I will not Bow!

[Phoenall]

It was Palestine in 1947 and it was still Palestine in 1949.

What part of that confuses you?

What do you mean by it?
Also, Israels treaties were signed AFTER the Armistice agreements with Egypt and Jordan. As ive shown you, the UN brokered greaties outline Israels border witb both those countries.
I dont understand your obesession with the armistice agreements

The war with countries outside of Palestine and agreements with countries outside of Palestine have no bearing on the status of Palestine.

Unless Palestine decides to enter into those wars and then it does. Which is what has happened in every war there has been with israel

 

[Phoenall]

The war with countries outside of Palestine and agreements with countries outside of Palestine have no bearing on the status of Palestine.

Hou still didnt show me what you mean when you said IT was palestine in 1947 and 1949. Whats IT?
I dont know what all your blabbing bas to do with? If you dont recognize Israela existence, then just say so. But the fact of the matter is that the green line is used to seperate Israel and her neighbours, not Palestine and her neithbours.

Do you really want to get confused?

The West Bank is occupied Palestinian territory. (OPT) The Green Line ('67 borders) is the de facto western border that is up for negotiations. What is the de jure western border?

No '67 borders were ever put in place by any international decree.

And whose western borders do you mean, Israels or the west bank ?

 

[Phoenall]

The war with countries outside of Palestine and agreements with countries outside of Palestine have no bearing on the status of Palestine.

Hou still didnt show me what you mean when you said IT was palestine in 1947 and 1949. Whats IT?
I dont know what all your blabbing bas to do with? If you dont recognize Israela existence, then just say so. But the fact of the matter is that the green line is used to seperate Israel and her neighbours, not Palestine and her neithbours.

That is correct. The Green Line is specifically not to be a border.

Palestine is separated from its neighbors by international borders.

Then were are the treaties signed by Palestine setting up those borders, and in which year were they drawn up agreed and signed.

 

[Phoenall]

You didnt answer my question

What is Palestine? Good question.

Post war treaties called it a state.

The Mandate called it a country.

The British called it a legal entity.

The UN just called it Palestine and referenced its international borders.

The Palestinians declared an independent state in 1948. As the native population inside a defined territory they had the right to do so. This was before it officially became occupied in 1949.

A state exists separate from recognition by other states. ~ Montevideo Conference

A state does not cease to exist when it is under occupation ~ Stimpson Doctrine

Everything I have seen says that it is a state under occupation.

So what was its capital, GDP, currency, International dialing prefix, language etc.

They tried to usurp an already existing sovereign nation by doing so and their declaration was not accepted. They have had the time to make new declarations and it was only in 1988 that they realised that they had no chance of gaining Israel by war so tried another tack. As far as the arab league and everyone else is concerned Palestine the fledgling nation did not exist until 1988, before that it was a place on the map of the M.E.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What did it mean when you said "Palestine" in 1947 and 1949?

It was Palestine in 1947 and it was still Palestine in 1949.

What part of that confuses you?

(COMMENT)

You can twist and argue the Phrasing all you want; it doesn't change the meaning. Everyone, in the decision making process, understands what the boundaries are, and what the standing treaties mean.

The treaties between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt (Article II - permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel) and Jordan [Annex I (a) - ISRAEL-JORDAN INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY DELIMITATION AND DEMARCATION] supersede the Armistice Agreements. And they outline the borders between Israel and Egypt, as well as Israel and Jordan. Treaties are the toughest and firmest kind of boundary delimitation.

No one even argues that the Negev is something other than Israeli Sovereign Territory. That is not even a dispute.

The status of the "Blue Line" (Israel-Lebanon) is discussed in the Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to Security Council resolution 1559 (2004).

You are (only marginally) correct in that the 1949 Armistice Line between Israel and Palestine is not a permanent boundary; still subject to negotiation. It is none-the-less treated as a demarcation with international recognition and protection under the same principals of law as an a permanent boundary (A/RES/25/2625 - Paragraph 1 - Solumn Proclamation - fifth clause) ("Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.")

I fail to see how you make your point. The term "Palestine" was used to describe the Mandate for Palestine, dating back to the original "Order in Council;" (Part I - Paragraph 1). The "State of Palestine" did not come into existence until November 1988 on its Declaration of Independence. The Occupied Palestinian Territory (oPt) is defined by the UN, the Arab League, and the Quartet as stated by the Sole Representatives of the Palestinian People: "the 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt."

(SUMMARY)

Under the "progressive development and codification" of the principles of international law relating to friendly relations and co-operation among States:

Palestine is a State as of Declaration in 1988; "pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947;" with the solemn duty to adhere to:

• The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,

• The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered,

• Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

You may not agree, but that is the reality (unflavored - unvarnished). You may argue a dispute, but your position flies in the face of even the Arab League and the Palestinian.

• The UN Recognizes the boundary. (Documented)
• The Arab League Recognizes the boundary. (Documented)
• The Sole Representative of the Palestinian People, who declared independence, recognize the boundary. (Documented)

What level of proof do you need?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[aris2chat]

Why the Bedouin?s Claims to the Negev Are Outrageous - The Tower - The Tower
The Negev: An Undisputable Part of Israel's Past and Present | United with Israel
Report Debunks Bedouin Land Claims in the Negev - Inside Israel - News - Israel National News
Are the Negev Bedouin an Indigenous People?: Fabricating Palestinian History :: Middle East Quarterly

a bit more perspective

 

[proudveteran06]

That's real good. Now we know the Palestinians will never have a state.

They can wait...Demographics will do the rest in a one state solution.

Not within the " borders" we hear so much about. Your post is exactly why there will never be " Right of Return". Translation ; No " Palestinian state"

 

[Victory67]

Not within the " borders" we hear so much about. Your post is exactly why there will never be " Right of Return". Translation ; No " Palestinian state"

The Right of Return is about allowing Palestinian refugees to return to lands within the borders of 1949 Israel. This can be achieved without affecting Israeli demographics by having these refugees return to such lands given to Palestine by Israel, in exchange for settlement land in the WB.

There are all sorts of snazzy solutions to these issues.

 

[proudveteran06]

Not within the " borders" we hear so much about. Your post is exactly why there will never be " Right of Return". Translation ; No " Palestinian state"

The Right of Return is about allowing Palestinian refugees to return to lands within the borders of 1949 Israel. This can be achieved without affecting Israeli demographics by having these refugees return to such lands given to Palestine by Israel, in exchange for settlement land in the WB.

There are all sorts of snazzy solutions to these issues.

Tell us please what " proposals" have been presented by the PA that Israel has turned down

 

[Kondor3]

Not within the " borders" we hear so much about. Your post is exactly why there will never be " Right of Return". Translation ; No " Palestinian state"

The Right of Return is about allowing Palestinian refugees to return to lands within the borders of 1949 Israel. This can be achieved without affecting Israeli demographics by having these refugees return to such lands given to Palestine by Israel, in exchange for settlement land in the WB.

There are all sorts of snazzy solutions to these issues.

Tell us please what " proposals" have been presented by the PA that Israel has turned down

Minor detail.

And, by now, after Intifada I and II, and the Gaza War, it may be too late for any of that shit, anyway. Time will tell us about that, as well.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You are (only marginally) correct in that the 1949 Armistice Line between Israel and Palestine is not a permanent boundary;...

There is no armistice line between Israel and Palestine. There never was.

There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Lebanese forces.

There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Syrian forces.

There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Jordanian forces.

There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Egyptian forces.

There is no armistice line between Israel and anybody else. There never was.

 

[P F Tinmore]

No one even argues that the Negev is something other than Israeli Sovereign Territory.

Israel signed two different agreements saying that land is Palestine.

Who am I to argue?

 

[toastman]

No one even argues that the Negev is something other than Israeli Sovereign Territory.

Israel signed two different agreements saying that land is Palestine.

Who am I to argue?

The Negev is Israeli territory. Argue all you want but it wont change anything

 

[Victory67]

There is no armistice line between Israel and Palestine. There never was.

There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Lebanese forces.

There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Syrian forces.

There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Jordanian forces.

There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Egyptian forces.

There is no armistice line between Israel and anybody else. There never was.

The West Bank border is the 1949 Armistice Line between Jordan and Israel.

The Palestinians have inherited this Armistice Line from the Jordanians in 1988 when Jordan gave over all negotiating rights for the West Bank to the PLO.

 

[aris2chat]

You are (only marginally) correct in that the 1949 Armistice Line between Israel and Palestine is not a permanent boundary;...

There is no armistice line between Israel and Palestine. There never was.

There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Lebanese forces.

There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Syrian forces.

There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Jordanian forces.

There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Egyptian forces.

There is no armistice line between Israel and anybody else. There never was.

You need to go back to your history books

 

[Phoenall]

Not within the " borders" we hear so much about. Your post is exactly why there will never be " Right of Return". Translation ; No " Palestinian state"

The Right of Return is about allowing Palestinian refugees to return to lands within the borders of 1949 Israel. This can be achieved without affecting Israeli demographics by having these refugees return to such lands given to Palestine by Israel, in exchange for settlement land in the WB.

There are all sorts of snazzy solutions to these issues.

So what about the Jews right of return to lands within gaza and the west bank. Do you think that the world would be in an uproar if Israel declared that once a peace deal was signed they would expel all muslims from their lands, as declared by the P.A. in their dealings with Jews in Palestine.

 

[Phoenall]

You are (only marginally) correct in that the 1949 Armistice Line between Israel and Palestine is not a permanent boundary;...

There is no armistice line between Israel and Palestine. There never was.

There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Lebanese forces.

There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Syrian forces.

There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Jordanian forces.

There is an armistice line between Israeli forces and Egyptian forces.

There is no armistice line between Israel and anybody else. There never was.

Semantics wont work as in 1949 the UN brokered a cease fire and set up armistice lines that separated Israel from Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Because Egypt occupied the gaza strip and Jordan occupied the west bank they were the signatories to these treaties on behalf of the inhabitants of the lands they occupied. Because no state of Palestine existed before 1988 there was no need for the Palestinians to be a party of this.

 

[Phoenall]

No one even argues that the Negev is something other than Israeli Sovereign Territory.

Israel signed two different agreements saying that land is Palestine.

Who am I to argue?

Evidence from a reputable source please

 

[Hossfly]

That's real good. Now we know the Palestinians will never have a state.

They can wait...Demographics will do the rest in a one state solution.

Not within the " borders" we hear so much about. Your post is exactly why there will never be " Right of Return". Translation ; No " Palestinian state"

The Politics of the Palestinian Right of Return
by Alexander Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky
Forbes
February 24, 2014

The Politics of the Palestinian Right of Return :: Middle East Forum

The Politics of the Palestinian Right of Return :: Middle East Forum Print Send item to friend :: Middle East Forum Send Middle East Forum :: Writings RSS Share: http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://www.meforum.org/3762/palestinian-right-of-return https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?so...e+Politics+of+the+Palestinian+Right+of+Return The Politics of the Palestinian Right of Return :: Middle East Forum http://www.meforum.org/facebook_lik....meforum.org/3762/palestinian-right-of-return
http://www.meforum.org/facebook_lik....meforum.org/3762/palestinian-right-of-return Be the first of your friends to like this.
US-backed negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are entering a critical period. With reports suggesting Israeli acceptance of the 1967 lines and land swaps, what about Palestinian concessions? Two issues are paramount: the 'right of return' and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas recently stated, "Let me put it simply: the right of return is a personal decision. What does this mean? That neither the PA, nor the state, nor the PLO, nor Abu-Mazen [Abbas], nor any Palestinian or Arab leader has the right to deprive someone from his right to return."


This arch in the Aida Refugee Camp in Bethlehem features a giant key, symbolizing keys kept as mementos by many of the Palestinians who left their homes in 1948. (Image source: Reham Alhelsi/Flickr)



Jamil Mizer, a member of the political bureau of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) underscored the issue saying, "there is talk about the liquidation of the Palestinian refugee cause, the return of hundreds of thousands to the lands occupied in 1948, and the dismantling of the right of return of over six million Palestinian refugees in the camps, in exile and in the diaspora, who are waiting for their moment to return to the homes and lands from which they were expelled".


The Politics of the Palestinian Right of Return :: Middle East Forum

 

[pbel]

Which were stupidly and intentionally built on top of seized Jewish holy places.

What goes around comes around.

It's the Muslims turn in the barrel.

Enjoy.

Get over it...

Something tells me that neither side is willing to 'get over it'.


Doesn't matter. The Jews have seen it as their own for 3000 years or more.

"...its just a pile of dirt that was also used as a garbage dump..."

Just a pile of dirt to you. Sacred Ground, to others.

"...Peace is more important than mythology!"

Neither Jews nor Muslims consider their faith to be 'mythology'.

And both are willing to fight to defend their Holy Places and their related rights of control, ownership and access.

I don't think the Jews had any Temple on those grounds anywhere near 3,000 years...provide a link, thanks in advance...

As far a sacred ground, as I posted earlier, the Canaanite god Baal had its Temple there along with many moon gods before it...If anything the Muslims respected Judaism, cleaned up the garbage dump it was used for and restored what you said sacred by building a Temple to their god...

As an aside, the last Temple was built by a converted Jew Herod who the Jews hated with Roman Taxes and engineering, that's why the wall still stands.

On the last issue, I agree...when religion mixes with Politics the end is usually a trip to their heaven, that's what's in store if they don't both compromise and live together.