Hamas Threatens Another Attack

[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?

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

OK, so nobody surrendered in the 1948 war. How about:

How much land did Lebanon lose?
How much land did Syria lose?
How much land did Jordan lose?
How much land did Egypt lose?

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, you are misinterpreting what is being said.

(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 ?

OK, so nobody surrendered in the 1948 war. How about:

How much land did Lebanon lose?
How much land did Syria lose?
How much land did Jordan lose?
How much land did Egypt lose?

You're making up things as usual. It's quite simple. The Arab states DID NOT achieve their goal. Israel DID achieve their goal AND captured land ALLOTTED to the Palestinians. Not to mention the Arabs lost way more troops, military vehicles.
That's a win in anyone's books. The reason why no one surrendered was because the belligerents subsequently signed armistice agreements.

I provided a link that clearly says that Israel won and the Arabs lost. Where's your link backing up your claims ?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

As always, the Palestinians claim something which is not theirs to begin with.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, you are misinterpreting what is being said.

(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 ?

OK, so nobody surrendered in the 1948 war. How about:

How much land did Lebanon lose?
How much land did Syria lose?
How much land did Jordan lose?
How much land did Egypt lose?

(COMMENT)

Let's examine this.

• How much land did Lebanon lose?
  • The war with Lebanon is not over. It is in "Armistice" with no Peace Treaty.
• How much land did Syria lose?
  • The war with Syria is not over. It is in "Armistice" with no Peace Treaty. Syrian Territory in the Golan Heights still outside sovereign control.
• How much land did Jordan lose?
  • The war ended in 1994. It lost the West Bank in 1967 and never recovered it. Jordan cut all tied with the West Bank in 1988. Peace Treaty in 1994.
• How much land did Egypt lose?
  • The war ended in 1979; with a Peace Treaty. Egypt lost the Military Governorship of Gaza.

The Palestinians neither won nor lost anything. The components of the Arab League failed to meet both political and military objectives for a war that started in 1948; ran through the 1967 War and the 1973 War.

The hostilities between the Israelis and the Palestinians is a low intensity conflict between Israeli conventional forces and the combined asymmetric forces of the Palestinian and other irregular associates of an insurgent, terrorist and guerrilla character. These asymmetric and irregular forces have declared "Jihad" and "pledged" Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.

The call to "Jihad" by elements with the Palestinian Unity Government (HAMAS) is a religious equivalent to a Declaration of War. The indiscriminate firing of rockets and mortars into sovereign Israeli territory is a demonstration of the intent of the call to "Jihad."

To date, the Palestinian Jihad has failed to win a single military engagement. Each time the Palestinian Unity Government instigates a confrontation and provoke an Israeli counterattack or the establishment of increased countermeasures, the Palestinian Unity Government runs like scared little children and call for the international community to lift its skirts so that the Unity Government Forces might hide underneath them, calling for a cease fire to re-arm and prepare for the next provocation.

We call that cowardice. Additionally, their lack of bravery is demonstrated by:

Hamas Terrorists Admit To Using Human Shield, Launching Rockets From School Playgrounds - IDF Reports [Video]
By Athena Yenko | September 5, 2014

Hamas terrorists admitted to using human shield by using mosques and hospitals as hiding places and building tunnels near school playground. The confession came as dozens of Hamas terrorists were interrogated by the Israel Security Agency or ISA as part of its Operation Protective Edge.

A Palestinian man looks out of his heavily damaged house at neighbouring houses which witnesses said were destroyed during the Israeli offensive, in the east of Gaza City September 3, 2014. An open-ended ceasefire between Israel and Hamas-led Gaza militants, mediated by Egypt, took effect on August 26 after a seven-week conflict. It called for an indefinite halt to hostilities, the immediate opening of Gaza's blockaded crossings with Israel and Egypt, and a widening of the territory's fishing zone in the Mediterranean.

Terrorist Abd Al-Rahman Ba'aloosha confessed that Hamas convene its fighters in key mosques after building a bunker underneath. One terrorist had shared that he was recruited during a meeting held inside the underground bunkers.

Two other terrorists, Afif and Ahmed Jarrah, made the chilling revelation that Hamas had built an attack tunnel within a school playground - from which rockets were being launched. A similar tunnel was also built within hospital premises. As part of its plan, these tunnels shall serve as holding place for kidnapped IDF soldiers.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

As always, the Palestinians claim something which is not theirs to begin with.

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 ?

OK, so nobody surrendered in the 1948 war. How about:

How much land did Lebanon lose?
How much land did Syria lose?
How much land did Jordan lose?
How much land did Egypt lose?

(COMMENT)

Let's examine this.

• How much land did Lebanon lose?
  • The war with Lebanon is not over. It is in "Armistice" with no Peace Treaty.
• How much land did Syria lose?
  • The war with Syria is not over. It is in "Armistice" with no Peace Treaty. Syrian Territory in the Golan Heights still outside sovereign control.
• How much land did Jordan lose?
  • The war ended in 1994. It lost the West Bank in 1967 and never recovered it. Jordan cut all tied with the West Bank in 1988. Peace Treaty in 1994.
• How much land did Egypt lose?
  • The war ended in 1979; with a Peace Treaty. Egypt lost the Military Governorship of Gaza.

The Palestinians neither won nor lost anything. The components of the Arab League failed to meet both political and military objectives for a war that started in 1948; ran through the 1967 War and the 1973 War.

The hostilities between the Israelis and the Palestinians is a low intensity conflict between Israeli conventional forces and the combined asymmetric forces of the Palestinian and other irregular associates of an insurgent, terrorist and guerrilla character. These asymmetric and irregular forces have declared "Jihad" and "pledged" Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.

The call to "Jihad" by elements with the Palestinian Unity Government (HAMAS) is a religious equivalent to a Declaration of War. The indiscriminate firing of rockets and mortars into sovereign Israeli territory is a demonstration of the intent of the call to "Jihad."

To date, the Palestinian Jihad has failed to win a single military engagement. Each time the Palestinian Unity Government instigates a confrontation and provoke an Israeli counterattack or the establishment of increased countermeasures, the Palestinian Unity Government runs like scared little children and call for the international community to lift its skirts so that the Unity Government Forces might hide underneath them, calling for a cease fire to re-arm and prepare for the next provocation.

We call that cowardice. Additionally, their lack of bravery is demonstrated by:

Hamas Terrorists Admit To Using Human Shield, Launching Rockets From School Playgrounds - IDF Reports [Video]
By Athena Yenko | September 5, 2014

Hamas terrorists admitted to using human shield by using mosques and hospitals as hiding places and building tunnels near school playground. The confession came as dozens of Hamas terrorists were interrogated by the Israel Security Agency or ISA as part of its Operation Protective Edge.

A Palestinian man looks out of his heavily damaged house at neighbouring houses which witnesses said were destroyed during the Israeli offensive, in the east of Gaza City September 3, 2014. An open-ended ceasefire between Israel and Hamas-led Gaza militants, mediated by Egypt, took effect on August 26 after a seven-week conflict. It called for an indefinite halt to hostilities, the immediate opening of Gaza's blockaded crossings with Israel and Egypt, and a widening of the territory's fishing zone in the Mediterranean.

Terrorist Abd Al-Rahman Ba'aloosha confessed that Hamas convene its fighters in key mosques after building a bunker underneath. One terrorist had shared that he was recruited during a meeting held inside the underground bunkers.

Two other terrorists, Afif and Ahmed Jarrah, made the chilling revelation that Hamas had built an attack tunnel within a school playground - from which rockets were being launched. A similar tunnel was also built within hospital premises. As part of its plan, these tunnels shall serve as holding place for kidnapped IDF soldiers.​

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians neither won nor lost anything.
Thank you. That is true.​

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

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

The Palestinians still have the same rights they have always had.

Of course those rights are being illegally violated by Israel.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is the nature of the territorial dispute.

The Palestinians neither won nor lost anything.
Thank you. That is true.​

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

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

The Palestinians still have the same rights they have always had.

Of course those rights are being illegally violated by Israel.

(COMMENT)

The four rights you mention are:

• self-determination, national independence,
  • The Israelis did not prevent the Palestinians from exercising their right of self-determination.
    • The Palestinians exercised self-determination when they joined the Jordanian Parliament and became part of Jordan.
    • The Palestinians exercised self-determination when they Declared Independence.
• territorial integrity,
  • The very nature of the dispute. See Post #91
• national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
  • The Israelis did not interrupt the establishment of a Unity Government; that being an Internal Fight between factions.

The Palestinians are always claiming that --- this or that right have been violated.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is the nature of the territorial dispute.

The Palestinians neither won nor lost anything.
Thank you. That is true.​

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

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

The Palestinians still have the same rights they have always had.

Of course those rights are being illegally violated by Israel.

(COMMENT)

The four rights you mention are:

• self-determination, national independence,
  • The Israelis did not prevent the Palestinians from exercising their right of self-determination.
    • The Palestinians exercised self-determination when they joined the Jordanian Parliament and became part of Jordan.
    • The Palestinians exercised self-determination when they Declared Independence.
• territorial integrity,
  • The very nature of the dispute. See Post #91
• national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
  • The Israelis did not interrupt the establishment of a Unity Government; that being an Internal Fight between factions.

The Palestinians are always claiming that --- this or that right have been violated.

Most Respectfully,
R

RoccoR , you've explained this to Tinmore a hundred times and he still comes back for more. Maybe one day he will agree and stop his foolishness.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is the nature of the territorial dispute.

The Palestinians neither won nor lost anything.
Thank you. That is true.​

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

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

The Palestinians still have the same rights they have always had.

Of course those rights are being illegally violated by Israel.

(COMMENT)

The four rights you mention are:

• self-determination, national independence,
  • The Israelis did not prevent the Palestinians from exercising their right of self-determination.
    • The Palestinians exercised self-determination when they joined the Jordanian Parliament and became part of Jordan.
    • The Palestinians exercised self-determination when they Declared Independence.
• territorial integrity,
  • The very nature of the dispute. See Post #91
• national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
  • The Israelis did not interrupt the establishment of a Unity Government; that being an Internal Fight between factions.

The Palestinians are always claiming that --- this or that right have been violated.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are always trying to confuse the people with after the fact, political stuff that has no bearing on the root of the conflict.

 

[Spare_change]

Hamas is looking for pity from the world community.


The only option Hamas faces, therefore, is to attack Israel again as a way of ridding itself of the severe crisis in the Gaza Strip and the growing frustration among the Palestinians living there. Hamas’s biggest fear is that this frustration will be translated into disillusionment with its regime. That is why Hamas is now seeking to direct the anger on the Palestinian street toward Israel.

Hamas is also hoping that another war will further increase anti-Israel sentiment around the world and earn the Palestinians even more sympathy.

Hamas’s threats should be taken seriously.


Hamas Rebuild Gaza or We Will Attack Israel- Israel News

.... besides, it worked so well for them last time!

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is the nature of the territorial dispute.

The Palestinians neither won nor lost anything.
Thank you. That is true.​

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

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

The Palestinians still have the same rights they have always had.

Of course those rights are being illegally violated by Israel.

(COMMENT)

The four rights you mention are:

• self-determination, national independence,
  • The Israelis did not prevent the Palestinians from exercising their right of self-determination.
    • The Palestinians exercised self-determination when they joined the Jordanian Parliament and became part of Jordan.
    • The Palestinians exercised self-determination when they Declared Independence.
• territorial integrity,
  • The very nature of the dispute. See Post #91
• national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
  • The Israelis did not interrupt the establishment of a Unity Government; that being an Internal Fight between factions.

The Palestinians are always claiming that --- this or that right have been violated.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are always trying to confuse the people with after the fact, political stuff that has no bearing on the root of the conflict.

You are the only one here confused. Rocco does an excellent job of addressing your posts and refuting every single one of your lies. The problem is that you are not able to admit that you are always wrong.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is the nature of the territorial dispute.

The Palestinians neither won nor lost anything.
Thank you. That is true.​

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

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

The Palestinians still have the same rights they have always had.

Of course those rights are being illegally violated by Israel.

(COMMENT)

The four rights you mention are:

• self-determination, national independence,
  • The Israelis did not prevent the Palestinians from exercising their right of self-determination.
    • The Palestinians exercised self-determination when they joined the Jordanian Parliament and became part of Jordan.
    • The Palestinians exercised self-determination when they Declared Independence.
• territorial integrity,
  • The very nature of the dispute. See Post #91
• national unity and sovereignty without external interference;
  • The Israelis did not interrupt the establishment of a Unity Government; that being an Internal Fight between factions.

The Palestinians are always claiming that --- this or that right have been violated.

Most Respectfully,
R

RoccoR , you've explained this to Tinmore a hundred times and he still comes back for more. Maybe one day he will agree and stop his foolishness.

Don't count on it ...

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

As always, the Palestinians claim something which is not theirs to begin with.

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 ?

OK, so nobody surrendered in the 1948 war. How about:

How much land did Lebanon lose?
How much land did Syria lose?
How much land did Jordan lose?
How much land did Egypt lose?

(COMMENT)

Let's examine this.

• How much land did Lebanon lose?
  • The war with Lebanon is not over. It is in "Armistice" with no Peace Treaty.
• How much land did Syria lose?
  • The war with Syria is not over. It is in "Armistice" with no Peace Treaty. Syrian Territory in the Golan Heights still outside sovereign control.
• How much land did Jordan lose?
  • The war ended in 1994. It lost the West Bank in 1967 and never recovered it. Jordan cut all tied with the West Bank in 1988. Peace Treaty in 1994.
• How much land did Egypt lose?
  • The war ended in 1979; with a Peace Treaty. Egypt lost the Military Governorship of Gaza.

The Palestinians neither won nor lost anything. The components of the Arab League failed to meet both political and military objectives for a war that started in 1948; ran through the 1967 War and the 1973 War.

The hostilities between the Israelis and the Palestinians is a low intensity conflict between Israeli conventional forces and the combined asymmetric forces of the Palestinian and other irregular associates of an insurgent, terrorist and guerrilla character. These asymmetric and irregular forces have declared "Jihad" and "pledged" Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.

The call to "Jihad" by elements with the Palestinian Unity Government (HAMAS) is a religious equivalent to a Declaration of War. The indiscriminate firing of rockets and mortars into sovereign Israeli territory is a demonstration of the intent of the call to "Jihad."

To date, the Palestinian Jihad has failed to win a single military engagement. Each time the Palestinian Unity Government instigates a confrontation and provoke an Israeli counterattack or the establishment of increased countermeasures, the Palestinian Unity Government runs like scared little children and call for the international community to lift its skirts so that the Unity Government Forces might hide underneath them, calling for a cease fire to re-arm and prepare for the next provocation.

We call that cowardice. Additionally, their lack of bravery is demonstrated by:

Hamas Terrorists Admit To Using Human Shield, Launching Rockets From School Playgrounds - IDF Reports [Video]
By Athena Yenko | September 5, 2014

Hamas terrorists admitted to using human shield by using mosques and hospitals as hiding places and building tunnels near school playground. The confession came as dozens of Hamas terrorists were interrogated by the Israel Security Agency or ISA as part of its Operation Protective Edge.

A Palestinian man looks out of his heavily damaged house at neighbouring houses which witnesses said were destroyed during the Israeli offensive, in the east of Gaza City September 3, 2014. An open-ended ceasefire between Israel and Hamas-led Gaza militants, mediated by Egypt, took effect on August 26 after a seven-week conflict. It called for an indefinite halt to hostilities, the immediate opening of Gaza's blockaded crossings with Israel and Egypt, and a widening of the territory's fishing zone in the Mediterranean.

Terrorist Abd Al-Rahman Ba'aloosha confessed that Hamas convene its fighters in key mosques after building a bunker underneath. One terrorist had shared that he was recruited during a meeting held inside the underground bunkers.

Two other terrorists, Afif and Ahmed Jarrah, made the chilling revelation that Hamas had built an attack tunnel within a school playground - from which rockets were being launched. A similar tunnel was also built within hospital premises. As part of its plan, these tunnels shall serve as holding place for kidnapped IDF soldiers.​

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians neither won nor lost anything.
Thank you. That is true.​

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

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

The Palestinians still have the same rights they have always had.

Of course those rights are being illegally violated by Israel.

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

Ahh, this 'ol bullshit again. You always use this quote when you have nothing else to say. But really, it mean nothing and rarely has any merit in the debate ..

 

[Phoenall]

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.

The Palestinians did as they were refused the right to self determination and a nation of their own by their fellow arabs. They lost everything in the name or arab nationalism

 

[Phoenall]

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?

A cease fire arrangement and armistice lines, not all wars end with massive reparations you know.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

As always, the Palestinians claim something which is not theirs to begin with.

Interesting.

What were the terms of surrender?

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

OK, so nobody surrendered in the 1948 war. How about:

How much land did Lebanon lose?
How much land did Syria lose?
How much land did Jordan lose?
How much land did Egypt lose?

(COMMENT)

Let's examine this.

• How much land did Lebanon lose?
  • The war with Lebanon is not over. It is in "Armistice" with no Peace Treaty.
• How much land did Syria lose?
  • The war with Syria is not over. It is in "Armistice" with no Peace Treaty. Syrian Territory in the Golan Heights still outside sovereign control.
• How much land did Jordan lose?
  • The war ended in 1994. It lost the West Bank in 1967 and never recovered it. Jordan cut all tied with the West Bank in 1988. Peace Treaty in 1994.
• How much land did Egypt lose?
  • The war ended in 1979; with a Peace Treaty. Egypt lost the Military Governorship of Gaza.

The Palestinians neither won nor lost anything. The components of the Arab League failed to meet both political and military objectives for a war that started in 1948; ran through the 1967 War and the 1973 War.

The hostilities between the Israelis and the Palestinians is a low intensity conflict between Israeli conventional forces and the combined asymmetric forces of the Palestinian and other irregular associates of an insurgent, terrorist and guerrilla character. These asymmetric and irregular forces have declared "Jihad" and "pledged" Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.

The call to "Jihad" by elements with the Palestinian Unity Government (HAMAS) is a religious equivalent to a Declaration of War. The indiscriminate firing of rockets and mortars into sovereign Israeli territory is a demonstration of the intent of the call to "Jihad."

To date, the Palestinian Jihad has failed to win a single military engagement. Each time the Palestinian Unity Government instigates a confrontation and provoke an Israeli counterattack or the establishment of increased countermeasures, the Palestinian Unity Government runs like scared little children and call for the international community to lift its skirts so that the Unity Government Forces might hide underneath them, calling for a cease fire to re-arm and prepare for the next provocation.

We call that cowardice. Additionally, their lack of bravery is demonstrated by:

Hamas Terrorists Admit To Using Human Shield, Launching Rockets From School Playgrounds - IDF Reports [Video]
By Athena Yenko | September 5, 2014

Hamas terrorists admitted to using human shield by using mosques and hospitals as hiding places and building tunnels near school playground. The confession came as dozens of Hamas terrorists were interrogated by the Israel Security Agency or ISA as part of its Operation Protective Edge.

A Palestinian man looks out of his heavily damaged house at neighbouring houses which witnesses said were destroyed during the Israeli offensive, in the east of Gaza City September 3, 2014. An open-ended ceasefire between Israel and Hamas-led Gaza militants, mediated by Egypt, took effect on August 26 after a seven-week conflict. It called for an indefinite halt to hostilities, the immediate opening of Gaza's blockaded crossings with Israel and Egypt, and a widening of the territory's fishing zone in the Mediterranean.

Terrorist Abd Al-Rahman Ba'aloosha confessed that Hamas convene its fighters in key mosques after building a bunker underneath. One terrorist had shared that he was recruited during a meeting held inside the underground bunkers.

Two other terrorists, Afif and Ahmed Jarrah, made the chilling revelation that Hamas had built an attack tunnel within a school playground - from which rockets were being launched. A similar tunnel was also built within hospital premises. As part of its plan, these tunnels shall serve as holding place for kidnapped IDF soldiers.​

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians neither won nor lost anything.
Thank you. That is true.​

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

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​

The Palestinians still have the same rights they have always had.

Of course those rights are being illegally violated by Israel.

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

Ahh, this 'ol bullshit again. You always use this quote when you have nothing else to say. But really, it mean nothing and rarely has any merit in the debate ..

What he forgets is that since 1988 the Palestinian arab muslims have claimed their free determination, national independence, national unity and sovereignty without external interference. It is their own stupid fault that they are occupied by Israel because they prefer violence, terrorism and belligerence over peace and productivity.

 

[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?

A cease fire arrangement and armistice lines, not all wars end with massive reparations you know.

The key point is that Israel claims it won land in the 1948 war.

That is a lie.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, you are misinterpreting what is being said.

(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?

A cease fire arrangement and armistice lines, not all wars end with massive reparations you know.

The key point is that Israel claims it won land in the 1948 war.

That is a lie.

Why do you say it's Israel that claims this. It's not. Anyone who has any knowledge of the war knows this. I provided a link that proved this as well, while you provided nothing.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Actually, you are misinterpreting what is being said.

(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?

A cease fire arrangement and armistice lines, not all wars end with massive reparations you know.

The key point is that Israel claims it won land in the 1948 war.

That is a lie.

LINK ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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?

A cease fire arrangement and armistice lines, not all wars end with massive reparations you know.

The key point is that Israel claims it won land in the 1948 war.

That is a lie.

LINK ?

You want me to prove a negative?

If you think Israel won land in the 1948 war it is up to you to prove that positive.

 

[toastman]

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?

A cease fire arrangement and armistice lines, not all wars end with massive reparations you know.

The key point is that Israel claims it won land in the 1948 war.

That is a lie.

LINK ?

You want me to prove a negative?

If you think Israel won land in the 1948 war it is up to you to prove that positive.

The problem with you is that's it's already been proven to you, with links, many times. It is YOU that refuses to believe it.
You really are something else Tinmore. When you ask someone to back up their claim with a link and they do so, you STILL act as if you're right and they're wrong. Why do you bother asking for links ???

 

[P F Tinmore]

Interesting.

What were the terms of surrender?

A cease fire arrangement and armistice lines, not all wars end with massive reparations you know.

The key point is that Israel claims it won land in the 1948 war.

That is a lie.

LINK ?

You want me to prove a negative?

If you think Israel won land in the 1948 war it is up to you to prove that positive.

The problem with you is that's it's already been proven to you, with links, many times. It is YOU that refuses to believe it.
You really are something else Tinmore. When you ask someone to back up their claim with a link and they do so, you STILL act as if you're right and they're wrong. Why do you bother asking for links ???

Yeah, yeah, same old blabber even though nothing has been posted to show that Israel won land in the 1948 war.

If you have such a link, post it.