PLO leadership votes to suspend security cooperation with Israel

[P F Tinmore]

Abbas is yet to make the final decision but it looks likely...

A shrewd political move by the PLO in the wake of Nut&yahoo in congress?

Pressure on Nut&yahoo in the upcoming elections?

Suicide for the PLO?

Strangulation of Hamas from within?

PLO leadership votes to suspend security cooperation with Israel World news The Guardian

Maybe because they plan on running over some more people?

Terror attack in Jerusalem Five officers Israeli hurt - Israel News Ynetnews

Israel has border police but no borders.

What is their job actually.

To police their borders as laid down under International law. Or do you forget that Israel has International borders mutually agreed with its neighbours ?

Egypt and Jordan, maybe; Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, not so much.

With Syria they have armistice lines, with Lebanon they have armistice lines and treaties. With Palestine they have nothing until the borders are mutually agreed as stipulated in UN res 242 which the Palestinians stupidly agreed to be ruled by.

Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders.

 

[Kondor3]

Maybe because they plan on running over some more people?

Terror attack in Jerusalem Five officers Israeli hurt - Israel News Ynetnews

Israel has border police but no borders.

What is their job actually.

To police their borders as laid down under International law. Or do you forget that Israel has International borders mutually agreed with its neighbours ?

Egypt and Jordan, maybe; Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, not so much.

With Syria they have armistice lines, with Lebanon they have armistice lines and treaties. With Palestine they have nothing until the borders are mutually agreed as stipulated in UN res 242 which the Palestinians stupidly agreed to be ruled by.

Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders.

True.

You can't change something that never existed.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel has border police but no borders.

What is their job actually.

To police their borders as laid down under International law. Or do you forget that Israel has International borders mutually agreed with its neighbours ?

Egypt and Jordan, maybe; Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, not so much.

With Syria they have armistice lines, with Lebanon they have armistice lines and treaties. With Palestine they have nothing until the borders are mutually agreed as stipulated in UN res 242 which the Palestinians stupidly agreed to be ruled by.

Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders.

True.

You can't change something that never existed.

More Israeli lies.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This again demonstrates the questionable competency of the Arab Palestinian extremist and their own inability to establish a firm policy.

To police their borders as laid down under International law. Or do you forget that Israel has International borders mutually agreed with its neighbours ?

There are no borders between Israel and Palestine.

(REFERENCE)

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: NAD - Borders Position

(COMMENT)

This is subjective in explanation.

The Extremist position has not changed in almost seven decades:

1948: Arab Higher Committee: The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense.

1968: Palestine National Charter: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.

1988: Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS): Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion.

2013: #3774 - PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas: EU Can Remove Hamas from Terror List, No Difference between Our Policies and Theirs:

1. Palestine from the river to the sea, and from north to south, is a land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right, we may not a waiver an inch or any part thereof, no matter what the reasons and circumstances and pressures.
2. Palestine - all of Palestine - is a land of Islamic and Arab affiliation, a blessed sacred land, that has a major portion in the heart of every Arab and Muslim
3. No recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation whatever; this is a principled position, political and moral, and therefore do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine no matter how long; nand it will not be long, God willing.​

The Arab Palestinian is not a cohesive culture and the Arab Palestinian struggle is not universally the same among their numbers.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is interesting.

Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders.

(REFERENCE)

S/RES/242 22 November 1967

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;​

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;​

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.​

(COMMENT)

The Security Council Resolution 242, is not that complicated. But contains some ambiguous language; like "should include the application." But even more in question is, in 1967, when the Resolution was written, who were the parties to the conflict?

In fact, the Resolution (as P F Tinmore points out) does not require "Palestine" to do anything (Palestine and the Palestinians are not mentioned once in the resolution). In 1967, the parties to the conflict were the Israelis (the only member nation actually named in the Resolution), Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptians. So, P F Tinmore's statement is absolutely correct --- 'Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders." Palestine and the Palestinians are not parties to the conflict in question. They are completely out of the equation and have no vested interest in the Resolution. At the time of the Resolution the people of Gaza were under occupation by the Egyptian Military Governorship. At the time of the Resolution, the people of the West Bank were under Jordanian sovereignty.

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

√ No time frame specified.​

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

√ The Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979 answers the issue of the Gaza Strip.
√ The Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel, 27 January 1995, answers the issue of the West Bank.
​

It should be noted that the Armistice Arrangements date back to 1949 and the War of Independence for the State of Israel. While the "War" has never come to a conclusion between Israel and the aggressor nations of Syria and Lebanon, the Treaties effectively ended the conflict with the aggressors of Egypt and Jordan. While Resolution 242 is answered by the treaties --- pertaining to the 1967 Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, there may still be some application to the relations with Lebanon and Syria.

Relative to the "refugee problem:"

There are no refugees pertaining to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Refugees are defined by Paragraph 1 - Article 1 (as delineated by Paragraph 2 - Article 1) of the CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF STATELESS PERSONS of 1954. However the formerly displaced Arab Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West Bank may categorize themselves IAW Article 1, it is overturned by Article 2:

2. This Convention shall not apply:

(i) To persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance so long as they are receiving such protection or assistance;

(ii) To persons who are recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which they have taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country;

(iii)To persons with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:

(a) They have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provisions in respect of such crimes;

(b) They have committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of their residence prior to their admission to that country;

(c) They have been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.​

​

There would be very few did not fall under Article 1, Paragraph 2ii, in which the one-time refugee were recognized by the country of Egypt or Jordan and taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of Egyptian or Jordanian nationality.

• Coverage under the All-Palestine Government from 1949 until 1959.
• Coverage under Jordanian Citizenship 1950 to 1988.
• Coverage under the State of Palestine from 1988 to Present.

Thus, in many respect, and for a number of reasons, the UNSC Resolution 242 has no true application to the Palestinian, except as it pertains to the standing realtive to an authentic "occupation."

Most Respectfully,
R

​

 

[Lipush]

Abbas is yet to make the final decision but it looks likely...

A shrewd political move by the PLO in the wake of Nut&yahoo in congress?

Pressure on Nut&yahoo in the upcoming elections?

Suicide for the PLO?

Strangulation of Hamas from within?

PLO leadership votes to suspend security cooperation with Israel World news The Guardian

Maybe because they plan on running over some more people?

Terror attack in Jerusalem Five officers Israeli hurt - Israel News Ynetnews

Israel has border police but no borders.

What is their job actually.

Palestine is a fictional state with no borders.

Israel has borders, it's just that you Pale-lovers don't recognize them

 

[Kondor3]

To police their borders as laid down under International law. Or do you forget that Israel has International borders mutually agreed with its neighbours ?

Egypt and Jordan, maybe; Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, not so much.

With Syria they have armistice lines, with Lebanon they have armistice lines and treaties. With Palestine they have nothing until the borders are mutually agreed as stipulated in UN res 242 which the Palestinians stupidly agreed to be ruled by.

Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders.

True.

You can't change something that never existed.

More Israeli lies.

Nahhhhh... just a gentile American truth.

 

[montelatici]

Abbas is yet to make the final decision but it looks likely...

A shrewd political move by the PLO in the wake of Nut&yahoo in congress?

Pressure on Nut&yahoo in the upcoming elections?

Suicide for the PLO?

Strangulation of Hamas from within?

PLO leadership votes to suspend security cooperation with Israel World news The Guardian

Maybe because they plan on running over some more people?

Terror attack in Jerusalem Five officers Israeli hurt - Israel News Ynetnews

Israel has border police but no borders.

What is their job actually.

Palestine is a fictional state with no borders.

Israel has borders, it's just that you Pale-lovers don't recognize them

Which borders are those?

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is interesting.

Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders.

(REFERENCE)

S/RES/242 22 November 1967

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;​

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;​

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.​

(COMMENT)

The Security Council Resolution 242, is not that complicated. But contains some ambiguous language; like "should include the application." But even more in question is, in 1967, when the Resolution was written, who were the parties to the conflict?

In fact, the Resolution (as P F Tinmore points out) does not require "Palestine" to do anything (Palestine and the Palestinians are not mentioned once in the resolution). In 1967, the parties to the conflict were the Israelis (the only member nation actually named in the Resolution), Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptians. So, P F Tinmore's statement is absolutely correct --- 'Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders." Palestine and the Palestinians are not parties to the conflict in question. They are completely out of the equation and have no vested interest in the Resolution. At the time of the Resolution the people of Gaza were under occupation by the Egyptian Military Governorship. At the time of the Resolution, the people of the West Bank were under Jordanian sovereignty.

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

√ No time frame specified.​

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

√ The Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979 answers the issue of the Gaza Strip.
√ The Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel, 27 January 1995, answers the issue of the West Bank.
​

It should be noted that the Armistice Arrangements date back to 1949 and the War of Independence for the State of Israel. While the "War" has never come to a conclusion between Israel and the aggressor nations of Syria and Lebanon, the Treaties effectively ended the conflict with the aggressors of Egypt and Jordan. While Resolution 242 is answered by the treaties --- pertaining to the 1967 Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, there may still be some application to the relations with Lebanon and Syria.

Relative to the "refugee problem:"

There are no refugees pertaining to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Refugees are defined by Paragraph 1 - Article 1 (as delineated by Paragraph 2 - Article 1) of the CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF STATELESS PERSONS of 1954. However the formerly displaced Arab Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West Bank may categorize themselves IAW Article 1, it is overturned by Article 2:

2. This Convention shall not apply:

(i) To persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance so long as they are receiving such protection or assistance;

(ii) To persons who are recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which they have taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country;

(iii)To persons with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:

(a) They have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provisions in respect of such crimes;

(b) They have committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of their residence prior to their admission to that country;

(c) They have been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.​

​

There would be very few did not fall under Article 1, Paragraph 2ii, in which the one-time refugee were recognized by the country of Egypt or Jordan and taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of Egyptian or Jordanian nationality.

• Coverage under the All-Palestine Government from 1949 until 1959.
• Coverage under Jordanian Citizenship 1950 to 1988.
• Coverage under the State of Palestine from 1988 to Present.

Thus, in many respect, and for a number of reasons, the UNSC Resolution 242 has no true application to the Palestinian, except as it pertains to the standing realtive to an authentic "occupation."

Most Respectfully,
R

​

Now Rocco is going ballistic with his ridiculous extremist position. 242 has a curious little requirement:

"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in recent conflict.""


Rocco, Rocco. You will always lose with me. I am a Tuscan, you are a terrone. Let's not let these others know what we are talking about, but you know full well, don't you.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

That was a strange response to say the least.

[QUOTE="montelatici, post: 10908381, member: 47237"
242 has a curious little requirement:

"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in recent conflict.""
[/quote]
(REFERENCE)

• The Yom Kippur War, also known as the 1973 Arab–Israeli War, was a war fought by the coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria against Israel from October 6 to 25, 1973. With the exception of isolated attacks on Israeli territory on 6 and 9 October, the military combat actions during the war took place on Arab territory, mostly in the Sinai and the Golan Heights. Egypt's stated goal for the war was the expelling of the Israeli forces occupying Sinai.

(COMMENT) (I probably did not make this clear.)

The UNSC 242 was a pre-Yom Kipper War (1973) resolution --- a war which extended the status of the belligerents (Israel versus an Arab Coalition of 2 Principle States and 5 Supporting States). The 1973 and 1967 Wars were both continuations of the same 1948-49 War of Independence.

The phrase that you cite --- "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in recent conflict."" (wherein the "recent conflict is the 1967 War) --- is not a command citation relative to the Occupation of aggressor territory in the 1973 War pursuant to the Chapter VII, Article 51 (inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs) as defined by Articles 1 & 2 of General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) Definition of Aggression. The Yom Kippur War was considered a surprise attack Arab forces on Israel. Egyptian and Syrian forces launched an attack and after initial battlefield successes Iraqi forces soon joined the war, and Syria received support from Jordan. The first use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression by the Arab Coalition: evidenced by the first Arab coalition attack of 1948 and the renewed Arab coalition attack 1973.

All pro-Palestinian constituents want to take any opportunity to suggest that they are the victim of Israeli aggression. And while it is true that Israel has not always made the best political decisions relative to the seven decades of conflict, the Arabs Nations that opened the conflict, representing external interference, also have either upheld the Armistice or concluded Peace Treaties. Of all the belligerents, only the radicalized Arab Palestinians (particularly the Jihadist and Fedayeen) have made the effort to avoid peaceful solutions to the conflict. The treaties with the Egyptians and Jordanians have demonstrated that given a good faith effort, the Israelis will adopt peaceful alternative. The Arab Palestinians have yet to demonstrate that level of effort.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Maybe because they plan on running over some more people?

Terror attack in Jerusalem Five officers Israeli hurt - Israel News Ynetnews

Israel has border police but no borders.

What is their job actually.

To police their borders as laid down under International law. Or do you forget that Israel has International borders mutually agreed with its neighbours ?

Egypt and Jordan, maybe; Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, not so much.

With Syria they have armistice lines, with Lebanon they have armistice lines and treaties. With Palestine they have nothing until the borders are mutually agreed as stipulated in UN res 242 which the Palestinians stupidly agreed to be ruled by.

Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders.

It requires them to negotiate mutual borders, and seeing as it has no actual borders with anyone then it does. Name the treaty that gave them these fantasy borders and show who signed to accept them on behalf of the Palestinian nation. But remember the LoN borders were not for the nation of Palestine but for the Mandate for Palestine.

 

[Phoenall]

To police their borders as laid down under International law. Or do you forget that Israel has International borders mutually agreed with its neighbours ?

Egypt and Jordan, maybe; Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, not so much.

With Syria they have armistice lines, with Lebanon they have armistice lines and treaties. With Palestine they have nothing until the borders are mutually agreed as stipulated in UN res 242 which the Palestinians stupidly agreed to be ruled by.

Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders.

True.

You can't change something that never existed.

More Israeli lies.

But they don't exist seeing as there are no post 1988 treaties detailing the Palestinian borders. You cant use the mandate for Palestine borders as they are not for the nation of Palestine.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is interesting.

Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders.

(REFERENCE)

S/RES/242 22 November 1967

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;​

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;​

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.​

(COMMENT)

The Security Council Resolution 242, is not that complicated. But contains some ambiguous language; like "should include the application." But even more in question is, in 1967, when the Resolution was written, who were the parties to the conflict?

In fact, the Resolution (as P F Tinmore points out) does not require "Palestine" to do anything (Palestine and the Palestinians are not mentioned once in the resolution). In 1967, the parties to the conflict were the Israelis (the only member nation actually named in the Resolution), Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptians. So, P F Tinmore's statement is absolutely correct --- 'Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders." Palestine and the Palestinians are not parties to the conflict in question. They are completely out of the equation and have no vested interest in the Resolution. At the time of the Resolution the people of Gaza were under occupation by the Egyptian Military Governorship. At the time of the Resolution, the people of the West Bank were under Jordanian sovereignty.

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

√ No time frame specified.​

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

√ The Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979 answers the issue of the Gaza Strip.
√ The Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel, 27 January 1995, answers the issue of the West Bank.
​

It should be noted that the Armistice Arrangements date back to 1949 and the War of Independence for the State of Israel. While the "War" has never come to a conclusion between Israel and the aggressor nations of Syria and Lebanon, the Treaties effectively ended the conflict with the aggressors of Egypt and Jordan. While Resolution 242 is answered by the treaties --- pertaining to the 1967 Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, there may still be some application to the relations with Lebanon and Syria.

Relative to the "refugee problem:"

There are no refugees pertaining to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Refugees are defined by Paragraph 1 - Article 1 (as delineated by Paragraph 2 - Article 1) of the CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF STATELESS PERSONS of 1954. However the formerly displaced Arab Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West Bank may categorize themselves IAW Article 1, it is overturned by Article 2:

2. This Convention shall not apply:

(i) To persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance so long as they are receiving such protection or assistance;

(ii) To persons who are recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which they have taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country;

(iii)To persons with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:

(a) They have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provisions in respect of such crimes;

(b) They have committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of their residence prior to their admission to that country;

(c) They have been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.​

​

There would be very few did not fall under Article 1, Paragraph 2ii, in which the one-time refugee were recognized by the country of Egypt or Jordan and taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of Egyptian or Jordanian nationality.

• Coverage under the All-Palestine Government from 1949 until 1959.
• Coverage under Jordanian Citizenship 1950 to 1988.
• Coverage under the State of Palestine from 1988 to Present.

Thus, in many respect, and for a number of reasons, the UNSC Resolution 242 has no true application to the Palestinian, except as it pertains to the standing realtive to an authentic "occupation."

Most Respectfully,
R

​

May I disagree with you on this as the P.A. in signing the many U.N. charters has stated that it will adhere to the terms of UN res 242 in its entirety believing that the French translation covers their claims to the land from the river to the sea and from north to south. So 242 does apply to the Palestinians and they have to negotiate mutual borders whether they like it or not.

 

[Phoenall]

Abbas is yet to make the final decision but it looks likely...

A shrewd political move by the PLO in the wake of Nut&yahoo in congress?

Pressure on Nut&yahoo in the upcoming elections?

Suicide for the PLO?

Strangulation of Hamas from within?

PLO leadership votes to suspend security cooperation with Israel World news The Guardian

Maybe because they plan on running over some more people?

Terror attack in Jerusalem Five officers Israeli hurt - Israel News Ynetnews

Israel has border police but no borders.

What is their job actually.

Palestine is a fictional state with no borders.

Israel has borders, it's just that you Pale-lovers don't recognize them

Which borders are those?

The mutual borders with Egypt and Jordan negotiated under the aegis of 242.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is interesting.

Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders.

(REFERENCE)

S/RES/242 22 November 1967

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;​

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;​

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.​

(COMMENT)

The Security Council Resolution 242, is not that complicated. But contains some ambiguous language; like "should include the application." But even more in question is, in 1967, when the Resolution was written, who were the parties to the conflict?

In fact, the Resolution (as P F Tinmore points out) does not require "Palestine" to do anything (Palestine and the Palestinians are not mentioned once in the resolution). In 1967, the parties to the conflict were the Israelis (the only member nation actually named in the Resolution), Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptians. So, P F Tinmore's statement is absolutely correct --- 'Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders." Palestine and the Palestinians are not parties to the conflict in question. They are completely out of the equation and have no vested interest in the Resolution. At the time of the Resolution the people of Gaza were under occupation by the Egyptian Military Governorship. At the time of the Resolution, the people of the West Bank were under Jordanian sovereignty.

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

√ No time frame specified.​

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

√ The Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979 answers the issue of the Gaza Strip.
√ The Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel, 27 January 1995, answers the issue of the West Bank.
​

It should be noted that the Armistice Arrangements date back to 1949 and the War of Independence for the State of Israel. While the "War" has never come to a conclusion between Israel and the aggressor nations of Syria and Lebanon, the Treaties effectively ended the conflict with the aggressors of Egypt and Jordan. While Resolution 242 is answered by the treaties --- pertaining to the 1967 Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, there may still be some application to the relations with Lebanon and Syria.

Relative to the "refugee problem:"

There are no refugees pertaining to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Refugees are defined by Paragraph 1 - Article 1 (as delineated by Paragraph 2 - Article 1) of the CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF STATELESS PERSONS of 1954. However the formerly displaced Arab Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West Bank may categorize themselves IAW Article 1, it is overturned by Article 2:

2. This Convention shall not apply:

(i) To persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance so long as they are receiving such protection or assistance;

(ii) To persons who are recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which they have taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country;

(iii)To persons with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:

(a) They have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provisions in respect of such crimes;

(b) They have committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of their residence prior to their admission to that country;

(c) They have been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.​

​

There would be very few did not fall under Article 1, Paragraph 2ii, in which the one-time refugee were recognized by the country of Egypt or Jordan and taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of Egyptian or Jordanian nationality.

• Coverage under the All-Palestine Government from 1949 until 1959.
• Coverage under Jordanian Citizenship 1950 to 1988.
• Coverage under the State of Palestine from 1988 to Present.

Thus, in many respect, and for a number of reasons, the UNSC Resolution 242 has no true application to the Palestinian, except as it pertains to the standing realtive to an authentic "occupation."

Most Respectfully,
R

​

Now Rocco is going ballistic with his ridiculous extremist position. 242 has a curious little requirement:

"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in recent conflict.""


Rocco, Rocco. You will always lose with me. I am a Tuscan, you are a terrone. Let's not let these others know what we are talking about, but you know full well, don't you.

Now Abdul can you tell the board what the cut off date is in 242 that the Israeli's have to leave some of the territories occupied in 1967. A hint for you is to read the explanations given by the authors of 242 for the answer, and you will see that the arabs are barking up the wrong tree

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is interesting.

Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders.

(REFERENCE)

S/RES/242 22 November 1967

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;​

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;​

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.​

(COMMENT)

The Security Council Resolution 242, is not that complicated. But contains some ambiguous language; like "should include the application." But even more in question is, in 1967, when the Resolution was written, who were the parties to the conflict?

In fact, the Resolution (as P F Tinmore points out) does not require "Palestine" to do anything (Palestine and the Palestinians are not mentioned once in the resolution). In 1967, the parties to the conflict were the Israelis (the only member nation actually named in the Resolution), Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptians. So, P F Tinmore's statement is absolutely correct --- 'Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders." Palestine and the Palestinians are not parties to the conflict in question. They are completely out of the equation and have no vested interest in the Resolution. At the time of the Resolution the people of Gaza were under occupation by the Egyptian Military Governorship. At the time of the Resolution, the people of the West Bank were under Jordanian sovereignty.

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

√ No time frame specified.​

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

√ The Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979 answers the issue of the Gaza Strip.
√ The Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel, 27 January 1995, answers the issue of the West Bank.
​

It should be noted that the Armistice Arrangements date back to 1949 and the War of Independence for the State of Israel. While the "War" has never come to a conclusion between Israel and the aggressor nations of Syria and Lebanon, the Treaties effectively ended the conflict with the aggressors of Egypt and Jordan. While Resolution 242 is answered by the treaties --- pertaining to the 1967 Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, there may still be some application to the relations with Lebanon and Syria.

Relative to the "refugee problem:"

There are no refugees pertaining to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Refugees are defined by Paragraph 1 - Article 1 (as delineated by Paragraph 2 - Article 1) of the CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF STATELESS PERSONS of 1954. However the formerly displaced Arab Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West Bank may categorize themselves IAW Article 1, it is overturned by Article 2:

2. This Convention shall not apply:

(i) To persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance so long as they are receiving such protection or assistance;

(ii) To persons who are recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which they have taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country;

(iii)To persons with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:

(a) They have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provisions in respect of such crimes;

(b) They have committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of their residence prior to their admission to that country;

(c) They have been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.​

​

There would be very few did not fall under Article 1, Paragraph 2ii, in which the one-time refugee were recognized by the country of Egypt or Jordan and taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of Egyptian or Jordanian nationality.

• Coverage under the All-Palestine Government from 1949 until 1959.
• Coverage under Jordanian Citizenship 1950 to 1988.
• Coverage under the State of Palestine from 1988 to Present.

Thus, in many respect, and for a number of reasons, the UNSC Resolution 242 has no true application to the Palestinian, except as it pertains to the standing realtive to an authentic "occupation."

Most Respectfully,
R

​

May I disagree with you on this as the P.A. in signing the many U.N. charters has stated that it will adhere to the terms of UN res 242 in its entirety believing that the French translation covers their claims to the land from the river to the sea and from north to south. So 242 does apply to the Palestinians and they have to negotiate mutual borders whether they like it or not.

The Palestinians do not have to do anything. There is nothing that needs to be negotiated.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is interesting.

Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders.

(REFERENCE)

S/RES/242 22 November 1967

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;​

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;​

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.​

(COMMENT)

The Security Council Resolution 242, is not that complicated. But contains some ambiguous language; like "should include the application." But even more in question is, in 1967, when the Resolution was written, who were the parties to the conflict?

In fact, the Resolution (as P F Tinmore points out) does not require "Palestine" to do anything (Palestine and the Palestinians are not mentioned once in the resolution). In 1967, the parties to the conflict were the Israelis (the only member nation actually named in the Resolution), Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptians. So, P F Tinmore's statement is absolutely correct --- 'Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders." Palestine and the Palestinians are not parties to the conflict in question. They are completely out of the equation and have no vested interest in the Resolution. At the time of the Resolution the people of Gaza were under occupation by the Egyptian Military Governorship. At the time of the Resolution, the people of the West Bank were under Jordanian sovereignty.

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

√ No time frame specified.​

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

√ The Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979 answers the issue of the Gaza Strip.
√ The Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel, 27 January 1995, answers the issue of the West Bank.
​

It should be noted that the Armistice Arrangements date back to 1949 and the War of Independence for the State of Israel. While the "War" has never come to a conclusion between Israel and the aggressor nations of Syria and Lebanon, the Treaties effectively ended the conflict with the aggressors of Egypt and Jordan. While Resolution 242 is answered by the treaties --- pertaining to the 1967 Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, there may still be some application to the relations with Lebanon and Syria.

Relative to the "refugee problem:"

There are no refugees pertaining to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Refugees are defined by Paragraph 1 - Article 1 (as delineated by Paragraph 2 - Article 1) of the CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF STATELESS PERSONS of 1954. However the formerly displaced Arab Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West Bank may categorize themselves IAW Article 1, it is overturned by Article 2:

2. This Convention shall not apply:

(i) To persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance so long as they are receiving such protection or assistance;

(ii) To persons who are recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which they have taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country;

(iii)To persons with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:

(a) They have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provisions in respect of such crimes;

(b) They have committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of their residence prior to their admission to that country;

(c) They have been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.​

​

There would be very few did not fall under Article 1, Paragraph 2ii, in which the one-time refugee were recognized by the country of Egypt or Jordan and taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of Egyptian or Jordanian nationality.

• Coverage under the All-Palestine Government from 1949 until 1959.
• Coverage under Jordanian Citizenship 1950 to 1988.
• Coverage under the State of Palestine from 1988 to Present.

Thus, in many respect, and for a number of reasons, the UNSC Resolution 242 has no true application to the Palestinian, except as it pertains to the standing realtive to an authentic "occupation."

Most Respectfully,
R

​

May I disagree with you on this as the P.A. in signing the many U.N. charters has stated that it will adhere to the terms of UN res 242 in its entirety believing that the French translation covers their claims to the land from the river to the sea and from north to south. So 242 does apply to the Palestinians and they have to negotiate mutual borders whether they like it or not.

The Palestinians do not have to do anything. There is nothing that needs to be negotiated.

They had to show they were capable of self determination and the anility to form a government, read the Mandate for Palestine. Then they had to act as peaceful neighbours and engage in mutual debate and negotiations. You forget that they elected to be held accountable by UN res 242 in their declaration of 1988

Palestinian Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Consequences
The declaration was accompanied by a PNC call for multilateral negotiations on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 242. This call was later termed "the Historic Compromise",[11] as it implied acceptance of the "two-state solution", namely that it no longer questioned the legitimacy of the State of Israel.[10] The PNC's political communiqué accompanying the declaration called only for withdrawal from "Arab Jerusalem" and the other "Arab territories occupied."[12] Yasser Arafat's statements in Geneva a month later[13][14] were accepted by the United States as sufficient to remove the ambiguities it saw in the declaration and to fulfill the longheld conditions for open dialogue with the United States.




So you see they had agreed to mutually negotiated borders as laid down in UN res 242

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this is interesting.

Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders.

(REFERENCE)

S/RES/242 22 November 1967

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;​

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;​

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.​

(COMMENT)

The Security Council Resolution 242, is not that complicated. But contains some ambiguous language; like "should include the application." But even more in question is, in 1967, when the Resolution was written, who were the parties to the conflict?

In fact, the Resolution (as P F Tinmore points out) does not require "Palestine" to do anything (Palestine and the Palestinians are not mentioned once in the resolution). In 1967, the parties to the conflict were the Israelis (the only member nation actually named in the Resolution), Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptians. So, P F Tinmore's statement is absolutely correct --- 'Resolution 242 does not require Palestine to change its borders." Palestine and the Palestinians are not parties to the conflict in question. They are completely out of the equation and have no vested interest in the Resolution. At the time of the Resolution the people of Gaza were under occupation by the Egyptian Military Governorship. At the time of the Resolution, the people of the West Bank were under Jordanian sovereignty.

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

√ No time frame specified.​

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

√ The Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979 answers the issue of the Gaza Strip.
√ The Treaty of Peace between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel, 27 January 1995, answers the issue of the West Bank.
​

It should be noted that the Armistice Arrangements date back to 1949 and the War of Independence for the State of Israel. While the "War" has never come to a conclusion between Israel and the aggressor nations of Syria and Lebanon, the Treaties effectively ended the conflict with the aggressors of Egypt and Jordan. While Resolution 242 is answered by the treaties --- pertaining to the 1967 Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, there may still be some application to the relations with Lebanon and Syria.

Relative to the "refugee problem:"

There are no refugees pertaining to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Refugees are defined by Paragraph 1 - Article 1 (as delineated by Paragraph 2 - Article 1) of the CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF STATELESS PERSONS of 1954. However the formerly displaced Arab Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West Bank may categorize themselves IAW Article 1, it is overturned by Article 2:

2. This Convention shall not apply:

(i) To persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance so long as they are receiving such protection or assistance;

(ii) To persons who are recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which they have taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country;

(iii)To persons with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:

(a) They have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provisions in respect of such crimes;

(b) They have committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of their residence prior to their admission to that country;

(c) They have been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.​

​

There would be very few did not fall under Article 1, Paragraph 2ii, in which the one-time refugee were recognized by the country of Egypt or Jordan and taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of Egyptian or Jordanian nationality.

• Coverage under the All-Palestine Government from 1949 until 1959.
• Coverage under Jordanian Citizenship 1950 to 1988.
• Coverage under the State of Palestine from 1988 to Present.

Thus, in many respect, and for a number of reasons, the UNSC Resolution 242 has no true application to the Palestinian, except as it pertains to the standing realtive to an authentic "occupation."

Most Respectfully,
R

​

May I disagree with you on this as the P.A. in signing the many U.N. charters has stated that it will adhere to the terms of UN res 242 in its entirety believing that the French translation covers their claims to the land from the river to the sea and from north to south. So 242 does apply to the Palestinians and they have to negotiate mutual borders whether they like it or not.

The Palestinians do not have to do anything. There is nothing that needs to be negotiated.

They had to show they were capable of self determination and the anility to form a government, read the Mandate for Palestine. Then they had to act as peaceful neighbours and engage in mutual debate and negotiations. You forget that they elected to be held accountable by UN res 242 in their declaration of 1988

Palestinian Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Consequences
The declaration was accompanied by a PNC call for multilateral negotiations on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 242. This call was later termed "the Historic Compromise",[11] as it implied acceptance of the "two-state solution", namely that it no longer questioned the legitimacy of the State of Israel.[10] The PNC's political communiqué accompanying the declaration called only for withdrawal from "Arab Jerusalem" and the other "Arab territories occupied."[12] Yasser Arafat's statements in Geneva a month later[13][14] were accepted by the United States as sufficient to remove the ambiguities it saw in the declaration and to fulfill the longheld conditions for open dialogue with the United States.




So you see they had agreed to mutually negotiated borders as laid down in UN res 242

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

Where does resolution 242 say what borders should be negotiated and by whom?

 

[Kondor3]

...The Palestinians do not have to do anything. There is nothing that needs to be negotiated.

Quite true... which is why they ran like rabbits in 1948 and why they've been squatting in refugee shit-holes for the past 66 years... Gods... what a mindset !

No wonder Nature has de-selected them.

 

[CMike]

It's Abbas that Israel needs to protect itself from.