Stats About Israeli And Palestinian In ME

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, the word Palestine --- as it pertains to a non-legal entity, was used. But to describe what? There was no such political subdivision called Palestine in the 19th Century, during the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire.

Again, you are intentionally quibbling over something, I think regional geography name.

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

The Mandate was appointed to Palestine. Palestine existed with or without the Mandate.

(COMMENT)

This is not actually true.

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

The eastern frontier with Transjordan

The eastern frontier was formally established in 1922 when the final draft of the Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan was approved by the League of Nations. This instrument provided the British with the authority to exclude the territory east of the Jordan river from those provisions concerning a National Home for the Jewish people. The British decided to administer Transjordan separately, leaving the Jordan river as the effective eastern boundary of Palestine.

SOURCE: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

In a sense this is misleading. The Allied Powers, for the first time in over a century, were going to establish a legal entity called Palestine. In 1922, the actual parameter for this legal entity was not yet defined. There is a bit of legal fiction that took place that everyone takes for granted.

In 1920 the Allied Powers began rolling the ball on operations. At that time, it was not foreseen that the Treaty of Sevres would not be ratified. This activities were in place before the diplomatic paperwork was completed. In the strict sense, the Mandate did not go into effect because the Treaty of Lausanne had not been officially concluded between the Allied Powers and Turkey. That did not happen until 29th September 1923, and the war between Turkey and the Allies was officially ended. It was then that the Council of the League officially put in place the Order in Council and was able officially assign the British Mandate over Palestine. That is when the pieces fall together, including the acceptance of the Franco-British Boundary Agreement of December 1920. At that point:

The August 1922 Palestine Order in Council provided that:

Definition of boundaries, formation of districts, etc. Part II --- Executive Paragraph 11.

(1) The High Commissioner may, with the approval of a Secretary of State, by Proclamation divide Palestine into administrative divisions or districts in such manner and with such subdivisions as may be convenient for purposes of administration describing the boundaries thereof and assigning names thereto.
​

So, if the Mandate had not gone into effect, then there would have been no Boundary Commission and no Franco-British boundary and thus, not even a legal entity by the name of Palestine set by the Order in Council.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[fanger]

Now lets see your Atlantis Pics? or better still any document, coin or note showing Israel existed before 1948, when the Illegal immigrants took over the area known as Palestine, and adopted declared Palestinian borders as it's own

 

[fanger]

The possibility of a Jewish homeland in Palestine had been a goal of Zionist organizations since the late 19th century. The British Foreign Secretary stated in the Balfour Declaration of 1917:

His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[7]

Israeli Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If, as you cling to Palestine never existed, where was this Zionist state to be established?

 

[Shusha]

...or better still any document, coin or note showing Israel existed before 1948 ...

 

[Shusha]

Palestine existed with or without the Mandate.

Palestine existed as a convenient geographical label. But it had no legal status. No independent powers. No sovereignty. And the Mandate existed -- as you continue to point out -- as a trust for the expression of self-determination for the peoples who have inherent, inalienable rights there.

And, of course, it had defined borders. Those borders included the territory which is now has the legal status of an independent nation called Jordan. How did Jordan become removed from the territory of Palestine and become not-Palestine? By what legal mechanism did that occur? And why would a similar legal mechanism not be effective in removing Israel from the geographical territory of Palestine?

 

[RoccoR]

fanger, et al,

Two points you failed to grasp

If, as you cling to Palestine never existed, where was this Zionist state to be established?

(COMMENT)

We did not say that "Palestine," as a historical undefined regional name, did not exist. This point is what it is.

The second point is the "Zionist State" is different from a "Jewish National Home;" or even a "Jewish State."

----------------------------------------------------​

The claim is that in the four centuries (or longer), Palestine was not a legal entity or political sub-division. Between 141-63BC -- there was a Jewish revolt. The outcome was the establishment of an independent state (Judaea). Then when Pompey the Great conquered the region SPQR Rome and made it a province of the Roman Empire, it was under the puppet regimes of Jewish Kings. Rome ruled Palestine for about 700 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jerusalem_during_the_Middle_Ages
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, the word Palestine --- as it pertains to a non-legal entity, was used. But to describe what? There was no such political subdivision called Palestine in the 19th Century, during the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire.

Again, you are intentionally quibbling over something, I think regional geography name.

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

The Mandate was appointed to Palestine. Palestine existed with or without the Mandate.

(COMMENT)

This is not actually true.

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

The eastern frontier with Transjordan

The eastern frontier was formally established in 1922 when the final draft of the Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan was approved by the League of Nations. This instrument provided the British with the authority to exclude the territory east of the Jordan river from those provisions concerning a National Home for the Jewish people. The British decided to administer Transjordan separately, leaving the Jordan river as the effective eastern boundary of Palestine.

SOURCE: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

In a sense this is misleading. The Allied Powers, for the first time in over a century, were going to establish a legal entity called Palestine. In 1922, the actual parameter for this legal entity was not yet defined. There is a bit of legal fiction that took place that everyone takes for granted.

In 1920 the Allied Powers began rolling the ball on operations. At that time, it was not foreseen that the Treaty of Sevres would not be ratified. This activities were in place before the diplomatic paperwork was completed. In the strict sense, the Mandate did not go into effect because the Treaty of Lausanne had not been officially concluded between the Allied Powers and Turkey. That did not happen until 29th September 1923, and the war between Turkey and the Allies was officially ended. It was then that the Council of the League officially put in place the Order in Council and was able officially assign the British Mandate over Palestine. That is when the pieces fall together, including the acceptance of the Franco-British Boundary Agreement of December 1920. At that point:

The August 1922 Palestine Order in Council provided that:

Definition of boundaries, formation of districts, etc. Part II --- Executive Paragraph 11.

(1) The High Commissioner may, with the approval of a Secretary of State, by Proclamation divide Palestine into administrative divisions or districts in such manner and with such subdivisions as may be convenient for purposes of administration describing the boundaries thereof and assigning names thereto.
​

So, if the Mandate had not gone into effect, then there would have been no Boundary Commission and no Franco-British boundary and thus, not even a legal entity by the name of Palestine set by the Order in Council.

Most Respectfully,
R

In the strict sense, the Mandate did not go into effect because the Treaty of Lausanne had not been officially concluded between the Allied Powers and Turkey. That did not happen until 29th September 1923, and the war between Turkey and the Allies was officially ended. It was then that the Council of the League officially put in place the Order in Council and was able officially assign the British Mandate over Palestine.​

Just like I said. Palestine had to exist before the Mandate could be assigned to it. And when Britain left Palestine they said that Palestine would still be a legal entity. Then they said that it would be a non self governing territory.

en·ti·ty [éntətee]
(plural en·ti·ties)
n
1. object: something that exists as or is perceived as a single separate object

A second line of reasoning is based on the Palestinian right to self-determination. Accordingly, sovereignty lies in the people, not in a government.

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine existed with or without the Mandate.

Palestine existed as a convenient geographical label. But it had no legal status. No independent powers. No sovereignty. And the Mandate existed -- as you continue to point out -- as a trust for the expression of self-determination for the peoples who have inherent, inalienable rights there.

And, of course, it had defined borders. Those borders included the territory which is now has the legal status of an independent nation called Jordan. How did Jordan become removed from the territory of Palestine and become not-Palestine? By what legal mechanism did that occur? And why would a similar legal mechanism not be effective in removing Israel from the geographical territory of Palestine?

When Jordan was separated from Palestine, the people stayed in their place.

With Israel the people got the boot. That made its creation illegal.

 

[Kondor3]

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








.

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

Doesn't matter...

The Jews have won...

You have lost...

70 years ago...

One of these days, you thick-headed Neanderthals will figure that out...

And then you'll pack up and leave, taking your families out of that shit-hole...

Like your grandfathers should have done 70 years ago...

What a waste of 70 years...

With the same outcome now, that you could have had back then...

Oh, and.... will the last Muslim-Arab to leave Gaza, please turn off the lights, and drop off the keys in Jerusalem? Thanks.

 

[Kondor3]

Palestine existed with or without the Mandate.

Palestine existed as a convenient geographical label. But it had no legal status. No independent powers. No sovereignty. And the Mandate existed -- as you continue to point out -- as a trust for the expression of self-determination for the peoples who have inherent, inalienable rights there.

And, of course, it had defined borders. Those borders included the territory which is now has the legal status of an independent nation called Jordan. How did Jordan become removed from the territory of Palestine and become not-Palestine? By what legal mechanism did that occur? And why would a similar legal mechanism not be effective in removing Israel from the geographical territory of Palestine?

When Jordan was separated from Palestine, the people stayed in their place.

With Israel the people got the boot. That made its creation illegal.

"Mr. Marshall has made his decision... now, let him enforce it..."

 

[Shusha]

When Jordan was separated from Palestine, the people stayed in their place.

With Israel the people got the boot. That made its creation illegal.

Oh come on. Thousands of people "got the boot" from Jordan. Tens of thousands from Syria. Tens of thousands from Lebanon. Tens of thousands from Iraq.

Are you trying to tell me that Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq were created illegally because of that?! And that because they were created illegally -- they can not or do not exist? And that international law somehow backs this up?

Literally MILLIONS of people "got the boot" from dozens of countries following WWI and WWII -- are you trying to claim that none of these countries legally exist?

Give your head a shake, man.

 

[Kondor3]

Now lets see your Atlantis Pics? or better still any document, coin or note showing Israel existed before 1948, when the Illegal immigrants took over the area known as Palestine, and adopted declared Palestinian borders as it's own

Palestine never existed as an autonomous state.

It was merely a region that the Romans re-named, and held for some centuries, before the greaseballs from Arabia stole it, and which the Ottomans eventually stole from them.

The Jews are the oldest extant People with valid claims to the land in pre-Roman times...

The oldest heirs to the land; with a claim superior to that of the descendants of those who stole it...

The Jews wanted it...

The Jews fought for it...

The Jews kicked ass for it...

And most of the world (outside the domains of Islam, anyway) are content that this be so...

Witness the paralysis extant at the New York International Old Ladies Debating Society... a.k.a. the United Nations.

The Jews own it now... lock, stock and barrel.

Get used to it...

They're gonna have it for a very, very, vvveerrrrrrrrryyy long time...

Enjoy...

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine existed with or without the Mandate.

Palestine existed as a convenient geographical label. But it had no legal status. No independent powers. No sovereignty. And the Mandate existed -- as you continue to point out -- as a trust for the expression of self-determination for the peoples who have inherent, inalienable rights there.

And, of course, it had defined borders. Those borders included the territory which is now has the legal status of an independent nation called Jordan. How did Jordan become removed from the territory of Palestine and become not-Palestine? By what legal mechanism did that occur? And why would a similar legal mechanism not be effective in removing Israel from the geographical territory of Palestine?

When Jordan was separated from Palestine, the people stayed in their place.

With Israel the people got the boot. That made its creation illegal.

"Mr. Marshall has made his decision... now, let him enforce it..."

That is what BDS is for.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't be ridiculous!

When Jordan was separated from Palestine, the people stayed in their place.
With Israel the people got the boot. That made its creation illegal.

(REFERENCE)

• Posting #1215

(COMMENT)

What is the criteria for "creation" being "legal" vs "illegal."

There is NO prohibition against the removal of "threatening populations" from the rear area for security purpose (military imperatives). The Arab Palestinians triggered Civil War, which in turn, was the prelude to the 1948-1949 War of Independence. The Fourth Geneva Convention was not applicable in 1947-1948 Phase. But even if it was, it is a well recognized procedure to conduct Rear Area Security Operations.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
DEPORTATIONS, TRANSFERS, EVACUATIONS
ARTICLE 49
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
...
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
​

I don't think it is necessary for me to reiterate everything in the "Referenced Posting."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't be ridiculous!

When Jordan was separated from Palestine, the people stayed in their place.
With Israel the people got the boot. That made its creation illegal.

(REFERENCE)

• Posting #1215

(COMMENT)

What is the criteria for "creation" being "legal" vs "illegal."

There is NO prohibition against the removal of "threatening populations" from the rear area for security purpose (military imperatives). The Arab Palestinians triggered Civil War, which in turn, was the prelude to the 1948-1949 War of Independence. The Fourth Geneva Convention was not applicable in 1947-1948 Phase. But even if it was, it is a well recognized procedure to conduct Rear Area Security Operations.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
DEPORTATIONS, TRANSFERS, EVACUATIONS
ARTICLE 49
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
...
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
​

I don't think it is necessary for me to reiterate everything in the "Referenced Posting."

Most Respectfully,
R

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power , blah, blah, blah.​

Thank you. enough said.

 

[Phoenall]

WRONG AGAIN you are deliberately confusing the MANDATE with the MANDATORY.

Go and educate yourself as to the difference

No link?

Of course not.

Thats right you are for ever more to be known as no link tinman. Your own posts prove this if you look as you dont even know what the MANDATE was.

The Mandate is the multilateral binding agreement which laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in the geographical area called Palestine, the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law. A legal and binding undertaking.
The mandatory was the elected nation that acted as the government of the MANDATE until such time as the inhabitants could show they were capable of ruling themselves and able to stand on their own

Are you still blabbering on with nothing to prove your point?

Proven many times but you will never accept any proof that destroys your POV.


Why dont you define what you see as the Mandate of Palestine

The mandate was a temporarily appointed administration to Palestine.

Palestine had to exist before the Mandate could be appointed to it.

WRONG ONCE AGAIN YOU CONFUSE DELIBERATELY THE MANDATE WITH THE MANDATORY. IT WONT WORK ANYMORE AS YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD THE DIFFERENCE MANY TIMES

The mandate was a legal instrument set up to act as a nation, and the whole of the Ottoman empire was covered by a mandate from 1917 to the hand over of power. The mandatory, in this case Great Britain, was a temporary appointed administration for Iraq, trans Jordan and the Jewish national home. The rest of the M.E. was covered by France who were a temporary appointed administration as well.

Not one of the nations covered by mandate existed until the mandate came into force, you cant find one with a working government prior to 1917 when the Ottomans were defeated. Does this mean that none of those nations is legal using your criteria as they could not have a mandate appointed to them.

AS I KEEP TELLING YOU LOOK UP THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MANDATE AND MANDATORY AS APPLIED TO PALESTINE, AND THEN LOOK UP WHAT WAS PALESTINE IN THE MANDATE.

 

[Phoenall]

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

I did.

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

No you ducked and deflected because you know you are WRONG

Then palestine cant exist as it was created out of the LoN MANDATE

Can you prove that point?

CAN YOU DISPROVE IT ?

 

[Phoenall]

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

(COMMENT)

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

Most Respectfully
R

I did.

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

The LoN MANDATE OF PALESTINE was a country in INTERNATIONAL LAW otherwise no nation in the former Ottoman Empire could exist.

Where do you get this shit?

From reading all about International law and how it applies to Israel. The treaty of Sevres and the treaty of Lausanne both state that the LoN were the new soveriegn owners of the former Ottoman Empire with the power to dispose of the lands as they saw fit. Look up the relevant treaties and who and what they apply to

Passage and link?

Given hundreds of times, why do you keep asking for the same links ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't be ridiculous!

When Jordan was separated from Palestine, the people stayed in their place.
With Israel the people got the boot. That made its creation illegal.

(REFERENCE)

• Posting #1215

(COMMENT)

What is the criteria for "creation" being "legal" vs "illegal."

There is NO prohibition against the removal of "threatening populations" from the rear area for security purpose (military imperatives). The Arab Palestinians triggered Civil War, which in turn, was the prelude to the 1948-1949 War of Independence. The Fourth Geneva Convention was not applicable in 1947-1948 Phase. But even if it was, it is a well recognized procedure to conduct Rear Area Security Operations.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
DEPORTATIONS, TRANSFERS, EVACUATIONS
ARTICLE 49
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
...
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
​

I don't think it is necessary for me to reiterate everything in the "Referenced Posting."

Most Respectfully,
R

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power , blah, blah, blah.​

Thank you. enough said.

In other words "WHY DO YOU ALWAYS SHOW ME UP AS A COMPLETE MORON AND PROVE ME WRONG , I WILL HAVE TO POST SOME MORE OFF TOPIC VIDEO'S AND ASK FOR LINKS THAT I HAVE ASKED FOR 100 TIMES ALREADY"

 

[fanger]

The Jews have won...

You have lost...

70 years ago...

One of these days, you thick-headed Neanderthals will figure that out...

And then you'll pack up and leave, taking your families out of that shit-hole...

Like your grandfathers should have done 70 years ago...

What a waste of 70 years...

With the same outcome now, that you could have had back then...

Oh, and.... will the last Muslim-Arab to leave Gaza, please turn off the lights, and drop off the keys in Jerusalem? Thanks.

You can tell that to the Native Americans too