I will not Bow!

[P F Tinmore]

"...Where are the documents showing where foreigners acquired any of that land or had the authority to create a state on that land."

None of that is relevant to whether the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

That land remains Palestine. What did Israel win? What did the Palestinians lose?

Israel occupies Palestine. That is not a legal status for a state.

 

[Indeependent]

"...Where are the documents showing where foreigners acquired any of that land or had the authority to create a state on that land."

None of that is relevant to whether the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

Tin has zero regard for historical context.

 

[Indeependent]

"...Where are the documents showing where foreigners acquired any of that land or had the authority to create a state on that land."

None of that is relevant to whether the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

That land remains Palestine. What did Israel win? What did the Palestinians lose?

Israel occupies Palestine. That is not a legal status for a state.

The world is catching on to Israel...

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In most cases, of a political question, there is a "technically correct" answer --- and there is an "Practical Interpretation" of that to that answer.

You are just blowing smoke.

You cannot document Israel winning anything or Palestinians losing.

Israel occupies Palestine but that is as far as it goes.

(COMMENT)

Relative to these discussion, we all understand that there are "Die Hards" on all three aspect angles. One of the aspect angles is the "absolute pro-Palestinian" that will stretch any truth to achieve the agenda they (personally) desire.

• a. The Palestinian that cannot accept any vantage point other than:
  • "You cannot document Israel winning anything or Palestinians losing." (SOURCE: This Post Quote Above, Posting 2449)

• b. The Palestinian that holds the same agenda, but looks at the reality of the facts and the history of the events rationally.
  • "On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine." (SOURCE: The PLO NAD Official Position)

For a "objective view," we have to take in the each "die hard view" --- strip-out the emotional commentary and propaganda driven accents, and give due consideration to the evaluation of the salient points which remain. And from that aspect, technically, the consequences of accepting the "No-Win/No Lose" vantage point is that there still exists a state of conflict between the Palestinians - as a culture - and the Palestinians - as a nation. And thus, some sort of a treaty or other peaceful accommodation is preferred, but not required.

In acceptance of one viewpoint over the other, only modifies the set of dilemmas that need addressed. Neither side holds the advantage when attempting to resolve for an equitable solution. Even the concept of there existing a possible "equatable solution" is placed in doubt. This is particularly aggravated when starting the discussion on the basis of the 1967-War boundaries (Pre-War, Post-War); then in the middle of the Occupation, the allowance of Independence to be established.

It is a complicated issue --- the least of which is the question of who won the and who lost. Technically, the Palestinians did not lose --- that is correct. They were not a true party to the conflict. The 1967-War was fought between Israel (on one side) and the Arab League countries of Jordan and Egypt (on the other). The West Bank Palestinians were Jordanians --- and Gaza was occupied territory under Egypt. The Palestinians had no say in the outcome of the battle or the post-War arrangements; they were part of the hostile indigenous population over the territory in which the battle was fought.

SO! Is our friend PF Tinmore correct when he says: "You cannot document Israel winning anything or Palestinians losing." YES! The conflict was not between Israel and the Palestinians. The conflict was between Egypt and Israel on one hand; resolved by treaty. On the other hand, the conflict was between Jordan and Israel; also resolved by treaty. It was the responsibility of the Arab League States that were party to the conflict (Jordan and Egypt) to look after the interests of the indigenous population (called Palestinians). But, the Palestinians technically lost nothing. Only Egypt and Jordan lost something. And that ground was taken into consideration in the establishment of international boundaries in each treaty.

Israel did not assume authority over the territories by means of force. The authority was assumed under the color of the treaty. It was then Israel which allowed the Palestinians the right of self-determination and establish the independent State of Palestine; pursuant to their Declaration.

SO! The issue put forth by our friend PF Tinmore is a flawed question, leading to a flawed answer. The reason you cannot find a document that stipulates a win/loss position is because the Palestinians were not a party to the conflict. It's a trick question (a question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition; AKA: a loaded question).

• THE LOADED QUESTION:
• "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
  • THE DILEMMA:
  • "Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."
  • "No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife."

This loaded question is flawed for a number of reasons; least of which is that it presupposes that I'm married. Just as the PF Tinmore question is flawed; it presupposes that Palestinians were a party to the conflict. And only a party to the conflict can win or lose.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

You are just blowing smoke.

You cannot document Israel winning anything or Palestinians losing.

Israel occupies Palestine but that is as far as it goes.

WhT kind of document are you looking for?

There are several facts about Palestine.

The land of Palestine is inside international borders defined by post war treaties.

The Turkish citizens who normally resided on that land became Palestinian nationals.

Those Palestinians became citizens of Palestine as international legal norms specified and confirmed by the Palestine citizenship law of 1925.

This was de facto status until the Treaty of Lausanne was signed on August 6, 1924 when this status became de jure.

These natives of Palestine had certain rights:

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237

Where are the documents showing where foreigners acquired any of that land or had the authority to create a state on that land.

Nothing you said has anything to do with anything. Like I said, you made up the fact that Israel needs documents to create their state.
Where dis you read that Palestinians had to cede land to Israel for Israel to legally create a state? This is not a real estate issue. Its a matter of self determination, and Israel legally declared independence after cessation of the mandate. They created their country legally, as ive shown you in that link many times. Israel is inside the green line, and even you admitted that the PLO recognizes them inside the green line.
I repeat, the whole " there are no documents showing how Israel recieved land from the Palestinians" is a made up question".
Have you read about Israels DOI and if so show me the link you use

 

[toastman]

"...Where are the documents showing where foreigners acquired any of that land or had the authority to create a state on that land."

None of that is relevant to whether the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

That land remains Palestine. What did Israel win? What did the Palestinians lose?

Israel occupies Palestine. That is not a legal status for a state.

Keep making up these comments , youre doing a great job

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In most cases, of a political question, there is a "technically correct" answer --- and there is an "Practical Interpretation" of that to that answer.

You are just blowing smoke.

You cannot document Israel winning anything or Palestinians losing.

Israel occupies Palestine but that is as far as it goes.

(COMMENT)

Relative to these discussion, we all understand that there are "Die Hards" on all three aspect angles. One of the aspect angles is the "absolute pro-Palestinian" that will stretch any truth to achieve the agenda they (personally) desire.

• a. The Palestinian that cannot accept any vantage point other than:
  • "You cannot document Israel winning anything or Palestinians losing." (SOURCE: This Post Quote Above, Posting 2449)

• b. The Palestinian that holds the same agenda, but looks at the reality of the facts and the history of the events rationally.
  • "On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine." (SOURCE: The PLO NAD Official Position)

For a "objective view," we have to take in the each "die hard view" --- strip-out the emotional commentary and propaganda driven accents, and give due consideration to the evaluation of the salient points which remain. And from that aspect, technically, the consequences of accepting the "No-Win/No Lose" vantage point is that there still exists a state of conflict between the Palestinians - as a culture - and the Palestinians - as a nation. And thus, some sort of a treaty or other peaceful accommodation is preferred, but not required.

In acceptance of one viewpoint over the other, only modifies the set of dilemmas that need addressed. Neither side holds the advantage when attempting to resolve for an equitable solution. Even the concept of there existing a possible "equatable solution" is placed in doubt. This is particularly aggravated when starting the discussion on the basis of the 1967-War boundaries (Pre-War, Post-War); then in the middle of the Occupation, the allowance of Independence to be established.

It is a complicated issue --- the least of which is the question of who won the and who lost. Technically, the Palestinians did not lose --- that is correct. They were not a true party to the conflict. The 1967-War was fought between Israel (on one side) and the Arab League countries of Jordan and Egypt (on the other). The West Bank Palestinians were Jordanians --- and Gaza was occupied territory under Egypt. The Palestinians had no say in the outcome of the battle or the post-War arrangements; they were part of the hostile indigenous population over the territory in which the battle was fought.

SO! Is our friend PF Tinmore correct when he says: "You cannot document Israel winning anything or Palestinians losing." YES! The conflict was not between Israel and the Palestinians. The conflict was between Egypt and Israel on one hand; resolved by treaty. On the other hand, the conflict was between Jordan and Israel; also resolved by treaty. It was the responsibility of the Arab League States that were party to the conflict (Jordan and Egypt) to look after the interests of the indigenous population (called Palestinians). But, the Palestinians technically lost nothing. Only Egypt and Jordan lost something. And that ground was taken into consideration in the establishment of international boundaries in each treaty.

Israel did not assume authority over the territories by means of force. The authority was assumed under the color of the treaty. It was then Israel which allowed the Palestinians the right of self-determination and establish the independent State of Palestine; pursuant to their Declaration.

SO! The issue put forth by our friend PF Tinmore is a flawed question, leading to a flawed answer. The reason you cannot find a document that stipulates a win/loss position is because the Palestinians were not a party to the conflict. It's a trick question (a question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition; AKA: a loaded question).

• THE LOADED QUESTION:
• "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
  • THE DILEMMA:
  • "Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."
  • "No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife."

This loaded question is flawed for a number of reasons; least of which is that it presupposes that I'm married. Just as the PF Tinmore question is flawed; it presupposes that Palestinians were a party to the conflict. And only a party to the conflict can win or lose.

Most Respectfully,
R

Exactly! One of Tinmores tactics is making up questions and the acts like without an answer, that he is correct.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

None of that is relevant to whether the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

That land remains Palestine. What did Israel win? What did the Palestinians lose?

Israel occupies Palestine. That is not a legal status for a state.

Keep making up these comments , youre doing a great job

The legal documents are as follows:

Israel's Declaration of Independence.
Israel's Peace Treaties with Egypt and Jordan.
Israel's Acceptance into the United Nations.

 

[toastman]

That land remains Palestine. What did Israel win? What did the Palestinians lose?

Israel occupies Palestine. That is not a legal status for a state.

Keep making up these comments , youre doing a great job

The legal documents are as follows:

Israel's Declaration of Independence.
Israel's Peace Treaties with Egypt and Jordan.
Israel's Acceptance into the United Nations.

And the peace treaties giving Israel internationally recognized borders with Evypt and Jordan, as written by the UN

 

[aris2chat]

Pomp Victus das ass, no-ne has surrendered to Israel to date...

Nobody had to surrender to Israel.

The Jordanians merely had to obey the laws of gravity and to fall down in 1967 when the Israelis killed them.

The Jordanians merely had to run in 1967 when the Israelis drove them out.

The Palestinians merely had to stop resisting effectively, militarily, alongside the Jordanians in 1967, when the Israelis overwhelmed them.

Surrender is a minor point and of no particular consequence.

Overarching control is all that matters.

And Israel has overarching control... and has... since 1967.


Doesn't matter, so long as Israel does.

"...she is basically de-legitimizing her-self as we speak."

Golly-gosh gee-whiz, Emmy Lou, as bad as all that? Tsk, tsk, tsk...

Somehow, I don't think they're overly worried about such things.
We've got their back... Obumble or no.

PressTV - Israel worries US boycott could go contagious

Israel has expressed alarm over a boycott of its academic institutions by a powerful group of American scholars, saying other academic organizations in the United States could take similar action. On Sunday, the American Studies Association (ASA), which has nearly 5,000 members, approved the academic boycott of Israel to protest its treatment of Palestinians, indicating that a movement to isolate the apartheid regime of Israel that is gaining momentum in Europe has also hit the US.

"The ASA condemns the United States' significant role in aiding and abetting Israel's violations of human rights against Palestinians and its occupation of Palestinian lands through its use of the veto in the UN Security Council," the organization said in a statement explaining the endorsement.

Irani TV really?

 

[Kondor3]

"...Where are the documents showing where foreigners acquired any of that land or had the authority to create a state on that land."

None of that is relevant to whether the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

Tin has zero regard for historical context.

Tinny has zero regard for historical FACT.

Or the Real World, by the look of it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is a complicated issue --- the least of which is the question of who won the and who lost. Technically, the Palestinians did not lose --- that is correct. They were not a true party to the conflict. The 1967-War was fought between Israel (on one side) and the Arab League countries of Jordan and Egypt (on the other).

Exactly! How much land can Canada lose in a war between the US and Mexico?

It is ridiculous to even contemplate it.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Where are the documents showing where foreigners acquired any of that land or had the authority to create a state on that land."

None of that is relevant to whether the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

That land remains Palestine. What did Israel win? What did the Palestinians lose?

Israel occupies Palestine. That is not a legal status for a state.

The exchange between you and I was not about whether or not the land remains Palestine.

The exchange between you and I was not about whether the Israelis won anything.

The exchange between you and I was not about whether the Palestinians lost anything.

The exchange between you and I was not about whether Israel occupies Palestine.

The exchange between you and I was not about whether occupation is a legal status for a state.

The exchange between you and I was about whether the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and your assertion that this was an Israeli lie, as voiced in the following...

"...Not really. Look at one of Israel's biggest lies: The Arabs lost the 1948 war..."

The exchange between you and I this morning was limited to whether or not the Arabs (defined as the combined efforts of the Egyptians, Jordanians, Iraqis, Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians) lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, or whether that was an Israeli lie.

We have already discussed the two primary objectives of the Arab war effort...

1. destruction of the infant State of Israel

2. restoration of all of Old Palestinian to Arab control

The Arabs failed to achieve both war goals.

Fail to achieve your war goals and you lose the war.

As evidence of failure to achieve their war goals, the glaringly obvious was served up:

1. Israel still exists

2. Most of Old Palestine is under Israeli control; much of that held/acquired in 1948.

These are hard facts, and incontrovertible.

The Arabs failed to achieve their war goals in 1948.

Ergo, the Arabs lost the 1948 War.

This is Reality.

There is no appeal.

Case closed.

Sequence concluded.

 

[P F Tinmore]

None of that is relevant to whether the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

That land remains Palestine. What did Israel win? What did the Palestinians lose?

Israel occupies Palestine. That is not a legal status for a state.

The exchange between you and I was not about whether or not the land remains Palestine.

The exchange between you and I was not about whether the Israelis won anything.

The exchange between you and I was not about whether the Palestinians lost anything.

The exchange between you and I was not about whether Israel occupies Palestine.

The exchange between you and I was not about whether occupation is a legal status for a state.

The exchange between you and I was about whether the Arabs lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and your assertion that this was an Israeli lie, as voiced in the following...

"...Not really. Look at one of Israel's biggest lies: The Arabs lost the 1948 war..."

The exchange between you and I this morning was limited to whether or not the Arabs (defined as the combined efforts of the Egyptians, Jordanians, Iraqis, Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians) lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, or whether that was an Israeli lie.

We have already discussed the two primary objectives of the Arab war effort...

1. destruction of the infant State of Israel

2. restoration of all of Old Palestinian to Arab control

The Arabs failed to achieve both war goals.

Fail to achieve your war goals and you lose the war.

As evidence of failure to achieve their war goals, the glaringly obvious was served up:

1. Israel still exists

2. Most of Old Palestine is under Israeli control; much of that held/acquired in 1948.

These are hard facts, and incontrovertible.

The Arabs failed to achieve their war goals in 1948.

Ergo, the Arabs lost the 1948 War.

This is Reality.

There is no appeal.

Case closed.

Sequence concluded.

Of course the 1948 war was a different war than the one started against the Palestinians but we will look at it anyway.

An armistice was called by UN Security Council Resolution. An armistice is the cessation of hostilities without anyone surrendering. None of those Arab countries lost any land due to that war.

 

[Phoenall]

Indeed, all you have is say so. No documents.

Are you operating under the delusion that the destruction of the infant State of Israel and the restoration of all of Old Palestine to Arab control were NOT the primary goals of the Arabs in 1948?

Are you operating under the delusion that the Arabs succeeded in destroying the infant State of Israel or that they succeeded in restoring all of Old Palestine to Arab control in 1948?

Are you operating under the delusion that failure to achieve your wartime objectives is not the same as having lost a war?

Are you operating under the delusion that Israel does not exist today, and at levels of strength vastly higher than those which it enjoyed in its infancy in 1948?

Are you operating under the delusion that the remaining Arab Palestinians are not herded into two small enclaves (West Bank and Gaza) rather than being in control of all of Old Palestine?

Which of your delusions would you like for me to 'document', Tinny?

Not at all. I am not going to get involved in your deflection.

I am only looking for documents showing where Israel is legitimate.

Did the UN and the majority of the worlds nations accept Israel's declaration of independence and accept them as a LEGITIMATE state in the eyes of the world. Have they been accepted into the UN as charter members. That is their legitimacy and you can only muster 32 countries the majority muslim that don't accept Israel. Even the arab league now accepts Israel's legitimacy and its right to exist as a Jewish state and homeland.

 

[Phoenall]

Not at all. I am not going to get involved in your deflection.

I am only looking for documents showing where Israel is legitimate.

That was not what you and I were talking about.

You and I were talking about the Arabs having lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

Don't look now, but you've just had your butt kicked on that one.

Focus, grasshopper... focus...

You have not documented when Israel has won anything.

You are the one dancing around that issue.

Have you documented when Israel have lost anything then, if not then it is a stalemate. But in 1949 Israel gained control of 78% of Palestine, and it was legitimised a resounding victory in the worlds eyes.

 

[Phoenall]

You have not documented when Israel has won anything.

You are the one dancing around that issue.

The beauty of this is that I didn't have to document a thing pertaining to Israel.

I merely had to demonstrate that the Arabs failed to meet their objectives.

They failed to destroy the infant State of Israel.

They failed to restore all of Old Palestine to Arab control.

Having failed to meet their war goals and objectives, they lost.

This wasn't about proving that Israel won.

This was about proving that the Arabs lost.

And you fell into that trap oh-so-easily.

Gotcha.

Unless, of course, you'd like to regale us with Brave Alternate Reality Tales of how the Arabs destroyed the infant State of Israel and restored all of Old Palestine to Arab control in 1948, after all.

If it sells well here, perhaps you and Harry Turtledove can whip-up an Alternate History novel on the subject, and make some money out of the situation.

You are just blowing smoke.

You cannot document Israel winning anything or Palestinians losing.

Israel occupies Palestine but that is as far as it goes.

Isreal won land in 1948, Palestine lost what they could have had. That is a documented victory for Israel.

 

[Phoenall]

This sort of infantile and petulant intransigence is why the Palestinians are sitting at the Kiddie Table at the United Nations, and why the Israelis are sitting with the Grownups.

Israel has a lot of political recognition but it has no legal status.

Is this the making things up forum?

You cant just make up your own questions and then act that without an answer , that you are correct.

Israel was lawfully created after cessation of the mandate. Where did you read that was illegal? Why do you make stuff up all the time?

If as the moron states Israel has no legal status then it does not have to abide by the Geneva conventions or the UN charter and could bomb the Palestinians all the way to mecca.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Israel has a lot of political recognition but it has no legal status.

Is this the making things up forum?

You cant just make up your own questions and then act that without an answer , that you are correct.

Israel was lawfully created after cessation of the mandate. Where did you read that was illegal? Why do you make stuff up all the time?

If as the moron states Israel has no legal status then it does not have to abide by the Geneva conventions or the UN charter and could bomb the Palestinians all the way to mecca.

Good point. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

This whole discussion reminds me of an Abstract Philosophy course I took in college. It was a mandatory course I had to take, although it had nothing to do with my major. It was all about --is a chair in the room really there, or is it just in the person's mind? Try as I could, I could never satisfy that professor and the smug prick gave me a C. Y'all will never pass Prof. Tinmore's course, so y'all shouldn't even try.