Indigenous Palestinians Were JEWS

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Allied Powers did not have to call it Palestine. They could have called it Judea or any other name they chose.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the Paulet–Newcombe Agreement (AKA: Franco-British Boundary Agreements).

P F Tinmore, et al,

Show me.

[
Now answer that assuming that Palestine does have defined borders.

Remember that Palestine had already came into existence with defined borders several months before the Mandate could start its administration. And Palestine continued to exist after the Mandate left.

(COMMENT)

I don't know anything about "Palestine" coming "into existence with defined borders several months before the Mandate could start its administration." Show me.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty of Lausanne was a peace treaty signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923.

Treaty of Lausanne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
--------------------
The commission submitted its final report on 3 February 1922, and it was approved with some caveats by the British and French governments on 7 March 1923, several months before Britain and France assumed their Mandatory responsibilities on 29 September 1923

British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

This did NOT establish a border for Palestine (the country). Nor did the Treaty of Lausanne set the demarcation of Palestine (the country). The Paulet–Newcombe Agreement set the boundary that gave meaning to the Sykes-Picot Agreement the separation of the British Mandates (later to be named Palestine and Iraq) from the French Mandates (later to be named Lebanon and Syria).

The Paulet–Newcombe Agreement relates to the Treaty of Lausanne, only in respect to the demarcation of the territories in Area "A" (French) and Area "B" (British) on the Agreement Map. The demarcation established by the Paulet–Newcombe Agreement does not detail the entire perimeter of Palestine in any fashion. In fact, the Paulet-Newcombe Line, in more contemporary times, is somewhat compromised in certain stretches (See Special Note Below):

Article 3, of the Treaty of Lausanne describes the territory of concern to the British (Area "B") for Mandate purposes.

From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:

(I ) With Syria:

The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921
​

(2) With Iraq:

The frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months.

In the event of no agreement being reached between the two Governments within the time mentioned, the dispute shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations.

The Turkish and British Governments reciprocally undertake that, pending the decision to be reached on the subject of the frontier, no military or other movement shall take place which might modify in any way the present state of the territories of which the final fate will depend upon that decision.
​

You will notice immediately the need for the demarcation line. No where in the Treaty of Lausanne is the territory of Palestine (or Lebanon for that matter) mentioned or identified.

The contemporary demarcation of the perimeter of the modern day "West Bank" is essentially described by the, now superseded, Armistice Line as it converges in the north and south with the international border between Israel and Jordan as described by Article 3, Treaty of Peace between Israel and Jordan.

(SPECIAL NOTE)

Even understand the above, does not actually represent the nature of the border dispute between Lebanon and Israel. In the Journal Article, with retired Lebanese General Nizar Abdel-Kader, he points out that some relationships.

Following the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, then Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban declared that Israel would not be bound by any conditions of the 1949 Truce. In 1978 Israel occupied part of southern Lebanon, declaring it a “security zone”. It did not vacate it for the next 22 years, rejecting the requirement of UN Security Resolution (UNSCR) 425 (1978) to withdraw to Lebanon’s “internationally recognised boundaries.” When Israel finally did pull out in May 2000, the new UN Blue Line did not correspond either to Newcomb-Paulet or to the 1949 Truce.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, all of that smoke.

In order for there to be a mandate for Palestine there first had to be a Palestine.

Everything from the Balfour declaration, to the mandate, to resolution 181, to to the armistice agreements, the common term used was "in Palestine." Not to mention the million Palestinians who had Palestinian citizenship.

Now you and the other Israel propagandists are saying that there never was a Palestine.

(COMMENT)

You raised the issue of the Lausanne Treaty and the Paulet-Newcombe Line as evidence of a national boundary for Palestine. I just wanted you to understand that was entirely bogus.

Before there was a Mandate for Palestine, the creation was the Palestine Order in Council. The very first thing it does is explain what "Palestine" means.

• "The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."

The term "Palestine" means the "territories to which the Mandate Applies." It is an entity in which the Allied Powers have established governance. In 1922, the Allied Powers had not yet made a decision on the final outcome of that territory.

I suspect that the undefined territory used in the Balfour Declaration was called Palestine, all they new at that time was it represented a territory in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, in Area "B". There was no geopolitical subdivision called Palestine in the Ottoman Empire, any more than there is a specific boundary for the Bermuda Triangle.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Allied Powers did not have to call it Palestine. They could have called it Judea or any other name they chose.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the Paulet–Newcombe Agreement (AKA: Franco-British Boundary Agreements).

P F Tinmore, et al,

Show me.

[
Now answer that assuming that Palestine does have defined borders.

Remember that Palestine had already came into existence with defined borders several months before the Mandate could start its administration. And Palestine continued to exist after the Mandate left.

(COMMENT)

I don't know anything about "Palestine" coming "into existence with defined borders several months before the Mandate could start its administration." Show me.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty of Lausanne was a peace treaty signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923.

Treaty of Lausanne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
--------------------
The commission submitted its final report on 3 February 1922, and it was approved with some caveats by the British and French governments on 7 March 1923, several months before Britain and France assumed their Mandatory responsibilities on 29 September 1923

British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

This did NOT establish a border for Palestine (the country). Nor did the Treaty of Lausanne set the demarcation of Palestine (the country). The Paulet–Newcombe Agreement set the boundary that gave meaning to the Sykes-Picot Agreement the separation of the British Mandates (later to be named Palestine and Iraq) from the French Mandates (later to be named Lebanon and Syria).

The Paulet–Newcombe Agreement relates to the Treaty of Lausanne, only in respect to the demarcation of the territories in Area "A" (French) and Area "B" (British) on the Agreement Map. The demarcation established by the Paulet–Newcombe Agreement does not detail the entire perimeter of Palestine in any fashion. In fact, the Paulet-Newcombe Line, in more contemporary times, is somewhat compromised in certain stretches (See Special Note Below):

Article 3, of the Treaty of Lausanne describes the territory of concern to the British (Area "B") for Mandate purposes.

From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:

(I ) With Syria:

The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921
​

(2) With Iraq:

The frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months.

In the event of no agreement being reached between the two Governments within the time mentioned, the dispute shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations.

The Turkish and British Governments reciprocally undertake that, pending the decision to be reached on the subject of the frontier, no military or other movement shall take place which might modify in any way the present state of the territories of which the final fate will depend upon that decision.
​

You will notice immediately the need for the demarcation line. No where in the Treaty of Lausanne is the territory of Palestine (or Lebanon for that matter) mentioned or identified.

The contemporary demarcation of the perimeter of the modern day "West Bank" is essentially described by the, now superseded, Armistice Line as it converges in the north and south with the international border between Israel and Jordan as described by Article 3, Treaty of Peace between Israel and Jordan.

(SPECIAL NOTE)

Even understand the above, does not actually represent the nature of the border dispute between Lebanon and Israel. In the Journal Article, with retired Lebanese General Nizar Abdel-Kader, he points out that some relationships.

Following the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, then Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban declared that Israel would not be bound by any conditions of the 1949 Truce. In 1978 Israel occupied part of southern Lebanon, declaring it a “security zone”. It did not vacate it for the next 22 years, rejecting the requirement of UN Security Resolution (UNSCR) 425 (1978) to withdraw to Lebanon’s “internationally recognised boundaries.” When Israel finally did pull out in May 2000, the new UN Blue Line did not correspond either to Newcomb-Paulet or to the 1949 Truce.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, all of that smoke.

In order for there to be a mandate for Palestine there first had to be a Palestine.

Everything from the Balfour declaration, to the mandate, to resolution 181, to to the armistice agreements, the common term used was "in Palestine." Not to mention the million Palestinians who had Palestinian citizenship.

Now you and the other Israel propagandists are saying that there never was a Palestine.

(COMMENT)

You raised the issue of the Lausanne Treaty and the Paulet-Newcombe Line as evidence of a national boundary for Palestine. I just wanted you to understand that was entirely bogus.

Before there was a Mandate for Palestine, the creation was the Palestine Order in Council. The very first thing it does is explain what "Palestine" means.

• "The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."

The term "Palestine" means the "territories to which the Mandate Applies." It is an entity in which the Allied Powers have established governance. In 1922, the Allied Powers had not yet made a decision on the final outcome of that territory.

I suspect that the undefined territory used in the Balfour Declaration was called Palestine, all they new at that time was it represented a territory in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, in Area "B". There was no geopolitical subdivision called Palestine in the Ottoman Empire, any more than there is a specific boundary for the Bermuda Triangle.

Most Respectfully,
R

They called it Palestine because that was the name commonly used.



Look at the 1949 map that you posted.

I don't see any place here called Israel.

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Allied Powers did not have to call it Palestine. They could have called it Judea or any other name they chose.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the Paulet–Newcombe Agreement (AKA: Franco-British Boundary Agreements).

P F Tinmore, et al,

Show me.

(COMMENT)

I don't know anything about "Palestine" coming "into existence with defined borders several months before the Mandate could start its administration." Show me.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty of Lausanne was a peace treaty signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923.

Treaty of Lausanne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
--------------------
The commission submitted its final report on 3 February 1922, and it was approved with some caveats by the British and French governments on 7 March 1923, several months before Britain and France assumed their Mandatory responsibilities on 29 September 1923

British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

This did NOT establish a border for Palestine (the country). Nor did the Treaty of Lausanne set the demarcation of Palestine (the country). The Paulet–Newcombe Agreement set the boundary that gave meaning to the Sykes-Picot Agreement the separation of the British Mandates (later to be named Palestine and Iraq) from the French Mandates (later to be named Lebanon and Syria).

The Paulet–Newcombe Agreement relates to the Treaty of Lausanne, only in respect to the demarcation of the territories in Area "A" (French) and Area "B" (British) on the Agreement Map. The demarcation established by the Paulet–Newcombe Agreement does not detail the entire perimeter of Palestine in any fashion. In fact, the Paulet-Newcombe Line, in more contemporary times, is somewhat compromised in certain stretches (See Special Note Below):

Article 3, of the Treaty of Lausanne describes the territory of concern to the British (Area "B") for Mandate purposes.

From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:

(I ) With Syria:

The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921
​

(2) With Iraq:

The frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months.

In the event of no agreement being reached between the two Governments within the time mentioned, the dispute shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations.

The Turkish and British Governments reciprocally undertake that, pending the decision to be reached on the subject of the frontier, no military or other movement shall take place which might modify in any way the present state of the territories of which the final fate will depend upon that decision.
​

You will notice immediately the need for the demarcation line. No where in the Treaty of Lausanne is the territory of Palestine (or Lebanon for that matter) mentioned or identified.

The contemporary demarcation of the perimeter of the modern day "West Bank" is essentially described by the, now superseded, Armistice Line as it converges in the north and south with the international border between Israel and Jordan as described by Article 3, Treaty of Peace between Israel and Jordan.

(SPECIAL NOTE)

Even understand the above, does not actually represent the nature of the border dispute between Lebanon and Israel. In the Journal Article, with retired Lebanese General Nizar Abdel-Kader, he points out that some relationships.

Following the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, then Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban declared that Israel would not be bound by any conditions of the 1949 Truce. In 1978 Israel occupied part of southern Lebanon, declaring it a “security zone”. It did not vacate it for the next 22 years, rejecting the requirement of UN Security Resolution (UNSCR) 425 (1978) to withdraw to Lebanon’s “internationally recognised boundaries.” When Israel finally did pull out in May 2000, the new UN Blue Line did not correspond either to Newcomb-Paulet or to the 1949 Truce.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, all of that smoke.

In order for there to be a mandate for Palestine there first had to be a Palestine.

Everything from the Balfour declaration, to the mandate, to resolution 181, to to the armistice agreements, the common term used was "in Palestine." Not to mention the million Palestinians who had Palestinian citizenship.

Now you and the other Israel propagandists are saying that there never was a Palestine.

(COMMENT)

You raised the issue of the Lausanne Treaty and the Paulet-Newcombe Line as evidence of a national boundary for Palestine. I just wanted you to understand that was entirely bogus.

Before there was a Mandate for Palestine, the creation was the Palestine Order in Council. The very first thing it does is explain what "Palestine" means.

• "The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."

The term "Palestine" means the "territories to which the Mandate Applies." It is an entity in which the Allied Powers have established governance. In 1922, the Allied Powers had not yet made a decision on the final outcome of that territory.

I suspect that the undefined territory used in the Balfour Declaration was called Palestine, all they new at that time was it represented a territory in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, in Area "B". There was no geopolitical subdivision called Palestine in the Ottoman Empire, any more than there is a specific boundary for the Bermuda Triangle.

Most Respectfully,
R

They called it Palestine because that was the name commonly used.



Look at the 1949 map that you posted.

I don't see any place here called Israel.

 

[MJB12741]

What is the issue here? Do we not all agree there was & still is a territory some call Palestine & that the indigenous Palestinians were Jews?

 

[Phoenall]

Why who says there must be a Palestine, what law makes it a must and it has to be a law that was in existence in 1917 when all this took place. The powers in control took the place on the map called Palestine and used that as the starting point. It was never going to be a nation or state just a name. Is there a stat of Negev or Sinai, how about Sahara, Gobi, Steppes, Pampas, Badlands etc. get it out of your mind that a nation of Palestine was created for the Mandate to exist as it wasn't. The place could have just as easily been called Judea or Samaria for all the difference the name would make.

What we are saying is that until November 1988 there was never a nation or state called Palestine, just an area on the map. So called as an insult to the Jews by the Romans.

Unless you can produce a treaty that specifically states that a nation/state of Palestine with these people as its leaders has been formed by this treaty ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Allied Powers did not have to call it Palestine. They could have called it Judea or any other name they chose.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the Paulet–Newcombe Agreement (AKA: Franco-British Boundary Agreements).

P F Tinmore, et al,

Show me.

(COMMENT)

I don't know anything about "Palestine" coming "into existence with defined borders several months before the Mandate could start its administration." Show me.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Treaty of Lausanne was a peace treaty signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923.

Treaty of Lausanne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
--------------------
The commission submitted its final report on 3 February 1922, and it was approved with some caveats by the British and French governments on 7 March 1923, several months before Britain and France assumed their Mandatory responsibilities on 29 September 1923

British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

This did NOT establish a border for Palestine (the country). Nor did the Treaty of Lausanne set the demarcation of Palestine (the country). The Paulet–Newcombe Agreement set the boundary that gave meaning to the Sykes-Picot Agreement the separation of the British Mandates (later to be named Palestine and Iraq) from the French Mandates (later to be named Lebanon and Syria).

The Paulet–Newcombe Agreement relates to the Treaty of Lausanne, only in respect to the demarcation of the territories in Area "A" (French) and Area "B" (British) on the Agreement Map. The demarcation established by the Paulet–Newcombe Agreement does not detail the entire perimeter of Palestine in any fashion. In fact, the Paulet-Newcombe Line, in more contemporary times, is somewhat compromised in certain stretches (See Special Note Below):

Article 3, of the Treaty of Lausanne describes the territory of concern to the British (Area "B") for Mandate purposes.

From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:

(I ) With Syria:

The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921
​

(2) With Iraq:

The frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months.

In the event of no agreement being reached between the two Governments within the time mentioned, the dispute shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations.

The Turkish and British Governments reciprocally undertake that, pending the decision to be reached on the subject of the frontier, no military or other movement shall take place which might modify in any way the present state of the territories of which the final fate will depend upon that decision.
​

You will notice immediately the need for the demarcation line. No where in the Treaty of Lausanne is the territory of Palestine (or Lebanon for that matter) mentioned or identified.

The contemporary demarcation of the perimeter of the modern day "West Bank" is essentially described by the, now superseded, Armistice Line as it converges in the north and south with the international border between Israel and Jordan as described by Article 3, Treaty of Peace between Israel and Jordan.

(SPECIAL NOTE)

Even understand the above, does not actually represent the nature of the border dispute between Lebanon and Israel. In the Journal Article, with retired Lebanese General Nizar Abdel-Kader, he points out that some relationships.

Following the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, then Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban declared that Israel would not be bound by any conditions of the 1949 Truce. In 1978 Israel occupied part of southern Lebanon, declaring it a “security zone”. It did not vacate it for the next 22 years, rejecting the requirement of UN Security Resolution (UNSCR) 425 (1978) to withdraw to Lebanon’s “internationally recognised boundaries.” When Israel finally did pull out in May 2000, the new UN Blue Line did not correspond either to Newcomb-Paulet or to the 1949 Truce.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, all of that smoke.

In order for there to be a mandate for Palestine there first had to be a Palestine.

Everything from the Balfour declaration, to the mandate, to resolution 181, to to the armistice agreements, the common term used was "in Palestine." Not to mention the million Palestinians who had Palestinian citizenship.

Now you and the other Israel propagandists are saying that there never was a Palestine.

(COMMENT)

You raised the issue of the Lausanne Treaty and the Paulet-Newcombe Line as evidence of a national boundary for Palestine. I just wanted you to understand that was entirely bogus.

Before there was a Mandate for Palestine, the creation was the Palestine Order in Council. The very first thing it does is explain what "Palestine" means.

• "The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."

The term "Palestine" means the "territories to which the Mandate Applies." It is an entity in which the Allied Powers have established governance. In 1922, the Allied Powers had not yet made a decision on the final outcome of that territory.

I suspect that the undefined territory used in the Balfour Declaration was called Palestine, all they new at that time was it represented a territory in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, in Area "B". There was no geopolitical subdivision called Palestine in the Ottoman Empire, any more than there is a specific boundary for the Bermuda Triangle.

Most Respectfully,
R

They called it Palestine because that was the name commonly used.



Look at the 1949 map that you posted.

I don't see any place here called Israel.

I can see it mentioned at least 6 times on this map, have you tried getting an eye sight test done ?

 

[MJB12741]

Fortunately for Israel the Palestinians have found a near perfect governing replacement for Arafat with Hamas to keep the Palestinians still living in ignorance & poverty with no hope for a Palestinian State.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Allied Powers did not have to call it Palestine. They could have called it Judea or any other name they chose.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the Paulet–Newcombe Agreement (AKA: Franco-British Boundary Agreements).

The Treaty of Lausanne was a peace treaty signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923.

Treaty of Lausanne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
--------------------
The commission submitted its final report on 3 February 1922, and it was approved with some caveats by the British and French governments on 7 March 1923, several months before Britain and France assumed their Mandatory responsibilities on 29 September 1923

British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

This did NOT establish a border for Palestine (the country). Nor did the Treaty of Lausanne set the demarcation of Palestine (the country). The Paulet–Newcombe Agreement set the boundary that gave meaning to the Sykes-Picot Agreement the separation of the British Mandates (later to be named Palestine and Iraq) from the French Mandates (later to be named Lebanon and Syria).

The Paulet–Newcombe Agreement relates to the Treaty of Lausanne, only in respect to the demarcation of the territories in Area "A" (French) and Area "B" (British) on the Agreement Map. The demarcation established by the Paulet–Newcombe Agreement does not detail the entire perimeter of Palestine in any fashion. In fact, the Paulet-Newcombe Line, in more contemporary times, is somewhat compromised in certain stretches (See Special Note Below):

Article 3, of the Treaty of Lausanne describes the territory of concern to the British (Area "B") for Mandate purposes.

From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:

(I ) With Syria:

The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921
​

(2) With Iraq:

The frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months.

In the event of no agreement being reached between the two Governments within the time mentioned, the dispute shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations.

The Turkish and British Governments reciprocally undertake that, pending the decision to be reached on the subject of the frontier, no military or other movement shall take place which might modify in any way the present state of the territories of which the final fate will depend upon that decision.
​

You will notice immediately the need for the demarcation line. No where in the Treaty of Lausanne is the territory of Palestine (or Lebanon for that matter) mentioned or identified.

The contemporary demarcation of the perimeter of the modern day "West Bank" is essentially described by the, now superseded, Armistice Line as it converges in the north and south with the international border between Israel and Jordan as described by Article 3, Treaty of Peace between Israel and Jordan.

(SPECIAL NOTE)

Even understand the above, does not actually represent the nature of the border dispute between Lebanon and Israel. In the Journal Article, with retired Lebanese General Nizar Abdel-Kader, he points out that some relationships.

Following the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, then Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban declared that Israel would not be bound by any conditions of the 1949 Truce. In 1978 Israel occupied part of southern Lebanon, declaring it a “security zone”. It did not vacate it for the next 22 years, rejecting the requirement of UN Security Resolution (UNSCR) 425 (1978) to withdraw to Lebanon’s “internationally recognised boundaries.” When Israel finally did pull out in May 2000, the new UN Blue Line did not correspond either to Newcomb-Paulet or to the 1949 Truce.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, all of that smoke.

In order for there to be a mandate for Palestine there first had to be a Palestine.

Everything from the Balfour declaration, to the mandate, to resolution 181, to to the armistice agreements, the common term used was "in Palestine." Not to mention the million Palestinians who had Palestinian citizenship.

Now you and the other Israel propagandists are saying that there never was a Palestine.

(COMMENT)

You raised the issue of the Lausanne Treaty and the Paulet-Newcombe Line as evidence of a national boundary for Palestine. I just wanted you to understand that was entirely bogus.

Before there was a Mandate for Palestine, the creation was the Palestine Order in Council. The very first thing it does is explain what "Palestine" means.

• "The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."

The term "Palestine" means the "territories to which the Mandate Applies." It is an entity in which the Allied Powers have established governance. In 1922, the Allied Powers had not yet made a decision on the final outcome of that territory.

I suspect that the undefined territory used in the Balfour Declaration was called Palestine, all they new at that time was it represented a territory in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, in Area "B". There was no geopolitical subdivision called Palestine in the Ottoman Empire, any more than there is a specific boundary for the Bermuda Triangle.

Most Respectfully,
R

They called it Palestine because that was the name commonly used.



Look at the 1949 map that you posted.

I don't see any place here called Israel.

I can see it mentioned at least 6 times on this map, have you tried getting an eye sight test done ?

I don't see Israel on that map at all. I don't see place designated Israel. I don't see any borders for Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why who says there must be a Palestine, what law makes it a must and it has to be a law that was in existence in 1917 when all this took place. The powers in control took the place on the map called Palestine and used that as the starting point. It was never going to be a nation or state just a name. Is there a stat of Negev or Sinai, how about Sahara, Gobi, Steppes, Pampas, Badlands etc. get it out of your mind that a nation of Palestine was created for the Mandate to exist as it wasn't. The place could have just as easily been called Judea or Samaria for all the difference the name would make.

What we are saying is that until November 1988 there was never a nation or state called Palestine, just an area on the map. So called as an insult to the Jews by the Romans.

Unless you can produce a treaty that specifically states that a nation/state of Palestine with these people as its leaders has been formed by this treaty ?

It was never going to be a nation or state just a name.​

Link?

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Allied Powers did not have to call it Palestine. They could have called it Judea or any other name they chose.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the Paulet–Newcombe Agreement (AKA: Franco-British Boundary Agreements).

(COMMENT)

This did NOT establish a border for Palestine (the country). Nor did the Treaty of Lausanne set the demarcation of Palestine (the country). The Paulet–Newcombe Agreement set the boundary that gave meaning to the Sykes-Picot Agreement the separation of the British Mandates (later to be named Palestine and Iraq) from the French Mandates (later to be named Lebanon and Syria).

The Paulet–Newcombe Agreement relates to the Treaty of Lausanne, only in respect to the demarcation of the territories in Area "A" (French) and Area "B" (British) on the Agreement Map. The demarcation established by the Paulet–Newcombe Agreement does not detail the entire perimeter of Palestine in any fashion. In fact, the Paulet-Newcombe Line, in more contemporary times, is somewhat compromised in certain stretches (See Special Note Below):

Article 3, of the Treaty of Lausanne describes the territory of concern to the British (Area "B") for Mandate purposes.

From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:

(I ) With Syria:

The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921
​

(2) With Iraq:

The frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months.

In the event of no agreement being reached between the two Governments within the time mentioned, the dispute shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations.

The Turkish and British Governments reciprocally undertake that, pending the decision to be reached on the subject of the frontier, no military or other movement shall take place which might modify in any way the present state of the territories of which the final fate will depend upon that decision.
​

You will notice immediately the need for the demarcation line. No where in the Treaty of Lausanne is the territory of Palestine (or Lebanon for that matter) mentioned or identified.

The contemporary demarcation of the perimeter of the modern day "West Bank" is essentially described by the, now superseded, Armistice Line as it converges in the north and south with the international border between Israel and Jordan as described by Article 3, Treaty of Peace between Israel and Jordan.

(SPECIAL NOTE)

Even understand the above, does not actually represent the nature of the border dispute between Lebanon and Israel. In the Journal Article, with retired Lebanese General Nizar Abdel-Kader, he points out that some relationships.

Following the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, then Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban declared that Israel would not be bound by any conditions of the 1949 Truce. In 1978 Israel occupied part of southern Lebanon, declaring it a “security zone”. It did not vacate it for the next 22 years, rejecting the requirement of UN Security Resolution (UNSCR) 425 (1978) to withdraw to Lebanon’s “internationally recognised boundaries.” When Israel finally did pull out in May 2000, the new UN Blue Line did not correspond either to Newcomb-Paulet or to the 1949 Truce.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, all of that smoke.

In order for there to be a mandate for Palestine there first had to be a Palestine.

Everything from the Balfour declaration, to the mandate, to resolution 181, to to the armistice agreements, the common term used was "in Palestine." Not to mention the million Palestinians who had Palestinian citizenship.

Now you and the other Israel propagandists are saying that there never was a Palestine.

(COMMENT)

You raised the issue of the Lausanne Treaty and the Paulet-Newcombe Line as evidence of a national boundary for Palestine. I just wanted you to understand that was entirely bogus.

Before there was a Mandate for Palestine, the creation was the Palestine Order in Council. The very first thing it does is explain what "Palestine" means.

• "The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."

The term "Palestine" means the "territories to which the Mandate Applies." It is an entity in which the Allied Powers have established governance. In 1922, the Allied Powers had not yet made a decision on the final outcome of that territory.

I suspect that the undefined territory used in the Balfour Declaration was called Palestine, all they new at that time was it represented a territory in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, in Area "B". There was no geopolitical subdivision called Palestine in the Ottoman Empire, any more than there is a specific boundary for the Bermuda Triangle.

Most Respectfully,
R

They called it Palestine because that was the name commonly used.



Look at the 1949 map that you posted.

I don't see any place here called Israel.

I can see it mentioned at least 6 times on this map, have you tried getting an eye sight test done ?

I don't see Israel on that map at all. I don't see place designated Israel. I don't see any borders for Israel.

OUTSTANDING POINT! Israel needs to declare borders from Syria to Egypt to the Jordan river to keep Tinmore & his ilk happy campers.

 

[Indeependent]

Why who says there must be a Palestine, what law makes it a must and it has to be a law that was in existence in 1917 when all this took place. The powers in control took the place on the map called Palestine and used that as the starting point. It was never going to be a nation or state just a name. Is there a stat of Negev or Sinai, how about Sahara, Gobi, Steppes, Pampas, Badlands etc. get it out of your mind that a nation of Palestine was created for the Mandate to exist as it wasn't. The place could have just as easily been called Judea or Samaria for all the difference the name would make.

What we are saying is that until November 1988 there was never a nation or state called Palestine, just an area on the map. So called as an insult to the Jews by the Romans.

Unless you can produce a treaty that specifically states that a nation/state of Palestine with these people as its leaders has been formed by this treaty ?

It was never going to be a nation or state just a name.​

Link?

Who needs a link when you have a military?
As far as your documents are concerned, every time someone proves you're the sole possessor of those lithographs, you rinse and repeat your inanities.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you don't see. This is what we call the Ostrich Effect. (In Palestinian behavioral observations, the ostrich effect is the avoidance of apparently obvious physical realities by pretending they do not exist.)

I don't see any place here called Israel.

(COMMENT)

Yes, you don't see any reference to Palestine --- either...

You do see references made to:

• Color Code Box for Jewish Territory under UN General Assembly Partition Plan of 29 November 1947
• Israeli-Egyptian Armistice Line
• Israeli-Transjordan Armistice Line
• Israeli-Lebanese Armistice Line

But, just because the territory to which the former Mandate applied is not labeled, I don't deny the reality of its existence.

(MOVING FORWARD --- TO THE 21st CENTURY)

There six decade old agreement called the League of Arab States, Khartoum Resolution, 1 September 1967, in which the Arab League buries its head in the sand, as if that will make Israel go away, and create what has become known as the "Three No's: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.

Many thought that with the Exchange of Letters, that we had moved past that point. But I see there are still people that think, in their physical reality, that Israel doesn't exist.

If that were true, then who did the Palestinian State file a complaint against with the ICC, who is the Occupation Force that they are constantly complaining about, and who is it that the fire rockets and mortars against?

If you believe that their is no State of Israel, then you should write your opinion and submitted as a "Friend of the Court Brief." That would make the issues fall under NIAC and not IAC criteria.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you don't see. This is what we call the Ostrich Effect. (In Palestinian behavioral observations, the ostrich effect is the avoidance of apparently obvious physical realities by pretending they do not exist.)

I don't see any place here called Israel.

(COMMENT)

Yes, you don't see any reference to Palestine --- either...

You do see references made to:

• Color Code Box for Jewish Territory under UN General Assembly Partition Plan of 29 November 1947
• Israeli-Egyptian Armistice Line
• Israeli-Transjordan Armistice Line
• Israeli-Lebanese Armistice Line

But, just because the territory to which the former Mandate applied is not labeled, I don't deny the reality of its existence.

(MOVING FORWARD --- TO THE 21st CENTURY)

There six decade old agreement called the League of Arab States, Khartoum Resolution, 1 September 1967, in which the Arab League buries its head in the sand, as if that will make Israel go away, and create what has become known as the "Three No's: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.

Many thought that with the Exchange of Letters, that we had moved past that point. But I see there are still people that think, in their physical reality, that Israel doesn't exist.

If that were true, then who did the Palestinian State file a complaint against with the ICC, who is the Occupation Force that they are constantly complaining about, and who is it that the fire rockets and mortars against?

If you believe that their is no State of Israel, then you should write your opinion and submitted as a "Friend of the Court Brief." That would make the issues fall under NIAC and not IAC criteria.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, you don't see any reference to Palestine --- either...​

Uhhh, right at the top. The title of the map is Palestine. I see Lebanon. I see Syria. I see Transjordan. I see Arabia. I see Egypt. I don't see Israel.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Allied Powers did not have to call it Palestine. They could have called it Judea or any other name they chose.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the Paulet–Newcombe Agreement (AKA: Franco-British Boundary Agreements).

(COMMENT)

This did NOT establish a border for Palestine (the country). Nor did the Treaty of Lausanne set the demarcation of Palestine (the country). The Paulet–Newcombe Agreement set the boundary that gave meaning to the Sykes-Picot Agreement the separation of the British Mandates (later to be named Palestine and Iraq) from the French Mandates (later to be named Lebanon and Syria).

The Paulet–Newcombe Agreement relates to the Treaty of Lausanne, only in respect to the demarcation of the territories in Area "A" (French) and Area "B" (British) on the Agreement Map. The demarcation established by the Paulet–Newcombe Agreement does not detail the entire perimeter of Palestine in any fashion. In fact, the Paulet-Newcombe Line, in more contemporary times, is somewhat compromised in certain stretches (See Special Note Below):

Article 3, of the Treaty of Lausanne describes the territory of concern to the British (Area "B") for Mandate purposes.

From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:

(I ) With Syria:

The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921
​

(2) With Iraq:

The frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months.

In the event of no agreement being reached between the two Governments within the time mentioned, the dispute shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations.

The Turkish and British Governments reciprocally undertake that, pending the decision to be reached on the subject of the frontier, no military or other movement shall take place which might modify in any way the present state of the territories of which the final fate will depend upon that decision.
​

You will notice immediately the need for the demarcation line. No where in the Treaty of Lausanne is the territory of Palestine (or Lebanon for that matter) mentioned or identified.

The contemporary demarcation of the perimeter of the modern day "West Bank" is essentially described by the, now superseded, Armistice Line as it converges in the north and south with the international border between Israel and Jordan as described by Article 3, Treaty of Peace between Israel and Jordan.

(SPECIAL NOTE)

Even understand the above, does not actually represent the nature of the border dispute between Lebanon and Israel. In the Journal Article, with retired Lebanese General Nizar Abdel-Kader, he points out that some relationships.

Following the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, then Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban declared that Israel would not be bound by any conditions of the 1949 Truce. In 1978 Israel occupied part of southern Lebanon, declaring it a “security zone”. It did not vacate it for the next 22 years, rejecting the requirement of UN Security Resolution (UNSCR) 425 (1978) to withdraw to Lebanon’s “internationally recognised boundaries.” When Israel finally did pull out in May 2000, the new UN Blue Line did not correspond either to Newcomb-Paulet or to the 1949 Truce.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, all of that smoke.

In order for there to be a mandate for Palestine there first had to be a Palestine.

Everything from the Balfour declaration, to the mandate, to resolution 181, to to the armistice agreements, the common term used was "in Palestine." Not to mention the million Palestinians who had Palestinian citizenship.

Now you and the other Israel propagandists are saying that there never was a Palestine.

(COMMENT)

You raised the issue of the Lausanne Treaty and the Paulet-Newcombe Line as evidence of a national boundary for Palestine. I just wanted you to understand that was entirely bogus.

Before there was a Mandate for Palestine, the creation was the Palestine Order in Council. The very first thing it does is explain what "Palestine" means.

• "The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."

The term "Palestine" means the "territories to which the Mandate Applies." It is an entity in which the Allied Powers have established governance. In 1922, the Allied Powers had not yet made a decision on the final outcome of that territory.

I suspect that the undefined territory used in the Balfour Declaration was called Palestine, all they new at that time was it represented a territory in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, in Area "B". There was no geopolitical subdivision called Palestine in the Ottoman Empire, any more than there is a specific boundary for the Bermuda Triangle.

Most Respectfully,
R

They called it Palestine because that was the name commonly used.



Look at the 1949 map that you posted.

I don't see any place here called Israel.

I can see it mentioned at least 6 times on this map, have you tried getting an eye sight test done ?

I don't see Israel on that map at all. I don't see place designated Israel. I don't see any borders for Israel.

Of course you don't, if you admitted that you did then you would have to admit that you are wrong. So you cant see the Israeli defence lines, the Israeli armistice lines or the area under Israeli control on the map

 

[Phoenall]

Why who says there must be a Palestine, what law makes it a must and it has to be a law that was in existence in 1917 when all this took place. The powers in control took the place on the map called Palestine and used that as the starting point. It was never going to be a nation or state just a name. Is there a stat of Negev or Sinai, how about Sahara, Gobi, Steppes, Pampas, Badlands etc. get it out of your mind that a nation of Palestine was created for the Mandate to exist as it wasn't. The place could have just as easily been called Judea or Samaria for all the difference the name would make.

What we are saying is that until November 1988 there was never a nation or state called Palestine, just an area on the map. So called as an insult to the Jews by the Romans.

Unless you can produce a treaty that specifically states that a nation/state of Palestine with these people as its leaders has been formed by this treaty ?

It was never going to be a nation or state just a name.​

Link?

Mandate for Palestine and the Order in council that both spell this out.

Now how about your link to the nations of Palestine in 1923 ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you don't see. This is what we call the Ostrich Effect. (In Palestinian behavioral observations, the ostrich effect is the avoidance of apparently obvious physical realities by pretending they do not exist.)

I don't see any place here called Israel.

(COMMENT)

Yes, you don't see any reference to Palestine --- either...

You do see references made to:

• Color Code Box for Jewish Territory under UN General Assembly Partition Plan of 29 November 1947
• Israeli-Egyptian Armistice Line
• Israeli-Transjordan Armistice Line
• Israeli-Lebanese Armistice Line

But, just because the territory to which the former Mandate applied is not labeled, I don't deny the reality of its existence.

(MOVING FORWARD --- TO THE 21st CENTURY)

There six decade old agreement called the League of Arab States, Khartoum Resolution, 1 September 1967, in which the Arab League buries its head in the sand, as if that will make Israel go away, and create what has become known as the "Three No's: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.

Many thought that with the Exchange of Letters, that we had moved past that point. But I see there are still people that think, in their physical reality, that Israel doesn't exist.

If that were true, then who did the Palestinian State file a complaint against with the ICC, who is the Occupation Force that they are constantly complaining about, and who is it that the fire rockets and mortars against?

If you believe that their is no State of Israel, then you should write your opinion and submitted as a "Friend of the Court Brief." That would make the issues fall under NIAC and not IAC criteria.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, you don't see any reference to Palestine --- either...​

Uhhh, right at the top. The title of the map is Palestine. I see Lebanon. I see Syria. I see Transjordan. I see Arabia. I see Egypt. I don't see Israel.

And all those places are on a map of Palestine, so are they also Palestine ?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I ask, if we both go to the Middle East, and we start at Beit Ur At Tahta, and travel West on Route 443, what do you think we will run into? If you said, the Israeli Checkpoint at Maccbim you would be right. And if you don't have the proper documentation, the Border Police will not let you proceed.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you don't see. This is what we call the Ostrich Effect. (In Palestinian behavioral observations, the ostrich effect is the avoidance of apparently obvious physical realities by pretending they do not exist.)

I don't see any place here called Israel.

(COMMENT)

Yes, you don't see any reference to Palestine --- either...

You do see references made to:

• Color Code Box for Jewish Territory under UN General Assembly Partition Plan of 29 November 1947
• Israeli-Egyptian Armistice Line
• Israeli-Transjordan Armistice Line
• Israeli-Lebanese Armistice Line

But, just because the territory to which the former Mandate applied is not labeled, I don't deny the reality of its existence.

(MOVING FORWARD --- TO THE 21st CENTURY)

There six decade old agreement called the League of Arab States, Khartoum Resolution, 1 September 1967, in which the Arab League buries its head in the sand, as if that will make Israel go away, and create what has become known as the "Three No's: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.

Many thought that with the Exchange of Letters, that we had moved past that point. But I see there are still people that think, in their physical reality, that Israel doesn't exist.

If that were true, then who did the Palestinian State file a complaint against with the ICC, who is the Occupation Force that they are constantly complaining about, and who is it that the fire rockets and mortars against?

If you believe that their is no State of Israel, then you should write your opinion and submitted as a "Friend of the Court Brief." That would make the issues fall under NIAC and not IAC criteria.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, you don't see any reference to Palestine --- either...​

Uhhh, right at the top. The title of the map is Palestine. I see Lebanon. I see Syria. I see Transjordan. I see Arabia. I see Egypt. I don't see Israel.

(COMMENT)

And AGAIN! On the map, you don't see a place or demarcation in the name of "Palestine." You do see Demarcations for Israel. And if you actually walk the ground, it would be very difficult to deny in the physical reality the existence of the State of Israel. The Arab Palestinian that is using a defense mechanism in which the existence of unpleasant internal or external realities --- pertaining to the existence of Israel --- are in denial; and are exhibiting abnormal symptoms of an altered state.

Border barriers are the physical manifestation of extending self-determination to a defined territory; the reality of which cannot be denied.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I ask, if we both go to the Middle East, and we start at Beit Ur At Tahta, and travel West on Route 443, what do you think we will run into? If you said, the Israeli Checkpoint at Maccbim you would be right. And if you don't have the proper documentation, the Border Police will not let you proceed.

View attachment 52475​

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you don't see. This is what we call the Ostrich Effect. (In Palestinian behavioral observations, the ostrich effect is the avoidance of apparently obvious physical realities by pretending they do not exist.)

I don't see any place here called Israel.

(COMMENT)

Yes, you don't see any reference to Palestine --- either...

You do see references made to:

• Color Code Box for Jewish Territory under UN General Assembly Partition Plan of 29 November 1947
• Israeli-Egyptian Armistice Line
• Israeli-Transjordan Armistice Line
• Israeli-Lebanese Armistice Line

But, just because the territory to which the former Mandate applied is not labeled, I don't deny the reality of its existence.

(MOVING FORWARD --- TO THE 21st CENTURY)

There six decade old agreement called the League of Arab States, Khartoum Resolution, 1 September 1967, in which the Arab League buries its head in the sand, as if that will make Israel go away, and create what has become known as the "Three No's: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.

Many thought that with the Exchange of Letters, that we had moved past that point. But I see there are still people that think, in their physical reality, that Israel doesn't exist.

If that were true, then who did the Palestinian State file a complaint against with the ICC, who is the Occupation Force that they are constantly complaining about, and who is it that the fire rockets and mortars against?

If you believe that their is no State of Israel, then you should write your opinion and submitted as a "Friend of the Court Brief." That would make the issues fall under NIAC and not IAC criteria.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, you don't see any reference to Palestine --- either...​

Uhhh, right at the top. The title of the map is Palestine. I see Lebanon. I see Syria. I see Transjordan. I see Arabia. I see Egypt. I don't see Israel.

(COMMENT)

And AGAIN! On the map, you don't see a place or demarcation in the name of "Palestine." You do see Demarcations for Israel. And if you actually walk the ground, it would be very difficult to deny in the physical reality the existence of the State of Israel. The Arab Palestinian that is using a defense mechanism in which the existence of unpleasant internal or external realities --- pertaining to the existence of Israel --- are in denial; and are exhibiting abnormal symptoms of an altered state.

Border barriers are the physical manifestation of extending self-determination to a defined territory; the reality of which cannot be denied.

Most Respectfully,
R

Occupations have checkpoints all of the time.

What is your point?

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I ask, if we both go to the Middle East, and we start at Beit Ur At Tahta, and travel West on Route 443, what do you think we will run into? If you said, the Israeli Checkpoint at Maccbim you would be right. And if you don't have the proper documentation, the Border Police will not let you proceed.

View attachment 52475​

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you don't see. This is what we call the Ostrich Effect. (In Palestinian behavioral observations, the ostrich effect is the avoidance of apparently obvious physical realities by pretending they do not exist.)

I don't see any place here called Israel.

(COMMENT)

Yes, you don't see any reference to Palestine --- either...

You do see references made to:

• Color Code Box for Jewish Territory under UN General Assembly Partition Plan of 29 November 1947
• Israeli-Egyptian Armistice Line
• Israeli-Transjordan Armistice Line
• Israeli-Lebanese Armistice Line

But, just because the territory to which the former Mandate applied is not labeled, I don't deny the reality of its existence.

(MOVING FORWARD --- TO THE 21st CENTURY)

There six decade old agreement called the League of Arab States, Khartoum Resolution, 1 September 1967, in which the Arab League buries its head in the sand, as if that will make Israel go away, and create what has become known as the "Three No's: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.

Many thought that with the Exchange of Letters, that we had moved past that point. But I see there are still people that think, in their physical reality, that Israel doesn't exist.

If that were true, then who did the Palestinian State file a complaint against with the ICC, who is the Occupation Force that they are constantly complaining about, and who is it that the fire rockets and mortars against?

If you believe that their is no State of Israel, then you should write your opinion and submitted as a "Friend of the Court Brief." That would make the issues fall under NIAC and not IAC criteria.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, you don't see any reference to Palestine --- either...​

Uhhh, right at the top. The title of the map is Palestine. I see Lebanon. I see Syria. I see Transjordan. I see Arabia. I see Egypt. I don't see Israel.

(COMMENT)

And AGAIN! On the map, you don't see a place or demarcation in the name of "Palestine." You do see Demarcations for Israel. And if you actually walk the ground, it would be very difficult to deny in the physical reality the existence of the State of Israel. The Arab Palestinian that is using a defense mechanism in which the existence of unpleasant internal or external realities --- pertaining to the existence of Israel --- are in denial; and are exhibiting abnormal symptoms of an altered state.

Border barriers are the physical manifestation of extending self-determination to a defined territory; the reality of which cannot be denied.

Most Respectfully,
R

Occupations have checkpoints all of the time.

What is your point?

You have demonstrated the syndrome of living in an altered state of denial otherwise known as the debilitating condition called "Pal'istanian Mentality"

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, that is the point.

Occupations have checkpoints all of the time.
What is your point?

(COMMENT)

Who is occupying what?

Most Respectfully,
R