U.N. rights inquiry says Israel must remove settlers

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Two Wrongs Make a Right is a fallacy in which a Palestinian "justifies" an action against a Israel by asserting that the Israelis would do the same thing to Palestinian.

That may be true, or it may not.

This is true, there is no agreed upon definition on the international level.

That is true. "Terrorism" is basically a political name calling thing.

To Israel terrorism is a propaganda campaign.

(COMMENT)

But, you know it when you see it.



Of course, when the Palestinians did the Munich Olympics, that wasn't defined as terrorism, when they killed the American in the wheel chair on the Achille Lauro and dumped his body overboard, that wasn't defined terrorism either. OR, when the Palestinians killed a Navy Seabee on TWA Flight 847, and threw his body on the tarmac, that wasn't definable terrorism.

OR when:

• Bus bombing in Haifa. U.S. citizens killed: Abigail Leitel, 14,from, New Hampshire.
• Rabbi Eli Horowitz, 52, Shooting in the victims’ home. U.S. citizens killed, from Chicago; Dina Horowitz, 50, who grew up in Florida
• Jack Baxter, 50, of New York City died in a Bombing of a Tel Aviv Night Club
• Alan Beer, 47, who grew up in Cleveland.
• Sarri Singer, 27, daughter of New Jersey State Senator Robert Singer.
• Tzvi Goldstein, Eugene Goldstein, fromf Long Island, New York; Lorraine Goldstein, Tzvi’s Yitzhak Reinitz, 9. Tehilla Nathanson, 3, Mendel Reinitz, 11.
• David Applebaum, 51, and his daughter Nava, 20, originally of Cleveland were killed.
• John Branchizio, 37, Mark Parson, 31, and John Martin Linde, 30,

No, according to Palestinian logic and moral fiber, none of this was terrorism. Just plain "name calling" in order to maintain and strengthen international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights and of developing friendly relations among nations.

Yes, you are right --- you and Sherry and patrickcaturday are all right --- it is exactly "name calling." Palestinians don't engage in terrorism at all; at least definable by international standards. But don't think for a moment that America doesn't recognize the attempt to organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or engage in subversive or armed activities directed towards a UN member nation. Or how they openly kill Americans in the pursuit of their lawful activities.

No! Not terrorism at all. This is merely "name calling" without any justification at all.

Most Respectfully,
R

(COMMENT)

Israel was defending itself IAW Article 51 of the UN Charter. The Arabs and the Palestinians didn't like the Independence of the Jewish State so they just jump-in and attack. You can't re-write history. And everyone knows that the basic Principle is to pursue peaceful means to resolve territorial disputes. The Palestinians decided to take the law into their own hands and did not get the outcome they desired.

Israel calling the Palestinians terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.

(COMMENT)

I don't care what the Israelis call you, but I know that every incident I mentioned, a US Citizen was killed. And that was me making the comparison. The Palestinians committed murder to achieve political ends and to coerce outcomes for political gain. That is "terrorism in my book, targeted against citizens of the United States of America. The Palestinian is know to associate with a number of organizations that have harmed Americans. They are not lilly white in this at all. The Palestinian and the Arabs started the conflict in 1948. It is time they assume the role and change their methods, or are ended.

This reminds me of 2006 when Netenyahu was making the winger radio circuit in the US. He was on the Bill Bennet show. In an 8 minute interview, while Israel was bombing the crap out of civilians in Lebanon, he played the terrorist card 17 times like he was trying to sell something. It was radio but I could just see Bennet nodding like a bobble head doll.

(COMMENT)

In 2006, a Palestinian suicide bomber detonated in the Rosh Ha'ir Restaurant in Tel Aviv. That demonstration of how much integrity the Palestinians have kill Daniel Wultz, 16 years old. He was from Weston, Florida. Palestinians are cold blooded killers. And when someone strikes back, the first thing they scream is they are justified in these heinous acts.

Well I'm here to tell you that --- your justification is not true, either by American Law or by international law. There is no international law or principle that supports your insurgency in you claim for territorial gains and the penetration of Israeli sovereign territorial integrity. And your pursuit of some territorial claim in no way can justify killing United States citizens.

Don't go there! You are wrong. You have no leg to stand on in the pursuit of violence to accomplish any political objective.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is no international law or principle that supports your insurgency in you claim for territorial gains...

The Palestinians have never attacked for territorial gains.

Israel sits inside Palestine by military force. What would you suggest to correct that problem?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Israel declared Independence the same way that Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan were created.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Two Wrongs Make a Right is a fallacy in which a Palestinian "justifies" an action against a Israel by asserting that the Israelis would do the same thing to Palestinian.

That may be true, or it may not.

This is true, there is no agreed upon definition on the international level.


(COMMENT)

But, you know it when you see it.



Of course, when the Palestinians did the Munich Olympics, that wasn't defined as terrorism, when they killed the American in the wheel chair on the Achille Lauro and dumped his body overboard, that wasn't defined terrorism either. OR, when the Palestinians killed a Navy Seabee on TWA Flight 847, and threw his body on the tarmac, that wasn't definable terrorism.

OR when:

• Bus bombing in Haifa. U.S. citizens killed: Abigail Leitel, 14,from, New Hampshire.
• Rabbi Eli Horowitz, 52, Shooting in the victims’ home. U.S. citizens killed, from Chicago; Dina Horowitz, 50, who grew up in Florida
• Jack Baxter, 50, of New York City died in a Bombing of a Tel Aviv Night Club
• Alan Beer, 47, who grew up in Cleveland.
• Sarri Singer, 27, daughter of New Jersey State Senator Robert Singer.
• Tzvi Goldstein, Eugene Goldstein, fromf Long Island, New York; Lorraine Goldstein, Tzvi’s Yitzhak Reinitz, 9. Tehilla Nathanson, 3, Mendel Reinitz, 11.
• David Applebaum, 51, and his daughter Nava, 20, originally of Cleveland were killed.
• John Branchizio, 37, Mark Parson, 31, and John Martin Linde, 30,

No, according to Palestinian logic and moral fiber, none of this was terrorism. Just plain "name calling" in order to maintain and strengthen international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights and of developing friendly relations among nations.

Yes, you are right --- you and Sherry and patrickcaturday are all right --- it is exactly "name calling." Palestinians don't engage in terrorism at all; at least definable by international standards. But don't think for a moment that America doesn't recognize the attempt to organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or engage in subversive or armed activities directed towards a UN member nation. Or how they openly kill Americans in the pursuit of their lawful activities.

No! Not terrorism at all. This is merely "name calling" without any justification at all.

Most Respectfully,
R

(COMMENT)

Israel was defending itself IAW Article 51 of the UN Charter. The Arabs and the Palestinians didn't like the Independence of the Jewish State so they just jump-in and attack. You can't re-write history. And everyone knows that the basic Principle is to pursue peaceful means to resolve territorial disputes. The Palestinians decided to take the law into their own hands and did not get the outcome they desired.


(COMMENT)

I don't care what the Israelis call you, but I know that every incident I mentioned, a US Citizen was killed. And that was me making the comparison. The Palestinians committed murder to achieve political ends and to coerce outcomes for political gain. That is "terrorism in my book, targeted against citizens of the United States of America. The Palestinian is know to associate with a number of organizations that have harmed Americans. They are not lilly white in this at all. The Palestinian and the Arabs started the conflict in 1948. It is time they assume the role and change their methods, or are ended.


(COMMENT)

In 2006, a Palestinian suicide bomber detonated in the Rosh Ha'ir Restaurant in Tel Aviv. That demonstration of how much integrity the Palestinians have kill Daniel Wultz, 16 years old. He was from Weston, Florida. Palestinians are cold blooded killers. And when someone strikes back, the first thing they scream is they are justified in these heinous acts.

Well I'm here to tell you that --- your justification is not true, either by American Law or by international law. There is no international law or principle that supports your insurgency in you claim for territorial gains and the penetration of Israeli sovereign territorial integrity. And your pursuit of some territorial claim in no way can justify killing United States citizens.

Don't go there! You are wrong. You have no leg to stand on in the pursuit of violence to accomplish any political objective.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is no international law or principle that supports your insurgency in you claim for territorial gains...

The Palestinians have never attacked for territorial gains.

Israel sits inside Palestine by military force. What would you suggest to correct that problem?

(COMMENT)

The Israeli portion of Palestine (the Mandate) is not any more invalid than Jordan's portion of Palestine (the Mandate).

The Israelis didn't take it by force, they defended their country the same as Lebanon, Syria and Jordan would (all creations out of Mandates).

Second, there is no law that supports the armed intrusion into sovereign Israeli territory.

Your Palestinians are the aggressors.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Israel declared Independence the same way that Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan were created.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Two Wrongs Make a Right is a fallacy in which a Palestinian "justifies" an action against a Israel by asserting that the Israelis would do the same thing to Palestinian.

That may be true, or it may not.

(COMMENT)

Israel was defending itself IAW Article 51 of the UN Charter. The Arabs and the Palestinians didn't like the Independence of the Jewish State so they just jump-in and attack. You can't re-write history. And everyone knows that the basic Principle is to pursue peaceful means to resolve territorial disputes. The Palestinians decided to take the law into their own hands and did not get the outcome they desired.


(COMMENT)

I don't care what the Israelis call you, but I know that every incident I mentioned, a US Citizen was killed. And that was me making the comparison. The Palestinians committed murder to achieve political ends and to coerce outcomes for political gain. That is "terrorism in my book, targeted against citizens of the United States of America. The Palestinian is know to associate with a number of organizations that have harmed Americans. They are not lilly white in this at all. The Palestinian and the Arabs started the conflict in 1948. It is time they assume the role and change their methods, or are ended.


(COMMENT)

In 2006, a Palestinian suicide bomber detonated in the Rosh Ha'ir Restaurant in Tel Aviv. That demonstration of how much integrity the Palestinians have kill Daniel Wultz, 16 years old. He was from Weston, Florida. Palestinians are cold blooded killers. And when someone strikes back, the first thing they scream is they are justified in these heinous acts.

Well I'm here to tell you that --- your justification is not true, either by American Law or by international law. There is no international law or principle that supports your insurgency in you claim for territorial gains and the penetration of Israeli sovereign territorial integrity. And your pursuit of some territorial claim in no way can justify killing United States citizens.

Don't go there! You are wrong. You have no leg to stand on in the pursuit of violence to accomplish any political objective.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is no international law or principle that supports your insurgency in you claim for territorial gains...

The Palestinians have never attacked for territorial gains.

Israel sits inside Palestine by military force. What would you suggest to correct that problem?

(COMMENT)

The Israeli portion of Palestine (the Mandate) is not any more invalid than Jordan's portion of Palestine (the Mandate).

The Israelis didn't take it by force, they defended their country the same as Lebanon, Syria and Jordan would (all creations out of Mandates).

Second, there is no law that supports the armed intrusion into sovereign Israeli territory.

Your Palestinians are the aggressors.

Most Respectfully,
R

Second, there is no law that supports the armed intrusion into sovereign Israeli territory.

There is no intrusion. The Palestinians in Palestine do not attack outside of Palestine.

 

[thanatos144]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Israel declared Independence the same way that Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan were created.

The Palestinians have never attacked for territorial gains.

Israel sits inside Palestine by military force. What would you suggest to correct that problem?

(COMMENT)

The Israeli portion of Palestine (the Mandate) is not any more invalid than Jordan's portion of Palestine (the Mandate).

The Israelis didn't take it by force, they defended their country the same as Lebanon, Syria and Jordan would (all creations out of Mandates).

Second, there is no law that supports the armed intrusion into sovereign Israeli territory.

Your Palestinians are the aggressors.

Most Respectfully,
R

Second, there is no law that supports the armed intrusion into sovereign Israeli territory.

There is no intrusion. The Palestinians in Palestine do not attack outside of Palestine.

What a giant fucking lie.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Israel declared Independence the same way that Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan were created.


(COMMENT)

The Israeli portion of Palestine (the Mandate) is not any more invalid than Jordan's portion of Palestine (the Mandate).

The Israelis didn't take it by force, they defended their country the same as Lebanon, Syria and Jordan would (all creations out of Mandates).

Second, there is no law that supports the armed intrusion into sovereign Israeli territory.

Your Palestinians are the aggressors.

Most Respectfully,
R

Second, there is no law that supports the armed intrusion into sovereign Israeli territory.

There is no intrusion. The Palestinians in Palestine do not attack outside of Palestine.

What a giant fucking lie.

Not really. Palestine's international borders were defined in 1922. They have not changed since then. Israel is inside those borders. So the Palestinians only attack inside their own borders.

 

[AsheedMidrarwz]

There is no intrusion. The Palestinians in Palestine do not attack outside of Palestine.

What a giant fucking lie.

Not really. Palestine's international borders were defined in 1922. They have not changed since then. Israel is inside those borders. So the Palestinians only attack inside their own borders.

You're living a lie. Israel is now a sovereign nation. This is not 1922. Terrorists and their enbablers and supporters always have an excuse for violence and murder. Liars.

 

[RoccoR]

thanatos144, et al,

He must be talking about the Mandate Boundaries, that disolved when the Mandate ended.

There is no intrusion. The Palestinians in Palestine do not attack outside of Palestine.

What a giant fucking lie.

Not really. Palestine's international borders were defined in 1922. They have not changed since then. Israel is inside those borders. So the Palestinians only attack inside their own borders.

(COMMENT)

The Mandate is a creation of the Principle Allied Powers and the LoN. It was not a country or state. Mandates are temporary constructs. In the British Mandate for Palestine, there is also the country of Jordan. It, as well, is inside the Mandate boundaries.

The Palestinians must maintain this shared elusion that somehow, they were invaded and attacked by the Israelis; and that they are defending their nation. They make believe that the Israelis stormed the beaches and took Israel by force. But it is an illusion; necessary to justify their acts of terrorism for these last 60 years.

Excuse me, none of those violent acts I previously cited are acts of terror. Palestinians don't commit terrorism; they simply organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or violence acts against a UN Member nation made from the mandate, in the furtherance of their Palestinian political agenda.

Somehow, when the UN recognized the creation of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Jordan from their respective Mandates, that was OK. But the recognition of Israel is not. So rather than follow the principle of settling their international dispute by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, they jumpt to wars and insurgencies using tctics such as massacres at Olympic Games, pirating ships, highjacking aircraft, conducting suicide bombings, sabotage and indiscriminate missile launches, in between planning sneak attacks.

Don't be confused. This is the Palestinian way of crafting settlement to their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, and judicial processes; just using more explosive ordinance.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

thanatos144, et al,

He must be talking about the Mandate Boundaries, that disolved when the Mandate ended.

What a giant fucking lie.

Not really. Palestine's international borders were defined in 1922. They have not changed since then. Israel is inside those borders. So the Palestinians only attack inside their own borders.

(COMMENT)

The Mandate is a creation of the Principle Allied Powers and the LoN. It was not a country or state. Mandates are temporary constructs. In the British Mandate for Palestine, there is also the country of Jordan. It, as well, is inside the Mandate boundaries.

The Palestinians must maintain this shared elusion that somehow, they were invaded and attacked by the Israelis; and that they are defending their nation. They make believe that the Israelis stormed the beaches and took Israel by force. But it is an illusion; necessary to justify their acts of terrorism for these last 60 years.

Excuse me, none of those violent acts I previously cited are acts of terror. Palestinians don't commit terrorism; they simply organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or violence acts against a UN Member nation made from the mandate, in the furtherance of their Palestinian political agenda.

Somehow, when the UN recognized the creation of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Jordan from their respective Mandates, that was OK. But the recognition of Israel is not. So rather than follow the principle of settling their international dispute by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, they jumpt to wars and insurgencies using tctics such as massacres at Olympic Games, pirating ships, highjacking aircraft, conducting suicide bombings, sabotage and indiscriminate missile launches, in between planning sneak attacks.

Don't be confused. This is the Palestinian way of crafting settlement to their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, and judicial processes; just using more explosive ordinance.

Most Respectfully,
R

The mandate was a separate entity from Palestine. After the end of the mandate Palestine was still there and its international borders remained unchanged.

 

[RoccoR]

thanatos144, et al,

He must be talking about the Mandate Boundaries, that disolved when the Mandate ended.

Not really. Palestine's international borders were defined in 1922. They have not changed since then. Israel is inside those borders. So the Palestinians only attack inside their own borders.

(COMMENT)

The Mandate is a creation of the Principle Allied Powers and the LoN. It was not a country or state. Mandates are temporary constructs. In the British Mandate for Palestine, there is also the country of Jordan. It, as well, is inside the Mandate boundaries.

The Palestinians must maintain this shared elusion that somehow, they were invaded and attacked by the Israelis; and that they are defending their nation. They make believe that the Israelis stormed the beaches and took Israel by force. But it is an illusion; necessary to justify their acts of terrorism for these last 60 years.

Excuse me, none of those violent acts I previously cited are acts of terror. Palestinians don't commit terrorism; they simply organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or violence acts against a UN Member nation made from the mandate, in the furtherance of their Palestinian political agenda.

Somehow, when the UN recognized the creation of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Jordan from their respective Mandates, that was OK. But the recognition of Israel is not. So rather than follow the principle of settling their international dispute by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, they jumpt to wars and insurgencies using tctics such as massacres at Olympic Games, pirating ships, highjacking aircraft, conducting suicide bombings, sabotage and indiscriminate missile launches, in between planning sneak attacks.

Don't be confused. This is the Palestinian way of crafting settlement to their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, and judicial processes; just using more explosive ordinance.

Most Respectfully,
R

The mandate was a separate entity from Palestine. After the end of the mandate Palestine was still there and its international borders remained unchanged.

(COMMENT)

This is absolute nonsense. There was no country recognized as Palestine. At the termination of the Mandate, there was Israel.

This rubbish about a State of Palestine is merely a fiction concocted by the Arab's. There was only Israel and the offer of another Arab State which the Palestine High Council and the Arab League rejected.

v/r
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

thanatos144, et al,

He must be talking about the Mandate Boundaries, that disolved when the Mandate ended.


(COMMENT)

The Mandate is a creation of the Principle Allied Powers and the LoN. It was not a country or state. Mandates are temporary constructs. In the British Mandate for Palestine, there is also the country of Jordan. It, as well, is inside the Mandate boundaries.

The Palestinians must maintain this shared elusion that somehow, they were invaded and attacked by the Israelis; and that they are defending their nation. They make believe that the Israelis stormed the beaches and took Israel by force. But it is an illusion; necessary to justify their acts of terrorism for these last 60 years.

Excuse me, none of those violent acts I previously cited are acts of terror. Palestinians don't commit terrorism; they simply organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or violence acts against a UN Member nation made from the mandate, in the furtherance of their Palestinian political agenda.

Somehow, when the UN recognized the creation of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Jordan from their respective Mandates, that was OK. But the recognition of Israel is not. So rather than follow the principle of settling their international dispute by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, they jumpt to wars and insurgencies using tctics such as massacres at Olympic Games, pirating ships, highjacking aircraft, conducting suicide bombings, sabotage and indiscriminate missile launches, in between planning sneak attacks.

Don't be confused. This is the Palestinian way of crafting settlement to their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, and judicial processes; just using more explosive ordinance.

Most Respectfully,
R

The mandate was a separate entity from Palestine. After the end of the mandate Palestine was still there and its international borders remained unchanged.

(COMMENT)

This is absolute nonsense. There was no country recognized as Palestine. At the termination of the Mandate, there was Israel.

This rubbish about a State of Palestine is merely a fiction concocted by the Arab's. There was only Israel and the offer of another Arab State which the Palestine High Council and the Arab League rejected.

v/r
R

I have documented my position,

You have not documented yours.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, but I have several times.

I have documented my position,

You have not documented yours.

(COMMENT)

However, there is a UN document that summarizes it much better than I ever could.

• 
  “The Question of Palestine and the United Nations” and events through the end of 2007.
• http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/DPI2499.pdf

This revised edition of “The Question of Palestine and the United Nations” reflects a number of milestones and events through the end of 2007. Foremost among these was the passage of 60 years since the adoption by the General Assembly in 1947 of resolution 181 (II), providing for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in the former Mandate territory of Palestine, with a special status for the holy city of Jerusalem. Also, it had been 40 years since the June 1967 war, the occupation by Israel of Egyptian and Syrian territory and the Palestinian territories of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the adoption of Security Council resolution 242 (1967), which is the basis of all subsequent peace initiatives.

The adoption of resolution 181 (II) was followed by outbreaks of violence in Palestine. As the situation deteriorated, the Security Council called for a special session of the General Assembly, which then met from 16 April to 14 May 1948. On 17 April, the Security Council called for the cessation of all military and paramilitary activities in Palestine, and on 23 April it established a Truce Commission to supervise and help bring about a ceasefire. For its part, the General Assembly relieved the Palestine Commission of its responsibilities and decided to appoint a mediator charged with promoting a peaceful settlement in cooperation with the Truce Commission. On 20 May, Count Folke Bernadotte, President of the Swedish Red Cross, was chosen as United Nations Mediator.

On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs. The fighting was halted after several weeks, under a four-week truce called for by the Security Council on 29 May 1948. The truce went into effect on 11 June and was supervised by the United Nations Mediator with the assistance of a group of international military observers, which came to be known as the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO). Despite the efforts of the Mediator, no agreement could be reached on an extension of the truce, and fighting broke out again on 8 July.

On 15 July 1948, the Security Council decided in a resolution that the situation in Palestine constituted a threat to the peace. It ordered a ceasefire and declared that failure to comply would be construed as a breach of the peace requiring immediate consideration of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. In accordance with the resolution, a second truce came into force. By that time, Israel controlled much of the territory allotted to the Arab State by the partition resolution, including the western part of Jerusalem.

It is necessary that the Palestinians interpret history differently in order to perpetuate the role of the victim.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, but I have several times.

I have documented my position,

You have not documented yours.

(COMMENT)

However, there is a UN document that summarizes it much better than I ever could.

• 
  “The Question of Palestine and the United Nations” and events through the end of 2007.
• http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/DPI2499.pdf

This revised edition of “The Question of Palestine and the United Nations” reflects a number of milestones and events through the end of 2007. Foremost among these was the passage of 60 years since the adoption by the General Assembly in 1947 of resolution 181 (II), providing for the establishment of an Arab State and a Jewish State in the former Mandate territory of Palestine, with a special status for the holy city of Jerusalem. Also, it had been 40 years since the June 1967 war, the occupation by Israel of Egyptian and Syrian territory and the Palestinian territories of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the adoption of Security Council resolution 242 (1967), which is the basis of all subsequent peace initiatives.

The adoption of resolution 181 (II) was followed by outbreaks of violence in Palestine. As the situation deteriorated, the Security Council called for a special session of the General Assembly, which then met from 16 April to 14 May 1948. On 17 April, the Security Council called for the cessation of all military and paramilitary activities in Palestine, and on 23 April it established a Truce Commission to supervise and help bring about a ceasefire. For its part, the General Assembly relieved the Palestine Commission of its responsibilities and decided to appoint a mediator charged with promoting a peaceful settlement in cooperation with the Truce Commission. On 20 May, Count Folke Bernadotte, President of the Swedish Red Cross, was chosen as United Nations Mediator.

On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs. The fighting was halted after several weeks, under a four-week truce called for by the Security Council on 29 May 1948. The truce went into effect on 11 June and was supervised by the United Nations Mediator with the assistance of a group of international military observers, which came to be known as the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO). Despite the efforts of the Mediator, no agreement could be reached on an extension of the truce, and fighting broke out again on 8 July.

On 15 July 1948, the Security Council decided in a resolution that the situation in Palestine constituted a threat to the peace. It ordered a ceasefire and declared that failure to comply would be construed as a breach of the peace requiring immediate consideration of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. In accordance with the resolution, a second truce came into force. By that time, Israel controlled much of the territory allotted to the Arab State by the partition resolution, including the western part of Jerusalem.

It is necessary that the Palestinians interpret history differently in order to perpetuate the role of the victim.

Most Respectfully,
R

On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged
its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the
State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.

A lot of information here.

"On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine" Who did the British relinquish it to?

"On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel" The Jewish agency was a foreign organization. Where did it get the authority to declare a state in Palestine? What international law or part of the UN charter allowed that to happen?

"proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan." There was no territory allotted by the partition plan. The plan was never implemented.

 

[AsheedMidrarwz]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, but I have several times.

I have documented my position,

You have not documented yours.

(COMMENT)

However, there is a UN document that summarizes it much better than I ever could.

• 
  “The Question of Palestine and the United Nations” and events through the end of 2007.
• http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/DPI2499.pdf

It is necessary that the Palestinians interpret history differently in order to perpetuate the role of the victim.

Most Respectfully,
R

On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged
its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the
State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.

A lot of information here.

"On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine" Who did the British relinquish it to?

"On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel" The Jewish agency was a foreign organization. Where did it get the authority to declare a state in Palestine? What international law or part of the UN charter allowed that to happen?

"proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan." There was no territory allotted by the partition plan. The plan was never implemented.

Are you having a problem accepting reality or what exactly?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, but I have several times.


(COMMENT)

However, there is a UN document that summarizes it much better than I ever could.

• 
  “The Question of Palestine and the United Nations” and events through the end of 2007.
• http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/DPI2499.pdf

It is necessary that the Palestinians interpret history differently in order to perpetuate the role of the victim.

Most Respectfully,
R

On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged
its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the
State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.

A lot of information here.

"On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine" Who did the British relinquish it to?

"On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel" The Jewish agency was a foreign organization. Where did it get the authority to declare a state in Palestine? What international law or part of the UN charter allowed that to happen?

"proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan." There was no territory allotted by the partition plan. The plan was never implemented.

Are you having a problem accepting reality or what exactly?

Not at all. Are you?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, a lot of information.

On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged
its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the
State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.

A lot of information here.

"On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine" Who did the British relinquish it to?

(COMMENT)

It was a coordinated affair. On midnight (2400 Hours) of 14 May the British relinquished the Mandate, and at the same time (0000 Hours) 15 May, the formal announcement of Israeli Independence was released; which had been signed on 14 May. At the moment the Mandate was terminated, Israel became an Independent State. The UK didn't release the Mandate to anyone. This is a very standard practice.

"On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel" The Jewish agency was a foreign organization. Where did it get the authority to declare a state in Palestine? What international law or part of the UN charter allowed that to happen?

(COMMENT)

Nonsense.

The Jewish Agency was a requirement of the Mandate.

An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist Organisation, so long as its organisation and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
SOURCE: Mandate for Palestine text/League of Nations decision confirming the Principal Allied Powers' agreement on the territory of Palestine (12 August 1922)

The "Jewish Agency" was just a Mandate friendly (appropriate) name for the already existing Yishuv (the Jewish community of Palestine). And it still exists today. It is not a "foreign" anything.

"proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan." There was no territory allotted by the partition plan. The plan was never implemented.

(COMMENT)

That is an Arab/Palestinian position. The Resolution had been approved by the General Assembly and the Israelis implemented the part applicable to the Jewish State. That's not my opinion, that (supra) is a quote from the UN. While the Arabs may not have implemented their portion of the plan, the Israelis didn't wait around and didn't start a war. They activated their part of the partition plan.

I realize that the Arabs and the Arab/Palestinians dispute this. Their claim is that GA Resolution 181 is null and void; and changes nothing. It is necessary for them to do so to continue the shared fantasy that some one other than the Arab/Palestinian themselves, screwed-up. But clearly, you can see that the rest of the world sees GA Resolution 181 as having been voted upon and approved. (Or maybe you cannot see this; either way, it is fact.)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, a lot of information.

On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged
its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the
State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.

A lot of information here.

"On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine" Who did the British relinquish it to?

(COMMENT)

It was a coordinated affair. On midnight (2400 Hours) of 14 May the British relinquished the Mandate, and at the same time (0000 Hours) 15 May, the formal announcement of Israeli Independence was released; which had been signed on 14 May. At the moment the Mandate was terminated, Israel became an Independent State. The UK didn't release the Mandate to anyone. This is a very standard practice.

When Britain left Palestine, Palestine was still there. When Britain left India, India was still there. You did not answer my question.

(COMMENT)

Nonsense.

The Jewish Agency was a requirement of the Mandate.

An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist Organisation, so long as its organisation and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
SOURCE: Mandate for Palestine text/League of Nations decision confirming the Principal Allied Powers' agreement on the territory of Palestine (12 August 1922)

Indeed, and the mandate left.

The "Jewish Agency" was just a Mandate friendly (appropriate) name for the already existing Yishuv (the Jewish community of Palestine). And it still exists today. It is not a "foreign" anything.

There was the existing or old Yishuv who were the native Palestinian Jews. There was a new Yishuv who were the Zionist settlers. They were not the existing Yishuv.

"proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan." There was no territory allotted by the partition plan. The plan was never implemented.

(COMMENT)

That is an Arab/Palestinian position. The Resolution had been approved by the General Assembly and the Israelis implemented the part applicable to the Jewish State. That's not my opinion, that (supra) is a quote from the UN. While the Arabs may not have implemented their portion of the plan, the Israelis didn't wait around and didn't start a war. They activated their part of the partition plan.

I realize that the Arabs and the Arab/Palestinians dispute this. Their claim is that GA Resolution 181 is null and void; and changes nothing. It is necessary for them to do so to continue the shared fantasy that some one other than the Arab/Palestinian themselves, screwed-up. But clearly, you can see that the rest of the world sees GA Resolution 181 as having been voted upon and approved. (Or maybe you cannot see this; either way, it is fact.)

Of course that is not true. It is a fact that the UN General Assembly passed resolution 181 (there were bribes, threats, and arm twisting to get the votes, but that is another story for another day) Resolution 181 was a recommendation that if approved by both sides the Security Council was to implement it. It was not approved by both sides so the Security Council did not implement it. There was no resolution 181. It did nothing.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Slowly... ... ...

"On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine" Who did the British relinquish it to?

When Britain left Palestine, Palestine was still there. When Britain left India, India was still there. You did not answer my question.

(COMMENT)

When the British left, there was an Israel and Jordan. There would have been another Arab State but Arab/Palestinian rejected it.

Indeed, and the mandate left.

(COMMENT)

It is true that "The Jewish Agency" brought 239,000(+) "willing" Holocaust survivors from in Europe to Palestine in early 1949. This was done as part of implementing the Mandate: "It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."

The Jewish Agency was the de facto leadership in a proto-Government stage.

David Ben-Gurion, Chairman of the Jewish Agency Executive, became Prime Minister. With the establishment of the state in May 1948, the Jewish Agency relinquished many of its functions to the new government, but retained responsibility for immigration, land settlement, youth work, and relations with world Jewry.
SOURCE: The History of the Jewish Agency for Israel

There was the existing or old Yishuv who were the native Palestinian Jews. There was a new Yishuv who were the Zionist settlers. They were not the existing Yishuv.

(COMMENT)

There is no such thing as a "new" or "old" Yishuv; there is "The Yishuv." And it evolves, unlike the Arab Palestinian that is stagnant. This is a Red Herring.

The foreigner issue means nothing. It is subterfuges by the Arabs/Palestinian to throw confusion into the arena. Under GA Res 181:

States whose nationals have in the past enjoyed in Palestine the privileges and immunities of foreigners, including the benefits of consular jurisdiction and as formerly enjoyed by capitulation or usage in the Ottoman Empire, are invited to renounce any right pertaining to them to the reestablishment of such privileges and immunities in the proposed Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem.
SOURCE: ODS HOME PAGE

Of course that is not true. It is a fact that the UN General Assembly passed resolution 181 (there were bribes, threats, and arm twisting to get the votes, but that is another story for another day) Resolution 181 was a recommendation that if approved by both sides the Security Council was to implement it. It was not approved by both sides so the Security Council did not implement it. There was no resolution 181. It did nothing.

(COMMENT)

Yes, let us look at this a bit more closely:

When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should he given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.
SOURCE: ODS HOME PAGE

This is not a case where the Palestine High Council and the Arab League can hold hostage the right of the Jewish to establish their own state by simply rejecting their offer of independence and statehood. This is the case that "EITHER" can activate their respective clause.

OK, to review:

The GA Resolution 181 was voted on and approved; on the declaration of independence, GA Res 181 is activated. The Jewish Agency implemented their applicable portion. The Arab/Palestinians rejected their applicable portion and invaded; initiating the Arab-Israeli War of 1948-49.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Palestinian as a victim.

Of course that is not true. It is a fact that the UN General Assembly passed resolution 181 (there were bribes, threats, and arm twisting to get the votes, but that is another story for another day) Resolution 181 was a recommendation that if approved by both sides the Security Council was to implement it. It was not approved by both sides so the Security Council did not implement it. There was no resolution 181. It did nothing.

(COMMENT)

I'm find it interesting that the Palestinian should suggest that "there were bribes, threats, and arm twisting to get the votes." I see that argument really isn't over the validity of the GA Resolution 181, but rather the soundness of its passage. Is the contention that the world conspired against the Palestinian?

"But that is another story for another day." Well another day is here. What is the story?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Palestinian as a victim.

Of course that is not true. It is a fact that the UN General Assembly passed resolution 181 (there were bribes, threats, and arm twisting to get the votes, but that is another story for another day) Resolution 181 was a recommendation that if approved by both sides the Security Council was to implement it. It was not approved by both sides so the Security Council did not implement it. There was no resolution 181. It did nothing.

(COMMENT)

I'm find it interesting that the Palestinian should suggest that "there were bribes, threats, and arm twisting to get the votes." I see that argument really isn't over the validity of the GA Resolution 181, but rather the soundness of its passage. Is the contention that the world conspired against the Palestinian?

"But that is another story for another day." Well another day is here. What is the story?

Most Respectfully,
R

Both the Jewish and Arab sides began to lobby the UN’s then 56 member states. To pass, the resolution needed a two-thirds majority. According to a speech made by British MP Richard Stokes to Parliament two weeks after the vote, “had the votes been taken on 26th November, partition would have been defeated by 30 votes in favor, and 18 votes against.”

However, a telegram signed by 26 US senators was circulated to the countries currently undecided, containing the veiled threat of the revocation of American foreign aid if they did not support the resolution.

The 64th Anniversary of United Nations Resolution 181 (VIDEO) / Jspace News

Why do you never believe anything I say?

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is no such thing as a "new" or "old" Yishuv; there is "The Yishuv." And it evolves, unlike the Arab Palestinian that is stagnant. This is a Red Herring.

A distinction is sometimes drawn between the Old Yishuv and the New Yishuv: The Old Yishuv refers to all the Jews living there before the aliyah (immigration wave) of 1882 by the Zionist movement. The Old Yishuv residents were religious Jews, living mainly in Jerusalem, Safed, Tiberias and Hebron. Smaller communities were in Jaffa, Haifa, Peki'in, Acre, Nablus, Shfaram and until 1779 also in Gaza. A large part of the Old Yishuv spent their time studying the Torah and lived off Ma'amodot (stipends), donated by Jews in the Diaspora.

Yishuv - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia