Stats About Israeli And Palestinian In ME

[Shusha]

I never have. I don't see anything where Israel has ever legally acquired any land.

Only because you refuse to recognize that one of the peoples who have inherent, inalienable rights to self-determination are the Jewish people. The same mechanism which you keep insisting creates rights for the "Palestinians" ALSO creates rights for the Jewish people. IF the Arab Muslim & Christian "Palestinians" have rights then the Jewish "Palestinians" ALSO have those same rights. The only difference between the Arab/Christian "Palestinian" rights and the Jewish "Palestinian" rights is that the Jewish people have actually (despite the continued hostility against them!) done something with those rights to create a self-determinate, self-governing State.

 

[Phoenall]

Freeman, et al,

Again, you are wrong.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY

ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ] of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.​

The UN Security Council has reminded, on several occasions, the Jewish State of Israel are to accept and scrupulously abide by the de jure application of the Geneva Conventions as a "rightful entitlement."

Even if you claim that the HoAP are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regimes ---by international law they are international conflicts. (Article 1(4) Protocol I, GCIV)

Those laws is for normal states not for occupied territories, there is no international law against fighting settlements in occupied territories.​

(REFERENCEs)

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, COLLECTIVE PENALTIES, PILLAGE, REPRISALS
ARTICLE 33 [ Link ]

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.​

Palestinian Stated Positions

• Jihad is its path and death...
• There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
• It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters.​

(COMMENT)​

No matter how you twist the words, no matter what claims are made --- there simply is no justification for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to conduct the premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocent people of Israel intended to influence their political position.

The advocacy of the use of force to achieve political goals which cannot be achieved through diplomatic means is violence perpetrated against innocent people to achieve that end.

It is quite cynical, and a propaganda ploy, to claim the Palestinian legal right to resist occupation. because THEY BELIEVE they are involved in a struggle for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation.

And even if they did have this "imaginary right" to "resist occupation" it would not include the use of force to intended to harm the Occupying Power or facilities (Article 68 GCIV). It would not include either attacks against unarmed civilians or the indiscriminate rocket and mortar fire on civilian in urban areas.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

Article 68 applies to civilian law enforcement not military action.

And the military are performing the actions of the police in this case, just as they have in many other occupied nations. It is of no matter that the IDF are the ones implementing the law enforcement, Israel could just as easily use ordinary police trained by the military to do the same job.


You spout this nonsense without once producing any tangible evidence to support your claims

 

[Phoenall]

Freeman, et al,

These stats mean something, but NOT what you are implying.

Those are latest stats about "israeli" and palestinian conflict that summarize the horrible war of the zionazis in the occupied territories.

(COMMENT)

Whether you are the Police (of any country) in an armed confrontation with criminals and vigilantes, --- OR --- if you are a conventional military engaged in a lethal struggle with jihadist, terrorists, insurgent, rebel, self-proclaimed deadly resistance perpetrators or revolutionary, --- OR --- a paramilitary defense force opposite a hostile entity that intentionally selected unarmed and innocent civilian targets (Customary IHL Rule 21), there is no respectable leader of Protective Organization (such as described here) responsible for the safety and security of the population or sovereign territory that will endure casualties at an unacceptable level. A commander simply does not intentionally respond to a provocation that will result in unacceptable losses.

In this case, we are talking about the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) opposing the various Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) involved in jihadist, terrorists, insurgent, rebel, self-proclaimed deadly resistance perpetrators or irregular revolutionary and radicalized Islamic fighters. The intent is to gradually intensify the military response to HoAP provocations with ever increasing extreme destructive power, which would deter future hostile activity.

As the defenders deferent force is slowly ratcheted up to meet the HoAP action solely intended to harm the Israeli Civilians or the Occupying Power, or engage the capability of the HoAP intent on inflicting seriously casualties or property damage of the occupying forces or administration or the installations, the HIGHER the HoAP is expected to climb and the lower the defenders casualty rate (GCIV Article 68 Illegal Activity).

When the HoAP begin to reach a point where the HoAP Commander becomes overwhelmed by unacceptable losses, the intensity of the conflict will begin to recede. The HoAP will gradually reduce the number of confrontations it provokes, and the casualties and damage on both sides will begin to diminish. But in the case of the HoAP, given the such low value it puts on both combatants and its civilian population, which it seldom defends, unacceptable loss figure will be high on the part of the HoAP and the attrition warfare effect will continue.

The idea that a the ratio between HoAP losses and Israeli losses implies something evil, unfair or improper it ridiculous. Political Leaders and Military Commanders strive to achieve the highest ratio as possible. In terms of kill ratios, "parity is unacceptable." At the height of the F6F Hellcat combat serviceability and life, it achieved a 19 : 1 kill ratio. The AH-64 Apache (either IDF or American) has a phenomenal kill ratio. What makes the Armed Force dangerous is its ability to sweep in, make clean kills and engage a new target.

View attachment 87929
This is an Apache Longbow
AH-64D
צילום מסוק הינשוף ממסוק שרף
​

This comparison of Palestinian Losses to Israeli Losses is 100% ridiculous. All it demonstrates is that the HoAP are not very skilled in their ability to prosecute their war; and don't follow Customary ILH very well.

Most Respectfully,
R








.

Indeed, Israel needs to defend it colonial project.

What colonial project, how about a link to support your LIES

 

[Phoenall]

Freeman, et al,

My response (Posting #17) was specifically constructed to answer the issues you raised (which I copied in the response).

It's really laughable when we note zionazis like you give lessons about Geneva conventions!
Israeli Violations of International Law

(SIDEBAR)

These crafted listings are representative of the work done by Arab League/Arab-Palestinians that start with the claim that "Israel annexes land occupied by force during 1948 war (lands external to those given by the UN partition plan)."

Of course:

• The UN did not "give" and lands to Israel."
​

Almost each allegation has a flaw that sounds true, but on closer examination, is not true.

I could go through this list, item by item, and point out the fallacies; but, that would lead to a very long Posting.

BTW: Protocol I to the GCIV, did not go into effect until 1977. Even if it had an applicability to the discussion, it is not applicable law because in 1967, no Palestinian Territory was Occupied by Israel. The West Bank (including Jerusalem) was sovereign Jordanian territory. Similarly, in 1967, the Gaza Strip was an Egyptian Military Governorship.

• A 1977 Law cannot be retroactively applied to a set of conditions and actions performed a decade earlier.
• The State of Israel never occupied any territory sovereign to the Arab Palestinians.

∆ In August 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank (including Jerusalem) to the Israeli Occupation Force.
∆ In 1967, the Egyptian Military Governorship withdrew from the Gaza Strip. The Israeli Occupation Force did not extend its Occupation Authority over territory sovereign to the Arab Palestinians.
∆ In 1979 and 1995 treaties were concluded between both Egypt and Jordan, which included the establishment of International Boundaries.
∆ I(n 1995, Oslo II Accords were concluded. Areas A, B, and C, were established; with Settlements subject to the Permanent Status of Negotiations.
​

There was no territory taken by force from the Arab Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

At no time did the State of Israel independently initiate hostilities with the Arab Palestinians. On the contrary, both the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Islamic Resistance Movement armed struggle and jihad against Israel.

I'm not exactly sure if you are attempting to insult me or not ("we note zionazis like you") or open some sort of an attack on my character, or motive, --- rather than attacking the argument directly. In fact, I'm not exactly sure what the criteria is to be a "zionazi."

Zionazi - Wiktionary
Zionazi - Wiktionary
Jul 26, 2016 · Zionazi ‎(plural Zionazis) (offensive, pejorative) A Zionist with nazi-like tendencies. 1988, slogan spray-painted on the wall of the Jewish Student ...
​

I'm not sure if this term (words of description) changes it meaning over time.

Most Respectfully,
R​

• The UN did not "give" and lands to Israel."​

That is true. Nor did the LoN or the Mandate as none had that authority.

WRONG as you have been shown The LoN was the legal sovereign land owner after 1917 when the Ottoman empire handed over control and ownership of their former lands in an international treaty. The mandate was a legal instrument set up by the LoN to administer the lands until the natives could show the ability to stand alone. The mandatory was the national power that was put in charge of the land until such a time as the natives could function as a government.

This has been explained to you and the evidence provided, just because you go all petulant does not mean you have not been given the evidence.

IF AS YOU SAY THE LoN DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY THEN NO ISLAMONAZI NATION EXISTS IN THE M.E. OR ARABIAN PENINSULAR TODAY AS THEY WERE FORMED ON LANDS "GIVEN" BY THE LoN TO CREATE THEIR NATIONS FROM.

 

[Phoenall]

Freeman, et al,

My response (Posting #17) was specifically constructed to answer the issues you raised (which I copied in the response).

It's really laughable when we note zionazis like you give lessons about Geneva conventions!
Israeli Violations of International Law

(SIDEBAR)

These crafted listings are representative of the work done by Arab League/Arab-Palestinians that start with the claim that "Israel annexes land occupied by force during 1948 war (lands external to those given by the UN partition plan)."

Of course:

• The UN did not "give" and lands to Israel."
​

Almost each allegation has a flaw that sounds true, but on closer examination, is not true.

I could go through this list, item by item, and point out the fallacies; but, that would lead to a very long Posting.

BTW: Protocol I to the GCIV, did not go into effect until 1977. Even if it had an applicability to the discussion, it is not applicable law because in 1967, no Palestinian Territory was Occupied by Israel. The West Bank (including Jerusalem) was sovereign Jordanian territory. Similarly, in 1967, the Gaza Strip was an Egyptian Military Governorship.

• A 1977 Law cannot be retroactively applied to a set of conditions and actions performed a decade earlier.
• The State of Israel never occupied any territory sovereign to the Arab Palestinians.

∆ In August 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank (including Jerusalem) to the Israeli Occupation Force.
∆ In 1967, the Egyptian Military Governorship withdrew from the Gaza Strip. The Israeli Occupation Force did not extend its Occupation Authority over territory sovereign to the Arab Palestinians.
∆ In 1979 and 1995 treaties were concluded between both Egypt and Jordan, which included the establishment of International Boundaries.
∆ I(n 1995, Oslo II Accords were concluded. Areas A, B, and C, were established; with Settlements subject to the Permanent Status of Negotiations.
​

There was no territory taken by force from the Arab Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

At no time did the State of Israel independently initiate hostilities with the Arab Palestinians. On the contrary, both the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Islamic Resistance Movement armed struggle and jihad against Israel.

I'm not exactly sure if you are attempting to insult me or not ("we note zionazis like you") or open some sort of an attack on my character, or motive, --- rather than attacking the argument directly. In fact, I'm not exactly sure what the criteria is to be a "zionazi."

Zionazi - Wiktionary
Zionazi - Wiktionary
Jul 26, 2016 · Zionazi ‎(plural Zionazis) (offensive, pejorative) A Zionist with nazi-like tendencies. 1988, slogan spray-painted on the wall of the Jewish Student ...
​

I'm not sure if this term (words of description) changes it meaning over time.

Most Respectfully,
R​

These crafted listings are representative of the work done by Arab League/Arab-Palestinians that start with the claim that "Israel annexes land occupied by force during 1948 war​

Where is this incorrect?

BECAUSE THE ARAB MUSLIMS NEVER HELD TITLE TO THE LANDS COMING FROM OTHER ISLAMONAZI NATIONS. WHO GRANTED THEM THESE LANDS AFTER THE OTTOMANS GAVE THEM TO THE LoN IN 1917 ?

 

[Phoenall]

Rocket hits in Israel since the Hamas takeover of Gaza, 2006
(Figures as of March 15, 2016))

Do you have a point here?

Yes that profiling shows the vast majority of arab muslims killed in gaza are males between the ages of 18 and 48 and this is the same age range for members of the hamas terrorist groups.


See how links can support you claims and have idiots asking stupid questions

 

[Phoenall]

PF Tinmore, et al,

The dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Article 68 applies to civilian law enforcement not military action.​

(COMMENT)

Article 68 (and indeed the entire body of the Hague and Geneva Conventions) places no limitations, requirements, or restrictions on the enforcement method or mechanism. It is the companion to Law and Order in the name of the Occupation Power.

But again, your comment would not matter. Any action taken by the Protected Persons in doing harm to the Occupation Power, is still in violation of international law; no matter the mechanism of enforcement.

Most Respectfully,
R

You need to read that in context.

We have, it is just that we dont read it in the context you do that international law should never apply to the Jews

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore et al,

Yes, that is correct. We can agree on this; as far as it goes.

• The UN did not "give" and lands to Israel."

​

​

That is true. Nor did the LoN or the Mandate as none had that authority.

(COMMENT)

At the end of WWI, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic relinquish full title and all rights to the "Allied Powers."

Israel declared independence under the right of self-determination in the territory for which it extends and practices sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

Neither the LoN nor the Mandate annexed or otherwise declared sovereignty over that land. It was not theirs to give away. Even you yourself said that the land was not up for grabs.

This is exactly what Israel had to do to claim land that nobody had the authority to give away.

Once again you are confused with mandate and mandatory. The LoN did not need to annexe the land as it was freely given under international law and international treaty thus changing the title under law. YOU ARE ARGUING A POINT THAT YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT BECAUSE IT IS THE ONE USED BY SOME ILLITERATE MUSLIM.
Israel had to do no such thing as the same international law that created modern day Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Saudi, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan also created the National home of the Jews on 22% of palestine. Not the 17% that you want to take back from them and give to terrorists. The land had been annexed under law in 1923 and so Israel just had to claim it as theirs. The arab muslims violent responces are attempts at acquiring land by force and they should be repulsed by the west in the strongest possible manner

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I see no record of an annexation by Israel in the 1948-1949 War of Independence on which the Armistice Lines and Agreements are based.

These crafted listings are representative of the work done by Arab League/Arab-Palestinians that start with the claim that "Israel annexes land occupied by force during 1948 war

Where is this incorrect?

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians had no sovereignty in the territory, thus no territory which Israel could annex.

The Hostile Arab Palestinians made "NO" effort to open a dialog pertaining to any claim they might have had then.

Most Respectfully,
R

The armistice lanes were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.

The UN had to specify that because it had no authority to change Palestine's political or territorial boundaries.

The Palestinians had no sovereignty in the territory, thus no territory which Israel could annex.​

Not true. The people are the sovereigns. A government or a state are not requirements. The Palestinians were the legal citizens of Palestine.

Sop I am now officially claiming the west bank as my land because I have the same rights as 90% of the arab muslims doing the same thing. Because they arrived in 1948 illegally does not mean they can claim the land already granted to the Jews.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is interesting...

These crafted listings are representative of the work done by Arab League/Arab-Palestinians that start with the claim that "Israel annexes land occupied by force during 1948 war

Where is this incorrect?

(COMMENT)

Where and when do you see a record of Annexation by the Israelis in 1948 or 1949?

Most Respectfully,
R

I never have. I don't see anything where Israel has ever legally acquired any land.

Treaty of Sevres and treaty of Lausanne both say that the Jews acquire sovereingty of 22% of palestine. As does the Mandate of Palestine ( not to be confused with the mandatory)

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is interesting...

These crafted listings are representative of the work done by Arab League/Arab-Palestinians that start with the claim that "Israel annexes land occupied by force during 1948 war

Where is this incorrect?

(COMMENT)

Where and when do you see a record of Annexation by the Israelis in 1948 or 1949?

Most Respectfully,
R

I never have. I don't see anything where Israel has ever legally acquired any land.

That's only because you frequent nothing but antisemitic hate sites.

You can't see anything when you aren't looking.

OK then, links?

Given thousands of times, so how about a swap you show us yours and we will show you ours

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I've seen you express this parochial view of sovereignty before; but, never really considered it a main issue. A sovereign state, as I was discussing, is associated with the Article 16 (Treaty of Lausanne) relinquishment of "renounces all rights and title" but maintained under "her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty." Such "State Sovereignty is full control over its self-government, political affairs, existence, and territorial integrity. It is complete in itself - separate and distinct from "individual sovereignty," dealing with emancipation or personal ownership --- or in the collective sense as you often elude to, self-determination (individual rights and collective rights).

Today, norms of sovereignty are enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, whose article 2(4) prohibits attacks on “political independence and territorial integrity,” and whose Article 2(7) sharply restricts intervention.
​

I see no record of an annexation by Israel in the 1948-1949 War of Independence on which the Armistice Lines and Agreements are based. The armistice lanes were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.

The UN had to specify that because it had no authority to change Palestine's political or territorial boundaries.

The Palestinians had no sovereignty in the territory, thus no territory which Israel could annex.​

​

Not true. The people are the sovereigns. A government or a state are not requirements. The Palestinians were the legal citizens of Palestine.

(REFERENCES)

State sovereignty legal definition of State sovereignty
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+sovereignty
Definition of State sovereignty in the Legal Dictionary - by Free online English dictionary and encyclopedia. What is State sovereignty?

The Issue of Sovereignty | Globalization101
www.globalization101.org/the-issue-of-sovereignty
State sovereignty is the concept that states are in complete and exclusive control of all the people and property within their territory. State sovereignty also ...

The Centre for Personal Sovereignty
www.personalsovereignty.org/persov.html
What is Personal Sovereignty? Personal Sovereignty is a state of true personal freedom. The primary implication of the rise of Personal Sovereignty is the development ...

Personal Sovereignty
www.huna.org/html/perssov.html
PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY by Serge Kahili King copyright by Serge King 1996 Personal sovereigntyis an issue which affects each of us as individuals ...
​

(COMMENT)

Yes of course there are two kinds of sovereignty:

• State Sovereignty
• Individual Sovereignty

And of course, normally the type of sovereignty you generally speak of when you discusses the Arab Palestinian People (especially prior to 1988) is sovereignty of the individual nature. This is outlined in thumbnail form in A/RES/51/190 (1997) (Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources).

When we speak in terms of "State Sovereignty" --- we general are applying the theory of the Westphalia Model

Sovereignty is understood in jurisprudence as the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity. It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation.

For a more in-depth understanding of "State Sovereignty", I recommend you browse the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Sovereignty - The Rise of the Sovereign State: Theory and Practice (First published Sat May 31, 2003; substantive revision Fri Mar 25, 2016)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What you consider legal is outside reality.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is interesting...

These crafted listings are representative of the work done by Arab League/Arab-Palestinians that start with the claim that "Israel annexes land occupied by force during 1948 war

Where is this incorrect?

(COMMENT)

Where and when do you see a record of Annexation by the Israelis in 1948 or 1949?

Most Respectfully,
R

I never have. I don't see anything where Israel has ever legally acquired any land.

(COMMENT)

Israel, under the Declarative Theory on State Recognition, announced its intentions and it territorial boundaries. Upon external interference by the Arab League, it successfully defended that territory (Under Chapter VII) and further gain control of additional territory within the Perimeter of the Armistice Lines. While the Armistice Lines were not intended to be the actual boundaries --- the Israeli Treaties with Egypt and Jordan settled the International Boundary issues relevant to the territory covering the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

•• Article 3(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. Treaty with Jordan

•• Article II The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel in 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. Treaty with Egypt
​

Position of the Government of Lebanon

"In resolution 425 (1978), the Security Council called for the “strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries”. It also called upon Israel to “withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory”. The Security Council also decided “in light of the request of the Government of Lebanon to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for Southern Lebanon”, one of the tasks of which would be to confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces. As mentioned in the report of the Secretary-General of 22 May 2000 on the implementation of Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978), for the purpose of confirming the Israeli withdrawal, the United Nations needed to “identify a line to be adopted conforming to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon based on the best available cartographic and other documentary material”. The United Nations would then identify “physically on the ground those portions of the line necessary or relevant to confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces”. The report of the Secretary-General also stated that the international boundary between Israel and Lebanon was established pursuant to the 1923 Agreement between France and Great Britain entitled “Boundary Line between Syria and Palestine from the Mediterranean to El Hamme”. This line was reaffirmed in the “Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement signed on 23 March 1949”. Subsequently there were several modifications mutually agreed by Israel and Lebanon. (Security Council S-2000/590 16 June 2000)

The Arab Palestinian, unlike the four adjacent Arab League Nations, never attempted to establish an agreement on the boundaries. They remain an agenda item under the Permanent Status of Negotiations.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What you consider legal is outside reality.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is interesting...

These crafted listings are representative of the work done by Arab League/Arab-Palestinians that start with the claim that "Israel annexes land occupied by force during 1948 war

Where is this incorrect?

(COMMENT)

Where and when do you see a record of Annexation by the Israelis in 1948 or 1949?

Most Respectfully,
R

I never have. I don't see anything where Israel has ever legally acquired any land.

(COMMENT)

Israel, under the Declarative Theory on State Recognition, announced its intentions and it territorial boundaries. Upon external interference by the Arab League, it successfully defended that territory (Under Chapter VII) and further gain control of additional territory within the Perimeter of the Armistice Lines. While the Armistice Lines were not intended to be the actual boundaries --- the Israeli Treaties with Egypt and Jordan settled the International Boundary issues relevant to the territory covering the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

•• Article 3(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. Treaty with Jordan

•• Article II The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel in 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. Treaty with Egypt
​

Position of the Government of Lebanon

"In resolution 425 (1978), the Security Council called for the “strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries”. It also called upon Israel to “withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory”. The Security Council also decided “in light of the request of the Government of Lebanon to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for Southern Lebanon”, one of the tasks of which would be to confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces. As mentioned in the report of the Secretary-General of 22 May 2000 on the implementation of Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978), for the purpose of confirming the Israeli withdrawal, the United Nations needed to “identify a line to be adopted conforming to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon based on the best available cartographic and other documentary material”. The United Nations would then identify “physically on the ground those portions of the line necessary or relevant to confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces”. The report of the Secretary-General also stated that the international boundary between Israel and Lebanon was established pursuant to the 1923 Agreement between France and Great Britain entitled “Boundary Line between Syria and Palestine from the Mediterranean to El Hamme”. This line was reaffirmed in the “Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement signed on 23 March 1949”. Subsequently there were several modifications mutually agreed by Israel and Lebanon. (Security Council S-2000/590 16 June 2000)

The Arab Palestinian, unlike the four adjacent Arab League Nations, never attempted to establish an agreement on the boundaries. They remain an agenda item under the Permanent Status of Negotiations.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine already has international borders. They don't need to negotiate anything.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What you consider legal is outside reality.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is interesting...

These crafted listings are representative of the work done by Arab League/Arab-Palestinians that start with the claim that "Israel annexes land occupied by force during 1948 war

Where is this incorrect?

(COMMENT)

Where and when do you see a record of Annexation by the Israelis in 1948 or 1949?

Most Respectfully,
R

I never have. I don't see anything where Israel has ever legally acquired any land.

(COMMENT)

Israel, under the Declarative Theory on State Recognition, announced its intentions and it territorial boundaries. Upon external interference by the Arab League, it successfully defended that territory (Under Chapter VII) and further gain control of additional territory within the Perimeter of the Armistice Lines. While the Armistice Lines were not intended to be the actual boundaries --- the Israeli Treaties with Egypt and Jordan settled the International Boundary issues relevant to the territory covering the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

•• Article 3(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. Treaty with Jordan

•• Article II The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel in 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. Treaty with Egypt
​

Position of the Government of Lebanon

"In resolution 425 (1978), the Security Council called for the “strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries”. It also called upon Israel to “withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory”. The Security Council also decided “in light of the request of the Government of Lebanon to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for Southern Lebanon”, one of the tasks of which would be to confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces. As mentioned in the report of the Secretary-General of 22 May 2000 on the implementation of Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978), for the purpose of confirming the Israeli withdrawal, the United Nations needed to “identify a line to be adopted conforming to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon based on the best available cartographic and other documentary material”. The United Nations would then identify “physically on the ground those portions of the line necessary or relevant to confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces”. The report of the Secretary-General also stated that the international boundary between Israel and Lebanon was established pursuant to the 1923 Agreement between France and Great Britain entitled “Boundary Line between Syria and Palestine from the Mediterranean to El Hamme”. This line was reaffirmed in the “Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement signed on 23 March 1949”. Subsequently there were several modifications mutually agreed by Israel and Lebanon. (Security Council S-2000/590 16 June 2000)

The Arab Palestinian, unlike the four adjacent Arab League Nations, never attempted to establish an agreement on the boundaries. They remain an agenda item under the Permanent Status of Negotiations.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine already has international borders. They don't need to negotiate anything.

So when did this nation of palestine borders get negotiated and who signed for palestine. How about a link then tinny as you bragged you ALWAYS give links

And not your usual link to the Mandate of Palestine borders

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that actually is so ambiguous as to impart no information.

Palestine already has international borders. They don't need to negotiate anything.

(COMMENT)

This is exactly why and how the Arab Palestinians promote the continuation of the conflict.

• There are some Arab Palestinians that believe the old boundaries outlined by the Allied Powers when they established the Mandate are the international boundaries for Palestine. This would encompass all of Israel.
• There are some Arab Palestinians that believe the old 1988 State of Palestine boundaries are recognized delimit Arab Palestine.
• There are some Arab Palestinians that believe the territories occupied in the 1967 war represent the delimitation.
​

As long as the representation (de jure) for the Arab Palestinians finds some logic to your position that the Palestinians "don't need to negotiate anything," the longer the status quo will remain in tact, or deteriorate further.

There are many that believe the situation, as it exists today, is not totally the fault of the Arab Palestinians. But, as long as the Arab Palestinians wallow in cultural self-pity (as the virtual victims they portray), and "the virtual absence of border controls" --- the less likely it is that we will observe any significant improvement in the Human Development of the Arab Palestinian people.

The Arab Palestinian approach focuses on expanding the conflict and using "armed struggle and jihad" --- rather than focusing on economic growth and the pursuit of greater opportunities for all. Income growth is an important means to development, rather than an end in itself.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What you consider legal is outside reality.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is interesting...

Where is this incorrect?

(COMMENT)

Where and when do you see a record of Annexation by the Israelis in 1948 or 1949?

Most Respectfully,
R

I never have. I don't see anything where Israel has ever legally acquired any land.

(COMMENT)

Israel, under the Declarative Theory on State Recognition, announced its intentions and it territorial boundaries. Upon external interference by the Arab League, it successfully defended that territory (Under Chapter VII) and further gain control of additional territory within the Perimeter of the Armistice Lines. While the Armistice Lines were not intended to be the actual boundaries --- the Israeli Treaties with Egypt and Jordan settled the International Boundary issues relevant to the territory covering the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

•• Article 3(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. Treaty with Jordan

•• Article II The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel in 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. Treaty with Egypt
​

Position of the Government of Lebanon

"In resolution 425 (1978), the Security Council called for the “strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries”. It also called upon Israel to “withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory”. The Security Council also decided “in light of the request of the Government of Lebanon to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for Southern Lebanon”, one of the tasks of which would be to confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces. As mentioned in the report of the Secretary-General of 22 May 2000 on the implementation of Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978), for the purpose of confirming the Israeli withdrawal, the United Nations needed to “identify a line to be adopted conforming to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon based on the best available cartographic and other documentary material”. The United Nations would then identify “physically on the ground those portions of the line necessary or relevant to confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces”. The report of the Secretary-General also stated that the international boundary between Israel and Lebanon was established pursuant to the 1923 Agreement between France and Great Britain entitled “Boundary Line between Syria and Palestine from the Mediterranean to El Hamme”. This line was reaffirmed in the “Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement signed on 23 March 1949”. Subsequently there were several modifications mutually agreed by Israel and Lebanon. (Security Council S-2000/590 16 June 2000)

The Arab Palestinian, unlike the four adjacent Arab League Nations, never attempted to establish an agreement on the boundaries. They remain an agenda item under the Permanent Status of Negotiations.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine already has international borders. They don't need to negotiate anything.

So when did this nation of palestine borders get negotiated and who signed for palestine. How about a link then tinny as you bragged you ALWAYS give links

And not your usual link to the Mandate of Palestine borders

The Mandate was not a country. It had no land or borders.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that actually is so ambiguous as to impart no information.

Palestine already has international borders. They don't need to negotiate anything.

(COMMENT)

This is exactly why and how the Arab Palestinians promote the continuation of the conflict.

• There are some Arab Palestinians that believe the old boundaries outlined by the Allied Powers when they established the Mandate are the international boundaries for Palestine. This would encompass all of Israel.
• There are some Arab Palestinians that believe the old 1988 State of Palestine boundaries are recognized delimit Arab Palestine.
• There are some Arab Palestinians that believe the territories occupied in the 1967 war represent the delimitation.
​

As long as the representation (de jure) for the Arab Palestinians finds some logic to your position that the Palestinians "don't need to negotiate anything," the longer the status quo will remain in tact, or deteriorate further.

There are many that believe the situation, as it exists today, is not totally the fault of the Arab Palestinians. But, as long as the Arab Palestinians wallow in cultural self-pity (as the virtual victims they portray), and "the virtual absence of border controls" --- the less likely it is that we will observe any significant improvement in the Human Development of the Arab Palestinian people.

The Arab Palestinian approach focuses on expanding the conflict and using "armed struggle and jihad" --- rather than focusing on economic growth and the pursuit of greater opportunities for all. Income growth is an important means to development, rather than an end in itself.

Most Respectfully,
R

• There are some Arab Palestinians that believe the old boundaries outlined by the Allied Powers when they established the Mandate are the international boundaries for Palestine. This would encompass all of Israel.​

Indeed, and nobody has ever proved otherwise.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that actually is so ambiguous as to impart no information.

Palestine already has international borders. They don't need to negotiate anything.

(COMMENT)

This is exactly why and how the Arab Palestinians promote the continuation of the conflict.

• There are some Arab Palestinians that believe the old boundaries outlined by the Allied Powers when they established the Mandate are the international boundaries for Palestine. This would encompass all of Israel.
• There are some Arab Palestinians that believe the old 1988 State of Palestine boundaries are recognized delimit Arab Palestine.
• There are some Arab Palestinians that believe the territories occupied in the 1967 war represent the delimitation.
​

As long as the representation (de jure) for the Arab Palestinians finds some logic to your position that the Palestinians "don't need to negotiate anything," the longer the status quo will remain in tact, or deteriorate further.

There are many that believe the situation, as it exists today, is not totally the fault of the Arab Palestinians. But, as long as the Arab Palestinians wallow in cultural self-pity (as the virtual victims they portray), and "the virtual absence of border controls" --- the less likely it is that we will observe any significant improvement in the Human Development of the Arab Palestinian people.

The Arab Palestinian approach focuses on expanding the conflict and using "armed struggle and jihad" --- rather than focusing on economic growth and the pursuit of greater opportunities for all. Income growth is an important means to development, rather than an end in itself.

Most Respectfully,
R

• There are some Arab Palestinians that believe the old boundaries outlined by the Allied Powers when they established the Mandate are the international boundaries for Palestine. This would encompass all of Israel.​

Indeed, and nobody has ever proved otherwise.

Indeed, knowing your propensity to retreat to the pointless "prove it isn't" weasel, per your above, it has been proved otherwise. Prove it hasn't.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes he's quibbling with the words to avoid the point of discussion.

Of course we all know that by "Mandate" (in this sense) the meaning was: "The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine." Palestine Order in Council

The Mandate was not a country. It had no land or borders.

(COMMENT)

The territory, which was defined solely by the Allied Powers> Having said that, did you answer the question?

Most Respectfully
R