More History Before 1967

[georgephillip]

P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,

Hummm. Is this a trick question?

So then, why does Israel have to negotiate borders with the Palestinians?

(COMMENT)

Because the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never annexed by Israel.

Israel acquired control as a result of being in Hot Pursuit of enemy forces in retreat attempting to invade the sovereign territory of Israel. Both the West Bank and Gaza Strip populations were conspiratorially entangled with, and providing direct support to, the hostile enemy forces involved in the failed invasion attempts. As a result of the retreat, Israel occupied the overrun territory (West Bank and Gaza Strip) and brought them under control for rear-area protection purposes. The West Bank and Gaza Strip were enemy populations, presenting a direct threat against the sovereign nation of Israel. These populations still refuse to recognize the sovereign nature of Israel and still represent a threat to regional peace.

Does Israel have to negotiate borders with the Palestinians? That is only one option. As long as the Palestinians refuse to accept the legitimacy of the State of Israel, indefinite occupation is just as much a viable option.

There are other options.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco...even if your allegation of Hot Pursuit of invading enemy forces conformed to Reality, wouldn't it still be illegal for Israel to fill the West Bank with its civilian population?

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

I think that would be correct.

P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,

Hummm. Is this a trick question?

So then, why does Israel have to negotiate borders with the Palestinians?

(COMMENT)

Because the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never annexed by Israel.

Israel acquired control as a result of being in Hot Pursuit of enemy forces in retreat attempting to invade the sovereign territory of Israel. Both the West Bank and Gaza Strip populations were conspiratorially entangled with, and providing direct support to, the hostile enemy forces involved in the failed invasion attempts. As a result of the retreat, Israel occupied the overrun territory (West Bank and Gaza Strip) and brought them under control for rear-area protection purposes. The West Bank and Gaza Strip were enemy populations, presenting a direct threat against the sovereign nation of Israel. These populations still refuse to recognize the sovereign nature of Israel and still represent a threat to regional peace.

Does Israel have to negotiate borders with the Palestinians? That is only one option. As long as the Palestinians refuse to accept the legitimacy of the State of Israel, indefinite occupation is just as much a viable option.

There are other options.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco...even if your allegation of Hot Pursuit of invading enemy forces conformed to Reality, wouldn't it still be illegal for Israel to fill the West Bank with its civilian population?

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

Yes, a prima facie case can be made. (The GCIV is Humanitarian Law and not Criminal Law. It depends on the nature of the allegation.)

The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

SOURCE: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

But that doesn't mean it was wrong. Israel is entitled to present a defense as to "why" it was necessary to pursue that course of action.

There could be several reasons (lines of defense) that would allow a court to decide in Israeli favor. Possibilities might include:

• It may have been necessary to strategically place non-hostile populations on certain ground to improve security against insurgent action.
  
• It may have been considered War reparations payments intended to cover damage and injury inflicted by Hostile Arab/Palestinians during a war.

I cannot speak for the Israelis, but I'm sure that they have a case to be made.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you have to understand the steps.

When was the rest of Palestine annexed by Israel?

(COMMENT)

It was not annex. It was declared independent under the right of self-determination. The state expanded a little, over the original GA Res 181(II) borders during the 1948-1949 War.

Interesting. They reference resolution 181 then they mention 67 borders. Those are conflicting. They mention the non acquisition of land by war but leave out the acquisition of Palestinian land by the 1948 war.

Who wrote this crap.

(COMMENT)

The non-acquisition of land applies to the aggressor - and - not the defender. The Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP), in connection with the offensive assault by the 5 Arab Armies, were the aggressor. It was not that the Israel won territory so much as it was the HoAP lost territory as a result of the failed aggressive move.

Today, (LINK) 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations grants recognition to (essentially) the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as the last of the territory available to the Palestinian as the State of Palestine.

I know that everything written by the International Body that doesn't conform with your idea is "crap." But it is a reality. Eventually, the Palestinian will again, make a fatal error, and relinquish the remainder of the territory. But I don't think that Israel, or any of the surrounding Arab States want to take-on the parasitic nature of the Palestinian. They are simply too much trouble. However, the Arab regional governments might step-in if they see the Palestinians forfeit control to the influences control by the Iranians. Already, we see a cooling of relations between Gaza and Egypt. Already we see end-fighting between Hamas and the PIJ. And already we see Hamas quarreling with Fatah and Hezbollah. The Gaza Strip government may collapse if it is not careful.

Most Respectfully,
R

So you are saying that the Zionists went to Palestine to take over their country and that was a defensive war.

You don't make any sense.

No, you said that.
The Zionist immigration was encouraged by the British, who controlled the land

 

[Hyrcanus]

Remember, Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank but could not because it was occupied Palestinian land. Jordan even set up a phoney council in the West Bank so that "the Palestinians" would cede the land to Jordan. That did not work out for them either.

Neither Egypt nor Israel attempted to annex the land they occupied in the 1948 war.

Jordan did annex the WB. It was illegal but they still did it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you have to understand the steps.


(COMMENT)

It was not annex. It was declared independent under the right of self-determination. The state expanded a little, over the original GA Res 181(II) borders during the 1948-1949 War.


(COMMENT)

The non-acquisition of land applies to the aggressor - and - not the defender. The Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP), in connection with the offensive assault by the 5 Arab Armies, were the aggressor. It was not that the Israel won territory so much as it was the HoAP lost territory as a result of the failed aggressive move.

Today, (LINK) 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations grants recognition to (essentially) the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as the last of the territory available to the Palestinian as the State of Palestine.

I know that everything written by the International Body that doesn't conform with your idea is "crap." But it is a reality. Eventually, the Palestinian will again, make a fatal error, and relinquish the remainder of the territory. But I don't think that Israel, or any of the surrounding Arab States want to take-on the parasitic nature of the Palestinian. They are simply too much trouble. However, the Arab regional governments might step-in if they see the Palestinians forfeit control to the influences control by the Iranians. Already, we see a cooling of relations between Gaza and Egypt. Already we see end-fighting between Hamas and the PIJ. And already we see Hamas quarreling with Fatah and Hezbollah. The Gaza Strip government may collapse if it is not careful.

Most Respectfully,
R

So you are saying that the Zionists went to Palestine to take over their country and that was a defensive war.

You don't make any sense.

No, you said that.
The Zionist immigration was encouraged by the British, who controlled the land

The Zionist's stated goal was to take over the country.

So no, they said that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

georgephillip, et al,

I think that would be correct.

P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,

Hummm. Is this a trick question?


(COMMENT)

Because the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never annexed by Israel.

Israel acquired control as a result of being in Hot Pursuit of enemy forces in retreat attempting to invade the sovereign territory of Israel. Both the West Bank and Gaza Strip populations were conspiratorially entangled with, and providing direct support to, the hostile enemy forces involved in the failed invasion attempts. As a result of the retreat, Israel occupied the overrun territory (West Bank and Gaza Strip) and brought them under control for rear-area protection purposes. The West Bank and Gaza Strip were enemy populations, presenting a direct threat against the sovereign nation of Israel. These populations still refuse to recognize the sovereign nature of Israel and still represent a threat to regional peace.

Does Israel have to negotiate borders with the Palestinians? That is only one option. As long as the Palestinians refuse to accept the legitimacy of the State of Israel, indefinite occupation is just as much a viable option.

There are other options.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco...even if your allegation of Hot Pursuit of invading enemy forces conformed to Reality, wouldn't it still be illegal for Israel to fill the West Bank with its civilian population?

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

Yes, a prima facie case can be made. (The GCIV is Humanitarian Law and not Criminal Law. It depends on the nature of the allegation.)

The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

SOURCE: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

But that doesn't mean it was wrong. Israel is entitled to present a defense as to "why" it was necessary to pursue that course of action.

There could be several reasons (lines of defense) that would allow a court to decide in Israeli favor. Possibilities might include:

• It may have been necessary to strategically place non-hostile populations on certain ground to improve security against insurgent action.
  
• It may have been considered War reparations payments intended to cover damage and injury inflicted by Hostile Arab/Palestinians during a war.

I cannot speak for the Israelis, but I'm sure that they have a case to be made.

Most Respectfully,
R

They do.

It is called stealing more land.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

All I take from this thread is that some people don't like history, so they've chosen to rewrite it to disparage Israel at every turn.

I feel about as much urge to disprove these claims as I do to prove that the Twilight series is fiction.

 

[Hyrcanus]

No, you said that.
The Zionist immigration was encouraged by the British, who controlled the land

And then the British significantly reduced Jewish immigration to Palestine using the White Paper, because the natives of Palestine didn't like the idea of their land being a colony for foreign refugees.

 

[toastman]

No, you said that.
The Zionist immigration was encouraged by the British, who controlled the land

And then the British significantly reduced Jewish immigration to Palestine using the White Paper, because the natives of Palestine didn't like the idea of their land being a colony for foreign refugees.

Ok, but the land was BRITISH controlled, so it was them who had a say in weather or weather not the Zionists come or not. And they did, and they had a very good reason

 

[Hyrcanus]

Ok, but the land was BRITISH controlled, so it was them who had a say in weather or weather not the Zionists come or not. And they did, and they had a very good reason

well, they ran the mandate, and they were supposed to comply with the mandate.

restricting jewish immigration to Palestine violated the mandate.

...........and ensured the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Jews.

 

[toastman]

Ok, but the land was BRITISH controlled, so it was them who had a say in weather or weather not the Zionists come or not. And they did, and they had a very good reason

well, they ran the mandate, and they were supposed to comply with the mandate.

restricting jewish immigration to Palestine violated the mandate.

...........and ensured the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Jews.

The deaths of hundreds of thousands of Jews ?? What ?

 

[Hyrcanus]

The deaths of hundreds of thousands of Jews ?? What ?

The White Paper seriously limited Jewish immigration to Palestine just as millions of Jews were facing the Nazi terror.

Wouldn't it have been nice if as an act of kindness and Christian love, the British allowed in 500,000 European Jews to save them from Auschwitz?

 

[toastman]

Yes, but I certainly don't blame the British for the deaths

 

[Hyrcanus]

Yes, but I certainly don't blame the British for the deaths

By 1944, the British and Americans knew exactly what was happening to the Jews of Europe: they were becoming extinct.

And yet, the British kept their 10,000 Jews a year immigration limit for Palestine.

The British, by one stroke of a pen, could have saved hundreds of thousands of Jews from certain death.

They chose not to.

 

[toastman]

Since when do you give a hoot about Jews though ?

 

[Hyrcanus]

The British were very aware of how the White Paper restrictions were a death sentence to hundreds of thousands of Jews.

 

[toastman]

it was also the British who recognized the historical right of the Jews to immigrate to the Mandatory Palestine as well as their need to move their to resolve the 'Jewish Question'

 

[Hyrcanus]

it was also the British who recognized the historical right of the Jews to immigrate to the Mandatory Palestine as well as their need to move their to resolve the 'Jewish Question'

but then they caved due to pressure from the Arabs.

The Arabs wanted to maintain their majority in Palestine.

The Jews wanted to not be annihilated. The British decides to favor the Arabs.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep asserting that the "Zionists went to Palestine to take over their country;" as if there was some established Palestinian Sovereignty.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you have to understand the steps.

When was the rest of Palestine annexed by Israel?

(COMMENT)

It was not annex. It was declared independent under the right of self-determination. The state expanded a little, over the original GA Res 181(II) borders during the 1948-1949 War.

Interesting. They reference resolution 181 then they mention 67 borders. Those are conflicting. They mention the non acquisition of land by war but leave out the acquisition of Palestinian land by the 1948 war.

Who wrote this crap.

(COMMENT)

The non-acquisition of land applies to the aggressor - and - not the defender. The Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP), in connection with the offensive assault by the 5 Arab Armies, were the aggressor. It was not that the Israel won territory so much as it was the HoAP lost territory as a result of the failed aggressive move.

Today, (LINK) 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations grants recognition to (essentially) the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as the last of the territory available to the Palestinian as the State of Palestine.

I know that everything written by the International Body that doesn't conform with your idea is "crap." But it is a reality. Eventually, the Palestinian will again, make a fatal error, and relinquish the remainder of the territory. But I don't think that Israel, or any of the surrounding Arab States want to take-on the parasitic nature of the Palestinian. They are simply too much trouble. However, the Arab regional governments might step-in if they see the Palestinians forfeit control to the influences control by the Iranians. Already, we see a cooling of relations between Gaza and Egypt. Already we see end-fighting between Hamas and the PIJ. And already we see Hamas quarreling with Fatah and Hezbollah. The Gaza Strip government may collapse if it is not careful.

Most Respectfully,
R

So you are saying that the Zionists went to Palestine to take over their country and that was a defensive war.

You don't make any sense.

(COMMENT)

Whether we talk about the Balfour Declaration (1917), The Agreement with HRH the Arab King of Hejaz (1919), The San Remo Agreement (1920), The Treaty of Sevres (1920), The Mandate for Palestine (1922), The Covenant of the League of Nations (1924), or the General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) on the Future government of Palestine (1947), there is no country of Palestine. The State of Palestine is not recognized until 2012 (and then only tentatively). On the other hand, each of the preceding documents show a very clear intention; to encourage immigration of the Jewish people and to establish a Jewish National Home.

The people we called today Palestinian, were subjects of the Ottoman Empire and not of the own sovereignty. Under the Treaty of Sevres, that sovereignty was relinquished to the Allied Powers; which placed it in Trust under the Mandate for the purposes agreed upon in the Balfour Declaration (1917), The Agreement with HRH the Arab King of Hejaz (1919), and The San Remo Agreement (1920).

The purpose of the land changed under new management.

The 1948-1949 War was based on the false premise that the Palestinian has some sovereign right over the control of the territory. [This should not to be confused with property rights (of the Arab) which were protected.] The Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) and Arab League (AL) coalition lost their bid for control of the newly declared State of Israel after they openly attacked in concert.

Like you, the HoAP and AL believed that they had some superior right over and above the conditions set by the International Community and the Allied Powers in the Balfour Declaration (1917), The Agreement with HRH the Arab King of Hejaz (1919), The San Remo Agreement (1920), The Treaty of Sevres (1920), The Mandate for Palestine (1922), The Covenant of the League of Nations (1924), or the General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) on the Future government of Palestine (1947). The HoAP and AL chose to invade.

Yes, the Israelis were on the defense and the HoAP/AL were the offensive aggressors challenging the decisions made under Treaty and Law.

It is plain and simple. The HoAP/AL, not getting what they wanted, like little children, went to war. And, decades later, after several schoolyard fights, unable to achieve their desired goals thought armed conflict, only now want to invoke some international law.

Go back to the original intent.

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

SOURCE: The San Remo agreement 1920

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

The San Remo Mandate stands and always will. Countries have a duty therefore to encourage Jewish settlement in all the land and consequently settlement building for the Jewish people in the West Bank is absolutely and totally legal.