Palestine Loss of Land 1946 - 2000

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is not exactly what the charter says.

Sunni Man, et al,

I don't believe you understand.

The apartheid state of Israel is the only country I know of which has never declared any fixed borders.

This tactic makes any discussion about what land Israel owns or controls a moot point.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish State of Israel are geographic lines of political entities which represents the limit to which a governments, exercises and imposes full rights, powers and authority to extend it control.

It is not necessary for any country to announce set borders when it is immediately obvious to the casual observer, where the enforcement begins.

• The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.
• The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law.
• Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.
​

Israel just shifts the borders according to it's current political agenda.

Which makes a coherent and lasting peace process with the Palestinians basically impossible. ......

(COMMENT)

Amazingly enough, it is only the Arab Palestinians that do not know where the International Boundary is. If you read Article 3 and Annex 1a, of the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty, you might ask where the West Bank is? And, if you read Article II, Treaty of Peace between Egypt and Israel, you might ask where the Gaza Strip is?

Israel enforces control where is has control. It does not shift its borders. The entire reason for the Egyptians and Syrians attacked in 1973 (Yom Kippur Surprise Attack) was to attempt to to win back territory lost to Israel during the third Arab-Israeli war, in 1967. Control extends to the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (front between opposing sides form, the front line is the area where the armies are engaged in conflict, or FEBA).

Most Respectfully,
R

Capturing and holding territory by force is contrary to international law.

(COMMENT)

What the Charter says is: Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

The Charter does not mention a thing about captured territory or holding territory. The Article 2(4) imposes a strict prohibition on the "threat to use force" and the "use of force itself:" except under two exceptions:

• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.
• Enforcement measures involving the use of force sanctioned by the Security Council under Chapter VII.
​

In very early 1948, the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) began infiltrating into the territory under Mandate in preparation for an immediate attack, the spearhead of the assault. This was confirmed by LTG Glubb and later by the Arab themselves.

Whether you are talking about the 1948 war, or the 1967 War when Jordanian Artillery opened fire on Israeli Positions inside Israel, the Arabs where the instigators. Similarly the same can be said for the 1973 Yom Kippur attack.

Most Respectfully,
R

What the Charter says is: Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The Charter does not mention a thing about captured territory or holding territory. The Article 2(4) imposes a strict prohibition on the "threat to use force" and the "use of force itself:" except under two exceptions:


• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.
• Enforcement measures involving the use of force sanctioned by the Security Council under Chapter VII.​

That is correct and that is my point.

• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.

So, we can agree that The Israelis have a right to self-defense in the context of Arabs/Moslems with a history of hostile actions against Israel and with those Arabs/Moslems holding to a Charter that defines the intended mass slaughter of the Israelis.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is not exactly what the charter says.

Sunni Man, et al,

I don't believe you understand.

The apartheid state of Israel is the only country I know of which has never declared any fixed borders.

This tactic makes any discussion about what land Israel owns or controls a moot point.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish State of Israel are geographic lines of political entities which represents the limit to which a governments, exercises and imposes full rights, powers and authority to extend it control.

It is not necessary for any country to announce set borders when it is immediately obvious to the casual observer, where the enforcement begins.

• The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.
• The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law.
• Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.
​

Israel just shifts the borders according to it's current political agenda.

Which makes a coherent and lasting peace process with the Palestinians basically impossible. ......

(COMMENT)

Amazingly enough, it is only the Arab Palestinians that do not know where the International Boundary is. If you read Article 3 and Annex 1a, of the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty, you might ask where the West Bank is? And, if you read Article II, Treaty of Peace between Egypt and Israel, you might ask where the Gaza Strip is?

Israel enforces control where is has control. It does not shift its borders. The entire reason for the Egyptians and Syrians attacked in 1973 (Yom Kippur Surprise Attack) was to attempt to to win back territory lost to Israel during the third Arab-Israeli war, in 1967. Control extends to the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (front between opposing sides form, the front line is the area where the armies are engaged in conflict, or FEBA).

Most Respectfully,
R

Capturing and holding territory by force is contrary to international law.

(COMMENT)

What the Charter says is: Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

The Charter does not mention a thing about captured territory or holding territory. The Article 2(4) imposes a strict prohibition on the "threat to use force" and the "use of force itself:" except under two exceptions:

• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.
• Enforcement measures involving the use of force sanctioned by the Security Council under Chapter VII.
​

In very early 1948, the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) began infiltrating into the territory under Mandate in preparation for an immediate attack, the spearhead of the assault. This was confirmed by LTG Glubb and later by the Arab themselves.

Whether you are talking about the 1948 war, or the 1967 War when Jordanian Artillery opened fire on Israeli Positions inside Israel, the Arabs where the instigators. Similarly the same can be said for the 1973 Yom Kippur attack.

Most Respectfully,
R

What the Charter says is: Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The Charter does not mention a thing about captured territory or holding territory. The Article 2(4) imposes a strict prohibition on the "threat to use force" and the "use of force itself:" except under two exceptions:


• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.
• Enforcement measures involving the use of force sanctioned by the Security Council under Chapter VII.​

That is correct and that is my point.

• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.

So, we can agree that The Israelis have a right to self-defense in the context of Arabs/Moslems with a history of hostile actions against Israel and with those Arabs/Moslems holding to a Charter that defines the intended mass slaughter of the Israelis.

Of course not. Where do colonists get the right to self defense?

Link?

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is not exactly what the charter says.

Sunni Man, et al,

I don't believe you understand.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish State of Israel are geographic lines of political entities which represents the limit to which a governments, exercises and imposes full rights, powers and authority to extend it control.

It is not necessary for any country to announce set borders when it is immediately obvious to the casual observer, where the enforcement begins.

• The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.
• The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law.
• Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.
​

(COMMENT)

Amazingly enough, it is only the Arab Palestinians that do not know where the International Boundary is. If you read Article 3 and Annex 1a, of the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty, you might ask where the West Bank is? And, if you read Article II, Treaty of Peace between Egypt and Israel, you might ask where the Gaza Strip is?

Israel enforces control where is has control. It does not shift its borders. The entire reason for the Egyptians and Syrians attacked in 1973 (Yom Kippur Surprise Attack) was to attempt to to win back territory lost to Israel during the third Arab-Israeli war, in 1967. Control extends to the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (front between opposing sides form, the front line is the area where the armies are engaged in conflict, or FEBA).

Most Respectfully,
R

Capturing and holding territory by force is contrary to international law.

(COMMENT)

What the Charter says is: Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

The Charter does not mention a thing about captured territory or holding territory. The Article 2(4) imposes a strict prohibition on the "threat to use force" and the "use of force itself:" except under two exceptions:

• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.
• Enforcement measures involving the use of force sanctioned by the Security Council under Chapter VII.
​

In very early 1948, the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) began infiltrating into the territory under Mandate in preparation for an immediate attack, the spearhead of the assault. This was confirmed by LTG Glubb and later by the Arab themselves.

Whether you are talking about the 1948 war, or the 1967 War when Jordanian Artillery opened fire on Israeli Positions inside Israel, the Arabs where the instigators. Similarly the same can be said for the 1973 Yom Kippur attack.

Most Respectfully,
R

What the Charter says is: Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The Charter does not mention a thing about captured territory or holding territory. The Article 2(4) imposes a strict prohibition on the "threat to use force" and the "use of force itself:" except under two exceptions:


• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.
• Enforcement measures involving the use of force sanctioned by the Security Council under Chapter VII.​

That is correct and that is my point.

• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.

So, we can agree that The Israelis have a right to self-defense in the context of Arabs/Moslems with a history of hostile actions against Israel and with those Arabs/Moslems holding to a Charter that defines the intended mass slaughter of the Israelis.

Of course not. Where do colonists get the right to self defense?

Link?

I suppose you are then left to cheer on as your Islamic terrorist heroes are cut down in the face of Israelis who are determined to confront Islamic terrorism.

"We love death more than you love life"

A prescription for dead Islamic terrorists.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is not exactly what the charter says.

Capturing and holding territory by force is contrary to international law.

(COMMENT)

What the Charter says is: Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

The Charter does not mention a thing about captured territory or holding territory. The Article 2(4) imposes a strict prohibition on the "threat to use force" and the "use of force itself:" except under two exceptions:

• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.
• Enforcement measures involving the use of force sanctioned by the Security Council under Chapter VII.
​

In very early 1948, the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) began infiltrating into the territory under Mandate in preparation for an immediate attack, the spearhead of the assault. This was confirmed by LTG Glubb and later by the Arab themselves.

Whether you are talking about the 1948 war, or the 1967 War when Jordanian Artillery opened fire on Israeli Positions inside Israel, the Arabs where the instigators. Similarly the same can be said for the 1973 Yom Kippur attack.

Most Respectfully,
R

What the Charter says is: Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The Charter does not mention a thing about captured territory or holding territory. The Article 2(4) imposes a strict prohibition on the "threat to use force" and the "use of force itself:" except under two exceptions:


• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.
• Enforcement measures involving the use of force sanctioned by the Security Council under Chapter VII.​

That is correct and that is my point.

• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.

So, we can agree that The Israelis have a right to self-defense in the context of Arabs/Moslems with a history of hostile actions against Israel and with those Arabs/Moslems holding to a Charter that defines the intended mass slaughter of the Israelis.

Of course not. Where do colonists get the right to self defense?

Link?

I suppose you are then left to cheer on as your Islamic terrorist heroes are cut down in the face of Israelis who are determined to confront Islamic terrorism.

"We love death more than you love life"

A prescription for dead Islamic terrorists.

Deflection.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Here you go again.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is not exactly what the charter says.

Sunni Man, et al,

I don't believe you understand.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish State of Israel are geographic lines of political entities which represents the limit to which a governments, exercises and imposes full rights, powers and authority to extend it control.

It is not necessary for any country to announce set borders when it is immediately obvious to the casual observer, where the enforcement begins.

• The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.
• The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law.
• Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.
​

(COMMENT)

Amazingly enough, it is only the Arab Palestinians that do not know where the International Boundary is. If you read Article 3 and Annex 1a, of the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty, you might ask where the West Bank is? And, if you read Article II, Treaty of Peace between Egypt and Israel, you might ask where the Gaza Strip is?

Israel enforces control where is has control. It does not shift its borders. The entire reason for the Egyptians and Syrians attacked in 1973 (Yom Kippur Surprise Attack) was to attempt to to win back territory lost to Israel during the third Arab-Israeli war, in 1967. Control extends to the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (front between opposing sides form, the front line is the area where the armies are engaged in conflict, or FEBA).

Most Respectfully,
R

Capturing and holding territory by force is contrary to international law.

(COMMENT)

What the Charter says is: Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

The Charter does not mention a thing about captured territory or holding territory. The Article 2(4) imposes a strict prohibition on the "threat to use force" and the "use of force itself:" except under two exceptions:

• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.
• Enforcement measures involving the use of force sanctioned by the Security Council under Chapter VII.
​

In very early 1948, the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) began infiltrating into the territory under Mandate in preparation for an immediate attack, the spearhead of the assault. This was confirmed by LTG Glubb and later by the Arab themselves.

Whether you are talking about the 1948 war, or the 1967 War when Jordanian Artillery opened fire on Israeli Positions inside Israel, the Arabs where the instigators. Similarly the same can be said for the 1973 Yom Kippur attack.

Most Respectfully,
R

What the Charter says is: Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The Charter does not mention a thing about captured territory or holding territory. The Article 2(4) imposes a strict prohibition on the "threat to use force" and the "use of force itself:" except under two exceptions:

• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.
• Enforcement measures involving the use of force sanctioned by the Security Council under Chapter VII.​

That is correct and that is my point.

• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.

So, we can agree that The Israelis have a right to self-defense in the context of Arabs/Moslems with a history of hostile actions against Israel and with those Arabs/Moslems holding to a Charter that defines the intended mass slaughter of the Israelis.

Of course not. Where do colonists get the right to self defense?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Israel is a UN Member nation. (See Article 51, it is one of the two exceptions to use force.) "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective selfdefense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

The Israelis are not now, nor have they ever been, colonist establishing an outpost for a colonial power. They were internationally sanctioned immigrants to a a territory under Mandate, with the right to self-determination.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Here you go again.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is not exactly what the charter says.

Capturing and holding territory by force is contrary to international law.

(COMMENT)

What the Charter says is: Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

The Charter does not mention a thing about captured territory or holding territory. The Article 2(4) imposes a strict prohibition on the "threat to use force" and the "use of force itself:" except under two exceptions:

• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.
• Enforcement measures involving the use of force sanctioned by the Security Council under Chapter VII.
​

In very early 1948, the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) began infiltrating into the territory under Mandate in preparation for an immediate attack, the spearhead of the assault. This was confirmed by LTG Glubb and later by the Arab themselves.

Whether you are talking about the 1948 war, or the 1967 War when Jordanian Artillery opened fire on Israeli Positions inside Israel, the Arabs where the instigators. Similarly the same can be said for the 1973 Yom Kippur attack.

Most Respectfully,
R

What the Charter says is: Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The Charter does not mention a thing about captured territory or holding territory. The Article 2(4) imposes a strict prohibition on the "threat to use force" and the "use of force itself:" except under two exceptions:

• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.
• Enforcement measures involving the use of force sanctioned by the Security Council under Chapter VII.​

That is correct and that is my point.

• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.

So, we can agree that The Israelis have a right to self-defense in the context of Arabs/Moslems with a history of hostile actions against Israel and with those Arabs/Moslems holding to a Charter that defines the intended mass slaughter of the Israelis.

Of course not. Where do colonists get the right to self defense?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Israel is a UN Member nation. (See Article 51, it is one of the two exceptions to use force.) "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective selfdefense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

The Israelis are not now, nor have they ever been, colonist establishing an outpost for a colonial power. They were internationally sanctioned immigrants to a a territory under Mandate, with the right to self-determination.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Israelis are not now, nor have they ever been, colonist establishing an outpost for a colonial power.​

In your extensive research in historical documents, you must have missed the many time Britain and the Zionists spoke openly about their colonial project.

 

[Shusha]

Capturing and holding territory by force is contrary to international law.

Gaza and Palestine would do well to remember that.

 

[Shusha]

In your extensive research in historical documents, you must have missed the many time Britain and the Zionists spoke openly about their colonial project.

Immigration is not equivalent to colonizing. The Jewish people, in returning to their homeland were not colonizing -- they were returning, regardless of what particular language might have been used in newspaper articles from a hundred years ago.

 

[P F Tinmore]

In your extensive research in historical documents, you must have missed the many time Britain and the Zionists spoke openly about their colonial project.

Immigration is not equivalent to colonizing. The Jewish people, in returning to their homeland were not colonizing -- they were returning, regardless of what particular language might have been used in newspaper articles from a hundred years ago.

Immigration was the major aspect of the colonization. You can't have colonies without settlers.

 

[Shusha]

I'll add to the above the language used in the Mandate for Palestine:

...recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national homeland in that country...

People who have an historical connection and who are reconstituting a homeland which has already been in existence, by definition, can not be colonizers.

 

[docmauser1]

The apartheid state of Israel is the only country I know of which has never declared any fixed borders. ...

Meaning, apartheid arab states around Israel don't have any fixed borders. Funny, eh?

 

[docmauser1]

I hope that this is actually investigated and not just go with Israeli propaganda.

Haven't we been asserting that palistanians have lost nothing? Yes, we have, yes, we have, indeed.

 

[docmauser1]

Capturing and holding territory by force is contrary to international law.

Palistanians should've had some territory in the first place, of course.

 

[Phoenall]

The apartheid state of Israel is the only country I know of which has never declared any fixed borders.

This tactic makes any discussion about what land Israel owns or controls a moot point.

Israel just shifts the borders according to it's current political agenda.

Which makes a coherent and lasting peace process with the Palestinians basically impossible. ......

WRONG AGAIN sunni troll. The borders were delineated by the LoN in 1920 and called the NATIONal home of the Jews. So when are the Palestinians going to declare their borders that do not infringe on another nations land, as this is contrary to the UN charter and International law?

That is incorrect. It was the Palestinian national home. This would also apply to immigrating Jews who became Palestinian citizens.

LINK should be easy to find just one valid link saying that Palestine was a nation when it was under Ottoman control. The evidence I have found says that it was created illegally in 1988 on Jewish land.

In 1920 the LoN delineated 22% of Palestine as the proposed Jewish national home, the other 78% was destined as the arab muslim Palestine homeland ruled by a Saudi prince.

Now where in history does it say that 100% was an arab muslim homeland ?

 

[Phoenall]

Sunni Man, et al,

I don't believe you understand.

The apartheid state of Israel is the only country I know of which has never declared any fixed borders.

This tactic makes any discussion about what land Israel owns or controls a moot point.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish State of Israel are geographic lines of political entities which represents the limit to which a governments, exercises and imposes full rights, powers and authority to extend it control.

It is not necessary for any country to announce set borders when it is immediately obvious to the casual observer, where the enforcement begins.

• The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.
• The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law.
• Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.
​

Israel just shifts the borders according to it's current political agenda.

Which makes a coherent and lasting peace process with the Palestinians basically impossible. ......

(COMMENT)

Amazingly enough, it is only the Arab Palestinians that do not know where the International Boundary is. If you read Article 3 and Annex 1a, of the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty, you might ask where the West Bank is? And, if you read Article II, Treaty of Peace between Egypt and Israel, you might ask where the Gaza Strip is?

Israel enforces control where is has control. It does not shift its borders. The entire reason for the Egyptians and Syrians attacked in 1973 (Yom Kippur Surprise Attack) was to attempt to to win back territory lost to Israel during the third Arab-Israeli war, in 1967. Control extends to the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (front between opposing sides form, the front line is the area where the armies are engaged in conflict, or FEBA).

Most Respectfully,
R

Capturing and holding territory by force is contrary to international law.

So when will you be giving up yours, that was captured and held by force ?

What date do you want the International law you cite to be applied retrospectively, or will you only apply it to Israel and the Jews ?

The actual concept was not broached until late in 1967 after Israel defeated the arab muslims and occupied the west bank and gaza. So this makes that land Israeli now as the law was not in place until some months later ( un res 242 )

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is not exactly what the charter says.

Sunni Man, et al,

I don't believe you understand.

The apartheid state of Israel is the only country I know of which has never declared any fixed borders.

This tactic makes any discussion about what land Israel owns or controls a moot point.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish State of Israel are geographic lines of political entities which represents the limit to which a governments, exercises and imposes full rights, powers and authority to extend it control.

It is not necessary for any country to announce set borders when it is immediately obvious to the casual observer, where the enforcement begins.

• The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.
• The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law.
• Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.
​

Israel just shifts the borders according to it's current political agenda.

Which makes a coherent and lasting peace process with the Palestinians basically impossible. ......

(COMMENT)

Amazingly enough, it is only the Arab Palestinians that do not know where the International Boundary is. If you read Article 3 and Annex 1a, of the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty, you might ask where the West Bank is? And, if you read Article II, Treaty of Peace between Egypt and Israel, you might ask where the Gaza Strip is?

Israel enforces control where is has control. It does not shift its borders. The entire reason for the Egyptians and Syrians attacked in 1973 (Yom Kippur Surprise Attack) was to attempt to to win back territory lost to Israel during the third Arab-Israeli war, in 1967. Control extends to the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (front between opposing sides form, the front line is the area where the armies are engaged in conflict, or FEBA).

Most Respectfully,
R

Capturing and holding territory by force is contrary to international law.

(COMMENT)

What the Charter says is: Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

The Charter does not mention a thing about captured territory or holding territory. The Article 2(4) imposes a strict prohibition on the "threat to use force" and the "use of force itself:" except under two exceptions:

• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.
• Enforcement measures involving the use of force sanctioned by the Security Council under Chapter VII.
​

In very early 1948, the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) began infiltrating into the territory under Mandate in preparation for an immediate attack, the spearhead of the assault. This was confirmed by LTG Glubb and later by the Arab themselves.

Whether you are talking about the 1948 war, or the 1967 War when Jordanian Artillery opened fire on Israeli Positions inside Israel, the Arabs where the instigators. Similarly the same can be said for the 1973 Yom Kippur attack.

Most Respectfully,
R

What the Charter says is: Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The Charter does not mention a thing about captured territory or holding territory. The Article 2(4) imposes a strict prohibition on the "threat to use force" and the "use of force itself:" except under two exceptions:


• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.
• Enforcement measures involving the use of force sanctioned by the Security Council under Chapter VII.​

That is correct and that is my point.

I am confused as you have just stated that the UN charter does not support your claims and that is your point ? ? ? ?

Now does it say conquest is illegal or does it say that the UN members should refrain from violence ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is not exactly what the charter says.

Sunni Man, et al,

I don't believe you understand.

The apartheid state of Israel is the only country I know of which has never declared any fixed borders.

This tactic makes any discussion about what land Israel owns or controls a moot point.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish State of Israel are geographic lines of political entities which represents the limit to which a governments, exercises and imposes full rights, powers and authority to extend it control.

It is not necessary for any country to announce set borders when it is immediately obvious to the casual observer, where the enforcement begins.

• The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.
• The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law.
• Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.
​

Israel just shifts the borders according to it's current political agenda.

Which makes a coherent and lasting peace process with the Palestinians basically impossible. ......

(COMMENT)

Amazingly enough, it is only the Arab Palestinians that do not know where the International Boundary is. If you read Article 3 and Annex 1a, of the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty, you might ask where the West Bank is? And, if you read Article II, Treaty of Peace between Egypt and Israel, you might ask where the Gaza Strip is?

Israel enforces control where is has control. It does not shift its borders. The entire reason for the Egyptians and Syrians attacked in 1973 (Yom Kippur Surprise Attack) was to attempt to to win back territory lost to Israel during the third Arab-Israeli war, in 1967. Control extends to the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (front between opposing sides form, the front line is the area where the armies are engaged in conflict, or FEBA).

Most Respectfully,
R

Capturing and holding territory by force is contrary to international law.

(COMMENT)

What the Charter says is: Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

The Charter does not mention a thing about captured territory or holding territory. The Article 2(4) imposes a strict prohibition on the "threat to use force" and the "use of force itself:" except under two exceptions:

• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.
• Enforcement measures involving the use of force sanctioned by the Security Council under Chapter VII.
​

In very early 1948, the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) began infiltrating into the territory under Mandate in preparation for an immediate attack, the spearhead of the assault. This was confirmed by LTG Glubb and later by the Arab themselves.

Whether you are talking about the 1948 war, or the 1967 War when Jordanian Artillery opened fire on Israeli Positions inside Israel, the Arabs where the instigators. Similarly the same can be said for the 1973 Yom Kippur attack.

Most Respectfully,
R

What the Charter says is: Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The Charter does not mention a thing about captured territory or holding territory. The Article 2(4) imposes a strict prohibition on the "threat to use force" and the "use of force itself:" except under two exceptions:


• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.
• Enforcement measures involving the use of force sanctioned by the Security Council under Chapter VII.​

That is correct and that is my point.

I am confused as you have just stated that the UN charter does not support your claims and that is your point ? ? ? ?

Now does it say conquest is illegal or does it say that the UN members should refrain from violence ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Can you show me where the Allied Powers acknowledged that?

The apartheid state of Israel is the only country I know of which has never declared any fixed borders.
This tactic makes any discussion about what land Israel owns or controls a moot point.
Israel just shifts the borders according to it's current political agenda.
Which makes a coherent and lasting peace process with the Palestinians basically impossible. ......

WRONG AGAIN sunni troll. The borders were delineated by the LoN in 1920 and called the NATIONal home of the Jews. So when are the Palestinians going to declare their borders that do not infringe on another nations land, as this is contrary to the UN charter and International law?

That is incorrect. It was the Palestinian national home. This would also apply to immigrating Jews who became Palestinian citizens.

(COMMENT)

I've heard it called by a number of different names.

Prior to 1918
• The Vilayet of Syria
• The Vilayet of Beirut
• The Mutasarrifiyet of Jerusalem
After 1918
• Enemy Occupied Territory
After 1922
• The territory under which the Mandate Applied
​

But I'm not familiar with the Palestinian National Home.

Most Respectfully,
R

You must have missed it.

No you made it up as no such thing exists in history. There was a Palestine that was an area undefined on the maps, there was a Palestine that was the name used by the LoN for a mandate but no Palestine that was a national home.

Care to produce the evidence of this alleged Palestinian national home ever existing

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is not exactly what the charter says.

Sunni Man, et al,

I don't believe you understand.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish State of Israel are geographic lines of political entities which represents the limit to which a governments, exercises and imposes full rights, powers and authority to extend it control.

It is not necessary for any country to announce set borders when it is immediately obvious to the casual observer, where the enforcement begins.

• The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.
• The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law.
• Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.
​

(COMMENT)

Amazingly enough, it is only the Arab Palestinians that do not know where the International Boundary is. If you read Article 3 and Annex 1a, of the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty, you might ask where the West Bank is? And, if you read Article II, Treaty of Peace between Egypt and Israel, you might ask where the Gaza Strip is?

Israel enforces control where is has control. It does not shift its borders. The entire reason for the Egyptians and Syrians attacked in 1973 (Yom Kippur Surprise Attack) was to attempt to to win back territory lost to Israel during the third Arab-Israeli war, in 1967. Control extends to the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (front between opposing sides form, the front line is the area where the armies are engaged in conflict, or FEBA).

Most Respectfully,
R

Capturing and holding territory by force is contrary to international law.

(COMMENT)

What the Charter says is: Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

The Charter does not mention a thing about captured territory or holding territory. The Article 2(4) imposes a strict prohibition on the "threat to use force" and the "use of force itself:" except under two exceptions:

• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.
• Enforcement measures involving the use of force sanctioned by the Security Council under Chapter VII.
​

In very early 1948, the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) began infiltrating into the territory under Mandate in preparation for an immediate attack, the spearhead of the assault. This was confirmed by LTG Glubb and later by the Arab themselves.

Whether you are talking about the 1948 war, or the 1967 War when Jordanian Artillery opened fire on Israeli Positions inside Israel, the Arabs where the instigators. Similarly the same can be said for the 1973 Yom Kippur attack.

Most Respectfully,
R

What the Charter says is: Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The Charter does not mention a thing about captured territory or holding territory. The Article 2(4) imposes a strict prohibition on the "threat to use force" and the "use of force itself:" except under two exceptions:


• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.
• Enforcement measures involving the use of force sanctioned by the Security Council under Chapter VII.​

That is correct and that is my point.

• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.

So, we can agree that The Israelis have a right to self-defense in the context of Arabs/Moslems with a history of hostile actions against Israel and with those Arabs/Moslems holding to a Charter that defines the intended mass slaughter of the Israelis.

Of course not. Where do colonists get the right to self defense?

Link?

From the UN charter of course, and it is only islamonazi propagandists that still say the Jews are colonists even after being shown international law.

Don't forget that most Palestinians in 1949 were so recent they did not meet the criteria for citizenship so the UN had to create a whole newstatus and agency to stop the arab muslims from shooting them for desertion.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Here you go again.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is not exactly what the charter says.

(COMMENT)

What the Charter says is: Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

The Charter does not mention a thing about captured territory or holding territory. The Article 2(4) imposes a strict prohibition on the "threat to use force" and the "use of force itself:" except under two exceptions:

• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.
• Enforcement measures involving the use of force sanctioned by the Security Council under Chapter VII.
​

In very early 1948, the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) began infiltrating into the territory under Mandate in preparation for an immediate attack, the spearhead of the assault. This was confirmed by LTG Glubb and later by the Arab themselves.

Whether you are talking about the 1948 war, or the 1967 War when Jordanian Artillery opened fire on Israeli Positions inside Israel, the Arabs where the instigators. Similarly the same can be said for the 1973 Yom Kippur attack.

Most Respectfully,
R

What the Charter says is: Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The Charter does not mention a thing about captured territory or holding territory. The Article 2(4) imposes a strict prohibition on the "threat to use force" and the "use of force itself:" except under two exceptions:

• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.
• Enforcement measures involving the use of force sanctioned by the Security Council under Chapter VII.​

That is correct and that is my point.

• The inherent’ right to individual and collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.

So, we can agree that The Israelis have a right to self-defense in the context of Arabs/Moslems with a history of hostile actions against Israel and with those Arabs/Moslems holding to a Charter that defines the intended mass slaughter of the Israelis.

Of course not. Where do colonists get the right to self defense?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Israel is a UN Member nation. (See Article 51, it is one of the two exceptions to use force.) "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective selfdefense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

The Israelis are not now, nor have they ever been, colonist establishing an outpost for a colonial power. They were internationally sanctioned immigrants to a a territory under Mandate, with the right to self-determination.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Israelis are not now, nor have they ever been, colonist establishing an outpost for a colonial power.​

In your extensive research in historical documents, you must have missed the many time Britain and the Zionists spoke openly about their colonial project.

AND does that negate the reality that the Jews are a legal nation and are not colonists of a colonial power. They were invited by the lands legal owners from 1850 onwards making them legal migrants. The legal owners used the term colonist as that was the best description at that time