Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered

[Shusha]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Some (and only some) of your commentary here is based on → or in accordance with → reason. Some of this commentary has been overtaken by events or based on the assumption that other authorities are correct --- when they are in fact, seriously flawed.

Cannot demand what you never have.
I'm sure you can provide your land ownership certificate.

Sure. It's called UN Resolution 242.

(REFERENCES and ANNEXES)

• The Arab-Israeli Conflict known as the "Six Day War" extended over the period 5 June until 10 June 10th 1967.
• Resolution S/RES/242 22 November 1967 Emphasized: 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.
• According to the George A. Brown, British Foreign Secretary and one of the authors, said he showed the Security Council, and Arab leaders the proposal said which was written such that → ‘Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,’ and not from ‘the’ territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.”

✪⇒ Annexes to Commentary:

Annex I: Maps Delineation Armistice Lines for the West Bank Palestine (North & South sheets), Jerusalem, Latrun
Annex II: General Armistice - Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Israel - Rhodes, 3 April 1949
Annex III: Map outlining the general areas known as the Occupied Territories Map 3243 Rev 4 UN 1967 → Territories Occupied by Israel since 1967.​

(COMMENT)

According to the George A. Brown, British Foreign Secretary, (at the time of the composition) and one of the authors, said he showed the Security Council, and Arab leaders the proposal said which was written such that → "Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,’ and not from ‘the’ territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.” Similarly, Lord Caradon (Hugh Mackintosh Foot), Permanent Representative of the UK to UN, said: "They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ..."

The intent of Resolution 242 "called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.” (Eugene Rostow Undersecretary of State for Political Affair)

The Arab Palestinians are NOT mentioned anywhere in Resolution 242. Resolution 242 DOES NOT require that Israel give the Arab Palestinians any political rights or territory.

Some? You are collectively punishing the entire population and that is a war crime. You're building structures on land you don't own.

(COMMENT)

The imposition of restrictions placed upon the entity --- or --- unilateral actions taken by Israel against the Palestinian entity for political or security reasons, is no more a case of "collective punishment" than any multilateral sanction the international community or regional alliances places upon belligerent nations anywhere else.

You need to do your homework before you open your mouth and look like an idiot.

The Fourth Geneva Convention
The applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention to "all the territories occupied by Israel in 1967" is held with "a remarkable degree of unanimity" among international actors.

In a 2004 advisory opinion to the UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice stated that Article 2 of the Convention applied to the case of Israel's presence in the territories captured during the 1967 war.

It stated that Article 2 applies if there exists an armed conflict between two contracting parties, regardless of the territories' status in international law prior to the armed attack.

It also argued that "no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal" according to customary international law and defined by "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations" (General Assembly Resolution 2625).
​

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is all Article 2 related concepts, that apply equally to the protection and security of the state of Israel from Arab Palestinian elements attempting to topple the Israeli Government. And it is one-sided. It does not mention that Article 51 allows for the Israeli Defense against Arab Palestinian attacks. Nor does this one-sided commentary allow for the view that Israel has territorial integrity or political independence. Nor does the commentary points out that Arab Palestinian has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of Israel --- or --- using threats or use of force as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

The Arab Palestinian should be seeking settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute. BUT --- what we actually see is the Arab Palestinian intentionally creating conditions with preventing meaningful meeting towards peace.

It is also worth noting...

At present, based on the result of numerous UN resolutions that cite Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, the consensus view of the international community is that Israeli settlements are illegal and constitute a violation of international law. According to the BBC, every government in the world, except Israel, considers the settlements to be illegal.​

(COMMENT)

In 1967, the Israelis DID NOT occupy any Palestinian territory. It engaged two nations that either threatened to use force, or actually did use force, that provoked a military response.

• In 1979, Egypt, NOT the Arab Palestinians, established peace with Israelis.
• In 1994, Jordan, NOT the Arab Palestinians, established peace with the Israelis.​

You will note that the treaty with Egypt included the Gaza Strip; just as the treaty with Jordan included the West Bank. These two treaty dissolved the Armistice Lines.

Most Respectfully.
R

You will note that the treaty with Egypt included the Gaza Strip; just as the treaty with Jordan included the West Bank. These two treaty dissolved the Armistice Lines.

Then why do you see them on every map of Israel?

Fascinating question. Given that you agree there is no international border within Israel/Palestine -- what is your answer to the question?

Why has the international community adopted a false border?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Some (and only some) of your commentary here is based on → or in accordance with → reason. Some of this commentary has been overtaken by events or based on the assumption that other authorities are correct --- when they are in fact, seriously flawed.

Cannot demand what you never have.
I'm sure you can provide your land ownership certificate.

Sure. It's called UN Resolution 242.

(REFERENCES and ANNEXES)

• The Arab-Israeli Conflict known as the "Six Day War" extended over the period 5 June until 10 June 10th 1967.
• Resolution S/RES/242 22 November 1967 Emphasized: 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.
• According to the George A. Brown, British Foreign Secretary and one of the authors, said he showed the Security Council, and Arab leaders the proposal said which was written such that → ‘Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,’ and not from ‘the’ territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.”

✪⇒ Annexes to Commentary:

Annex I: Maps Delineation Armistice Lines for the West Bank Palestine (North & South sheets), Jerusalem, Latrun
Annex II: General Armistice - Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Israel - Rhodes, 3 April 1949
Annex III: Map outlining the general areas known as the Occupied Territories Map 3243 Rev 4 UN 1967 → Territories Occupied by Israel since 1967.​

(COMMENT)

According to the George A. Brown, British Foreign Secretary, (at the time of the composition) and one of the authors, said he showed the Security Council, and Arab leaders the proposal said which was written such that → "Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,’ and not from ‘the’ territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.” Similarly, Lord Caradon (Hugh Mackintosh Foot), Permanent Representative of the UK to UN, said: "They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ..."

The intent of Resolution 242 "called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.” (Eugene Rostow Undersecretary of State for Political Affair)

The Arab Palestinians are NOT mentioned anywhere in Resolution 242. Resolution 242 DOES NOT require that Israel give the Arab Palestinians any political rights or territory.

Some? You are collectively punishing the entire population and that is a war crime. You're building structures on land you don't own.

(COMMENT)

The imposition of restrictions placed upon the entity --- or --- unilateral actions taken by Israel against the Palestinian entity for political or security reasons, is no more a case of "collective punishment" than any multilateral sanction the international community or regional alliances places upon belligerent nations anywhere else.

You need to do your homework before you open your mouth and look like an idiot.

The Fourth Geneva Convention
The applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention to "all the territories occupied by Israel in 1967" is held with "a remarkable degree of unanimity" among international actors.

In a 2004 advisory opinion to the UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice stated that Article 2 of the Convention applied to the case of Israel's presence in the territories captured during the 1967 war.

It stated that Article 2 applies if there exists an armed conflict between two contracting parties, regardless of the territories' status in international law prior to the armed attack.

It also argued that "no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal" according to customary international law and defined by "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations" (General Assembly Resolution 2625).
​

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is all Article 2 related concepts, that apply equally to the protection and security of the state of Israel from Arab Palestinian elements attempting to topple the Israeli Government. And it is one-sided. It does not mention that Article 51 allows for the Israeli Defense against Arab Palestinian attacks. Nor does this one-sided commentary allow for the view that Israel has territorial integrity or political independence. Nor does the commentary points out that Arab Palestinian has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of Israel --- or --- using threats or use of force as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

The Arab Palestinian should be seeking settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute. BUT --- what we actually see is the Arab Palestinian intentionally creating conditions with preventing meaningful meeting towards peace.

It is also worth noting...

At present, based on the result of numerous UN resolutions that cite Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, the consensus view of the international community is that Israeli settlements are illegal and constitute a violation of international law. According to the BBC, every government in the world, except Israel, considers the settlements to be illegal.​

(COMMENT)

In 1967, the Israelis DID NOT occupy any Palestinian territory. It engaged two nations that either threatened to use force, or actually did use force, that provoked a military response.

• In 1979, Egypt, NOT the Arab Palestinians, established peace with Israelis.
• In 1994, Jordan, NOT the Arab Palestinians, established peace with the Israelis.​

You will note that the treaty with Egypt included the Gaza Strip; just as the treaty with Jordan included the West Bank. These two treaty dissolved the Armistice Lines.

Most Respectfully.
R

You will note that the treaty with Egypt included the Gaza Strip; just as the treaty with Jordan included the West Bank. These two treaty dissolved the Armistice Lines.

Then why do you see them on every map of Israel?

Fascinating question. Given that you agree there is no international border within Israel/Palestine -- what is your answer to the question?

Why has the international community adopted a false border?

Because everybody has heard Israeli bullshit a gazillion times since birth. So virtually nobody questions it.

 

[Shusha]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Some (and only some) of your commentary here is based on → or in accordance with → reason. Some of this commentary has been overtaken by events or based on the assumption that other authorities are correct --- when they are in fact, seriously flawed.

Cannot demand what you never have.
I'm sure you can provide your land ownership certificate.

Sure. It's called UN Resolution 242.

(REFERENCES and ANNEXES)

• The Arab-Israeli Conflict known as the "Six Day War" extended over the period 5 June until 10 June 10th 1967.
• Resolution S/RES/242 22 November 1967 Emphasized: 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.
• According to the George A. Brown, British Foreign Secretary and one of the authors, said he showed the Security Council, and Arab leaders the proposal said which was written such that → ‘Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,’ and not from ‘the’ territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.”

✪⇒ Annexes to Commentary:

Annex I: Maps Delineation Armistice Lines for the West Bank Palestine (North & South sheets), Jerusalem, Latrun
Annex II: General Armistice - Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Israel - Rhodes, 3 April 1949
Annex III: Map outlining the general areas known as the Occupied Territories Map 3243 Rev 4 UN 1967 → Territories Occupied by Israel since 1967.​

(COMMENT)

According to the George A. Brown, British Foreign Secretary, (at the time of the composition) and one of the authors, said he showed the Security Council, and Arab leaders the proposal said which was written such that → "Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,’ and not from ‘the’ territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.” Similarly, Lord Caradon (Hugh Mackintosh Foot), Permanent Representative of the UK to UN, said: "They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ..."

The intent of Resolution 242 "called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.” (Eugene Rostow Undersecretary of State for Political Affair)

The Arab Palestinians are NOT mentioned anywhere in Resolution 242. Resolution 242 DOES NOT require that Israel give the Arab Palestinians any political rights or territory.

Some? You are collectively punishing the entire population and that is a war crime. You're building structures on land you don't own.

(COMMENT)

The imposition of restrictions placed upon the entity --- or --- unilateral actions taken by Israel against the Palestinian entity for political or security reasons, is no more a case of "collective punishment" than any multilateral sanction the international community or regional alliances places upon belligerent nations anywhere else.

You need to do your homework before you open your mouth and look like an idiot.

The Fourth Geneva Convention
The applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention to "all the territories occupied by Israel in 1967" is held with "a remarkable degree of unanimity" among international actors.

In a 2004 advisory opinion to the UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice stated that Article 2 of the Convention applied to the case of Israel's presence in the territories captured during the 1967 war.

It stated that Article 2 applies if there exists an armed conflict between two contracting parties, regardless of the territories' status in international law prior to the armed attack.

It also argued that "no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal" according to customary international law and defined by "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations" (General Assembly Resolution 2625).
​

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is all Article 2 related concepts, that apply equally to the protection and security of the state of Israel from Arab Palestinian elements attempting to topple the Israeli Government. And it is one-sided. It does not mention that Article 51 allows for the Israeli Defense against Arab Palestinian attacks. Nor does this one-sided commentary allow for the view that Israel has territorial integrity or political independence. Nor does the commentary points out that Arab Palestinian has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of Israel --- or --- using threats or use of force as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

The Arab Palestinian should be seeking settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute. BUT --- what we actually see is the Arab Palestinian intentionally creating conditions with preventing meaningful meeting towards peace.

It is also worth noting...

At present, based on the result of numerous UN resolutions that cite Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, the consensus view of the international community is that Israeli settlements are illegal and constitute a violation of international law. According to the BBC, every government in the world, except Israel, considers the settlements to be illegal.​

(COMMENT)

In 1967, the Israelis DID NOT occupy any Palestinian territory. It engaged two nations that either threatened to use force, or actually did use force, that provoked a military response.

• In 1979, Egypt, NOT the Arab Palestinians, established peace with Israelis.
• In 1994, Jordan, NOT the Arab Palestinians, established peace with the Israelis.​

You will note that the treaty with Egypt included the Gaza Strip; just as the treaty with Jordan included the West Bank. These two treaty dissolved the Armistice Lines.

Most Respectfully.
R

You will note that the treaty with Egypt included the Gaza Strip; just as the treaty with Jordan included the West Bank. These two treaty dissolved the Armistice Lines.

Then why do you see them on every map of Israel?

Fascinating question. Given that you agree there is no international border within Israel/Palestine -- what is your answer to the question?

Why has the international community adopted a false border?

Because everybody has heard Israeli bullshit a gazillion times since birth. So virtually nobody questions it.

I agree not enough people question it.

I'm not sure how you come to understand that it is "Israeli bullshit". Why would Israel create a false border?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Some (and only some) of your commentary here is based on → or in accordance with → reason. Some of this commentary has been overtaken by events or based on the assumption that other authorities are correct --- when they are in fact, seriously flawed.

Sure. It's called UN Resolution 242.

(REFERENCES and ANNEXES)

• The Arab-Israeli Conflict known as the "Six Day War" extended over the period 5 June until 10 June 10th 1967.
• Resolution S/RES/242 22 November 1967 Emphasized: 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.
• According to the George A. Brown, British Foreign Secretary and one of the authors, said he showed the Security Council, and Arab leaders the proposal said which was written such that → ‘Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,’ and not from ‘the’ territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.”

✪⇒ Annexes to Commentary:

Annex I: Maps Delineation Armistice Lines for the West Bank Palestine (North & South sheets), Jerusalem, Latrun
Annex II: General Armistice - Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Israel - Rhodes, 3 April 1949
Annex III: Map outlining the general areas known as the Occupied Territories Map 3243 Rev 4 UN 1967 → Territories Occupied by Israel since 1967.​

(COMMENT)

According to the George A. Brown, British Foreign Secretary, (at the time of the composition) and one of the authors, said he showed the Security Council, and Arab leaders the proposal said which was written such that → "Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,’ and not from ‘the’ territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.” Similarly, Lord Caradon (Hugh Mackintosh Foot), Permanent Representative of the UK to UN, said: "They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ..."

The intent of Resolution 242 "called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.” (Eugene Rostow Undersecretary of State for Political Affair)

The Arab Palestinians are NOT mentioned anywhere in Resolution 242. Resolution 242 DOES NOT require that Israel give the Arab Palestinians any political rights or territory.

Some? You are collectively punishing the entire population and that is a war crime. You're building structures on land you don't own.

(COMMENT)

The imposition of restrictions placed upon the entity --- or --- unilateral actions taken by Israel against the Palestinian entity for political or security reasons, is no more a case of "collective punishment" than any multilateral sanction the international community or regional alliances places upon belligerent nations anywhere else.

You need to do your homework before you open your mouth and look like an idiot.

The Fourth Geneva Convention
The applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention to "all the territories occupied by Israel in 1967" is held with "a remarkable degree of unanimity" among international actors.

In a 2004 advisory opinion to the UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice stated that Article 2 of the Convention applied to the case of Israel's presence in the territories captured during the 1967 war.

It stated that Article 2 applies if there exists an armed conflict between two contracting parties, regardless of the territories' status in international law prior to the armed attack.

It also argued that "no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal" according to customary international law and defined by "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations" (General Assembly Resolution 2625).
​

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is all Article 2 related concepts, that apply equally to the protection and security of the state of Israel from Arab Palestinian elements attempting to topple the Israeli Government. And it is one-sided. It does not mention that Article 51 allows for the Israeli Defense against Arab Palestinian attacks. Nor does this one-sided commentary allow for the view that Israel has territorial integrity or political independence. Nor does the commentary points out that Arab Palestinian has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of Israel --- or --- using threats or use of force as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

The Arab Palestinian should be seeking settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute. BUT --- what we actually see is the Arab Palestinian intentionally creating conditions with preventing meaningful meeting towards peace.

It is also worth noting...

At present, based on the result of numerous UN resolutions that cite Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, the consensus view of the international community is that Israeli settlements are illegal and constitute a violation of international law. According to the BBC, every government in the world, except Israel, considers the settlements to be illegal.​

(COMMENT)

In 1967, the Israelis DID NOT occupy any Palestinian territory. It engaged two nations that either threatened to use force, or actually did use force, that provoked a military response.

• In 1979, Egypt, NOT the Arab Palestinians, established peace with Israelis.
• In 1994, Jordan, NOT the Arab Palestinians, established peace with the Israelis.​

You will note that the treaty with Egypt included the Gaza Strip; just as the treaty with Jordan included the West Bank. These two treaty dissolved the Armistice Lines.

Most Respectfully.
R

You will note that the treaty with Egypt included the Gaza Strip; just as the treaty with Jordan included the West Bank. These two treaty dissolved the Armistice Lines.

Then why do you see them on every map of Israel?

Fascinating question. Given that you agree there is no international border within Israel/Palestine -- what is your answer to the question?

Why has the international community adopted a false border?

Because everybody has heard Israeli bullshit a gazillion times since birth. So virtually nobody questions it.

I agree not enough people question it.

I'm not sure how you come to understand that it is "Israeli bullshit". Why would Israel create a false border?

That is the only way to put Israel on the map. All territory has to have a border. Israel has no territory so they have to make up borders.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Some (and only some) of your commentary here is based on → or in accordance with → reason. Some of this commentary has been overtaken by events or based on the assumption that other authorities are correct --- when they are in fact, seriously flawed.

(REFERENCES and ANNEXES)

• The Arab-Israeli Conflict known as the "Six Day War" extended over the period 5 June until 10 June 10th 1967.
• Resolution S/RES/242 22 November 1967 Emphasized: 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.
• According to the George A. Brown, British Foreign Secretary and one of the authors, said he showed the Security Council, and Arab leaders the proposal said which was written such that → ‘Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,’ and not from ‘the’ territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.”

✪⇒ Annexes to Commentary:

Annex I: Maps Delineation Armistice Lines for the West Bank Palestine (North & South sheets), Jerusalem, Latrun
Annex II: General Armistice - Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Israel - Rhodes, 3 April 1949
Annex III: Map outlining the general areas known as the Occupied Territories Map 3243 Rev 4 UN 1967 → Territories Occupied by Israel since 1967.​

(COMMENT)

According to the George A. Brown, British Foreign Secretary, (at the time of the composition) and one of the authors, said he showed the Security Council, and Arab leaders the proposal said which was written such that → "Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,’ and not from ‘the’ territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.” Similarly, Lord Caradon (Hugh Mackintosh Foot), Permanent Representative of the UK to UN, said: "They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ..."

The intent of Resolution 242 "called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.” (Eugene Rostow Undersecretary of State for Political Affair)

The Arab Palestinians are NOT mentioned anywhere in Resolution 242. Resolution 242 DOES NOT require that Israel give the Arab Palestinians any political rights or territory.

(COMMENT)

The imposition of restrictions placed upon the entity --- or --- unilateral actions taken by Israel against the Palestinian entity for political or security reasons, is no more a case of "collective punishment" than any multilateral sanction the international community or regional alliances places upon belligerent nations anywhere else.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is all Article 2 related concepts, that apply equally to the protection and security of the state of Israel from Arab Palestinian elements attempting to topple the Israeli Government. And it is one-sided. It does not mention that Article 51 allows for the Israeli Defense against Arab Palestinian attacks. Nor does this one-sided commentary allow for the view that Israel has territorial integrity or political independence. Nor does the commentary points out that Arab Palestinian has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of Israel --- or --- using threats or use of force as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

The Arab Palestinian should be seeking settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute. BUT --- what we actually see is the Arab Palestinian intentionally creating conditions with preventing meaningful meeting towards peace.

(COMMENT)

In 1967, the Israelis DID NOT occupy any Palestinian territory. It engaged two nations that either threatened to use force, or actually did use force, that provoked a military response.

• In 1979, Egypt, NOT the Arab Palestinians, established peace with Israelis.
• In 1994, Jordan, NOT the Arab Palestinians, established peace with the Israelis.​

You will note that the treaty with Egypt included the Gaza Strip; just as the treaty with Jordan included the West Bank. These two treaty dissolved the Armistice Lines.

Most Respectfully.
R

You will note that the treaty with Egypt included the Gaza Strip; just as the treaty with Jordan included the West Bank. These two treaty dissolved the Armistice Lines.

Then why do you see them on every map of Israel?

Fascinating question. Given that you agree there is no international border within Israel/Palestine -- what is your answer to the question?

Why has the international community adopted a false border?

Because everybody has heard Israeli bullshit a gazillion times since birth. So virtually nobody questions it.

I agree not enough people question it.

I'm not sure how you come to understand that it is "Israeli bullshit". Why would Israel create a false border?

That is the only way to put Israel on the map. All territory has to have a border. Israel has no territory so they have to make up borders.

All the same slogans you litter across multiple threads.

Your conspiracy theories are a hoot.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Then why do you see them on every map of Israel?

Fascinating question. Given that you agree there is no international border within Israel/Palestine -- what is your answer to the question?

Why has the international community adopted a false border?

Because everybody has heard Israeli bullshit a gazillion times since birth. So virtually nobody questions it.

I agree not enough people question it.

I'm not sure how you come to understand that it is "Israeli bullshit". Why would Israel create a false border?

That is the only way to put Israel on the map. All territory has to have a border. Israel has no territory so they have to make up borders.

All the same slogans you litter across multiple threads.

Your conspiracy theories are a hoot.

You asked the question. What would your answer be?

 

[Hollie]

Fascinating question. Given that you agree there is no international border within Israel/Palestine -- what is your answer to the question?

Why has the international community adopted a false border?

Because everybody has heard Israeli bullshit a gazillion times since birth. So virtually nobody questions it.

I agree not enough people question it.

I'm not sure how you come to understand that it is "Israeli bullshit". Why would Israel create a false border?

That is the only way to put Israel on the map. All territory has to have a border. Israel has no territory so they have to make up borders.

All the same slogans you litter across multiple threads.

Your conspiracy theories are a hoot.

You asked the question. What would your answer be?

What question?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should've taken the deals they were offered
Ed MorrisseyPosted at 12:01 pm on April 30, 2018
Or maybe they should stop sucking up to Iran. That’s the real subtext of the surprising rhetoric coming from Mohammed bin Salman, the young crown prince of Saudi Arabia who’s rewriting the Middle East script after seizing power in a family feud last year. Barak Ravid reports for Axios that MBS, as he’s colloquially known, told representatives of Jewish groups last month that while Saudi Arabia still wants a just and lasting settlement for the Palestinians, they could have gotten that themselves.

Now, MBS says, it’s time to make a deal or “shut up and stop complaining”:


According to my sources, the Saudi Crown Prince told the Jewish leaders:

“In the last several decades the Palestinian leadership has missed one opportunity after the other and rejected all the peace proposals it was given. It is about time the Palestinians take the proposals and agree to come to the negotiations table or shut up and stop complaining.”

MBS also made two other points on the Palestinian issue during the meeting:

1. He made clear the Palestinian issue was not a top priority for the Saudi government or Saudi public opinion. MBS said Saudi Arabia “has much more urgent and important issues to deal with” like confronting Iran’s influence in the region.
2. Regardless of all his criticism of the Palestinian leadership, MBS also made clear that in order for Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to normalize relations with Israel there will have to be significant progress on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Under MBS’ leadership since taking effective power in June 2017, Saudi Arabia has aligned itself far more with the West. Decrees from the royal palace are now allowing women to drive and to dress in something other than black abayas and niqabs while in public. MBS has opened cinemas in Saudi Arabia for the first time in decades. He’s either cleaning up corruption or purging dissidents and hardliners, but either way MBS is making sure that he directs public policy for Saudi Arabia for the next several decades, and directs it to come closer to the West.

The main intention of all this appears to be an effort to isolate Iran, which has become an existential threat to Sunni power in the region. Our invasion and then abandonment of Iraq didn’t help in that effort, which is why even the previous crown prince took a distinctly cool approach to Barack Obama at the end of his presidency. MBS knows that he’ll have to modernize in order to make Western nations comfortable with any partnership for the region, and that the glut on oil markets means that the Saudis can’t simply use energy as leverage any more.

Unfortunately for the Palestinians, they’ve been playing footsie with Tehran more than Riyadh, and now they’re going to pay for it. Choosing sides has consequences, and with the stakes as high as they are now, the Saudis see the Palestinians as dispensable. They’d rather ally openly with Israel to keep Iran at bay, and the best way to do that is for the Palestinians to take a deal and get on with their lives.

Unfortunately again for the Palestinians, they still can’t decide what they want, or even how to discuss it:

A powerful but rarely convened assembly that calls itself the Palestinian “supreme authority” meets for the first time in 22 years on Monday, but boycotts and rifts suggest it will struggle to achieve its stated goal of unity against Israel and the United States.

President Mahmoud Abbas is expected to use the four-day Palestinian National Council (PNC) meeting to renew his legitimacy and to install loyalists in powerful positions to begin shaping his legacy.

Abbas has billed the meeting of the Palestinian National Council (PNC), the de facto parliament of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, as a chance to establish a united front against Israel and the United States, after President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

The hardline Islamists in Hamas and Islamic Jihad, both of which are aligned with Iran, have boycotted the event, ostensibly because its West Bank location puts them at risk of arrest by Israel. But Reuters notes that three factions of the PLO are also boycotting, in part because they believe Abbas hasn’t been open enough to working with IJ or Hamas. The event is seen as an anachronism by other Palestinians, a desperate attempt by Abbas to emphasize his legitimacy as the Palestinian Authority leader while being largely ignored by all sides.

The Saudis have had enough. Perhaps Abbas should take MBS’ advice and cut a deal while he still can.

What the Pals want is simple, they want freedom. They want an end to the illegal and immoral occupation of Palestinian land by the Israeli's. They want Israel to respect international law and human rights. Human rights, that's something MBS and his Saudi bitches, don't respect.

The Palestinians have bent over backwards trying to appease Israel and all they've gotten in return, is more suffering.

If MBS wants more contact with the west, maybe he should tell us why he sent 19 hijackers to the US in 2001?

you took all the paid Israel trolls here to school that have penetrated this site.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Because everybody has heard Israeli bullshit a gazillion times since birth. So virtually nobody questions it.

I agree not enough people question it.

I'm not sure how you come to understand that it is "Israeli bullshit". Why would Israel create a false border?

That is the only way to put Israel on the map. All territory has to have a border. Israel has no territory so they have to make up borders.

All the same slogans you litter across multiple threads.

Your conspiracy theories are a hoot.

You asked the question. What would your answer be?

What question?

Why would Israel create a false border?

That question.

 

[Shusha]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Some (and only some) of your commentary here is based on → or in accordance with → reason. Some of this commentary has been overtaken by events or based on the assumption that other authorities are correct --- when they are in fact, seriously flawed.

(REFERENCES and ANNEXES)

• The Arab-Israeli Conflict known as the "Six Day War" extended over the period 5 June until 10 June 10th 1967.
• Resolution S/RES/242 22 November 1967 Emphasized: 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.
• According to the George A. Brown, British Foreign Secretary and one of the authors, said he showed the Security Council, and Arab leaders the proposal said which was written such that → ‘Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,’ and not from ‘the’ territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.”

✪⇒ Annexes to Commentary:

Annex I: Maps Delineation Armistice Lines for the West Bank Palestine (North & South sheets), Jerusalem, Latrun
Annex II: General Armistice - Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Israel - Rhodes, 3 April 1949
Annex III: Map outlining the general areas known as the Occupied Territories Map 3243 Rev 4 UN 1967 → Territories Occupied by Israel since 1967.​

(COMMENT)

According to the George A. Brown, British Foreign Secretary, (at the time of the composition) and one of the authors, said he showed the Security Council, and Arab leaders the proposal said which was written such that → "Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,’ and not from ‘the’ territories, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.” Similarly, Lord Caradon (Hugh Mackintosh Foot), Permanent Representative of the UK to UN, said: "They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ..."

The intent of Resolution 242 "called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.” (Eugene Rostow Undersecretary of State for Political Affair)

The Arab Palestinians are NOT mentioned anywhere in Resolution 242. Resolution 242 DOES NOT require that Israel give the Arab Palestinians any political rights or territory.

(COMMENT)

The imposition of restrictions placed upon the entity --- or --- unilateral actions taken by Israel against the Palestinian entity for political or security reasons, is no more a case of "collective punishment" than any multilateral sanction the international community or regional alliances places upon belligerent nations anywhere else.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is all Article 2 related concepts, that apply equally to the protection and security of the state of Israel from Arab Palestinian elements attempting to topple the Israeli Government. And it is one-sided. It does not mention that Article 51 allows for the Israeli Defense against Arab Palestinian attacks. Nor does this one-sided commentary allow for the view that Israel has territorial integrity or political independence. Nor does the commentary points out that Arab Palestinian has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of Israel --- or --- using threats or use of force as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

The Arab Palestinian should be seeking settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute. BUT --- what we actually see is the Arab Palestinian intentionally creating conditions with preventing meaningful meeting towards peace.

(COMMENT)

In 1967, the Israelis DID NOT occupy any Palestinian territory. It engaged two nations that either threatened to use force, or actually did use force, that provoked a military response.

• In 1979, Egypt, NOT the Arab Palestinians, established peace with Israelis.
• In 1994, Jordan, NOT the Arab Palestinians, established peace with the Israelis.​

You will note that the treaty with Egypt included the Gaza Strip; just as the treaty with Jordan included the West Bank. These two treaty dissolved the Armistice Lines.

Most Respectfully.
R

You will note that the treaty with Egypt included the Gaza Strip; just as the treaty with Jordan included the West Bank. These two treaty dissolved the Armistice Lines.

Then why do you see them on every map of Israel?

Fascinating question. Given that you agree there is no international border within Israel/Palestine -- what is your answer to the question?

Why has the international community adopted a false border?

Because everybody has heard Israeli bullshit a gazillion times since birth. So virtually nobody questions it.

I agree not enough people question it.

I'm not sure how you come to understand that it is "Israeli bullshit". Why would Israel create a false border?

That is the only way to put Israel on the map. All territory has to have a border. Israel has no territory so they have to make up borders.

Hmmmm. Israel has a border with Jordan. One with Egypt. One with Syria. And one with Lebanon.

Why would she create a fake border within Israel? And how does it serve her? Given Billo_Really 's all too common, if mistaken, belief that this fake border creates "Palestinian land"?

It makes no sense.

 

[Hollie]

I agree not enough people question it.

I'm not sure how you come to understand that it is "Israeli bullshit". Why would Israel create a false border?

That is the only way to put Israel on the map. All territory has to have a border. Israel has no territory so they have to make up borders.

All the same slogans you litter across multiple threads.

Your conspiracy theories are a hoot.

You asked the question. What would your answer be?

What question?

Why would Israel create a false border?

That question.

I didn’t ask that question.

It appeared to be a rhetorical question aimed at allowing you an opportunity to launch yourself into another of your Jew hating rants allowing yourself a host of excuse for Arab-Moslem ineptitude and incompetence.

............ <——— this is where you will be expected to launch into a tirade of your usual cut and paste slogans, cliches and PressTV YouTube videos.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

The term of the Armistice Lines was defined by the Armistice Agreement.

You will note that the treaty with Egypt included the Gaza Strip; just as the treaty with Jordan included the West Bank. These two treaty dissolved the Armistice Lines.

Then why do you see them on every map of Israel?

(COMMENT)

√ Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (1949) S/1302/Rev.1 3 April 1949

Article XII
​

1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.

2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article.

3. The Parties to this Agreement may, by mutual consent, revise this Agreement or any of its provisions, or may suspend its application, other than articles I and III, at any time. In the absence of mutual agreement and after this Agreement has been in effect for one year from the date of its signing, either of the Parties may call upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations to convoke a conference of representatives of the two Parties for the purpose of reviewing, revising, or suspending any of the provisions of this Agreement other than articles I and III. Participation in such conference shall be obligatory upon the Parties.
​

√ Armistice Egyptian-Israel S/1264/Corr.1 of 23 February 1949

Article XII
​

1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.

2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an Armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this Article.

3. The Parties to this Agreement may, by mutual consent, revise this Agreement or any of its provisions, or may suspend its application, other than Articles I and II, at any time. In the absence of mutual agreement and after this Agreement has been effect for one year from the date of its signing, either of the Parties may call upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations to convoke a conference of representatives of the two Parties for the purpose of reviewing, revising or suspending any of the provisions of this Agreement other than Articles I and II. Participation in such conference shall be obligatory upon the Parties.
​

As you can see, the individual Armistice Agreements only remains valid until a Peace Treaty is concluded between the parties to each of the individual; agreements.

The Armistice Lines of 1949, between Israel and the two Arab Parties of Egypt and Jordan, have been resolved for decades and are only used for reference. The new Permanent Boundaries between these parties are defined in the treaties.

√ The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) Official Jordanian Website

Article 3 - International Boundary
Annex I (a)
Jordan-Israel International Boundary
Delimitation And Demarcation
SECTIONS
I Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers
II Dead Sea and Salt Pans
III Wadi Araba/Emek Ha’arava
IV The Gulf of Aqaba

​

1. The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized the international boundary between Jordan and Israel, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

3. The Parties recognize the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters, and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.

4. The demarcation of the boundary will take place as set forth in Appendix (I) to Annex I and will be concluded not later than 9 months after the signing of the Treaty.​

√ Egypt-Israel peace treaty (26 March 1979) UN Registry

Article II
​

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

Most Res[ectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

The term of the Armistice Lines was defined by the Armistice Agreement.

You will note that the treaty with Egypt included the Gaza Strip; just as the treaty with Jordan included the West Bank. These two treaty dissolved the Armistice Lines.

Then why do you see them on every map of Israel?

(COMMENT)

√ Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (1949) S/1302/Rev.1 3 April 1949

Article XII
​

1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.

2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article.

3. The Parties to this Agreement may, by mutual consent, revise this Agreement or any of its provisions, or may suspend its application, other than articles I and III, at any time. In the absence of mutual agreement and after this Agreement has been in effect for one year from the date of its signing, either of the Parties may call upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations to convoke a conference of representatives of the two Parties for the purpose of reviewing, revising, or suspending any of the provisions of this Agreement other than articles I and III. Participation in such conference shall be obligatory upon the Parties.
​

√ Armistice Egyptian-Israel S/1264/Corr.1 of 23 February 1949

Article XII
​

1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.

2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an Armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this Article.

3. The Parties to this Agreement may, by mutual consent, revise this Agreement or any of its provisions, or may suspend its application, other than Articles I and II, at any time. In the absence of mutual agreement and after this Agreement has been effect for one year from the date of its signing, either of the Parties may call upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations to convoke a conference of representatives of the two Parties for the purpose of reviewing, revising or suspending any of the provisions of this Agreement other than Articles I and II. Participation in such conference shall be obligatory upon the Parties.
​

As you can see, the individual Armistice Agreements only remains valid until a Peace Treaty is concluded between the parties to each of the individual; agreements.

The Armistice Lines of 1949, between Israel and the two Arab Parties of Egypt and Jordan, have been resolved for decades and are only used for reference. The new Permanent Boundaries between these parties are defined in the treaties.

√ The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) Official Jordanian Website

Article 3 - International Boundary
Annex I (a)
Jordan-Israel International Boundary
Delimitation And Demarcation
SECTIONS
I Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers
II Dead Sea and Salt Pans
III Wadi Araba/Emek Ha’arava
IV The Gulf of Aqaba

​

1. The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized the international boundary between Jordan and Israel, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

3. The Parties recognize the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters, and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.

4. The demarcation of the boundary will take place as set forth in Appendix (I) to Annex I and will be concluded not later than 9 months after the signing of the Treaty.​

√ Egypt-Israel peace treaty (26 March 1979) UN Registry

Article II
​

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

Most Res[ectfully,
R

√ Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (1949) S/1302/Rev.1 3 April 1949

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions,...​

√ Armistice Egyptian-Israel S/1264/Corr.1 of 23 February 1949

4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of entering Palestine.
​

The UN called the southern part of the territory Palestine in two different agreements and Israel signed both.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

The term of the Armistice Lines was defined by the Armistice Agreement.

You will note that the treaty with Egypt included the Gaza Strip; just as the treaty with Jordan included the West Bank. These two treaty dissolved the Armistice Lines.

Then why do you see them on every map of Israel?

(COMMENT)

√ Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (1949) S/1302/Rev.1 3 April 1949

Article XII
​

1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.

2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article.

3. The Parties to this Agreement may, by mutual consent, revise this Agreement or any of its provisions, or may suspend its application, other than articles I and III, at any time. In the absence of mutual agreement and after this Agreement has been in effect for one year from the date of its signing, either of the Parties may call upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations to convoke a conference of representatives of the two Parties for the purpose of reviewing, revising, or suspending any of the provisions of this Agreement other than articles I and III. Participation in such conference shall be obligatory upon the Parties.
​

√ Armistice Egyptian-Israel S/1264/Corr.1 of 23 February 1949

Article XII
​

1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.

2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an Armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this Article.

3. The Parties to this Agreement may, by mutual consent, revise this Agreement or any of its provisions, or may suspend its application, other than Articles I and II, at any time. In the absence of mutual agreement and after this Agreement has been effect for one year from the date of its signing, either of the Parties may call upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations to convoke a conference of representatives of the two Parties for the purpose of reviewing, revising or suspending any of the provisions of this Agreement other than Articles I and II. Participation in such conference shall be obligatory upon the Parties.
​

As you can see, the individual Armistice Agreements only remains valid until a Peace Treaty is concluded between the parties to each of the individual; agreements.

The Armistice Lines of 1949, between Israel and the two Arab Parties of Egypt and Jordan, have been resolved for decades and are only used for reference. The new Permanent Boundaries between these parties are defined in the treaties.

√ The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) Official Jordanian Website

Article 3 - International Boundary
Annex I (a)
Jordan-Israel International Boundary
Delimitation And Demarcation
SECTIONS
I Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers
II Dead Sea and Salt Pans
III Wadi Araba/Emek Ha’arava
IV The Gulf of Aqaba

​

1. The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized the international boundary between Jordan and Israel, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

3. The Parties recognize the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters, and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.

4. The demarcation of the boundary will take place as set forth in Appendix (I) to Annex I and will be concluded not later than 9 months after the signing of the Treaty.​

√ Egypt-Israel peace treaty (26 March 1979) UN Registry

Article II
​

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

Most Res[ectfully,
R

√ Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (1949) S/1302/Rev.1 3 April 1949

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions,...​

√ Armistice Egyptian-Israel S/1264/Corr.1 of 23 February 1949

4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of entering Palestine.
​

The UN called the southern part of the territory Palestine in two different agreements and Israel signed both.

Yes. Palestine is a territory.

Bolded text won’t magically transform a territory into your invented
Magical Kingdom of Disney Pally’land

 

[P F Tinmore]

Then why do you see them on every map of Israel?

Fascinating question. Given that you agree there is no international border within Israel/Palestine -- what is your answer to the question?

Why has the international community adopted a false border?

Because everybody has heard Israeli bullshit a gazillion times since birth. So virtually nobody questions it.

I agree not enough people question it.

I'm not sure how you come to understand that it is "Israeli bullshit". Why would Israel create a false border?

That is the only way to put Israel on the map. All territory has to have a border. Israel has no territory so they have to make up borders.

Hmmmm. Israel has a border with Jordan. One with Egypt. One with Syria. And one with Lebanon.

Why would she create a fake border within Israel? And how does it serve her? Given Billo_Really 's all too common, if mistaken, belief that this fake border creates "Palestinian land"?

It makes no sense.

Not true. Israel has armistice lines (fake borders) while Palestine has international borders.

Article V​

​

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

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

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

The term of the Armistice Lines was defined by the Armistice Agreement.

You will note that the treaty with Egypt included the Gaza Strip; just as the treaty with Jordan included the West Bank. These two treaty dissolved the Armistice Lines.

Then why do you see them on every map of Israel?

(COMMENT)

√ Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (1949) S/1302/Rev.1 3 April 1949

Article XII
​

1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.

2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article.

3. The Parties to this Agreement may, by mutual consent, revise this Agreement or any of its provisions, or may suspend its application, other than articles I and III, at any time. In the absence of mutual agreement and after this Agreement has been in effect for one year from the date of its signing, either of the Parties may call upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations to convoke a conference of representatives of the two Parties for the purpose of reviewing, revising, or suspending any of the provisions of this Agreement other than articles I and III. Participation in such conference shall be obligatory upon the Parties.
​

√ Armistice Egyptian-Israel S/1264/Corr.1 of 23 February 1949

Article XII
​

1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.

2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an Armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this Article.

3. The Parties to this Agreement may, by mutual consent, revise this Agreement or any of its provisions, or may suspend its application, other than Articles I and II, at any time. In the absence of mutual agreement and after this Agreement has been effect for one year from the date of its signing, either of the Parties may call upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations to convoke a conference of representatives of the two Parties for the purpose of reviewing, revising or suspending any of the provisions of this Agreement other than Articles I and II. Participation in such conference shall be obligatory upon the Parties.
​

As you can see, the individual Armistice Agreements only remains valid until a Peace Treaty is concluded between the parties to each of the individual; agreements.

The Armistice Lines of 1949, between Israel and the two Arab Parties of Egypt and Jordan, have been resolved for decades and are only used for reference. The new Permanent Boundaries between these parties are defined in the treaties.

√ The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) Official Jordanian Website

Article 3 - International Boundary
Annex I (a)
Jordan-Israel International Boundary
Delimitation And Demarcation
SECTIONS
I Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers
II Dead Sea and Salt Pans
III Wadi Araba/Emek Ha’arava
IV The Gulf of Aqaba

​

1. The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized the international boundary between Jordan and Israel, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

3. The Parties recognize the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters, and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.

4. The demarcation of the boundary will take place as set forth in Appendix (I) to Annex I and will be concluded not later than 9 months after the signing of the Treaty.​

√ Egypt-Israel peace treaty (26 March 1979) UN Registry

Article II
​

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

Most Res[ectfully,
R

√ Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (1949) S/1302/Rev.1 3 April 1949

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions,...​

√ Armistice Egyptian-Israel S/1264/Corr.1 of 23 February 1949

4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of entering Palestine.
​

The UN called the southern part of the territory Palestine in two different agreements and Israel signed both.

Yes. Palestine is a territory.

Bolded text won’t magically transform a territory into your invented
Magical Kingdom of Disney Pally’land

Indeed, but it is Palestinian territory.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

The term of the Armistice Lines was defined by the Armistice Agreement.

You will note that the treaty with Egypt included the Gaza Strip; just as the treaty with Jordan included the West Bank. These two treaty dissolved the Armistice Lines.

Then why do you see them on every map of Israel?

(COMMENT)

√ Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (1949) S/1302/Rev.1 3 April 1949

Article XII
​

1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.

2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article.

3. The Parties to this Agreement may, by mutual consent, revise this Agreement or any of its provisions, or may suspend its application, other than articles I and III, at any time. In the absence of mutual agreement and after this Agreement has been in effect for one year from the date of its signing, either of the Parties may call upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations to convoke a conference of representatives of the two Parties for the purpose of reviewing, revising, or suspending any of the provisions of this Agreement other than articles I and III. Participation in such conference shall be obligatory upon the Parties.
​

√ Armistice Egyptian-Israel S/1264/Corr.1 of 23 February 1949

Article XII
​

1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.

2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an Armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this Article.

3. The Parties to this Agreement may, by mutual consent, revise this Agreement or any of its provisions, or may suspend its application, other than Articles I and II, at any time. In the absence of mutual agreement and after this Agreement has been effect for one year from the date of its signing, either of the Parties may call upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations to convoke a conference of representatives of the two Parties for the purpose of reviewing, revising or suspending any of the provisions of this Agreement other than Articles I and II. Participation in such conference shall be obligatory upon the Parties.
​

As you can see, the individual Armistice Agreements only remains valid until a Peace Treaty is concluded between the parties to each of the individual; agreements.

The Armistice Lines of 1949, between Israel and the two Arab Parties of Egypt and Jordan, have been resolved for decades and are only used for reference. The new Permanent Boundaries between these parties are defined in the treaties.

√ The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) Official Jordanian Website

Article 3 - International Boundary
Annex I (a)
Jordan-Israel International Boundary
Delimitation And Demarcation
SECTIONS
I Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers
II Dead Sea and Salt Pans
III Wadi Araba/Emek Ha’arava
IV The Gulf of Aqaba

​

1. The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized the international boundary between Jordan and Israel, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

3. The Parties recognize the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters, and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.

4. The demarcation of the boundary will take place as set forth in Appendix (I) to Annex I and will be concluded not later than 9 months after the signing of the Treaty.​

√ Egypt-Israel peace treaty (26 March 1979) UN Registry

Article II
​

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

Most Res[ectfully,
R

√ Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (1949) S/1302/Rev.1 3 April 1949

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions,...​

√ Armistice Egyptian-Israel S/1264/Corr.1 of 23 February 1949

4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of entering Palestine.
​

The UN called the southern part of the territory Palestine in two different agreements and Israel signed both.

Yes. Palestine is a territory.

Bolded text won’t magically transform a territory into your invented
Magical Kingdom of Disney Pally’land

Indeed, but it is Palestinian territory.

Indeed, you do appear rather desperate with such nonsensical rants.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

The term of the Armistice Lines was defined by the Armistice Agreement.

Then why do you see them on every map of Israel?

(COMMENT)

√ Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (1949) S/1302/Rev.1 3 April 1949

Article XII
​

1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.

2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article.

3. The Parties to this Agreement may, by mutual consent, revise this Agreement or any of its provisions, or may suspend its application, other than articles I and III, at any time. In the absence of mutual agreement and after this Agreement has been in effect for one year from the date of its signing, either of the Parties may call upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations to convoke a conference of representatives of the two Parties for the purpose of reviewing, revising, or suspending any of the provisions of this Agreement other than articles I and III. Participation in such conference shall be obligatory upon the Parties.
​

√ Armistice Egyptian-Israel S/1264/Corr.1 of 23 February 1949

Article XII
​

1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.

2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an Armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this Article.

3. The Parties to this Agreement may, by mutual consent, revise this Agreement or any of its provisions, or may suspend its application, other than Articles I and II, at any time. In the absence of mutual agreement and after this Agreement has been effect for one year from the date of its signing, either of the Parties may call upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations to convoke a conference of representatives of the two Parties for the purpose of reviewing, revising or suspending any of the provisions of this Agreement other than Articles I and II. Participation in such conference shall be obligatory upon the Parties.
​

As you can see, the individual Armistice Agreements only remains valid until a Peace Treaty is concluded between the parties to each of the individual; agreements.

The Armistice Lines of 1949, between Israel and the two Arab Parties of Egypt and Jordan, have been resolved for decades and are only used for reference. The new Permanent Boundaries between these parties are defined in the treaties.

√ The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) Official Jordanian Website

Article 3 - International Boundary
Annex I (a)
Jordan-Israel International Boundary
Delimitation And Demarcation
SECTIONS
I Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers
II Dead Sea and Salt Pans
III Wadi Araba/Emek Ha’arava
IV The Gulf of Aqaba

​

1. The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized the international boundary between Jordan and Israel, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

3. The Parties recognize the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters, and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.

4. The demarcation of the boundary will take place as set forth in Appendix (I) to Annex I and will be concluded not later than 9 months after the signing of the Treaty.​

√ Egypt-Israel peace treaty (26 March 1979) UN Registry

Article II
​

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

Most Res[ectfully,
R

√ Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (1949) S/1302/Rev.1 3 April 1949

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions,...​

√ Armistice Egyptian-Israel S/1264/Corr.1 of 23 February 1949

4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of entering Palestine.
​

The UN called the southern part of the territory Palestine in two different agreements and Israel signed both.

Yes. Palestine is a territory.

Bolded text won’t magically transform a territory into your invented
Magical Kingdom of Disney Pally’land

Indeed, but it is Palestinian territory.

Indeed, you do appear rather desperate with such nonsensical rants.

Yeah, like posting actual documents.

What do you have?

 

[Hollie]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

The term of the Armistice Lines was defined by the Armistice Agreement.

(COMMENT)

√ Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (1949) S/1302/Rev.1 3 April 1949

Article XII
​

1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.

2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article.

3. The Parties to this Agreement may, by mutual consent, revise this Agreement or any of its provisions, or may suspend its application, other than articles I and III, at any time. In the absence of mutual agreement and after this Agreement has been in effect for one year from the date of its signing, either of the Parties may call upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations to convoke a conference of representatives of the two Parties for the purpose of reviewing, revising, or suspending any of the provisions of this Agreement other than articles I and III. Participation in such conference shall be obligatory upon the Parties.
​

√ Armistice Egyptian-Israel S/1264/Corr.1 of 23 February 1949

Article XII
​

1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.

2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an Armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this Article.

3. The Parties to this Agreement may, by mutual consent, revise this Agreement or any of its provisions, or may suspend its application, other than Articles I and II, at any time. In the absence of mutual agreement and after this Agreement has been effect for one year from the date of its signing, either of the Parties may call upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations to convoke a conference of representatives of the two Parties for the purpose of reviewing, revising or suspending any of the provisions of this Agreement other than Articles I and II. Participation in such conference shall be obligatory upon the Parties.
​

As you can see, the individual Armistice Agreements only remains valid until a Peace Treaty is concluded between the parties to each of the individual; agreements.

The Armistice Lines of 1949, between Israel and the two Arab Parties of Egypt and Jordan, have been resolved for decades and are only used for reference. The new Permanent Boundaries between these parties are defined in the treaties.

√ The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) Official Jordanian Website

Article 3 - International Boundary
Annex I (a)
Jordan-Israel International Boundary
Delimitation And Demarcation
SECTIONS
I Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers
II Dead Sea and Salt Pans
III Wadi Araba/Emek Ha’arava
IV The Gulf of Aqaba

​

1. The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized the international boundary between Jordan and Israel, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

3. The Parties recognize the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters, and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.

4. The demarcation of the boundary will take place as set forth in Appendix (I) to Annex I and will be concluded not later than 9 months after the signing of the Treaty.​

√ Egypt-Israel peace treaty (26 March 1979) UN Registry

Article II
​

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

Most Res[ectfully,
R

√ Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (1949) S/1302/Rev.1 3 April 1949

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions,...​

√ Armistice Egyptian-Israel S/1264/Corr.1 of 23 February 1949

4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of entering Palestine.
​

The UN called the southern part of the territory Palestine in two different agreements and Israel signed both.

Yes. Palestine is a territory.

Bolded text won’t magically transform a territory into your invented
Magical Kingdom of Disney Pally’land

Indeed, but it is Palestinian territory.

Indeed, you do appear rather desperate with such nonsensical rants.

Yeah, like posting actual documents.

What do you have?

Press TV YouTube videos are hardly actual documents.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The term of the Armistice Lines was defined by the Armistice Agreement.

Indeed.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...

S/1264/Corr.1 of 23 February 1949​