Palestinian Peace Proposal

[Phoenall]

They have won more than the arab muslims have just by looking at the size holdings now compared to 1948. And I am not talking about the occupied territories from 1967 either. Who has a seat in the UN as a full member, who has a viable economy, who has shown full free determination and who has a proper nation.

When Israel occupied Palestine is not disputed.

But when Israel won (legally acquired) land has not been proven.

That's because acquiring land is not and has never been the issue. It's something you made up and you yourself have yet to prove that it is pre requisite for statehood.
Keep it up with your usual lies Tinmore, keep it up.

I didn't make it up.It is part of the final status negotiations.

You did make up the 'acquiring land' crap and claim it was needed for Israel to declare independence.

"It is part of the final status negotiations" Can you post it ?

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are so close to being right, I almost hate to jump in. But...

That's because acquiring land is not and has never been the issue. It's something you made up and you yourself have yet to prove that it is pre requisite for statehood.
Keep it up with your usual lies Tinmore, keep it up.

I didn't make it up.It is part of the final status negotiations.

(COMMENT)

Clarification #1: The "Permanent Status of Negotiations" is a diplomatic aspect agreed upon in the Oslo Accords (I and II). It only applies to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) after June 1967 (Six Day War).

Clarification #2: The binding Charter, Article 2(4) (1945), stipulates that "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 Hostile Arab Palestinian use this as their justification:

• Arab Claim: In violation of the UN Partition Plan, Israel took an extra 15% of the land in 1948, and then, following the 1967 war, Israel confiscated East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
• Arab Claim: That the occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem since 1967 violate the Charter.

These claims have yet to be litigated or negotiated.

• In the first case, the Arab League was the aggressor. The first use of force was the attack by the Coalition of the Arab Forces.
• In the second case, Egypt was the aggressor and the first use of force was the closure of the Tiran Strait (which separate the Gulf of Aqaba from the Red Sea) to commercial traffic on the high seas --- in violation of the Armistice and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The first is consequence of unconditional War reparations for the 1948/49 unsuccessful attempt by the Arab League to collapse the Israeli Government. Such are payments in kind intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war that the Arab League initiated. While such war reparations usually refers to money or goods means of settlement, since Lebanon and Syria refused to negotiate a permanent peace arrangement (and Egypt and Jordan settled separately) than such occupation and inclusion of land was considered acceptable given the Armistice Lines acceptance which enclosed the lands. Should Lebanon and Syria at some later date wish to open negotiations for peace, the issue can be reopened. (Most informed observers think that neither Lebanon or Syria will ever negotiate for peace as long as Hezbollah remains the dominant Hostile actor in the region. Israel will have to wait for the collapse of both nations; which could happen given Iranian and ISIS/DEASH advances and the inability for the Arab League to render any meaning opposition. Once these two nations fall to a new regime, the matter of the territorial dispute will become no practical value or diplomatic meaning --- as the new regime can only claim sovereignty over that which they control.)

The later was settled by Treaty in 1979 with Egypt and support by the 1994 Treaty with Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

WTF.

Youir argument has just been taken apart and proven false, is what

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you are trying to change the argument.

Did the Covenant say certain communities except for Palestine.

I didn't see that in there.

(COMMENT)

First, the Covenant never mentions "Palestine." So why would it make it an exception?

Second, the argument, as specified in Posting #342 was that: "It also had provisional statehood per the League of Nations." And I argue this to be inaccurate; and stated why I believe it to be so.

Most Respectfully,
R

No, Palestine had provisional statehood per the League of Nations Covenant, in no way did you demonstrate that this was inaccurate. In fact, Lord Curzon's clarification further confirms that you are full of shit, Rocco.

What's really funny is that you think you have refuted Rocco's post, but really all you did was make a fool of yourself again.
It's not Rocco's fault you can't accept the truth.

Toast, making things up doesn't make them true. Rocco is just blustering, knows he is wrong. Lord Curzon's letter just reconfirms that Palestine was assigned to Britain as a Class A mandate, although is not needed as the Covenant itself confirms the fact.

Article 22 of the Covenant established the Mandates System, it was founded on the concept of the development of such territories under the protection and tutelage of an advanced nation. The degree of tutelage was to depend on the extent of political development of the people in the territory concerned. The most developed were classified as 'A' Mandates, the less developed as 'B', and the least developed as 'C'.

The clause below applied to Palestine just as much as it applied to Trans-Jordania, Iraq, Syria etc.

• 
  "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. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

Palestine was in not excluded from the provision. Palestine was certainly not less developed than Trans-Jordania.

IDIOT don't you realise that trans Jordan was created to take care of the arab muslim needs, which is why it was referred to as arab Palestine by the LoN. And the letter said no such thing did it, so it is you reading things that just are not there so you can argue from your Catholic Jew Hatred pulpit. As history has proven the arab muslims are still not capable of free determination and of forming a working government capable of allowing them to stand on their own feet. This was the case in 1920, 1948, 1967, 1988 and now 2015, unless you can show a time when they did manage to stand on their own ?

IDIOT don't you realise that trans Jordan was created to take care of the arab muslim needs, which is why it was referred to as arab Palestine by the LoN.​

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are so close to being right, I almost hate to jump in. But...

That's because acquiring land is not and has never been the issue. It's something you made up and you yourself have yet to prove that it is pre requisite for statehood.
Keep it up with your usual lies Tinmore, keep it up.

I didn't make it up.It is part of the final status negotiations.

(COMMENT)

Clarification #1: The "Permanent Status of Negotiations" is a diplomatic aspect agreed upon in the Oslo Accords (I and II). It only applies to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) after June 1967 (Six Day War).

Clarification #2: The binding Charter, Article 2(4) (1945), stipulates that "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 Hostile Arab Palestinian use this as their justification:

• Arab Claim: In violation of the UN Partition Plan, Israel took an extra 15% of the land in 1948, and then, following the 1967 war, Israel confiscated East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
• Arab Claim: That the occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem since 1967 violate the Charter.

These claims have yet to be litigated or negotiated.

• In the first case, the Arab League was the aggressor. The first use of force was the attack by the Coalition of the Arab Forces.
• In the second case, Egypt was the aggressor and the first use of force was the closure of the Tiran Strait (which separate the Gulf of Aqaba from the Red Sea) to commercial traffic on the high seas --- in violation of the Armistice and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The first is consequence of unconditional War reparations for the 1948/49 unsuccessful attempt by the Arab League to collapse the Israeli Government. Such are payments in kind intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war that the Arab League initiated. While such war reparations usually refers to money or goods means of settlement, since Lebanon and Syria refused to negotiate a permanent peace arrangement (and Egypt and Jordan settled separately) than such occupation and inclusion of land was considered acceptable given the Armistice Lines acceptance which enclosed the lands. Should Lebanon and Syria at some later date wish to open negotiations for peace, the issue can be reopened. (Most informed observers think that neither Lebanon or Syria will ever negotiate for peace as long as Hezbollah remains the dominant Hostile actor in the region. Israel will have to wait for the collapse of both nations; which could happen given Iranian and ISIS/DEASH advances and the inability for the Arab League to render any meaning opposition. Once these two nations fall to a new regime, the matter of the territorial dispute will become no practical value or diplomatic meaning --- as the new regime can only claim sovereignty over that which they control.)

The later was settled by Treaty in 1979 with Egypt and support by the 1994 Treaty with Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Clarification #1: The "Permanent Status of Negotiations" is a diplomatic aspect agreed upon in the Oslo Accords (I and II). It only applies to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) after June 1967 (Six Day War).​

Why then would they have to negotiate an already fixed territory?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you are trying to change the argument.

(COMMENT)

First, the Covenant never mentions "Palestine." So why would it make it an exception?

Second, the argument, as specified in Posting #342 was that: "It also had provisional statehood per the League of Nations." And I argue this to be inaccurate; and stated why I believe it to be so.

Most Respectfully,
R

No, Palestine had provisional statehood per the League of Nations Covenant, in no way did you demonstrate that this was inaccurate. In fact, Lord Curzon's clarification further confirms that you are full of shit, Rocco.

What's really funny is that you think you have refuted Rocco's post, but really all you did was make a fool of yourself again.
It's not Rocco's fault you can't accept the truth.

Toast, making things up doesn't make them true. Rocco is just blustering, knows he is wrong. Lord Curzon's letter just reconfirms that Palestine was assigned to Britain as a Class A mandate, although is not needed as the Covenant itself confirms the fact.

Article 22 of the Covenant established the Mandates System, it was founded on the concept of the development of such territories under the protection and tutelage of an advanced nation. The degree of tutelage was to depend on the extent of political development of the people in the territory concerned. The most developed were classified as 'A' Mandates, the less developed as 'B', and the least developed as 'C'.

The clause below applied to Palestine just as much as it applied to Trans-Jordania, Iraq, Syria etc.

• 
  "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. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

Palestine was in not excluded from the provision. Palestine was certainly not less developed than Trans-Jordania.

IDIOT don't you realise that trans Jordan was created to take care of the arab muslim needs, which is why it was referred to as arab Palestine by the LoN. And the letter said no such thing did it, so it is you reading things that just are not there so you can argue from your Catholic Jew Hatred pulpit. As history has proven the arab muslims are still not capable of free determination and of forming a working government capable of allowing them to stand on their own feet. This was the case in 1920, 1948, 1967, 1988 and now 2015, unless you can show a time when they did manage to stand on their own ?

IDIOT don't you realise that trans Jordan was created to take care of the arab muslim needs, which is why it was referred to as arab Palestine by the LoN.​

Mandate for Palestine and the link monte always uses to show that the land of Palestine was never to be just arab or Jewish

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are so close to being right, I almost hate to jump in. But...

That's because acquiring land is not and has never been the issue. It's something you made up and you yourself have yet to prove that it is pre requisite for statehood.
Keep it up with your usual lies Tinmore, keep it up.

I didn't make it up.It is part of the final status negotiations.

(COMMENT)

Clarification #1: The "Permanent Status of Negotiations" is a diplomatic aspect agreed upon in the Oslo Accords (I and II). It only applies to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) after June 1967 (Six Day War).

Clarification #2: The binding Charter, Article 2(4) (1945), stipulates that "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 Hostile Arab Palestinian use this as their justification:

• Arab Claim: In violation of the UN Partition Plan, Israel took an extra 15% of the land in 1948, and then, following the 1967 war, Israel confiscated East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
• Arab Claim: That the occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem since 1967 violate the Charter.

These claims have yet to be litigated or negotiated.

• In the first case, the Arab League was the aggressor. The first use of force was the attack by the Coalition of the Arab Forces.
• In the second case, Egypt was the aggressor and the first use of force was the closure of the Tiran Strait (which separate the Gulf of Aqaba from the Red Sea) to commercial traffic on the high seas --- in violation of the Armistice and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The first is consequence of unconditional War reparations for the 1948/49 unsuccessful attempt by the Arab League to collapse the Israeli Government. Such are payments in kind intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war that the Arab League initiated. While such war reparations usually refers to money or goods means of settlement, since Lebanon and Syria refused to negotiate a permanent peace arrangement (and Egypt and Jordan settled separately) than such occupation and inclusion of land was considered acceptable given the Armistice Lines acceptance which enclosed the lands. Should Lebanon and Syria at some later date wish to open negotiations for peace, the issue can be reopened. (Most informed observers think that neither Lebanon or Syria will ever negotiate for peace as long as Hezbollah remains the dominant Hostile actor in the region. Israel will have to wait for the collapse of both nations; which could happen given Iranian and ISIS/DEASH advances and the inability for the Arab League to render any meaning opposition. Once these two nations fall to a new regime, the matter of the territorial dispute will become no practical value or diplomatic meaning --- as the new regime can only claim sovereignty over that which they control.)

The later was settled by Treaty in 1979 with Egypt and support by the 1994 Treaty with Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Clarification #1: The "Permanent Status of Negotiations" is a diplomatic aspect agreed upon in the Oslo Accords (I and II). It only applies to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) after June 1967 (Six Day War).​

Why then would they have to negotiate an already fixed territory?

What fixed territory, and provide a link setting this territory's borders in stone.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are so close to being right, I almost hate to jump in. But...

That's because acquiring land is not and has never been the issue. It's something you made up and you yourself have yet to prove that it is pre requisite for statehood.
Keep it up with your usual lies Tinmore, keep it up.

I didn't make it up.It is part of the final status negotiations.

(COMMENT)

Clarification #1: The "Permanent Status of Negotiations" is a diplomatic aspect agreed upon in the Oslo Accords (I and II). It only applies to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) after June 1967 (Six Day War).

Clarification #2: The binding Charter, Article 2(4) (1945), stipulates that "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 Hostile Arab Palestinian use this as their justification:

• Arab Claim: In violation of the UN Partition Plan, Israel took an extra 15% of the land in 1948, and then, following the 1967 war, Israel confiscated East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
• Arab Claim: That the occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem since 1967 violate the Charter.

These claims have yet to be litigated or negotiated.

• In the first case, the Arab League was the aggressor. The first use of force was the attack by the Coalition of the Arab Forces.
• In the second case, Egypt was the aggressor and the first use of force was the closure of the Tiran Strait (which separate the Gulf of Aqaba from the Red Sea) to commercial traffic on the high seas --- in violation of the Armistice and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The first is consequence of unconditional War reparations for the 1948/49 unsuccessful attempt by the Arab League to collapse the Israeli Government. Such are payments in kind intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war that the Arab League initiated. While such war reparations usually refers to money or goods means of settlement, since Lebanon and Syria refused to negotiate a permanent peace arrangement (and Egypt and Jordan settled separately) than such occupation and inclusion of land was considered acceptable given the Armistice Lines acceptance which enclosed the lands. Should Lebanon and Syria at some later date wish to open negotiations for peace, the issue can be reopened. (Most informed observers think that neither Lebanon or Syria will ever negotiate for peace as long as Hezbollah remains the dominant Hostile actor in the region. Israel will have to wait for the collapse of both nations; which could happen given Iranian and ISIS/DEASH advances and the inability for the Arab League to render any meaning opposition. Once these two nations fall to a new regime, the matter of the territorial dispute will become no practical value or diplomatic meaning --- as the new regime can only claim sovereignty over that which they control.)

The later was settled by Treaty in 1979 with Egypt and support by the 1994 Treaty with Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Clarification #1: The "Permanent Status of Negotiations" is a diplomatic aspect agreed upon in the Oslo Accords (I and II). It only applies to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) after June 1967 (Six Day War).​

Why then would they have to negotiate an already fixed territory?

What fixed territory, and provide a link setting this territory's borders in stone.

Indeed, that was my question.

• The Palestinian leadership is fixated on attempting to press foreign governments and the UN to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state within the “1967 borders.” Indeed, this campaign appeared to have some initial successes in December 2010 when both Argentina and Brazil decided to recognize a Palestinian state within what they described as the “1967 borders.”
• But such borders do not exist and have no basis in history, law, or fact. The only line that ever existed was the 1949 armistice demarcation line, based on the ceasefire lines of the Israeli and Arab armies pending agreement on permanent peace. The 1949 armistice agreements specifically stated that such lines have no political or legal significance and do not prejudice future negotiations on boundaries. The Fallacy of the 1967 Borders No Such Borders Ever Existed

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are so close to being right, I almost hate to jump in. But...

That's because acquiring land is not and has never been the issue. It's something you made up and you yourself have yet to prove that it is pre requisite for statehood.
Keep it up with your usual lies Tinmore, keep it up.

I didn't make it up.It is part of the final status negotiations.

(COMMENT)

Clarification #1: The "Permanent Status of Negotiations" is a diplomatic aspect agreed upon in the Oslo Accords (I and II). It only applies to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) after June 1967 (Six Day War).

Clarification #2: The binding Charter, Article 2(4) (1945), stipulates that "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 Hostile Arab Palestinian use this as their justification:

• Arab Claim: In violation of the UN Partition Plan, Israel took an extra 15% of the land in 1948, and then, following the 1967 war, Israel confiscated East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
• Arab Claim: That the occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem since 1967 violate the Charter.

These claims have yet to be litigated or negotiated.

• In the first case, the Arab League was the aggressor. The first use of force was the attack by the Coalition of the Arab Forces.
• In the second case, Egypt was the aggressor and the first use of force was the closure of the Tiran Strait (which separate the Gulf of Aqaba from the Red Sea) to commercial traffic on the high seas --- in violation of the Armistice and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The first is consequence of unconditional War reparations for the 1948/49 unsuccessful attempt by the Arab League to collapse the Israeli Government. Such are payments in kind intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war that the Arab League initiated. While such war reparations usually refers to money or goods means of settlement, since Lebanon and Syria refused to negotiate a permanent peace arrangement (and Egypt and Jordan settled separately) than such occupation and inclusion of land was considered acceptable given the Armistice Lines acceptance which enclosed the lands. Should Lebanon and Syria at some later date wish to open negotiations for peace, the issue can be reopened. (Most informed observers think that neither Lebanon or Syria will ever negotiate for peace as long as Hezbollah remains the dominant Hostile actor in the region. Israel will have to wait for the collapse of both nations; which could happen given Iranian and ISIS/DEASH advances and the inability for the Arab League to render any meaning opposition. Once these two nations fall to a new regime, the matter of the territorial dispute will become no practical value or diplomatic meaning --- as the new regime can only claim sovereignty over that which they control.)

The later was settled by Treaty in 1979 with Egypt and support by the 1994 Treaty with Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Clarification #1: The "Permanent Status of Negotiations" is a diplomatic aspect agreed upon in the Oslo Accords (I and II). It only applies to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) after June 1967 (Six Day War).​

Why then would they have to negotiate an already fixed territory?

What fixed territory, and provide a link setting this territory's borders in stone.

Indeed, that was my question.

• The Palestinian leadership is fixated on attempting to press foreign governments and the UN to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state within the “1967 borders.” Indeed, this campaign appeared to have some initial successes in December 2010 when both Argentina and Brazil decided to recognize a Palestinian state within what they described as the “1967 borders.”
• But such borders do not exist and have no basis in history, law, or fact. The only line that ever existed was the 1949 armistice demarcation line, based on the ceasefire lines of the Israeli and Arab armies pending agreement on permanent peace. The 1949 armistice agreements specifically stated that such lines have no political or legal significance and do not prejudice future negotiations on boundaries. The Fallacy of the 1967 Borders No Such Borders Ever Existed

So you are saying that the nation of Palestine has not got any internationally agreed borders, so as such can not and does not exist legally

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are so close to being right, I almost hate to jump in. But...

That's because acquiring land is not and has never been the issue. It's something you made up and you yourself have yet to prove that it is pre requisite for statehood.
Keep it up with your usual lies Tinmore, keep it up.

I didn't make it up.It is part of the final status negotiations.

(COMMENT)

Clarification #1: The "Permanent Status of Negotiations" is a diplomatic aspect agreed upon in the Oslo Accords (I and II). It only applies to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) after June 1967 (Six Day War).

Clarification #2: The binding Charter, Article 2(4) (1945), stipulates that "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 Hostile Arab Palestinian use this as their justification:

• Arab Claim: In violation of the UN Partition Plan, Israel took an extra 15% of the land in 1948, and then, following the 1967 war, Israel confiscated East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
• Arab Claim: That the occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem since 1967 violate the Charter.

These claims have yet to be litigated or negotiated.

• In the first case, the Arab League was the aggressor. The first use of force was the attack by the Coalition of the Arab Forces.
• In the second case, Egypt was the aggressor and the first use of force was the closure of the Tiran Strait (which separate the Gulf of Aqaba from the Red Sea) to commercial traffic on the high seas --- in violation of the Armistice and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The first is consequence of unconditional War reparations for the 1948/49 unsuccessful attempt by the Arab League to collapse the Israeli Government. Such are payments in kind intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war that the Arab League initiated. While such war reparations usually refers to money or goods means of settlement, since Lebanon and Syria refused to negotiate a permanent peace arrangement (and Egypt and Jordan settled separately) than such occupation and inclusion of land was considered acceptable given the Armistice Lines acceptance which enclosed the lands. Should Lebanon and Syria at some later date wish to open negotiations for peace, the issue can be reopened. (Most informed observers think that neither Lebanon or Syria will ever negotiate for peace as long as Hezbollah remains the dominant Hostile actor in the region. Israel will have to wait for the collapse of both nations; which could happen given Iranian and ISIS/DEASH advances and the inability for the Arab League to render any meaning opposition. Once these two nations fall to a new regime, the matter of the territorial dispute will become no practical value or diplomatic meaning --- as the new regime can only claim sovereignty over that which they control.)

The later was settled by Treaty in 1979 with Egypt and support by the 1994 Treaty with Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Clarification #1: The "Permanent Status of Negotiations" is a diplomatic aspect agreed upon in the Oslo Accords (I and II). It only applies to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) after June 1967 (Six Day War).​

Why then would they have to negotiate an already fixed territory?

What fixed territory, and provide a link setting this territory's borders in stone.

Indeed, that was my question.

• The Palestinian leadership is fixated on attempting to press foreign governments and the UN to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state within the “1967 borders.” Indeed, this campaign appeared to have some initial successes in December 2010 when both Argentina and Brazil decided to recognize a Palestinian state within what they described as the “1967 borders.”
• But such borders do not exist and have no basis in history, law, or fact. The only line that ever existed was the 1949 armistice demarcation line, based on the ceasefire lines of the Israeli and Arab armies pending agreement on permanent peace. The 1949 armistice agreements specifically stated that such lines have no political or legal significance and do not prejudice future negotiations on boundaries. The Fallacy of the 1967 Borders No Such Borders Ever Existed

Excellent point. As there are no 67 borders, why do the Pali's & their supporters want Israel to return to what never existed?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are so close to being right, I almost hate to jump in. But...

I didn't make it up.It is part of the final status negotiations.

(COMMENT)

Clarification #1: The "Permanent Status of Negotiations" is a diplomatic aspect agreed upon in the Oslo Accords (I and II). It only applies to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) after June 1967 (Six Day War).

Clarification #2: The binding Charter, Article 2(4) (1945), stipulates that "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 Hostile Arab Palestinian use this as their justification:

• Arab Claim: In violation of the UN Partition Plan, Israel took an extra 15% of the land in 1948, and then, following the 1967 war, Israel confiscated East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
• Arab Claim: That the occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem since 1967 violate the Charter.

These claims have yet to be litigated or negotiated.

• In the first case, the Arab League was the aggressor. The first use of force was the attack by the Coalition of the Arab Forces.
• In the second case, Egypt was the aggressor and the first use of force was the closure of the Tiran Strait (which separate the Gulf of Aqaba from the Red Sea) to commercial traffic on the high seas --- in violation of the Armistice and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The first is consequence of unconditional War reparations for the 1948/49 unsuccessful attempt by the Arab League to collapse the Israeli Government. Such are payments in kind intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war that the Arab League initiated. While such war reparations usually refers to money or goods means of settlement, since Lebanon and Syria refused to negotiate a permanent peace arrangement (and Egypt and Jordan settled separately) than such occupation and inclusion of land was considered acceptable given the Armistice Lines acceptance which enclosed the lands. Should Lebanon and Syria at some later date wish to open negotiations for peace, the issue can be reopened. (Most informed observers think that neither Lebanon or Syria will ever negotiate for peace as long as Hezbollah remains the dominant Hostile actor in the region. Israel will have to wait for the collapse of both nations; which could happen given Iranian and ISIS/DEASH advances and the inability for the Arab League to render any meaning opposition. Once these two nations fall to a new regime, the matter of the territorial dispute will become no practical value or diplomatic meaning --- as the new regime can only claim sovereignty over that which they control.)

The later was settled by Treaty in 1979 with Egypt and support by the 1994 Treaty with Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Clarification #1: The "Permanent Status of Negotiations" is a diplomatic aspect agreed upon in the Oslo Accords (I and II). It only applies to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) after June 1967 (Six Day War).​

Why then would they have to negotiate an already fixed territory?

What fixed territory, and provide a link setting this territory's borders in stone.

Indeed, that was my question.

• The Palestinian leadership is fixated on attempting to press foreign governments and the UN to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state within the “1967 borders.” Indeed, this campaign appeared to have some initial successes in December 2010 when both Argentina and Brazil decided to recognize a Palestinian state within what they described as the “1967 borders.”
• But such borders do not exist and have no basis in history, law, or fact. The only line that ever existed was the 1949 armistice demarcation line, based on the ceasefire lines of the Israeli and Arab armies pending agreement on permanent peace. The 1949 armistice agreements specifically stated that such lines have no political or legal significance and do not prejudice future negotiations on boundaries. The Fallacy of the 1967 Borders No Such Borders Ever Existed

Excellent point. As there are no 67 borders, why do the Pali's & their supporters want Israel to return to what never existed?

What is really meant when they say pre 1967 borders is the borders envisioned in the UN partition plan. This would never suit the free world so they hide it away behind double speak, but far too many islamomorons have let the cat out of the bag and now the world is seeing their duplicity

 

[RoccoR]

MJB12741, Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

If you use the internationally recognized boundaries as stipulated in the Peace Treaties (Israel/Egypt and Israel/Jordan) then technically, that would be "with prejudice" against the ability for the Palestinians to declare independence. All of the West Bank would be Israel because the border run the Jordan River, which is the boundary. And likewise, the Gaza Strip would be Israel because the boundary runs the old Mandated Territory perimeter. The UN never intended to permit Jordan to relinquish control of the West Bank to Israel, just as it never intended to allow Egypt to relinquish the Gaza Strip to Israel.

Excellent point. As there are no 67 borders, why do the Pali's & their supporters want Israel to return to what never existed?

Why then would they have to negotiate an already fixed territory?

So you are saying that the nation of Palestine has not got any internationally agreed borders, so as such can not and does not exist legally

(COMMENT)

Of course the Arab Palestinians never took notice. They were not involved in the Peace negotiations. However, Israel, Egypt and Jordan understood the intent and meaning of the phrasing:

• without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip.
• without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

This is a separate and and independent issue to the issue raised by Oslo Accord II and the establishment of Areas "A" - "B" and "C". Israeli controlled Area "C." "Area C" means areas of the West Bank outside Areas A and B, which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in accordance with this Agreement. The territorial jurisdiction of the Council shall encompass Gaza Strip territory, except for the Settlements and the Military Installation Area shown on map No. 2, and West Bank territory, except for Area C which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in three phases, each to take place after an interval of six months, to be completed 18 months after the inauguration of the Council. At this time, the jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations.

The International Boundaries which the 1988 State of Palestine never negotiated are one issue. The jurisdiction and control of Area "C" and the settlements are another entirely separate issue; which has yet to be finally negotiated.

The language and derivation for "1967 Border" is pops up everywhere. Even the Palestine Liberation Organization uses that language in their official political position in the matter:

2. Key Facts

• The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
• A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
• The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

SOURCE: PLO-NAD - Borders

[intent]

The origin of the language seems to be based on the UN Resolution A/RES/43/177 (1988) that "Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;" and carried through and over to A/RES/67/19 2012 which stipulates two propositions:

• Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;
• "Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders."

This confuses the issue. The pre-1967 borders would, some argue, be the original borders stipulated in A/RES/181 (II).

But even a large faction of Arab Palestinians argue that A/RES/181(II) is not real and was not implemented. So, COMES THE NEED TO NEGOTIATE a reasonable outcome; remembering that the original 1948/49 War is not over and that there are still very large War Reparations, claims and financial settlements that need awarded for the Arab Invasion and near seven decades of war that followed.

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are so close to being right, I almost hate to jump in. But...

I didn't make it up.It is part of the final status negotiations.

(COMMENT)

Clarification #1: The "Permanent Status of Negotiations" is a diplomatic aspect agreed upon in the Oslo Accords (I and II). It only applies to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) after June 1967 (Six Day War).

Clarification #2: The binding Charter, Article 2(4) (1945), stipulates that "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 Hostile Arab Palestinian use this as their justification:

• Arab Claim: In violation of the UN Partition Plan, Israel took an extra 15% of the land in 1948, and then, following the 1967 war, Israel confiscated East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
• Arab Claim: That the occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem since 1967 violate the Charter.

These claims have yet to be litigated or negotiated.

• In the first case, the Arab League was the aggressor. The first use of force was the attack by the Coalition of the Arab Forces.
• In the second case, Egypt was the aggressor and the first use of force was the closure of the Tiran Strait (which separate the Gulf of Aqaba from the Red Sea) to commercial traffic on the high seas --- in violation of the Armistice and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The first is consequence of unconditional War reparations for the 1948/49 unsuccessful attempt by the Arab League to collapse the Israeli Government. Such are payments in kind intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war that the Arab League initiated. While such war reparations usually refers to money or goods means of settlement, since Lebanon and Syria refused to negotiate a permanent peace arrangement (and Egypt and Jordan settled separately) than such occupation and inclusion of land was considered acceptable given the Armistice Lines acceptance which enclosed the lands. Should Lebanon and Syria at some later date wish to open negotiations for peace, the issue can be reopened. (Most informed observers think that neither Lebanon or Syria will ever negotiate for peace as long as Hezbollah remains the dominant Hostile actor in the region. Israel will have to wait for the collapse of both nations; which could happen given Iranian and ISIS/DEASH advances and the inability for the Arab League to render any meaning opposition. Once these two nations fall to a new regime, the matter of the territorial dispute will become no practical value or diplomatic meaning --- as the new regime can only claim sovereignty over that which they control.)

The later was settled by Treaty in 1979 with Egypt and support by the 1994 Treaty with Jordan.

Most Respectfully,
R

Clarification #1: The "Permanent Status of Negotiations" is a diplomatic aspect agreed upon in the Oslo Accords (I and II). It only applies to the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) after June 1967 (Six Day War).​

Why then would they have to negotiate an already fixed territory?

What fixed territory, and provide a link setting this territory's borders in stone.

Indeed, that was my question.

• The Palestinian leadership is fixated on attempting to press foreign governments and the UN to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state within the “1967 borders.” Indeed, this campaign appeared to have some initial successes in December 2010 when both Argentina and Brazil decided to recognize a Palestinian state within what they described as the “1967 borders.”
• But such borders do not exist and have no basis in history, law, or fact. The only line that ever existed was the 1949 armistice demarcation line, based on the ceasefire lines of the Israeli and Arab armies pending agreement on permanent peace. The 1949 armistice agreements specifically stated that such lines have no political or legal significance and do not prejudice future negotiations on boundaries. The Fallacy of the 1967 Borders No Such Borders Ever Existed

Excellent point. As there are no 67 borders, why do the Pali's & their supporters want Israel to return to what never existed?

Do you mean by Pali's their unelected so called leadership.

Many people believe in the '67 borders because that is the BS they have heard their entire lives. Every map you can find shows Israel inside those fake borders.

 

[P F Tinmore]

MJB12741, Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

If you use the internationally recognized boundaries as stipulated in the Peace Treaties (Israel/Egypt and Israel/Jordan) then technically, that would be "with prejudice" against the ability for the Palestinians to declare independence. All of the West Bank would be Israel because the border run the Jordan River, which is the boundary. And likewise, the Gaza Strip would be Israel because the boundary runs the old Mandated Territory perimeter. The UN never intended to permit Jordan to relinquish control of the West Bank to Israel, just as it never intended to allow Egypt to relinquish the Gaza Strip to Israel.

Excellent point. As there are no 67 borders, why do the Pali's & their supporters want Israel to return to what never existed?

Why then would they have to negotiate an already fixed territory?

So you are saying that the nation of Palestine has not got any internationally agreed borders, so as such can not and does not exist legally

(COMMENT)

Of course the Arab Palestinians never took notice. They were not involved in the Peace negotiations. However, Israel, Egypt and Jordan understood the intent and meaning of the phrasing:

• without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip.
• without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

This is a separate and and independent issue to the issue raised by Oslo Accord II and the establishment of Areas "A" - "B" and "C". Israeli controlled Area "C." "Area C" means areas of the West Bank outside Areas A and B, which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in accordance with this Agreement. The territorial jurisdiction of the Council shall encompass Gaza Strip territory, except for the Settlements and the Military Installation Area shown on map No. 2, and West Bank territory, except for Area C which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in three phases, each to take place after an interval of six months, to be completed 18 months after the inauguration of the Council. At this time, the jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations.

The International Boundaries which the 1988 State of Palestine never negotiated are one issue. The jurisdiction and control of Area "C" and the settlements are another entirely separate issue; which has yet to be finally negotiated.

The language and derivation for "1967 Border" is pops up everywhere. Even the Palestine Liberation Organization uses that language in their official political position in the matter:

2. Key Facts

• The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
• A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
• The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

SOURCE: PLO-NAD - Borders

[intent]

The origin of the language seems to be based on the UN Resolution A/RES/43/177 (1988) that "Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;" and carried through and over to A/RES/67/19 2012 which stipulates two propositions:

• Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;
• "Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders."

This confuses the issue. The pre-1967 borders would, some argue, be the original borders stipulated in A/RES/181 (II).

But even a large faction of Arab Palestinians argue that A/RES/181(II) is not real and was not implemented. So, COMES THE NEED TO NEGOTIATE a reasonable outcome; remembering that the original 1948/49 War is not over and that there are still very large War Reparations, claims and financial settlements that need awarded for the Arab Invasion and near seven decades of war that followed.

Most Respectfully,
R​

...boundary runs the old Mandated Territory perimeter.

Are trying to imply something by using this term?

 

[Phoenall]

MJB12741, Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

If you use the internationally recognized boundaries as stipulated in the Peace Treaties (Israel/Egypt and Israel/Jordan) then technically, that would be "with prejudice" against the ability for the Palestinians to declare independence. All of the West Bank would be Israel because the border run the Jordan River, which is the boundary. And likewise, the Gaza Strip would be Israel because the boundary runs the old Mandated Territory perimeter. The UN never intended to permit Jordan to relinquish control of the West Bank to Israel, just as it never intended to allow Egypt to relinquish the Gaza Strip to Israel.

Excellent point. As there are no 67 borders, why do the Pali's & their supporters want Israel to return to what never existed?

Why then would they have to negotiate an already fixed territory?

So you are saying that the nation of Palestine has not got any internationally agreed borders, so as such can not and does not exist legally

(COMMENT)

Of course the Arab Palestinians never took notice. They were not involved in the Peace negotiations. However, Israel, Egypt and Jordan understood the intent and meaning of the phrasing:

• without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip.
• without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

This is a separate and and independent issue to the issue raised by Oslo Accord II and the establishment of Areas "A" - "B" and "C". Israeli controlled Area "C." "Area C" means areas of the West Bank outside Areas A and B, which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in accordance with this Agreement. The territorial jurisdiction of the Council shall encompass Gaza Strip territory, except for the Settlements and the Military Installation Area shown on map No. 2, and West Bank territory, except for Area C which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in three phases, each to take place after an interval of six months, to be completed 18 months after the inauguration of the Council. At this time, the jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations.

The International Boundaries which the 1988 State of Palestine never negotiated are one issue. The jurisdiction and control of Area "C" and the settlements are another entirely separate issue; which has yet to be finally negotiated.

The language and derivation for "1967 Border" is pops up everywhere. Even the Palestine Liberation Organization uses that language in their official political position in the matter:

2. Key Facts

• The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
• A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
• The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

SOURCE: PLO-NAD - Borders

[intent]

The origin of the language seems to be based on the UN Resolution A/RES/43/177 (1988) that "Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;" and carried through and over to A/RES/67/19 2012 which stipulates two propositions:

• Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;
• "Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders."

This confuses the issue. The pre-1967 borders would, some argue, be the original borders stipulated in A/RES/181 (II).

But even a large faction of Arab Palestinians argue that A/RES/181(II) is not real and was not implemented. So, COMES THE NEED TO NEGOTIATE a reasonable outcome; remembering that the original 1948/49 War is not over and that there are still very large War Reparations, claims and financial settlements that need awarded for the Arab Invasion and near seven decades of war that followed.

Most Respectfully,
R​

...boundary runs the old Mandated Territory perimeter.

Are trying to imply something by using this term?

No he is saying that the parties involved used the mandated borders as those that would become the International borders of the two nations.

 

[MJB12741]

MJB12741, Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

If you use the internationally recognized boundaries as stipulated in the Peace Treaties (Israel/Egypt and Israel/Jordan) then technically, that would be "with prejudice" against the ability for the Palestinians to declare independence. All of the West Bank would be Israel because the border run the Jordan River, which is the boundary. And likewise, the Gaza Strip would be Israel because the boundary runs the old Mandated Territory perimeter. The UN never intended to permit Jordan to relinquish control of the West Bank to Israel, just as it never intended to allow Egypt to relinquish the Gaza Strip to Israel.

Excellent point. As there are no 67 borders, why do the Pali's & their supporters want Israel to return to what never existed?

Why then would they have to negotiate an already fixed territory?

So you are saying that the nation of Palestine has not got any internationally agreed borders, so as such can not and does not exist legally

(COMMENT)

Of course the Arab Palestinians never took notice. They were not involved in the Peace negotiations. However, Israel, Egypt and Jordan understood the intent and meaning of the phrasing:

• without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip.
• without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

This is a separate and and independent issue to the issue raised by Oslo Accord II and the establishment of Areas "A" - "B" and "C". Israeli controlled Area "C." "Area C" means areas of the West Bank outside Areas A and B, which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in accordance with this Agreement. The territorial jurisdiction of the Council shall encompass Gaza Strip territory, except for the Settlements and the Military Installation Area shown on map No. 2, and West Bank territory, except for Area C which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in three phases, each to take place after an interval of six months, to be completed 18 months after the inauguration of the Council. At this time, the jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations.

The International Boundaries which the 1988 State of Palestine never negotiated are one issue. The jurisdiction and control of Area "C" and the settlements are another entirely separate issue; which has yet to be finally negotiated.

The language and derivation for "1967 Border" is pops up everywhere. Even the Palestine Liberation Organization uses that language in their official political position in the matter:

2. Key Facts

• The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
• A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
• The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

SOURCE: PLO-NAD - Borders

[intent]

The origin of the language seems to be based on the UN Resolution A/RES/43/177 (1988) that "Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;" and carried through and over to A/RES/67/19 2012 which stipulates two propositions:

• Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;
• "Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders."

This confuses the issue. The pre-1967 borders would, some argue, be the original borders stipulated in A/RES/181 (II).

But even a large faction of Arab Palestinians argue that A/RES/181(II) is not real and was not implemented. So, COMES THE NEED TO NEGOTIATE a reasonable outcome; remembering that the original 1948/49 War is not over and that there are still very large War Reparations, claims and financial settlements that need awarded for the Arab Invasion and near seven decades of war that followed.

Most Respectfully,
R​

...boundary runs the old Mandated Territory perimeter.

Are trying to imply something by using this term?

No he is saying that the parties involved used the mandated borders as those that would become the International borders of the two nations.

There will never be two nations as long as Hamas remains the elected governining body of the Palestinians. LONG LIVE HAMAS!

 

[Phoenall]

MJB12741, Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

If you use the internationally recognized boundaries as stipulated in the Peace Treaties (Israel/Egypt and Israel/Jordan) then technically, that would be "with prejudice" against the ability for the Palestinians to declare independence. All of the West Bank would be Israel because the border run the Jordan River, which is the boundary. And likewise, the Gaza Strip would be Israel because the boundary runs the old Mandated Territory perimeter. The UN never intended to permit Jordan to relinquish control of the West Bank to Israel, just as it never intended to allow Egypt to relinquish the Gaza Strip to Israel.

Excellent point. As there are no 67 borders, why do the Pali's & their supporters want Israel to return to what never existed?

Why then would they have to negotiate an already fixed territory?

So you are saying that the nation of Palestine has not got any internationally agreed borders, so as such can not and does not exist legally

(COMMENT)

Of course the Arab Palestinians never took notice. They were not involved in the Peace negotiations. However, Israel, Egypt and Jordan understood the intent and meaning of the phrasing:

• without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip.
• without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

This is a separate and and independent issue to the issue raised by Oslo Accord II and the establishment of Areas "A" - "B" and "C". Israeli controlled Area "C." "Area C" means areas of the West Bank outside Areas A and B, which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in accordance with this Agreement. The territorial jurisdiction of the Council shall encompass Gaza Strip territory, except for the Settlements and the Military Installation Area shown on map No. 2, and West Bank territory, except for Area C which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in three phases, each to take place after an interval of six months, to be completed 18 months after the inauguration of the Council. At this time, the jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations.

The International Boundaries which the 1988 State of Palestine never negotiated are one issue. The jurisdiction and control of Area "C" and the settlements are another entirely separate issue; which has yet to be finally negotiated.

The language and derivation for "1967 Border" is pops up everywhere. Even the Palestine Liberation Organization uses that language in their official political position in the matter:

2. Key Facts

• The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
• A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
• The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

SOURCE: PLO-NAD - Borders

[intent]

The origin of the language seems to be based on the UN Resolution A/RES/43/177 (1988) that "Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;" and carried through and over to A/RES/67/19 2012 which stipulates two propositions:

• Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;
• "Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders."

This confuses the issue. The pre-1967 borders would, some argue, be the original borders stipulated in A/RES/181 (II).

But even a large faction of Arab Palestinians argue that A/RES/181(II) is not real and was not implemented. So, COMES THE NEED TO NEGOTIATE a reasonable outcome; remembering that the original 1948/49 War is not over and that there are still very large War Reparations, claims and financial settlements that need awarded for the Arab Invasion and near seven decades of war that followed.

Most Respectfully,
R​

...boundary runs the old Mandated Territory perimeter.

Are trying to imply something by using this term?

No he is saying that the parties involved used the mandated borders as those that would become the International borders of the two nations.

There will never be two nations as long as Hamas remains the elected governining body of the Palestinians. LONG LIVE HAMAS!

There will never be two nations as long as muslims worship allah, there is the problem

 

[montelatici]

MJB12741, Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

If you use the internationally recognized boundaries as stipulated in the Peace Treaties (Israel/Egypt and Israel/Jordan) then technically, that would be "with prejudice" against the ability for the Palestinians to declare independence. All of the West Bank would be Israel because the border run the Jordan River, which is the boundary. And likewise, the Gaza Strip would be Israel because the boundary runs the old Mandated Territory perimeter. The UN never intended to permit Jordan to relinquish control of the West Bank to Israel, just as it never intended to allow Egypt to relinquish the Gaza Strip to Israel.

Excellent point. As there are no 67 borders, why do the Pali's & their supporters want Israel to return to what never existed?

Why then would they have to negotiate an already fixed territory?

So you are saying that the nation of Palestine has not got any internationally agreed borders, so as such can not and does not exist legally

(COMMENT)

Of course the Arab Palestinians never took notice. They were not involved in the Peace negotiations. However, Israel, Egypt and Jordan understood the intent and meaning of the phrasing:

• without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip.
• without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

This is a separate and and independent issue to the issue raised by Oslo Accord II and the establishment of Areas "A" - "B" and "C". Israeli controlled Area "C." "Area C" means areas of the West Bank outside Areas A and B, which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in accordance with this Agreement. The territorial jurisdiction of the Council shall encompass Gaza Strip territory, except for the Settlements and the Military Installation Area shown on map No. 2, and West Bank territory, except for Area C which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in three phases, each to take place after an interval of six months, to be completed 18 months after the inauguration of the Council. At this time, the jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations.

The International Boundaries which the 1988 State of Palestine never negotiated are one issue. The jurisdiction and control of Area "C" and the settlements are another entirely separate issue; which has yet to be finally negotiated.

The language and derivation for "1967 Border" is pops up everywhere. Even the Palestine Liberation Organization uses that language in their official political position in the matter:

2. Key Facts

• The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
• A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
• The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

SOURCE: PLO-NAD - Borders

[intent]

The origin of the language seems to be based on the UN Resolution A/RES/43/177 (1988) that "Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;" and carried through and over to A/RES/67/19 2012 which stipulates two propositions:

• Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;
• "Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders."

This confuses the issue. The pre-1967 borders would, some argue, be the original borders stipulated in A/RES/181 (II).

But even a large faction of Arab Palestinians argue that A/RES/181(II) is not real and was not implemented. So, COMES THE NEED TO NEGOTIATE a reasonable outcome; remembering that the original 1948/49 War is not over and that there are still very large War Reparations, claims and financial settlements that need awarded for the Arab Invasion and near seven decades of war that followed.

Most Respectfully,
R​

...boundary runs the old Mandated Territory perimeter.

Are trying to imply something by using this term?

No he is saying that the parties involved used the mandated borders as those that would become the International borders of the two nations.

There will never be two nations as long as Hamas remains the elected governining body of the Palestinians. LONG LIVE HAMAS!

Great. The one-state solution is here.

 

[Phoenall]

MJB12741, Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

If you use the internationally recognized boundaries as stipulated in the Peace Treaties (Israel/Egypt and Israel/Jordan) then technically, that would be "with prejudice" against the ability for the Palestinians to declare independence. All of the West Bank would be Israel because the border run the Jordan River, which is the boundary. And likewise, the Gaza Strip would be Israel because the boundary runs the old Mandated Territory perimeter. The UN never intended to permit Jordan to relinquish control of the West Bank to Israel, just as it never intended to allow Egypt to relinquish the Gaza Strip to Israel.

Excellent point. As there are no 67 borders, why do the Pali's & their supporters want Israel to return to what never existed?

So you are saying that the nation of Palestine has not got any internationally agreed borders, so as such can not and does not exist legally

(COMMENT)

Of course the Arab Palestinians never took notice. They were not involved in the Peace negotiations. However, Israel, Egypt and Jordan understood the intent and meaning of the phrasing:

• without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip.
• without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

This is a separate and and independent issue to the issue raised by Oslo Accord II and the establishment of Areas "A" - "B" and "C". Israeli controlled Area "C." "Area C" means areas of the West Bank outside Areas A and B, which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in accordance with this Agreement. The territorial jurisdiction of the Council shall encompass Gaza Strip territory, except for the Settlements and the Military Installation Area shown on map No. 2, and West Bank territory, except for Area C which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in three phases, each to take place after an interval of six months, to be completed 18 months after the inauguration of the Council. At this time, the jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations.

The International Boundaries which the 1988 State of Palestine never negotiated are one issue. The jurisdiction and control of Area "C" and the settlements are another entirely separate issue; which has yet to be finally negotiated.

The language and derivation for "1967 Border" is pops up everywhere. Even the Palestine Liberation Organization uses that language in their official political position in the matter:

2. Key Facts

• The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.
• A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.
• The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.

SOURCE: PLO-NAD - Borders

[intent]

The origin of the language seems to be based on the UN Resolution A/RES/43/177 (1988) that "Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;" and carried through and over to A/RES/67/19 2012 which stipulates two propositions:

• Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;
• "Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders."

This confuses the issue. The pre-1967 borders would, some argue, be the original borders stipulated in A/RES/181 (II).

But even a large faction of Arab Palestinians argue that A/RES/181(II) is not real and was not implemented. So, COMES THE NEED TO NEGOTIATE a reasonable outcome; remembering that the original 1948/49 War is not over and that there are still very large War Reparations, claims and financial settlements that need awarded for the Arab Invasion and near seven decades of war that followed.

Most Respectfully,
R​

...boundary runs the old Mandated Territory perimeter.

Are trying to imply something by using this term?

No he is saying that the parties involved used the mandated borders as those that would become the International borders of the two nations.

There will never be two nations as long as Hamas remains the elected governining body of the Palestinians. LONG LIVE HAMAS!

Great. The one-state solution is here.

Correct the state of Israel. Let the arab muslims go back to Jordan where they belong.

 

[montelatici]

MJB12741, Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

If you use the internationally recognized boundaries as stipulated in the Peace Treaties (Israel/Egypt and Israel/Jordan) then technically, that would be "with prejudice" against the ability for the Palestinians to declare independence. All of the West Bank would be Israel because the border run the Jordan River, which is the boundary. And likewise, the Gaza Strip would be Israel because the boundary runs the old Mandated Territory perimeter. The UN never intended to permit Jordan to relinquish control of the West Bank to Israel, just as it never intended to allow Egypt to relinquish the Gaza Strip to Israel.

(COMMENT)

Of course the Arab Palestinians never took notice. They were not involved in the Peace negotiations. However, Israel, Egypt and Jordan understood the intent and meaning of the phrasing:

• without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip.
• without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

This is a separate and and independent issue to the issue raised by Oslo Accord II and the establishment of Areas "A" - "B" and "C". Israeli controlled Area "C." "Area C" means areas of the West Bank outside Areas A and B, which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in accordance with this Agreement. The territorial jurisdiction of the Council shall encompass Gaza Strip territory, except for the Settlements and the Military Installation Area shown on map No. 2, and West Bank territory, except for Area C which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in three phases, each to take place after an interval of six months, to be completed 18 months after the inauguration of the Council. At this time, the jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations.

The International Boundaries which the 1988 State of Palestine never negotiated are one issue. The jurisdiction and control of Area "C" and the settlements are another entirely separate issue; which has yet to be finally negotiated.

The language and derivation for "1967 Border" is pops up everywhere. Even the Palestine Liberation Organization uses that language in their official political position in the matter:

[intent]

The origin of the language seems to be based on the UN Resolution A/RES/43/177 (1988) that "Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;" and carried through and over to A/RES/67/19 2012 which stipulates two propositions:

• Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;
• "Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders."

This confuses the issue. The pre-1967 borders would, some argue, be the original borders stipulated in A/RES/181 (II).

But even a large faction of Arab Palestinians argue that A/RES/181(II) is not real and was not implemented. So, COMES THE NEED TO NEGOTIATE a reasonable outcome; remembering that the original 1948/49 War is not over and that there are still very large War Reparations, claims and financial settlements that need awarded for the Arab Invasion and near seven decades of war that followed.

Most Respectfully,
R​

...boundary runs the old Mandated Territory perimeter.

Are trying to imply something by using this term?

No he is saying that the parties involved used the mandated borders as those that would become the International borders of the two nations.

There will never be two nations as long as Hamas remains the elected governining body of the Palestinians. LONG LIVE HAMAS!

Great. The one-state solution is here.

Correct the state of Israel. Let the arab muslims go back to Jordan where they belong.

The Muslims and Christians of Palestine aren't going anywhere. They will live in a single state where they will be the majority. Let's see how long the Jews can prop up Apartheid.

"Jews Now Minority in Israel and Territories"

Proponents worry that if Israel continues to control the Palestinian territories, with or without formal annexation, the different birthrates of Jews and Arabs will eventually result in Jews being a minority in the territory under Israeli control. At that point Israel will no longer be a Jewish state — or, alternatively, will be a Jewish state with a non-Jewish majority that is disenfranchised because of its ethnic identity. There’s a word for that. I won’t say it, but I’ll note that it’s Afrikaans in origin........
How far off such a situation might be is a topic of considerable debate. Some saythe threshold will be crossed within a decade or less. Others suggest a longer timeline is possible. A few on the right believe there’s no threat at all, either because Jewish and Arab fertility rates are converging or because Palestinian population figures are inflated . By and large, though, demography appears to be a very mainstream worry .

Well, worry no more. It turns out we’re there already. Comparing the annual Rosh Hashanah population report from Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, released September 2, with the midyear (July 1) population figures for the West Bank andGaza in the CIA World Factbook, it turns out that Jews are now (as of Rosh Hashanah) outnumbered by Arabs under Israeli sovereignty by a grand total of 50,827. So the question is no longer whether or when the Jewish state will feature a minority ruling a majority. The question now is what to do about it."

Jews Now Minority in Israel and Territories - Opinion Forward.com

 

[Phoenall]

...boundary runs the old Mandated Territory perimeter.

Are trying to imply something by using this term?

No he is saying that the parties involved used the mandated borders as those that would become the International borders of the two nations.

There will never be two nations as long as Hamas remains the elected governining body of the Palestinians. LONG LIVE HAMAS!

Great. The one-state solution is here.

How about a link detailking this apartheid inside Israel then freddy, not the west bank that is Palestinian and waiting for the arab muslims to take the next step to independence.




Correct the state of Israel. Let the arab muslims go back to Jordan where they belong.

The Muslims and Christians of Palestine aren't going anywhere. They will live in a single state where they will be the majority. Let's see how long the Jews can prop up Apartheid.

"Jews Now Minority in Israel and Territories"

Proponents worry that if Israel continues to control the Palestinian territories, with or without formal annexation, the different birthrates of Jews and Arabs will eventually result in Jews being a minority in the territory under Israeli control. At that point Israel will no longer be a Jewish state — or, alternatively, will be a Jewish state with a non-Jewish majority that is disenfranchised because of its ethnic identity. There’s a word for that. I won’t say it, but I’ll note that it’s Afrikaans in origin........
How far off such a situation might be is a topic of considerable debate. Some saythe threshold will be crossed within a decade or less. Others suggest a longer timeline is possible. A few on the right believe there’s no threat at all, either because Jewish and Arab fertility rates are converging or because Palestinian population figures are inflated . By and large, though, demography appears to be a very mainstream worry .

Well, worry no more. It turns out we’re there already. Comparing the annual Rosh Hashanah population report from Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, released September 2, with the midyear (July 1) population figures for the West Bank andGaza in the CIA World Factbook, it turns out that Jews are now (as of Rosh Hashanah) outnumbered by Arabs under Israeli sovereignty by a grand total of 50,827. So the question is no longer whether or when the Jewish state will feature a minority ruling a majority. The question now is what to do about it."

Jews Now Minority in Israel and Territories - Opinion Forward.com

 

[MJB12741]

As long as the Palestinian squatters are allowed to remain on Israel's land there will be no peace.