I will not Bow!

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

I, as well, have a Sicilian heritage (being 2d Generation Ito-Americano) on my Grandfather's side (my Grandmother was from Majorca).

Family is not an important thing. It's everything.

My Sicilian tells me better dead than cower, and show me where resistance has failed them in the past...and the Palestinians are the tip of the iceberg.

(COMMENT)

I would never suggest that the Palestinian should cringe or retreat defensively in fear. But to achieve balance in the relationship, to acquire peace, prosperity and security for family and friends --- village, city and nation, one must act in their best interest (Vires et honestas). Every day - "we" are called upon to selflessly meet the needs of our families; including the Palestinian.

• Who are you?
• What do you believe?
• What are your core values?

To purposely retard the advancement of family and friends --- village, city and nation, is not the honorable action of those who hold the integrity for effective governance and social welfare of their people first. Yes, sometimes it is necessary to fight, but conflict is the method of last resort. And to prolong a conflict, with no reasonable expectation of a positive outcome in the foreseeable future is folly.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, resistance always succeeds if the indigenous population greatly exceeds that of the invaders...Israel will never have the numbers or a military to subdue her numerous enemies...the Palestinians are the fodder to a much larger conflict between Western Colonial Powers and the Middle East. In the near future Nukes will be had by any or all of them.

This area has enough hate that nukes are an acceptable course of action against their enemies.

That is my fear for the future, Mutually Assured Destruction is not a deterrent.

 

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

This is always a "big" maybe. Nothing is for sure in love and war.

Rocco, resistance always succeeds if the indigenous population greatly exceeds that of the invaders...Israel will never have the numbers or a military to subdue her numerous enemies...the Palestinians are the fodder to a much larger conflict between Western Colonial Powers and the Middle East. In the near future Nukes will be had by any or all of them.

(COMMENT)

While I agree that there is the potential for a much wider conflict, it is by no means assured. The Kingdoms and Military Dominated neighbors (Michel Suleiman, President of Lebanon, former Commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces; Syrian President Assad, Dictator, HM Abdullah II ibn al-Hussein, King of the Kingdom of Jordan, former Command Jordanian Special Forces; HM Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, King of Saudi Arabia, former Commander of Saudi National Guard (SANG); Adly Mahmoud Mansour President Pro tempore of Egypt, appointed by Egyptian Field Marshal Abdel Khalil el-Sisi) see the Islamic dominated leadership of the Palestinian Resistance as a potential threat to their national sovereignty should their quest against the Israelis be successful. There are simply too many insurgents and terrorist associated with the movement to release them into the general regional population. Israel's enemies are not concerned about Israel in the sense that Israel poses a political-military threat; it doesn't and everyone knows that. But the collapse of Israel may give way to another loose canon on deck; one of a much greater threat from Shi'ite revolutionaries of all sorts. Today we see a sample of them in Syria. No one wants another anti-world, Islamic fundamentalist nation in the region as a extremist haven.[ame="http://youtu.be/d-80YF1GZYQ"]extremist haven[/ame]

This area has enough hate that nukes are an acceptable course of action ageist their enemies.

(COMMENT)

The use of Nuclear Weapons is highly unlikely by Israel or any Western Ally. It might be a growing threat from Islamic Fundamentalist concerns.

That is my fear for the future, mutually Assured Destruction is not a deterrent.

(COMMENT)

Maybe! But any use of a Nuclear Devise by Islamic Fundamentalist concerns would spell the absolute end of Islamic Movements. They would be destroyed; totally.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

I didn't say anything like that.

I am not rewriting anything.

You did not refute any of my points.

You said that the HoAP declared to the international borders of Palestine, meaning they were trying to steal land from Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon. This is contrary to the UN charter, it was also contrary to UN res 181. The Jews had already declared their intentions of creating a nation within the 181 proposed borders, this was taken out of their hands by the invasion of Israel a sovereign nation by the HoAP. As far as the UN and Israel are concerned Israel implemented res 181 in its entirety, it was the HoAP that refused. If you read it properly you see that it does not take both sides to agree for it to be implemented.

Did you read what you said?

Could you rephrase this paragraph? You are not making any sense.

Will a map help you think more clearly, one of the actual mandate of Palestine

The orange and lime green parts are the actual extent of the mandate for Palestine and that is the International borders you keep using.



I never said that.

Which 3 players are these then as the UN, Egypt, Jordan and Israel accept the international borders of Israel as de facto and de jure. The Palestinians are not in contention as they have refused to treat the matter with anything but disdain.

The three players I mentioned were the UN, Palestine, and Israel.

Pay attention.

So were are Palestine mentioned in 181, 242 and 338

So until you can produce a legal document that says that Palestine is the rightful owners of the land and that Israel and the UN are stealing from them by force then you are just blowing in the wind.

Several treaties were involve in defining Palestine's international borders. However, none of them could legally take affect as long as Palestine was under Ottoman rule.

That changed with the Treaty of Lausanne which ended ottoman rule over Palestine. The defined borders became Palestine's international borders. According to international law, all of the people whose normal residence was inside those borders at that time became Palestinian nationals and were citizens of Palestine.

Everything that happened since then has to hinge on those basic facts.

See the map I have posted that shows the INTERNATIONAL BORDERS OF PALESTINE now will you tell all those countries that they have to get out and stay out because the HoAP have claimed them as their land.

You are caught out by the simplest of things, one of which being you only accept UN rulings when they support you flavour of the month.

Still waiting for the declaration of the acceptance of the UN and International Law of the nation of Palestine within the borders of the partition plan that includes all of Israel. A map like the one above will be acceptable as long as it is from the UN.

 

[Phoenall]

pbel, et al,

I, as well, have a Sicilian heritage (being 2d Generation Ito-Americano) on my Grandfather's side (my Grandmother was from Majorca).

Family is not an important thing. It's everything.

My Sicilian tells me better dead than cower, and show me where resistance has failed them in the past...and the Palestinians are the tip of the iceberg.

(COMMENT)

I would never suggest that the Palestinian should cringe or retreat defensively in fear. But to achieve balance in the relationship, to acquire peace, prosperity and security for family and friends --- village, city and nation, one must act in their best interest (Vires et honestas). Every day - "we" are called upon to selflessly meet the needs of our families; including the Palestinian.

• Who are you?
• What do you believe?
• What are your core values?

To purposely retard the advancement of family and friends --- village, city and nation, is not the honorable action of those who hold the integrity for effective governance and social welfare of their people first. Yes, sometimes it is necessary to fight, but conflict is the method of last resort. And to prolong a conflict, with no reasonable expectation of a positive outcome in the foreseeable future is folly.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, resistance always succeeds if the indigenous population greatly exceeds that of the invaders...Israel will never have the numbers or a military to subdue her numerous enemies...the Palestinians are the fodder to a much larger conflict between Western Colonial Powers and the Middle East. In the near future Nukes will be had by any or all of them.

This area has enough hate that nukes are an acceptable course of action against their enemies.

That is my fear for the future, Mutually Assured Destruction is not a deterrent.

Using the threat of greater firepower whether it be numbers or weapons just results in more destructive weapons being developed. Can the HoAP afford to have its population reduced to cabbages, with no one to tend to their needs, by a doomsday weapon. because that is what will happen, no destruction of the buildings and land but complete and utter devastation of the people. A standard H.E. charge shaped to send out a high intensity shock wave that will turn people to jelly, or a sonic weapon that scrambles the brain. Before that happens the HoAP will run out of food and accommodation and the extra mouths will be dying in the streets of disease and starvation. The world will quarantine the area and wait for the holocaust to run its course, then the few survivors will have to sue for peace or face extinction.

 

[Phoenall]

pbel, et al,

This is always a "big" maybe. Nothing is for sure in love and war.

Rocco, resistance always succeeds if the indigenous population greatly exceeds that of the invaders...Israel will never have the numbers or a military to subdue her numerous enemies...the Palestinians are the fodder to a much larger conflict between Western Colonial Powers and the Middle East. In the near future Nukes will be had by any or all of them.

(COMMENT)

While I agree that there is the potential for a much wider conflict, it is by no means assured. The Kingdoms and Military Dominated neighbors (Michel Suleiman, President of Lebanon, former Commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces; Syrian President Assad, Dictator, HM Abdullah II ibn al-Hussein, King of the Kingdom of Jordan, former Command Jordanian Special Forces; HM Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, King of Saudi Arabia, former Commander of Saudi National Guard (SANG); Adly Mahmoud Mansour President Pro tempore of Egypt, appointed by Egyptian Field Marshal Abdel Khalil el-Sisi) see the Islamic dominated leadership of the Palestinian Resistance as a potential threat to their national sovereignty should their quest against the Israelis be successful. There are simply too many insurgents and terrorist associated with the movement to release them into the general regional population. Israel's enemies are not concerned about Israel in the sense that Israel poses a political-military threat; it doesn't and everyone knows that. But the collapse of Israel may give way to another loose canon on deck; one of a much greater threat from Shi'ite revolutionaries of all sorts. Today we see a sample of them in Syria. No one wants another anti-world, Islamic fundamentalist nation in the region as a extremist haven.[ame="http://youtu.be/d-80YF1GZYQ"]extremist haven[/ame]

This area has enough hate that nukes are an acceptable course of action ageist their enemies.

(COMMENT)

The use of Nuclear Weapons is highly unlikely by Israel or any Western Ally. It might be a growing threat from Islamic Fundamentalist concerns.

That is my fear for the future, mutually Assured Destruction is not a deterrent.

(COMMENT)

Maybe! But any use of a Nuclear Devise by Islamic Fundamentalist concerns would spell the absolute end of Islamic Movements. They would be destroyed; totally.

Most Respectfully,
R

It very nearly happened when the extremists tried to gain control of Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. They were warning the world that they would use them on two enemies of islam India and Israel. India just opened their silos and let the vapour escape and the Pakistani government took back control.

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

This is always a "big" maybe. Nothing is for sure in love and war.

Rocco, resistance always succeeds if the indigenous population greatly exceeds that of the invaders...Israel will never have the numbers or a military to subdue her numerous enemies...the Palestinians are the fodder to a much larger conflict between Western Colonial Powers and the Middle East. In the near future Nukes will be had by any or all of them.

(COMMENT)

While I agree that there is the potential for a much wider conflict, it is by no means assured. The Kingdoms and Military Dominated neighbors (Michel Suleiman, President of Lebanon, former Commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces; Syrian President Assad, Dictator, HM Abdullah II ibn al-Hussein, King of the Kingdom of Jordan, former Command Jordanian Special Forces; HM Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, King of Saudi Arabia, former Commander of Saudi National Guard (SANG); Adly Mahmoud Mansour President Pro tempore of Egypt, appointed by Egyptian Field Marshal Abdel Khalil el-Sisi) see the Islamic dominated leadership of the Palestinian Resistance as a potential threat to their national sovereignty should their quest against the Israelis be successful. There are simply too many insurgents and terrorist associated with the movement to release them into the general regional population. Israel's enemies are not concerned about Israel in the sense that Israel poses a political-military threat; it doesn't and everyone knows that. But the collapse of Israel may give way to another loose canon on deck; one of a much greater threat from Shi'ite revolutionaries of all sorts. Today we see a sample of them in Syria. No one wants another anti-world, Islamic fundamentalist nation in the region as a extremist haven.[ame="http://youtu.be/d-80YF1GZYQ"]extremist haven[/ame]

(COMMENT)

The use of Nuclear Weapons is highly unlikely by Israel or any Western Ally. It might be a growing threat from Islamic Fundamentalist concerns.

That is my fear for the future, mutually Assured Destruction is not a deterrent.

(COMMENT)

Maybe! But any use of a Nuclear Devise by Islamic Fundamentalist concerns would spell the absolute end of Islamic Movements. They would be destroyed; totally.

Most Respectfully,
R

It very nearly happened when the extremists tried to gain control of Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. They were warning the world that they would use them on two enemies of islam India and Israel. India just opened their silos and let the vapour escape and the Pakistani government took back control.

There are polls in Pakistan that say that they dislike Israel more than India.

 

[RoccoR]

Phoenall, et al,

Pakistan is a extremist nation; but, with lucid moments.

It very nearly happened when the extremists tried to gain control of Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. They were warning the world that they would use them on two enemies of islam India and Israel. India just opened their silos and let the vapour escape and the Pakistani government took back control.

(COMMENT)

It would be destroyed and they know it. We can save that for another discussion.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

Most Pakistani have never seen Israel or understand the first thing about them.

There are polls in Pakistan that say that they dislike Israel more than India.

(COMMENT)

And if Islamabad and Karachi were destroyed, most Pakistani would notice for 3 days.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

pbel, et al,

This is always a "big" maybe. Nothing is for sure in love and war.


(COMMENT)

While I agree that there is the potential for a much wider conflict, it is by no means assured. The Kingdoms and Military Dominated neighbors (Michel Suleiman, President of Lebanon, former Commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces; Syrian President Assad, Dictator, HM Abdullah II ibn al-Hussein, King of the Kingdom of Jordan, former Command Jordanian Special Forces; HM Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, King of Saudi Arabia, former Commander of Saudi National Guard (SANG); Adly Mahmoud Mansour President Pro tempore of Egypt, appointed by Egyptian Field Marshal Abdel Khalil el-Sisi) see the Islamic dominated leadership of the Palestinian Resistance as a potential threat to their national sovereignty should their quest against the Israelis be successful. There are simply too many insurgents and terrorist associated with the movement to release them into the general regional population. Israel's enemies are not concerned about Israel in the sense that Israel poses a political-military threat; it doesn't and everyone knows that. But the collapse of Israel may give way to another loose canon on deck; one of a much greater threat from Shi'ite revolutionaries of all sorts. Today we see a sample of them in Syria. No one wants another anti-world, Islamic fundamentalist nation in the region as a extremist haven.extremist haven

(COMMENT)

The use of Nuclear Weapons is highly unlikely by Israel or any Western Ally. It might be a growing threat from Islamic Fundamentalist concerns.


(COMMENT)

Maybe! But any use of a Nuclear Devise by Islamic Fundamentalist concerns would spell the absolute end of Islamic Movements. They would be destroyed; totally.

Most Respectfully,
R

It very nearly happened when the extremists tried to gain control of Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. They were warning the world that they would use them on two enemies of islam India and Israel. India just opened their silos and let the vapour escape and the Pakistani government took back control.

There are polls in Pakistan that say that they dislike Israel more than India.

Of course they are commanded by their Koran to do so, the Indians are just stopping them from stealing more land.

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

Most Pakistani have never seen Israel or understand the first thing about them.

There are polls in Pakistan that say that they dislike Israel more than India.

(COMMENT)

And if Islamabad and Karachi were destroyed, most Pakistani would notice for 3 days.

Most Respectfully,
R

Sure, the world powers will attack to save Israel....You are really dreaming.

 

[toastman]

pbel, et al,

This is always a "big" maybe. Nothing is for sure in love and war.


(COMMENT)

While I agree that there is the potential for a much wider conflict, it is by no means assured. The Kingdoms and Military Dominated neighbors (Michel Suleiman, President of Lebanon, former Commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces; Syrian President Assad, Dictator, HM Abdullah II ibn al-Hussein, King of the Kingdom of Jordan, former Command Jordanian Special Forces; HM Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, King of Saudi Arabia, former Commander of Saudi National Guard (SANG); Adly Mahmoud Mansour President Pro tempore of Egypt, appointed by Egyptian Field Marshal Abdel Khalil el-Sisi) see the Islamic dominated leadership of the Palestinian Resistance as a potential threat to their national sovereignty should their quest against the Israelis be successful. There are simply too many insurgents and terrorist associated with the movement to release them into the general regional population. Israel's enemies are not concerned about Israel in the sense that Israel poses a political-military threat; it doesn't and everyone knows that. But the collapse of Israel may give way to another loose canon on deck; one of a much greater threat from Shi'ite revolutionaries of all sorts. Today we see a sample of them in Syria. No one wants another anti-world, Islamic fundamentalist nation in the region as a extremist haven.extremist haven

(COMMENT)

The use of Nuclear Weapons is highly unlikely by Israel or any Western Ally. It might be a growing threat from Islamic Fundamentalist concerns.


(COMMENT)

Maybe! But any use of a Nuclear Devise by Islamic Fundamentalist concerns would spell the absolute end of Islamic Movements. They would be destroyed; totally.

Most Respectfully,
R

It very nearly happened when the extremists tried to gain control of Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. They were warning the world that they would use them on two enemies of islam India and Israel. India just opened their silos and let the vapour escape and the Pakistani government took back control.

There are polls in Pakistan that say that they dislike Israel more than India.

That's because most citizens in the ISlamic Republic of Pakistan are Muslim, and they want the entire Middle East to be Muslim. If Israel was another Arab/Muslim state, but everything in its history was the same, Pakistan (and many other countries) would not have that opinion about Israel. And you know I'm right

 

[toastman]

pbel, et al,

Most Pakistani have never seen Israel or understand the first thing about them.

There are polls in Pakistan that say that they dislike Israel more than India.

(COMMENT)

And if Islamabad and Karachi were destroyed, most Pakistani would notice for 3 days.

Most Respectfully,
R

Sure, the world powers will attack to save Israel....You are really dreaming.

Huh?? Are you sure you're responding to the right post ?

 

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

No!

Most Pakistani have never seen Israel or understand the first thing about them.

There are polls in Pakistan that say that they dislike Israel more than India.

(COMMENT)

And if Islamabad and Karachi were destroyed, most Pakistani would notice for 3 days.

Most Respectfully,
R

Sure, the world powers will attack to save Israel....You are really dreaming.

(COMMENT)

If a Islamic Fundamentalist Nation were able to intimidate one country, it could intimidate any country --- all countries. It doesn't matter whether it is Israel or not. To allow such a threat to exist would be totally unacceptable. It would be the end of that country and the people that chose to exercise their destiny in that fashion.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

If a Islamic Fundamentalist Nation were able to intimidate one country, it could intimidate any country --- all countries. It doesn't matter whether it is Israel or not. To allow such a threat to exist would be totally unacceptable. It would be the end of that country and the people that chose to exercise their destiny in that fashion...

Agreed.

Christendom (including the Russias, Europe, the Americas and Oceania) - a.k.a. the secularized West and friends and associates - will never allow a resurrected Militant Islam to threaten to establish a global Caliphate - and will act both individually and in-concert to suppress even the fist baby-steps towards such a state of affairs.

Collectively, and even subconsciously, the world remembers what Islam was like when it had the upper hand as a regional or global conquering power, and that will not be tolerated again.

Best to step on the head of the viper before it grows into something dangerous.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You said that the HoAP declared to the international borders of Palestine, meaning they were trying to steal land from Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon. This is contrary to the UN charter, it was also contrary to UN res 181. The Jews had already declared their intentions of creating a nation within the 181 proposed borders, this was taken out of their hands by the invasion of Israel a sovereign nation by the HoAP. As far as the UN and Israel are concerned Israel implemented res 181 in its entirety, it was the HoAP that refused. If you read it properly you see that it does not take both sides to agree for it to be implemented.

Did you read what you said?

Could you rephrase this paragraph? You are not making any sense.

Will a map help you think more clearly, one of the actual mandate of Palestine

The orange and lime green parts are the actual extent of the mandate for Palestine and that is the International borders you keep using.

What map?

I never said that.


The three players I mentioned were the UN, Palestine, and Israel.

Pay attention.

So were are Palestine mentioned in 181, 242 and 338

So until you can produce a legal document that says that Palestine is the rightful owners of the land and that Israel and the UN are stealing from them by force then you are just blowing in the wind.

Several treaties were involve in defining Palestine's international borders. However, none of them could legally take affect as long as Palestine was under Ottoman rule.

That changed with the Treaty of Lausanne which ended ottoman rule over Palestine. The defined borders became Palestine's international borders. According to international law, all of the people whose normal residence was inside those borders at that time became Palestinian nationals and were citizens of Palestine.

Everything that happened since then has to hinge on those basic facts.

See the map I have posted that shows the INTERNATIONAL BORDERS OF PALESTINE now will you tell all those countries that they have to get out and stay out because the HoAP have claimed them as their land.

You are caught out by the simplest of things, one of which being you only accept UN rulings when they support you flavour of the month.

Still waiting for the declaration of the acceptance of the UN and International Law of the nation of Palestine within the borders of the partition plan that includes all of Israel. A map like the one above will be acceptable as long as it is from the UN.

Here is a map of Palestine that includes the proposed partinion plan borders that never happened.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who said it never happened?

Did you read what you said?

Could you rephrase this paragraph? You are not making any sense.

Will a map help you think more clearly, one of the actual mandate of Palestine

The orange and lime green parts are the actual extent of the mandate for Palestine and that is the International borders you keep using.

What map?

I never said that.


The three players I mentioned were the UN, Palestine, and Israel.

Pay attention.

So were are Palestine mentioned in 181, 242 and 338

Several treaties were involve in defining Palestine's international borders. However, none of them could legally take affect as long as Palestine was under Ottoman rule.

That changed with the Treaty of Lausanne which ended ottoman rule over Palestine. The defined borders became Palestine's international borders. According to international law, all of the people whose normal residence was inside those borders at that time became Palestinian nationals and were citizens of Palestine.

Everything that happened since then has to hinge on those basic facts.

See the map I have posted that shows the INTERNATIONAL BORDERS OF PALESTINE now will you tell all those countries that they have to get out and stay out because the HoAP have claimed them as their land.

You are caught out by the simplest of things, one of which being you only accept UN rulings when they support you flavour of the month.

Still waiting for the declaration of the acceptance of the UN and International Law of the nation of Palestine within the borders of the partition plan that includes all of Israel. A map like the one above will be acceptable as long as it is from the UN.

Here is a map of Palestine that includes the proposed partinion plan borders that never happened.

(COMMENT)

Surely you must be listening to the Arabs. Because the UN says otherwise?

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."

SOURCE: PAL/169 17 May 1948

Are you saying the UN is wrong? Or is this your interpretation of the events as you want them to have happened?

The Arabs can reject their offer, but they cannot withhold the right of self-determination from the Jewish People.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who said it never happened?

What map?



See the map I have posted that shows the INTERNATIONAL BORDERS OF PALESTINE now will you tell all those countries that they have to get out and stay out because the HoAP have claimed them as their land.

You are caught out by the simplest of things, one of which being you only accept UN rulings when they support you flavour of the month.

Still waiting for the declaration of the acceptance of the UN and International Law of the nation of Palestine within the borders of the partition plan that includes all of Israel. A map like the one above will be acceptable as long as it is from the UN.

Here is a map of Palestine that includes the proposed partinion plan borders that never happened.

(COMMENT)

Surely you must be listening to the Arabs. Because the UN says otherwise?

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."

SOURCE: PAL/169 17 May 1948

Are you saying the UN is wrong? Or is this your interpretation of the events as you want them to have happened?

The Arabs can reject their offer, but they cannot withhold the right of self-determination from the Jewish People.

Most Respectfully,
R

Here is what I said.

The proposed borders of resolution 181 never became borders. Resolution 181 was never implemented. The UN does not recognize them as Israel's borders. The Palestinians do not recognize them as Israel's borders. Israel never claimed or recognized those borders.

Of the three players in the game, not one has recognized those proposed borders as defining Israeli territory. I don't know why people keep bringing up resolution 181, it is meaningless.

What part is incorrect?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is misleading, but not entirely untrue.

The proposed borders of resolution 181 never became borders. Resolution 181 was never implemented. The UN does not recognize them as Israel's borders. The Palestinians do not recognize them as Israel's borders. Israel never claimed or recognized those borders.

Of the three players in the game, not one has recognized those proposed borders as defining Israeli territory. I don't know why people keep bringing up resolution 181, it is meaningless.

What part is incorrect?

(COMMENT)

• The proposed borders of resolution 181 never became borders.
  • They were borders for several hours; until the Sun rose and the Arab Armies overran them. As an outcome of battlefield success, what was the Forward Edge of the Battlefield Area (a line known as the FEBA) between the Arab Armies and Israel, essential became the Armistice Lines.

• Resolution 181 was never implemented.
  • The Arab portion was not implemented.
  • The Jerusalem Portion was not implemented.
  • The Israeli portion (Jewish State) was implemented per the UNPC and Declaration of Independence.

• The UN does not recognize them as Israel's borders.
  • None of the Resolution 181(II) boundaries existed long and have been overtaken by military operations. Thus, the UN considered them altered by the conflict and established the Armistice Lines as the demarcation, instead of a border. If you prefer, you may refer to them as an International Demarcation Line; if that makes you feel better. They have the same recognition as a border. Now what the Palestinians choose to recognize is up to them; at their own risk.
    • Under the Rule of Law, "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."

• The Palestinians do not recognize them as Israel's borders.
  • The Palestinians don't recognize anything dealing with Israel. However they consistently lost more and more control over potential sovereign territory. They need the controversy to sustain their argument. But if one compares the pre-war partition to the 1949 Armistice lines, one can easily see that the Palestinians lost territory to permanent Israeli control.

• Israel never claimed or recognized those borders.
  • What Israel claims, it controls. Luckily, Israel did not do what Jordan did and annex the West Bank. The borders and boundaries that were once in play (by Resolution 181), fell victim to Arab external interference and armed aggression. Israel has pretty stable international boundaries with Egypt and Jordan. They are formally recognized by treaty. Lebanon has a stable boundary, with a couple disputes, that are challenged only by Hezbollah insurgents and terrorists. The Golan Heights are problematic for both Syria and Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is misleading, but not entirely untrue.

The proposed borders of resolution 181 never became borders. Resolution 181 was never implemented. The UN does not recognize them as Israel's borders. The Palestinians do not recognize them as Israel's borders. Israel never claimed or recognized those borders.

Of the three players in the game, not one has recognized those proposed borders as defining Israeli territory. I don't know why people keep bringing up resolution 181, it is meaningless.

What part is incorrect?

(COMMENT)

• The proposed borders of resolution 181 never became borders.
  • They were borders for several hours; until the Sun rose and the Arab Armies overran them. As an outcome of battlefield success, what was the Forward Edge of the Battlefield Area (a line known as the FEBA) between the Arab Armies and Israel, essential became the Armistice Lines.

Resolution 181 borders were never recognized by anyone. Israel was attacking Palestinians outside of those borders before its declaration.

• Resolution 181 was never implemented.
  • The Arab portion was not implemented.
  • The Jerusalem Portion was not implemented.
  • The Israeli portion (Jewish State) was implemented per the UNPC and Declaration of Independence.

The creation of Israel was completely unilateral. The UN had nothing to do with it.

• The UN does not recognize them as Israel's borders.
  • None of the Resolution 181(II) boundaries existed long and have been overtaken by military operations. Thus, the UN considered them altered by the conflict and established the Armistice Lines as the demarcation, instead of a border. If you prefer, you may refer to them as an International Demarcation Line; if that makes you feel better. They have the same recognition as a border. Now what the Palestinians choose to recognize is up to them; at their own risk.
    • Under the Rule of Law, "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 have never heard of that one before. Got a link?

Armistice lines do not define any land or states.

• The Palestinians do not recognize them as Israel's borders.
  • The Palestinians don't recognize anything dealing with Israel. However they consistently lost more and more control over potential sovereign territory. They need the controversy to sustain their argument. But if one compares the pre-war partition to the 1949 Armistice lines, one can easily see that the Palestinians lost territory to permanent Israeli control.

Control is the operative word. Israeli control of Palestinian land does not make it Israeli land. It makes it Israeli occupied Palestinian land.

• Israel never claimed or recognized those borders.
  • What Israel claims, it controls. Luckily, Israel did not do what Jordan did and annex the West Bank. The borders and boundaries that were once in play (by Resolution 181), fell victim to Arab external interference and armed aggression. Israel has pretty stable international boundaries with Egypt and Jordan. They are formally recognized by treaty. Lebanon has a stable boundary, with a couple disputes, that are challenged only by Hezbollah insurgents and terrorists. The Golan Heights are problematic for both Syria and Israel.

I can't find where Israel ever annexed the land that Israel sits on. Got a link?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is misleading, but not entirely untrue.

What part is incorrect?

(COMMENT)

• The proposed borders of resolution 181 never became borders.
  • They were borders for several hours; until the Sun rose and the Arab Armies overran them. As an outcome of battlefield success, what was the Forward Edge of the Battlefield Area (a line known as the FEBA) between the Arab Armies and Israel, essential became the Armistice Lines.

Resolution 181 borders were never recognized by anyone. Israel was attacking Palestinians outside of those borders before its declaration.


The creation of Israel was completely unilateral. The UN had nothing to do with it.


I have never heard of that one before. Got a link?

Armistice lines do not define any land or states.


Control is the operative word. Israeli control of Palestinian land does not make it Israeli land. It makes it Israeli occupied Palestinian land.

• Israel never claimed or recognized those borders.
  • What Israel claims, it controls. Luckily, Israel did not do what Jordan did and annex the West Bank. The borders and boundaries that were once in play (by Resolution 181), fell victim to Arab external interference and armed aggression. Israel has pretty stable international boundaries with Egypt and Jordan. They are formally recognized by treaty. Lebanon has a stable boundary, with a couple disputes, that are challenged only by Hezbollah insurgents and terrorists. The Golan Heights are problematic for both Syria and Israel.

I can't find where Israel ever annexed the land that Israel sits on. Got a link?

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel was attacking Palestinians outside of those borders before its declaration

You're a liar. They were BOTH attacking each other. The Jewish residents (with European Zionists in the mix) vs. the Arab residents (with Arab soldiers coming in from surrounding countries to help)

You need to stop distorting history if you want the little bit of credibility you have left to remain intact