P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,338
- 4,873
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #621
Indeed, Israeli but not Israel.
Palestine Today
- Thread starter P F Tinmore
- Start date
- Status
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 23,672
- 5,031
- 290
I guess in Your vision its' only Israel fault that neither Jordan nor Egypt effectively recognized Palestinian rule over the land. Not when Egypt or Jordan ruled over the lands neither when they negotiated with Israel.
There was solidarity but they didn't take them in account as players to negotiate with.
It's like if Israel is going to negotiate with Syria, they won't go to the Druze community to sign treaties over the existing sovereign govt. No matter how close the Druze plight might be to the Israelis.
They're just not a player on a governmental-state level, neither were the Palestinian parties who used big words and declarations but had little relevancy to the situation or effective organization.
RoccoR
Gold Member
RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
This is a load of crap. All four Armistice Agreements were by country and between states. It may have used the boundaries of the territory once under the Mandate, but rest assured, the Armistice Lines are between Israel and the four Principle Aggressor Nations of the Arab League.
• 02/23/1949
S/1264/Corr.1 Egypt-Israel General Armistice Agreement
For the President of the Security Council:
“I have the honour to inform you that an armistice agreement
between Egypt and Israel has been signed this morning, 24 February at Rhodes.
The text of the agreement is as follows:
• 03/23/1949
S/1296 Israel-Lebanon General Armistice Agreement
For the President of the Security Council:
“I have honour to inform the Security Council that a general armistice agreement, in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of sixteen November 1948, was signed by the delegations of Israel and Lebanon at Ras En Naqura on twentythree March 1949. The text of the agreement is as follows:
• LEBANESE-ISRAELI GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT •
• 04/03/1949
S/1302/Rev.1 Israel-Jordan General Armistice Agreement - Cablegram from UN Acting Mediator, Map (Green Line)
• 07/20/1949
S/1353 Israel-Syria General Armistice Agreement
Article 3(1) The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a).
• Again, in similar fashion, the Peace Treaty Boundaries (relevant to the Gaza Strip) spells out plainly:
Article II The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine.
(COMMENT)
I think that much of this nonsense about the 1948 nation or state called Palestine is merely a purposeful intent to make people think that there was actually an unspoken nation. Which there was not.
There was no mistake then (1948/1949), there was no mistake in November 1988 when the PLO Declared Independence, and there is certainly no mistake or subterfuge today. (Although the scope, nature and degree of sovereignty is really up in the air.)
As you have put it: "Palestine's international borders," is indeterminate and certainly used to confuse the issue for propaganda purposes. Certainly, it has no legs to stand upon.
Most Respectfully,
R
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
This is a load of crap. All four Armistice Agreements were by country and between states. It may have used the boundaries of the territory once under the Mandate, but rest assured, the Armistice Lines are between Israel and the four Principle Aggressor Nations of the Arab League.
(REFERENCE)
• 02/23/1949
For the President of the Security Council:
“I have the honour to inform you that an armistice agreement
between Egypt and Israel has been signed this morning, 24 February at Rhodes.
The text of the agreement is as follows:
For the President of the Security Council:
“I have honour to inform the Security Council that a general armistice agreement, in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of sixteen November 1948, was signed by the delegations of Israel and Lebanon at Ras En Naqura on twentythree March 1949. The text of the agreement is as follows:
• LEBANESE-ISRAELI GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT •
• 07/20/1949
For the President of the Security Council:
“I have the honour to inform the Security Council that a General Armistice Agreement, in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948, was signed by the delegations of Israel and Syria at Hill 232, near Mahanayim on 20 July 1949. The text of the Agreement is as follows:
“I have the honour to inform the Security Council that a General Armistice Agreement, in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948, was signed by the delegations of Israel and Syria at Hill 232, near Mahanayim on 20 July 1949. The text of the Agreement is as follows:
BTW: Armistice Lines are not "Permanent International Boundaries.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• Similarly, the Peace Treaty Boundaries (relevant to the West Bank) spells it out plainly:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 3(1) The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a).
• Again, in similar fashion, the Peace Treaty Boundaries (relevant to the Gaza Strip) spells out plainly:
Article II The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine.
I think that much of this nonsense about the 1948 nation or state called Palestine is merely a purposeful intent to make people think that there was actually an unspoken nation. Which there was not.
There was no mistake then (1948/1949), there was no mistake in November 1988 when the PLO Declared Independence, and there is certainly no mistake or subterfuge today. (Although the scope, nature and degree of sovereignty is really up in the air.)
As you have put it: "Palestine's international borders," is indeterminate and certainly used to confuse the issue for propaganda purposes. Certainly, it has no legs to stand upon.
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,338
- 4,873
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #624
It was Britain who appointed the government in Jordan. The Zionists promised Jordan three million a year for five years and the West Bank if they would not attack Israel in the war Israel was planning to start in 1948.
Egypt, on the other hand, never intended to annex Gaza. Egypt assisted the Palestinians in establishing a government who declared independence in 1948.
RoccoR
Gold Member
RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
There was no "negotiation" at all. The abandonment was a unilaterial decision on the part of the Hashemite King.
The official history site for Jordan calls it the "Disengagement from the West Bank:" "Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank."
• 07/31/1988 Dismantling legal and administrative links with West Bank - King Hussein of Jordan address to the nation - Non-UN document
Most Respectfully,
R
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
There was no "negotiation" at all. The abandonment was a unilaterial decision on the part of the Hashemite King.
(COMMENT)
The official history site for Jordan calls it the "Disengagement from the West Bank:" "Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank."
• 07/31/1988
Dismantling legal and administrative links with West Bank - King Hussein of Jordan address to the nation - Non-UN documentMost Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,338
- 4,873
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #626
There you go again with Israeli bullshit. The Mandate was not a place. It was an administration appointed to Palestine. Palestine was there with or without the Mandate.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,338
- 4,873
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #627
OK???RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
There was no "negotiation" at all. The abandonment was a unilaterial decision on the part of the Hashemite King.
(COMMENT)
The official history site for Jordan calls it the "Disengagement from the West Bank:" "Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank."
• 07/31/1988
Most Respectfully,
R
Indeed, It seems you're still clinging to some invention of your alleged "State of Pal'istan".
Yes, there was the geographic area called "Palestine".
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 23,672
- 5,031
- 290
The same "all Palestine" office that eventually proclaimed the King of Jordan as King of Palestine?
Just another example of how they tried to enlarge the borders of Arabian dynasties under the pretense of self determination.
Even the Syrians called upon that decision as conflicting the propagated notion of independence.
Arabs in Palestine ceded the land to foreign Arabian kings twice.
RoccoR
Gold Member
RE:: Palestine Today
※→ et al,
This is just another Palestinian head Three-card Monte games with the word salad.
The language use by me, and most governments, and certainly the UN is what is equivalently used in the treaties:
PART I.
PRELIMINARY.
Title. 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
The confusion is the difference between the Mandatory and the Mandate.
The term "Mandatory" → which is (what you ≈ said) trust government selected by the said Allied Powers in the matter of administration in the territory of Palestine. The Mandate is an obligation and authority given to the Mandatory to carry-out certain responsibilities; one of which was the responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on 2 November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
Most Respectfully,
R
※→ et al,
This is just another Palestinian head Three-card Monte games with the word salad.
(COMMENT)
The language use by me, and most governments, and certainly the UN is what is equivalently used in the treaties:
PART I.
PRELIMINARY.
Title. 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
The confusion is the difference between the Mandatory and the Mandate.
The term "Mandatory" → which is (what you ≈ said) trust government selected by the said Allied Powers in the matter of administration in the territory of Palestine. The Mandate is an obligation and authority given to the Mandatory to carry-out certain responsibilities; one of which was the responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on 2 November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
Most Respectfully,
R
rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 23,672
- 5,031
- 290
In my view it shows how Arabs in Palestine view themselves, and which rule is preferred to be installed over the land.
This is why notions such as Emirate/s or city states, where such dynamics of social structure are respected can be more effective in answering the needs of such rooted culture.
This works best in Arabia and the Gulf, can work as well in Gaza - just don't pretend to be fighting for Democracy.
Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 16,206
- 3,630
- 290
And the sovereign of "Palestine" was the government which formed to bring about the National Homeland for the Jewish people. The sovereign of "Palestine" renamed the State, Israel. Same place. You keep wanting there to be a State with no sovereign.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,338
- 4,873
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #633
Sorry, I am going to do a "Rocco" post.RE:: Palestine Today
※→ et al,
This is just another Palestinian head Three-card Monte games with the word salad.
(COMMENT)
The language use by me, and most governments, and certainly the UN is what is equivalently used in the treaties:
PART I.
PRELIMINARY.
Title. 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
The confusion is the difference between the Mandatory and the Mandate.
The term "Mandatory" → which is (what you ≈ said) trust government selected by the said Allied Powers in the matter of administration in the territory of Palestine. The Mandate is an obligation and authority given to the Mandatory to carry-out certain responsibilities; one of which was the responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on 2 November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
Most Respectfully,
R
Benoliel and Perry attempt to refute my argument that the statehood asserted by the Palestine National Council in 1988 was not of a new state, but of a state that already existed. They challenge my position that Palestine, as a Class A mandate under the League of Nations, was a state already in that era. 36 But beyond a bald assertion, Benoliel and Perry cite nothing that would demonstrate that Palestine was not a state in the League era. In particular, they mention nothing of the practice of the states of that era in regard to Palestine, which is where one must look to determine if Palestine was then a state. Had Benoliel and Perry examined that state practice, they would have seen that Palestine was accepted as a state, even though it was administered by Great Britain under the mandate system established by the League. 3 7
Most critically, Benoliel and Perry fail to account for a major international instrument of the era bearing on the status of Palestine, the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne." It was in this treaty that Turkey gave up its territories in the Arab world following its defeat in World War I9 The Treaty of Lausanne, to which the World War I allies were party, more than once refers to Turkey's Arab territories (Iraq, Syria, and Palestine), all of which became Class A mandates as "states" that were "detached" from Turkey. 40 The Treaty of Lausanne thus reflected an assumption that the Class A mandate territories, including Palestine, were "states." Under the League Covenant, the independence of these states was "provisionally recognized," and they were to be made independent in due course. 4 1 The Class A mandates were states temporarily under the administration of an outside state.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil
Sorry, I am going to do a "Rocco" post.RE:: Palestine Today
※→ et al,
This is just another Palestinian head Three-card Monte games with the word salad.
(COMMENT)
The language use by me, and most governments, and certainly the UN is what is equivalently used in the treaties:
PART I.
PRELIMINARY.
Title. 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.
The confusion is the difference between the Mandatory and the Mandate.
The term "Mandatory" → which is (what you ≈ said) trust government selected by the said Allied Powers in the matter of administration in the territory of Palestine. The Mandate is an obligation and authority given to the Mandatory to carry-out certain responsibilities; one of which was the responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on 2 November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
Most Respectfully,
R
Benoliel and Perry attempt to refute my argument that the statehood asserted by the Palestine National Council in 1988 was not of a new state, but of a state that already existed. They challenge my position that Palestine, as a Class A mandate under the League of Nations, was a state already in that era. 36 But beyond a bald assertion, Benoliel and Perry cite nothing that would demonstrate that Palestine was not a state in the League era. In particular, they mention nothing of the practice of the states of that era in regard to Palestine, which is where one must look to determine if Palestine was then a state. Had Benoliel and Perry examined that state practice, they would have seen that Palestine was accepted as a state, even though it was administered by Great Britain under the mandate system established by the League. 3 7
Most critically, Benoliel and Perry fail to account for a major international instrument of the era bearing on the status of Palestine, the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne." It was in this treaty that Turkey gave up its territories in the Arab world following its defeat in World War I9 The Treaty of Lausanne, to which the World War I allies were party, more than once refers to Turkey's Arab territories (Iraq, Syria, and Palestine), all of which became Class A mandates as "states" that were "detached" from Turkey. 40 The Treaty of Lausanne thus reflected an assumption that the Class A mandate territories, including Palestine, were "states." Under the League Covenant, the independence of these states was "provisionally recognized," and they were to be made independent in due course. 4 1 The Class A mandates were states temporarily under the administration of an outside state.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mjil
I know it’s been related to you dozens of times and why you persist in trying to re-write the Treaty of Lausanne is quite obvious, so once again,
the Treaty of Lausanne was concerned with the end of hostilities following WW1.
The Treaty of Lausanne never once refers to “Pal’istan”.
Should I save the above as a Microsoft Word document and email it to you? You can then, when prompted during your next attempt to re-write the Treaty of Lausanne, be instructed to cut and paste said Word document and save everyone yet another FPM (Face Palm Moment) when you, you know, do what you do.
Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 16,206
- 3,630
- 290
Link? Or quote specific Articles.
Shusha
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2015
- 16,206
- 3,630
- 290
Yeah, no.
The wording of the League Covenant Article 22, paragraph 4 is permissive, not obligating.
‘Certain communities, formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire, have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone'
Not WAS. Not WILL be. Not MUST be. Not ARE independent nations. Can be. When can they be? Subject to the rendering of assistance. So no, this is not proof that "Palestine" was not an existing State.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,338
- 4,873
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #639
Child Jailed Under Illegal Israeli Occupation-Ahed Tamimi
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,338
- 4,873
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #640
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
New Topics
-
-
Father Awaiting Trial in Murder of Teen Daughter's Alleged Rapist Wins Primary for County Sheriff- Started by Mack The Finger
- Replies: 0
-
Court unanimously sides with government in immigration dispute- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 0
-
-
