I will not Bow!

[toastman]

I've already shown you links for Egypts border with Israel, here is the peace treaty that gave Israel a internationally recognized border with Jordan:

A/50/73-S/1995/83 of 27 January 1995

Article 3 - International Boundary

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.

2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

3. The parties recognise the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.

 

[toastman]

It really doesn't get clearer than that

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, Phoenall, et al,

The international boundaries are set and recognized by the parties to the boundary lines. In the case of Egypt and Jordan, they are set by the respective treaty:

• A/50/73 S/1995/83 27 January 1995 Treaty with Jordan See Article III

• Treaty Document 26 March 1979 State of Israel and the Arab Republic of Egypt See Article II

Because of hostile Arab intervention, multiple wars over time, the arrangement between Lebanon and Israel has a number of facets to it.

What land and borders were specified in that declaration?

None as the borders were still flexible, but the benchmark was the partition plan borders. Then the arab armies attacked and managed to steal portions of Israel in the process, so after the war Israel was smaller than originally planned. The UN decided to waive the "no land gained by war" rule and allowed Jordan, Syria and Egypt to keep the land they had stole.

International borders are flexible?

Do you have a link for that? Under what terms can international borders be changed?

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians see what they want to see, relative to the international boundary dispute between Lebanon and Israel.

First to answer the question in a straight forward manner: International Boundaries change all the time though history using any number of mechanisms. In the case of Israel, the boundaries were last altered by treaty and, in the case of Lebanon-Israel, by state-to-state recognition brokered through the UN.

Reference: A/54/914 S/2000/564 12 June 2000 Letter dated 9 June 2000 from the President of Lebanon addressed to the Secretary-General

If you read the referenced letter, you will see that Lebanon had a concern that the name and the distinction of the border line was an issue. You will note the following:

(Insert Item 1) confirm unequivocally that there are between Lebanon and Israel “internationally recognized boundaries” that have never been in dispute between the two countries.

(Insert Item #2) There is an existing international boundary that is not in doubt and that is established in the records and by history, and it can obviously be used to confirm whether or not the withdrawal has taken place.

(Insert Item #3) The concept of a “de facto line” is used in the Secretary-General’s report only with reference to the status of the Shab’a farmlands. Lebanon was astonished by the attempt to apply the same concept to the Lebanon-Israel boundaries, which is totally incompatible with the Secretary-General’s report and Security Council resolution 425 (1978). Where there are “internationally recognized boundaries” there can be no “de facto line”. Indeed, the Secretary-General adopted such a line only where there was ambiguity in the case of the boundaries of the Shab’a farmlands.

(Signed) Émile Lahoud
General
President of the Republic​

Now I invite you all to read the letter in its entirety. Because the letter expresses the concern by the President of Lebanon, that unscrupulous people might take advantage of the UN ambiguity between the “withdrawal line” rather than the “boundary line” in breach of Security Council resolution 425 (1978) calling "for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries."

The Hostile Arab-Palestinians (HoAP) may, at any time, as outside observer having no standing in the matter and no legal basis in the matter, channeling the scope and nature of the boundary between Israel and Lebanon. But at the end of the day, the HoAP, has nothing to say about it. The boundary is what the two states (Lebanon and Israel) want to call it. At the opening of the 21st Century, it pleases Lebanon to call it an "International Boundary" and they seem to object to it being portrayed by any other party as something otherwise.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[pbel]

The filastins wont accept a shared capital, with them it is all or nothing. Leave them another 2 or 3 years and they will start to die out due to overcrowding, disease, starvation and infighting. If they want war then let them declare war and show the world that it is them being intransigent and belligerent. At the end of the day Jerusalem was 60% Jewish owned in 1948 before the arab armies tried genocide instead of talking

Ownership by money is not ownership of sovereignty, at the end of the day Jerusalem had been Arab controlled for a millennia...money can't buy you love or nationhood.

I don't see Israel offering to share, I only see settlement building on others lands. no one on planet Earth has recognized her annexation, not even her greatest ally America.

What you see is an illusion that does not exist, Jerusalem was not arab controlled for nearly 1200 years, it was owned by the Ottoman empire who sold the property to the Jews so they could administer it for the Ottomans. So it was owned and ruled by the Jews while the arabs were still in the process of migrating to the area.
What you see as settlement building on others land is actually Jews building on Jewish owned land, paid for by Jewish families prior to the mandate. Land deeds that the British accepted as valid and so used the land ownership as ball park figure to allocate land for the Jewish state. The maps show very little in the way of arab land ownership pre 1948, and anyone can buy a rusty key and claim it fitted the door to their 25 roomed mansion in the middle of Jerusalem

OK...settled by Palestinian Arabs and ruled by the Islamic Ottomans...The Ottoman's also ruled Greece which joined the Empire voluntarily...Is Greece Greek?

Again Ownership of Land does not change Sovereignty...Stop trying to distort the facts, because we're not all fools on this board.



P.S.

Any peace deal should and must have provision for money reparations for real-estate losses for every body.

 

[MHunterB]

"Any peace deal should and must have provision for money reparations for real-estate losses for every body. "

As long as you're including in that number the losses suffered by nearly one million refugees who were victims of the Arab League's conspiracy to ethnically cleanse the rest of the ME of its Jewish citizens, I think that is reasonable.

The AL nations have gone for decades without repairing the damage they - and only they - have caused in their warmongering against Israel. If they cede money in place of the land and businesses they stole, I think that would be fair. ALL parties involved in causing people to be refugees should pay up - including KSA for their part in inciting the Palestinians to continually attack the Israeli people.

 

[docmauser1]

People who are willing to die to regain their dignity have nothing to lose.

Cool, what are they waiting for?

 

[docmauser1]

OK...settled by Palestinian Arabs and ruled by the Islamic Ottomans...The Ottoman's also ruled Greece which joined the Empire voluntarily...Is Greece Greek?

Is the northern Cyprus greek?

Again Ownership of Land does not change Sovereignty...Stop trying to distort the facts, because we're not all fools on this board.

Where/when was that "sovereign state of palestine"?

Any peace deal should and must have provision for money reparations for real-estate losses for every body.

Is Kerry willing to pay for those bridges and snake oil?

 

[Mojo2]

The Palestinian Arabs won't regain their dignity until they stop allowing themselves to be the fall guys for the Arab League's ambitions for a judenrein ME.

Their "leadership" has been given the same choice over and over since the Mandate days - and they have chosen over and over to reject any 'relations' but war with an Israel of any size or shape.

Trust the fools to 'romanticize' that into some fantasy of the 'noble savage' .......

The world saw what Jordan (the Palestinian ethnic state) did with Jerusalem when they got the chance - thousands of Jerusalemites ethnically cleansed, tens of thousands of graves in the Mt of Olives cemetery desecrated, their tombstones used to pave roads and line sewer ditches.

Noble savage.. your illiteracy and libel is the cause of war...Palestinians are the most educated Arabs on the peninsula....Abbas has a PhD along with thousands of others...

And for all their education you'd think they'd have outgrown their bigotry and hatred.

I guess anti-Semitic violence is culturally acceptable by these 'educated' people.

YNet: One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children:

The PJ Tatler » 32% of Palestinians support infanticide
Poll: 32% of Palestinians support Itamar attack - Israel News, Ynetnews

 

[ForeverYoung436]

The Palestinian Arabs won't regain their dignity until they stop allowing themselves to be the fall guys for the Arab League's ambitions for a judenrein ME.

Their "leadership" has been given the same choice over and over since the Mandate days - and they have chosen over and over to reject any 'relations' but war with an Israel of any size or shape.

Trust the fools to 'romanticize' that into some fantasy of the 'noble savage' .......

The world saw what Jordan (the Palestinian ethnic state) did with Jerusalem when they got the chance - thousands of Jerusalemites ethnically cleansed, tens of thousands of graves in the Mt of Olives cemetery desecrated, their tombstones used to pave roads and line sewer ditches.

Noble savage.. your illiteracy and libel is the cause of war...Palestinians are the most educated Arabs on the peninsula....Abbas has a PhD along with thousands of others...

And for all their education you'd think they'd have outgrown their bigotry and hatred.

I guess anti-Semitic violence is culturally acceptable by these 'educated' people.

YNet: One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children:

The PJ Tatler » 32% of Palestinians support infanticide
Poll: 32% of Palestinians support Itamar attack - Israel News, Ynetnews

The Nazis were also very educated people.

Pbel, Palestinians don't live on a peninsula. Few of them live in Saudi Arabia.

 

[pbel]

Noble savage.. your illiteracy and libel is the cause of war...Palestinians are the most educated Arabs on the peninsula....Abbas has a PhD along with thousands of others...

And for all their education you'd think they'd have outgrown their bigotry and hatred.

I guess anti-Semitic violence is culturally acceptable by these 'educated' people.

YNet: One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children:

The PJ Tatler » 32% of Palestinians support infanticide
Poll: 32% of Palestinians support Itamar attack - Israel News, Ynetnews

The Nazis were also very educated people.

Pbel, Palestinians don't live on a peninsula. Few of them live in Saudi Arabia.

Keep making a mockery of common sense and Justice by trying to sell the world your Victim Hood...The World Powers all recalled Israeli ambassadors over the continuos land theft of Palestinian lands through settlement building, yesterday.

Frankly I wish America would wash our hands of this thieving state...We have lost many thousands of our children soldiers fighting Israel's enemies...America is self-sufficient in Oil...Let the Europeans deal with the Right Wing Zionists they have a lot more experience than us...

 

[pbel]

The Palestinian Arabs won't regain their dignity until they stop allowing themselves to be the fall guys for the Arab League's ambitions for a judenrein ME.

Their "leadership" has been given the same choice over and over since the Mandate days - and they have chosen over and over to reject any 'relations' but war with an Israel of any size or shape.

Trust the fools to 'romanticize' that into some fantasy of the 'noble savage' .......

The world saw what Jordan (the Palestinian ethnic state) did with Jerusalem when they got the chance - thousands of Jerusalemites ethnically cleansed, tens of thousands of graves in the Mt of Olives cemetery desecrated, their tombstones used to pave roads and line sewer ditches.

Noble savage.. your illiteracy and libel is the cause of war...Palestinians are the most educated Arabs on the peninsula....Abbas has a PhD along with thousands of others...

And for all their education you'd think they'd have outgrown their bigotry and hatred.

I guess anti-Semitic violence is culturally acceptable by these 'educated' people.

YNet: One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children:

The PJ Tatler » 32% of Palestinians support infanticide
Poll: 32% of Palestinians support Itamar attack - Israel News, Ynetnews

THE Islamic Nations see Israel as a new Crusader invasion created by Europeans and Western Support by the compliant American Congress ...

The ordinary person has supported rebellion against any leader or dictators that supported the West...The Arab Spring is a result of this living process...

Israel needs to make its case by signing a peace treaty or time and constant friction will doom her Politically and eventually bankruptcy...Israel needs to spread economic prosperity in the area which will spark Democracies and stability.

Its Israel's choice: prosperity for their enemies and brothers genetically or future exhaustive conflict or acceptance?

The Arabs have used this method of resistance and thus far it has worked.

 

[Mojo2]

Noble savage.. your illiteracy and libel is the cause of war...Palestinians are the most educated Arabs on the peninsula....Abbas has a PhD along with thousands of others...

And for all their education you'd think they'd have outgrown their bigotry and hatred.

I guess anti-Semitic violence is culturally acceptable by these 'educated' people.

YNet: One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children:

The PJ Tatler » 32% of Palestinians support infanticide
Poll: 32% of Palestinians support Itamar attack - Israel News, Ynetnews

THE Islamic Nations see Israel as a new Crusader invasion created by Europeans and Western Support by the compliant American Congress ...

The ordinary person has supported rebellion against any leader or dictators that supported the West...The Arab Spring is a result of this living process...

Israel needs to make its case by signing a peace treaty or time and constant friction will doom her Politically and eventually bankruptcy...Israel needs to spread economic prosperity in the area which will spark Democracies and stability.

Its Israel's choice: prosperity for their enemies and brothers genetically or future exhaustive conflict or acceptance?

The Arabs have used this method of resistance and thus far it has worked.

Muslim anti-Semitism existed long before the the 'birth' of Israel.

As for the opposing claims to Jerusalem consider this (and then go to the link to read the entire article):

Conclusion

Politics, not religious sensibility, has fueled the Muslim attachment to Jerusalem for nearly fourteen centuries; what the historian Bernard Wasserstein has written about the growth of Muslim feeling in the course of the Countercrusade applies through the centuries: "often in the history of Jerusalem, heightened religious fervour may be explained in large part by political necessity."

This pattern has three main implications.

First, Jerusalem will never be more than a secondary city for Muslims; "belief in the sanctity of Jerusalem," Sivan rightly concludes, "cannot be said to have been widely diffused nor deeply rooted in Islam."

Second, the Muslim interest lies not so much in controlling Jerusalem as it does in denying control over the city to anyone else.

Third, the Islamic connection to the city is weaker than the Jewish one because it arises as much from transitory and mundane considerations as from the immutable claims of faith.

The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem :: Daniel Pipes

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, Phoenall, et al,

The international boundaries are set and recognized by the parties to the boundary lines. In the case of Egypt and Jordan, they are set by the respective treaty:

• A/50/73 S/1995/83 27 January 1995 Treaty with Jordan See Article III

• Treaty Document 26 March 1979 State of Israel and the Arab Republic of Egypt See Article II

Because of hostile Arab intervention, multiple wars over time, the arrangement between Lebanon and Israel has a number of facets to it.

None as the borders were still flexible, but the benchmark was the partition plan borders. Then the arab armies attacked and managed to steal portions of Israel in the process, so after the war Israel was smaller than originally planned. The UN decided to waive the "no land gained by war" rule and allowed Jordan, Syria and Egypt to keep the land they had stole.

International borders are flexible?

Do you have a link for that? Under what terms can international borders be changed?

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians see what they want to see, relative to the international boundary dispute between Lebanon and Israel.

First to answer the question in a straight forward manner: International Boundaries change all the time though history using any number of mechanisms. In the case of Israel, the boundaries were last altered by treaty and, in the case of Lebanon-Israel, by state-to-state recognition brokered through the UN.

Reference: A/54/914 S/2000/564 12 June 2000 Letter dated 9 June 2000 from the President of Lebanon addressed to the Secretary-General

If you read the referenced letter, you will see that Lebanon had a concern that the name and the distinction of the border line was an issue. You will note the following:

(Insert Item 1) confirm unequivocally that there are between Lebanon and Israel “internationally recognized boundaries” that have never been in dispute between the two countries.

(Insert Item #2) There is an existing international boundary that is not in doubt and that is established in the records and by history, and it can obviously be used to confirm whether or not the withdrawal has taken place.

(Insert Item #3) The concept of a “de facto line” is used in the Secretary-General’s report only with reference to the status of the Shab’a farmlands. Lebanon was astonished by the attempt to apply the same concept to the Lebanon-Israel boundaries, which is totally incompatible with the Secretary-General’s report and Security Council resolution 425 (1978). Where there are “internationally recognized boundaries” there can be no “de facto line”. Indeed, the Secretary-General adopted such a line only where there was ambiguity in the case of the boundaries of the Shab’a farmlands.

(Signed) Émile Lahoud
General
President of the Republic​

Now I invite you all to read the letter in its entirety. Because the letter expresses the concern by the President of Lebanon, that unscrupulous people might take advantage of the UN ambiguity between the “withdrawal line” rather than the “boundary line” in breach of Security Council resolution 425 (1978) calling "for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries."

The Hostile Arab-Palestinians (HoAP) may, at any time, as outside observer having no standing in the matter and no legal basis in the matter, channeling the scope and nature of the boundary between Israel and Lebanon. But at the end of the day, the HoAP, has nothing to say about it. The boundary is what the two states (Lebanon and Israel) want to call it. At the opening of the 21st Century, it pleases Lebanon to call it an "International Boundary" and they seem to object to it being portrayed by any other party as something otherwise.

Most Respectfully,
R

All this but you did not answer my question. "Under what terms can international borders be changed?"

You posted S/RES/425 (1978) of 19 March 1978

Calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries;

This is about Lebanon's territorial integrity inside Lebanon's international borders. It says nothing about any Israeli territory or borders.

The international boundaries between Lebanon and Palestine were defined by post WWI treaties. The only "border" between Lebanon and Israel is the 1949 armistice line. (and later the "blue line" but still no border) This line did not separate a place called Israel from Lebanon but merely stated a line that neither military forces were to cross.

 

[P F Tinmore]

And for all their education you'd think they'd have outgrown their bigotry and hatred.

I guess anti-Semitic violence is culturally acceptable by these 'educated' people.

THE Islamic Nations see Israel as a new Crusader invasion created by Europeans and Western Support by the compliant American Congress ...

The ordinary person has supported rebellion against any leader or dictators that supported the West...The Arab Spring is a result of this living process...

Israel needs to make its case by signing a peace treaty or time and constant friction will doom her Politically and eventually bankruptcy...Israel needs to spread economic prosperity in the area which will spark Democracies and stability.

Its Israel's choice: prosperity for their enemies and brothers genetically or future exhaustive conflict or acceptance?

The Arabs have used this method of resistance and thus far it has worked.

Muslim anti-Semitism existed long before the the 'birth' of Israel.

As for the opposing claims to Jerusalem consider this (and then go to the link to read the entire article):

Conclusion

Politics, not religious sensibility, has fueled the Muslim attachment to Jerusalem for nearly fourteen centuries; what the historian Bernard Wasserstein has written about the growth of Muslim feeling in the course of the Countercrusade applies through the centuries: "often in the history of Jerusalem, heightened religious fervour may be explained in large part by political necessity."

This pattern has three main implications.

First, Jerusalem will never be more than a secondary city for Muslims; "belief in the sanctity of Jerusalem," Sivan rightly concludes, "cannot be said to have been widely diffused nor deeply rooted in Islam."

Second, the Muslim interest lies not so much in controlling Jerusalem as it does in denying control over the city to anyone else.

Third, the Islamic connection to the city is weaker than the Jewish one because it arises as much from transitory and mundane considerations as from the immutable claims of faith.

The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem :: Daniel Pipes

Why no mention of the Jerusalemite Christians? They are being kicked out by Israel too. What is the story about that?

 

[pbel]

And for all their education you'd think they'd have outgrown their bigotry and hatred.

I guess anti-Semitic violence is culturally acceptable by these 'educated' people.

THE Islamic Nations see Israel as a new Crusader invasion created by Europeans and Western Support by the compliant American Congress ...

The ordinary person has supported rebellion against any leader or dictators that supported the West...The Arab Spring is a result of this living process...

Israel needs to make its case by signing a peace treaty or time and constant friction will doom her Politically and eventually bankruptcy...Israel needs to spread economic prosperity in the area which will spark Democracies and stability.

Its Israel's choice: prosperity for their enemies and brothers genetically or future exhaustive conflict or acceptance?

The Arabs have used this method of resistance and thus far it has worked.

Muslim anti-Semitism existed long before the the 'birth' of Israel.

As for the opposing claims to Jerusalem consider this (and then go to the link to read the entire article):

Conclusion

Politics, not religious sensibility, has fueled the Muslim attachment to Jerusalem for nearly fourteen centuries; what the historian Bernard Wasserstein has written about the growth of Muslim feeling in the course of the Countercrusade applies through the centuries: "often in the history of Jerusalem, heightened religious fervour may be explained in large part by political necessity."

This pattern has three main implications.

First, Jerusalem will never be more than a secondary city for Muslims; "belief in the sanctity of Jerusalem," Sivan rightly concludes, "cannot be said to have been widely diffused nor deeply rooted in Islam."

Second, the Muslim interest lies not so much in controlling Jerusalem as it does in denying control over the city to anyone else.

Third, the Islamic connection to the city is weaker than the Jewish one because it arises as much from transitory and mundane considerations as from the immutable claims of faith.

The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem :: Daniel Pipes

Posters like your plead anti-Semitism yet support the expropriation of land from a helpless defenseless population...Israel does not seem to understand the world community that this is against International Law...The last time a land grab in Serbia we bombed it to smithereens...She only hangs on to US Power because of AIPAC Control of Congress...

Only American withdrawal of support will reign her in. We desperately need Campaign fFinance Reform to Remove Money from Politics!

 

[P F Tinmore]

THE Islamic Nations see Israel as a new Crusader invasion created by Europeans and Western Support by the compliant American Congress ...

The ordinary person has supported rebellion against any leader or dictators that supported the West...The Arab Spring is a result of this living process...

Israel needs to make its case by signing a peace treaty or time and constant friction will doom her Politically and eventually bankruptcy...Israel needs to spread economic prosperity in the area which will spark Democracies and stability.

Its Israel's choice: prosperity for their enemies and brothers genetically or future exhaustive conflict or acceptance?

The Arabs have used this method of resistance and thus far it has worked.

Muslim anti-Semitism existed long before the the 'birth' of Israel.

As for the opposing claims to Jerusalem consider this (and then go to the link to read the entire article):

Conclusion

Politics, not religious sensibility, has fueled the Muslim attachment to Jerusalem for nearly fourteen centuries; what the historian Bernard Wasserstein has written about the growth of Muslim feeling in the course of the Countercrusade applies through the centuries: "often in the history of Jerusalem, heightened religious fervour may be explained in large part by political necessity."

This pattern has three main implications.

First, Jerusalem will never be more than a secondary city for Muslims; "belief in the sanctity of Jerusalem," Sivan rightly concludes, "cannot be said to have been widely diffused nor deeply rooted in Islam."

Second, the Muslim interest lies not so much in controlling Jerusalem as it does in denying control over the city to anyone else.

Third, the Islamic connection to the city is weaker than the Jewish one because it arises as much from transitory and mundane considerations as from the immutable claims of faith.

The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem :: Daniel Pipes

Posters like your plead anti-Semitism yet support the expropriation of land from a helpless defenseless population...Israel does not seem to understand the world community that this is against International Law...The last time a land grab in Serbia we bombed it to smithereens...She only hangs on to US Power because of AIPAC Control of Congress...

Only American withdrawal of support will reign her in. We desperately need Campaign fFinance Reform to Remove Money from Politics!

Israel d0oes not seem to understand the world community that this is against International Law...

We will see no peace in Israel/Palestine until we see some people in jail.

 

[Kondor3]

"The international boundaries are set and recognized by the parties to the boundary lines. In the case of Egypt and Jordan, they are set by the respective treaty..."

Those 'international boundaries' marked the territorial limits of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, as these abutted the unincorporated, unchartered region then known as Palestine.

From a political perspective, those boundaries marked the end of nation-states, and the beginning of a void or vacuum which had no standing as an incorporated, chartered, autonomous polity.

Towns annex unincorporated lands all the time.

Sometimes, the inhabitants of such unincorporated lands seek to set themselves up as a new and independent polity.

Sometimes, such scenarios find the residents divided into (a) those who want a new polity and (b) those who don't want to participate.

Sometimes, such divisions erupt into bickering, or even violence.

Sometimes, when such violence occurs, the residents end-up scrambling for land and dividing it up with as much advantage to their own faction as may be practicable.

Sometimes, when the faction with the least land wakes up and realizes that they've been bested, they start to piss and moan and play the whiney ***** and claim they actually owned everything and that the other faction are thieves.

When, in truth, it's merely a matter of the other side being smarter and faster and more competent and forward-thinking.

Sour grapes and sore losers.

And then we see the hangers-on, a generation or two later, keeping the pissing and moaning alive, and deluding themselves that old boundaries for incorporated nation-states actually rendered the void or vacuum the status of statehood as well.

It's an amusing little parlor trick, but embarrassingly transparent, and really not going anywhere, legally or - more importantly - practically.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"The international boundaries are set and recognized by the parties to the boundary lines. In the case of Egypt and Jordan, they are set by the respective treaty..."

Those 'international boundaries' marked the territorial limits of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, as these abutted the unincorporated, unchartered region then known as Palestine.

From a political perspective, those boundaries marked the end of nation-states, and the beginning of a void or vacuum which had no standing as an incorporated, chartered, autonomous polity.

Towns annex unincorporated lands all the time.

Sometimes, the inhabitants of such unincorporated lands seek to set themselves up as a new and independent polity.

Sometimes, such scenarios find the residents divided into (a) those who want a new polity and (b) those who don't want to participate.

Sometimes, such divisions erupt into bickering, or even violence.

Sometimes, when such violence occurs, the residents end-up scrambling for land and dividing it up with as much advantage to their own faction as may be practicable.

Sometimes, when the faction with the least land wakes up and realizes that they've been bested, they start to piss and moan and play the whiney ***** and claim they actually owned everything and that the other faction are thieves.

When, in truth, it's merely a matter of the other side being smarter and faster and more competent and forward-thinking.

Sour grapes and sore losers.

And then we see the hangers-on, a generation or two later, keeping the pissing and moaning alive, and deluding themselves that old boundaries for incorporated nation-states actually rendered the void or vacuum the status of statehood as well.

It's an amusing little parlor trick, but embarrassingly transparent, and really not going anywhere, legally or - more importantly - practically.

Hogwash.

 

[toastman]

"The international boundaries are set and recognized by the parties to the boundary lines. In the case of Egypt and Jordan, they are set by the respective treaty..."

Those 'international boundaries' marked the territorial limits of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, as these abutted the unincorporated, unchartered region then known as Palestine.

From a political perspective, those boundaries marked the end of nation-states, and the beginning of a void or vacuum which had no standing as an incorporated, chartered, autonomous polity.

Towns annex unincorporated lands all the time.

Sometimes, the inhabitants of such unincorporated lands seek to set themselves up as a new and independent polity.

Sometimes, such scenarios find the residents divided into (a) those who want a new polity and (b) those who don't want to participate.

Sometimes, such divisions erupt into bickering, or even violence.

Sometimes, when such violence occurs, the residents end-up scrambling for land and dividing it up with as much advantage to their own faction as may be practicable.

Sometimes, when the faction with the least land wakes up and realizes that they've been bested, they start to piss and moan and play the whiney ***** and claim they actually owned everything and that the other faction are thieves.

When, in truth, it's merely a matter of the other side being smarter and faster and more competent and forward-thinking.

Sour grapes and sore losers.

And then we see the hangers-on, a generation or two later, keeping the pissing and moaning alive, and deluding themselves that old boundaries for incorporated nation-states actually rendered the void or vacuum the status of statehood as well.

It's an amusing little parlor trick, but embarrassingly transparent, and really not going anywhere, legally or - more importantly - practically.

Hogwash.

Most of what you say is hogwash, so when you tell somebody else, it really means nothing

 

[Kondor3]

"The international boundaries are set and recognized by the parties to the boundary lines. In the case of Egypt and Jordan, they are set by the respective treaty..."

Those 'international boundaries' marked the territorial limits of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, as these abutted the unincorporated, unchartered region then known as Palestine.

From a political perspective, those boundaries marked the end of nation-states, and the beginning of a void or vacuum which had no standing as an incorporated, chartered, autonomous polity.

Towns annex unincorporated lands all the time.

Sometimes, the inhabitants of such unincorporated lands seek to set themselves up as a new and independent polity.

Sometimes, such scenarios find the residents divided into (a) those who want a new polity and (b) those who don't want to participate.

Sometimes, such divisions erupt into bickering, or even violence.

Sometimes, when such violence occurs, the residents end-up scrambling for land and dividing it up with as much advantage to their own faction as may be practicable.

Sometimes, when the faction with the least land wakes up and realizes that they've been bested, they start to piss and moan and play the whiney ***** and claim they actually owned everything and that the other faction are thieves.

When, in truth, it's merely a matter of the other side being smarter and faster and more competent and forward-thinking.

Sour grapes and sore losers.

And then we see the hangers-on, a generation or two later, keeping the pissing and moaning alive, and deluding themselves that old boundaries for incorporated nation-states actually rendered the void or vacuum the status of statehood as well.

It's an amusing little parlor trick, but embarrassingly transparent, and really not going anywhere, legally or - more importantly - practically.

Hogwash.

Hogwash?

How so?

Was 'Palestine' an incorporated, chartered, autonomous, self-governing, internationally-recognized nation-state in 1948 at the termination of the Mandate?

If the answer to that is 'No' - for all practical purposes - then the post as NOT hogwash, but, rather, accurately describes a political vaccum which underwent a division of territory.

Don't unincorporated lands oftentimes set up as a new polity, or divide into factions wanting one solution or another?

And, were the Muslim-Arab Palestinians not 'bested' by the Jewish Palestinians, in that the Jews successfully divided-up the land in order to put part of it under their own control, as they set up as a new polity (the State of Israel), despite the objections of the Muslim faction?

Wherein lies the hogwash?