Palestine Loss of Land 1946 - 2000

[Phoenall]

In your extensive research in historical documents, you must have missed the many time Britain and the Zionists spoke openly about their colonial project.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

And you cant have a colonisation project without a colonial power that the colonists are subservient to. Now what was that colonial power the Jews of the world were subservient to, that gave them their orders and funded the colonisation ?

 

[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.

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 ?

I am confused

Indeed, that is Rocco's intention.

I never stated that.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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. ......

North and South Korea are also separated by an armistice line. And Israel's borders with Jordan and Egypt have been fixed, thanks to treaties.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh you are just --- such the big kidder. Here is the quote you claim you didn't say.

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

I am confused

Indeed, that is Rocco's intention.

I never stated that.

(COMMENT)

What I'm look for is the International Law that addresses "Capturing and holding territory by force" prior to the conflict.

And you cannot use UNSC Resolutions 242 or 681; which came after the 1967 War. Laws cannot be retroactively applied.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh you are just --- such the big kidder. Here is the quote you claim you didn't say.

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

I am confused

Indeed, that is Rocco's intention.

I never stated that.

(COMMENT)

What I'm look for is the International Law that addresses "Capturing and holding territory by force" prior to the conflict.

And you cannot use UNSC Resolutions 242 or 681; which came after the 1967 War. Laws cannot be retroactively applied.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think that would be covered here.

...the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity...

https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf​

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you're just kidding --- right?

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh you are just --- such the big kidder. Here is the quote you claim you didn't say.

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

I am confused

Indeed, that is Rocco's intention.

I never stated that.

(COMMENT)

What I'm look for is the International Law that addresses "Capturing and holding territory by force" prior to the conflict.

And you cannot use UNSC Resolutions 242 or 681; which came after the 1967 War. Laws cannot be retroactively applied.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think that would be covered here.

...the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity...

https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf​

(COMMENT)

Actually, that is not at all correct. It is wrong on several levels. So I'll answer on the two most common Arab Palestinian arguments used.

In the case of the West Bank, the Arab Legion (Jordanian Army), fired first when Jordanian forces penetrated and took control of Government House, HQ UN observers, Jerusalem.

In the case of the Gaza Strip, the Egyptian Military cut off the Israelis from using the Titan Straits, and then pushed the UN Peace Keepers out of the way, moving 100,000 troops, 900 Tanks and 800 Artillery Pieces forward.

Nothing in Chapter I, Article 2(4) negated the right of self-defense against an offensive aggressor. You will find that in Chapter VII, Article 51.

The authors of 242 had something altogether different in mind than how the Hostile Arab Palestinians interpret it (as previously explained). And resolution 681 was written in 1990; after the Treaty with Egypt.

Remember, that there are treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994) which totally, 100% --- resolved any question pertaining to the Israeli occupation of Egyptian controlled Gaza Strip or the Jordanian controlled West Bank (until abandon in 1988 to Israeli control). International Boundaries were resolved and delineated.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you're just kidding --- right?

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh you are just --- such the big kidder. Here is the quote you claim you didn't say.

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

I am confused

Indeed, that is Rocco's intention.

I never stated that.

(COMMENT)

What I'm look for is the International Law that addresses "Capturing and holding territory by force" prior to the conflict.

And you cannot use UNSC Resolutions 242 or 681; which came after the 1967 War. Laws cannot be retroactively applied.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think that would be covered here.

...the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity...

https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf​

(COMMENT)

Actually, that is not at all correct. It is wrong on several levels. So I'll answer on the two most common Arab Palestinian arguments used.

In the case of the West Bank, the Arab Legion (Jordanian Army), fired first when Jordanian forces penetrated and took control of Government House, HQ UN observers, Jerusalem.

In the case of the Gaza Strip, the Egyptian Military cut off the Israelis from using the Titan Straits, and then pushed the UN Peace Keepers out of the way, moving 100,000 troops, 900 Tanks and 800 Artillery Pieces forward.

Nothing in Chapter I, Article 2(4) negated the right of self-defense against an offensive aggressor. You will find that in Chapter VII, Article 51.

The authors of 242 had something altogether different in mind than how the Hostile Arab Palestinians interpret it (as previously explained). And resolution 681 was written in 1990; after the Treaty with Egypt.

Remember, that there are treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994) which totally, 100% --- resolved any question pertaining to the Israeli occupation of Egyptian controlled Gaza Strip or the Jordanian controlled West Bank (until abandon in 1988 to Israeli control). International Boundaries were resolved and delineated.

Most Respectfully,
R

I wasn't talking about the 1967 war.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What kind of confusion are you attempting to lay down here?

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you're just kidding --- right?

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh you are just --- such the big kidder. Here is the quote you claim you didn't say.

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

I am confused

Indeed, that is Rocco's intention.

I never stated that.

(COMMENT)

What I'm look for is the International Law that addresses "Capturing and holding territory by force" prior to the conflict.

And you cannot use UNSC Resolutions 242 or 681; which came after the 1967 War. Laws cannot be retroactively applied.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think that would be covered here.

...the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity...

https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf​

(COMMENT)

Actually, that is not at all correct. It is wrong on several levels. So I'll answer on the two most common Arab Palestinian arguments used.

In the case of the West Bank, the Arab Legion (Jordanian Army), fired first when Jordanian forces penetrated and took control of Government House, HQ UN observers, Jerusalem.

In the case of the Gaza Strip, the Egyptian Military cut off the Israelis from using the Titan Straits, and then pushed the UN Peace Keepers out of the way, moving 100,000 troops, 900 Tanks and 800 Artillery Pieces forward.

Nothing in Chapter I, Article 2(4) negated the right of self-defense against an offensive aggressor. You will find that in Chapter VII, Article 51.

The authors of 242 had something altogether different in mind than how the Hostile Arab Palestinians interpret it (as previously explained). And resolution 681 was written in 1990; after the Treaty with Egypt.

Remember, that there are treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994) which totally, 100% --- resolved any question pertaining to the Israeli occupation of Egyptian controlled Gaza Strip or the Jordanian controlled West Bank (until abandon in 1988 to Israeli control). International Boundaries were resolved and delineated.

Most Respectfully,
R

I wasn't talking about the 1967 war.

(COMMENT)

Relative to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the War which started in 1948, was resolved by Treaty [Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994)].

If you think there is a factual mistake here on when and where the discussion is pertaining to --- don't be a smart ass. Say what you mean! In this case, no matter what you mean, any complaint relative to the West Bank and Gaza Strip is wrong --- if you are addressing a complaint in real-time. The Palestinians were not the plaintiffs. They were not parties to the Armistice Arrangements --- and were not party to the treaties.

So, state your objection completely or stay at home.

If you have an argument to be made as to why the Palestinians refused to make peace, then state it. But remember where the International Boundaries are by treaty (without prejudice to the Palestinians).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[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.

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 ?

I am confused

Indeed, that is Rocco's intention.

I never stated that.

Never stated what ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh you are just --- such the big kidder. Here is the quote you claim you didn't say.

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

I am confused

Indeed, that is Rocco's intention.

I never stated that.

(COMMENT)

What I'm look for is the International Law that addresses "Capturing and holding territory by force" prior to the conflict.

And you cannot use UNSC Resolutions 242 or 681; which came after the 1967 War. Laws cannot be retroactively applied.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think that would be covered here.

...the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity...

https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf​

Which the Palestinians breach daily and you stay silent on.
Cant find no mention of capturing and holding territory by force anywhere in the UN charter.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you're just kidding --- right?

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh you are just --- such the big kidder. Here is the quote you claim you didn't say.

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

I am confused

Indeed, that is Rocco's intention.

I never stated that.

(COMMENT)

What I'm look for is the International Law that addresses "Capturing and holding territory by force" prior to the conflict.

And you cannot use UNSC Resolutions 242 or 681; which came after the 1967 War. Laws cannot be retroactively applied.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think that would be covered here.

...the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity...

https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf​

(COMMENT)

Actually, that is not at all correct. It is wrong on several levels. So I'll answer on the two most common Arab Palestinian arguments used.

In the case of the West Bank, the Arab Legion (Jordanian Army), fired first when Jordanian forces penetrated and took control of Government House, HQ UN observers, Jerusalem.

In the case of the Gaza Strip, the Egyptian Military cut off the Israelis from using the Titan Straits, and then pushed the UN Peace Keepers out of the way, moving 100,000 troops, 900 Tanks and 800 Artillery Pieces forward.

Nothing in Chapter I, Article 2(4) negated the right of self-defense against an offensive aggressor. You will find that in Chapter VII, Article 51.

The authors of 242 had something altogether different in mind than how the Hostile Arab Palestinians interpret it (as previously explained). And resolution 681 was written in 1990; after the Treaty with Egypt.

Remember, that there are treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994) which totally, 100% --- resolved any question pertaining to the Israeli occupation of Egyptian controlled Gaza Strip or the Jordanian controlled West Bank (until abandon in 1988 to Israeli control). International Boundaries were resolved and delineated.

Most Respectfully,
R

I wasn't talking about the 1967 war.

Are you confused with timelines or what ? Niether was Roccor if you slow down and read what was written,

 

[RoccoR]

Phoenall, et al,

He is intentionally trying to obscure the discussion so that he might be able to make these timeline rebuttals.

[
I wasn't talking about the 1967 war.

Are you confused with timelines or what ? Niether was Roccor if you slow down and read what was written,

(COMMENT)

He cannot make any constructive argument that explains the borders by treaty, and the impact of the abandonment of the Egyptian and Jordanian claim and control over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Notice that he says he was not speaking of the 1967 War, yet does not clarify the timeline or time frame for which he is speaking.

It is a form of subterfuge. It is a very sly way of challenging the argument presented without any evidence or counterpoint to offer.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Phoenall, et al,

He is intentionally trying to obscure the discussion so that he might be able to make these timeline rebuttals.

[
I wasn't talking about the 1967 war.

Are you confused with timelines or what ? Niether was Roccor if you slow down and read what was written,

(COMMENT)

He cannot make any constructive argument that explains the borders by treaty, and the impact of the abandonment of the Egyptian and Jordanian claim and control over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Notice that he says he was not speaking of the 1967 War, yet does not clarify the timeline or time frame for which he is speaking.

It is a form of subterfuge. It is a very sly way of challenging the argument presented without any evidence or counterpoint to offer.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why are you stuck on the 1967 war?

 

[Phoenall]

Phoenall, et al,

He is intentionally trying to obscure the discussion so that he might be able to make these timeline rebuttals.

[
I wasn't talking about the 1967 war.

Are you confused with timelines or what ? Niether was Roccor if you slow down and read what was written,

(COMMENT)

He cannot make any constructive argument that explains the borders by treaty, and the impact of the abandonment of the Egyptian and Jordanian claim and control over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Notice that he says he was not speaking of the 1967 War, yet does not clarify the timeline or time frame for which he is speaking.

It is a form of subterfuge. It is a very sly way of challenging the argument presented without any evidence or counterpoint to offer.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why are you stuck on the 1967 war?

Why are you as we did not discuss the 1967 war at all, you brought it into the equation and we took it out as irrelevant

 

[P F Tinmore]

Phoenall, et al,

He is intentionally trying to obscure the discussion so that he might be able to make these timeline rebuttals.

[
I wasn't talking about the 1967 war.

Are you confused with timelines or what ? Niether was Roccor if you slow down and read what was written,

(COMMENT)

He cannot make any constructive argument that explains the borders by treaty, and the impact of the abandonment of the Egyptian and Jordanian claim and control over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Notice that he says he was not speaking of the 1967 War, yet does not clarify the timeline or time frame for which he is speaking.

It is a form of subterfuge. It is a very sly way of challenging the argument presented without any evidence or counterpoint to offer.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why are you stuck on the 1967 war?

Why are you as we did not discuss the 1967 war at all, you brought it into the equation and we took it out as irrelevant

Where did I mention the 1967 war?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What kind of confusion are you attempting to lay down here?

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you're just kidding --- right?

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh you are just --- such the big kidder. Here is the quote you claim you didn't say.

I am confused

Indeed, that is Rocco's intention.

I never stated that.

(COMMENT)

What I'm look for is the International Law that addresses "Capturing and holding territory by force" prior to the conflict.

And you cannot use UNSC Resolutions 242 or 681; which came after the 1967 War. Laws cannot be retroactively applied.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think that would be covered here.

...the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity...

https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf​

(COMMENT)

Actually, that is not at all correct. It is wrong on several levels. So I'll answer on the two most common Arab Palestinian arguments used.

In the case of the West Bank, the Arab Legion (Jordanian Army), fired first when Jordanian forces penetrated and took control of Government House, HQ UN observers, Jerusalem.

In the case of the Gaza Strip, the Egyptian Military cut off the Israelis from using the Titan Straits, and then pushed the UN Peace Keepers out of the way, moving 100,000 troops, 900 Tanks and 800 Artillery Pieces forward.

Nothing in Chapter I, Article 2(4) negated the right of self-defense against an offensive aggressor. You will find that in Chapter VII, Article 51.

The authors of 242 had something altogether different in mind than how the Hostile Arab Palestinians interpret it (as previously explained). And resolution 681 was written in 1990; after the Treaty with Egypt.

Remember, that there are treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994) which totally, 100% --- resolved any question pertaining to the Israeli occupation of Egyptian controlled Gaza Strip or the Jordanian controlled West Bank (until abandon in 1988 to Israeli control). International Boundaries were resolved and delineated.

Most Respectfully,
R

I wasn't talking about the 1967 war.

(COMMENT)

Relative to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the War which started in 1948, was resolved by Treaty [Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994)].

If you think there is a factual mistake here on when and where the discussion is pertaining to --- don't be a smart ass. Say what you mean! In this case, no matter what you mean, any complaint relative to the West Bank and Gaza Strip is wrong --- if you are addressing a complaint in real-time. The Palestinians were not the plaintiffs. They were not parties to the Armistice Arrangements --- and were not party to the treaties.

So, state your objection completely or stay at home.

If you have an argument to be made as to why the Palestinians refused to make peace, then state it. But remember where the International Boundaries are by treaty (without prejudice to the Palestinians).

Most Respectfully,
R

Relative to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the War which started in 1948, was resolved by Treaty [Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994)].

The Palestinians were not the plaintiffs. They were not parties to the Armistice Arrangements --- and were not party to the treaties.​

Indeed.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Think about it for a minute and ask the tough question.

P F Tinmore, et al,

What kind of confusion are you attempting to lay down here?

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you're just kidding --- right?

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh you are just --- such the big kidder. Here is the quote you claim you didn't say.

(COMMENT)

What I'm look for is the International Law that addresses "Capturing and holding territory by force" prior to the conflict.

And you cannot use UNSC Resolutions 242 or 681; which came after the 1967 War. Laws cannot be retroactively applied.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think that would be covered here.

...the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity...

https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf​

(COMMENT)

Actually, that is not at all correct. It is wrong on several levels. So I'll answer on the two most common Arab Palestinian arguments used.

In the case of the West Bank, the Arab Legion (Jordanian Army), fired first when Jordanian forces penetrated and took control of Government House, HQ UN observers, Jerusalem.

In the case of the Gaza Strip, the Egyptian Military cut off the Israelis from using the Titan Straits, and then pushed the UN Peace Keepers out of the way, moving 100,000 troops, 900 Tanks and 800 Artillery Pieces forward.

Nothing in Chapter I, Article 2(4) negated the right of self-defense against an offensive aggressor. You will find that in Chapter VII, Article 51.

The authors of 242 had something altogether different in mind than how the Hostile Arab Palestinians interpret it (as previously explained). And resolution 681 was written in 1990; after the Treaty with Egypt.

Remember, that there are treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994) which totally, 100% --- resolved any question pertaining to the Israeli occupation of Egyptian controlled Gaza Strip or the Jordanian controlled West Bank (until abandon in 1988 to Israeli control). International Boundaries were resolved and delineated.

Most Respectfully,
R

I wasn't talking about the 1967 war.

(COMMENT)

Relative to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the War which started in 1948, was resolved by Treaty [Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994)].

If you think there is a factual mistake here on when and where the discussion is pertaining to --- don't be a smart ass. Say what you mean! In this case, no matter what you mean, any complaint relative to the West Bank and Gaza Strip is wrong --- if you are addressing a complaint in real-time. The Palestinians were not the plaintiffs. They were not parties to the Armistice Arrangements --- and were not party to the treaties.

So, state your objection completely or stay at home.

If you have an argument to be made as to why the Palestinians refused to make peace, then state it. But remember where the International Boundaries are by treaty (without prejudice to the Palestinians).

Most Respectfully,
R

Relative to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the War which started in 1948, was resolved by Treaty [Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994)].

The Palestinians were not the plaintiffs. They were not parties to the Armistice Arrangements --- and were not party to the treaties.​

Indeed.

(COMMENT)

If the conflict was resolved by treaty between the parties involved, then how is it that the Palestinians have any complaint?

••• The Egyptian Treaty left the Gaza Strip in the effective control of the Israelis even before a Palestinian Government was established. (And don't use the All Palestinian Government as an excuse. The Egyptians dissolved the APG in 1959; well before the Egyptians abandon the Gaza Strip to Israeli control.)

••• The The Jordanians abandon the West Bank into Israeli Control in August 1988 (two weeks before the HAMAS Charter was ratified) and several months before the PLO Declaration of Independence.
​

So the realistic question is: Who has cause for complaint with whom?

When the West Bank was abandon by the Jordanians on 31 July 1988 (HM the King cut all ties), WHAT COUTRY had control of that territory?

Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty​

• There mere act of discovery by one state is not enough to confer a title by occupation. There are two requirements:

(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state (terra nullius) --- that is --- used in international law to describe territory which has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty.

Jordan to Cut Key Ties to West Bank : Acts at Request of PLO, Hussein Says, in Attempt to Boost Palestinian Cause
August 01, 1988|MICHAEL ROSS | Times Staff Writer

AMMAN, Jordan — King Hussein said Sunday that he accepts Jordan's separation from the West Bank of the Jordan River and is dismantling his kingdom's "legal and administrative links" to the Israeli-occupied territory at the request of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

In a carefully crafted speech one day after he dissolved the lower house of Parliament, the Jordanian monarch indicated that he was bowing to Arab and, in particular, to PLO pressure to follow a course that Jordan--he implied--does not necessarily believe to be in the Palestinians' best interests.

However, he said, "we respect the wish of the PLO, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, to secede from us in an independent Palestinian state."
​

(ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.​

You asked this before; and the answer has not changed. . And this should be noted that it is not the same thing as taken by force or through the use of force. this is not the same thing as Acquisition by conquest or use of force.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Think about it for a minute and ask the tough question.

P F Tinmore, et al,

What kind of confusion are you attempting to lay down here?

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you're just kidding --- right?

I think that would be covered here.

...the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity...

https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf​

(COMMENT)

Actually, that is not at all correct. It is wrong on several levels. So I'll answer on the two most common Arab Palestinian arguments used.

In the case of the West Bank, the Arab Legion (Jordanian Army), fired first when Jordanian forces penetrated and took control of Government House, HQ UN observers, Jerusalem.

In the case of the Gaza Strip, the Egyptian Military cut off the Israelis from using the Titan Straits, and then pushed the UN Peace Keepers out of the way, moving 100,000 troops, 900 Tanks and 800 Artillery Pieces forward.

Nothing in Chapter I, Article 2(4) negated the right of self-defense against an offensive aggressor. You will find that in Chapter VII, Article 51.

The authors of 242 had something altogether different in mind than how the Hostile Arab Palestinians interpret it (as previously explained). And resolution 681 was written in 1990; after the Treaty with Egypt.

Remember, that there are treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994) which totally, 100% --- resolved any question pertaining to the Israeli occupation of Egyptian controlled Gaza Strip or the Jordanian controlled West Bank (until abandon in 1988 to Israeli control). International Boundaries were resolved and delineated.

Most Respectfully,
R

I wasn't talking about the 1967 war.

(COMMENT)

Relative to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the War which started in 1948, was resolved by Treaty [Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994)].

If you think there is a factual mistake here on when and where the discussion is pertaining to --- don't be a smart ass. Say what you mean! In this case, no matter what you mean, any complaint relative to the West Bank and Gaza Strip is wrong --- if you are addressing a complaint in real-time. The Palestinians were not the plaintiffs. They were not parties to the Armistice Arrangements --- and were not party to the treaties.

So, state your objection completely or stay at home.

If you have an argument to be made as to why the Palestinians refused to make peace, then state it. But remember where the International Boundaries are by treaty (without prejudice to the Palestinians).

Most Respectfully,
R

Relative to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the War which started in 1948, was resolved by Treaty [Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994)].

The Palestinians were not the plaintiffs. They were not parties to the Armistice Arrangements --- and were not party to the treaties.​

Indeed.

(COMMENT)

If the conflict was resolved by treaty between the parties involved, then how is it that the Palestinians have any complaint?

••• The Egyptian Treaty left the Gaza Strip in the effective control of the Israelis even before a Palestinian Government was established. (And don't use the All Palestinian Government as an excuse. The Egyptians dissolved the APG in 1959; well before the Egyptians abandon the Gaza Strip to Israeli control.)

••• The The Jordanians abandon the West Bank into Israeli Control in August 1988 (two weeks before the HAMAS Charter was ratified) and several months before the PLO Declaration of Independence.
​

So the realistic question is: Who has cause for complaint with whom?

When the West Bank was abandon by the Jordanians on 31 July 1988 (HM the King cut all ties), WHAT COUTRY had control of that territory?

Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty​

• There mere act of discovery by one state is not enough to confer a title by occupation. There are two requirements:

(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state (terra nullius) --- that is --- used in international law to describe territory which has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty.

Jordan to Cut Key Ties to West Bank : Acts at Request of PLO, Hussein Says, in Attempt to Boost Palestinian Cause
August 01, 1988|MICHAEL ROSS | Times Staff Writer

AMMAN, Jordan — King Hussein said Sunday that he accepts Jordan's separation from the West Bank of the Jordan River and is dismantling his kingdom's "legal and administrative links" to the Israeli-occupied territory at the request of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

In a carefully crafted speech one day after he dissolved the lower house of Parliament, the Jordanian monarch indicated that he was bowing to Arab and, in particular, to PLO pressure to follow a course that Jordan--he implied--does not necessarily believe to be in the Palestinians' best interests.

However, he said, "we respect the wish of the PLO, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, to secede from us in an independent Palestinian state."
​

(ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.​

You asked this before; and the answer has not changed. . And this should be noted that it is not the same thing as taken by force or through the use of force. this is not the same thing as Acquisition by conquest or use of force.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were not a party to the 1948 war even though virtually all of the fighting was inside Palestine.

A UN Security Council Resolution called for an end to the fighting and an armistice.

The UN armistice agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation without a word from the UNPC who were supposed the be the trustee. Occupations do not confer sovereignty. The land remained Palestinian.

It is illegal to annex occupied territory. The land remained Palestinian.

 

[Phoenall]

Phoenall, et al,

He is intentionally trying to obscure the discussion so that he might be able to make these timeline rebuttals.

[
I wasn't talking about the 1967 war.

Are you confused with timelines or what ? Niether was Roccor if you slow down and read what was written,

(COMMENT)

He cannot make any constructive argument that explains the borders by treaty, and the impact of the abandonment of the Egyptian and Jordanian claim and control over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Notice that he says he was not speaking of the 1967 War, yet does not clarify the timeline or time frame for which he is speaking.

It is a form of subterfuge. It is a very sly way of challenging the argument presented without any evidence or counterpoint to offer.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why are you stuck on the 1967 war?

Why are you as we did not discuss the 1967 war at all, you brought it into the equation and we took it out as irrelevant

Where did I mention the 1967 war?

P F Tinmore said: ↑
[
I wasn't talking about the 1967 war.

Why are you stuck on the 1967 war?


You did ask and now you can see that you brought it up twice to deflect the thread because you were losing every argument.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What kind of confusion are you attempting to lay down here?

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you're just kidding --- right?

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh you are just --- such the big kidder. Here is the quote you claim you didn't say.

(COMMENT)

What I'm look for is the International Law that addresses "Capturing and holding territory by force" prior to the conflict.

And you cannot use UNSC Resolutions 242 or 681; which came after the 1967 War. Laws cannot be retroactively applied.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think that would be covered here.

...the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity...

https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf​

(COMMENT)

Actually, that is not at all correct. It is wrong on several levels. So I'll answer on the two most common Arab Palestinian arguments used.

In the case of the West Bank, the Arab Legion (Jordanian Army), fired first when Jordanian forces penetrated and took control of Government House, HQ UN observers, Jerusalem.

In the case of the Gaza Strip, the Egyptian Military cut off the Israelis from using the Titan Straits, and then pushed the UN Peace Keepers out of the way, moving 100,000 troops, 900 Tanks and 800 Artillery Pieces forward.

Nothing in Chapter I, Article 2(4) negated the right of self-defense against an offensive aggressor. You will find that in Chapter VII, Article 51.

The authors of 242 had something altogether different in mind than how the Hostile Arab Palestinians interpret it (as previously explained). And resolution 681 was written in 1990; after the Treaty with Egypt.

Remember, that there are treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994) which totally, 100% --- resolved any question pertaining to the Israeli occupation of Egyptian controlled Gaza Strip or the Jordanian controlled West Bank (until abandon in 1988 to Israeli control). International Boundaries were resolved and delineated.

Most Respectfully,
R

I wasn't talking about the 1967 war.

(COMMENT)

Relative to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the War which started in 1948, was resolved by Treaty [Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994)].

If you think there is a factual mistake here on when and where the discussion is pertaining to --- don't be a smart ass. Say what you mean! In this case, no matter what you mean, any complaint relative to the West Bank and Gaza Strip is wrong --- if you are addressing a complaint in real-time. The Palestinians were not the plaintiffs. They were not parties to the Armistice Arrangements --- and were not party to the treaties.

So, state your objection completely or stay at home.

If you have an argument to be made as to why the Palestinians refused to make peace, then state it. But remember where the International Boundaries are by treaty (without prejudice to the Palestinians).

Most Respectfully,
R

Relative to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the War which started in 1948, was resolved by Treaty [Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994)].

The Palestinians were not the plaintiffs. They were not parties to the Armistice Arrangements --- and were not party to the treaties.​

Indeed.

Because they did not exist legally, and you have failed to bring anything to the board that says they did