No freedom of expression in Gaza

[P F Tinmore]

“1. The Jewish Agency accepts the partition plan, considers it to be the irreducible minimum acceptable to the Jews, and insists upon the implementation of the plan without modification.

They modified the proposed borders.

They modified the rights of the natives.

They modified the status of Jerusalem.

What are these liars talking about?

BTW, if there was a resolution 181, did Israel win Jerusalem in a defensive war with the UN?

 

[P F Tinmore]

...did result in a boundary dispute that persist even today.

Palestine has borders.

Israel does not.

What is there to dispute?

 

[toastman]

Borders of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace was signed on October 26, 1994. The treaty resolved territorial and border issues that were ongoing since the 1948 war. The treaty specified and fully recognized the international border between Israel and Jordan



The Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, signed on March 26, 1979 created an officially recognized international border along the 1906 line, with Egypt renouncing all claims to the Gaza Strip.

 

[toastman]

You cannot dispute that Tinmore. No matter how hard you try.

 

[Roudy]

...did result in a boundary dispute that persist even today.

Palestine has borders.

Israel does not.

What is there to dispute?

For a country with no borders people sure get their butts kicked when they try crossing into it or messing with Israel. Tinmore thinks just by repeating the same garbage over and over it somehow will make it true. Understandably he is associated with some Paliscumians who feed him this crap and he feels he is fighting for their cause when he posts it on this board.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, we understand that you believe that.

...did result in a boundary dispute that persist even today.

Palestine has borders.

Israel does not.

What is there to dispute?

(REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE)

I have not been able to find any internationally recognized reference that documents the borders of State of Palestine. Can you point me to one?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, we understand that you believe that.

...did result in a boundary dispute that persist even today.

Palestine has borders.

Israel does not.

What is there to dispute?

(REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE)

I have not been able to find any internationally recognized reference that documents the borders of State of Palestine. Can you point me to one?

Most Respectfully,
R

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949

Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line

The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949

2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the Egypt-Palestine frontier to the point of origin.

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, we understand that you believe that.

Palestine has borders.

Israel does not.

What is there to dispute?

(REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE)

I have not been able to find any internationally recognized reference that documents the borders of State of Palestine. Can you point me to one?

Most Respectfully,
R

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949

Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line

The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949

2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the Egypt-Palestine frontier to the point of origin.

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949

The word Border is not mentioned once in those links..

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is an interesting slight of hand.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, we understand that you believe that.

Palestine has borders.

Israel does not.

What is there to dispute?

(REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE)

I have not been able to find any internationally recognized reference that documents the borders of State of Palestine. Can you point me to one?

Most Respectfully,
R

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949

Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line

The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949

2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the Egypt-Palestine frontier to the point of origin.

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949

(COMMENT)

Those documents are agreements between Israel and either Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. They refer to Palestine, as in the territory formerly under the mandate.

The reason for the language was to the extent possible, not to recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel. But they do not imply the existence of the State of Palestine. In fact, no Palestinian was even involved with any of the agreements, as an observer or otherwise.

This is just another way for Arabs of Syria and Lebanon to prolong the truce, without the expense of war. In Lebanon's case, they would rather hostilities continue through their proxy war-fighters (Hezbollah). In Syria's case, they just sit unable to accomplish anything of substance.

This is not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for a Palestinian state that was capable of entering into agreements with its adjacent neighbor states for the purpose of establishing borders and boundary management. I don't see evidence of that measure of control. The Palestinian boundaries you cite are established by the Mandatory's appointed by the Allied Powers and the UN/LoN.

Egypt and Jordan established Treaties with Israel; not Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is an interesting slight of hand.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, we understand that you believe that.


(REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE)

I have not been able to find any internationally recognized reference that documents the borders of State of Palestine. Can you point me to one?

Most Respectfully,
R

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949

Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line

The Avalon Project : Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement, July 20, 1949

2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the Egypt-Palestine frontier to the point of origin.

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949

(COMMENT)

Those documents are agreements between Israel and either Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. They refer to Palestine, as in the territory formerly under the mandate.

The reason for the language was to the extent possible, not to recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel. But they do not imply the existence of the State of Palestine. In fact, no Palestinian was even involved with any of the agreements, as an observer or otherwise.

This is just another way for Arabs of Syria and Lebanon to prolong the truce, without the expense of war. In Lebanon's case, they would rather hostilities continue through their proxy war-fighters (Hezbollah). In Syria's case, they just sit unable to accomplish anything of substance.

This is not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for a Palestinian state that was capable of entering into agreements with its adjacent neighbor states for the purpose of establishing borders and boundary management. I don't see evidence of that measure of control. The Palestinian boundaries you cite are established by the Mandatory's appointed by the Allied Powers and the UN/LoN.

Egypt and Jordan established Treaties with Israel; not Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

They refer to Palestine, as in the territory formerly under the mandate.

The "former mandate" had no territory. That term began to be used later on probably for propaganda purposes.

Egypt and Jordan established Treaties with Israel; not Palestine.

Indeed, the war with Palestine has never ended. Of course that means that Israel has won nothing yet.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Security Council demanded the Armistice, not Israel.

Indeed, the war with Palestine has never ended. Of course that means that Israel has won nothing yet.

(COMMENT)

That depends on your perspective. The last Arab sneak attack during Yom Kipper ('73), resulted in substantial holdings on the part of Israel.

Generally, the side with the greatest holdings at the end of hostilities, has the advantage.

The aggressor, in the case of the last war being the Arab Palestinians, is the side that has to satisfy the reparations, restitution and compensation.

It is to the Arab Palestinians advantage to maintain the Armistice. If it comes to litigation, the aggressor is usually found at fault. Then there are all the terrorist attacks and wrongful death suits to be considered; probably starting with the Munich Olympic Team Massacre.

I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinian wants to take all its claims to court. They would probably come out on the losing end. But in direct negotiations, various settlements can be achieved without formal legal finding out on the record.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Security Council demanded the Armistice, not Israel.

Indeed, the war with Palestine has never ended. Of course that means that Israel has won nothing yet.

(COMMENT)

That depends on your perspective. The last Arab sneak attack during Yom Kipper ('73), resulted in substantial holdings on the part of Israel.

Generally, the side with the greatest holdings at the end of hostilities, has the advantage.

The aggressor, in the case of the last war being the Arab Palestinians, is the side that has to satisfy the reparations, restitution and compensation.

It is to the Arab Palestinians advantage to maintain the Armistice. If it comes to litigation, the aggressor is usually found at fault. Then there are all the terrorist attacks and wrongful death suits to be considered; probably starting with the Munich Olympic Team Massacre.

I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinian wants to take all its claims to court. They would probably come out on the losing end. But in direct negotiations, various settlements can be achieved without formal legal finding out on the record.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Security Council demanded the Armistice, not Israel.

That is true. An armistice is a halt in fighting without any winners or losers.

Israel says that the Arabs lost the 1948 war. That is a lie.

Israel says it won territory in the 1948 war. That is a lie.

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Security Council demanded the Armistice, not Israel.

Indeed, the war with Palestine has never ended. Of course that means that Israel has won nothing yet.

(COMMENT)

That depends on your perspective. The last Arab sneak attack during Yom Kipper ('73), resulted in substantial holdings on the part of Israel.

Generally, the side with the greatest holdings at the end of hostilities, has the advantage.

The aggressor, in the case of the last war being the Arab Palestinians, is the side that has to satisfy the reparations, restitution and compensation.

It is to the Arab Palestinians advantage to maintain the Armistice. If it comes to litigation, the aggressor is usually found at fault. Then there are all the terrorist attacks and wrongful death suits to be considered; probably starting with the Munich Olympic Team Massacre.

I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinian wants to take all its claims to court. They would probably come out on the losing end. But in direct negotiations, various settlements can be achieved without formal legal finding out on the record.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Security Council demanded the Armistice, not Israel.

That is true. An armistice is a halt in fighting without any winners or losers.

Israel says that the Arabs lost the 1948 war. That is a lie.

Israel says it won territory in the 1948 war. That is a lie.

You're right again, Tinnie. Although Israel slapped the snot out of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt and the other Arab factions, The Mandate Palestinians got to hold the victory parades and pass out sweets.

http://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/ArabIsraeliWar

 

[Bloodrock44]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Security Council demanded the Armistice, not Israel.

Indeed, the war with Palestine has never ended. Of course that means that Israel has won nothing yet.

(COMMENT)

That depends on your perspective. The last Arab sneak attack during Yom Kipper ('73), resulted in substantial holdings on the part of Israel.

Generally, the side with the greatest holdings at the end of hostilities, has the advantage.

The aggressor, in the case of the last war being the Arab Palestinians, is the side that has to satisfy the reparations, restitution and compensation.

It is to the Arab Palestinians advantage to maintain the Armistice. If it comes to litigation, the aggressor is usually found at fault. Then there are all the terrorist attacks and wrongful death suits to be considered; probably starting with the Munich Olympic Team Massacre.

I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinian wants to take all its claims to court. They would probably come out on the losing end. But in direct negotiations, various settlements can be achieved without formal legal finding out on the record.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Security Council demanded the Armistice, not Israel.

That is true. An armistice is a halt in fighting without any winners or losers.

Israel says that the Arabs lost the 1948 war. That is a lie.

Israel says it won territory in the 1948 war. That is a lie.

Right Tinman. The arabs have never lost a war. Except '48, '56, '67 and '73. Gimme some of that stuff you're smoking.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Security Council demanded the Armistice, not Israel.


(COMMENT)

That depends on your perspective. The last Arab sneak attack during Yom Kipper ('73), resulted in substantial holdings on the part of Israel.

Generally, the side with the greatest holdings at the end of hostilities, has the advantage.

The aggressor, in the case of the last war being the Arab Palestinians, is the side that has to satisfy the reparations, restitution and compensation.

It is to the Arab Palestinians advantage to maintain the Armistice. If it comes to litigation, the aggressor is usually found at fault. Then there are all the terrorist attacks and wrongful death suits to be considered; probably starting with the Munich Olympic Team Massacre.

I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinian wants to take all its claims to court. They would probably come out on the losing end. But in direct negotiations, various settlements can be achieved without formal legal finding out on the record.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Security Council demanded the Armistice, not Israel.

That is true. An armistice is a halt in fighting without any winners or losers.

Israel says that the Arabs lost the 1948 war. That is a lie.

Israel says it won territory in the 1948 war. That is a lie.

Right Tinman. The arabs have never lost a war. Except '48, '56, '67 and '73. Gimme some of that stuff you're smoking.

That is true. An armistice is a halt in fighting without any winners or losers.

If you don't believe me, look it up yourself.

 

[toastman]

1948 Arab?Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Result: Israeli Victory

Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Result: Israeli Victory

Yom Kippur War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Result: Israeli Tactical Victory

 

[toastman]

Show me an article that says the Armistice agreements made it so that there was no winner

 

[Bloodrock44]

1948 Arab?Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Result: Israeli Victory

Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Result: Israeli Victory

Yom Kippur War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Result: Israeli Tactical Victory

Holy Shiite Batman!!! How can this be? Tinman says their were no winners and right there on the article it says Israeli victory and arab defeat. I'm beginning to lose faith in the Tinman.

 

[toastman]

1948 Arab?Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Result: Israeli Victory

Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Result: Israeli Victory

Yom Kippur War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Result: Israeli Tactical Victory

Holy Shiite Batman!!! How can this be? Tinman says their were no winners and right there on the article it says Israeli victory and arab defeat. I'm beginning to lose faith in the Tinman.

Tinmore say a lot of things without backing it up. Nothing new here

 

[P F Tinmore]

Show me an article that says the Armistice agreements made it so that there was no winner

That is what an armistice is.

The key aspect in an armistice is the fact that fighting ends with no one surrendering.

Armistice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "Arabs" did not lose the 1948 war.