Arab-Israeli conflict Q&A

[Humanity]

arab muslim illegal immigrants

Which Arab Muslim illegal immigrants?

All of them, of course!

And there was me thinking that the Israelites invaded the 'holy land'!

 

[Kondor3]

...What is there to negotiate?

True.

Ready to get it on, for the last time, and for real?

 

[Phoenall]

arab muslim illegal immigrants

Which Arab Muslim illegal immigrants?

The ones that flooded Palestine from the late 1890's after the Jews had made the land fertile

 

[Phoenall]

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

This ties in with UN res 242 which clearly states that not all the land occupied in 1967 is to be handed back. The authors spelt it out when the arab muslims decided the French translation was the best one for them, as French syntax allways includes THE. So they MUST negotiate a settlement and mutually agreed borders.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Making the land anyones who can occupy and hold, so it looks like the Palestinians are going to lose once again.

They never miss a chance to miss a chance do they

 

[Phoenall]

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.

All the census results and the demographics point to there having been arab muslim migration to Palestine from the 1890's up until 1948. No 3rd world culture could exceed a population increase at the level the arab muslims managed. Their best result would have been 37 live births to adulthood from every 1,000 pregnancies. Their population explosion was in the region of 1500 live births per 1000 pregnancies

 

[Phoenall]

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?

Peace and mutual borders. You do realise that the refugee problem is open ended and applies to both parties. Settlements are already settled through Oslo 2 and Right of Return. Jerusalem has no bearing on anything after the arab muslims invaded and claimed the land illegally. The Jordan valley is down to Jordan and they want Israel to police it.

 

[Phoenall]

arab muslim illegal immigrants

Which Arab Muslim illegal immigrants?

All of them, of course!

And there was me thinking that the Israelites invaded the 'holy land'!

They might of 4,500 years ago but the last invaders were arab muslims starting in the 1890's and going up till 1948

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, Coyote, Humanity, montelatici, et al,

Let's look at the implications and consequences if we were to take this statement to its logical conclusion for the West Bank [occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)].

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)

Parties are:

√ Israel
√ Palestine​

IF no "treaty" - THEN - no "border".

• QUESTION: So the question becomes where is the next recognized international border?
  • When was it established?
  • Who are the parties to the border?
• ANSWER: Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel.
  • A/50/73 S/1995/83 27 January 1995
  • East-West Border between Jordan and Israel

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

Noting that there is "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967" it is either:

• The Palestinians accept the change in status of the sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967 pursuant to (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988) recognition; or,
• The Palestinians decline recognition of the territory occupied since 1967.

If they accept, then the Palestinians acknowledge the Statehood granted within the boundaries of the "territory occupied since 1967."

If they reject recognition, then they acknowledge they are not "exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967" pursuant to the UN Resolution (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Humanity]

arab muslim illegal immigrants

Which Arab Muslim illegal immigrants?

All of them, of course!

And there was me thinking that the Israelites invaded the 'holy land'!

They might of 4,500 years ago but the last invaders were arab muslims starting in the 1890's and going up till 1948

Ah I see... And thats ok is it Phoney?

Seems to be a lot of bleating from the Zionist Camp about history or not history...

An invasion of Israelites is acceptable because...?

I have little interest in the history of the ME as far as this forum is concerned. Know why? Selective History is NOT history!

The Zionist Camp picks and chooses its OWN historical 'fact' at random...

Choosing to be pedantic about the terminology...

Sometimes there is/was such a thing as Palestine, sometimes not... Depending on what suits your argument at that time!

To paraphrase an earlier post...

The Muslims are there to stay, get over it!

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This would not be a correct interpretation.

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?

(OBSERVATIONS)

Article V

TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND PERMANENT STATUS NEGOTIATIONS
1. The five-year transitional period will begin upon the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and Jericho area.

2. Permanent status negotiations will commence as soon as possible, but not later than the beginning of the third year of the interim period, between the Government of Israel and the Palestinian people's representatives.

3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest.

4. The two parties agree that the outcome of the permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or preempted by agreements reached for the interim period.
SOURCE: Oslo I Accord A/48/486 S/26560 11 October 1993

ARTICLE XVII

Jurisdiction

1. In accordance with the DOP, the jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory as a single territorial unit, except for:

a. issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, specified military locations, Palestinian refugees, borders, foreign relations and Israelis; and

SOURCE: Oslo II Accord A/51/889 S/1997/357 5 May 1997

(COMMENT)

These are all subject to negotiation and the dispute resolution process. In fact:

"The PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) was established in 1994 in Gaza in order to follow up on the implementation of the Interim Agreement signed between Israel and the PLO. Until mid 2003 the NAD was headed by President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), then Secretary-General of the PLO Executive Committee. After President Abbas was selected by the Palestinian Legislative Council in April 2003 to become the first Palestinian Prime Minister, Dr. Saeb Erekat, former Minister for Local Government and Chief Palestinian Negotiator was nominated as Head of the NAD by the PLO."​

All the knowledgable Palestinians are totally aware of this.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[docmauser1]

arab muslim illegal immigrants

Which Arab Muslim illegal immigrants?

All of them, of course!

And there was me thinking that the Israelites invaded the 'holy land'!

Someone had to make the land holy, of course. But then arabs stole and bastardized the jewish bible!

 

[docmauser1]

The Muslims are there to stay, get over it!

Staying for the sake of staying is a rather poor occupation, palistanians should be moving to where they may also sit.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, Coyote, Humanity, montelatici, et al,

Let's look at the implications and consequences if we were to take this statement to its logical conclusion for the West Bank [occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)].

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)

Parties are:

√ Israel
√ Palestine​

IF no "treaty" - THEN - no "border".

• QUESTION: So the question becomes where is the next recognized international border?
  • When was it established?
  • Who are the parties to the border?
• ANSWER: Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel.
  • A/50/73 S/1995/83 27 January 1995
  • East-West Border between Jordan and Israel

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

Noting that there is "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967" it is either:

• The Palestinians accept the change in status of the sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967 pursuant to (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988) recognition; or,
• The Palestinians decline recognition of the territory occupied since 1967.

If they accept, then the Palestinians acknowledge the Statehood granted within the boundaries of the "territory occupied since 1967."

If they reject recognition, then they acknowledge they are not "exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967" pursuant to the UN Resolution (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988).

Most Respectfully,
R

I see a flaw in your interpretation.

Parties are:
√ Israel
√ Palestine

How did these two get to be the parties in the negotiation of borders? Why can't a third party make that decision?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

A border only has two sides. It is a line segment.

P F Tinmore, Coyote, Humanity, montelatici, et al,

Let's look at the implications and consequences if we were to take this statement to its logical conclusion for the West Bank [occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)].

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)

Parties are:

√ Israel
√ Palestine​

IF no "treaty" - THEN - no "border".

• QUESTION: So the question becomes where is the next recognized international border?
  • When was it established?
  • Who are the parties to the border?
• ANSWER: Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel.
  • A/50/73 S/1995/83 27 January 1995
  • East-West Border between Jordan and Israel

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

Noting that there is "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967" it is either:

• The Palestinians accept the change in status of the sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967 pursuant to (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988) recognition; or,
• The Palestinians decline recognition of the territory occupied since 1967.

If they accept, then the Palestinians acknowledge the Statehood granted within the boundaries of the "territory occupied since 1967."

If they reject recognition, then they acknowledge they are not "exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967" pursuant to the UN Resolution (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988).

Most Respectfully,
R

I see a flaw in your interpretation.

Parties are:
√ Israel
√ Palestine

How did these two get to be the parties in the negotiation of borders? Why can't a third party make that decision?

(COMMENT)

In any border dispute, there are two parties that must make an agreement.

• 
  States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

The means at which a result is concluded does not change the parties to the border, even if it is forced arbitration (a police action). In this case, the dispute resolution process is stipulated by agreement.

The Liaison Committee established pursuant to Article X of the DOP shall ensure the smooth implementation of this Agreement. It shall deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.

Article X​

JOINT ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN LIAISON COMMITTEE
In order to provide for a smooth implementation of this Declaration of Principles and any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, upon the entry into force of this Declaration of Principles, a Joint Israeli-Palestinian Liaison Committee will be established in order to deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.​

Theoretically if the JIPLC is deadlocked, they can move to an A/RES/25/2625 process (negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement). This still doesn't change the parties to the dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, Coyote, Humanity, montelatici, et al,

Let's look at the implications and consequences if we were to take this statement to its logical conclusion for the West Bank [occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)].

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)

Parties are:

√ Israel
√ Palestine​

IF no "treaty" - THEN - no "border".

• QUESTION: So the question becomes where is the next recognized international border?
  • When was it established?
  • Who are the parties to the border?
• ANSWER: Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel.
  • A/50/73 S/1995/83 27 January 1995
  • East-West Border between Jordan and Israel

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

Noting that there is "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967" it is either:

• The Palestinians accept the change in status of the sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967 pursuant to (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988) recognition; or,
• The Palestinians decline recognition of the territory occupied since 1967.

If they accept, then the Palestinians acknowledge the Statehood granted within the boundaries of the "territory occupied since 1967."

If they reject recognition, then they acknowledge they are not "exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967" pursuant to the UN Resolution (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988).

Most Respectfully,
R

I see a flaw in your interpretation.

Parties are:
√ Israel
√ Palestine

How did these two get to be the parties in the negotiation of borders? Why can't a third party make that decision?

Palestine does not have any borders. Israel has internationally recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan. No matter how much you try to deny it, facts are still facts.

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, Coyote, Humanity, montelatici, et al,

Let's look at the implications and consequences if we were to take this statement to its logical conclusion for the West Bank [occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)].

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)

Parties are:

√ Israel
√ Palestine​

IF no "treaty" - THEN - no "border".

• QUESTION: So the question becomes where is the next recognized international border?
  • When was it established?
  • Who are the parties to the border?
• ANSWER: Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel.
  • A/50/73 S/1995/83 27 January 1995
  • East-West Border between Jordan and Israel

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

Noting that there is "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967" it is either:

• The Palestinians accept the change in status of the sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967 pursuant to (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988) recognition; or,
• The Palestinians decline recognition of the territory occupied since 1967.

If they accept, then the Palestinians acknowledge the Statehood granted within the boundaries of the "territory occupied since 1967."

If they reject recognition, then they acknowledge they are not "exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967" pursuant to the UN Resolution (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988).

Most Respectfully,
R

I see a flaw in your interpretation.

Parties are:
√ Israel
√ Palestine

How did these two get to be the parties in the negotiation of borders? Why can't a third party make that decision?

Palestine does not have any borders. Israel has internationally recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan. No matter how much you try to deny it, facts are still facts.

Yet MORE COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD recognise Palestine

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

A border only has two sides. It is a line segment.

P F Tinmore, Coyote, Humanity, montelatici, et al,

Let's look at the implications and consequences if we were to take this statement to its logical conclusion for the West Bank [occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)].

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)

Parties are:

√ Israel
√ Palestine​

IF no "treaty" - THEN - no "border".

• QUESTION: So the question becomes where is the next recognized international border?
  • When was it established?
  • Who are the parties to the border?
• ANSWER: Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel.
  • A/50/73 S/1995/83 27 January 1995
  • East-West Border between Jordan and Israel

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

Noting that there is "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967" it is either:

• The Palestinians accept the change in status of the sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967 pursuant to (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988) recognition; or,
• The Palestinians decline recognition of the territory occupied since 1967.

If they accept, then the Palestinians acknowledge the Statehood granted within the boundaries of the "territory occupied since 1967."

If they reject recognition, then they acknowledge they are not "exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967" pursuant to the UN Resolution (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988).

Most Respectfully,
R

I see a flaw in your interpretation.

Parties are:
√ Israel
√ Palestine

How did these two get to be the parties in the negotiation of borders? Why can't a third party make that decision?

(COMMENT)

In any border dispute, there are two parties that must make an agreement.

• 
  States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

The means at which a result is concluded does not change the parties to the border, even if it is forced arbitration (a police action). In this case, the dispute resolution process is stipulated by agreement.

The Liaison Committee established pursuant to Article X of the DOP shall ensure the smooth implementation of this Agreement. It shall deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.

Article X​

JOINT ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN LIAISON COMMITTEE
In order to provide for a smooth implementation of this Declaration of Principles and any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, upon the entry into force of this Declaration of Principles, a Joint Israeli-Palestinian Liaison Committee will be established in order to deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.​

Theoretically if the JIPLC is deadlocked, they can move to an A/RES/25/2625 process (negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement). This still doesn't change the parties to the dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but that does not answer my question.

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

A border only has two sides. It is a line segment.

P F Tinmore, Coyote, Humanity, montelatici, et al,

Let's look at the implications and consequences if we were to take this statement to its logical conclusion for the West Bank [occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)].

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)

Parties are:

√ Israel
√ Palestine​

IF no "treaty" - THEN - no "border".

• QUESTION: So the question becomes where is the next recognized international border?
  • When was it established?
  • Who are the parties to the border?
• ANSWER: Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel.
  • A/50/73 S/1995/83 27 January 1995
  • East-West Border between Jordan and Israel

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

Noting that there is "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967" it is either:

• The Palestinians accept the change in status of the sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967 pursuant to (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988) recognition; or,
• The Palestinians decline recognition of the territory occupied since 1967.

If they accept, then the Palestinians acknowledge the Statehood granted within the boundaries of the "territory occupied since 1967."

If they reject recognition, then they acknowledge they are not "exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967" pursuant to the UN Resolution (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988).

Most Respectfully,
R

I see a flaw in your interpretation.

Parties are:
√ Israel
√ Palestine

How did these two get to be the parties in the negotiation of borders? Why can't a third party make that decision?

(COMMENT)

In any border dispute, there are two parties that must make an agreement.

• 
  States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

The means at which a result is concluded does not change the parties to the border, even if it is forced arbitration (a police action). In this case, the dispute resolution process is stipulated by agreement.

The Liaison Committee established pursuant to Article X of the DOP shall ensure the smooth implementation of this Agreement. It shall deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.

Article X​

JOINT ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN LIAISON COMMITTEE
In order to provide for a smooth implementation of this Declaration of Principles and any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, upon the entry into force of this Declaration of Principles, a Joint Israeli-Palestinian Liaison Committee will be established in order to deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.​

Theoretically if the JIPLC is deadlocked, they can move to an A/RES/25/2625 process (negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement). This still doesn't change the parties to the dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

Jews don't want a peaceful solution. ....they don't want a solution at all....just more land grabbing .......total eradication of all Palestinians......THAT IS THEIR AIM AND THEIR ONLY SOLUTION......THE JEWS FINAL SOLUTION.............is what you and your cronies want Roc..........You will in the end as history shows.....FAIL

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

A border only has two sides. It is a line segment.

P F Tinmore, Coyote, Humanity, montelatici, et al,

Let's look at the implications and consequences if we were to take this statement to its logical conclusion for the West Bank [occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)].

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)

Parties are:

√ Israel
√ Palestine​

IF no "treaty" - THEN - no "border".

• QUESTION: So the question becomes where is the next recognized international border?
  • When was it established?
  • Who are the parties to the border?
• ANSWER: Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel.
  • A/50/73 S/1995/83 27 January 1995
  • East-West Border between Jordan and Israel

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

Noting that there is "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967" it is either:

• The Palestinians accept the change in status of the sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967 pursuant to (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988) recognition; or,
• The Palestinians decline recognition of the territory occupied since 1967.

If they accept, then the Palestinians acknowledge the Statehood granted within the boundaries of the "territory occupied since 1967."

If they reject recognition, then they acknowledge they are not "exercising their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967" pursuant to the UN Resolution (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988).

Most Respectfully,
R

I see a flaw in your interpretation.

Parties are:
√ Israel
√ Palestine

How did these two get to be the parties in the negotiation of borders? Why can't a third party make that decision?

(COMMENT)

In any border dispute, there are two parties that must make an agreement.

• 
  States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

The means at which a result is concluded does not change the parties to the border, even if it is forced arbitration (a police action). In this case, the dispute resolution process is stipulated by agreement.

The Liaison Committee established pursuant to Article X of the DOP shall ensure the smooth implementation of this Agreement. It shall deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.

Article X​

JOINT ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN LIAISON COMMITTEE
In order to provide for a smooth implementation of this Declaration of Principles and any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, upon the entry into force of this Declaration of Principles, a Joint Israeli-Palestinian Liaison Committee will be established in order to deal with issues requiring coordination, other issues of common interest and disputes.​

Theoretically if the JIPLC is deadlocked, they can move to an A/RES/25/2625 process (negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement). This still doesn't change the parties to the dispute.

Most Respectfully,
R

Jews don't want a peaceful solution. ....they don't want a solution at all....just more land grabbing .......total eradication of all Palestinians......THAT IS THEIR AIM AND THEIR ONLY SOLUTION......THE JEWS FINAL SOLUTION.............is what you and your cronies want Roc..........You will in the end as history shows.....FAIL

Blah Blah Jews blah JEws blah blah JEws !

It's the Palestinian Muslim who don't want a peaceful solution. They want Israel gone. And the only people who will fail are the Palestinians .