The definitive documents of the 1948 war

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course what happened to Germany in WWII is irrelevant to this conflict. What is relevant is that land cannot be taken by the threat or use of force.

Perhaps that is why the 1949 armistice agreements did not establish or change any borders. Borders would denote land ownership. However, the armistice lines were specifically not to be political of territorial borders.

Palestine was not chopped into three pieces and given away. It was divided into three occupations with the "Palestine question" to be addressed at a later date.

You said land couldn't be taken by force after 1928. The USSR took that German land after 1928. How is that irrelevant?

How does that relate to the Israel Palestine conflict?

You brought up the Kellogg–Briand Pact.
Like it means something.
It doesn't.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You said land couldn't be taken by force after 1928. The USSR took that German land after 1928. How is that irrelevant?

How does that relate to the Israel Palestine conflict?

You brought up the Kellogg–Briand Pact.
Like it means something.
It doesn't.

So, if your neighbor gets robbed then it is OK for you to get robbed?

Of course not. They are separate issues. You can't justify one by pointing to the other.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does that relate to the Israel Palestine conflict?

You brought up the Kellogg–Briand Pact.
Like it means something.
It doesn't.

So, if your neighbor gets robbed then it is OK for you to get robbed?

Of course not. They are separate issues. You can't justify one by pointing to the other.

You brought up the Kellogg–Briand Pact.
Like it means something.
It doesn't.

Sorry I proved you wrong.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You brought up the Kellogg–Briand Pact.
Like it means something.
It doesn't.

So, if your neighbor gets robbed then it is OK for you to get robbed?

Of course not. They are separate issues. You can't justify one by pointing to the other.

You brought up the Kellogg–Briand Pact.
Like it means something.
It doesn't.

Sorry I proved you wrong.

How does the Kellogg–Briand Pact not relate to the Israel Palestine issue?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, if your neighbor gets robbed then it is OK for you to get robbed?

Of course not. They are separate issues. You can't justify one by pointing to the other.

You brought up the Kellogg–Briand Pact.
Like it means something.
It doesn't.

Sorry I proved you wrong.

How does the Kellogg–Briand Pact not relate to the Israel Palestine issue?

How does it relate to Germany after WWII?

 

[P F Tinmore]

You brought up the Kellogg–Briand Pact.
Like it means something.
It doesn't.

Sorry I proved you wrong.

How does the Kellogg–Briand Pact not relate to the Israel Palestine issue?

How does it relate to Germany after WWII?

There is a forum for Europe. Why don't you post the question there?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does the Kellogg–Briand Pact not relate to the Israel Palestine issue?

How does it relate to Germany after WWII?

There is a forum for Europe. Why don't you post the question there?

Why don't you post your comment about the Kellogg–Briand Pact there?

 

[Ropey]

How does it relate to Germany after WWII?

There is a forum for Europe. Why don't you post the question there?

Why don't you post your comment about the Kellogg–Briand Pact there?

 

[P F Tinmore]

How does it relate to Germany after WWII?

There is a forum for Europe. Why don't you post the question there?

Why don't you post your comment about the Kellogg–Briand Pact there?

It is applicable here.

 

[Ropey]

Of course what happened to Germany in WWII is irrelevant to this conflict. What is relevant is that land cannot be taken by the threat or use of force.

Perhaps that is why the 1949 armistice agreements did not establish or change any borders. Borders would denote land ownership. However, the armistice lines were specifically not to be political of territorial borders.

Palestine was not chopped into three pieces and given away. It was divided into three occupations with the "Palestine question" to be addressed at a later date.

You said land couldn't be taken by force after 1928. The USSR took that German land after 1928. How is that irrelevant?

How does that relate to the Israel Palestine conflict?

It relates as a precedent in reality PF. This creates the relevancy.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Back on topic.

That could be why Israel has no land.

Didn't the Kellogg-Briand Pact outlaw war?

Well, that was the intent. The document itself was short and unspecific. However, it did spark debates between countries that went on from 1928 to about 1935. Other treaties and the League of Nations covenant were referenced and many agreements were made as to the meaning of what should be the law.

“It is inadmissible to acquire land through the threat or use of force.” is not mentioned at all. This seems to be an agreed upon principle based on other references. One of these could be from article 10 of the League of Nations covenant which states: “The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League." Another could be the universal recognition of the right to self determination. Included on that right is the process of annexation. One party cannot annex the territory of another party without the agreement of the people to be annexed.

 

[Ropey]

That was on topic PF. You just don't understand what legal and military precedents mean, or how they are attached to other events of similar precedents.

Or you understand and are playing dumb.

 

[P F Tinmore]

That was on topic PF. You just don't understand what legal and military precedents mean, or how they are attached to other events of similar precedents.

Or you understand and are playing dumb.

Are you trying to say that it is now legal to take land at the point of a gun?

 

[Ropey]

That was on topic PF. You just don't understand what legal and military precedents mean, or how they are attached to other events of similar precedents.

Or you understand and are playing dumb.

That was on topic PF. You just don't understand what legal and military precedents mean, or how they are attached to other events of similar precedents.

Or you understand and are playing dumb.

Are you trying to say that it is now legal to take land at the point of a gun?

OK, you don't understand.

 

[P F Tinmore]

That was on topic PF. You just don't understand what legal and military precedents mean, or how they are attached to other events of similar precedents.

Or you understand and are playing dumb.

That was on topic PF. You just don't understand what legal and military precedents mean, or how they are attached to other events of similar precedents.

Or you understand and are playing dumb.

Are you trying to say that it is now legal to take land at the point of a gun?

OK, you don't understand.

You're right. I have no clue what you are blabbering about.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is a forum for Europe. Why don't you post the question there?

Why don't you post your comment about the Kellogg–Briand Pact there?

It is applicable here.

Why not in the case of Germany?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why don't you post your comment about the Kellogg–Briand Pact there?

It is applicable here.

Why not in the case of Germany?

I don't know. If the Germans think they got screwed they should stand up for their rights like the Palestinians are.

 

[Ropey]

Under the mandate, Britain was supposed to be their defensive force. Britain cut and run leaving Palestinian civilians under the attack of Israel's military.

How could a non-existent entity have armed forces?

Political opinion.

No, this has nothing to do with opinions. There is no real country called Palestine. That's why they worked towards the creation of a virtual state. Because there is no real state. I mean you can't have both and it's not about opinions.

Palestine: a virtual state | Editorial | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

[P F Tinmore]

How could a non-existent entity have armed forces?

Political opinion.

No, this has nothing to do with opinions. There is no real country called Palestine. That's why they worked towards the creation of a virtual state. Because there is no real state. I mean you can't have both and it's not about opinions.

Palestine: a virtual state | Editorial | Comment is free | The Guardian

Abbas, Netenyahu, Obama, Blair, Fayyad.

The Keystone Kops of world peace.

Have you ever seen a more worthless bunch.

 

[Wolverine1984]

They were ceasefire agreements between the different armed forces.

Palestine had no armed forces.

How could a non-existent entity have armed forces?

Under the mandate, Britain was supposed to be their defensive force. Britain cut and run leaving Palestinian civilians under the attack of Israel's military.

This is a blunt lie, Under the mandate Britain was supposed to maintain peace , it wasn't their obligation to side with the Palestinians or the Jews. The Arabs and the Jews did not want the British around.
The British tried to reach a peaceful resolution , when they have seen that it is not an option , they got out.
And It was a good decision to leave , why would they stay and risk their lives for people who obviously don't want them there...

'Palestinian civilians under the attack of Israel's military'
Another blunt lie , there was a civil war going on, even before the British left both sides were attacking each other.
Only After the British left the neighboring Arab countries joined the fight to help the Palestinians, with the goal of wiping Israel of the map.