Palestine Today

[P F Tinmore]

None of Palestine's international borders are disputed.

Agreed. There is no dispute about the international borders for the territory formerly known as Palestine and now called Israel.

The border dispute is for the civil conflict between sovereign Israel and not-yet-sovereign "Palestine". A border dispute, or the determination of where the border will be, is not a condition requiring self-defense. That Jews live down the road from you is not a condition requiring self-defense. Even that Jews use your well is not a condition requiring self-defense. Not wanting Jews to have self-determination is not a condition requiring self-defense. Not wanting to divide a territory into smaller sovereign States is not a condition requiring self-defense. Non-recognition of the indigeneity of the Jewish people in the territory is not a condition requiring self-defense.

Do you know what ARE conditions requiring self-defense? Indiscriminate rockets. Random stabbings. Suicide bombers. Violent riots.

Now, help a sister out and tell me what treaty turned Palestine into Jordan.

WOW, what a goofy rant. None of that makes any sense.

 

[Hollie]

✪⇒ There must be such a condition ⇒ exist "a necessity of self-defense, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation,' and furthermore that any action taken must be proportional, "since the act justified by the necessity of self-defence, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it."

Oh jeese, another Palestine denier.

All you have to do now is convince 12 million Palestinians that there never was a Palestine.

Good luck with that.

In order for self-defense claim to be valid there must be a condition requiring self-defense. There is none. No one is attacking the Arab Palestinian people. Border disputes and desire for self-determination are not conditions requiring self-defense.

None of Palestine's international borders are disputed.

I don’t think anyone disputes you have given imaginary borders to the imaginary “country of Pal’istan” you have invented.

 

[Mindful]

Remember, if you have truth on your side, you don’t have to lie.


That Time Mahmoud Abbas Changed His Story About the Palestinian Refugees
We already know that PA President Mahmoud Abbas loves to change the palestinian narrative he puts forward. And I’ve found another example, this…
ISRAELLYCOOL.COM

 

[P F Tinmore]

Remember, if you have truth on your side, you don’t have to lie.


That Time Mahmoud Abbas Changed His Story About the Palestinian Refugees
We already know that PA President Mahmoud Abbas loves to change the palestinian narrative he puts forward. And I’ve found another example, this…
ISRAELLYCOOL.COM

OK, but none of that has any relevance.

 

[Hollie]

Remember, if you have truth on your side, you don’t have to lie.


That Time Mahmoud Abbas Changed His Story About the Palestinian Refugees
We already know that PA President Mahmoud Abbas loves to change the palestinian narrative he puts forward. And I’ve found another example, this…
ISRAELLYCOOL.COM

OK, but none of that has any relevance.

Abbas has no relevance to Arabs-Moslems masquerading as Pal'istanians?

Actually, he carries the legacy of fraud, thievery and gee-had that began when Yassir "It's not AIDS" Arafat invented the Pal'istanians in late 1967.

 

[Mindful]

Remember, if you have truth on your side, you don’t have to lie.


That Time Mahmoud Abbas Changed His Story About the Palestinian Refugees
We already know that PA President Mahmoud Abbas loves to change the palestinian narrative he puts forward. And I’ve found another example, this…
ISRAELLYCOOL.COM

OK, but none of that has any relevance.

Why do you even bother?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Remember, if you have truth on your side, you don’t have to lie.


That Time Mahmoud Abbas Changed His Story About the Palestinian Refugees
We already know that PA President Mahmoud Abbas loves to change the palestinian narrative he puts forward. And I’ve found another example, this…
ISRAELLYCOOL.COM

OK, but none of that has any relevance.

Why do you even bother?

Why do you bother with irrelevance?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Remember, if you have truth on your side, you don’t have to lie.


That Time Mahmoud Abbas Changed His Story About the Palestinian Refugees
We already know that PA President Mahmoud Abbas loves to change the palestinian narrative he puts forward. And I’ve found another example, this…
ISRAELLYCOOL.COM

OK, but none of that has any relevance.

Abbas has no relevance to Arabs-Moslems masquerading as Pal'istanians?

Actually, he carries the legacy of fraud, thievery and gee-had that began when Yassir "It's not AIDS" Arafat invented the Pal'istanians in late 1967.

Abbas has no relevance

Indeed.

 

[Mindful]

Remember, if you have truth on your side, you don’t have to lie.


That Time Mahmoud Abbas Changed His Story About the Palestinian Refugees
We already know that PA President Mahmoud Abbas loves to change the palestinian narrative he puts forward. And I’ve found another example, this…
ISRAELLYCOOL.COM

OK, but none of that has any relevance.

Why do you even bother?

Why do you bother with irrelevance?

Yet you still bother with me.

 

[Hollie]

Remember, if you have truth on your side, you don’t have to lie.


That Time Mahmoud Abbas Changed His Story About the Palestinian Refugees
We already know that PA President Mahmoud Abbas loves to change the palestinian narrative he puts forward. And I’ve found another example, this…
ISRAELLYCOOL.COM

OK, but none of that has any relevance.

Abbas has no relevance to Arabs-Moslems masquerading as Pal'istanians?

Actually, he carries the legacy of fraud, thievery and gee-had that began when Yassir "It's not AIDS" Arafat invented the Pal'istanians in late 1967.

Abbas has no relevance

Indeed.

Indeed, you're reduced to selectively editing posts as a way to spam the thread.

 

[Hollie]

Remember, if you have truth on your side, you don’t have to lie.


That Time Mahmoud Abbas Changed His Story About the Palestinian Refugees
We already know that PA President Mahmoud Abbas loves to change the palestinian narrative he puts forward. And I’ve found another example, this…
ISRAELLYCOOL.COM

OK, but none of that has any relevance.

Why do you even bother?

Why do you bother with irrelevance?

Yet you still bother with me.

He practices the lesser gee-had.

 

[Mindful]

Remember, if you have truth on your side, you don’t have to lie.


That Time Mahmoud Abbas Changed His Story About the Palestinian Refugees
We already know that PA President Mahmoud Abbas loves to change the palestinian narrative he puts forward. And I’ve found another example, this…
ISRAELLYCOOL.COM

OK, but none of that has any relevance.

Why do you even bother?

Why do you bother with irrelevance?

Yet you still bother with me.

He practices the lesser gee-had.

He's just a nuisance.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Palestine does not maintain a single border. THUS, there is nothing to contest. So, of course "none of Palestine's international borders are disputed;" there are none.

There is no need to read any farther than this, once you understand that the Geo-political legal entity of Palestine (alla 1920 - 1948) means something entirely different than the Geo-political term of Palestine today.

✪⇒ There must be such a condition ⇒ exist "a necessity of self-defense, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation,' and furthermore that any action taken must be proportional, "since the act justified by the necessity of self-defence, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it."

Oh jeese, another Palestine denier.

All you have to do now is convince 12 million Palestinians that there never was a Palestine.

Good luck with that.

In order for self-defense claim to be valid there must be a condition requiring self-defense. There is none. No one is attacking the Arab Palestinian people. Border disputes and desire for self-determination are not conditions requiring self-defense.

None of Palestine's international borders are disputed.

(COMMENT)

In Posting #1557, you attempt to use subterfuge in suggesting that there were:

✪ Palestine had international borders.

✪ That were defined by treaties in 1922. The Paulet-Newcombe Agreement did not conclude until 1923.

To the first point, the term Palestine described the undefined legal entity established by the Allied Powers,

✪ Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them;

• Allied Powers Agreed to it.
• The territory was defined by the Mandatory in conjunction with the Allied Power.
• Boundaries established by the Allied Powers.

NOTE: Near & Middle East Titles:
Palestine Boundaries 1833–1947

Historical Overview
In Ottoman times, no political entity called Palestine existed. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, European boundary makers began to take greater interest in defining territorial limits for Palestine. Only since the 1920s has Palestine had formally delimited boundaries, though these have remained subject to repeated change and a source of bitter dispute.​

✪ Palestine Order in LoN Council - (10 August 1922)

The Territory was not defined by a Treaty. It was a conceptual territory as discussed in the San Remo Agreement of 1920. The entity that was called "Palestine" in 1922 was defined by the Palestine Order in Council under an agreement protocol in the Mandate by the Allied Powers::

• 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.

While not all that valid today, historically there are several political aspects that need to be considered key when discussing the "boundary" issues in or around the period you identified:

• Anglo-French post-war negotiations over the boundaries of Palestine 1919-1920 and the revision of the Sykes-Picot line; regarding the northern frontier. "Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotamia" (1920)(Ratified 1923)

• Delimitation of frontier between Palestine and Syria, March-July 1921.

• Agreement between the United Kingdom and Transjordan, March 1928.

• Agreement between Palestine and Syria and Lebanon amending the Agreement of 2 February 1926 regarding the frontier questions, 3 November 1938.

• Treaty of Alliance between the United Kingdom and the Amir of Transjordan, 22 March 1946.

• Notes on the legal status of Palestine and the termination of the Mandate.

EXCEPT: Tripartite Declaration Regarding the Armistice Borders: Statement by the Governments of the United States, The United Kingdom, and France, May 25, 1950 •
The Governments of the United Kingdom, France, and the United States, having had occasion during the recent Foreign Ministers meeting in London to review certain questions affecting the peace and stability of the Arab states and of Israel, and particularly that of the supply of arms and war material to these states, have resolved to make the following statements:
...

3. The three Governments take this opportunity of declaring their deep interest in and their desire to promote the establishment and maintenance of peace and stability in the area and their unalterable opposition to the use of force or threat of force between any of the states in that area. The three Governments, should they find that any of these states was preparing to violate frontiers or armistice lines, would, consistently with their obligations as members of the United Nations, immediately take action, both within and outside the United Nations, to prevent such violation.
​

The Tripartite Declaration remained an important and contemporary agreement right up and until the Peace Treaties dissolved (relative to the West Bank and Gaza) the Armistice Lines in 1979 and 1994.

The Political importance of the Hostile Arab Palestinians to try and establish meaning to the Palestine's irrational "international borders that were defined by treaties in 1922" is because the hardline Arab Palestinians wan the Palestine Charter to have meaning:

• Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.​

By locking into this concept, the implication is that the State of Israel is (in some fashion) illegal.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Political importance of the Hostile Arab Palestinians to try and establish meaning to the Palestine's irrational "international borders that were defined by treaties in 1922" is because the hardline Arab Palestinians wan the Palestine Charter to have meaning:

• Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
By locking into this concept, the implication is that the State of Israel is (in some fashion) illegal.

Indeed, and nobody has offered any evidence to refute that assertion.

 

[Hollie]

The Political importance of the Hostile Arab Palestinians to try and establish meaning to the Palestine's irrational "international borders that were defined by treaties in 1922" is because the hardline Arab Palestinians wan the Palestine Charter to have meaning:

• Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
By locking into this concept, the implication is that the State of Israel is (in some fashion) illegal.

Indeed, and nobody has offered any evidence to refute that assertion.

Indeed, it is curious that you have assigned "international borders" to your invented "country of Pal'istan" where none exist.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Political importance of the Hostile Arab Palestinians to try and establish meaning to the Palestine's irrational "international borders that were defined by treaties in 1922" is because the hardline Arab Palestinians wan the Palestine Charter to have meaning:

• Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
By locking into this concept, the implication is that the State of Israel is (in some fashion) illegal.

Indeed, and nobody has offered any evidence to refute that assertion.

Indeed, it is curious that you have assigned "international borders" to your invented "country of Pal'istan" where none exist.

Article V​

​

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

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

It was the same for other agreements.

 

[Hollie]

The Political importance of the Hostile Arab Palestinians to try and establish meaning to the Palestine's irrational "international borders that were defined by treaties in 1922" is because the hardline Arab Palestinians wan the Palestine Charter to have meaning:

• Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
By locking into this concept, the implication is that the State of Israel is (in some fashion) illegal.

Indeed, and nobody has offered any evidence to refute that assertion.

Indeed, it is curious that you have assigned "international borders" to your invented "country of Pal'istan" where none exist.

Article V

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

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

It was the same for other agreements.

In your desperation, you just make up your own definitions as you go along.

Do a search regarding Mandate Palestine and French Mandate for Syria and lebanon.

 

[Mindful]

The Political importance of the Hostile Arab Palestinians to try and establish meaning to the Palestine's irrational "international borders that were defined by treaties in 1922" is because the hardline Arab Palestinians wan the Palestine Charter to have meaning:

• Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
By locking into this concept, the implication is that the State of Israel is (in some fashion) illegal.

Indeed, and nobody has offered any evidence to refute that assertion.

What assertion?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Political importance of the Hostile Arab Palestinians to try and establish meaning to the Palestine's irrational "international borders that were defined by treaties in 1922" is because the hardline Arab Palestinians wan the Palestine Charter to have meaning:

• Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
By locking into this concept, the implication is that the State of Israel is (in some fashion) illegal.

Indeed, and nobody has offered any evidence to refute that assertion.

Indeed, it is curious that you have assigned "international borders" to your invented "country of Pal'istan" where none exist.

Article V

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

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

It was the same for other agreements.

In your desperation, you just make up your own definitions as you go along.

Do a search regarding Mandate Palestine and French Mandate for Syria and lebanon.

What about them?

I use actual documents. You use???

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Political importance of the Hostile Arab Palestinians to try and establish meaning to the Palestine's irrational "international borders that were defined by treaties in 1922" is because the hardline Arab Palestinians wan the Palestine Charter to have meaning:

• Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
By locking into this concept, the implication is that the State of Israel is (in some fashion) illegal.

Indeed, and nobody has offered any evidence to refute that assertion.

What assertion?

That Palestine has international borders.