I will not Bow!

[ForeverYoung436]

Do you not read the news?
US, Jordan Agree: Israel Should Control Jordan Valley - Israel Today | Israel News

Of course Jordan has no authority over the matter.

No surprise though, the US pays Jordan a couple $B a year to side with Israel like it does in Egypt.

Blah blah more conspiracy theories that you cannot prove

In this case, Tinmore might be right, for once. Jordan needed incentives to sign a peace treaty with Israel. Jordan has also asked the U.S. to increase its aid in the last couple of years because of the massive amount of refugees it has been absorbing from Syria, and America has obliged. The Syrian situation is a major humanitarian crisis.

 

[Kondor3]

One reason for the Jordanians throwing the Pals under the bus is just as good as another...

It is the act of 'throwing under the bus' itself which signifies, more than the underlying causes...

So much for Arab-Muslim solidarity with the Pals... another in a long line of Epic Fails in that context...

Just about the only remaining Arab-Muslim power in the region that is even vaguely and marginally credible as a military deterrent to Israel - given how badly trashed the rest of Israel's neighbors are at-present - and that minor 'power' just threw the Pals under the bus.

Somehow, I don't think the Arab cavalry is coming over the hill this time, to rescue the Palestinians.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, then let's look at the facts. Your first one is wrong.

Let's look at the facts.

1) Palestine was a successor state carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire by post war treaties and defined by international borders. This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region.

(COMMENT)

No where in any of the Treaties, but especially the Treaty of Lausanne is Palestine identified as a Successor State. The Treaty considered the Territory of the Mandate part of Syria (Article 3). The Treaty refers to "the frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921." Neither treaty mentions or outlines Palestine in any way. They deal with the larger territories.

And the phrase "This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region." is also misleading. None of the Treaties mention or outline Lebanon or Trans-Jordan, as they were also post-War Carve-outs in the French and British Mandates by the Allied Powers.

Article 8 of the Angora Agreement (Franco-Turkish Pact) of the 20th October, 1921 specifically refers back to the Treaty of Sevres, where Article 8 says (last Sentence): "It is noted that the frontier is to be "fixed" by the two parties within one month of the signature of the agreement in advance of all other frontiers of Turkey under the Treaty of Sevres;" referring to Section VII - Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine in Articles 94 thru 97.

The Treaty of Sevres is the only treaty to specifically mention "Palestine;" and it was "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers." Very, very, important.

There is absolutely nothing in any of the citations you put forth that substantiates, in any way, your claim that "Palestine was a successor state" of anything mentioned in the treaties, or that Palestine had "defined by international borders" defined or delineated by the treaties.

I hope this helps you.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Indeependent]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, then let's look at the facts. Your first one is wrong.

Let's look at the facts.

1) Palestine was a successor state carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire by post war treaties and defined by international borders. This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region.

(COMMENT)

No where in any of the Treaties, but especially the Treaty of Lausanne is Palestine identified as a Successor State. The Treaty considered the Territory of the Mandate part of Syria (Article 3). The Treaty refers to "the frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921." Neither treaty mentions or outlines Palestine in any way. They deal with the larger territories.

And the phrase "This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region." is also misleading. None of the Treaties mention or outline Lebanon or Trans-Jordan, as they were also post-War Carve-outs in the French and British Mandates by the Allied Powers.

Article 8 of the Angora Agreement of the 20th October, 1921 specifically refers back to the Treaty of Sevres, where Article 8 says (last Sentence): "It is noted that the frontier is to be "fixed" by the two parties within one month of the signature of the agreement in advance of all other frontiers of Turkey under the Treaty of Sevres;" referring to Section VII - Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine in Articles 94 thru 97.

The Treaty of Sevres is the only treaty to specifically mention "Palestine;" and it was "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers." Very, very, important.

There is absolutely nothing in any of the citations you put forth that substantiates, in any way, your claim that "Palestine was a successor state" of anything mentioned in the treaties, or that Palestine had "defined by international borders" defined or delineated by the treaties.

I hope this helps you.

Most Respectfully,
R

You're wrong; just plain wrong.
Tin has a napkin that he just artificially carbon dated back to Ancient Rome that says otherwise.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, then let's look at the facts. Your first one is wrong.

Let's look at the facts.

1) Palestine was a successor state carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire by post war treaties and defined by international borders. This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region.

(COMMENT)

No where in any of the Treaties, but especially the Treaty of Lausanne is Palestine identified as a Successor State. The Treaty considered the Territory of the Mandate part of Syria (Article 3). The Treaty refers to "the frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921." Neither treaty mentions or outlines Palestine in any way. They deal with the larger territories.

And the phrase "This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region." is also misleading. None of the Treaties mention or outline Lebanon or Trans-Jordan, as they were also post-War Carve-outs in the French and British Mandates by the Allied Powers.

Article 8 of the Angora Agreement (Franco-Turkish Pact) of the 20th October, 1921 specifically refers back to the Treaty of Sevres, where Article 8 says (last Sentence): "It is noted that the frontier is to be "fixed" by the two parties within one month of the signature of the agreement in advance of all other frontiers of Turkey under the Treaty of Sevres;" referring to Section VII - Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine in Articles 94 thru 97.

The Treaty of Sevres is the only treaty to specifically mention "Palestine;" and it was "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers." Very, very, important.

There is absolutely nothing in any of the citations you put forth that substantiates, in any way, your claim that "Palestine was a successor state" of anything mentioned in the treaties, or that Palestine had "defined by international borders" defined or delineated by the treaties.

I hope this helps you.

Most Respectfully,
R

And the bottom line to all that verbosity is that Palestine's international borders were defined, its nationality and citizenship were established.

 

[Phoenall]

I presented evidence showing that they were.

What part of your post specifically says they were not?

And that's the problem. You THINK you provided evidence for it, but really, you didn't

Let's look at the facts.

1) Palestine was a successor state carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire by post war treaties and defined by international borders. This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region.

2) The people who normally lived in that defined territory and who were Turkish nationals became the distinct nationality of Palestinians.

3) These Palestinians, by law and by treaty, became citizens of Palestine.

4) These citizens had the inherent right to self determination without external interference.

1) no actual hard evidence of this fact, just the twisted words of a Palestinian scholar.

2) they did not they became British citizens of Palestine

3) wrong they became British citizens of the mandate of Palestine

4) which they refused to exercise in a proper manner until 1988, they allowed the combined arab armies to interfere in their choice and lost the chance of peace and a nation in 1948.

 

[Phoenall]

Let's look at the facts.

1) Palestine was a successor state carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire by post war treaties and defined by international borders. This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region.

2) The people who normally lived in that defined territory and who were Turkish nationals became the distinct nationality of Palestinians.

3) These Palestinians, by law and by treaty, became citizens of Palestine.

4) These citizens had the inherent right to self determination without external interference.

Because of the special circumstances surrounding Palestine, it was treated a bit differently than the other successor Arab states, which came out of the Mandates.

Indeed, it is called illegal external interference.

There is a reason why "without external interference" is a part of the definition of self determination.

And the illegal external influence was from the arab's themselves who have used the Palestinians as pawns in their world domination game for over a century now.

Yes and the Palestinians blew in big time when they allowed the combined arab armies enter into Palestine, this was the external influence that brought a halt to their chance of building a nation.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Agreed!

And the bottom line to all that verbosity is that Palestine's international borders were defined, its nationality and citizenship were established.

(COMMENT)

Yes, by the Allied Powers, and not the way you claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Jordan has invited them to take over the security in the Jordan valley because they are heavily involved on the Syrian border. Israel does not have to do anything as the Palestinians will do it all for them, and the DUMBASS ISLMONAZIS don't realise they are cutting of their collective noses to spite their faces. Either way Israel wins the day by taking the moral high ground and standing firm.

Jordan has officially requested the Israelis remain as a security force in the Jordan Valley?

prove it.

Easy Peasy DUMBASS ISLAMONAZI

1) it was posted at the weekend and you replied to the post

2) it is all over the internet as shown here

The world from here: Why Jordan relies on Israel to secure the Jordan Valley | JPost | Israel News

Jordan invokes 1994 peace treaty with Israel for a say in Kerry?s Jordan Valley security and Jerusalem plans

Netanyahu, Jordan's King meet in Amman - CNN.com

 

[Phoenall]

Indeed, it is called illegal external interference.

There is a reason why "without external interference" is a part of the definition of self determination.

Illegal external interference is why Palestinians lost a large chunk of land when 5 Arab states attacked Israel

How did that violate the Palestinian's right to self determination?

EXTERNAL INTERFERENCE that you try to blame on anyone but the arabs

 

[Phoenall]

Jordan has officially requested the Israelis remain as a security force in the Jordan Valley?

prove it.

Do you not read the news?
US, Jordan Agree: Israel Should Control Jordan Valley - Israel Today | Israel News

Of course Jordan has no authority over the matter.

No surprise though, the US pays Jordan a couple $B a year to side with Israel like it does in Egypt.

Are you now saying that Jordan has no authority of Jordan ? what a marrooooon

 

[Phoenall]

Of course Jordan has no authority over the matter.

No surprise though, the US pays Jordan a couple $B a year to side with Israel like it does in Egypt.

Palestinian control of the jordan valley risks destabilizing Jordan, so yes they should have a say.

Jordan can do what it wants on its side of the border. It has no authority on the other side.

And Israel can do what it wants on its side of the border negotiated with Jordan. Palestine has no borders so cant do anything

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, then let's look at the facts. Your first one is wrong.

Let's look at the facts.

1) Palestine was a successor state carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire by post war treaties and defined by international borders. This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region.

(COMMENT)

No where in any of the Treaties, but especially the Treaty of Lausanne is Palestine identified as a Successor State. The Treaty considered the Territory of the Mandate part of Syria (Article 3). The Treaty refers to "the frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921." Neither treaty mentions or outlines Palestine in any way. They deal with the larger territories.

And the phrase "This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region." is also misleading. None of the Treaties mention or outline Lebanon or Trans-Jordan, as they were also post-War Carve-outs in the French and British Mandates by the Allied Powers.

Article 8 of the Angora Agreement (Franco-Turkish Pact) of the 20th October, 1921 specifically refers back to the Treaty of Sevres, where Article 8 says (last Sentence): "It is noted that the frontier is to be "fixed" by the two parties within one month of the signature of the agreement in advance of all other frontiers of Turkey under the Treaty of Sevres;" referring to Section VII - Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine in Articles 94 thru 97.

The Treaty of Sevres is the only treaty to specifically mention "Palestine;" and it was "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers." Very, very, important.

There is absolutely nothing in any of the citations you put forth that substantiates, in any way, your claim that "Palestine was a successor state" of anything mentioned in the treaties, or that Palestine had "defined by international borders" defined or delineated by the treaties.

I hope this helps you.

Most Respectfully,
R

And the bottom line to all that verbosity is that Palestine's international borders were defined, its nationality and citizenship were established.

What verbosity? You mean the fact Rocco, yet AGAIN for the millionth times dismantled your lie ?

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, then let's look at the facts. Your first one is wrong.

Let's look at the facts.

1) Palestine was a successor state carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire by post war treaties and defined by international borders. This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region.

(COMMENT)

No where in any of the Treaties, but especially the Treaty of Lausanne is Palestine identified as a Successor State. The Treaty considered the Territory of the Mandate part of Syria (Article 3). The Treaty refers to "the frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921." Neither treaty mentions or outlines Palestine in any way. They deal with the larger territories.

And the phrase "This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region." is also misleading. None of the Treaties mention or outline Lebanon or Trans-Jordan, as they were also post-War Carve-outs in the French and British Mandates by the Allied Powers.

Article 8 of the Angora Agreement (Franco-Turkish Pact) of the 20th October, 1921 specifically refers back to the Treaty of Sevres, where Article 8 says (last Sentence): "It is noted that the frontier is to be "fixed" by the two parties within one month of the signature of the agreement in advance of all other frontiers of Turkey under the Treaty of Sevres;" referring to Section VII - Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine in Articles 94 thru 97.

The Treaty of Sevres is the only treaty to specifically mention "Palestine;" and it was "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers." Very, very, important.

There is absolutely nothing in any of the citations you put forth that substantiates, in any way, your claim that "Palestine was a successor state" of anything mentioned in the treaties, or that Palestine had "defined by international borders" defined or delineated by the treaties.

I hope this helps you.

Most Respectfully,
R

And the bottom line to all that verbosity is that Palestine's international borders were defined, its nationality and citizenship were established.

Palestine was NOT a successor state

 

[Phoenall]

Palestinian control of the jordan valley risks destabilizing Jordan, so yes they should have a say.

Jordan can do what it wants on its side of the border. It has no authority on the other side.

Technically, you are correct.

What Jordan is doing here is providing an acknowledgement of the inevitable, and washing its hands of the matter - saying that it won't object to Israeli military control over the Jordan Valley.

Another nail in the cheap, shabby Palestinian coffin.

Jordan has seen the sense in allowing Israel to patrol the Jordan valley while concentrating on its northern border with Syria. It means that Israel has an uninterrupted stretch of land that it can patrol keeping the insurgents out of Israel and Jordan

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, then let's look at the facts. Your first one is wrong.

Let's look at the facts.

1) Palestine was a successor state carved out of the defunct Ottoman Empire by post war treaties and defined by international borders. This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region.

(COMMENT)

No where in any of the Treaties, but especially the Treaty of Lausanne is Palestine identified as a Successor State. The Treaty considered the Territory of the Mandate part of Syria (Article 3). The Treaty refers to "the frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921." Neither treaty mentions or outlines Palestine in any way. They deal with the larger territories.

And the phrase "This was the same as all of the other newly created states in the region." is also misleading. None of the Treaties mention or outline Lebanon or Trans-Jordan, as they were also post-War Carve-outs in the French and British Mandates by the Allied Powers.

Article 8 of the Angora Agreement (Franco-Turkish Pact) of the 20th October, 1921 specifically refers back to the Treaty of Sevres, where Article 8 says (last Sentence): "It is noted that the frontier is to be "fixed" by the two parties within one month of the signature of the agreement in advance of all other frontiers of Turkey under the Treaty of Sevres;" referring to Section VII - Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine in Articles 94 thru 97.

The Treaty of Sevres is the only treaty to specifically mention "Palestine;" and it was "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers." Very, very, important.

There is absolutely nothing in any of the citations you put forth that substantiates, in any way, your claim that "Palestine was a successor state" of anything mentioned in the treaties, or that Palestine had "defined by international borders" defined or delineated by the treaties.

I hope this helps you.

Most Respectfully,
R

And the bottom line to all that verbosity is that Palestine's international borders were defined, its nationality and citizenship were established.

Then produce the de facto treaty that was signed by the Palestinian leaders agreeing to those international borders, and a map drawn up at that time detailing those borders so that they be set in stone for ever more. That is all you need do to prove your point, like we have done with the Borders of Israel as agreed between Israel and Egypt / Jordan

 

[Phoenall]

Tin is the guy in front of you on line who argues with the cashier for 30 minutes that his expired coupon is still good.

There is no expiration date on nationality or citizenship.

So you now accept that they are Ottoman subjects and that no nation of Palestine has ever existed

 

[RoccoR]

Phoenall, Kondor3, P F Tinmore, et al,

This is just one indication of the threat the Arab League perceives in the event that the Jihadist and Fedayeen of the Palestinians pose --- should the conflict come to an end.

There are some that would suggest that given the attitude of the Palestinians, it is better to sacrifice them in continue containment, rather than let them lose to create havoc.

Jordan can do what it wants on its side of the border. It has no authority on the other side.

Technically, you are correct.

What Jordan is doing here is providing an acknowledgement of the inevitable, and washing its hands of the matter - saying that it won't object to Israeli military control over the Jordan Valley.

Another nail in the cheap, shabby Palestinian coffin.

Jordan has seen the sense in allowing Israel to patrol the Jordan valley while concentrating on its northern border with Syria. It means that Israel has an uninterrupted stretch of land that it can patrol keeping the insurgents out of Israel and Jordan

(COMMENT)

I've seen this referred to as the difference between a "Warm Peace" and a "Cold Peace." Both nations have significant concerns about the development of broader terrorist connections, and debilitating insurgency operations which will adversely impact positive economic and industrial prospects - impacting regional commerce. And advancement in regional commerce is a major support mechanism to reducing unemployment, raisin the standard of living for all concerned.

The US needs to be very careful not to widen the discord, from a Israel-Palestinian standpoint, to one that would include disagreement with Jordan. Secretary Kerry needs to back away from the process if he and his staff are not capable of including the wider region consensus which includes the ever important Jordanian view. Our policy should be prefaced with the policy: First - Do No Harm!

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[aris2chat]

Of course Jordan has no authority over the matter.

No surprise though, the US pays Jordan a couple $B a year to side with Israel like it does in Egypt.

Blah blah more conspiracy theories that you cannot prove

In this case, Tinmore might be right, for once. Jordan needed incentives to sign a peace treaty with Israel. Jordan has also asked the U.S. to increase its aid in the last couple of years because of the massive amount of refugees it has been absorbing from Syria, and America has obliged. The Syrian situation is a major humanitarian crisis.

Palestinian statehood and peace talks are much farther reaching than just Israel and the WB. It will effect the region and the world. With such a sizable palestinian population in Jordan and Jordan still responsible for the Muslim sites on the mount, it is and will remain an Issue for Jordan.
There is still no unity government in the PA and hamas has stated they will agree to any peace deal with Israel. Jordan should have a say as peace in the WB will concern it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Phoenall, Kondor3, P F Tinmore, et al,

This is just one indication of the threat the Arab League perceives in the event that the Jihadist and Fedayeen of the Palestinians pose --- should the conflict come to an end.

There are some that would suggest that given the attitude of the Palestinians, it is better to sacrifice them in continue containment, rather than let them lose to create havoc.

Technically, you are correct.

What Jordan is doing here is providing an acknowledgement of the inevitable, and washing its hands of the matter - saying that it won't object to Israeli military control over the Jordan Valley.

Another nail in the cheap, shabby Palestinian coffin.

Jordan has seen the sense in allowing Israel to patrol the Jordan valley while concentrating on its northern border with Syria. It means that Israel has an uninterrupted stretch of land that it can patrol keeping the insurgents out of Israel and Jordan

(COMMENT)

I've seen this referred to as the difference between a "Warm Peace" and a "Cold Peace." Both nations have significant concerns about the development of broader terrorist connections, and debilitating insurgency operations which will adversely impact positive economic and industrial prospects - impacting regional commerce. And advancement in regional commerce is a major support mechanism to reducing unemployment, raisin the standard of living for all concerned.

The US needs to be very careful not to widen the discord, from a Israel-Palestinian standpoint, to one that would include disagreement with Jordan. Secretary Kerry needs to back away from the process if he and his staff are not capable of including the wider region consensus which includes the ever important Jordanian view. Our policy should be prefaced with the policy: First - Do No Harm!

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians are only opposed to Israel's crimes. If those are removed there would be no more violence.