Widening Of The Buffer Zone

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a twisted question.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

What international boundaries have the Palestinians violated?

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians did not violate any international boundaries; because they were not a party to the conflict in 1948. The members of the Arab League committed the act of aggression after Israel Declared Independence under the guidance of the UN and pursuant to the Adopted Resolution of 1947.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is something new!

First: The reaffirmation is that stipulated in Article 1 and Article 55 of the UN Charter (1945). It did not stipulate a particular plot of territory that the Palestinians had any particular inalienable right to, in terms of self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference.

Yes it did.

(COMMENT)

What plot of land did the UN designate as sovereign to the Palestinians?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

Israel is a sovereign state with international borders. No matter how much you try and deny that, it won't change Tinmore.
Palestine is a mythical creation with no borders that exists inside Israel.
But like I said, you have absolutely no credibility on the subject of Israel or the conflict.

Palestine is a mythical creation with no borders that exists inside Israel.​

Can you show any proof of that?

Tinmore, you're the one who always lies about Palestine having borders. I have proved to you countless that is false, and yet you keep asking me to prove it. As usual you're playing games and deflecting.

Yes, Palestine the geographical regions in which Arabs had no sovereignty. Your point ?

Now about the Palestine has international borders lie ...

I have already posted that a hundred times and you keep bouncing back with Israeli propaganda.

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

How can the Palestinians have an inalienable right to territorial integrity if they do not have territory?

I know, deep thinking is not your forte.

As usual, nothing you posted has any direct connection to my post.

I know, posting correct information is not your forte.

Now, about your Palestine international borders lie...

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is something new!

First: The reaffirmation is that stipulated in Article 1 and Article 55 of the UN Charter (1945). It did not stipulate a particular plot of territory that the Palestinians had any particular inalienable right to, in terms of self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference.

Yes it did.

(COMMENT)

What plot of land did the UN designate as sovereign to the Palestinians?

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN did say "in Palestine" so I assume they meant in Palestine.

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is something new!

First: The reaffirmation is that stipulated in Article 1 and Article 55 of the UN Charter (1945). It did not stipulate a particular plot of territory that the Palestinians had any particular inalienable right to, in terms of self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference.

Yes it did.

(COMMENT)

What plot of land did the UN designate as sovereign to the Palestinians?

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN did say "in Palestine" so I assume they meant in Palestine.

The UN did this to be gracious and politically correct, Tinmore. Learn to read between the lines.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where and in what context?

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is something new!

First: The reaffirmation is that stipulated in Article 1 and Article 55 of the UN Charter (1945). It did not stipulate a particular plot of territory that the Palestinians had any particular inalienable right to, in terms of self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference.

Yes it did.

(COMMENT)

What plot of land did the UN designate as sovereign to the Palestinians?

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN did say "in Palestine" so I assume they meant in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

What are you referring to in this context?

Remember, in 1978, the West Bank was sovereign Jordanian territory; under occupation.

v/r
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is something new!

First: The reaffirmation is that stipulated in Article 1 and Article 55 of the UN Charter (1945). It did not stipulate a particular plot of territory that the Palestinians had any particular inalienable right to, in terms of self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference.

Yes it did.

(COMMENT)

What plot of land did the UN designate as sovereign to the Palestinians?

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN did say "in Palestine" so I assume they meant in Palestine.

Yes they did and by it they meant the Mandate for Palestine, not to be confused with the British Mandate which are two separate identities.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where and in what context?

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is something new!

First: The reaffirmation is that stipulated in Article 1 and Article 55 of the UN Charter (1945). It did not stipulate a particular plot of territory that the Palestinians had any particular inalienable right to, in terms of self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference.

Yes it did.

(COMMENT)

What plot of land did the UN designate as sovereign to the Palestinians?

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN did say "in Palestine" so I assume they meant in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

What are you referring to in this context?

Remember, in 1978, the West Bank was sovereign Jordanian territory; under occupation.

v/r
R

Then what was Palestine in 1978?

Remember that the world did not recognize Jordan's annexation of the West Bank. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where and in what context?

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is something new!

First: The reaffirmation is that stipulated in Article 1 and Article 55 of the UN Charter (1945). It did not stipulate a particular plot of territory that the Palestinians had any particular inalienable right to, in terms of self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference.

Yes it did.

(COMMENT)

What plot of land did the UN designate as sovereign to the Palestinians?

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN did say "in Palestine" so I assume they meant in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

What are you referring to in this context?

Remember, in 1978, the West Bank was sovereign Jordanian territory; under occupation.

v/r
R

Then what was Palestine in 1978?

Remember that the world did not recognize Jordan's annexation of the West Bank. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

Pity that the world did recognise Jordans annexation of the west bank when the arab muslims accepted Jordanian rule and citizenship. In 1978 Palestine was the same as it had been for the last 2000 years or so just a place on the map much like the Pampas and the Steppes. It was not a nation in any form accepted by any other nation until 1988.

 

[montelatici]

There will never be a sovereign Palestinian state so why worry about borders? Only the Palestinian leadership holds on to the idea of Palestinian state, without which they would not have the high paying cushy jobs they have now. The West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem are under complete control of Israel, their land borders, air space and territorial sea included. They are analogous to the South African Bantustans and serve the same purpose for Israel.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, our friend "Phoenall" is correct. To not recognize the right of the Arab Palestinian to take this action, would have been a "denial" of the right to self-determination. And none of the parties to the crisis wanted to be accused of that.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where and in what context?

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is something new!

Yes it did.

(COMMENT)

What plot of land did the UN designate as sovereign to the Palestinians?

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN did say "in Palestine" so I assume they meant in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

What are you referring to in this context?

Remember, in 1978, the West Bank was sovereign Jordanian territory; under occupation.

v/r
R

Then what was Palestine in 1978?

Remember that the world did not recognize Jordan's annexation of the West Bank. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

Pity that the world did recognise Jordans annexation of the west bank when the arab muslims accepted Jordanian rule and citizenship. In 1978 Palestine was the same as it had been for the last 2000 years or so just a place on the map much like the Pampas and the Steppes. It was not a nation in any form accepted by any other nation until 1988.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinian people exercised their inalienable right to self-determination on the matter of annexation. It was they who accepted it annexation through parliamentary action.

History - The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion. SOURCE: Unification of the Two Banks
​

Communication concerning the annexation of the Arab part of Palestine to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

The PRINCIPAL SECRETARY reported that he had received, for purposes of information, from the Headquarters Secretariat of the United Nations, the full text of the resolution of the Jordan Parliament as approved by the King providing for the annexation of the Arab part of Palestine. The text which was defective in places, was the English translation of an Arab original.

The Commission, since it was in direct relation with the States of the Near East after noting Jordan’s decision, might think it opportune to write to the Jordan Government requesting official communication of the text in question.

The CHAIRMAN thought it would have been natural for the Jordan authorities to have sent the text in question to the Commission without having to be asked for it. In his view the text sent to the Secretary-General was intended for the Members of the United Nations. In those circumstances the Principal Secretary should he instructed to as for the text of the Jordan Parliament’s resolution, in order to emphasize the direct relations existing between the Commission and the Governments interested in the Palestine question. SOURCE: SUMMARY RECORD OF THE ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-EIGHTH MEETING Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Friday, 28 April 1950, at 11 a.m.​

​

III. THE TERRITORIAL QUESTION --- UNITED NATIONS CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE ---- THE PALESTINE CRISIS

Regardless of the reservations contained in the Armistice Agreements on the temporary character of the Armistice lines, it is certain that with the simple passage of time these lines are increasingly acquiring the validity and permanence of formal frontiers. This natural process is inevitable and has been considerably assisted by the two following events whose profound significance need not be underlined; the annexation of the greater part of Arab Palestine by Jordan, and the guarantee given to the Armistice lines by the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and France. SOURCE: A/AC.25/W/51 9 October 1950​

The Arab Palestinian action on self-determination was never rejected by the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP) OR the General Assembly.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

 

[Phoenall]

There will never be a sovereign Palestinian state so why worry about borders? Only the Palestinian leadership holds on to the idea of Palestinian state, without which they would not have the high paying cushy jobs they have now. The West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem are under complete control of Israel, their land borders, air space and territorial sea included. They are analogous to the South African Bantustans and serve the same purpose for Israel.

Not according to the leaders of the Palestinians who stated that gaza is not occupied and has not been since August 2005, so care to alter your post to reflect this fact.

 

[montelatici]

Who controls Gaza land borders, air space and territorial sea? That would determine the "facts".

 

[toastman]

There will never be a sovereign Palestinian state so why worry about borders? Only the Palestinian leadership holds on to the idea of Palestinian state, without which they would not have the high paying cushy jobs they have now. The West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem are under complete control of Israel, their land borders, air space and territorial sea included. They are analogous to the South African Bantustans and serve the same purpose for Israel.

Gaza is not under complete Israeli control. Neither is the entire West Bank.

 

[Phoenall]

Who controls Gaza land borders, air space and territorial sea? That would determine the "facts".

Hamas does But Israel and Egypt control their side of the borders and don't allow free passage in or out under the terms of International law. There is a blockade in place that the ICC have stated to be valid and legal as well.
Did you forget about Egypt and its control of the border ?

 

[fanger]

Legality of the naval blockade: The report does not reach a decision on this question, on

which the different commissions of inquiry have differences of opinion, because

according to the report, the legality of the naval blockade is relevant to only one of the

alleged crimes (the crime of intentionally directing an attack against civilian objects, that

is, the takeover of the Mavi Marmara) and does not impact on the assessment of the other

war crimes examined.

Substantive Crimes

Claims that were accepted: The report states that there is a reasonable basis to believe

that war crimes were committed by IDF soldiers, specifically, the willful killing and

injuring of protected civilians. The claim accepted by the Turkel Commission, that the

violent IHH activists should be seen as civilians taking direct part in hostilities, and

therefore, as a legitimate military target for attack, was rejected. According to the report,

all passengers on the ship, including these activists, are considered protected civilians and

thus may not be attacked. The report notes that the use of force against violent civilians

endangering the soldiers’ lives can be perhaps justified by self-defense. However, it

determined that this must be examined in the investigation and trial stages and not at the

stage of preliminary examination. The report also states that according to the information

available, at least in some instances, IDF soldiers appear to have used excessive force that

went beyond what was required for self-defense. In addition, the report states that there is

a reasonable basis to believe that IDF soldiers perpetrated war crimes against the

detainees on the Mavi Marmara, by committing “outrages upon personal dignity.” It also

notes that if Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza was unlawful
http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/Referral-from-Comoros.pdf

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, our friend "Phoenall" is correct. To not recognize the right of the Arab Palestinian to take this action, would have been a "denial" of the right to self-determination. And none of the parties to the crisis wanted to be accused of that.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where and in what context?

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is something new!

(COMMENT)

What plot of land did the UN designate as sovereign to the Palestinians?

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN did say "in Palestine" so I assume they meant in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

What are you referring to in this context?

Remember, in 1978, the West Bank was sovereign Jordanian territory; under occupation.

v/r
R

Then what was Palestine in 1978?

Remember that the world did not recognize Jordan's annexation of the West Bank. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

Pity that the world did recognise Jordans annexation of the west bank when the arab muslims accepted Jordanian rule and citizenship. In 1978 Palestine was the same as it had been for the last 2000 years or so just a place on the map much like the Pampas and the Steppes. It was not a nation in any form accepted by any other nation until 1988.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinian people exercised their inalienable right to self-determination on the matter of annexation. It was they who accepted it annexation through parliamentary action.

History - The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion. SOURCE: Unification of the Two Banks
​

Communication concerning the annexation of the Arab part of Palestine to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

The PRINCIPAL SECRETARY reported that he had received, for purposes of information, from the Headquarters Secretariat of the United Nations, the full text of the resolution of the Jordan Parliament as approved by the King providing for the annexation of the Arab part of Palestine. The text which was defective in places, was the English translation of an Arab original.

The Commission, since it was in direct relation with the States of the Near East after noting Jordan’s decision, might think it opportune to write to the Jordan Government requesting official communication of the text in question.

The CHAIRMAN thought it would have been natural for the Jordan authorities to have sent the text in question to the Commission without having to be asked for it. In his view the text sent to the Secretary-General was intended for the Members of the United Nations. In those circumstances the Principal Secretary should he instructed to as for the text of the Jordan Parliament’s resolution, in order to emphasize the direct relations existing between the Commission and the Governments interested in the Palestine question. SOURCE: SUMMARY RECORD OF THE ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-EIGHTH MEETING Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Friday, 28 April 1950, at 11 a.m.​

​

III. THE TERRITORIAL QUESTION --- UNITED NATIONS CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE ---- THE PALESTINE CRISIS

Regardless of the reservations contained in the Armistice Agreements on the temporary character of the Armistice lines, it is certain that with the simple passage of time these lines are increasingly acquiring the validity and permanence of formal frontiers. This natural process is inevitable and has been considerably assisted by the two following events whose profound significance need not be underlined; the annexation of the greater part of Arab Palestine by Jordan, and the guarantee given to the Armistice lines by the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and France. SOURCE: A/AC.25/W/51 9 October 1950​

The Arab Palestinian action on self-determination was never rejected by the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP) OR the General Assembly.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, our friend "Phoenall" is correct. To not recognize the right of the Arab Palestinian to take this action, would have been a "denial" of the right to self-determination. And none of the parties to the crisis wanted to be accused of that.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where and in what context?

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is something new!

(COMMENT)

What plot of land did the UN designate as sovereign to the Palestinians?

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN did say "in Palestine" so I assume they meant in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

What are you referring to in this context?

Remember, in 1978, the West Bank was sovereign Jordanian territory; under occupation.

v/r
R

Then what was Palestine in 1978?

Remember that the world did not recognize Jordan's annexation of the West Bank. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

Pity that the world did recognise Jordans annexation of the west bank when the arab muslims accepted Jordanian rule and citizenship. In 1978 Palestine was the same as it had been for the last 2000 years or so just a place on the map much like the Pampas and the Steppes. It was not a nation in any form accepted by any other nation until 1988.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinian people exercised their inalienable right to self-determination on the matter of annexation. It was they who accepted it annexation through parliamentary action.

History - The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion. SOURCE: Unification of the Two Banks
​

Communication concerning the annexation of the Arab part of Palestine to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

The PRINCIPAL SECRETARY reported that he had received, for purposes of information, from the Headquarters Secretariat of the United Nations, the full text of the resolution of the Jordan Parliament as approved by the King providing for the annexation of the Arab part of Palestine. The text which was defective in places, was the English translation of an Arab original.

The Commission, since it was in direct relation with the States of the Near East after noting Jordan’s decision, might think it opportune to write to the Jordan Government requesting official communication of the text in question.

The CHAIRMAN thought it would have been natural for the Jordan authorities to have sent the text in question to the Commission without having to be asked for it. In his view the text sent to the Secretary-General was intended for the Members of the United Nations. In those circumstances the Principal Secretary should he instructed to as for the text of the Jordan Parliament’s resolution, in order to emphasize the direct relations existing between the Commission and the Governments interested in the Palestine question. SOURCE: SUMMARY RECORD OF THE ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-EIGHTH MEETING Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Friday, 28 April 1950, at 11 a.m.​

​

III. THE TERRITORIAL QUESTION --- UNITED NATIONS CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE ---- THE PALESTINE CRISIS

Regardless of the reservations contained in the Armistice Agreements on the temporary character of the Armistice lines, it is certain that with the simple passage of time these lines are increasingly acquiring the validity and permanence of formal frontiers. This natural process is inevitable and has been considerably assisted by the two following events whose profound significance need not be underlined; the annexation of the greater part of Arab Palestine by Jordan, and the guarantee given to the Armistice lines by the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and France. SOURCE: A/AC.25/W/51 9 October 1950​

The Arab Palestinian action on self-determination was never rejected by the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP) OR the General Assembly.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

From your link:

(a) The fact that the emotional trauma suffered by the Arab peoples as a result of the creation of the State of Israel in Palestine and the displacement of almost a million Arabs is still far being healed...​

There is that pesky "in Palestine" thing again.

Why should the Palestinians accept a foreign state being created in Palestine?

Who else in the world would accept such a thing.

Give me some names.

Rocco, according to you:

Jordan occupied the West Bank in 1949 even though there was no war between Jordan and Palestine.

Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950.

Israel won the West Bank from Jordan in 1967.

Now it is occupied Palestinian territory.

The thing about propaganda is that even though it makes no sense, some people still believe it.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, our friend "Phoenall" is correct. To not recognize the right of the Arab Palestinian to take this action, would have been a "denial" of the right to self-determination. And none of the parties to the crisis wanted to be accused of that.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where and in what context?

The UN did say "in Palestine" so I assume they meant in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

What are you referring to in this context?

Remember, in 1978, the West Bank was sovereign Jordanian territory; under occupation.

v/r
R

Then what was Palestine in 1978?

Remember that the world did not recognize Jordan's annexation of the West Bank. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

Pity that the world did recognise Jordans annexation of the west bank when the arab muslims accepted Jordanian rule and citizenship. In 1978 Palestine was the same as it had been for the last 2000 years or so just a place on the map much like the Pampas and the Steppes. It was not a nation in any form accepted by any other nation until 1988.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinian people exercised their inalienable right to self-determination on the matter of annexation. It was they who accepted it annexation through parliamentary action.

History - The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion. SOURCE: Unification of the Two Banks
​

Communication concerning the annexation of the Arab part of Palestine to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

The PRINCIPAL SECRETARY reported that he had received, for purposes of information, from the Headquarters Secretariat of the United Nations, the full text of the resolution of the Jordan Parliament as approved by the King providing for the annexation of the Arab part of Palestine. The text which was defective in places, was the English translation of an Arab original.

The Commission, since it was in direct relation with the States of the Near East after noting Jordan’s decision, might think it opportune to write to the Jordan Government requesting official communication of the text in question.

The CHAIRMAN thought it would have been natural for the Jordan authorities to have sent the text in question to the Commission without having to be asked for it. In his view the text sent to the Secretary-General was intended for the Members of the United Nations. In those circumstances the Principal Secretary should he instructed to as for the text of the Jordan Parliament’s resolution, in order to emphasize the direct relations existing between the Commission and the Governments interested in the Palestine question. SOURCE: SUMMARY RECORD OF THE ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-EIGHTH MEETING Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Friday, 28 April 1950, at 11 a.m.​

​

III. THE TERRITORIAL QUESTION --- UNITED NATIONS CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE ---- THE PALESTINE CRISIS

Regardless of the reservations contained in the Armistice Agreements on the temporary character of the Armistice lines, it is certain that with the simple passage of time these lines are increasingly acquiring the validity and permanence of formal frontiers. This natural process is inevitable and has been considerably assisted by the two following events whose profound significance need not be underlined; the annexation of the greater part of Arab Palestine by Jordan, and the guarantee given to the Armistice lines by the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and France. SOURCE: A/AC.25/W/51 9 October 1950​

The Arab Palestinian action on self-determination was never rejected by the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP) OR the General Assembly.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, our friend "Phoenall" is correct. To not recognize the right of the Arab Palestinian to take this action, would have been a "denial" of the right to self-determination. And none of the parties to the crisis wanted to be accused of that.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where and in what context?

The UN did say "in Palestine" so I assume they meant in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

What are you referring to in this context?

Remember, in 1978, the West Bank was sovereign Jordanian territory; under occupation.

v/r
R

Then what was Palestine in 1978?

Remember that the world did not recognize Jordan's annexation of the West Bank. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

Pity that the world did recognise Jordans annexation of the west bank when the arab muslims accepted Jordanian rule and citizenship. In 1978 Palestine was the same as it had been for the last 2000 years or so just a place on the map much like the Pampas and the Steppes. It was not a nation in any form accepted by any other nation until 1988.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinian people exercised their inalienable right to self-determination on the matter of annexation. It was they who accepted it annexation through parliamentary action.

History - The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion. SOURCE: Unification of the Two Banks
​

Communication concerning the annexation of the Arab part of Palestine to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

The PRINCIPAL SECRETARY reported that he had received, for purposes of information, from the Headquarters Secretariat of the United Nations, the full text of the resolution of the Jordan Parliament as approved by the King providing for the annexation of the Arab part of Palestine. The text which was defective in places, was the English translation of an Arab original.

The Commission, since it was in direct relation with the States of the Near East after noting Jordan’s decision, might think it opportune to write to the Jordan Government requesting official communication of the text in question.

The CHAIRMAN thought it would have been natural for the Jordan authorities to have sent the text in question to the Commission without having to be asked for it. In his view the text sent to the Secretary-General was intended for the Members of the United Nations. In those circumstances the Principal Secretary should he instructed to as for the text of the Jordan Parliament’s resolution, in order to emphasize the direct relations existing between the Commission and the Governments interested in the Palestine question. SOURCE: SUMMARY RECORD OF THE ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-EIGHTH MEETING Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Friday, 28 April 1950, at 11 a.m.​

​

III. THE TERRITORIAL QUESTION --- UNITED NATIONS CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE ---- THE PALESTINE CRISIS

Regardless of the reservations contained in the Armistice Agreements on the temporary character of the Armistice lines, it is certain that with the simple passage of time these lines are increasingly acquiring the validity and permanence of formal frontiers. This natural process is inevitable and has been considerably assisted by the two following events whose profound significance need not be underlined; the annexation of the greater part of Arab Palestine by Jordan, and the guarantee given to the Armistice lines by the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and France. SOURCE: A/AC.25/W/51 9 October 1950​

The Arab Palestinian action on self-determination was never rejected by the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP) OR the General Assembly.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

From your link:

(a) The fact that the emotional trauma suffered by the Arab peoples as a result of the creation of the State of Israel in Palestine and the displacement of almost a million Arabs is still far being healed...​

There is that pesky "in Palestine" thing again.

Why should the Palestinians accept a foreign state being created in Palestine?

Who else in the world would accept such a thing.

Give me some names.

Rocco, according to you:

Jordan occupied the West Bank in 1949 even though there was no war between Jordan and Palestine.

Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950.

Israel won the West Bank from Jordan in 1967.

Now it is occupied Palestinian territory.

The thing about propaganda is that even though it makes no sense, some people still believe it.

"The thing about propaganda is that even though it makes no sense, some people still believe it"

I completely agree Tinmore. And that is the issue with you when it comes to debating the history of the I-P conflict. You immense amounts of Palestinians propaganda and you expect us to believe it.

 

[toastman]

Rocco, I have a quick question for you. You might have explained it already, so I might have missed it.

How is it that the West Bank was 'sovereign Jordanian territory' if they occupied it?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Sometimes, I think you intentionally misrepresent the facts.

From your link:

(a) The fact that the emotional trauma suffered by the Arab peoples as a result of the creation of the State of Israel in Palestine and the displacement of almost a million Arabs is still far being healed...​

There is that pesky "in Palestine" thing again.

(COMMENT)

In this context, the intention was to communicate a "Palestine" ----- as in: "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine." - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - The Palestine Order in LoN Council - Mandatory order 10 August 1922

Put in the proper context, it conveys something entirely different.

Why should the Palestinians accept a foreign state being created in Palestine?

(COMMENT)

It wasn't "their Palestine."

Who else in the world would accept such a thing.

Give me some names.

(COMMENT)

Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait and Jordan were all created out of Mandates.

Rocco, according to you:

Jordan occupied the West Bank in 1949 even though there was no war between Jordan and Palestine.

Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950.

Israel won the West Bank from Jordan in 1967.

(COMMENT)

Yes --- First you have to understand what it means to say: "Occupied" --- A state of war is not an element to "occupation." The relationship between Jordan and the "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine" formerly applied, and under UN Trusteeship. If the Jordanian "effective control" is not considered "hostile," then there is no legal obstacle to "annexation."

• 
  Article 42, 1907 Hague Convention: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
  The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Yes, Jordan Annexed the West Bank in 1950; simply a matter of record which is not disputed by either the UN or the Hashemite Kingdom. It was a self-determination effort on the part of the Palestinian People in a parliamentary process.

NO! I did not use the word "won." In 1967, the general description was Israeli Occupation through the establishment of "effective control.".

Now it is occupied Palestinian territory.

(COMMENT)

Yes: After 1988 when the PLO declared independence; and if ---- the PLO (the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People) consider the "effective control" by Israeli Forces as "hostile."

The thing about propaganda is that even though it makes no sense, some people still believe it.

(COMMENT)

Yes, I think you are convincing more than your share.

Most Respectfully,
R