Is Israel the Same as South Africa?

[P F Tinmore]

The first map is Israel before the 1948 Arab Israeli war (the purple)
The second map is Israel after the 1948 Arab Israeli war

Left map - proposed 1947 resolution 181 borders that never became borders.
Right map - add 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not to be political or territorial borders.

There are no Israeli borders on either of those maps. Why did they skip over the 1948 map?

The first map is the proposed U.N partition plan. When Israel declared independence, she did so in the land allotted to her in the partition plan. Which is the same as the first map.

Not true. The partition plan transferred no land to Israel. Israel blew past the proposed borders to attack Palestinians before they declared independence.

 

[Kondor3]

"...There are no Israeli borders on either of those maps..."

That is, of course, because Israel did not exist, prior to May 1948, and because its borders remained uncertain during its earliest months of existence, as it fought-off the armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq, et al.

The existence or non-existence of borders for the State of Israel in 1948 are unimportant.

You can think of Palestine in 1948 as an 'Unincorporated Territory', formerly owned by the Ottoman Turkish Empire, and managed by the British after the Turkish Empire collapsed in the wake of WWI, continuing as an 'Unincorporated Territory'.

If you live in an American State and a County within that State which has any appreciable size and still-open land, you understand first-hand the concept of 'Unincorporated' - only loosely organized, if at all, dependent upon others for its protection and services, and subject to annexation or full or partial Incorporation at any time, all of it legal.

And then, one day, City or Town A or B decides to annex all or part of the Unincorporated Land into their municipality..

OR some or all of the people of the Unincorporated Land decide to incorporate, and apply to the State Capital, for a Charter for their own Incorporation.

State Capitals will oftentimes grant such Charters, even over the objections of some (in the case of a new incorporation) or some-or-all (in the case of an annexation) of the residents of such disorganized lands.

Look at it this way...

The Jews of Palestine applied to the 'State Capital' (the United Nations) for a Charter for their Incorporation, and the 'State Capital', after some delays and quibbling, granted it.

The Charter did specify boundaries or a land-survey because a hard-won armistice had just gone into effect and it was understood de facto ir not de jure that wherever the Jews controlled the land, there was Israel, and wherever the Muslim-Arabs controlled the land, there was the remainder of Unincorporated Palestinian Territory; sufficient unto the day.

The only difference between the Jewish position and the UN position was that the UN viewed the Armistice Lines as de facto, whereas the Jews viewed the Armistice Lines as de jure.

And, given that victory on the battlefield sorts-out old claims and titles, the Jewish position of de jure eventually became operative and extant as de jure as well as de facto.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Not true. The partition plan transferred no land to Israel..."

Doesn't matter. Victory on the battlefield resulted in a permanent change of ownership. It belongs to the Jews now. They hold the deed.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"...There are no Israeli borders on either of those maps..."

That is, of course, because Israel did not exist, prior to May 1948, and because its borders remained uncertain during its earliest months of existence, as it fought-off the armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq, et al.

The existence or non-existence of borders for the State of Israel in 1948 are unimportant.

You can think of Palestine in 1948 as an 'Unincorporated Territory', formerly owned by the Ottoman Turkish Empire, and managed by the British after the Turkish Empire collapsed in the wake of WWI, continuing as an 'Unincorporated Territory'.

If you live in an American State and a County within that State which has any appreciable size and still-open land, you understand first-hand the concept of 'Unincorporated' - only loosely organized, if at all, dependent upon others for its protection and services, and subject to annexation or full or partial Incorporation at any time, all of it legal.

And then, one day, City or Town A or B decides to annex all or part of the Unincorporated Land into their municipality, or some or all of the people of the Unincorporated Land decide to incorporate, and apply to the State Capital, for a Charter for their Incorporation.

Look at it this way...

The Jews of Palestine applied to the State Capital (the United Nations) for a Charter for their Incorporation, and the State Capital, after some delays and quibbling, granted it.

The Charter did specify boundaries or a land-survey because a hard-won armistice had just gone into effect and it was understood de facto ir not de jure that wherever the Jews controlled the land, there was Israel, and wherever the Muslim-Arabs controlled the land, there was the remainder of Unincorporated Palestinian Territory; sufficient unto the day.

The only difference between the Jewish position and the UN position was that the UN viewed the Armistice Lines as de facto, whereas the Jews viewed the Armistice Lines as de jure.

And, given that victory on the battlefield sorts-out old claims and titles, the Jewish position of de jure eventually became operative and extent de jure as well as de facto.

Israel still only has de facto borders. It is impossible to have land and not to have borders.

And Israel has no borders.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

He seems caught between obliquely but strongly hinting at his Map, as the ultimate goal of the Palestinians, and not wanting to explicitly say so, so as not to sabotage (in a conversational and speculative context) the negotiating position of those for whom he advocates. Perhaps I'm wrong.

It is not up to me to determine any peace agreement. I was asked to post a map with Palestine's international borders so I did.

BTW, did anyone find a 1948 map of Israel?

The first map is Israel before the 1948 Arab Israeli war (the purple)
The second map is Israel after the 1948 Arab Israeli war

The map Toastman posted appears to be a French one, so it would be reflective of the European stance on the issue. The French have, in the past, called Israel "a shitty little country", but they still recognize its existence.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"...Not true. The partition plan transferred no land to Israel..."

Doesn't matter. Victory on the battlefield resulted in a permanent change of ownership. It belongs to the Jews now. They hold the deed.

1) Israel has not won its war against the Palestinians.

2) It is inadmissible to acquire land through the threat or use of force.

 

[Kondor3]

Israel still only has de facto borders. It is impossible to have land and not to have borders. And Israel has no borders.

We have been down this road before.

You really DO have to get some new material.

This twisting and squirming on the hook will do you no good.

You are making reliance upon old, overturned understandings.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Not true. The partition plan transferred no land to Israel..."

Doesn't matter. Victory on the battlefield resulted in a permanent change of ownership. It belongs to the Jews now. They hold the deed.

1) Israel has not won its war against the Palestinians.

It's not really a war... it's an ongoing and sputtering collection of individual flare-ups and retaliations, and they kick your ass, every time.

Israel won it's wars against worthy opponents... the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Jordanians, the Lebanese, and the Iraqis... who were, at the time, fighting on behalf of their weak Palestinian brethren.

Ya'll are just the sideshow clueless village-people haunting the fringes of real combat challenges.

"...2) It is inadmissible to acquire land through the threat or use of force."

How's that naive perspective been workin' out for ya in the past 65 years?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Doesn't matter. Victory on the battlefield resulted in a permanent change of ownership. It belongs to the Jews now. They hold the deed.

1) Israel has not won its war against the Palestinians.

It's not really a war... it's an ongoing and sputtering collection of individual flare-ups and retaliations, and they kick your ass, every time.

Israel won it's wars against worthy opponents... the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Jordanians, the Lebanese, and the Iraqis... who were, at the time, fighting on behalf of their weak Palestinian brethren.

Cool, how much of their land does Israel have?

Ya'll are just the sideshow clueless village-people haunting the fringes of real combat challenges.

"...2) It is inadmissible to acquire land through the threat or use of force."

How's that naive perspective been workin' out for ya in the past 65 years?

Not too bad. Israel still has no land.

 

[Kondor3]

"...How's that naive perspective been workin' out for ya in the past 65 years?

Not too bad. Israel still has no land.

Funny... your own propaganda websites see that differently... de facto.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"...How's that naive perspective been workin' out for ya in the past 65 years?

Not too bad. Israel still has no land.

Funny... your own propaganda websites see that differently... de facto.

Everything Israel is de facto. There is nothing legal about it.

 

[toastman]

"...There are no Israeli borders on either of those maps..."

That is, of course, because Israel did not exist, prior to May 1948, and because its borders remained uncertain during its earliest months of existence, as it fought-off the armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq, et al.

The existence or non-existence of borders for the State of Israel in 1948 are unimportant.

You can think of Palestine in 1948 as an 'Unincorporated Territory', formerly owned by the Ottoman Turkish Empire, and managed by the British after the Turkish Empire collapsed in the wake of WWI, continuing as an 'Unincorporated Territory'.

If you live in an American State and a County within that State which has any appreciable size and still-open land, you understand first-hand the concept of 'Unincorporated' - only loosely organized, if at all, dependent upon others for its protection and services, and subject to annexation or full or partial Incorporation at any time, all of it legal.

And then, one day, City or Town A or B decides to annex all or part of the Unincorporated Land into their municipality, or some or all of the people of the Unincorporated Land decide to incorporate, and apply to the State Capital, for a Charter for their Incorporation.

Look at it this way...

The Jews of Palestine applied to the State Capital (the United Nations) for a Charter for their Incorporation, and the State Capital, after some delays and quibbling, granted it.

The Charter did specify boundaries or a land-survey because a hard-won armistice had just gone into effect and it was understood de facto ir not de jure that wherever the Jews controlled the land, there was Israel, and wherever the Muslim-Arabs controlled the land, there was the remainder of Unincorporated Palestinian Territory; sufficient unto the day.

The only difference between the Jewish position and the UN position was that the UN viewed the Armistice Lines as de facto, whereas the Jews viewed the Armistice Lines as de jure.

And, given that victory on the battlefield sorts-out old claims and titles, the Jewish position of de jure eventually became operative and extent de jure as well as de facto.

Israel still only has de facto borders. It is impossible to have land and not to have borders.

And Israel has no borders.

Israel has INTERNATIONALLY recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan.
Why do you continue to spew the same lie ??

 

[toastman]

Not too bad. Israel still has no land.

Funny... your own propaganda websites see that differently... de facto.

Everything Israel is de facto. There is nothing legal about it.

Got a link that says "Everything Israel is de facto " ?

My guess is no

 

[toastman]

1) Israel has not won its war against the Palestinians.

It's not really a war... it's an ongoing and sputtering collection of individual flare-ups and retaliations, and they kick your ass, every time.

Israel won it's wars against worthy opponents... the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Jordanians, the Lebanese, and the Iraqis... who were, at the time, fighting on behalf of their weak Palestinian brethren.

Cool, how much of their land does Israel have?

Ya'll are just the sideshow clueless village-people haunting the fringes of real combat challenges.

"...2) It is inadmissible to acquire land through the threat or use of force."

How's that naive perspective been workin' out for ya in the past 65 years?

Not too bad. Israel still has no land.

Got a link that says "Israel has no land" ??

 

[ForeverYoung436]

It's not really a war... it's an ongoing and sputtering collection of individual flare-ups and retaliations, and they kick your ass, every time.

Israel won it's wars against worthy opponents... the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Jordanians, the Lebanese, and the Iraqis... who were, at the time, fighting on behalf of their weak Palestinian brethren.

Cool, how much of their land does Israel have?

Ya'll are just the sideshow clueless village-people haunting the fringes of real combat challenges.



How's that naive perspective been workin' out for ya in the past 65 years?

Not too bad. Israel still has no land.

Got a link that says "Israel has no land" ??

I wonder what I was walking on while I was there.

 

[Kondor3]

Not too bad. Israel still has no land.

Funny... your own propaganda websites see that differently... de facto.

Everything Israel is de facto. There is nothing legal about it.

There comes a time when de facto BECOMES de jure.

See: Common-Law Marriage

See: Squatters' RIghts

...and we passed that Transition Time, long ago.

It's just that you - the makers of poor choices in 1948 - can't do anything about it, and you don't get a do-over.

So you kvetch and bellyache and piss and moan and whine interminably, and lean on old, obsolete, overturned understandings and status, to the irritation and amusement of much of the rest of the world.

While the 'green' part of that land-loss map continues to shrink to downright microscopic proportions.

Perhaps if your brethren had been more realistic and pragmatic and less like you, during the period 1948-1967, you would not find yourselves in such a desperate end-game position now.

But you can't go back and un-do your choices.

The time for that is past.

You have no one to blame for that but yourselves, and your poor choices, and your incompetence on the battlefield, to make those choices operative.

The Jews of Israel are the new owners.

By victory on the battlefield - and, if you like, by squatters' rights.

Consider it a foreclosure and sheriff's sale, with an eviction and a changing of the locks, afterwards, with the keys given to the new owners.

'Your' presence in Greater Israel is no longer required.

 

[toastman]

Cool, how much of their land does Israel have?



Not too bad. Israel still has no land.

Got a link that says "Israel has no land" ??

I wonder what I was walking on while I was there.

According to Tinnie, it's Palestinian land

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Funny... your own propaganda websites see that differently... de facto.

Everything Israel is de facto. There is nothing legal about it.

There comes a time when de facto BECOMES de jure.

See: Common-Law Marriage

See: Squatters' RIghts

...and we passed that Transition Time, long ago.

It's just that you - the makers of poor choices in 1948 - can't do anything about it, and you don't get a do-over.

So you kvetch and bellyache and moan and whine interminably, and lean on old, obsolete, overturned understandings and status, to the irritation and amusement of much of the rest of the world.

While the 'green' part of that land-loss map continues to downright microscopic proportions.

Perhaps if your brethren had been more realistic and pragmatic and less like you, during the period 1948-1967, you would not find yourselves in such an end-game position now.

But you can't go back and un-do your choices.

The time for that is past.

The Jews of Israel are the new owners.

By victory on the battlefield - and, if you like, by squatters' rights.

'Your' presence in Greater Israel is no longer required.

While the situation on the ground is not quite as dire as Kondor's map represents for the Palestinians, it could be that way in just a few short years. I would suggest to the Palestinians that they strike a deal immediately--I mean, like, yesterday.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's go over this.

I don't see how you can universally apply a concept to a very unusual situation. Palestine was divided into three areas of occupation by armistice lines that were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. There are no borders inside Palestine. The area inside all of those lines was still Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The description "Palestine" was referring to a territory, not a "state." There was no State of Palestine." The armistice agreement (as an example) was between two states (Egypt and Israel) as signed this morning, 24 February at Rhodes. You are correct, at that time, there were no borders set. But the UN Security Council does not draw Armistice Lines that have no meaning. Please note:

ARTICLE II

2. No element of the land, sea or air military or para-military forces of either Part, including non-regular forces, shall commit any warlike or hostile act against the military or para-military forces of the other Party, or against civilians in territory under the control of that Party; or shall advance beyond or pass over for any purpose whatsoever the Armistice Demarcation Line set forth in Article VI of this Agreement except as provided in Article III of this Agreement; and elsewhere shall not violate the international frontier; or enter into or pass through the air space of the other Party or through the waters within three miles of the coastline of the other Party.

SOURCE: EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT

ARTICLE III

2. No element of the land, sea or air military or para-military forces of either Party, including non-regular forces, shall commit any warlike or hostile act against the military or para-military forces of the other Party, or against civilians in territory under the control of that Party; or shall advance beyond or pass over for any purpose whatsoever the Armistice Demarcation Line set forth in Article V of this Agreement; or enter into or pass through the air space of the other Party or through the waters within three miles of the coastline of the other Party.

SOURCE: LEBANESE-ISRAELI GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT

ARTICLE III

2. No element of the land, sea or air military or para-military forces of either Party, including non-regular forces, shall commit any warlike or hostile act against the military or para-military forces of the other Party, or against civilians in territory under the control of that Party; or shall advance beyond or pass over for any purpose whatsoever the Armistice Demarcation Lines set forth in articles V and VI of this Agreement; or enter into or pass through the air space of the other Party.

SOURCE: HASHEMITE JORDAN KINGDOM - ISRAEL: GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT

BTW: Just as a side note, each of the Armistice arrangements, as you can see in the text of each agreement, refers to a specific MAP. In the case of the West Bank and the associated Armistice Agreement between Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom, the Map is a 1:250,000 scale map sheet; signed in the upper left hand corner by Lieutenant-Colonel Moshe DAYAN (Israel) and Colonel Ahmed Sudki EL-JUNDI (Jordan).

LETTERS JOINED TO THE ISRAELI-SYRIAN GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT

I confirm that the two Parties are agreed that their forces shall not advance beyond the existing truce lines, as certified by the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization.

SOURCE: ISRAELI-SYRIAN GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT

Each Armistice Arrangement spells out the restriction. General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXXV) merely codifies (making it universal) the (nearly) exact same language used in Armistice Agreements since the First World War (almost a century ago). It is a mistake to think the Question of Palestine is somehow special and unique. If anything is special and unique is that the conflict is fought over and over again with the same results.

When you say " But they are not the territorial boundaries with the demarcations it had during the former British Mandate." the mandate was not Palestine. It was merely a period of time in Palestine's history. Palestine's international borders were still there after the mandate left Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Subterfuge. The MANDATE FOR PALESTINE was to entrust to a Mandatory (the UK) selected by the Allied Powers, the administration of the "territory of Palestine," which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire (successor nation to the Ottoman Empire), within such boundaries as may be fixed by them. Palestine was not a "state" or even a defined territory. The boundaries were set, not by Palestinians, but by the Allied Power in accordance with the Part III, Section VII, Article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres; which uses the same language as the San Remo Convention.

I REPEAT: The boundaries associated with the "Territory of Palestine" were arbitrary boundaries established by the Allied Powers and not the Arab or the Palestinians.

Like I said, this is complicated.

(COMMENT)

No, it is rather straight forward.

The League of Nations determined that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to post war treaties.

(COMMENT)

No. Part III, Section VII, Articles 94 thru 97, of the Treaty of Sevres says no such thing. It doesn't even specific Palestine by boundaries or borders. In fact, the treaty doesn't even mention Lebanon or Trans-Jordan. The were both carve-outs by the Allied Powers [(Lebanon out of Syria) and (Trans-Jordan out of Palestine)].

The Palestinians fought for their rights to defend their country and gain independence all during the mandate period. Britain, who was supposed to assist the people to independence, violated the LoN charter and the rights of the Palestinians by trampling their initiatives toward independence.

(COMMENT)

That is a perspective. But not totally truthful to the events of the day. While it is true that the Arab King of the HEJAZ made it clear in the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement (1919) that the Arabs had national aspirations in the region, it is just as true that HM understood that the Jewish State was also very much a nationalistic concern; and that it was to be a "collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine. Both the HRH Emir Faisal and Chairman Weizmann came away understanding "that Palestine shall be placed under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment there of the Jewish National Home and ultimately render possible the creation of an autonomous Commonwealth."

Britain realized that its stupid plans were unworkable when they blew up in its face so they shoved the problem onto the UN.

(COMMENT)

This is a giant leap in time. We go from 1919 to 1947.

“His Majesty’s Government have …been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles. There are in Palestine about 1,200,000 Arabs and 600,000 Jews. For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of sovereign Jewish State. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine. The discussions of the last moth have quite clearly shown that there is no prospect of resolving this conflict by any settlement negotiated between the parties.

... ... ... ... We shall then ask the United Nations to consider our report, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. We do not intend ourselves to recommend any particular solution.”

SOURCE: A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947

An irreconcilable conflict of principles.

The UN devised a plan that had already been rejected ten years earlier, and they knew it would be rejected again, but they did it anyway. Of course it was rejected again and was never implemented. No borders were defined, no land was transferred, and no states were created. The land remained Palestinian.

(COMMENT)

Again, a very biased slant on what actually happened.

There are no land transfers in the Declaration of Independence, not for Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Israel. And when the State of Palestine was recognized, there was no land transfers then. Land transfers are a real estate term and action used in purchasing or reparation. Sovereignty is an entirely different matter.

The land, for many decades to come, will be also be known as the "former mandated territory of Palestine." But the State of Palestine, is something entirely different.

The borders were defined in Part II, Section B, The Jewish State, in General Assembly Resolution 181(II), and the associated Map of the Partition, as recommended by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNCOP).

On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution to accept the UNSCOP and Ad Hoc Committee recommendations to partition Palestine into two states, one Arab and one Jewish, and declare Jerusalem an international territory. The Assembly approved the slightly revised partition plan by a vote of 33-13 with 10 abstentions, reaching a two-thirds vote in favor of the plan.[See Document 11: UN General Assembly Resolution 181(II) (November 29, 1947).]

In speeches following the General Assembly vote, the Arab states expressed their opinions of UN Resolution 181. Amir Arslan of Syria called the Charter “dead,” while the Saudi Arabian delegate said that they were not bound by the decision. Arab spokesmen claimed the resolution had destroyed the United Nations. [See Document 12: Verbatim Provisional Records, UN General Assembly (November 29, 1947).] The UN Palestine Commission was then created to oversee implementation of Resolution 181. Its first special report—on security issues in Palestine—was deliv-ered to the Security Council in February 1948. The Commission warned: “PowerfulArab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of theGeneral Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.” Included in this special report were excerpts of a communication to the Commission from the Arab Higher Committee. The Committee states it will never accept partition or the idea of a Jewish state. [See Document 13:Report of UN Palestine Commission: First Special Report to the Security Council: The Problem of Security in Palestine, Document A/AC.219 (16 February 1948).]

SOURCE: Introduction XI: The 1947 United Nations Decision to Partition Palestine

In May of 1948 Britain cut and ran. Foreigners declared themselves to be a state inside Palestine without the legal possession of any land and without defining any borders. Five Arab countries attacked the new state of Israel. (Not really but that is the way the story goes.)

(COMMENT)

That is an opinion. Five Arab countries attacked the new state of Israel.

Needless to say, I should have been delighted to have an equally inti-mate collaboration with the Arab Higher Committee in implementing theresolution by which I was unreservedly bound as Secretary-General.Instead, the Arabs employed open threats. On February 6 the Higher Committee representative wrote to me: “The Arabs of Palestine … will never submit or yield to any Power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out—man, woman and child.”

The Arab states launched their invasion of Palestine with the end of the Mandate. This was armed defiance of the United Nations, and they openly pro-claimed their aggression by telegraphing news of it to United Nations headquarters. The Security Council, when it met on May 15, had before it a cable from the Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs, which brazenly announced, “Egyptian armed forces have started to enter Palestine to establish security and order.”

SOURCE: The 1947 United Nations Decision to Partition Palestine

In September of 1948 The Palestinians declared independence on their own land and inside their own international borders that they had since 1922. Five countries recognized the state of Palestine. They sent their declaration of independence to the UN. A state exists and has the right to defend itself without the recognition of other states.

(COMMENT)

Israel had already declared independence on 15 May, 1948.

In 1949 the UN Security Council called for an armistice to end the 1948 war. nobody won or lost that war. The armistice agreements, that the Israeli government signed, specifically called the place Palestine and referenced Palestine's international borders. No state of Israel was mentioned. No land or borders for Israel were mentioned.

(COMMENT)

Subterfuge. The Armistice was with the State of Israel. There was no State of Palestine mentioned.

Yes, correct. Armistice Arrangement do not declare outcome. The outcomes are self-evident. "The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move except as provided in Article III of this Agreement."

The agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation claiming that the Palestine question be addressed at a later date.

That date has yet to come.

(COMMENT)

No, this is wrong. The Armistice did not declare any occupation.

The word "occupation" is not even used once in the EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT, or the ARMISTICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN LEBANON AND ISRAEL, or the HASHEMITE JORDAN KINGDOM - ISRAEL: GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT, or the ISRAELI-SYRIAN GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT.

Out of curiosity I also checked the two Treaties.

Treaty of Peace between The State of Israel and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 26 October 1994: The word "occupation" or "occupied" is not used once.

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.
4. The demarcation of the boundary will take place as set forth in Appendix (I) to Annex I and will be concluded not later than nine months after the signing of the Treaty.
5. It is agreed that where the boundary follows a river, in the event of natural changes in the course of the flow of the river as described in Annex I (a), the boundary shall follow the new course of the flow. In the event of any other changes the boundary shall not be affected unless otherwise agreed.
6. Immediately upon the exchange of the instruments of ratification of this Treaty, each Party will deploy on its side of the international boundary as defined in Annex I (a).
7. The Parties shall, upon the signature of the Treaty, enter into negotiations to conclude, within 9 months, an agreement on the delimitation of their maritime boundary in the Gulf of Aqaba.
8. Taking into account the special circumstances of the Naharayim/Baqura area, which is under Jordanian sovereignty, with Israeli private ownership rights, the Parties agreed to apply the provisions set out in Annex I (b).
9. With respect to the Zofar/Al-Ghamr area, the provisions set out in Annex I (c) will apply.

The same is true for the Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979

Article II

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

"While the situation on the ground is not quite as dire as Kondor's map represents for the Palestinians, it could be that way in just a few short years. I would suggest to the Palestinians that they strike a deal immediately--I mean, like, yesterday."

It is an imaginative way to turn the Palestinians' own propaganda maps against them...

And, if there IS still a narrow window of opportunity to cut a deal, they would be wise to jump through that window, immediately, if not sooner...

Then again, when have the Palestinians ever manifested substantive wisdom, in the past 65 years?

Translation: we probably should not hold our breath, waiting for that to materialize.