When & Where It All Began

[ima]

The root of the problem is the occupation. Unless & until Israel finds an incentive to offer the surrounding Arab countries to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands, there will be no peace for Israel from the Palestinians.

So tell us, what incentives would you see working?

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

ima, Hossfly, et al,

The significance and quasi-importance of Jerusalem from a religious standpoint to (nearly) all the major Middle East and Western religions has not escaped anyone. Sovereignty is the issue.

Israel kept it's part of the bargains and Israel wouldn't be Israel without Jerusalem. In fact, I would like to see Arabs moved out of Jerusalem They don't belong there for any reason.

You're not planning on doing this yourself, are you? You want someone else to do your dirty work for you? Phew! Stay safe behind your computer!

(COMMENT)

The solution, of course, is to make it an autonomous state consisting of the city and the immediate surrounding metropolitan area (a City-State per se). This would grant easement to all parties for the religious experience.

The problem is that the parties in contest (Arab-Israeli) want an adverse possession in a way that makes it appear incorporated by occupation for a period of time (a near form of squatters rights). The strangeness in the issue is that while each party claims the exclusive necessity to the site for religious purposes and the associations thereto, they are all willing to use violence to acquire this sacred site, the center of non-violence. If there was any reason to believe that the "God of Abraham" was a false God, it would be the comprehensive study of the violence over this one small city in the middle of hell.

Most Respectfully,
R

It certainly is horrible, the violence man embraces, and then tries to use God to justfy it! But I do not blame God for that, I blame man and their own sin.

Jeruslem was supposed be an international city, a place where religious sites were under the authority of international bodies.

The problem is there are no international bodies nations trust with carrying out that task.

 

[MJB12741]

Eh Sherri, "Jerusalem as an international city"? Already tried that. Didn't work. The Palestinians need to be free from Israel's rule. Problem is that not a single surrounding Arab country, who know the Palestinians best, will grant them a right of return back to their homelands. Why is that Sherri?

ima, Hossfly, et al,

The significance and quasi-importance of Jerusalem from a religious standpoint to (nearly) all the major Middle East and Western religions has not escaped anyone. Sovereignty is the issue.

You're not planning on doing this yourself, are you? You want someone else to do your dirty work for you? Phew! Stay safe behind your computer!

(COMMENT)

The solution, of course, is to make it an autonomous state consisting of the city and the immediate surrounding metropolitan area (a City-State per se). This would grant easement to all parties for the religious experience.

The problem is that the parties in contest (Arab-Israeli) want an adverse possession in a way that makes it appear incorporated by occupation for a period of time (a near form of squatters rights). The strangeness in the issue is that while each party claims the exclusive necessity to the site for religious purposes and the associations thereto, they are all willing to use violence to acquire this sacred site, the center of non-violence. If there was any reason to believe that the "God of Abraham" was a false God, it would be the comprehensive study of the violence over this one small city in the middle of hell.

Most Respectfully,
R

It certainly is horrible, the violence man embraces, and then tries to use God to justfy it! But I do not blame God for that, I blame man and their own sin.

Jeruslem was supposed be an international city, a place where religious sites were under the authority of international bodies.

The problem is there are no international bodies nations trust with carrying out that task.

 

[irosie91]

how about equity? render BOTH jerusalem and mecca INTERNATIONAL
CITIES-----the fact is that they both have a very COSMOPOLITAN HISTORY

 

[Hossfly]

ima, Hossfly, et al,

The significance and quasi-importance of Jerusalem from a religious standpoint to (nearly) all the major Middle East and Western religions has not escaped anyone. Sovereignty is the issue.

You're not planning on doing this yourself, are you? You want someone else to do your dirty work for you? Phew! Stay safe behind your computer!

(COMMENT)

The solution, of course, is to make it an autonomous state consisting of the city and the immediate surrounding metropolitan area (a City-State per se). This would grant easement to all parties for the religious experience.

The problem is that the parties in contest (Arab-Israeli) want an adverse possession in a way that makes it appear incorporated by occupation for a period of time (a near form of squatters rights). The strangeness in the issue is that while each party claims the exclusive necessity to the site for religious purposes and the associations thereto, they are all willing to use violence to acquire this sacred site, the center of non-violence. If there was any reason to believe that the "God of Abraham" was a false God, it would be the comprehensive study of the violence over this one small city in the middle of hell.

Most Respectfully,
R

It certainly is horrible, the violence man embraces, and then tries to use God to justfy it! But I do not blame God for that, I blame man and their own sin.

Jeruslem was supposed be an international city, a place where religious sites were under the authority of international bodies.

The problem is there are no international bodies nations trust with carrying out that task.

It certainly is terrible how the Muslims have to be appeased when Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran, but certainly is mentioned numerous times in the Bible. Does anyone think that if a Muslim murmured an Islamic prayer in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre he would be arrested?

israel today | Israel News | Jew arrested for praying on Temple Mount - israel today | Israel News

 

[MJB12741]

There lies one of Israel's greatest mistakes. Always appeasing Palestinians instead of leaving the Palestinians to fend for themselves & stop sucking off of Israel for their well being. Is there ANYONE who disagres that no surrounding Arab country, who the Palestinians best, ever treated them like those Zionists in Israel do? Shame on Israel.

ima, Hossfly, et al,

The significance and quasi-importance of Jerusalem from a religious standpoint to (nearly) all the major Middle East and Western religions has not escaped anyone. Sovereignty is the issue.


(COMMENT)

The solution, of course, is to make it an autonomous state consisting of the city and the immediate surrounding metropolitan area (a City-State per se). This would grant easement to all parties for the religious experience.

The problem is that the parties in contest (Arab-Israeli) want an adverse possession in a way that makes it appear incorporated by occupation for a period of time (a near form of squatters rights). The strangeness in the issue is that while each party claims the exclusive necessity to the site for religious purposes and the associations thereto, they are all willing to use violence to acquire this sacred site, the center of non-violence. If there was any reason to believe that the "God of Abraham" was a false God, it would be the comprehensive study of the violence over this one small city in the middle of hell.

Most Respectfully,
R

It certainly is horrible, the violence man embraces, and then tries to use God to justfy it! But I do not blame God for that, I blame man and their own sin.

Jeruslem was supposed be an international city, a place where religious sites were under the authority of international bodies.

The problem is there are no international bodies nations trust with carrying out that task.

It certainly is terrible how the Muslims have to be appeased when Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran, but certainly is mentioned numerous times in the Bible. Does anyone think that if a Muslim murmured an Islamic prayer in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre he would be arrested?

israel today | Israel News | Jew arrested for praying on Temple Mount - israel today | Israel News

 

[ima]

The root of the problem is the occupation. Unless & until Israel finds an incentive to offer the surrounding Arab countries to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands, there will be no peace for Israel from the Palestinians.

So tell us, what incentives would you see working?

Hey you fucking douchesack, I'm still waiting.

 

[MJB12741]

"fucking douchesack." Does this mean you don't love me anymore?

When all that is left is to call the adversary derogatory names, you lose the debate.

The root of the problem is the occupation. Unless & until Israel finds an incentive to offer the surrounding Arab countries to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands, there will be no peace for Israel from the Palestinians.

So tell us, what incentives would you see working?

Hey you fucking douchesack, I'm still waiting.

 

[ima]

The root of the problem is the occupation. Unless & until Israel finds an incentive to offer the surrounding Arab countries to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands, there will be no peace for Israel from the Palestinians.

So tell us, what incentives would you see working?

Ok, MR NICE GUY! I'm still waiting...

 

[P F Tinmore]

Staidhup, P F Tinmore, Hossfly, pbel, et al,

Israel didn't "invoke" UN Resolution 181. It used it as an Annex in the Application Process.

It is curious that Israel would invoke resolution 181.

• Resolution 181 was invalid because it was not approved by both sides.

• Israel had no intention of respecting the rights of the inhabitants.

• Israel made a bee line to Jerusalem that was not to be part of the Jewish state.

• 
  Israel blew past the proposed borders expelling Palestinians and destroying villages in the Arab area before the start of the 1948 war.

So why would they even mention it?

Israel kept it's part of the bargains and Israel wouldn't be Israel without Jerusalem. In fact, I would like to see Arabs moved out of Jerusalem They don't belong there for any reason.

(COMMENT)

Our friend PF Tinmore is right, UN Res 181, as a solution to the problem, is no longer relevant. Even its use as an Annex to describe the initial borders is only historical. Since the 1967 War, and the treaties that set the borders that followed, UN Res 181 has become a historical part of the record.

Since the Arab Nations and the Palestinian constituents declined the offer to build a nation, the chance for a prosperous Palestine has disappeared.

Most Respectfully,
R

Since the 1967 War, and the treaties that set the borders that followed,

Got links?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Staidhup, P F Tinmore, pbel, et al,

There is confusion here. The Armistice did not set borders. The Annexes to the 1949 Application and Recognition for Israel sets the borders that were in place in 1949. The map that was used to outline the borders came from a 1947 Recommendation for a Two-State solution which was proposed in the UN Resolution 181.

There is a lot of politics in the UN that does not conform to legal structures.

The UN recognizes Israel inside the 1949 armistice lines that the UN specifically stated were not political or territorial borders.

Go figure.

What legal structure or governing body does the UN control or is governed by?

(COMMENT)

The UN doesn't control anything; per sa (or intrinsically). It is run under a Parliamentary format. State recognition is by application, and the International Community considers.

You don't have to Google anything. Here it is.

References:

1. Glossary of Diplomatic Terms - e Diplomat
2. United Nations member States - Non-member state maintaining observer mission
3. Israel's application for UN membership - Press release (29 November 1948)
4. A/PV.207 of 11 May 1949
5. A/AC.24/SR.45 of 5 May 1949
6. A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947
7. Palestine - Plan of Partition with Economic Union under A/RES/181 - Map (28 February 1956)
8. Peace Treaty Between Israel and Egypt
9. Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty
10. Peace Agreement Between Israel and Lebanon
11. Syria-Israel Disengagement Agreement (1974)

This is a confusing timeline Issue. At the time of Admission, Israel used the documentation, recommendation and approval processes at hand and available. While today, the Res 181 is null and void as a Two-State Agreement, it did at the time, describe the boundaries of the Jewish State. This set the initial territorial description for Israel. After the '67 War, and the Armistice and treaties that followed, boundaries were set by the treaties.

In the case for Israel, the Application (Ref #5) of Israel (Notice by UN for Consideration Ref #3) for admission to membership in the United Nation report of the Ad Hoc Political Committee (A/855) was considered and approved on official recorded in the A/PV.207 11 May 1949 (Reference #4, supra). In that recognition, The UN said, in part:

The General Assembly had adopted resolution 181 (II) containing provisions to that effect on 29 November 1947. That resolution was still in effect, since it had been, neither modified nor revoked by a later decision of the General Assembly.

On the first anniversary of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) providing for partition, the Provisional Government of the State of Israel had presented its application for admission, an application which was before the General Assembly after having been approved by the Security Council.

At the invitation of the President, the delegation of Israel took its place in the General Assembly.

Included as Part of the Application for Admission was November 1947 by a resolution of the General Assembly (181 (II))(Ref #6). In Annex A (Ref #7) of Res 181 was the Map. In Part IIB of Res 181, is a written description of the 1948 Boundaries for the Jewish State. It was used as part of the Application since it had already been favorably recommended by committee.

While UN Resolution 181, was a none-binding recommendation to partition Palestine, it was incorporated into the application process as an Annex for the territorial description, as it pertained to the description of Israel as the Jewish State under consideration. While it is true that Resolution 181 has non-binding ramification, it was not an obstruction to the use of the descriptions that were previously committee approved separately. In this case, it was used only as an Annex to the Map and narrative territorial description. The recognition of this was already hammered-out by ad Hoc Committee which vetted the application for membership.

It is actual more favorable to Israel that the Res 181, as a Two-State Agreement, was made irrelevant (much more favorable). If it were binding, there would be a move to demand Israel return to the 1948 Boundaries. Instead, since the '67 War and the new set of boundaries exist; set by the treaties between Israel and the aggressor waring parties. For instance, Article II of Annex 1 to the (Ref #8) Peace Treaty Between Israel and Egypt, the new boundary is set. Artilce III of the Israeli Jordanian Peace Treaty (Ref #9) set the new boundaries between those states. A similar arrangement between Israel and Lebanon exists (Ref #10). Syria and Israel have a "Disengagement Agreement" (Ref #11), which is similar to an "Armistice." The 1967 boundaries represent territory won by conquest and consolidated by treaty, recognized by the UN.

There are arrangements in place. And there are recognized borders. When our friend P F Timore implies that no such borders exist, this is a common error from not reading the complete record along the timeline.

If there is a specific question pertaining to this issue, I'll be happy to try and answer it.

Most Respectfully,
R

For instance, Article II of Annex 1 to the (Ref #8) Peace Treaty Between Israel and Egypt, the new boundary is set. Artilce III of the Israeli Jordanian Peace Treaty (Ref #9) set the new boundaries between those states. A similar arrangement between Israel and Lebanon exists (Ref #10). Syria and Israel have a "Disengagement Agreement" (Ref #11), which is similar to an "Armistice." The 1967 boundaries represent territory won by conquest and consolidated by treaty, recognized by the UN.

A change in Palestine's borders require an agreement with the Palestinians.

Where is that agreement?

 

[irosie91]

Tinnie try to be patient ----there is a kind of DISAGREEMENT
over the borders ---which involve a kind of PARTITION
of palestine------eventually there will be an "AGREEMENT" --which like most other "agreements" will not actually
make either disputant utterly satisfied.

Try to be patient-----and let your colleagues know that
those baby throat slitting interludes----do not help.
Another problem is arising----the escapees from the
filth of shariah in sudan-----they need some space too.

 

[MJB12741]

Jordan put it to Israel but good when they refused Israel's offer after the 67 war to return the entire West Bank for nothing in return so Jordan could sacrifice this piece of land to dump their Palestinians on Israel to deal with.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Jordan put it to Israel but good when they refused Israel's offer after the 67 war to return the entire West Bank for nothing in return so Jordan could sacrifice this piece of land to dump their Palestinians on Israel to deal with.

Israel did not have to occupy the West Bank. That is a choice they made.

 

[ima]

The root of the problem is the occupation. Unless & until Israel finds an incentive to offer the surrounding Arab countries to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands, there will be no peace for Israel from the Palestinians.

So tell us, what incentives would you see working?

Ok, MR NICE GUY! I'm still waiting...

MJ, admit it, you have nothing. You're a fart smoke blower.

 

[MJB12741]

"Israel occupied Jordan"??? How do you like that? And here I actually believed Jordan was one the Arab countries united in their efforts with military forces to attack Israel.

Jordan put it to Israel but good when they refused Israel's offer after the 67 war to return the entire West Bank for nothing in return so Jordan could sacrifice this piece of land to dump their Palestinians on Israel to deal with.

Israel did not have to occupy the West Bank. That is a choice they made.

 

[MJB12741]

Does anyone know why Tinmore has so suddenly disappeard?

"Israel occupied Jordan"??? How do you like that? And here I actually believed Jordan was one the Arab countries united in their efforts with military forces to attack Israel.

Jordan put it to Israel but good when they refused Israel's offer after the 67 war to return the entire West Bank for nothing in return so Jordan could sacrifice this piece of land to dump their Palestinians on Israel to deal with.

Israel did not have to occupy the West Bank. That is a choice they made.

 

[irosie91]

Does anyone know why Tinmore has so suddenly disappeard?

"Israel occupied Jordan"??? How do you like that? And here I actually believed Jordan was one the Arab countries united in their efforts with military forces to attack Israel.

Israel did not have to occupy the West Bank. That is a choice they made.

yes like the choice the allies made to occupy Germany

 

[uscitizen]

According to the bible the children of Israel gave up their land and went to Egypt to find work.
then they unionized under Moses and went on strike.
Then went back to where they came from and slew all who did not flee before them.

 

[MJB12741]

"Israel gave up their land"??? I didn't know that. Where in the Bible does it say that according to you?

According to the bible the children of Israel gave up their land and went to Egypt to find work.
then they unionized under Moses and went on strike.
Then went back to where they came from and slew all who did not flee before them.