed to "Jewish state" recognition during 2013-4 talks; Palestinians said no<<

Other than Israel and Israelis to disappear off the face of the earth, Palestinians don't seem to know or agree on what they do actually want.

Throw it all against the wall and see what sticks.

How do you talk to or make an agreement when Palestinians can't agree and the "demands" keep shifting from day to day?

(COMMENT)

If it has been said once --- it has been said a ziillion times. "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states." (Article 3 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention)

What is interesting is that the distinction that the Arab Palestinian draws between the difference of recognizing the "State of Israel" and that of the "Jewish State of Israel" or event the simple title of "Jewish State." What was clearly stated by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in a 9 September 1993 Letter to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was that: "The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security."

They make the distinction with "Jewish" affiliation. This position dates back to a time before the Independence of Israel. It was a firm political position the Arab Higher Committee outline when asked to participate in the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" that the Palestinians rejected stating (in part):

"The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense." (AHC Letter 6 February 1948 to Sec-Gen UN)
​

So we have it. The Arab Palestinians reject the notion of a "Jewish State" by do recognized "Israel's" right to exist. The PLO-Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) presents it like this:

"On November 15, 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) declared independence of the State of Palestine on all Palestinian land occupied by Israel in 1967, which constitutes 22 percent of historic Palestine. This was a historic, difficult and very painful compromise following decades of Palestinian internal discussion. On the same date, the PLO committed itself to upholding all UN resolutions, thus accepting the two-state solution." Source: PLO-NAD 2 May 2016
​

What is even a little more interesting is that:

"Israel has never endorsed the two-state solution as an official government policy and was not willing to accept a historical compromise on the basis of the two state solution on the 1967 border and to recognize the full scope of Palestinian rights under international law."
Source: PLO-NAD 2 May 2016
​

This claim is a trick. This is a way by which the Arab Palestinian can hamper the process of negotiations to reach a final status agreement on permanent status issues. This simple agreement will be used against the Israelis on the matters of: Borders, Jerusalem, and Refugees. This is a disguise to paint the Israelis as unreasonable, when (in fact) the Arab Palestinians are attempting to apply pre-conditions to the individual issues.

It is much safer for the Israelis to sit back and wait for the Arab Palestinians to make a good faith offer then to become entangled into some pre-negotiation dilemma.

Most Respectfully,
R

By that time the Ottoman empire had opened the ancient home land of the Israelites to jewish immigration. The area was a drain on the tax income and failing, and under populated with only about 500,000 people (including jordan) at the time. Jews were also allowed to pray at the wall.
religious houses were falling apart, pilgrims were few, land was not eve producing enough for the locals let lone for export. throughout the early nd mid 1800 the land had been ravaged by famine, disease and migration away from the area, many to the US, with "streets of gold".

Ottomans had gifted land to it's officers and those who were honored by the empire, but they had invested or done little to improve the land. Most were from other aparts of the empire and quick to sell large plots, estates and farms. Lebanese christian family gifted most of the north land land to the jews. Churches also sold or gave land to jews coming in. Even arabs that had small family plots or farms took the money, 8X its value, and ran with their riches. Many of those familes became leaders of the palestinian movements so they could reclaim their sold land when the jews were "Dead". Nullifying the sales was part of that, but they never offered to return the money.

Arabs did not want to serve in the military or pay taxes on land that was not making an income so even when offered the chance to register land in their name, they never did, and it was sold off.

We have shown many statements and articles that arabs left at the urging of the arab armies and not forced by Israelis to take refuge in Syria, Lebanon, Jordanor Egypt. I remember stories of people in the camps of Syrian tanks running right over refugees on the road as they tried to head to Syria. There was no love of the refugees, then or now. We have seen what happened to their camps in Syria during this civil war, from syria and ISIS.

Palestinians were used in Iraq for political propaganda and as buffers to Saddam's rule, till he fell. Their "homes" and communities saddam had given them were stripped from them and their fate by the general population was not that they were not welcome in Iraq any more.

I grew up on the propaganda and the stores from individuals themselves. A far different perspective than most on these forums. I also knew the government stand on the camps, the military power of the palestinians and their host countries as well as the UN presence and lack of control. I lived the worse and best of all player in the region. I help many file the paper work to return, family reunification or land claims in Israel, but the general palestinians considered them traitors and discouraged much of the attempts to leave and take up Israeli citizenship. There were medical and education entry not just the individual but often the family as well. Sadly far too many were never told of their ability to prove they had a valid reason to return. Thousands each year were able to enter Israel through these programs.

As for Israeli vs palestinian states................ there was wishful and practical compromise. What they were willing to accept and what the over reaching dreams. Like most trade in the area, both sides offer too high and too low this they reach a happy middle. Normal negotiations. Just because it was on paper did not mean it was also set in stone as a final absolute demand. Palestinian demands were largely unrealistic and often got larger not lower. If Israel gave a little, palestinians demanded more.

Trying to find compromise on even little things between refugees and host states was near impossible. Then the palestinians comprised multiple factions each with their political expectations that were at war within the camps with each other. The camps were like a pousse-café, in the same place but very separate, too often clashing. More like oil, water, stone, wood, sand, salt, weeds, metal, acid, hot, cold ripping at each other. More division with each other at time that with Israel.

Never was nor likely to be easy in the region. Palestinians are a reflection of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan , Iran and the rest, including the various sect of Islam. Peace has always been fleeting, more a temporary lull.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"P F Tinmore, et al,

UN Legal said no such thing.

The UN was not around when these decision were made.

It was always the intention of the concerned leadership that the Arabs and the Jewish people, --- realizing that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations.

There is no agreement treaty, or binding arrangement between the Allied Powers and the Arabs of Palestine, except as was attended in the between the UK and Jordan.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of an irrational people that cannot makeup their mind. Moving into a land of both shadow and darkness, and a journey into a horrific land where you unlock the door to armed struggle, resistance, jihad, cowardice, barbarism and terrorism. Next stop, the Arab Palestine!

Yeah, sometimes I feel like I just crossed over.

The Palestinians (?) offered to cede 78% of Palestine to Israel. Israel refused the offer so Israel still legally has nothing.

(COMMENT)

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.

Everyone in the region understands the scope and nature of Israel's territorial sovereignty, zones of authority and effective control. All the people from the Black Sea to the Gulf of Aden, and From the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, that there is a line you cross when you will be scrutinized by the Israelis prior to entry.

At no time dd the Arab Palestinians offer anything but hostility, violence and combative behaviors. They could have made a difference, but they declined to participate. The Arab Palestinians cannot government, laws and effective control if they choose not to participate in government when offered.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.​

The UN says different from the Israeli propaganda that you are reading from.

Nice deflection, though.

(THE TITLE and RIGHT)

ARTICLE 16 The Lausanne Treaty ​

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

Which superseded the previous surrender paragraph:

ARTICLE 132 Treaty of Sevres

Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.​

Which superseded the previous surrender paragraph:

CLAUSE 16 The Armistice of Mudros

Surrender of all garrisons in Hejaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cilicia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause 5.​

There is absolutely "NO DEFECTION" here. I know that you think I live and breathe Israeli outlets, but these claims are highlighted from other sources.

Most Respectfully,
R

What here refutes my post?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of an irrational people that cannot makeup their mind. Moving into a land of both shadow and darkness, and a journey into a horrific land where you unlock the door to armed struggle, resistance, jihad, cowardice, barbarism and terrorism. Next stop, the Arab Palestine!

Yeah, sometimes I feel like I just crossed over.

The Palestinians (?) offered to cede 78% of Palestine to Israel. Israel refused the offer so Israel still legally has nothing.

(COMMENT)

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.

Everyone in the region understands the scope and nature of Israel's territorial sovereignty, zones of authority and effective control. All the people from the Black Sea to the Gulf of Aden, and From the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, that there is a line you cross when you will be scrutinized by the Israelis prior to entry.

At no time dd the Arab Palestinians offer anything but hostility, violence and combative behaviors. They could have made a difference, but they declined to participate. The Arab Palestinians cannot government, laws and effective control if they choose not to participate in government when offered.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is impossible. The Arab Palestinians never had "title or rights" to any of the regional territory. The "Title and Rights" were surrendered to the Allied Powers.​

The UN says different from the Israeli propaganda that you are reading from.

Nice deflection, though.

How about a link tjhat says the UN has bestowed another nations lands on the palestinians then, because that is what you have just stated is the case. Which is a breach of international law and a breach of the UN charter, as the UN does not have the authority to turn around international law on a whim and grant your land to another person.

Whan after 1923 did the palestinians acquire title to the land of Jewish palestine, and under what international law or treaty was this done ?



I think you are confused with reccomendationa and demands again

Could you provide a document mentioning a "Jewish Palestine?"

You mean like this


Mandate For Palestine


Political right to self-determination as a polity for Arabs, were guaranteed by the League of Nations, in four other mandates: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Trans-Jordan.

Any attempt to negate the Jewish people’s rights to Palestine, and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations, is in serious conflict with the Mandate’s legal framework, set up on this date 90 years ago.

Until the United Nations remembers and accepts these obligations, a genuine peace between an Israeli government and its Arab neighbors is likely to remain elusive.

So you link to an Israeli propaganda site.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What non-sense is this?

In the real world, there are these thing that the imagination congers called "nonexistent object" (NOBJ) NOBJs are imaginary and do not exist. Examples: Zeus, Pegasus, Sherlock Holmes, Vulcan, the perpetual motion machine, the golden mountain, the fountain of youth, the round square, etc. --- and of course something called "Jewish Palestine." There are NOBJs that serve a very real purpose and have an effect on outcomes in the real world; such as imaginary numbers.

I would have listed Ali Baba as an NOBJ, but there actually are "Ali Babas" running around out there; out of the Alibaba Group Holding Limited which is a --- well --- they use the term Chinese e-commerce entity.
​

This is a "political dilemma" in that it is asking for something that does not exist. And there are many such
Negative Singular Existence Statements.

Could you provide a document mentioning a "Jewish Palestine?"

(COMMENT)

Like many things that evolve, once it is transmuted, its former form no long exist. A Jewish National Home or Jewish State --- once it become a "reality" --- its former state does not exist.

Example: The room is "dark." If I turn the lights on, then the rooms former state of "darkness" is gone (no longer exists). The darkness is not in storage, shipped or carried away: and did not move. The room's condition was transmuted from being in darkness to being in light.

The same is true in the territory formerly under the Mandate. No matter what you choose to call its previous state, once it becomes the State of Israel (Jewish), it is no longer what it was before (Palestine).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What non-sense is this?

In the real world, there are these thing that the imagination congers called "nonexistent object" (NOBJ) NOBJs are imaginary and do not exist. Examples: Zeus, Pegasus, Sherlock Holmes, Vulcan, the perpetual motion machine, the golden mountain, the fountain of youth, the round square, etc. --- and of course something called "Jewish Palestine." There are NOBJs that serve a very real purpose and have an effect on outcomes in the real world; such as imaginary numbers.

This is a "political dilemma" in that it is asking for something that does not exist. And there are many such
Negative Singular Existence Statements.

Could you provide a document mentioning a "Jewish Palestine?"

(COMMENT)

Like many things that evolve, once it is transmuted, its former form no long exist. A Jewish National Home or Jewish State --- once it become a "reality" --- its former state does not exist.

Example: The room is "dark." If I turn the lights on, then the rooms former state of "darkness" is gone (no longer exists). The darkness is not in storage, shipped or carried away: and did not move. The room's condition was transmuted from being in darkness to being in light.

The same is true in the territory formerly under the Mandate. No matter what you choose to call its previous state, once it becomes the State of Israel (Jewish), it is no longer what it was before (Palestine).

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy smokescreen, Batman.

Nice dodge.

 

[Shusha]

What is interesting is that the distinction that the Arab Palestinian draws between the difference of recognizing the "State of Israel" and that of the "Jewish State of Israel" or event the simple title of "Jewish State." ...

"The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense." (AHC Letter 6 February 1948 to Sec-Gen UN)
​

So we have it. The Arab Palestinians reject the notion of a "Jewish State" by do recognized "Israel's" right to exist.

So, in my mind, this is akin to saying that Israel accepts the notion of another state in Palestine, but rejects the idea that this state be "Palestinian". In other words, a state named "Palestine" can exist as long as it is a State for Syrians, Jordanians, Egyptians and Jews and is not built upon the premise of a self-determination for Palestinians.

Doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of splitting the territory (AGAIN!) into two parts?

 

[Shusha]

The Palestinians (?) offered to cede 78% of Palestine to Israel. Israel refused the offer so Israel still legally has nothing.

Wait, seriously? When was that? When did Israel refuse?

 

[aris2chat]

A peaceful palestinians state along side Israel is not the problem. Two states or areas on either side waging war on Israel is. Hostile refugees being forced on Israel is. Calls for the elimination and death or Israel and all jews is.

 

[Shusha]

Could you provide a document mentioning a "Jewish Palestine?"

Well, any document which discusses the "Jewish National Home". Quite a few of them do, you know.

But even by your own arguments, "Palestine" "belonged" to ALL of the residents as at August 1, 1925. That would include the Jewish residents. So if the territory, by your own arguments, "belonged" to both the Jewish residents and the Arab residents, neither can "cede" anything to the other. It would be jointly owned.

 

[Shusha]

Any attempt to negate the Jewish people’s rights to Palestine, and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations, is in serious conflict with the Mandate’s legal framework, set up on this date 90 years ago.

Yes. It is morally wrong to deny the Jewish people rights to a portion of the territory of the Mandate for the purpose of their own self-determination.

 

[Shusha]

Calls for the elimination and death or Israel and all jews is.

Yep. This is the problem.

And any argument which supports the idea that the Jewish people have no rights to self-determination and to sovereignty (yes, AS a Jewish homeland) are in this category.