Palestine Today

[Toddsterpatriot]

Seriously? "...not posing harm to any Israeli civilians, to any Israeli military installations, or to any Israeli soldiers..."

Resorting to outright lies now.

Have a question; What’s the difference between “ armistice lines” and borders? Why weren’t

they considered legal borders prior to 1967 and what makes them “ legal “ now?


The 1949 Armistice Agreements were clear (at Arab insistence) that they were not creating permanent borders.

Got my answer; The Arabs didn't declare the 67 Borders permanent. To all the Pro Palestinian Kool Aid drinkers, feel free to disagree

Indeed, a lot of people are confused. They have never been borders.

I have read the documents. Few have.

Translation; Then Israel doesn’t have to accept the “ 67 Borders” that never existed in the first place. Thank you for that clarification

The lines around the West Bank and Gaza are not borders. Since they are not borders, it is the same country on both sides.

And Israel is its name...…..

 

[P F Tinmore]

Seriously? "...not posing harm to any Israeli civilians, to any Israeli military installations, or to any Israeli soldiers..."

Resorting to outright lies now.

Have a question; What’s the difference between “ armistice lines” and borders? Why weren’t

they considered legal borders prior to 1967 and what makes them “ legal “ now?


The 1949 Armistice Agreements were clear (at Arab insistence) that they were not creating permanent borders.

Got my answer; The Arabs didn't declare the 67 Borders permanent. To all the Pro Palestinian Kool Aid drinkers, feel free to disagree

Indeed, a lot of people are confused. They have never been borders.

I have read the documents. Few have.

Translation; Then Israel doesn’t have to accept the “ 67 Borders” that never existed in the first place. Thank you for that clarification

The lines around the West Bank and Gaza are not borders. Since they are not borders, it is the same country on both sides.

And Israel is its name...…..

So the West Bank and Gaza are Israel?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Have a question; What’s the difference between “ armistice lines” and borders? Why weren’t

they considered legal borders prior to 1967 and what makes them “ legal “ now?


The 1949 Armistice Agreements were clear (at Arab insistence) that they were not creating permanent borders.

Got my answer; The Arabs didn't declare the 67 Borders permanent. To all the Pro Palestinian Kool Aid drinkers, feel free to disagree

Indeed, a lot of people are confused. They have never been borders.

I have read the documents. Few have.

Translation; Then Israel doesn’t have to accept the “ 67 Borders” that never existed in the first place. Thank you for that clarification

The lines around the West Bank and Gaza are not borders. Since they are not borders, it is the same country on both sides.

And Israel is its name...…..

So the West Bank and Gaza are Israel?

Yes, don't get too comfortable...….

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, you are so full of it...

Indeed, a lot of people are confused. They have never been borders.

I have read the documents. Few have.

(COMMENT)

The Armistice Agreement was only temporary in its authority. Once the peace treaties were signed, the Armistice the legal authority is dissolved. They were replaced in their entirety. Each of the Armistice Agreement (Article XII) states:

"shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved."
​

The “party” means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force. The Arab Palestinians were NOT a party to the treaties; not then - not now. The Arab Palestinians have prevented such arrangements in good faith:

Preamble to:
Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations [Article 2(4)]:

◈ Considering that the progressive development and codification of the following principles:

1. The principle that States 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,
   
   
2. The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered,

◈ Paragraph 1(4) Declaration on Principles of International Law: (Given it Authority under the Charter Article 2(4) (supra):

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.​

Don't try to suggest that you have some special inside knowledge over other members of the Discussion Group. These passages and concepts have been talked about here many many times; including:

ARTICLE XXI Settlement of Differences and Disputes → Oslo II Accord (Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip)

Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:

1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.

3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​

You should remember what "good-faith" means:

good(-)faith. → Good faith ( bona fides ) is one of the fundamental principles of international law. ‘One of the basic principles governing the creation and performance of legal obligations, whatever their source, is the principle of good faith’: Nuclear Tests Cases 1974 I.C.J. Rep. 254 at 267. Good faith ‘touches every aspect of international law’: 1 Oppenheim 38 . It is without question one of the general principles of law as specified in art. 38(1) of the Statute of the I.C.J.: see Cheng , General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals ( 1953 ), Chaps. 4 and 5. It may be more. The U.N. Charter, art. 2(2) requires States to fulfill all obligations arising under it in good faith. The Friendly Relations Declaration of 20 October 1970 (General Assembly Res. 2625 (XXV)) extends that duty to ‘obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law’. In the law of treaties, treaties must be observed in good faith: art. 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969 : 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 . Likewise, treaties must be interpreted in good faith: art. 31(1). Good faith in relation to the formation of treaties is stipulated for by implication by art. 18 which recites that a State is ‘obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat [its] object and purpose’ when it has signed or expressed its consent to be bound by the text of a treaty. See generally O’Connor , Good Faith in International Law ( 1991 ).

Since the signing of the Oslo Accords, I don't think anyone can point to an instance of political substance where the Arab Palestinian as (even once) demonstrated - a good-faith effort on a matter of importance leading to peace. In fact, it is the stated policy of the Arab Palestinian"

Article 9 - Palestine National Charter of 1968: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it. They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it.
​

Similarly:

Article 13 - HAMAS Covenant: There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.
​

A "good-faith" effort is emphatically (to the extreme) ruled-out by the major political leadership frameworks and has been a policy followed over a half-century. Again, don't rely on our friend P F Tinmore to interpret for you. As you can see, we have the document quotes right here. Links attached, and you can make your own determination.

(SIDEBAR)

disinformation; misinformation. These words are not synonyms. (Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage)

◈ Disinformation = false information deliberately created and spread.

◈ Misinformation = incorrect information.​

You can determine which is representative of the phrase: "They have never been borders. I have read the documents." If you were going to rate your source, how would you rate it:

Example:
◈ A-1 Source is the very best - completely trustworthy.
◈ E-5 Unreliable and Untrustworth - Information improbable. ​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

That is what the controversy is all about (damn'it).

So the West Bank and Gaza are Israel?

(COMMENT)

The answer to that question is the answer to:

Q: What territory is now - or - ever has been since 1947, under the sovereign control (govern to the exclusion of all other nations) by the Arab Palestinians.

It is my opinion that the Gaza Strip was abandoned (unilateral withdraw) by Israel and left in the hands of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS). This is the Jihadist element that took control.

It is my option that Area "A" is under the Sovereign control of the Arab Palestinian IAW the Oslo Accords.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

The lines around the West Bank and Gaza are not borders. Since they are not borders, it is the same country on both sides.

Absolutely. And there is *ONLY* one country there. Guess which one it is.

 

[Mindful]

Will this person ever shutup?


Palestinian Leader Abbas Declares: ‘We Shall Enter Jerusalem — Millions of Fighters!’

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Will this person ever shutup?
Palestinian Leader Abbas Declares: ‘We Shall Enter Jerusalem — Millions of Fighters!’

(COMMENT)

I suppose that many nations see such Palestinian Threats → as a threat which is not credible and a threat which is not actionable.

This is a clear violation of the Charter against making threats: Article 2(4)

This is justification to withhold recognition by the UN and deny full membership.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, you are so full of it...

Indeed, a lot of people are confused. They have never been borders.

I have read the documents. Few have.

(COMMENT)

The Armistice Agreement was only temporary in its authority. Once the peace treaties were signed, the Armistice the legal authority is dissolved. They were replaced in their entirety. Each of the Armistice Agreement (Article XII) states:

"shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved."
​

The “party” means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force. The Arab Palestinians were NOT a party to the treaties; not then - not now. The Arab Palestinians have prevented such arrangements in good faith:

Preamble to:
Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations [Article 2(4)]:

◈ Considering that the progressive development and codification of the following principles:

1. The principle that States 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,
   
   
2. The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered,

◈ Paragraph 1(4) Declaration on Principles of International Law: (Given it Authority under the Charter Article 2(4) (supra):

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.​

Don't try to suggest that you have some special inside knowledge over other members of the Discussion Group. These passages and concepts have been talked about here many many times; including:

ARTICLE XXI Settlement of Differences and Disputes → Oslo II Accord (Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip)

Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:

1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.

3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​

You should remember what "good-faith" means:

good(-)faith. → Good faith ( bona fides ) is one of the fundamental principles of international law. ‘One of the basic principles governing the creation and performance of legal obligations, whatever their source, is the principle of good faith’: Nuclear Tests Cases 1974 I.C.J. Rep. 254 at 267. Good faith ‘touches every aspect of international law’: 1 Oppenheim 38 . It is without question one of the general principles of law as specified in art. 38(1) of the Statute of the I.C.J.: see Cheng , General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals ( 1953 ), Chaps. 4 and 5. It may be more. The U.N. Charter, art. 2(2) requires States to fulfill all obligations arising under it in good faith. The Friendly Relations Declaration of 20 October 1970 (General Assembly Res. 2625 (XXV)) extends that duty to ‘obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law’. In the law of treaties, treaties must be observed in good faith: art. 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969 : 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 . Likewise, treaties must be interpreted in good faith: art. 31(1). Good faith in relation to the formation of treaties is stipulated for by implication by art. 18 which recites that a State is ‘obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat [its] object and purpose’ when it has signed or expressed its consent to be bound by the text of a treaty. See generally O’Connor , Good Faith in International Law ( 1991 ).

Since the signing of the Oslo Accords, I don't think anyone can point to an instance of political substance where the Arab Palestinian as (even once) demonstrated - a good-faith effort on a matter of importance leading to peace. In fact, it is the stated policy of the Arab Palestinian"

Article 9 - Palestine National Charter of 1968: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it. They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it.
​

Similarly:

Article 13 - HAMAS Covenant: There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.
​

A "good-faith" effort is emphatically (to the extreme) ruled-out by the major political leadership frameworks and has been a policy followed over a half-century. Again, don't rely on our friend P F Tinmore to interpret for you. As you can see, we have the document quotes right here. Links attached, and you can make your own determination.

(SIDEBAR)

View attachment 275588 disinformation; misinformation. These words are not synonyms. (Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage)

◈ Disinformation = false information deliberately created and spread.

◈ Misinformation = incorrect information.​

You can determine which is representative of the phrase: "They have never been borders. I have read the documents." If you were going to rate your source, how would you rate it:

Example:
◈ A-1 Source is the very best - completely trustworthy.
◈ E-5 Unreliable and Untrustworth - Information improbable. ​

View attachment 275589
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy smokescreen, Batman!!!

Simple question: Are the armistice lines borders? Absolutely not. They were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. They were simply to draw a line between military forces. They were drawn on top of Palestine's International borders with its neighbors. They did not change or replace Palestine's international borders.

The exceptions were around the West Bank and Gaza. Here again, they were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. They did not separate two countries. It was still Palestine on both sides.

I have seen no documents changing that reality.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Abby Martin Interview - Gaza Fights For Freedom

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you garbled much of this - unnessasrily.

Simple question: Are the armistice lines borders? Absolutely not.
They were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. They were simply to draw a line between military forces.

(COMMENT)

I happen to agree with your conclusion here, BUT I question your total understand of the Armistice Arrangement.

Under Artcle 6 • Vienna Convention Law Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980) • Every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties. The authority of an Armistice is between Military Field Commanders, not "states." However, under the A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (1970) - wherein: "Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character."​

Now, whatever the "Treaty says" is the "new authority."

◈ Article II • Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (26 March 1979)

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.​

◈ Article 3 • International Boundary • The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994)

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), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.[/u]




The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized international boundary between Jordan and Israel, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.[/U]
​

They were drawn on top of Palestine's International borders with its neighbors. They did not change or replace Palestine's international borders.

(COMMENT)

The exceptions were around the West Bank and Gaza. Here again, they were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. They did not separate two countries. It was still Palestine on both sides.

I have seen no documents changing that reality.

(COMMENT)




Most Respectfully,
R

You are completely missing (smokescreening) the point.

"Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

If an armistice line, that is not a border, is drawn through Palestine, then it is Palestine on both sides.

How can the Palestinians violate such a line?

And what about all of the other armistice lines that follow Palestine's international borders?

 

[Shusha]

Holy smokescreen, Batman!!!

Simple question: Are the armistice lines borders? Absolutely not. They were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. They were simply to draw a line between military forces. They were drawn on top of Palestine's International borders with its neighbors. They did not change or replace Palestine's international borders.

The exceptions were around the West Bank and Gaza. Here again, they were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. They did not separate two countries. It was still Palestine on both sides.

I have seen no documents changing that reality.

Question for you.

Can a State abandon territory? If it does, what is the legal status of that territory?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you garbled much of this - unnessasrily.

Simple question: Are the armistice lines borders? Absolutely not.
They were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. They were simply to draw a line between military forces.

(COMMENT)

I happen to agree with your conclusion here, BUT I question your total understand of the Armistice Arrangement.

Under Article 6 • Vienna Convention Law Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980) • Every State possesses the capacity to conclude treaties. The authority of an Armistice is between Military Field Commanders, not "states." However, under the A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (1970) - wherein: "Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character."​

Now, whatever the "Treaty says" is the "new authority."

◈ Article II • Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (26 March 1979)

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.​

◈ Article 3 • International Boundary • The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994)

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), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.

The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized international boundary between Jordan and Israel, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.​

They were drawn on top of Palestine's International borders with its neighbors. They did not change or replace Palestine's international borders.

(COMMENT)

Again, you use the ambiguous "Palestine" designation. Prior to 1988, the land was designated as the former Territory to which the Mandate Applied. The Government of Palestine were the Egyptians over Gaza and the British over the West Bank.

◈ Everything concerning the boundaries of the Gaza Strip was reset to Israel in 1974. In 2005, it was altered again.​

◈ Everything concerning the boundaries of the West Bank was reset by the Oslo Accords and the Peace Treaty.​

The exceptions were around the West Bank and Gaza. Here again, they were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. They did not separate two countries. It was still Palestine on both sides.

I have seen no documents changing that reality.

(COMMENT)

That is correct as far as it goes. Like I stated before, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in nation-building processes; and additionally, declined to negotiate for a Treaty of Peace with Israel.

False Notion. No matter what you think you understand → there was no State of Palestine on the cessation of hostilities in 1949. However, there was a State of Israel.

This notion that there was a demarcation line with this undefined "Palestine" on both side, is as ridiculous as it is totally wrong.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

It was still Palestine on both sides.

The government of Palestine declared independence and changed her name to Israel years ago. Try to keep up.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

There is not now, nor has there ever been, a negotiated boundary between the State of Israel and the entity masquerading as the State of Palestine.

If an armistice line, that is not a border, is drawn through Palestine, then it is Palestine on both sides.

How can the Palestinians violate such a line?

And what about all of the other armistice lines that follow Palestine's international borders?

(COMMENT)

I have sent you the recognized borders for Israel and Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt several times. The entity masquerading as the State of Palestine has declined to negotiate at all on the borders.

The authority for the Armistice Lines, dissolved with the Treaty Arrangement between Egyt and Israel --- and Jordan and Israel. The entity masquerading as the State of Palestine has no agreement with anyone on the demarcation of permanent international boundaries.

And as you are so fond of saying, there is nothing that says otherwise.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Holy smokescreen, Batman!!!

Simple question: Are the armistice lines borders? Absolutely not. They were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. They were simply to draw a line between military forces. They were drawn on top of Palestine's International borders with its neighbors. They did not change or replace Palestine's international borders.

The exceptions were around the West Bank and Gaza. Here again, they were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. They did not separate two countries. It was still Palestine on both sides.

I have seen no documents changing that reality.

Question for you.

Can a State abandon territory? If it does, what is the legal status of that territory?

What state abandoned territory?

 

[Shusha]

If an armistice line, that is not a border, is drawn through Palestine, then it is Palestine on both sides.

Well, no. An armistice line suggests two competing sovereigns for a territory. Your attempt to imply a third sovereign ("Palestine") is legally and factually in error.

 

[Shusha]

What state abandoned territory?

Several have, over time. Answer the question.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you garbled much of this - unnessasrily.

Simple question: Are the armistice lines borders? Absolutely not.
They were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. They were simply to draw a line between military forces.

(COMMENT)

I happen to agree with your conclusion here, BUT I question your total understand of the Armistice Arrangement.

Under Article 6 • Vienna Convention Law Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980) • Every State possesses the capacity to conclude treaties. The authority of an Armistice is between Military Field Commanders, not "states." However, under the A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (1970) - wherein: "Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character."​

Now, whatever the "Treaty says" is the "new authority."

◈ Article II • Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (26 March 1979)

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.​

◈ Article 3 • International Boundary • The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994)

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), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.

The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized international boundary between Jordan and Israel, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.​

They were drawn on top of Palestine's International borders with its neighbors. They did not change or replace Palestine's international borders.

(COMMENT)

Again, you use the ambiguous "Palestine" designation. Prior to 1988, the land was designated as the former Territory to which the Mandate Applied. The Government of Palestine were the Egyptians over Gaza and the British over the West Bank.

◈ Everything concerning the boundaries of the Gaza Strip was reset to Israel in 1974. In 2005, it was altered again.​

◈ Everything concerning the boundaries of the West Bank was reset by the Oslo Accords and the Peace Treaty.​

The exceptions were around the West Bank and Gaza. Here again, they were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. They did not separate two countries. It was still Palestine on both sides.

I have seen no documents changing that reality.

(COMMENT)

That is correct as far as it goes. Like I stated before, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in nation-building processes; and additionally, declined to negotiate for a Treaty of Peace with Israel.

False Notion. No matter what you think you understand → there was no State of Palestine on the cessation of hostilities in 1949. However, there was a State of Israel.

This notion that there was a demarcation line with this undefined "Palestine" on both side, is as ridiculous as it is totally wrong.

Most Respectfully,
R

False Notion. No matter what you think you understand → there was no State of Palestine on the cessation of hostilities in 1949. However, there was a State of Israel.

Links? What did the armistice agreements say about the mandate, Palestine, Israel, and borders?