Hamas Threatens Another Attack

[Vigilante]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Nice duck.

You're a moron Tinmore. Even the Palestinian government recognizes Israel .

I feel stupid even discussing this

What's your proof that Israel is occupied (this should be fun)

The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements call all of Palestine Palestine. There is not even a hint of a place called Israel present on that land. This is in compliance with international law that forbids the acquisition of land by war.

Israel can only acquire land through treaty defining exactly what land is being acquired.

So far, nobody has been able to produce such a document.

Where does it say ANYWHERE that there must be treaty in order for Israel to acquire land ? Answer: Nowhere, because you completely made that up. Needing a treaty to acquire land is a TINMORE prerequisite. Then you act as if you are correct because no one can provide this made up treaty.

Then where should Israel get its land? It cannot take it by force. It is illegal to acquire land in war.

We've been through this 100 times. Acquiring land is a real estate issue. Self determination/ following steps to independence laid out by the U.N is how Israel came into existence. If that were illegal, then the U.N of all organizations would not have recognized Israel after they declared independence.
How is that taking land by force?

Where did you get that?

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967​

You are incorrect.

 

[toastman]

What does that have to do with anything?? You claimed that Israel needs to have some sort of contract in order to have acquired the land now known as Israel. But that is just something that you made up. When Israel declared independence , nothing was taken by force ...

 

[P F Tinmore]

What does that have to do with anything?? You claimed that Israel needs to have some sort of contract in order to have acquired the land now known as Israel. But that is just something that you made up. When Israel declared independence , nothing was taken by force ...

How did Israel get the land its fat ass is parked on?

 

[Hossfly]

What does that have to do with anything?? You claimed that Israel needs to have some sort of contract in order to have acquired the land now known as Israel. But that is just something that you made up. When Israel declared independence , nothing was taken by force ...

How did Israel get the land its fat ass is parked on?

Tinmore, I can get you a job in a synagogue as a putzfrau. Maybe you can learn a thing or two.

 

[toastman]

What does that have to do with anything?? You claimed that Israel needs to have some sort of contract in order to have acquired the land now known as Israel. But that is just something that you made up. When Israel declared independence , nothing was taken by force ...

How did Israel get the land its fat ass is parked on?

I already answered that question. It's not my problem if you can't handle the truth

 

[P F Tinmore]

What does that have to do with anything?? You claimed that Israel needs to have some sort of contract in order to have acquired the land now known as Israel. But that is just something that you made up. When Israel declared independence , nothing was taken by force ...

How did Israel get the land its fat ass is parked on?

I already answered that question. It's not my problem if you can't handle the truth

Nice duck.

 

[teddyearp]

So, with all this back and forth. What do you here that profess to be pro-palestinian say about the atrocities that Hamas visits upon its own there in Gaza?

There is a bit in this thread:

A question about hamas to the pro pal lovers US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But Tinmore, I ask you. Are you really pro-palestine or are you really anti-israel?

Take a look and let us all know.

 

[toastman]

What does that have to do with anything?? You claimed that Israel needs to have some sort of contract in order to have acquired the land now known as Israel. But that is just something that you made up. When Israel declared independence , nothing was taken by force ...

How did Israel get the land its fat ass is parked on?

I already answered that question. It's not my problem if you can't handle the truth

Nice duck.

What duck. I said I already answered the question few posts ago.

What the hell is the matter with you ?

 

[docmauser1]

How did Israel get the land its fat ass is parked on?

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967​

Then where should Israel get its land? It cannot take it by force. It is illegal to acquire land in war.

See, arabs have no land and no borders. So, what's that those illegal arab settlers are wailing and weeping about?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, you are misinterpreting what is being said.

Where did you get that?

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967​

You are incorrect.

(COMMENT)

In the case of S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967 the Resolution is saying that "coercion or force" cannot be substituted for "freely negotiated and adequate compensation" in the "acquisition of territory." [(Examples of Territorial Acquisitions: Louisiana Purchase in 1803, Alaska Purchase from the Russian Empire) (Example of Acquisition via Military War Reparation: Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines (for which the United States compensated Spain $20 million, equivalent to $567 million in present day terms), ceded by Spain after the Spanish-American War in the 1898 Treaty of Paris)] It is a variation on the theme hosted in Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.

Further, there is an "intent" (objective · object · goal · target) that needs to be understood in Resolution S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967 that needs to be expressed:

Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.

• Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, pg. 13, qtd. in Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977, Yoram Meital, pg. 49:

Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.​

This is extremely important. The idea that the Resolution was some sort of future boundary or limitation on the boundary to Israel was simply not the case or the "intention." Lord Caradon further stated that:

I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” The can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.

Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with [the questions of the Palestinians and of Jerusalem] then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.​

The key here is in the sense that "We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line." Like I said, your strict interpretation of the Resolution has nothing at all to do with Palestinian rights or sovereignty. For all "intents" and purposes, Article 3 to the 1994 Treaty established between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (the "Parties" to the conflict) resolved the 1967 question to the means of "acquisition" by establishing a "permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan;" just as treaties have done for the last several centuries.

And, it is very important to remember that the conflict that resulted in the "occupation" of the West Bank did not have a true "Palestinian" component; they were not a party to the conflict. The Palestinians were Jordanian Citizens and considered protected persons under the occupation law. The attempt by present day Palestinians to use Resolution 242 as some sort of leverage against Israeli "occupation" has nothing to do with the "war" component mentioned in the Resolution. The "war" was not between the Israelis and the Palestinians --- but between the Israelis and Jordanians.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Because there's nothing to prove. It's an idiotic statement. It's called Israel. Not occupied Israel. Only a moron would think what you think. I have no problem debatingpid things up for debate, but I will not stoop to your low level and debate something as stupid as this.

Nice duck.

You're a moron Tinmore. Even the Palestinian government recognizes Israel .

I feel stupid even discussing this

What's your proof that Israel is occupied (this should be fun)

The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements call all of Palestine Palestine. There is not even a hint of a place called Israel present on that land. This is in compliance with international law that forbids the acquisition of land by war.

Israel can only acquire land through treaty defining exactly what land is being acquired.

So far, nobody has been able to produce such a document.

Where does it say ANYWHERE that there must be treaty in order for Israel to acquire land ? Answer: Nowhere, because you completely made that up. Needing a treaty to acquire land is a TINMORE prerequisite. Then you act as if you are correct because no one can provide this made up treaty.

Then where should Israel get its land? It cannot take it by force. It is illegal to acquire land in war.

From unclaimed land outside its borders that the arab muslims have failed to lay title to.

 

[Phoenall]

You're a moron Tinmore. Even the Palestinian government recognizes Israel .

I feel stupid even discussing this

What's your proof that Israel is occupied (this should be fun)

The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements call all of Palestine Palestine. There is not even a hint of a place called Israel present on that land. This is in compliance with international law that forbids the acquisition of land by war.

Israel can only acquire land through treaty defining exactly what land is being acquired.

So far, nobody has been able to produce such a document.

Where does it say ANYWHERE that there must be treaty in order for Israel to acquire land ? Answer: Nowhere, because you completely made that up. Needing a treaty to acquire land is a TINMORE prerequisite. Then you act as if you are correct because no one can provide this made up treaty.

Then where should Israel get its land? It cannot take it by force. It is illegal to acquire land in war.

We've been through this 100 times. Acquiring land is a real estate issue. Self determination/ following steps to independence laid out by the U.N is how Israel came into existence. If that were illegal, then the U.N of all organizations would not have recognized Israel after they declared independence.
How is that taking land by force?

Where did you get that?

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967​

You are incorrect.

From the UN resolutions and charter

 

[Daniyel]

Meanwhile.

 

[Phoenall]

What does that have to do with anything?? You claimed that Israel needs to have some sort of contract in order to have acquired the land now known as Israel. But that is just something that you made up. When Israel declared independence , nothing was taken by force ...

How did Israel get the land its fat ass is parked on?

From the legal owners who granted them the land under the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, which also granted the arab muslims land in Palestine as well

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, you are misinterpreting what is being said.

Where did you get that?

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967​

You are incorrect.

(COMMENT)

In the case of S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967 the Resolution is saying that "coercion or force" cannot be substituted for "freely negotiated and adequate compensation" in the "acquisition of territory." [(Examples of Territorial Acquisitions: Louisiana Purchase in 1803, Alaska Purchase from the Russian Empire) (Example of Acquisition via Military War Reparation: Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines (for which the United States compensated Spain $20 million, equivalent to $567 million in present day terms), ceded by Spain after the Spanish-American War in the 1898 Treaty of Paris)] It is a variation on the theme hosted in Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.

Further, there is an "intent" (objective · object · goal · target) that needs to be understood in Resolution S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967 that needs to be expressed:

Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.

• Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, pg. 13, qtd. in Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977, Yoram Meital, pg. 49:

Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.​

This is extremely important. The idea that the Resolution was some sort of future boundary or limitation on the boundary to Israel was simply not the case or the "intention." Lord Caradon further stated that:

I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” The can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.

Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with [the questions of the Palestinians and of Jerusalem] then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.​

The key here is in the sense that "We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line." Like I said, your strict interpretation of the Resolution has nothing at all to do with Palestinian rights or sovereignty. For all "intents" and purposes, Article 3 to the 1994 Treaty established between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (the "Parties" to the conflict) resolved the 1967 question to the means of "acquisition" by establishing a "permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan;" just as treaties have done for the last several centuries.

And, it is very important to remember that the conflict that resulted in the "occupation" of the West Bank did not have a true "Palestinian" component; they were not a party to the conflict. The Palestinians were Jordanian Citizens and considered protected persons under the occupation law. The attempt by present day Palestinians to use Resolution 242 as some sort of leverage against Israeli "occupation" has nothing to do with the "war" component mentioned in the Resolution. The "war" was not between the Israelis and the Palestinians --- but between the Israelis and Jordanians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your smokescreen left out a vital component.

Nobody lost the 1948 war.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, you are misinterpreting what is being said.

Where did you get that?

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967​

You are incorrect.

(COMMENT)

In the case of S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967 the Resolution is saying that "coercion or force" cannot be substituted for "freely negotiated and adequate compensation" in the "acquisition of territory." [(Examples of Territorial Acquisitions: Louisiana Purchase in 1803, Alaska Purchase from the Russian Empire) (Example of Acquisition via Military War Reparation: Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines (for which the United States compensated Spain $20 million, equivalent to $567 million in present day terms), ceded by Spain after the Spanish-American War in the 1898 Treaty of Paris)] It is a variation on the theme hosted in Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.

Further, there is an "intent" (objective · object · goal · target) that needs to be understood in Resolution S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967 that needs to be expressed:

Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.

• Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, pg. 13, qtd. in Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977, Yoram Meital, pg. 49:

Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.​

This is extremely important. The idea that the Resolution was some sort of future boundary or limitation on the boundary to Israel was simply not the case or the "intention." Lord Caradon further stated that:

I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” The can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.

Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with [the questions of the Palestinians and of Jerusalem] then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.​

The key here is in the sense that "We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line." Like I said, your strict interpretation of the Resolution has nothing at all to do with Palestinian rights or sovereignty. For all "intents" and purposes, Article 3 to the 1994 Treaty established between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (the "Parties" to the conflict) resolved the 1967 question to the means of "acquisition" by establishing a "permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan;" just as treaties have done for the last several centuries.

And, it is very important to remember that the conflict that resulted in the "occupation" of the West Bank did not have a true "Palestinian" component; they were not a party to the conflict. The Palestinians were Jordanian Citizens and considered protected persons under the occupation law. The attempt by present day Palestinians to use Resolution 242 as some sort of leverage against Israeli "occupation" has nothing to do with the "war" component mentioned in the Resolution. The "war" was not between the Israelis and the Palestinians --- but between the Israelis and Jordanians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your smokescreen left out a vital component.

Nobody lost the 1948 war.

How is it a smokescreen if he responded directly you your post?

As for no one winning:


Result Israeli victory; Palestinian Arab defeat; Arab League strategic failure;[5]Armistice Agreements

1948 Arab Israeli War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, you are misinterpreting what is being said.

Where did you get that?

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967​

You are incorrect.

(COMMENT)

In the case of S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967 the Resolution is saying that "coercion or force" cannot be substituted for "freely negotiated and adequate compensation" in the "acquisition of territory." [(Examples of Territorial Acquisitions: Louisiana Purchase in 1803, Alaska Purchase from the Russian Empire) (Example of Acquisition via Military War Reparation: Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines (for which the United States compensated Spain $20 million, equivalent to $567 million in present day terms), ceded by Spain after the Spanish-American War in the 1898 Treaty of Paris)] It is a variation on the theme hosted in Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.

Further, there is an "intent" (objective · object · goal · target) that needs to be understood in Resolution S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967 that needs to be expressed:

Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.

• Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, pg. 13, qtd. in Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977, Yoram Meital, pg. 49:

Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.​

This is extremely important. The idea that the Resolution was some sort of future boundary or limitation on the boundary to Israel was simply not the case or the "intention." Lord Caradon further stated that:

I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” The can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.

Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with [the questions of the Palestinians and of Jerusalem] then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.​

The key here is in the sense that "We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line." Like I said, your strict interpretation of the Resolution has nothing at all to do with Palestinian rights or sovereignty. For all "intents" and purposes, Article 3 to the 1994 Treaty established between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (the "Parties" to the conflict) resolved the 1967 question to the means of "acquisition" by establishing a "permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan;" just as treaties have done for the last several centuries.

And, it is very important to remember that the conflict that resulted in the "occupation" of the West Bank did not have a true "Palestinian" component; they were not a party to the conflict. The Palestinians were Jordanian Citizens and considered protected persons under the occupation law. The attempt by present day Palestinians to use Resolution 242 as some sort of leverage against Israeli "occupation" has nothing to do with the "war" component mentioned in the Resolution. The "war" was not between the Israelis and the Palestinians --- but between the Israelis and Jordanians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your smokescreen left out a vital component.

Nobody lost the 1948 war.

How is it a smokescreen if he responded directly you your post?

As for no one winning:


Result Israeli victory; Palestinian Arab defeat; Arab League strategic failure;[5]Armistice Agreements

1948 Arab Israeli War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Interesting.

What were the terms of surrender?

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, you are misinterpreting what is being said.

Where did you get that?

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967​

You are incorrect.

(COMMENT)

In the case of S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967 the Resolution is saying that "coercion or force" cannot be substituted for "freely negotiated and adequate compensation" in the "acquisition of territory." [(Examples of Territorial Acquisitions: Louisiana Purchase in 1803, Alaska Purchase from the Russian Empire) (Example of Acquisition via Military War Reparation: Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines (for which the United States compensated Spain $20 million, equivalent to $567 million in present day terms), ceded by Spain after the Spanish-American War in the 1898 Treaty of Paris)] It is a variation on the theme hosted in Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.

Further, there is an "intent" (objective · object · goal · target) that needs to be understood in Resolution S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967 that needs to be expressed:

Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.

• Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, pg. 13, qtd. in Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977, Yoram Meital, pg. 49:

Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.​

This is extremely important. The idea that the Resolution was some sort of future boundary or limitation on the boundary to Israel was simply not the case or the "intention." Lord Caradon further stated that:

I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” The can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.

Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with [the questions of the Palestinians and of Jerusalem] then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.​

The key here is in the sense that "We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line." Like I said, your strict interpretation of the Resolution has nothing at all to do with Palestinian rights or sovereignty. For all "intents" and purposes, Article 3 to the 1994 Treaty established between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (the "Parties" to the conflict) resolved the 1967 question to the means of "acquisition" by establishing a "permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan;" just as treaties have done for the last several centuries.

And, it is very important to remember that the conflict that resulted in the "occupation" of the West Bank did not have a true "Palestinian" component; they were not a party to the conflict. The Palestinians were Jordanian Citizens and considered protected persons under the occupation law. The attempt by present day Palestinians to use Resolution 242 as some sort of leverage against Israeli "occupation" has nothing to do with the "war" component mentioned in the Resolution. The "war" was not between the Israelis and the Palestinians --- but between the Israelis and Jordanians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your smokescreen left out a vital component.

Nobody lost the 1948 war.

How is it a smokescreen if he responded directly you your post?

As for no one winning:


Result Israeli victory; Palestinian Arab defeat; Arab League strategic failure;[5]Armistice Agreements

1948 Arab Israeli War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Interesting.

What were the terms of surrender?

Where did you read that one side must surrender for there to be a winner ?

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, you are misinterpreting what is being said.

Where did you get that?

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967​

You are incorrect.

(COMMENT)

In the case of S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967 the Resolution is saying that "coercion or force" cannot be substituted for "freely negotiated and adequate compensation" in the "acquisition of territory." [(Examples of Territorial Acquisitions: Louisiana Purchase in 1803, Alaska Purchase from the Russian Empire) (Example of Acquisition via Military War Reparation: Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines (for which the United States compensated Spain $20 million, equivalent to $567 million in present day terms), ceded by Spain after the Spanish-American War in the 1898 Treaty of Paris)] It is a variation on the theme hosted in Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.

Further, there is an "intent" (objective · object · goal · target) that needs to be understood in Resolution S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967 that needs to be expressed:

Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.

• Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, pg. 13, qtd. in Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977, Yoram Meital, pg. 49:

Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.​

This is extremely important. The idea that the Resolution was some sort of future boundary or limitation on the boundary to Israel was simply not the case or the "intention." Lord Caradon further stated that:

I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” The can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.

Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with [the questions of the Palestinians and of Jerusalem] then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.​

The key here is in the sense that "We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line." Like I said, your strict interpretation of the Resolution has nothing at all to do with Palestinian rights or sovereignty. For all "intents" and purposes, Article 3 to the 1994 Treaty established between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (the "Parties" to the conflict) resolved the 1967 question to the means of "acquisition" by establishing a "permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan;" just as treaties have done for the last several centuries.

And, it is very important to remember that the conflict that resulted in the "occupation" of the West Bank did not have a true "Palestinian" component; they were not a party to the conflict. The Palestinians were Jordanian Citizens and considered protected persons under the occupation law. The attempt by present day Palestinians to use Resolution 242 as some sort of leverage against Israeli "occupation" has nothing to do with the "war" component mentioned in the Resolution. The "war" was not between the Israelis and the Palestinians --- but between the Israelis and Jordanians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your smokescreen left out a vital component.

Nobody lost the 1948 war.

How is it a smokescreen if he responded directly you your post?

As for no one winning:


Result Israeli victory; Palestinian Arab defeat; Arab League strategic failure;[5]Armistice Agreements

1948 Arab Israeli War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Interesting.

What were the terms of surrender?

1. No more shooting
2 Arabs allowed to hold victory parade