"They are not terrorists"? South under Hamas' fire, AGAIN

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

Well, this comment is not exactly accurate.

Single I.Q Palestinians are responsible for their situation. Palestinian mentality = When you are in a hole, keep digging.

A population under the occupation of a foreign force is not responsible for their situation, the occupying power is.

(COMMENT)

The relationship between the Occupation Power and the population of the Occupied Territory is much the the relationship between a School and the Students.

In this analogy, the School has the responsibility to provide a safe and secure environment to the students for which they can accept and learn from the education the School renders. If the students are unruly and disruptive --- responsible for the breakdown in the safe and secure environment, that is on the students. Similarly, IF the Palestinians conduct themselves, in such a manner, that the safe and secure environment is broken down, --- that the environment is no longer capable of supporting a prosperous and developing country, --- THEN that is directly the fault of the Palestinian and not the occupation power. The security devices and the measures taken in the occupied territories are in direct response to the belligerent nature of the Palestinians. The lack of development and prosperity in the Occupied Territory is not due to the occupation --- but to the inability of the Palestinian People to build a nation and conduct themselves in a manner such that the added security countermeasures become unnecessary and may be lifted.

SO, you are right that the Occupying Power is responsible for attempting to maintain the safe and secure environment. You are wrong in suggesting that the added security countermeasures are not the logical response to the unruly and belligerent Palestinian activity which sets the conditions for their "situation."

The Jihadist and Terrorist supporting "Unity Government" of the Palestinian State is a clear and present danger to the security of Israel and the greater regional area. There is no reasonable expectation that left to their own devises, they have the potential to develop into a stronger Jihadist and Terrorist regional threat then they currently are now.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Actually, you're the one who constantly whines. I don't complain as long as the criticism is constructive, not propaganda which you and your buddies spew on a daily basis.
Stop attacking Israel, and you won't attacked. Or keep attacking Israel, and you will NEVER get your independent state and you will get attacked ten times harder. The Palestinians are in charge of their future, as oppose to what Palestinian propaganda tells you.

An occupied population is not in charge of anything.

Then you have not understood the Geneva conventions or International law that grants the Palestinians the right to govern themselves and to elect its own government

 

[Phoenall]

Resisted the mandate ? Is that what you're calling it now ? The violence started way before twenty years and it was initiated by the Arabs.

Just keep telling yourself that, you little kiss-ass.

BTW, what Israel is doing in the OPT, is illegal in Canada.

Until the USA occupies parts of Canada as a defensive measure, then we will see if it is illegal wont we. It was not illegal when the USA occupied Iraq or Afghanistan was it ?

 

[Phoenall]

So the Jews killed arab muslims in Hebron did they. Or started the 1931 civil war. How about the Grand Mufties final solution to aid Germany between 1936 and 1945 when he ordered the genocide of the Jews in all arab lands.


Your JEW HATRED is clouding your humanity again

Why would I hate Jews?

Only you can answer that question as only you know the reason, we can only say that you do hate the Jews as shown by your own written words.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Our friend Paul (P F Tinmore) is 100% absolutely correct.

Sure I do.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

3. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

They were specifically not to be borders.

(OBSERVATION)

How do you treat an Armistice Line?

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character. A/RES/2625​

Whether you call it a "Border" an "International Boundary" --- or an "Armistice Line" --- legally they are all in the family of "demarcation lines" --- and enjoy the exact same protections. The UN understands this very well; in fact, the Secretary-General's (Ban Ki-moon) home country has had a segment of it border as an "Armistice Line" for more than half a century.

(COMMENT)

But what an "Armistice Line" is (by definition) --- or --- how an "Armistice Line" is treated and protected legally (A/RES/2625) is really of no material matter with respect to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt); other than a historical reference point. The State of Israel and the State of Palestine do not currently share a common "active" Armistice Line." And historically, when the "Armistice Lines" were "active" --- the Palestinians (either the PLO as the sole legitimated representative of the Palestinian, or the 1988 Government for the State of Palestine) were not a Party to any Armistice Agreement. The Armistice Lines that encapsulated the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were settled by Treaty with Israel and the Governments of Egypt and Jordan (respectively).

The only active Armistice Lines in the region exist between the State of Israel and the States of Syria and Lebanon. Again, these lines have nothing to do with the Palestinians and are of no concern to the Palestinians. Currently both the Arab states are as risk, with Syria in a state of civil war --- and simultaneously --- under attack by the Jihadist Terrorist Movement (Islamic State). Lebanon, which is under the coercive influence of a Shi'a Islamist Paramilitary Movement (Jihad Council of Hezbollah), is in a precarious situation. Currently Saudi Arabia is supporting the Lebanese Army (as opposed to Hezbollah), and Hezbollah maybe at odds with Islamic State over recent events. Syria will certainly be effected by the outcome of the fighting. The Regime will certainly not be what it was. Lebanon, is at risk --- and Jordan will hold a common border with the threat. So, the "Armistice Lines" with Lebanon and Syria are of no concern to the Palestinian. In fact, no one wants to ignite another conflict that might result in the loss of containment of another Jihadist threat (Palestinians).

The Palestinians, as recognized by A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988, as the State of Palestine ( A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988; exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967. Similarly, A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 on the Status of Palestine, reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. The Armistice Lines are not used as the markers of the boundary for the basis of recognition. However, there is a territorial dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Our friend Paul (P F Tinmore) is 100% absolutely correct.

Sure I do.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

3. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

They were specifically not to be borders.

(OBSERVATION)

How do you treat an Armistice Line?

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character. A/RES/2625​

Whether you call it a "Border" an "International Boundary" --- or an "Armistice Line" --- legally they are all in the family of "demarcation lines" --- and enjoy the exact same protections. The UN understands this very well; in fact, the Secretary-General's (Ban Ki-moon) home country has had a segment of it border as an "Armistice Line" for more than half a century.

You keep bringing this up like it has some significance to the Palestinians.

For one thing, the Palestinians were not one of the respective Parties to the agreements.

For another, since the armistice lines are specifically not political or territorial borders, it is Palestine on both sides of the lines.

I don't see how it is possible for the Palestinians to violate such lines.

(COMMENT)

But what an "Armistice Line" is (by definition) --- or --- how an "Armistice Line" is treated and protected legally (A/RES/2625) is really of no material matter with respect to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt); other than a historical reference point. The State of Israel and the State of Palestine do not currently share a common "active" Armistice Line." And historically, when the "Armistice Lines" were "active" --- the Palestinians (either the PLO as the sole legitimated representative of the Palestinian, or the 1988 Government for the State of Palestine) were not a Party to any Armistice Agreement. The Armistice Lines that encapsulated the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were settled by Treaty with Israel and the Governments of Egypt and Jordan (respectively).

The only active Armistice Lines in the region exist between the State of Israel and the States of Syria and Lebanon. Again, these lines have nothing to do with the Palestinians and are of no concern to the Palestinians. Currently both the Arab states are as risk, with Syria in a state of civil war --- and simultaneously --- under attack by the Jihadist Terrorist Movement (Islamic State). Lebanon, which is under the coercive influence of a Shi'a Islamist Paramilitary Movement (Jihad Council of Hezbollah), is in a precarious situation. Currently Saudi Arabia is supporting the Lebanese Army (as opposed to Hezbollah), and Hezbollah maybe at odds with Islamic State over recent events. Syria will certainly be effected by the outcome of the fighting. The Regime will certainly not be what it was. Lebanon, is at risk --- and Jordan will hold a common border with the threat. So, the "Armistice Lines" with Lebanon and Syria are of no concern to the Palestinian. In fact, no one wants to ignite another conflict that might result in the loss of containment of another Jihadist threat (Palestinians).

The Palestinians, as recognized by A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988, as the State of Palestine ( A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988; exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967. Similarly, A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 on the Status of Palestine, reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. The Armistice Lines are not used as the markers of the boundary for the basis of recognition. However, there is a territorial dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[member]

Thank you, Europe.
A rocket was fired from Gaza early Friday afternoon, breaking the truce reached at the end of the last Hamas terror war.

"Color red" rocket warning sirens were sounded in communities in the Eshkol Regional Council area just outside of Gaza, and shortly thereafter it was reported that a rocket struck just outside a community in Eshkol; no wounds or damage were reported.

On Thursday there was a false alarm in Be'er Sheva, with rocket sirenssounding reportedly due to a technical malfunction.

The attack comes a day after Hamas held its largest military exercise since Operation Protective Edge on the ruins of two former Israeli villages - Dugit and Nissanit - in Gaza which were evacuated in the 2005 Disengagement plan, allowing Hamas to take over.

In the past few months, since the end of Operation Protective Edge, various incidents have occurred indicating Hamas' attempt to rebuild and regain military strength.

Gaza Rocket Lands Outside of Eshkol Town - Defense Security - News - Arutz Sheva

A rocket was fired from Gaza early Friday afternoon, breaking the truce reached at the end of the last Hamas terror war.​

Israel already broke the truce a week or two ago by killing a farmer.

yeah, it's israel - it does seem like they're the ones always breaking "the truce."

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Our friend Paul (P F Tinmore) is 100% absolutely correct.

Sure I do.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

3. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

They were specifically not to be borders.

(OBSERVATION)

How do you treat an Armistice Line?

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character. A/RES/2625​

Whether you call it a "Border" an "International Boundary" --- or an "Armistice Line" --- legally they are all in the family of "demarcation lines" --- and enjoy the exact same protections. The UN understands this very well; in fact, the Secretary-General's (Ban Ki-moon) home country has had a segment of it border as an "Armistice Line" for more than half a century.

(COMMENT)

But what an "Armistice Line" is (by definition) --- or --- how an "Armistice Line" is treated and protected legally (A/RES/2625) is really of no material matter with respect to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt); other than a historical reference point. The State of Israel and the State of Palestine do not currently share a common "active" Armistice Line." And historically, when the "Armistice Lines" were "active" --- the Palestinians (either the PLO as the sole legitimated representative of the Palestinian, or the 1988 Government for the State of Palestine) were not a Party to any Armistice Agreement. The Armistice Lines that encapsulated the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were settled by Treaty with Israel and the Governments of Egypt and Jordan (respectively).

The only active Armistice Lines in the region exist between the State of Israel and the States of Syria and Lebanon. Again, these lines have nothing to do with the Palestinians and are of no concern to the Palestinians. Currently both the Arab states are as risk, with Syria in a state of civil war --- and simultaneously --- under attack by the Jihadist Terrorist Movement (Islamic State). Lebanon, which is under the coercive influence of a Shi'a Islamist Paramilitary Movement (Jihad Council of Hezbollah), is in a precarious situation. Currently Saudi Arabia is supporting the Lebanese Army (as opposed to Hezbollah), and Hezbollah maybe at odds with Islamic State over recent events. Syria will certainly be effected by the outcome of the fighting. The Regime will certainly not be what it was. Lebanon, is at risk --- and Jordan will hold a common border with the threat. So, the "Armistice Lines" with Lebanon and Syria are of no concern to the Palestinian. In fact, no one wants to ignite another conflict that might result in the loss of containment of another Jihadist threat (Palestinians).

The Palestinians, as recognized by A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988, as the State of Palestine ( A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988; exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967. Similarly, A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 on the Status of Palestine, reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. The Armistice Lines are not used as the markers of the boundary for the basis of recognition. However, there is a territorial dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

P F Tinmore, et al,

Our friend Paul (P F Tinmore) is 100% absolutely correct.

Sure I do.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

3. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

They were specifically not to be borders.

(OBSERVATION)

How do you treat an Armistice Line?

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character. A/RES/2625​

Whether you call it a "Border" an "International Boundary" --- or an "Armistice Line" --- legally they are all in the family of "demarcation lines" --- and enjoy the exact same protections. The UN understands this very well; in fact, the Secretary-General's (Ban Ki-moon) home country has had a segment of it border as an "Armistice Line" for more than half a century.

You keep bringing this up like it has some significance to the Palestinians.

For one thing, the Palestinians were not one of the respective Parties to the agreements.

For another, since the armistice lines are specifically not political or territorial borders, it is Palestine on both sides of the lines.

I don't see how it is possible for the Palestinians to violate such lines.

(COMMENT)

But what an "Armistice Line" is (by definition) --- or --- how an "Armistice Line" is treated and protected legally (A/RES/2625) is really of no material matter with respect to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt); other than a historical reference point. The State of Israel and the State of Palestine do not currently share a common "active" Armistice Line." And historically, when the "Armistice Lines" were "active" --- the Palestinians (either the PLO as the sole legitimated representative of the Palestinian, or the 1988 Government for the State of Palestine) were not a Party to any Armistice Agreement. The Armistice Lines that encapsulated the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were settled by Treaty with Israel and the Governments of Egypt and Jordan (respectively).

The only active Armistice Lines in the region exist between the State of Israel and the States of Syria and Lebanon. Again, these lines have nothing to do with the Palestinians and are of no concern to the Palestinians. Currently both the Arab states are as risk, with Syria in a state of civil war --- and simultaneously --- under attack by the Jihadist Terrorist Movement (Islamic State). Lebanon, which is under the coercive influence of a Shi'a Islamist Paramilitary Movement (Jihad Council of Hezbollah), is in a precarious situation. Currently Saudi Arabia is supporting the Lebanese Army (as opposed to Hezbollah), and Hezbollah maybe at odds with Islamic State over recent events. Syria will certainly be effected by the outcome of the fighting. The Regime will certainly not be what it was. Lebanon, is at risk --- and Jordan will hold a common border with the threat. So, the "Armistice Lines" with Lebanon and Syria are of no concern to the Palestinian. In fact, no one wants to ignite another conflict that might result in the loss of containment of another Jihadist threat (Palestinians).

The Palestinians, as recognized by A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988, as the State of Palestine ( A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988; exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967. Similarly, A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 on the Status of Palestine, reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. The Armistice Lines are not used as the markers of the boundary for the basis of recognition. However, there is a territorial dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

"For another, since the armistice lines are specifically not political or territorial borders, it is Palestine on both sides of the lines."

How is it possible that you can come up with a statement so incredibly ridiculous??

I'll repeat it again: Just because YOU hate Israel and don't recognize it, it doesn't mean that it applies to reality.

 

[montelatici]

Reality is that it is Christmas and the Christian Palestinians, as are all Christians, are celebrating our most important day of the year. So, you Jews and Muslims should stop killing us.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Our friend Paul (P F Tinmore) is 100% absolutely correct.

Sure I do.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

3. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

They were specifically not to be borders.

(OBSERVATION)

How do you treat an Armistice Line?

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character. A/RES/2625​

Whether you call it a "Border" an "International Boundary" --- or an "Armistice Line" --- legally they are all in the family of "demarcation lines" --- and enjoy the exact same protections. The UN understands this very well; in fact, the Secretary-General's (Ban Ki-moon) home country has had a segment of it border as an "Armistice Line" for more than half a century.

(COMMENT)

But what an "Armistice Line" is (by definition) --- or --- how an "Armistice Line" is treated and protected legally (A/RES/2625) is really of no material matter with respect to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt); other than a historical reference point. The State of Israel and the State of Palestine do not currently share a common "active" Armistice Line." And historically, when the "Armistice Lines" were "active" --- the Palestinians (either the PLO as the sole legitimated representative of the Palestinian, or the 1988 Government for the State of Palestine) were not a Party to any Armistice Agreement. The Armistice Lines that encapsulated the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were settled by Treaty with Israel and the Governments of Egypt and Jordan (respectively).

The only active Armistice Lines in the region exist between the State of Israel and the States of Syria and Lebanon. Again, these lines have nothing to do with the Palestinians and are of no concern to the Palestinians. Currently both the Arab states are as risk, with Syria in a state of civil war --- and simultaneously --- under attack by the Jihadist Terrorist Movement (Islamic State). Lebanon, which is under the coercive influence of a Shi'a Islamist Paramilitary Movement (Jihad Council of Hezbollah), is in a precarious situation. Currently Saudi Arabia is supporting the Lebanese Army (as opposed to Hezbollah), and Hezbollah maybe at odds with Islamic State over recent events. Syria will certainly be effected by the outcome of the fighting. The Regime will certainly not be what it was. Lebanon, is at risk --- and Jordan will hold a common border with the threat. So, the "Armistice Lines" with Lebanon and Syria are of no concern to the Palestinian. In fact, no one wants to ignite another conflict that might result in the loss of containment of another Jihadist threat (Palestinians).

The Palestinians, as recognized by A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988, as the State of Palestine ( A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988; exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967. Similarly, A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 on the Status of Palestine, reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. The Armistice Lines are not used as the markers of the boundary for the basis of recognition. However, there is a territorial dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

P F Tinmore, et al,

Our friend Paul (P F Tinmore) is 100% absolutely correct.

Sure I do.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

3. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

They were specifically not to be borders.

(OBSERVATION)

How do you treat an Armistice Line?

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character. A/RES/2625​

Whether you call it a "Border" an "International Boundary" --- or an "Armistice Line" --- legally they are all in the family of "demarcation lines" --- and enjoy the exact same protections. The UN understands this very well; in fact, the Secretary-General's (Ban Ki-moon) home country has had a segment of it border as an "Armistice Line" for more than half a century.

You keep bringing this up like it has some significance to the Palestinians.

For one thing, the Palestinians were not one of the respective Parties to the agreements.

For another, since the armistice lines are specifically not political or territorial borders, it is Palestine on both sides of the lines.

I don't see how it is possible for the Palestinians to violate such lines.

(COMMENT)

But what an "Armistice Line" is (by definition) --- or --- how an "Armistice Line" is treated and protected legally (A/RES/2625) is really of no material matter with respect to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt); other than a historical reference point. The State of Israel and the State of Palestine do not currently share a common "active" Armistice Line." And historically, when the "Armistice Lines" were "active" --- the Palestinians (either the PLO as the sole legitimated representative of the Palestinian, or the 1988 Government for the State of Palestine) were not a Party to any Armistice Agreement. The Armistice Lines that encapsulated the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were settled by Treaty with Israel and the Governments of Egypt and Jordan (respectively).

The only active Armistice Lines in the region exist between the State of Israel and the States of Syria and Lebanon. Again, these lines have nothing to do with the Palestinians and are of no concern to the Palestinians. Currently both the Arab states are as risk, with Syria in a state of civil war --- and simultaneously --- under attack by the Jihadist Terrorist Movement (Islamic State). Lebanon, which is under the coercive influence of a Shi'a Islamist Paramilitary Movement (Jihad Council of Hezbollah), is in a precarious situation. Currently Saudi Arabia is supporting the Lebanese Army (as opposed to Hezbollah), and Hezbollah maybe at odds with Islamic State over recent events. Syria will certainly be effected by the outcome of the fighting. The Regime will certainly not be what it was. Lebanon, is at risk --- and Jordan will hold a common border with the threat. So, the "Armistice Lines" with Lebanon and Syria are of no concern to the Palestinian. In fact, no one wants to ignite another conflict that might result in the loss of containment of another Jihadist threat (Palestinians).

The Palestinians, as recognized by A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988, as the State of Palestine ( A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988; exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967. Similarly, A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 on the Status of Palestine, reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. The Armistice Lines are not used as the markers of the boundary for the basis of recognition. However, there is a territorial dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

"For another, since the armistice lines are specifically not political or territorial borders, it is Palestine on both sides of the lines."

How is it possible that you can come up with a statement so incredibly ridiculous??

I'll repeat it again: Just because YOU hate Israel and don't recognize it, it doesn't mean that it applies to reality.

So, what is ridiculous?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,,

Yes, we've heard this before.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Our friend Paul (P F Tinmore) is 100% absolutely correct.

Sure I do.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

3. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

They were specifically not to be borders.

(OBSERVATION)

How do you treat an Armistice Line?

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character. A/RES/2625​

Whether you call it a "Border" an "International Boundary" --- or an "Armistice Line" --- legally they are all in the family of "demarcation lines" --- and enjoy the exact same protections. The UN understands this very well; in fact, the Secretary-General's (Ban Ki-moon) home country has had a segment of it border as an "Armistice Line" for more than half a century.

(COMMENT)

But what an "Armistice Line" is (by definition) --- or --- how an "Armistice Line" is treated and protected legally (A/RES/2625) is really of no material matter with respect to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt); other than a historical reference point. The State of Israel and the State of Palestine do not currently share a common "active" Armistice Line." And historically, when the "Armistice Lines" were "active" --- the Palestinians (either the PLO as the sole legitimated representative of the Palestinian, or the 1988 Government for the State of Palestine) were not a Party to any Armistice Agreement. The Armistice Lines that encapsulated the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were settled by Treaty with Israel and the Governments of Egypt and Jordan (respectively).

The only active Armistice Lines in the region exist between the State of Israel and the States of Syria and Lebanon. Again, these lines have nothing to do with the Palestinians and are of no concern to the Palestinians. Currently both the Arab states are as risk, with Syria in a state of civil war --- and simultaneously --- under attack by the Jihadist Terrorist Movement (Islamic State). Lebanon, which is under the coercive influence of a Shi'a Islamist Paramilitary Movement (Jihad Council of Hezbollah), is in a precarious situation. Currently Saudi Arabia is supporting the Lebanese Army (as opposed to Hezbollah), and Hezbollah maybe at odds with Islamic State over recent events. Syria will certainly be effected by the outcome of the fighting. The Regime will certainly not be what it was. Lebanon, is at risk --- and Jordan will hold a common border with the threat. So, the "Armistice Lines" with Lebanon and Syria are of no concern to the Palestinian. In fact, no one wants to ignite another conflict that might result in the loss of containment of another Jihadist threat (Palestinians).

The Palestinians, as recognized by A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988, as the State of Palestine ( A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988; exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967. Similarly, A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 on the Status of Palestine, reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. The Armistice Lines are not used as the markers of the boundary for the basis of recognition. However, there is a territorial dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

P F Tinmore, et al,

Our friend Paul (P F Tinmore) is 100% absolutely correct.

Sure I do.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

3. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

They were specifically not to be borders.

(OBSERVATION)

How do you treat an Armistice Line?

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character. A/RES/2625​

Whether you call it a "Border" an "International Boundary" --- or an "Armistice Line" --- legally they are all in the family of "demarcation lines" --- and enjoy the exact same protections. The UN understands this very well; in fact, the Secretary-General's (Ban Ki-moon) home country has had a segment of it border as an "Armistice Line" for more than half a century.

You keep bringing this up like it has some significance to the Palestinians.

For one thing, the Palestinians were not one of the respective Parties to the agreements.

For another, since the armistice lines are specifically not political or territorial borders, it is Palestine on both sides of the lines.

I don't see how it is possible for the Palestinians to violate such lines.

(COMMENT)

But what an "Armistice Line" is (by definition) --- or --- how an "Armistice Line" is treated and protected legally (A/RES/2625) is really of no material matter with respect to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt); other than a historical reference point. The State of Israel and the State of Palestine do not currently share a common "active" Armistice Line." And historically, when the "Armistice Lines" were "active" --- the Palestinians (either the PLO as the sole legitimated representative of the Palestinian, or the 1988 Government for the State of Palestine) were not a Party to any Armistice Agreement. The Armistice Lines that encapsulated the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were settled by Treaty with Israel and the Governments of Egypt and Jordan (respectively).

The only active Armistice Lines in the region exist between the State of Israel and the States of Syria and Lebanon. Again, these lines have nothing to do with the Palestinians and are of no concern to the Palestinians. Currently both the Arab states are as risk, with Syria in a state of civil war --- and simultaneously --- under attack by the Jihadist Terrorist Movement (Islamic State). Lebanon, which is under the coercive influence of a Shi'a Islamist Paramilitary Movement (Jihad Council of Hezbollah), is in a precarious situation. Currently Saudi Arabia is supporting the Lebanese Army (as opposed to Hezbollah), and Hezbollah maybe at odds with Islamic State over recent events. Syria will certainly be effected by the outcome of the fighting. The Regime will certainly not be what it was. Lebanon, is at risk --- and Jordan will hold a common border with the threat. So, the "Armistice Lines" with Lebanon and Syria are of no concern to the Palestinian. In fact, no one wants to ignite another conflict that might result in the loss of containment of another Jihadist threat (Palestinians).

The Palestinians, as recognized by A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988, as the State of Palestine ( A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988; exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967. Similarly, A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 on the Status of Palestine, reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. The Armistice Lines are not used as the markers of the boundary for the basis of recognition. However, there is a territorial dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

"For another, since the armistice lines are specifically not political or territorial borders, it is Palestine on both sides of the lines."

How is it possible that you can come up with a statement so incredibly ridiculous??

I'll repeat it again: Just because YOU hate Israel and don't recognize it, it doesn't mean that it applies to reality.

So, what is ridiculous?

(COMMENT)

The "Armistice Lines" (which encapsulate the West Bank and Gaza Strip) do not exist any more; having been superseded by the Peace Treaties. No matter what you think the "armistice lines" represent, they were resolved in favor of "international boundaries."

The treaties sets the boundary; not Palestinian unilateralism.

Article II Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979

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

Article 3 - International Boundary Treaty of Peace between The State of Israel and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

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

As far as recognition of Palestine, on both sides of the line; not possible. The mutual Israel-PLO Recognition which was exemplified in the Exchange of Letters Between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat in 1993, stipulates the understanding. "The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security."

Until such time as the PLO, under the "Permanent Status Negotiations" (Article V(3) A/48/486 S/26560 11 October 1993 Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements) concludes an agreement, the Oslo Accords and the Treaties are the principle legal instruments that set the "international boundaries." The State of Palestine (Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) does not have any such instruments establishing their boundary except as previously stated in the indeterminate form of as recognized by A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988, as the State of Palestine (supra).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Our friend Paul (P F Tinmore) is 100% absolutely correct.

Sure I do.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

3. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

They were specifically not to be borders.

(OBSERVATION)

How do you treat an Armistice Line?

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character. A/RES/2625​

Whether you call it a "Border" an "International Boundary" --- or an "Armistice Line" --- legally they are all in the family of "demarcation lines" --- and enjoy the exact same protections. The UN understands this very well; in fact, the Secretary-General's (Ban Ki-moon) home country has had a segment of it border as an "Armistice Line" for more than half a century.

(COMMENT)

But what an "Armistice Line" is (by definition) --- or --- how an "Armistice Line" is treated and protected legally (A/RES/2625) is really of no material matter with respect to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt); other than a historical reference point. The State of Israel and the State of Palestine do not currently share a common "active" Armistice Line." And historically, when the "Armistice Lines" were "active" --- the Palestinians (either the PLO as the sole legitimated representative of the Palestinian, or the 1988 Government for the State of Palestine) were not a Party to any Armistice Agreement. The Armistice Lines that encapsulated the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were settled by Treaty with Israel and the Governments of Egypt and Jordan (respectively).

The only active Armistice Lines in the region exist between the State of Israel and the States of Syria and Lebanon. Again, these lines have nothing to do with the Palestinians and are of no concern to the Palestinians. Currently both the Arab states are as risk, with Syria in a state of civil war --- and simultaneously --- under attack by the Jihadist Terrorist Movement (Islamic State). Lebanon, which is under the coercive influence of a Shi'a Islamist Paramilitary Movement (Jihad Council of Hezbollah), is in a precarious situation. Currently Saudi Arabia is supporting the Lebanese Army (as opposed to Hezbollah), and Hezbollah maybe at odds with Islamic State over recent events. Syria will certainly be effected by the outcome of the fighting. The Regime will certainly not be what it was. Lebanon, is at risk --- and Jordan will hold a common border with the threat. So, the "Armistice Lines" with Lebanon and Syria are of no concern to the Palestinian. In fact, no one wants to ignite another conflict that might result in the loss of containment of another Jihadist threat (Palestinians).

The Palestinians, as recognized by A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988, as the State of Palestine ( A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988; exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967. Similarly, A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 on the Status of Palestine, reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. The Armistice Lines are not used as the markers of the boundary for the basis of recognition. However, there is a territorial dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

P F Tinmore, et al,

Our friend Paul (P F Tinmore) is 100% absolutely correct.

Sure I do.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

3. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

They were specifically not to be borders.

(OBSERVATION)

How do you treat an Armistice Line?

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character. A/RES/2625​

Whether you call it a "Border" an "International Boundary" --- or an "Armistice Line" --- legally they are all in the family of "demarcation lines" --- and enjoy the exact same protections. The UN understands this very well; in fact, the Secretary-General's (Ban Ki-moon) home country has had a segment of it border as an "Armistice Line" for more than half a century.

You keep bringing this up like it has some significance to the Palestinians.

For one thing, the Palestinians were not one of the respective Parties to the agreements.

For another, since the armistice lines are specifically not political or territorial borders, it is Palestine on both sides of the lines.

I don't see how it is possible for the Palestinians to violate such lines.

(COMMENT)

But what an "Armistice Line" is (by definition) --- or --- how an "Armistice Line" is treated and protected legally (A/RES/2625) is really of no material matter with respect to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt); other than a historical reference point. The State of Israel and the State of Palestine do not currently share a common "active" Armistice Line." And historically, when the "Armistice Lines" were "active" --- the Palestinians (either the PLO as the sole legitimated representative of the Palestinian, or the 1988 Government for the State of Palestine) were not a Party to any Armistice Agreement. The Armistice Lines that encapsulated the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were settled by Treaty with Israel and the Governments of Egypt and Jordan (respectively).

The only active Armistice Lines in the region exist between the State of Israel and the States of Syria and Lebanon. Again, these lines have nothing to do with the Palestinians and are of no concern to the Palestinians. Currently both the Arab states are as risk, with Syria in a state of civil war --- and simultaneously --- under attack by the Jihadist Terrorist Movement (Islamic State). Lebanon, which is under the coercive influence of a Shi'a Islamist Paramilitary Movement (Jihad Council of Hezbollah), is in a precarious situation. Currently Saudi Arabia is supporting the Lebanese Army (as opposed to Hezbollah), and Hezbollah maybe at odds with Islamic State over recent events. Syria will certainly be effected by the outcome of the fighting. The Regime will certainly not be what it was. Lebanon, is at risk --- and Jordan will hold a common border with the threat. So, the "Armistice Lines" with Lebanon and Syria are of no concern to the Palestinian. In fact, no one wants to ignite another conflict that might result in the loss of containment of another Jihadist threat (Palestinians).

The Palestinians, as recognized by A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988, as the State of Palestine ( A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988; exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967. Similarly, A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 on the Status of Palestine, reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. The Armistice Lines are not used as the markers of the boundary for the basis of recognition. However, there is a territorial dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

"For another, since the armistice lines are specifically not political or territorial borders, it is Palestine on both sides of the lines."

How is it possible that you can come up with a statement so incredibly ridiculous??

I'll repeat it again: Just because YOU hate Israel and don't recognize it, it doesn't mean that it applies to reality.

So, what is ridiculous?

99% of what you say. But in this case, the bold.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,,

Yes, we've heard this before.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Our friend Paul (P F Tinmore) is 100% absolutely correct.

Sure I do.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

3. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

They were specifically not to be borders.

(OBSERVATION)

How do you treat an Armistice Line?

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character. A/RES/2625​

Whether you call it a "Border" an "International Boundary" --- or an "Armistice Line" --- legally they are all in the family of "demarcation lines" --- and enjoy the exact same protections. The UN understands this very well; in fact, the Secretary-General's (Ban Ki-moon) home country has had a segment of it border as an "Armistice Line" for more than half a century.

(COMMENT)

But what an "Armistice Line" is (by definition) --- or --- how an "Armistice Line" is treated and protected legally (A/RES/2625) is really of no material matter with respect to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt); other than a historical reference point. The State of Israel and the State of Palestine do not currently share a common "active" Armistice Line." And historically, when the "Armistice Lines" were "active" --- the Palestinians (either the PLO as the sole legitimated representative of the Palestinian, or the 1988 Government for the State of Palestine) were not a Party to any Armistice Agreement. The Armistice Lines that encapsulated the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were settled by Treaty with Israel and the Governments of Egypt and Jordan (respectively).

The only active Armistice Lines in the region exist between the State of Israel and the States of Syria and Lebanon. Again, these lines have nothing to do with the Palestinians and are of no concern to the Palestinians. Currently both the Arab states are as risk, with Syria in a state of civil war --- and simultaneously --- under attack by the Jihadist Terrorist Movement (Islamic State). Lebanon, which is under the coercive influence of a Shi'a Islamist Paramilitary Movement (Jihad Council of Hezbollah), is in a precarious situation. Currently Saudi Arabia is supporting the Lebanese Army (as opposed to Hezbollah), and Hezbollah maybe at odds with Islamic State over recent events. Syria will certainly be effected by the outcome of the fighting. The Regime will certainly not be what it was. Lebanon, is at risk --- and Jordan will hold a common border with the threat. So, the "Armistice Lines" with Lebanon and Syria are of no concern to the Palestinian. In fact, no one wants to ignite another conflict that might result in the loss of containment of another Jihadist threat (Palestinians).

The Palestinians, as recognized by A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988, as the State of Palestine ( A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988; exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967. Similarly, A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 on the Status of Palestine, reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. The Armistice Lines are not used as the markers of the boundary for the basis of recognition. However, there is a territorial dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

P F Tinmore, et al,

Our friend Paul (P F Tinmore) is 100% absolutely correct.

Sure I do.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

3. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

They were specifically not to be borders.

(OBSERVATION)

How do you treat an Armistice Line?

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character. A/RES/2625​

Whether you call it a "Border" an "International Boundary" --- or an "Armistice Line" --- legally they are all in the family of "demarcation lines" --- and enjoy the exact same protections. The UN understands this very well; in fact, the Secretary-General's (Ban Ki-moon) home country has had a segment of it border as an "Armistice Line" for more than half a century.

You keep bringing this up like it has some significance to the Palestinians.

For one thing, the Palestinians were not one of the respective Parties to the agreements.

For another, since the armistice lines are specifically not political or territorial borders, it is Palestine on both sides of the lines.

I don't see how it is possible for the Palestinians to violate such lines.

(COMMENT)

But what an "Armistice Line" is (by definition) --- or --- how an "Armistice Line" is treated and protected legally (A/RES/2625) is really of no material matter with respect to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt); other than a historical reference point. The State of Israel and the State of Palestine do not currently share a common "active" Armistice Line." And historically, when the "Armistice Lines" were "active" --- the Palestinians (either the PLO as the sole legitimated representative of the Palestinian, or the 1988 Government for the State of Palestine) were not a Party to any Armistice Agreement. The Armistice Lines that encapsulated the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were settled by Treaty with Israel and the Governments of Egypt and Jordan (respectively).

The only active Armistice Lines in the region exist between the State of Israel and the States of Syria and Lebanon. Again, these lines have nothing to do with the Palestinians and are of no concern to the Palestinians. Currently both the Arab states are as risk, with Syria in a state of civil war --- and simultaneously --- under attack by the Jihadist Terrorist Movement (Islamic State). Lebanon, which is under the coercive influence of a Shi'a Islamist Paramilitary Movement (Jihad Council of Hezbollah), is in a precarious situation. Currently Saudi Arabia is supporting the Lebanese Army (as opposed to Hezbollah), and Hezbollah maybe at odds with Islamic State over recent events. Syria will certainly be effected by the outcome of the fighting. The Regime will certainly not be what it was. Lebanon, is at risk --- and Jordan will hold a common border with the threat. So, the "Armistice Lines" with Lebanon and Syria are of no concern to the Palestinian. In fact, no one wants to ignite another conflict that might result in the loss of containment of another Jihadist threat (Palestinians).

The Palestinians, as recognized by A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988, as the State of Palestine ( A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988; exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967. Similarly, A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 on the Status of Palestine, reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. The Armistice Lines are not used as the markers of the boundary for the basis of recognition. However, there is a territorial dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

"For another, since the armistice lines are specifically not political or territorial borders, it is Palestine on both sides of the lines."

How is it possible that you can come up with a statement so incredibly ridiculous??

I'll repeat it again: Just because YOU hate Israel and don't recognize it, it doesn't mean that it applies to reality.

So, what is ridiculous?

(COMMENT)

The "Armistice Lines" (which encapsulate the West Bank and Gaza Strip) do not exist any more; having been superseded by the Peace Treaties. No matter what you think the "armistice lines" represent, they were resolved in favor of "international boundaries."

The treaties sets the boundary; not Palestinian unilateralism.

Where do you get the term unilateralism? Palestine was already a land defined by international borders. This land was still intact as indicated by the 1949 armistice agreements that Israel signed. Since the Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity, when was there a treaty with the Palestinians changing the status of that land and borders?

I don't see where the Palestinians did anything unilaterally or not.

Article II

Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979

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

Article 3 - International Boundary Treaty of Peace between The State of Israel and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

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

As far as recognition of Palestine, on both sides of the line; not possible. The mutual Israel-PLO Recognition which was exemplified in the Exchange of Letters Between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat in 1993, stipulates the understanding. "The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security."

Until such time as the PLO, under the "Permanent Status Negotiations" (Article V(3) A/48/486 S/26560 11 October 1993 Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements) concludes an agreement, the Oslo Accords and the Treaties are the principle legal instruments that set the "international boundaries." The State of Palestine (Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) does not have any such instruments establishing their boundary except as previously stated in the indeterminate form of as recognized by A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988, as the State of Palestine (supra).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

Reality is that it is Christmas and the Christian Palestinians, as are all Christians, are celebrating our most important day of the year. So, you Jews and Muslims should stop killing us.

Your new years resolution should be to stop lying and posting so much propaganda.

P F Tinmore, et al,,

Yes, we've heard this before.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Our friend Paul (P F Tinmore) is 100% absolutely correct.

Sure I do.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

3. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

They were specifically not to be borders.

(OBSERVATION)

How do you treat an Armistice Line?

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character. A/RES/2625​

Whether you call it a "Border" an "International Boundary" --- or an "Armistice Line" --- legally they are all in the family of "demarcation lines" --- and enjoy the exact same protections. The UN understands this very well; in fact, the Secretary-General's (Ban Ki-moon) home country has had a segment of it border as an "Armistice Line" for more than half a century.

(COMMENT)

But what an "Armistice Line" is (by definition) --- or --- how an "Armistice Line" is treated and protected legally (A/RES/2625) is really of no material matter with respect to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt); other than a historical reference point. The State of Israel and the State of Palestine do not currently share a common "active" Armistice Line." And historically, when the "Armistice Lines" were "active" --- the Palestinians (either the PLO as the sole legitimated representative of the Palestinian, or the 1988 Government for the State of Palestine) were not a Party to any Armistice Agreement. The Armistice Lines that encapsulated the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were settled by Treaty with Israel and the Governments of Egypt and Jordan (respectively).

The only active Armistice Lines in the region exist between the State of Israel and the States of Syria and Lebanon. Again, these lines have nothing to do with the Palestinians and are of no concern to the Palestinians. Currently both the Arab states are as risk, with Syria in a state of civil war --- and simultaneously --- under attack by the Jihadist Terrorist Movement (Islamic State). Lebanon, which is under the coercive influence of a Shi'a Islamist Paramilitary Movement (Jihad Council of Hezbollah), is in a precarious situation. Currently Saudi Arabia is supporting the Lebanese Army (as opposed to Hezbollah), and Hezbollah maybe at odds with Islamic State over recent events. Syria will certainly be effected by the outcome of the fighting. The Regime will certainly not be what it was. Lebanon, is at risk --- and Jordan will hold a common border with the threat. So, the "Armistice Lines" with Lebanon and Syria are of no concern to the Palestinian. In fact, no one wants to ignite another conflict that might result in the loss of containment of another Jihadist threat (Palestinians).

The Palestinians, as recognized by A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988, as the State of Palestine ( A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988; exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967. Similarly, A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 on the Status of Palestine, reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. The Armistice Lines are not used as the markers of the boundary for the basis of recognition. However, there is a territorial dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

P F Tinmore, et al,

Our friend Paul (P F Tinmore) is 100% absolutely correct.

(OBSERVATION)

How do you treat an Armistice Line?

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character. A/RES/2625​

Whether you call it a "Border" an "International Boundary" --- or an "Armistice Line" --- legally they are all in the family of "demarcation lines" --- and enjoy the exact same protections. The UN understands this very well; in fact, the Secretary-General's (Ban Ki-moon) home country has had a segment of it border as an "Armistice Line" for more than half a century.

You keep bringing this up like it has some significance to the Palestinians.

For one thing, the Palestinians were not one of the respective Parties to the agreements.

For another, since the armistice lines are specifically not political or territorial borders, it is Palestine on both sides of the lines.

I don't see how it is possible for the Palestinians to violate such lines.

(COMMENT)

But what an "Armistice Line" is (by definition) --- or --- how an "Armistice Line" is treated and protected legally (A/RES/2625) is really of no material matter with respect to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt); other than a historical reference point. The State of Israel and the State of Palestine do not currently share a common "active" Armistice Line." And historically, when the "Armistice Lines" were "active" --- the Palestinians (either the PLO as the sole legitimated representative of the Palestinian, or the 1988 Government for the State of Palestine) were not a Party to any Armistice Agreement. The Armistice Lines that encapsulated the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were settled by Treaty with Israel and the Governments of Egypt and Jordan (respectively).

The only active Armistice Lines in the region exist between the State of Israel and the States of Syria and Lebanon. Again, these lines have nothing to do with the Palestinians and are of no concern to the Palestinians. Currently both the Arab states are as risk, with Syria in a state of civil war --- and simultaneously --- under attack by the Jihadist Terrorist Movement (Islamic State). Lebanon, which is under the coercive influence of a Shi'a Islamist Paramilitary Movement (Jihad Council of Hezbollah), is in a precarious situation. Currently Saudi Arabia is supporting the Lebanese Army (as opposed to Hezbollah), and Hezbollah maybe at odds with Islamic State over recent events. Syria will certainly be effected by the outcome of the fighting. The Regime will certainly not be what it was. Lebanon, is at risk --- and Jordan will hold a common border with the threat. So, the "Armistice Lines" with Lebanon and Syria are of no concern to the Palestinian. In fact, no one wants to ignite another conflict that might result in the loss of containment of another Jihadist threat (Palestinians).

The Palestinians, as recognized by A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988, as the State of Palestine ( A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988; exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967. Similarly, A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 on the Status of Palestine, reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. The Armistice Lines are not used as the markers of the boundary for the basis of recognition. However, there is a territorial dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

"For another, since the armistice lines are specifically not political or territorial borders, it is Palestine on both sides of the lines."

How is it possible that you can come up with a statement so incredibly ridiculous??

I'll repeat it again: Just because YOU hate Israel and don't recognize it, it doesn't mean that it applies to reality.

So, what is ridiculous?

(COMMENT)

The "Armistice Lines" (which encapsulate the West Bank and Gaza Strip) do not exist any more; having been superseded by the Peace Treaties. No matter what you think the "armistice lines" represent, they were resolved in favor of "international boundaries."

The treaties sets the boundary; not Palestinian unilateralism.

Where do you get the term unilateralism? Palestine was already a land defined by international borders. This land was still intact as indicated by the 1949 armistice agreements that Israel signed. Since the Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity, when was there a treaty with the Palestinians changing the status of that land and borders?

I don't see where the Palestinians did anything unilaterally or not.

Article II

Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979

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

Article 3 - International Boundary Treaty of Peace between The State of Israel and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

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

As far as recognition of Palestine, on both sides of the line; not possible. The mutual Israel-PLO Recognition which was exemplified in the Exchange of Letters Between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat in 1993, stipulates the understanding. "The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security."

Until such time as the PLO, under the "Permanent Status Negotiations" (Article V(3) A/48/486 S/26560 11 October 1993 Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements) concludes an agreement, the Oslo Accords and the Treaties are the principle legal instruments that set the "international boundaries." The State of Palestine (Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) does not have any such instruments establishing their boundary except as previously stated in the indeterminate form of as recognized by A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988, as the State of Palestine (supra).

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine was NOT defined by international borders (and still isn't). The armistice agreements have nothing to do with Palestine and did not indicate that Palestine was still intact. It wasn't. You notice that after the 1948 Arab - Israeli war, it says Israel captured land ALLOTTED to the Palestinians in the partition plan. It doesn't say Israel captured Palestinian land:

Territorial
changes Israel keeps area allotted to it by Partition Plan, captures 50% of area allotted to Arab

The key word is allotted.

1948 Arab Israeli War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Our friend Paul (P F Tinmore) is 100% absolutely correct.

Sure I do.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

3. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

They were specifically not to be borders.

(OBSERVATION)

How do you treat an Armistice Line?

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character. A/RES/2625​

Whether you call it a "Border" an "International Boundary" --- or an "Armistice Line" --- legally they are all in the family of "demarcation lines" --- and enjoy the exact same protections. The UN understands this very well; in fact, the Secretary-General's (Ban Ki-moon) home country has had a segment of it border as an "Armistice Line" for more than half a century.

You keep bringing this up like it has some significance to the Palestinians.

For one thing, the Palestinians were not one of the respective Parties to the agreements.

For another, since the armistice lines are specifically not political or territorial borders, it is Palestine on both sides of the lines.

I don't see how it is possible for the Palestinians to violate such lines.

(COMMENT)

But what an "Armistice Line" is (by definition) --- or --- how an "Armistice Line" is treated and protected legally (A/RES/2625) is really of no material matter with respect to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt); other than a historical reference point. The State of Israel and the State of Palestine do not currently share a common "active" Armistice Line." And historically, when the "Armistice Lines" were "active" --- the Palestinians (either the PLO as the sole legitimated representative of the Palestinian, or the 1988 Government for the State of Palestine) were not a Party to any Armistice Agreement. The Armistice Lines that encapsulated the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were settled by Treaty with Israel and the Governments of Egypt and Jordan (respectively).

The only active Armistice Lines in the region exist between the State of Israel and the States of Syria and Lebanon. Again, these lines have nothing to do with the Palestinians and are of no concern to the Palestinians. Currently both the Arab states are as risk, with Syria in a state of civil war --- and simultaneously --- under attack by the Jihadist Terrorist Movement (Islamic State). Lebanon, which is under the coercive influence of a Shi'a Islamist Paramilitary Movement (Jihad Council of Hezbollah), is in a precarious situation. Currently Saudi Arabia is supporting the Lebanese Army (as opposed to Hezbollah), and Hezbollah maybe at odds with Islamic State over recent events. Syria will certainly be effected by the outcome of the fighting. The Regime will certainly not be what it was. Lebanon, is at risk --- and Jordan will hold a common border with the threat. So, the "Armistice Lines" with Lebanon and Syria are of no concern to the Palestinian. In fact, no one wants to ignite another conflict that might result in the loss of containment of another Jihadist threat (Palestinians).

The Palestinians, as recognized by A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988, as the State of Palestine ( A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988; exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967. Similarly, A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 on the Status of Palestine, reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. The Armistice Lines are not used as the markers of the boundary for the basis of recognition. However, there is a territorial dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

And seeing as the Jews were the Palestinians up until 1960 when Arafat stole the name, then they are in breach of no UN resolutions or Geneva conventions

 

[Phoenall]

Reality is that it is Christmas and the Christian Palestinians, as are all Christians, are celebrating our most important day of the year. So, you Jews and Muslims should stop killing us.

Palm Sunday is the most important day of the year, so seems that you are a LIAR abdul

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Our friend Paul (P F Tinmore) is 100% absolutely correct.

Sure I do.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

3. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

They were specifically not to be borders.

(OBSERVATION)

How do you treat an Armistice Line?

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character. A/RES/2625​

Whether you call it a "Border" an "International Boundary" --- or an "Armistice Line" --- legally they are all in the family of "demarcation lines" --- and enjoy the exact same protections. The UN understands this very well; in fact, the Secretary-General's (Ban Ki-moon) home country has had a segment of it border as an "Armistice Line" for more than half a century.

(COMMENT)

But what an "Armistice Line" is (by definition) --- or --- how an "Armistice Line" is treated and protected legally (A/RES/2625) is really of no material matter with respect to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt); other than a historical reference point. The State of Israel and the State of Palestine do not currently share a common "active" Armistice Line." And historically, when the "Armistice Lines" were "active" --- the Palestinians (either the PLO as the sole legitimated representative of the Palestinian, or the 1988 Government for the State of Palestine) were not a Party to any Armistice Agreement. The Armistice Lines that encapsulated the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were settled by Treaty with Israel and the Governments of Egypt and Jordan (respectively).

The only active Armistice Lines in the region exist between the State of Israel and the States of Syria and Lebanon. Again, these lines have nothing to do with the Palestinians and are of no concern to the Palestinians. Currently both the Arab states are as risk, with Syria in a state of civil war --- and simultaneously --- under attack by the Jihadist Terrorist Movement (Islamic State). Lebanon, which is under the coercive influence of a Shi'a Islamist Paramilitary Movement (Jihad Council of Hezbollah), is in a precarious situation. Currently Saudi Arabia is supporting the Lebanese Army (as opposed to Hezbollah), and Hezbollah maybe at odds with Islamic State over recent events. Syria will certainly be effected by the outcome of the fighting. The Regime will certainly not be what it was. Lebanon, is at risk --- and Jordan will hold a common border with the threat. So, the "Armistice Lines" with Lebanon and Syria are of no concern to the Palestinian. In fact, no one wants to ignite another conflict that might result in the loss of containment of another Jihadist threat (Palestinians).

The Palestinians, as recognized by A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988, as the State of Palestine ( A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988; exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967. Similarly, A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 on the Status of Palestine, reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. The Armistice Lines are not used as the markers of the boundary for the basis of recognition. However, there is a territorial dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

P F Tinmore, et al,

Our friend Paul (P F Tinmore) is 100% absolutely correct.

Sure I do.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

3. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

They were specifically not to be borders.

(OBSERVATION)

How do you treat an Armistice Line?

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character. A/RES/2625​

Whether you call it a "Border" an "International Boundary" --- or an "Armistice Line" --- legally they are all in the family of "demarcation lines" --- and enjoy the exact same protections. The UN understands this very well; in fact, the Secretary-General's (Ban Ki-moon) home country has had a segment of it border as an "Armistice Line" for more than half a century.

You keep bringing this up like it has some significance to the Palestinians.

For one thing, the Palestinians were not one of the respective Parties to the agreements.

For another, since the armistice lines are specifically not political or territorial borders, it is Palestine on both sides of the lines.

I don't see how it is possible for the Palestinians to violate such lines.

(COMMENT)

But what an "Armistice Line" is (by definition) --- or --- how an "Armistice Line" is treated and protected legally (A/RES/2625) is really of no material matter with respect to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt); other than a historical reference point. The State of Israel and the State of Palestine do not currently share a common "active" Armistice Line." And historically, when the "Armistice Lines" were "active" --- the Palestinians (either the PLO as the sole legitimated representative of the Palestinian, or the 1988 Government for the State of Palestine) were not a Party to any Armistice Agreement. The Armistice Lines that encapsulated the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were settled by Treaty with Israel and the Governments of Egypt and Jordan (respectively).

The only active Armistice Lines in the region exist between the State of Israel and the States of Syria and Lebanon. Again, these lines have nothing to do with the Palestinians and are of no concern to the Palestinians. Currently both the Arab states are as risk, with Syria in a state of civil war --- and simultaneously --- under attack by the Jihadist Terrorist Movement (Islamic State). Lebanon, which is under the coercive influence of a Shi'a Islamist Paramilitary Movement (Jihad Council of Hezbollah), is in a precarious situation. Currently Saudi Arabia is supporting the Lebanese Army (as opposed to Hezbollah), and Hezbollah maybe at odds with Islamic State over recent events. Syria will certainly be effected by the outcome of the fighting. The Regime will certainly not be what it was. Lebanon, is at risk --- and Jordan will hold a common border with the threat. So, the "Armistice Lines" with Lebanon and Syria are of no concern to the Palestinian. In fact, no one wants to ignite another conflict that might result in the loss of containment of another Jihadist threat (Palestinians).

The Palestinians, as recognized by A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988, as the State of Palestine ( A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988; exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967. Similarly, A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 on the Status of Palestine, reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. The Armistice Lines are not used as the markers of the boundary for the basis of recognition. However, there is a territorial dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

"For another, since the armistice lines are specifically not political or territorial borders, it is Palestine on both sides of the lines."

How is it possible that you can come up with a statement so incredibly ridiculous??

I'll repeat it again: Just because YOU hate Israel and don't recognize it, it doesn't mean that it applies to reality.

So, what is ridiculous?

At the time of the armistice agreements Israel was a fully fledged legally recognised nation by the rest of humanity, and the arab muslim Syrians were recognised back then as terrorist land thieves. Yes it was MANDATE FOR PALESTINE on both sides of the lines apart from those that delineated Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,,

Yes, we've heard this before.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Our friend Paul (P F Tinmore) is 100% absolutely correct.

Sure I do.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

3. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

They were specifically not to be borders.

(OBSERVATION)

How do you treat an Armistice Line?

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character. A/RES/2625​

Whether you call it a "Border" an "International Boundary" --- or an "Armistice Line" --- legally they are all in the family of "demarcation lines" --- and enjoy the exact same protections. The UN understands this very well; in fact, the Secretary-General's (Ban Ki-moon) home country has had a segment of it border as an "Armistice Line" for more than half a century.

(COMMENT)

But what an "Armistice Line" is (by definition) --- or --- how an "Armistice Line" is treated and protected legally (A/RES/2625) is really of no material matter with respect to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt); other than a historical reference point. The State of Israel and the State of Palestine do not currently share a common "active" Armistice Line." And historically, when the "Armistice Lines" were "active" --- the Palestinians (either the PLO as the sole legitimated representative of the Palestinian, or the 1988 Government for the State of Palestine) were not a Party to any Armistice Agreement. The Armistice Lines that encapsulated the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were settled by Treaty with Israel and the Governments of Egypt and Jordan (respectively).

The only active Armistice Lines in the region exist between the State of Israel and the States of Syria and Lebanon. Again, these lines have nothing to do with the Palestinians and are of no concern to the Palestinians. Currently both the Arab states are as risk, with Syria in a state of civil war --- and simultaneously --- under attack by the Jihadist Terrorist Movement (Islamic State). Lebanon, which is under the coercive influence of a Shi'a Islamist Paramilitary Movement (Jihad Council of Hezbollah), is in a precarious situation. Currently Saudi Arabia is supporting the Lebanese Army (as opposed to Hezbollah), and Hezbollah maybe at odds with Islamic State over recent events. Syria will certainly be effected by the outcome of the fighting. The Regime will certainly not be what it was. Lebanon, is at risk --- and Jordan will hold a common border with the threat. So, the "Armistice Lines" with Lebanon and Syria are of no concern to the Palestinian. In fact, no one wants to ignite another conflict that might result in the loss of containment of another Jihadist threat (Palestinians).

The Palestinians, as recognized by A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988, as the State of Palestine ( A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988; exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967. Similarly, A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 on the Status of Palestine, reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. The Armistice Lines are not used as the markers of the boundary for the basis of recognition. However, there is a territorial dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

P F Tinmore, et al,

Our friend Paul (P F Tinmore) is 100% absolutely correct.

(OBSERVATION)

How do you treat an Armistice Line?

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character. A/RES/2625​

Whether you call it a "Border" an "International Boundary" --- or an "Armistice Line" --- legally they are all in the family of "demarcation lines" --- and enjoy the exact same protections. The UN understands this very well; in fact, the Secretary-General's (Ban Ki-moon) home country has had a segment of it border as an "Armistice Line" for more than half a century.

You keep bringing this up like it has some significance to the Palestinians.

For one thing, the Palestinians were not one of the respective Parties to the agreements.

For another, since the armistice lines are specifically not political or territorial borders, it is Palestine on both sides of the lines.

I don't see how it is possible for the Palestinians to violate such lines.

(COMMENT)

But what an "Armistice Line" is (by definition) --- or --- how an "Armistice Line" is treated and protected legally (A/RES/2625) is really of no material matter with respect to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt); other than a historical reference point. The State of Israel and the State of Palestine do not currently share a common "active" Armistice Line." And historically, when the "Armistice Lines" were "active" --- the Palestinians (either the PLO as the sole legitimated representative of the Palestinian, or the 1988 Government for the State of Palestine) were not a Party to any Armistice Agreement. The Armistice Lines that encapsulated the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were settled by Treaty with Israel and the Governments of Egypt and Jordan (respectively).

The only active Armistice Lines in the region exist between the State of Israel and the States of Syria and Lebanon. Again, these lines have nothing to do with the Palestinians and are of no concern to the Palestinians. Currently both the Arab states are as risk, with Syria in a state of civil war --- and simultaneously --- under attack by the Jihadist Terrorist Movement (Islamic State). Lebanon, which is under the coercive influence of a Shi'a Islamist Paramilitary Movement (Jihad Council of Hezbollah), is in a precarious situation. Currently Saudi Arabia is supporting the Lebanese Army (as opposed to Hezbollah), and Hezbollah maybe at odds with Islamic State over recent events. Syria will certainly be effected by the outcome of the fighting. The Regime will certainly not be what it was. Lebanon, is at risk --- and Jordan will hold a common border with the threat. So, the "Armistice Lines" with Lebanon and Syria are of no concern to the Palestinian. In fact, no one wants to ignite another conflict that might result in the loss of containment of another Jihadist threat (Palestinians).

The Palestinians, as recognized by A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988, as the State of Palestine ( A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988) by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988; exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967. Similarly, A/RES/67/19 4 December 2012 on the Status of Palestine, reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. The Armistice Lines are not used as the markers of the boundary for the basis of recognition. However, there is a territorial dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

"For another, since the armistice lines are specifically not political or territorial borders, it is Palestine on both sides of the lines."

How is it possible that you can come up with a statement so incredibly ridiculous??

I'll repeat it again: Just because YOU hate Israel and don't recognize it, it doesn't mean that it applies to reality.

So, what is ridiculous?

(COMMENT)

The "Armistice Lines" (which encapsulate the West Bank and Gaza Strip) do not exist any more; having been superseded by the Peace Treaties. No matter what you think the "armistice lines" represent, they were resolved in favor of "international boundaries."

The treaties sets the boundary; not Palestinian unilateralism.

Where do you get the term unilateralism? Palestine was already a land defined by international borders. This land was still intact as indicated by the 1949 armistice agreements that Israel signed. Since the Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity, when was there a treaty with the Palestinians changing the status of that land and borders?

I don't see where the Palestinians did anything unilaterally or not.

Article II

Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979

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

Article 3 - International Boundary Treaty of Peace between The State of Israel and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

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

As far as recognition of Palestine, on both sides of the line; not possible. The mutual Israel-PLO Recognition which was exemplified in the Exchange of Letters Between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat in 1993, stipulates the understanding. "The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security."

Until such time as the PLO, under the "Permanent Status Negotiations" (Article V(3) A/48/486 S/26560 11 October 1993 Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements) concludes an agreement, the Oslo Accords and the Treaties are the principle legal instruments that set the "international boundaries." The State of Palestine (Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) does not have any such instruments establishing their boundary except as previously stated in the indeterminate form of as recognized by A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988, as the State of Palestine (supra).

Most Respectfully,
R

Here we go again the only land recognised was the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE and as the treaty stated hereinafter referred to as Palestine. The treaty did not make it a legitimate legal country at all.

 

[Kondor3]

Reality is that it is Christmas and the Christian Palestinians, as are all Christians, are celebrating our most important day of the year. So, you Jews and Muslims should stop killing us.

Your new years resolution should be to stop lying and posting so much propaganda....

Pigs will fly, first.

 

[Billo_Really]

Billo_Really, et al,

Well, this comment is not exactly accurate.

The relationship between the Occupation Power and the population of the Occupied Territory is much the the relationship between a School and the Students.

Not really, but go ahead.

In this analogy, the School has the responsibility to provide a safe and secure environment to the students for which they can accept and learn from the education the School renders.

Wrong! A population under the occupation of a foreign force, is under no obligation to accept anything from the occupying power.

If the students are unruly and disruptive --- responsible for the breakdown in the safe and secure environment, that is on the students.

Are you saying a population under the occupation of a foreign power, doesn't have the right to resist that occupation?

Similarly, IF the Palestinians conduct themselves, in such a manner, that the safe and secure environment is broken down, --- that the environment is no longer capable of supporting a prosperous and developing country, --- THEN that is directly the fault of the Palestinian and not the occupation power.

The Germans felt the same way towards the Warsaw Ghetto.

The security devices and the measures taken in the occupied territories are in direct response to the belligerent nature of the Palestinians.

Which is a direct response to the belligerent occupation.

The lack of development and prosperity in the Occupied Territory is not due to the occupation --- but to the inability of the Palestinian People to build a nation and conduct themselves in a manner such that the added security countermeasures become unnecessary and may be lifted.

Oh, you are fucking nuts!

If a company cannot export their product to market, how can you say it doesn't have a detrimental effect on that company?

If an author is not allowed to leave Gaza to go to a book signing in New York, how can you say that doesn't have a detrimental effect on her book sales?

If you're not allowed to fish out to internationally recognized borders, how can you say it doesn't have a detrimental effect on the fishing industry?

​

SO, you are right that the Occupying Power is responsible for attempting to maintain the safe and secure environment. You are wrong in suggesting that the added security countermeasures are not the logical response to the unruly and belligerent Palestinian activity which sets the conditions for their "situation."

They're not "security countermeasures". They measures designed to destroy Palestinian life.

The Jihadist and Terrorist supporting "Unity Government" of the Palestinian State is a clear and present danger to the security of Israel and the greater regional area. There is no reasonable expectation that left to their own devises, they have the potential to develop into a stronger Jihadist and Terrorist regional threat then they currently are now.

Most Respectfully,
R

Excluding the Knesset, other governments are none of Israeli's god-damn business!