The birth of Zionist propaganda on film

[Roudy]

Speaking of propaganda and lies, nobody beats Pallywood when it comes to that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Armistice Agreements do not exist alone.

You need to read the 1949 UN armistice agreements.

You didn't read the 1949 UN armistice agreements.

(COMMENT)

Nothing in the Armistice Agreements prohibit the establishment of sovereign territory. What the Armistice Agreement says is that the UN arranged cease-fire does not IMPOSE on any party a border arrangement. The Green Line (as an example) was not a UN imposed border by the Truce Commission. This is not a unique concept, but has been around for hundreds of years. The contemporary interpretation of an Armistice Line is:

2625 (XXV). Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.
​

The most famous of these Armistice Agreements (of that same period) is (of course) the Korean War Armistice of 1953, when the UN, China and Korean agreed to a complete cessation of hostilities. South Korea does not have a true border with North Korea; BUT, an Armistice Line. YET, South Korea extends it sovereignty up to the DMZ and the Northern Limit Line.

No one argues that the various agreed upon Armistices represented borders. But they are/were "international lines of demarcation." And universally, iit is internationally recognized that nothing prohibits the establishment of sovereignty. If that were not the case, then there would be no Gaza Strip or West Bank; but all would be Israel under the treaty with Egypt and Jordan (respectfully).

Most Respectfully,
R

What the Armistice Agreement says is that the UN arranged cease-fire does not IMPOSE on any party a border arrangement.​

Indeed, the UN has no authority to create or change borders. The agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial borders. However, the agreements did reference existing international borders.

Let's analyze the armistice or green line.

In Lebanon, the green line followed the international border between Lebanon and Palestine. Since the green line is not a border, the international border between Lebanon and Palestine continued to exist. Remember the UN has no authority to change that border.

In Syria, with some exceptions, the green line followed the international border between Syria and Palestine. Again, this made no change in the international border between Syria and Palestine.

In Egypt, except for the Gaza strip, the green line followed the international border between Egypt and Palestine. This made no change in the International border between Egypt and Palestine.

In Jordan, due to the West Bank and other military considerations, the green line did not follow the international border between Jordan and Palestine. This is irrelevant to this issue and did not change the international border.

The green line around the West Bank and Gaza strip followed no borders. Its location was based on the location of military forces at the time of the armistice. Since it could not be a political or territorial border, it ran through Palestine. It was Palestine on both sides of the green line. The green line inside Palestine merely defined different areas occupation.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, it does not matter.

The Mandate had already left Palestine and was not mentioned in the armistice agreements.

(COMMENT)

No matter what argument you present to obfuscate the issue, it is extremely unlikely that the lines of Israeli sovereignty will be overturned by force.

Now how about addressing my post?

(COMMENT)

I answered every point:

• You challenged (twice) the "a defined territory;" ------- LOOK at the first entry under answers.
• You challenged "a government;" ---------- LOOK at the second entry under answers.
• You addressed (twice) "Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention;" -------- LOOK at the fourth entry under answers.
• You challenge the validity of the establishment of the Provisional Government and the organization of the democratic process; ---- LOOK at entry three and four under answers.
​

Yes, whether you recognize it or not, your Posting was answered in very definite detail.

Most Respectfully,
R

•• The territory, by the Israelis, was defined (originally and by agreement with the UNPC - the Successor Government to the Mandatory)​

The UN has no authority to define territory or change borders.

 

[Phoenall]

Then you are a LIAR as they very plainly state that this parcel of land is the Jewish National Home. They also state that this parcel of land is trans Jordan for the arab muslim national home, this parcel of land is Syria, this parcel of land is Iraq and this parcel of land is Iran.
It starts with the treaty of Sevres that passes soveriegnty and ownership to the LoN from the Ottomans. Then the treaty of Lausanne ratified the treaty of Sevrers and accepted the idea of the Jewish National home. The many LoN meettings where arab muslim representatives were invited to take part that agreed that the only fair way to deal with the situation was to partition palestine so that it was not wholly muslim or Jew. The UN charter gives the Jews the right to the land allocated under international law as the National home of the Jews, and entered it as part of the UN charter.



ALL YOU HAVE IS A PAPER WRITTEN BY A LIAR AND ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDIST WHERE HE ALTERS THE WORDS OF TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL LAWS TO SHOW THAT THE LAND WAS A PALESTINIAN STATE BEFORE IT WAS THE JEWISH NATIONAL HOME. IN OTHER WORD YOU HAVE NOTHING AT ALL OTHER THAN YOUR JEW HATRED AND YOUR DENIAL OF JEWISH RIGHTS

You didn't read the 1949 UN armistice agreements.

Yes I did and they say mandate of palestine borders. Then state that this is to be known as palestine. Also they do not have any signatures from the nation of palestine, showing that one did not exist, but did have them from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Israel


You did not read the many international laws that

Yes I did and they say mandate of palestine borders.​

Do you have a link for that?

UN armistice agreements

The Mandate had already left Palestine and was not mentioned in the armistice agreements.

Once again you confuse the mandate with the mandatory. Two distinct entities that are seperate beasts.


The palestine Mandate was a legal instrument set up by international treaty and international laws of 1922/1923 as in this link

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate


Not to be confused with the British mandate which was a civil administration of the palestine mandate as in this


Mandatory Palestine - Wikipedia



So while there is land unclaimed the actual mandate still exists, while the mandatory power has passed the reigns to another party that is now in control. This is the UNPC that is unable to have the arab muslims take the last steps towards full independence, a step that cant be handed to them or granted to them nor can they be stopped from making the steps forwards.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, yes, yes! You cry this quite often.

P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

You still do not get it... If I've explained it once, I bet I said it a thousand times.

I have read all of those. None of them gave any land to Israel. Israel occupies Palestine.

Let's assume you are right. (You're not, but let's just pretend).

Why can't the Jewish people, as the nation of Israel, secede from Greater Palestine?

(COMMENT)

The reason that P F Tinmore cannot find any document that "gave any land to Israel" is because --- quite frankly --- in this case the the sovereignty and independence (1948) was acquired by declaration; not a sale, purchase, or real estate deal.

•• Declarative Theory under Westphalia Terms.
•• Declarative theory of statehood defines a state as a person in international law.
•• Political Theory in the Declaration of Independence.
​

The reason why Israel cannot secede from Palestine is because at the termination of the Mandate, the Successor Government was the UN Palestine Commission. The in conjunction with the UNPC, completion -- to the extent possible and not interfered with by the Arab League --- the UN adopted Steps Preparatory to Independence. The independence was announced and acknowledged. Recognition by the Arab Palestinians is not required. The Arab League and Arab Higher Committee rejected all offered attempts at the inclusion of the Arab Palestinians in the self-governing processes.

The Jewish State of Israel exercised the right of self-determination. It established sovereignty, and defended that sovereignty by Arab League Intruders in contravention with Chapter I of the Charter.

• All Peoples (including Israel) have the Right of Determination...
• All Peoples (including Israel) have the Right to be free of Arab League and Arab Palestine aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R

The reason that P F Tinmore cannot find any document that "gave any land to Israel" is because --- quite frankly --- in this case the the sovereignty and independence (1948) was acquired by declaration; not a sale, purchase, or real estate deal.​

--------------------------------

By contrast, the declarative theory of statehood defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. According to declarative theory, an entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by other states. The declarative model was most famously expressed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention.[25]

Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention declares that political statehood is independent of recognition by other states, and the state is not prohibited from defending itself.​

There are several problems with the creation of Israel. The most glaring is that Israel has never had a defined territory. It has no land or borders. Israel occupies Palestine as the foundation of its settler colonialism.

The Palestinians have never surrendered, ceded land, or recognized Israel.

The government of Israel was created in the direct opposition of the vast majority of the people.

Thomas Jefferson also used Rousseau’s social contract theory to justify his assertion of independence. Jefferson stated, “Governments are instituted… deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” (Declaration of Independence). The idea of consent stems from Rousseau’s On the Social Contract. He stated that this contract was a “reciprocal commitment” (Rousseau 433) between people in a society and the government they create. He believed a “social compact” (Rousseau 432) was needed to form a government in which people gave consent to the government being formed.​

Note: from your links.

(COMMENT)

Whether or not the standard meets with the Tinmore Qualifications for a defined territory and a government is irrelevant. Totally irrelevant! BUT --- To YOUR Objections:

ANSWERS:

•• The territory, by the Israelis, was defined (originally and by agreement with the UNPC - the Successor Government to the Mandatory) to Annex "A" and Part II Boundaries, Section B - The Jewish State, UN Resolution 181(II). However, with the improper intervention and acts of aggression by the Arab League, Israeli sovereign control was extended beyond to the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA) as a result of combat failures by the Arab League.

** The Jewish People had formed the Provisional State Council/Government at the time of the Declaration of Independence. The immediate attacks and invasions by the Arab League Forces prevented the agreed upon "elections" as required by Paragraph 9, Part I, Section B - Steps Preparatory to Independence. In the lull of the conflict (1948 War of Independence), the Provisional Government held elections on the 25 January 1949; allowing a formal government to establish sovereignty out to the FEBA. During the first half of 1949, an Armistice was signed on behalf of the Government of Israel (GOI); which fully demonstrated a recognition of the Government of Israel.

** The Rousseau Model of "Democratic" Government adopted by Thomas Jefferson is not the only interpretation on the methodologies in establishing a "Democratic Government." The current Israeli Basic Law of 2001 comes very close to the Rousseau Model (as did the Basic Law that was replaced in 1968).

•• Article 3, of the Montevideo Convention (1933) applies equally well to Israelis as it does to the Arab Palestinians. In fact, it is probably more so since the Arab side rejected participation in self-governing programs offered by the legitimate Government of Palestine (GOP) prior to the termination of the Mandate; and continued to renounce the Artice 22 critieria of the Covenant by not cooperating with the UNPC successor government (tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations). The Recontition of Israel was independent of the Hostile Arab League Aggressor Armed Force; or that of the former NAZI Lead Palestinian Irregular Forces. AND, it does not prohibit the Israeli Government from defending itself from the invasion by the Arab League Forces.

Remember: While Hilary Clinton won the popular vote, she lost the election in terms of the Electoral College. That is because America is not a true Democracy; but a Republic and a representative form of government. In a Democracy, the popular vote would have prevailed.​

Just because you don't agree with any given outcome, does not make the outcome wrong.

The continuation of the conflict between the Arab Palestinian People only goes to demonstrate just how generous (but wrong) the Mandatory had been in promoting the Arab Palestinians as being able to stand alone. In more that half a century, no Arab Palestinian has demonstrated to be a progressive and beneficial government to the Arab Palestinian people, any regional initiative, or the cause of peace in a stable and secure region.

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy smokescreen, Batman!

Now how about addressing my post?

He did in depth and in a language even you could understand, but it seems that you are even less educated that we thought.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Armistice Agreements do not exist alone.

You need to read the 1949 UN armistice agreements.

You didn't read the 1949 UN armistice agreements.

(COMMENT)

Nothing in the Armistice Agreements prohibit the establishment of sovereign territory. What the Armistice Agreement says is that the UN arranged cease-fire does not IMPOSE on any party a border arrangement. The Green Line (as an example) was not a UN imposed border by the Truce Commission. This is not a unique concept, but has been around for hundreds of years. The contemporary interpretation of an Armistice Line is:

2625 (XXV). Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.
​

The most famous of these Armistice Agreements (of that same period) is (of course) the Korean War Armistice of 1953, when the UN, China and Korean agreed to a complete cessation of hostilities. South Korea does not have a true border with North Korea; BUT, an Armistice Line. YET, South Korea extends it sovereignty up to the DMZ and the Northern Limit Line.

No one argues that the various agreed upon Armistices represented borders. But they are/were "international lines of demarcation." And universally, iit is internationally recognized that nothing prohibits the establishment of sovereignty. If that were not the case, then there would be no Gaza Strip or West Bank; but all would be Israel under the treaty with Egypt and Jordan (respectfully).

Most Respectfully,
R

What the Armistice Agreement says is that the UN arranged cease-fire does not IMPOSE on any party a border arrangement.​

Indeed, the UN has no authority to create or change borders. The agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial borders. However, the agreements did reference existing international borders.

Let's analyze the armistice or green line.

In Lebanon, the green line followed the international border between Lebanon and Palestine. Since the green line is not a border, the international border between Lebanon and Palestine continued to exist. Remember the UN has no authority to change that border.

In Syria, with some exceptions, the green line followed the international border between Syria and Palestine. Again, this made no change in the international border between Syria and Palestine.

In Egypt, except for the Gaza strip, the green line followed the international border between Egypt and Palestine. This made no change in the International border between Egypt and Palestine.

In Jordan, due to the West Bank and other military considerations, the green line did not follow the international border between Jordan and Palestine. This is irrelevant to this issue and did not change the international border.

The green line around the West Bank and Gaza strip followed no borders. Its location was based on the location of military forces at the time of the armistice. Since it could not be a political or territorial border, it ran through Palestine. It was Palestine on both sides of the green line. The green line inside Palestine merely defined different areas occupation.

Wrong again as the terms state mandate of palestine borders, try reading them slowly and you will see you miss out those words

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, it does not matter.

The Mandate had already left Palestine and was not mentioned in the armistice agreements.

(COMMENT)

No matter what argument you present to obfuscate the issue, it is extremely unlikely that the lines of Israeli sovereignty will be overturned by force.

Now how about addressing my post?

(COMMENT)

I answered every point:

• You challenged (twice) the "a defined territory;" ------- LOOK at the first entry under answers.
• You challenged "a government;" ---------- LOOK at the second entry under answers.
• You addressed (twice) "Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention;" -------- LOOK at the fourth entry under answers.
• You challenge the validity of the establishment of the Provisional Government and the organization of the democratic process; ---- LOOK at entry three and four under answers.
​

Yes, whether you recognize it or not, your Posting was answered in very definite detail.

Most Respectfully,
R

•• The territory, by the Israelis, was defined (originally and by agreement with the UNPC - the Successor Government to the Mandatory)​

The UN has no authority to define territory or change borders.

Correct, which means that 181 was not enforcable and was not to be used as sine die borders but a starting point. Nor could it take land already granted to the Jews as their National Home and give it to the arab muslims.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, it does not matter.

The Mandate had already left Palestine and was not mentioned in the armistice agreements.

(COMMENT)

No matter what argument you present to obfuscate the issue, it is extremely unlikely that the lines of Israeli sovereignty will be overturned by force.

Now how about addressing my post?

(COMMENT)

I answered every point:

• You challenged (twice) the "a defined territory;" ------- LOOK at the first entry under answers.
• You challenged "a government;" ---------- LOOK at the second entry under answers.
• You addressed (twice) "Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention;" -------- LOOK at the fourth entry under answers.
• You challenge the validity of the establishment of the Provisional Government and the organization of the democratic process; ---- LOOK at entry three and four under answers.
​

Yes, whether you recognize it or not, your Posting was answered in very definite detail.

Most Respectfully,
R

•• The territory, by the Israelis, was defined (originally and by agreement with the UNPC - the Successor Government to the Mandatory)​

The UN has no authority to define territory or change borders.

They didn't they just agreed and accepted those defined by Israel, which is how it works. Once accepted no other nation can usurp those defined borders. This leave's palestine out on a limb as they are trying to steal land by subterfuge and failing, so they resort to violence and terrorism that ends up with more of them being killed

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, it does not matter.

The Mandate had already left Palestine and was not mentioned in the armistice agreements.

(COMMENT)

No matter what argument you present to obfuscate the issue, it is extremely unlikely that the lines of Israeli sovereignty will be overturned by force.

Now how about addressing my post?

(COMMENT)

I answered every point:

• You challenged (twice) the "a defined territory;" ------- LOOK at the first entry under answers.
• You challenged "a government;" ---------- LOOK at the second entry under answers.
• You addressed (twice) "Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention;" -------- LOOK at the fourth entry under answers.
• You challenge the validity of the establishment of the Provisional Government and the organization of the democratic process; ---- LOOK at entry three and four under answers.
​

Yes, whether you recognize it or not, your Posting was answered in very definite detail.

Most Respectfully,
R

•• The territory, by the Israelis, was defined (originally and by agreement with the UNPC - the Successor Government to the Mandatory)​

The UN has no authority to define territory or change borders.

You copy and paste that slogan so often, you must have it saved as a Microsoft Word file. What a shame for you that your feeble cut and paste has been addressed repeatedly.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Sometimes, you just kill me.

What the Armistice Agreement says is that the UN arranged cease-fire does not IMPOSE on any party a border arrangement.​

​

Indeed, the UN has no authority to create or change borders. The agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial borders. However, the agreements did reference existing international borders.

Let's analyze the armistice or green line.

(COMMENT)

I think you meant to say "Blue Line," the reworked 2007 demarcation line between Lebanon and Israel.

I think I knew what you meant to say.

Line of Withdrawal of Israeli Forces from Lebanon​

In Lebanon, the green line followed the international border between Lebanon and Palestine. Since the green line is not a border, the international border between Lebanon and Palestine continued to exist. Remember the UN has no authority to change that border.

(COMMENT)

Well your assumptions are wrong, but we will not go there. Without Regard to the your ascertion on who has what authority, the current ground situation looks like this.

It should be remembered that the letter from the Letter dated 12 June 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General addressed the issue of the borders. The concerns of the President don't look anything like what our friend "P F Tinmore" presents.

Excerpt from A/54/914 S/2000/564 12 June 2000

Paragraph 13 of the report states that “the international boundary between Israel and Lebanon was established pursuant to the 1923 Agreement between France and Great Britain ...”, that “this line was reaffirmed in the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement signed on 23 March 1949” and that “subsequently there were several modifications mutually agreed by Israel and Lebanon”.
​

While the Arab League does not recognize the Annexation of the Golan Heights, that is a discussion for another time.

In Syria, with some exceptions, the green line followed the international border between Syria and Palestine. Again, this made no change in the international border between Syria and Palestine.

In Egypt, except for the Gaza strip, the green line followed the international border between Egypt and Palestine. This made no change in the International border between Egypt and Palestine.

(COMMENT)

In terms of Syria, the boundary of former Armistice Agreement has change as an unintended consequence of the of their hostile action.

"One, whatever is beyond the border, the boundary itself will not change. Two, after 50 years, the time has come for the international community to finally recognize that the Golan Heights will remain under Israel's sovereignty permanently."

Israel seized parts of the Golan Heights, a strategic, rocky plateau to its northeast, from Syria in the 1967 Six Day War.

Syria unsuccessfully attempted to retake it during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, before Israel annexed the region in 1981 by extending its laws over the territory and its occupants.
SOURCE: Jerusalem CNN: By Oren Liebermann and Tim Hume, CNN
Updated 8:21 AM ET, Mon April 18, 2016

On a very similar note, the Border between Israel and Egypt is what it is:

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, 1 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.
SOURCE: TREATY OF PEACE 1 BETWEEN THE ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT AND THE STATE OF ISRAEL
​

In Jordan, due to the West Bank and other military considerations, the green line did not follow the international border between Jordan and Palestine. This is irrelevant to this issue and did not change the international border.

(COMMENT)

Jordan was concerned with a very different issue. It was that some Israelis (an ever dwindling number) still have the notion that the historical Israel incapsulated the Dead Sea and extended beyond the Jordan River. Without regard for that argument, the best answer comes from the Treaty itself.

Article 3 - International Boundary Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of JordanAnd The State of Israel October 26, 1994

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 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.
5. It is agreed that where the boundary follows a river, in the event of natural changes in the course of the flow of the river as described in Annex I (a), the boundary shall follow the new course of the flow. In the event of any other changes the boundary shall not be affected unless otherwise agreed.
6. Immediately upon the exchange of the instruments of ratification of this Treaty, each Party will deploy on its side of the international boundary as defined in Annex I (a).
7. The parties shall, upon the signature of the Treaty, enter into negotiations to conclude, within 9 months, an agreement on the delimitation of their maritime boundary in the Gulf of Aqaba.
8. Taking into account the special circumstances of the Baqura/Naharayim area, which is under Jordanian sovereignty, with Israeli private ownership rights, the Parties agree to apply the provisions set out in Annex I (b).
9. With respect to the Al-Ghamr/Zofar area, the provisions set out in Annex I (c) will apply.
SOURCE: The Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty was signed on October 26, 1994, at the southern border crossing of Wadi ‘Araba. The treaty guaranteed Jordan the restoration of its occupied land (approximately 380 square kilometers), as well as an equitable share of water from the Yarmouk and Jordan rivers. Moreover, the treaty defined Jordan’s western borders clearly and conclusively for the first time, putting an end to the dangerous and false Zionist claim that “Jordan is Palestine.”​

As you can see by the Treaty, the Jordanians essentially default the the Mandate Map (1922), well before the Armistice Lines were ever drawn. "The boundary Line shall follow the middle of the main course of the flow of the Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers." (Annex 1a)

The green line around the West Bank and Gaza strip followed no borders. Its location was based on the location of military forces at the time of the armistice. Since it could not be a political or territorial border, it ran through Palestine. It was Palestine on both sides of the green line. The green line inside Palestine merely defined different areas occupation.

(COMMENT)

The former "Green Line" was NOT made for the benefit of the Arab Palestinian. BOTH the Armistice Agreements for which the Armistices Lines established, have language in Article XII that stipulates that the Armistice shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved. Essentially, the Green Lines become historical and drop its authority.

Why, because at the time of the conflict, on which the Armistice Lines were drawn, ended and the Arab Palestinians were NOT a party to either the Armistice or the Peace Treaties. And that is because they opted out to become a Self-Governing nation; because it wasn't enough. Now it looks like they are going to get considerably less territory. That would be if they fell into chaos like Egypt and Syrian did.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Sometimes, you just kill me.

What the Armistice Agreement says is that the UN arranged cease-fire does not IMPOSE on any party a border arrangement.​

​

Indeed, the UN has no authority to create or change borders. The agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial borders. However, the agreements did reference existing international borders.

Let's analyze the armistice or green line.

(COMMENT)

I think you meant to say "Blue Line," the reworked 2007 demarcation line between Lebanon and Israel.

I think I knew what you meant to say.
View attachment 98434
Line of Withdrawal of Israeli Forces from Lebanon​

In Lebanon, the green line followed the international border between Lebanon and Palestine. Since the green line is not a border, the international border between Lebanon and Palestine continued to exist. Remember the UN has no authority to change that border.

(COMMENT)

Well your assumptions are wrong, but we will not go there. Without Regard to the your ascertion on who has what authority, the current ground situation looks like this.

View attachment 98445​

It should be remembered that the letter from the Letter dated 12 June 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General addressed the issue of the borders. The concerns of the President don't look anything like what our friend "P F Tinmore" presents.

Excerpt from A/54/914 S/2000/564 12 June 2000

Paragraph 13 of the report states that “the international boundary between Israel and Lebanon was established pursuant to the 1923 Agreement between France and Great Britain ...”, that “this line was reaffirmed in the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement signed on 23 March 1949” and that “subsequently there were several modifications mutually agreed by Israel and Lebanon”.
​

While the Arab League does not recognize the Annexation of the Golan Heights, that is a discussion for another time.

In Syria, with some exceptions, the green line followed the international border between Syria and Palestine. Again, this made no change in the international border between Syria and Palestine.

In Egypt, except for the Gaza strip, the green line followed the international border between Egypt and Palestine. This made no change in the International border between Egypt and Palestine.

(COMMENT)

In terms of Syria, the boundary of former Armistice Agreement has change as an unintended consequence of the of their hostile action.

"One, whatever is beyond the border, the boundary itself will not change. Two, after 50 years, the time has come for the international community to finally recognize that the Golan Heights will remain under Israel's sovereignty permanently."

Israel seized parts of the Golan Heights, a strategic, rocky plateau to its northeast, from Syria in the 1967 Six Day War.

Syria unsuccessfully attempted to retake it during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, before Israel annexed the region in 1981 by extending its laws over the territory and its occupants.
SOURCE: Jerusalem CNN: By Oren Liebermann and Tim Hume, CNN
Updated 8:21 AM ET, Mon April 18, 2016

On a very similar note, the Border between Israel and Egypt is what it is:

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, 1 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.
SOURCE: TREATY OF PEACE 1 BETWEEN THE ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT AND THE STATE OF ISRAEL
​

In Jordan, due to the West Bank and other military considerations, the green line did not follow the international border between Jordan and Palestine. This is irrelevant to this issue and did not change the international border.

(COMMENT)

Jordan was concerned with a very different issue. It was that some Israelis (an ever dwindling number) still have the notion that the historical Israel incapsulated the Dead Sea and extended beyond the Jordan River. Without regard for that argument, the best answer comes from the Treaty itself.

Article 3 - International Boundary Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of JordanAnd The State of Israel October 26, 1994

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 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.
5. It is agreed that where the boundary follows a river, in the event of natural changes in the course of the flow of the river as described in Annex I (a), the boundary shall follow the new course of the flow. In the event of any other changes the boundary shall not be affected unless otherwise agreed.
6. Immediately upon the exchange of the instruments of ratification of this Treaty, each Party will deploy on its side of the international boundary as defined in Annex I (a).
7. The parties shall, upon the signature of the Treaty, enter into negotiations to conclude, within 9 months, an agreement on the delimitation of their maritime boundary in the Gulf of Aqaba.
8. Taking into account the special circumstances of the Baqura/Naharayim area, which is under Jordanian sovereignty, with Israeli private ownership rights, the Parties agree to apply the provisions set out in Annex I (b).
9. With respect to the Al-Ghamr/Zofar area, the provisions set out in Annex I (c) will apply.
SOURCE: The Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty was signed on October 26, 1994, at the southern border crossing of Wadi ‘Araba. The treaty guaranteed Jordan the restoration of its occupied land (approximately 380 square kilometers), as well as an equitable share of water from the Yarmouk and Jordan rivers. Moreover, the treaty defined Jordan’s western borders clearly and conclusively for the first time, putting an end to the dangerous and false Zionist claim that “Jordan is Palestine.”​

As you can see by the Treaty, the Jordanians essentially default the the Mandate Map (1922), well before the Armistice Lines were ever drawn. "The boundary Line shall follow the middle of the main course of the flow of the Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers." (Annex 1a)

The green line around the West Bank and Gaza strip followed no borders. Its location was based on the location of military forces at the time of the armistice. Since it could not be a political or territorial border, it ran through Palestine. It was Palestine on both sides of the green line. The green line inside Palestine merely defined different areas occupation.

(COMMENT)

The former "Green Line" was NOT made for the benefit of the Arab Palestinian. BOTH the Armistice Agreements for which the Armistices Lines established, have language in Article XII that stipulates that the Armistice shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved. Essentially, the Green Lines become historical and drop its authority.

Why, because at the time of the conflict, on which the Armistice Lines were drawn, ended and the Arab Palestinians were NOT a party to either the Armistice or the Peace Treaties. And that is because they opted out to become a Self-Governing nation; because it wasn't enough. Now it looks like they are going to get considerably less territory. That would be if they fell into chaos like Egypt and Syrian did.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why don't you just address my post without throwing in a lot of politics. Politics cannot change borders.

 

[Shusha]

Why don't you just address my post without throwing in a lot of politics. Politics cannot change borders.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course politics can change borders. Its called a treaty.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why don't you just address my post without throwing in a lot of politics. Politics cannot change borders.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course politics can change borders. Its called a treaty.

Good post.

What treaty did Israel have with Palestine to change borders?

Link?

 

[Hollie]

Why don't you just address my post without throwing in a lot of politics. Politics cannot change borders.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course politics can change borders. Its called a treaty.

Good post.

What treaty did Israel have with Palestine to change borders?

Link?

"Pal'istan" was never in a position to establish borders. Your alternate reality of some "country of Pal'istan" you have created reduces your argument to mere wishful thinking... and a concerning attitude regarding your ability to operate in a reality-based worldview.

Link?

 

[member]

As can be seen, the Zionists started using film propaganda early.

The myth of "Jews making the desert bloom", was based on a clip from this film. The beach sand dunes, with invaders standing around, were filmed with productive Christian and Muslim owned orchards just behind the photographer. This was what created the myth.

Most of the Zionist supporting morons here believe this myth and actually mention in their posts.

What was in your clip? --- I couldn’t see.





Did it have:


People in cages being lit on fire?

Defenseless women and children being slaughtered ?

People lined up and blindfolded standing on a beach waiting to be beheaded?

Scene after scene of mass genocide w/seas of Skeleton graves?

People blindly throwing barrel bombs out of planes onto the homes, hospitals & schools of innocent men, women & children?


…well, does it?


Take your time, I understand..........

 

[member]

What does criticizing the removal and oppression of native people by other people have to do with a feeling of superiority? People from another continent, supported by the world's leading colonial power went to another place and took over from the native people that had lived there for many generations. That can and should be criticized.

Dude, false premise. Who removed and oppressed native people? You claim it's "the Jews". Why do you focus on them and no other groups? Why not Americans and Native Americans? Why not ISIS and non-fundamentalist Muslims? Why do you hate Jews so much and no one else?

"...Why do you hate Jews so much and no one else?"

 

[Shusha]

Why don't you just address my post without throwing in a lot of politics. Politics cannot change borders.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course politics can change borders. Its called a treaty.

Good post.

What treaty did Israel have with Palestine to change borders?

What government would Israel have treated with?

And what makes you think the borders have changed?

 

[theliq]

As can be seen, the Zionists started using film propaganda early.

The myth of "Jews making the desert bloom", was based on a clip from this film. The beach sand dunes, with invaders standing around, were filmed with productive Christian and Muslim owned orchards just behind the photographer. This was what created the myth.

Most of the Zionist supporting morons here believe this myth and actually mention in their posts.

*snip jew haters video*

the rise of pro palestinian terrorist propaganda started with vanessa redgrave.

more importantly is that it's probably time for you to learn something about history.

*shrug*

NO JILLIAN the rights(NOT PROPAGANDA) for Palestinian Freedom started in 1948.......Redgrave was a late starter....steven ps this maybe the time for you to understand Zionist/Palestinian history lady.....just sayin

And just what rights did they have in 1948 then, or is this something you cant find because the hate sites dont list them.

What about the Jews rights, and that is all the Jews with no exception's from 1948. OR DO YOU WANT TO REMOVE ALL THE RIGHTS FROM THE JEWS AND SEE THEM WIPED OUT

Silly and Very Immature response Pheo......I am an advocate for a peaceful Israel and peaceful Palestine....UNLIKE YOU and the Zionist rabble who desire to expel all Palestinians and drive them into the Sea.....You failed in 1948-50 and will always fail because unlike you The Palestinians are a Semitic People...like Real Jews.........not like You who is a convert to Zionist Terrorism and a SYNTHETIC.

When have I ever said I want to see Jews WIPED OUT......Never,these statements you falsely make are a mad machination of your SAD sullied BRAIN steve

 

[theliq]

Just facts. You are the purveyor of Zionist propaganda, that's all you know. You haven't had the ability to recognize fact.

Nutjobs always feel like they are the only sane ones and everyone else is stupid or insane.

View attachment 98214

Now,Now Divine

You disagree? Have you ever dealt with or studied the mentally ill?

Add to this the number of mentally ill online is easily double or triple the population. Sure, we're all a bit nuts to some degree, but I'm talking about people with mental issues that need treatment; either therapy or medication. Among the most common are fervent conspiracy theorists. I'm not talking about those who kind of wonder if there was a second gunman in Dallas 1963, but who have zero doubt that it was LBJ and the CIA who had JFK assassinated or that Bush was behind 9/11.

In this case, we have antisemitics who fervently believe ZOG agents exist with a plan to dominate the world by controlling the United States of America.

I have much interest and work closely with the mentally ill.........we introduced a programme helping Drug Addicted people with great success,importantly we can offer employment which has helped so many in these situations......unlike most I don't sit on my Ass but do practical things to help people.........There but for the Grace of God,could go all of us.....steve

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What the hell are you talking about?

Why don't you just address my post without throwing in a lot of politics. Politics cannot change borders.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course politics can change borders. Its called a treaty.

Good post.

What treaty did Israel have with Palestine to change borders?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Up until 1988, there was no assemblance of any state entity known to represent the Arab Palestinian. The term "treaty" applies to an international agreement between States.
It was only in December 1988 that the UN acknowledged the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988. Only "States" possess the capacity to be a party to treaties. In the acknowledgement, the UN decided to replace the name Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) with the name "Palestine" in the UN system.

On 6 January 2016, the UN reaffirmed, the State of Palestine [(resolutions 3237 (XXIX), 22 November 1974; 43/177, 15 December 1988; 52/250, 7 July 1998; and 67/19, 29 November 2012)] would be listed as a non-member and an entity having received a standing invitation to participate as an observer in the sessions and the work of the General Assembly.

The initiation of a treaty can be started by any power. But most often by the Major Powers of the World; which have often initiated treaties and armistice arrangements. In the case of the Arab Palestinians, the PLO have been the only good faith representative that has extended themselves successfully in the last two decades.

In August 1988, the Jordanians abandon the West Bank and withdrew its sovereignty leaving it in the hands of the effective control of Israel. While the Israelis did not stand in the way of the PLO Declaration of Independence; which stipulated that the "territory covered was:

• Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and
• Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
​

For which the General Assemble replied:

• Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;
​

(THE LONG and the SHORT OF IT)

In the "Question of Palestine" it takes two to tango. And the Hostile Arab Palestinians, the leadership behind them, which actively work the incite, encourage, and further Jihadist, the Fedayeen, the Insurgents, the Radical Islamist, the Resistance Activist, and Asymmetric Extremist that pursue a course of action specifically targeting civilians and with the intent to harm the Occupation Force in violation of Article 68 GCIV.

Most Respectfully,
R