Arab-Israeli conflict Q&A

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an example of the befuddled and confused nature of the Palestinian and the varied perceptions they hold in contemporary times.

The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
Based on bullshit. It is not a border.

(COMMENT)

The bewildered and incohesive political positions that the many Palestinian mindsets exhibit is a very strong contributing factor to the lack of progress in the development of peace.

Like yourself, there are those still stuck in time and unable to grasp the realities of the here and now. Somehow, they think that the clock can be rolled back and the decisions made by the Arab Palestinians can be reversed.

We have to work with what is in play today, or allow the Arab Palestinians to continue to pursue their unproductive course.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, when did the armistice lines become borders?

Link?

 

[Humanity]

Humanity,

This has to do with the range and capacity of modern weapons.

In what way are the borders indefensible?

You've never seen a map, boy?

Why is it that people cannot answer a freaking question around here....
Always a question with a question...

(COMMENT)

It is about 45 miles between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

• A Iranian Ghassed 3 AGM (Air-to-Ground Missile) can be fired 62 miles (from deep inside any of the surrounding Arab controlled territory) away with a 2000 lbs warhead.
• A Chinese made WM-120-type multi-barrel rocket launcher system can be fired from 74 miles away.
• A typical AAM (Air-to-Air Missile) manufactured today (21st Century) has the range of between 49-74 miles.

The natural and defensible topological feature to the East is the Jordan Rift Valley. The Central Mountain Ridge, running north-south, from the Jezreel Valley to the Negev Desert, is a essential landscape to maintain for air defense and to keep clean of hostile artillery and rocket positions.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thank you Rocco...

Using the same reasoning for other countries would simply result in the end of the world.

Occupation of territory in the name of "defense"...

 

[Phoenall]

9) Should Israel revert to its 1967 borders? Yes or No? Why?

No. They are indefensible.

In what way are the borders indefensible?

Don't you look at the maps and links people post that show that there were never any 1967 borders, in fact that there were never any mutual borders of any description at any time. The partition plan was not a set of rules that had to be followed to the letter but a proposal. The first borders were those between Israel and Egypt that set them in stone, then the ones between Israel and Jordan. Syria has refused to negotiate mutual borders because in ding so they will lose the upper hand when it comes to attacking Israel. Lebanon has agreed borders in principle but have not yet negotiated them.

So once again were are these 67 borders that are actually the 1947 partition plan that have so many pinch points on Israel that it makes the nation indefensible. This was set down in UN res 242 and 338 as being the case and stated that the parties had to negotiate mutual defensible borders. Then, and only then, was Israel to leave the territories occupied.

 

[Phoenall]

In what way are the borders indefensible?

You've never seen a map, boy?

Why is it that people cannot answer a freaking question around here....

Always a question with a question...

Because you ask such stupid questions that you already know the answer to

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The British White Paper speaks to a "Palestine" (Order in Council) that covered a much larger area than that which we speak of today.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's not forget that these were foreign settlers with citizenship rights and the right to self determination, the same as all people.

A battle between the natives and foreign settlers is not a civil war no matter what the propagandists say.

(OBSERVATION)

Xenophobia (a form of discrimination) is the unreasoned fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange.

R

And what does that mean?

His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

Israel, or a Jewish state, flies in the face of the purpose of the mandate.​

(COMMENT)

In 1922, the whole of "Palestine" was, in fact, a territory that extended to the Mesopotamian Border (Iraq). And to this day, the Jewish National Home (JNH) is still inside the former Mandate. The State of Israel or the JNH, is but a portion of the former Mandate. This are argument does not fly in the face of the Mandate.

The State of Israel was declared, not during the Mandate Period, but immediately after the Mandate terminated and under the Successor Government, in accordance with the Step Preparatory to Independence as approved by the General Assembly. The terms and understandings behind the Mandate were considered when the General Assembly passed the Partition Plan.

Today, we deal with the outcomes, and not time travel to an era long since overtaken by events.

Most Respectfully,
R

Where was Israel's land? What were its borders?

Here in this 1920's LoN Mandate for Palestine map. Cant see any provision on it for illegal immigrant muslims squatters.

Later changed to this in 1924 to accommodate the creation of an arab muslim Palestine to sweeten the arab muslim illegal immigrants

 

[docmauser1]

So, when did the armistice lines become borders? Link?

So, who was that shakh, shekh, sultan, emir, effendi, pasha, president, prime-minister of that "palestine" to have "international borders"? Link?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The British White Paper speaks to a "Palestine" (Order in Council) that covered a much larger area than that which we speak of today.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's not forget that these were foreign settlers with citizenship rights and the right to self determination, the same as all people.

A battle between the natives and foreign settlers is not a civil war no matter what the propagandists say.

(OBSERVATION)

Xenophobia (a form of discrimination) is the unreasoned fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange.

R

And what does that mean?

His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

Israel, or a Jewish state, flies in the face of the purpose of the mandate.​

(COMMENT)

In 1922, the whole of "Palestine" was, in fact, a territory that extended to the Mesopotamian Border (Iraq). And to this day, the Jewish National Home (JNH) is still inside the former Mandate. The State of Israel or the JNH, is but a portion of the former Mandate. This are argument does not fly in the face of the Mandate.

The State of Israel was declared, not during the Mandate Period, but immediately after the Mandate terminated and under the Successor Government, in accordance with the Step Preparatory to Independence as approved by the General Assembly. The terms and understandings behind the Mandate were considered when the General Assembly passed the Partition Plan.

Today, we deal with the outcomes, and not time travel to an era long since overtaken by events.

Most Respectfully,
R

In fact, at San Remo in 1920, the British got the territory that in 1921 they divided into Palestine and Transjordan and all of what became Iraq. (France gave up northern Iraq in exchange for 25 percent of oil revenues.) The French got greater Syria, which they divided into a coastal state, Lebanon, and four states to the east that would later become Syria. It was not the "whole of Palestine" as you so ignorantly claim. Palestine was more or less what Palestine/Israel is today, Trans Jordan and Iraq were separate, and administered separately.

Still covered by the Mandate for Palestine Mohamed as the maps from 1920 and 1924 show. And Jordan did not leave the mandate for Palestine until 1947 when it declared independence, along with Syria and Iraq. Lebanon was already extant and was a Christian stronghold that was overran and destroyed by the Palestinians after being beaten by Jordan

 

[docmauser1]

Occupation of territory in the name of "defense"...

Indeed, that's different from palistanians, occupying the territory for the sake of pestering jews.

 

[Phoenall]

Article 42 of the 1899 Hague convention states, "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation applies only to the territory where such authority is established, and in a position to assert itself." The key phrase here is "able to assert itself". The IAF controls the air over Gaza, the Israeli Navy controls the sea around Gaza and the IDF not onlt prevents ingress and egrees but has carried out armed "punitive" incursions into Gaza. The Gaza strip is surrunded by "security fences/walls" with regularly spaced watchtowers along it. That's "placed under the authority of the hostile army" by any resonable definition and that's what the ICJ thought too.

Superseded by the Geneva conventions of 1949, so this no longer applies, but if you want to use that treaty then Israel owns all of gaza and the west bank as spoils of war

Always making things up psychopath. They are recognized as Occupied Territories by every nation in the world.

English not your first language I see Mohamed, show were I stated they were not occupied territories. But hamas the leaders of Palestine should know better than you if their land is occupied, and they say gaza is no longer occupied. So the one nation that really matters contradicts the rest of the world..................

Menachem, Mahmoud Al-Zahar stated that Gaza was "not under siege" when the Egypt opened the border after the Muslim Brotherhood won the Egyptian election. Once the coup against the democratically elected government took place and the Muslim Brotherhood was outlawed, the border was closed and the siege resumed.

As quoted in 2012 by a hamas official Gaza is not occupied and has not been since 2005

Hamas Concedes That Gaza Is Not Occupied So Where Is The UN The Jewish Week

As foreign minister speaking on behalf of the Hamas government, al-Zahar is giving public credence to what has been a fact since September 2005 – that Israel is no longer in Gaza and that the Israeli government does not displace Hamas’s authority. The assertion that Gaza is no longer occupied is strongly supported by international law derived from the Geneva Conventions and legal precedent. For Hamas to state otherwise would undermine its own power and would be a profound display of the weakness of its government.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an example of the befuddled and confused nature of the Palestinian and the varied perceptions they hold in contemporary times.

The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
Based on bullshit. It is not a border.

(COMMENT)

The bewildered and incohesive political positions that the many Palestinian mindsets exhibit is a very strong contributing factor to the lack of progress in the development of peace.

Like yourself, there are those still stuck in time and unable to grasp the realities of the here and now. Somehow, they think that the clock can be rolled back and the decisions made by the Arab Palestinians can be reversed.

We have to work with what is in play today, or allow the Arab Palestinians to continue to pursue their unproductive course.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, when did the armistice lines become borders?

Link?

When they were used as borders in treaties signed by Israel and Egypt and Jordan.

 

[Humanity]

arab muslim illegal immigrants

Which Arab Muslim illegal immigrants?

 

[docmauser1]

arab muslim illegal immigrants

Which Arab Muslim illegal immigrants?

All of them, of course!

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You need to read it again (Posting #138). It is not my claim, it is the Palestinian claim made by the PLO NAD: (The Blue is the Link)

PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) Key Facts​

• • The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
  • A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
  • The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

Borders:​

• • Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so.

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an example of the befuddled and confused nature of the Palestinian and the varied perceptions they hold in contemporary times.

The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
Based on bullshit. It is not a border.

(COMMENT)

The bewildered and incohesive political positions that the many Palestinian mindsets exhibit is a very strong contributing factor to the lack of progress in the development of peace.

Like yourself, there are those still stuck in time and unable to grasp the realities of the here and now. Somehow, they think that the clock can be rolled back and the decisions made by the Arab Palestinians can be reversed.

We have to work with what is in play today, or allow the Arab Palestinians to continue to pursue their unproductive course.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, when did the armistice lines become borders?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Now I grant you that "Armistice Lines" are in the family of "demarcation lines" but differ in that they are not permanent order territorial borders. But you will notice that neither the PLO (Palestinians) or the UN (Security Council or General Assembly) actually mention "armistice lines" in the recognition of the State of Palestine. When the UN recognized the Independence of the State of Palestine (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988) --- they said:

1. Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988;

2. Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;​

There is no mention of "armistice lines." It was defined by the "territory occupied since 1967."

Granted, the incoherent and confused factions within the general population of Palestinians have differing opinions, as you demonstrate here and now. But the political body that is formally recognized as the "the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated" has this idea of "Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967" proclaimed and published.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You need to read it again (Posting #138). It is not my claim, it is the Palestinian claim made by the PLO NAD: (The Blue is the Link)

PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) Key Facts​

• • The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
  • A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
  • The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

Borders:​

• • Israel has no valid claim to any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. However, in the interest of peace, we have been willing to discuss minor, equitable, and mutually-agreed territorial exchanges should we decide that it is in our interest to do so.

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an example of the befuddled and confused nature of the Palestinian and the varied perceptions they hold in contemporary times.

The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
Based on bullshit. It is not a border.

(COMMENT)

The bewildered and incohesive political positions that the many Palestinian mindsets exhibit is a very strong contributing factor to the lack of progress in the development of peace.

Like yourself, there are those still stuck in time and unable to grasp the realities of the here and now. Somehow, they think that the clock can be rolled back and the decisions made by the Arab Palestinians can be reversed.

We have to work with what is in play today, or allow the Arab Palestinians to continue to pursue their unproductive course.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, when did the armistice lines become borders?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Now I grant you that "Armistice Lines" are in the family of "demarcation lines" but differ in that they are not permanent order territorial borders. But you will notice that neither the PLO (Palestinians) or the UN (Security Council or General Assembly) actually mention "armistice lines" in the recognition of the State of Palestine. When the UN recognized the Independence of the State of Palestine (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988) --- they said:

1. Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988;

2. Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;​

There is no mention of "armistice lines." It was defined by the "territory occupied since 1967."

Granted, the incoherent and confused factions within the general population of Palestinians have differing opinions, as you demonstrate here and now. But the political body that is formally recognized as the "the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated" has this idea of "Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967" proclaimed and published.

Most Respectfully,
R

The PLO and the UN can say what they want. That is politics. But until there is a treaty agreed to by both parties those are not borders.

 

[RoccoR]

Humanity, et al,

All countries have national defense issues.

Humanity,

This has to do with the range and capacity of modern weapons.

In what way are the borders indefensible?

You've never seen a map, boy?

Why is it that people cannot answer a freaking question around here....
Always a question with a question...

(COMMENT)

It is about 45 miles between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

• A Iranian Ghassed 3 AGM (Air-to-Ground Missile) can be fired 62 miles (from deep inside any of the surrounding Arab controlled territory) away with a 2000 lbs warhead.
• A Chinese made WM-120-type multi-barrel rocket launcher system can be fired from 74 miles away.
• A typical AAM (Air-to-Air Missile) manufactured today (21st Century) has the range of between 49-74 miles.

The natural and defensible topological feature to the East is the Jordan Rift Valley. The Central Mountain Ridge, running north-south, from the Jezreel Valley to the Negev Desert, is a essential landscape to maintain for air defense and to keep clean of hostile artillery and rocket positions.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thank you Rocco...

Using the same reasoning for other countries would simply result in the end of the world.

Occupation of territory in the name of "defense"...

(COMMENT)

The US almost went to war with the Soviet Union in 1962 over the launch capacity of Soviet Nuclear Missiles in Cuba. Even today, there is a dispute between the US and Russia over the Crimea Annexation issue (Russia's Black Sea fleet); with the US calling for a withdraw its troops and armaments from eastern Ukraine threatening Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Somewhere in the world, there is always a territorial dispute ongoing. Most of them are over national defense issues, but others are over economic and commerce matters. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the issues vary.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And that is the issue.

The PLO and the UN can say what they want. That is politics. But until there is a treaty agreed to by both parties those are not borders.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians do not want to negotiate a peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

arab muslim illegal immigrants

Which Arab Muslim illegal immigrants?

There aren't any. It's just another tool to delegitimize the rights of a people that has nothing to do with the here and now.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Well, your statement is ill-framed.

So, there can never be a sovereign Palestinian state. Apartheid is the only solution. Own goal, moron.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians have the State which they negotiated. They have not demonstrated that they are willing to negotiate Peace Terms. So they live under a system that they sustain and political induce.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And that is the issue.

The PLO and the UN can say what they want. That is politics. But until there is a treaty agreed to by both parties those are not borders.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians do not want to negotiate a peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

67 borders are off the table. So are refugees, settlements, Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley among others.

What is there to negotiate?

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an example of the befuddled and confused nature of the Palestinian and the varied perceptions they hold in contemporary times.

The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
Based on bullshit. It is not a border.

(COMMENT)

The bewildered and incohesive political positions that the many Palestinian mindsets exhibit is a very strong contributing factor to the lack of progress in the development of peace.

Like yourself, there are those still stuck in time and unable to grasp the realities of the here and now. Somehow, they think that the clock can be rolled back and the decisions made by the Arab Palestinians can be reversed.

We have to work with what is in play today, or allow the Arab Palestinians to continue to pursue their unproductive course.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, when did the armistice lines become borders?

Link?

Where did Rocco say that?