The difference between anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel

[Shusha]

And one side says the Palestinians are evil.

Bullshit.

NO ONE here is arguing that Palestinians as a CONCEPT is evil.

They argue that Islam, as a concept is evil.

Not on I/P, they don't. And I doubt they argue that Islam as a whole is evil, though they may find certain ideologies problematic.

 

[RoccoR]

Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

The template for an Armistice Agreement (the BoilerPlate) is what it was for that period in time. Remember, the Armistice is a military arrangement between the military of the parties, signed by leadership of the respective militaries that have some operational and effective control to represent.

"P F Tinmore, et al,

You ask the question: "WHAT PALESTINIAN TERRITORY WAS OCCUPIED IN 1949 BY Israel IF PALESTINE NEVER TOOK UP SOVEREIGNTY OF ANY LAND"

So, to answer your question: The territory identified by the Order in Council.

The territorial identification and cartography designations has nothing at all to do with the effective control by the Forward Edge of the Battle Area on which much of the Armistice Arrangement were based upon.

Most Respectfully.
R

So what does all that have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

The answer explains the name. In fact, all of the territory that was not under Israeli self-determination was occupied by Aggressor Arab League Forces.

Most Respectfully,
R

That varies from my post. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. I can't find one word different among the three.

AND where do the say nation of Palestine in them ? and who signed for this nation of Palestine ?[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

First, there was NO Palestinian Force, Irregular or otherwise, that had (in March 1949) effective military control of any portion of the battlefield or territory formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine.

Second, both the Holy War Army (HWA), and the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) had either been decimated, disbanded, demilitarized or otherwise rendered combat ineffective. At the time the Armistice Commission was establishing the Agreements, there were NO force leaders representing the any Hostile Force remaining under Palestinian command with effective control over any stretch of the FEBA.

Third, in 1945 --- the Allied Powers instituted a thorough denazification process; which, in 1948, was largely transferred to the new Federal Republic of Germany. The HWA, ALA, and the All Palestine Government (APG) had direct connections or link to Nazi Germany. Going after the NAZIs was a priority. While the bulk of the denazification was considered complete by 30 April 1948, it was not until June 1958 that the Allied Law prohibiting NAZI association in governments was abolished [Annex K. Allied Control Authority, Control Council Directive No. 24 (Removal from Office and from Positions of Responsibility of Nazis and of Persons Hostile to Allied Purposes) 12 January 1946]. Any agreement reached between the HWA, ALA or APG would be inconsistant with the Directive #24 (Removal from Office and from Positions of Responsibility of Nazis and of Persons Hostile to Allied Purposes); even if there was a recognized entity.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

And one side says the Palestinians are evil.

Bullshit.

NO ONE here is arguing that Palestinians as a CONCEPT is evil.

They argue that Islam, as a concept is evil.

Not on I/P, they don't. And I doubt they argue that Islam as a whole is evil, though they may find certain ideologies problematic.

You're right, not so much in IP, though the same cast of characters do argue that outside of IP.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

The template for an Armistice Agreement (the BoilerPlate) is what it was for that period in time. Remember, the Armistice is a military arrangement between the military of the parties, signed by leadership of the respective militaries that have some operational and effective control to represent.

"P F Tinmore, et al,

You ask the question: "WHAT PALESTINIAN TERRITORY WAS OCCUPIED IN 1949 BY Israel IF PALESTINE NEVER TOOK UP SOVEREIGNTY OF ANY LAND"

So, to answer your question: The territory identified by the Order in Council.

The territorial identification and cartography designations has nothing at all to do with the effective control by the Forward Edge of the Battle Area on which much of the Armistice Arrangement were based upon.

Most Respectfully.
R

So what does all that have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

The answer explains the name. In fact, all of the territory that was not under Israeli self-determination was occupied by Aggressor Arab League Forces.

Most Respectfully,
R

That varies from my post. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. I can't find one word different among the three.

AND where do the say nation of Palestine in them ? and who signed for this nation of Palestine ?

(COMMENT)

First, there was NO Palestinian Force, Irregular or otherwise, that had (in March 1949) effective military control of any portion of the battlefield or territory formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine.

Second, both the Holy War Army (HWA), and the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) had either been decimated, disbanded, demilitarized or otherwise rendered combat ineffective. At the time the Armistice Commission was establishing the Agreements, there were NO force leaders representing the any Hostile Force remaining under Palestinian command with effective control over any stretch of the FEBA.

Third, in 1945 --- the Allied Powers instituted a thorough denazification process; which, in 1948, was largely transferred to the new Federal Republic of Germany. The HWA, ALA, and the All Palestine Government (APG) had direct connections or link to Nazi Germany. Going after the NAZIs was a priority. While the bulk of the denazification was considered complete by 30 April 1948, it was not until June 1958 that the Allied Law prohibiting NAZI association in governments was abolished [Annex K. Allied Control Authority, Control Council Directive No. 24 (Removal from Office and from Positions of Responsibility of Nazis and of Persons Hostile to Allied Purposes) 12 January 1946]. Any agreement reached between the HWA, ALA or APG would be inconsistant with the Directive #24 (Removal from Office and from Positions of Responsibility of Nazis and of Persons Hostile to Allied Purposes); even if there was a recognized entity.

Most Respectfully,
R

First, there was NO Palestinian Force, Irregular or otherwise, that had (in March 1949) effective military control of any portion of the battlefield or territory formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine.​

Indeed, there was no official involvement by the Palestinians in the 1948 war. Hence, they were not involved in the armistice agreements.

And, since they had no involvement they were in no position to lose any land in that war. You cannot lose land in somebody else's war.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is not exactly correct either. There was a Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW) component as well as tthe more conventional aspects. Just as the First UNPC Report to the UNSC acknowledged, there were a number of Arab Forces attempting to defy the resolution of the General Assembly. One 4Gw approach was Syria's attempt (through the (Arab League Military Committee, Headquarters (HQ) Damascus) at fielding a proxy irregular force that was somewhat responsible for funding, yet manned by Arab Palestinians. It was a deliberate attempt to twist political and military goals with regional objectives. It also attempts to confuse the use of civilian asymmetric forces with Arab Legion Forces.

First, there was NO Palestinian Force, Irregular or otherwise, that had (in March 1949) effective military control of any portion of the battlefield or territory formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine.

Indeed, there was no official involvement by the Palestinians in the 1948 war. Hence, they were not involved in the armistice agreements.

And, since they had no involvement they were in no position to lose any land in that war. You cannot lose land in somebody else's war.

(COMMENT)

Your inference that the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) and the Holy War Army (HWA) --> "had no involvement they were in no position to lose any land in that war" is not correct.

In late 1948, the ALA participated in a number of engagements and operations that caused a heavy loss of men and material --- which adversely impacted its combat effectiveness. The ALA began a series of retrograde movement to Lebanon and was demilitarised in a few short months afters. It was never refit and never returned to the field. The ALA participated in the following major battles before retirement.

• Operation Hiram
• Battle for Jerusalem
• Battle of Mishmar HaEmek
• Battle of Ramat Yohanan
​

The Holy War Army (HWA), HQs Bir Zeit, north of Ramallah, was in the area under the operational control of the Jordanian Arab Legion which disarmed and demilitarized HWA in late 1948. The HWA participated in the following major battles before it was dissolved by the Arab Legion.

• Battle of Al Qastal
• Siege of Jerusalem
​

This supposition is entirely wrong: "You cannot lose land in somebody else's war." This has never been true. In fact, in the pursuit of Arab League Military Committee Forces, territory which was originally earmarked for the Arab State, was lost by both retreating forces back into Lebanon and Syria.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is not exactly correct either. There was a Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW) component as well as tthe more conventional aspects. Just as the First UNPC Report to the UNSC acknowledged, there were a number of Arab Forces attempting to defy the resolution of the General Assembly. One 4Gw approach was Syria's attempt (through the (Arab League Military Committee, Headquarters (HQ) Damascus) at fielding a proxy irregular force that was somewhat responsible for funding, yet manned by Arab Palestinians. It was a deliberate attempt to twist political and military goals with regional objectives. It also attempts to confuse the use of civilian asymmetric forces with Arab Legion Forces.

First, there was NO Palestinian Force, Irregular or otherwise, that had (in March 1949) effective military control of any portion of the battlefield or territory formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine.

Indeed, there was no official involvement by the Palestinians in the 1948 war. Hence, they were not involved in the armistice agreements.

And, since they had no involvement they were in no position to lose any land in that war. You cannot lose land in somebody else's war.

(COMMENT)

Your inference that the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) and the Holy War Army (HWA) --> "had no involvement they were in no position to lose any land in that war" is not correct.

In late 1948, the ALA participated in a number of engagements and operations that caused a heavy loss of men and material --- which adversely impacted its combat effectiveness. The ALA began a series of retrograde movement to Lebanon and was demilitarised in a few short months afters. It was never refit and never returned to the field. The ALA participated in the following major battles before retirement.

• Operation Hiram
• Battle for Jerusalem
• Battle of Mishmar HaEmek
• Battle of Ramat Yohanan
​

The Holy War Army (HWA), HQs Bir Zeit, north of Ramallah, was in the area under the operational control of the Jordanian Arab Legion which disarmed and demilitarized HWA in late 1948. The HWA participated in the following major battles before it was dissolved by the Arab Legion.

• Battle of Al Qastal
• Siege of Jerusalem
​

This supposition is entirely wrong: "You cannot lose land in somebody else's war." This has never been true. In fact, in the pursuit of Arab League Military Committee Forces, territory which was originally earmarked for the Arab State, was lost by both retreating forces back into Lebanon and Syria.

Most Respectfully,
R

Were the ALA and the HWA Palestinian government armies?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a different issue; but, related

ANSWER: Neither the ALA or the HWA belonged to a single sovereignty.

Were the ALA and the HWA Palestinian government armies?

(COMMENT)

The ALA (volunteers from Arab countries) was established by the Arab League.

The HWA (mostly Arab Palestinian volunteers) was a quasi-independent insurgency with operations emanating from the West Bank; inside the Jordanian rear-area.

Remember, an Armistice does not have much to do with the national or political affiliation of the forces. An Armistice is an agreement between military forces, signed by military officers; having a common forward edge of battle area (FEBA); and an effectively controlled rear area.

Armistice Arrangements with one side, having a 4GW component, are not usually successful. It usually involves one side or another with a low-threshold for continual conflict at a low-intensity. It generally includes, but is not limited to, characteristics such as:

• Constantly evolving political foundations with multiple claims to leadership and long term conflict.
• The application of tactic and strategies usually associated with terrorist or asymmetric operations.
• A political foundation of nationalism, but a conflicting internal struggle – highly decentralized or factionalized.
• Involves direct attack on the enemy's culture, including attacks against civilians.
• Usually involves competing elements of opposing religions or political parties; that paralyzes economic or commercial advances.
​

(SHORT ANSWER)

The ALA and HWA were irregular forces; not representing the interest of any one particular political entity. However, each had direct support from one or more Arab League members.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a different issue; but, related

ANSWER: Neither the ALA or the HWA belonged to a single sovereignty.

Were the ALA and the HWA Palestinian government armies?

(COMMENT)

The ALA (volunteers from Arab countries) was established by the Arab League.

The HWA (mostly Arab Palestinian volunteers) was a quasi-independent insurgency with operations emanating from the West Bank; inside the Jordanian rear-area.

Remember, an Armistice does not have much to do with the national or political affiliation of the forces. An Armistice is an agreement between military forces, signed by military officers; having a common forward edge of battle area (FEBA); and an effectively controlled rear area.

Armistice Arrangements with one side, having a 4GW component, are not usually successful. It usually involves one side or another with a low-threshold for continual conflict at a low-intensity. It generally includes, but is not limited to, characteristics such as:

• Constantly evolving political foundations with multiple claims to leadership and long term conflict.
• The application of tactic and strategies usually associated with terrorist or asymmetric operations.
• A political foundation of nationalism, but a conflicting internal struggle – highly decentralized or factionalized.
• Involves direct attack on the enemy's culture, including attacks against civilians.
• Usually involves competing elements of opposing religions or political parties; that paralyzes economic or commercial advances.
​

(SHORT ANSWER)

The ALA and HWA were irregular forces; not representing the interest of any one particular political entity. However, each had direct support from one or more Arab League members.

Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that Palestine had no military and had no official involvement in the war. Therefore Palestine could not lose any land in the war of others.

The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements, that dealt exclusively with the position of foreign troops, confirmed that Palestine's international borders were still intact and that Palestine lost no land as of the time of the agreements.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

While this might sound coherent, it is really a chaotic line of thought.

The bottom line is that Palestine had no military and had no official involvement in the war. Therefore Palestine could not lose any land in the war of others.

The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements, that dealt exclusively with the position of foreign troops, confirmed that Palestine's international borders were still intact and that Palestine lost no land as of the time of the agreements.

(COMMENT)

"Palestine had no military:" That is correct. There was no nation called Palestine. There were insurgents attempting to overcome Jewish self-determination to achieve total control of the territory. The insurgents were rendered combat ineffective.

"Palestine could not lose any land:" No entity called "Palestine existed. The Government of Palestine, at the time of the Arab Intervention, was the UN Palestine Commission. To say that "Palestine could not lose any land" is like saying non-existent people did not lose something they never had. How much sense does that make?

At the opening of the 1949 Armistice, the Armistice lines replaced the demarcations of the territory to which the Mandate formerly applied. While some of the Armistice lines followed the older Mandate demarcation, this in no way lends any further recognition of the old Mandate of Palestine territory. For instance, the territory for which the Mandate of Palestine formerly Applied, had no political subdivision called either the Gaza Strip or the West Bank.

Palestine lost no land because, other than the territory for which the Mandate for Palestine formerly Applied, there was no Palestine. The make believe country of Narnia could not lose any land because there was no make believe country called Narnia having a make believe sovereignty over any land.

(QUESTION)

If you are trying to suggest that the Arab Palestinians did not lose anything (over the last seven decades) because their was no such thing as Palestine, you are going about it the wrong way. There was never either a treaty or an armistice with a place called Palestine --- true. But if the Arab Palestinians lost nothing --- then --- what are they making a claim to? What are they fighting over?

It is hard for me to believe that the Arab Palestinian has been fighting over nothing they lost: "Palestine lost no land as of the time of the agreements."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Really? Then allow all those displaced Palestinians and their famillies who are prepared to live as "Israeli citizens" to return to their homes and restore their property where they can prove prior ownership or compensate them accordingly. Withdraw from the West Bank unconditionally, remove the settlements and release all political prisoners. Once that happens I'll concede that the above will be "fundamentaly false notions" until then:

• Zionist Israel doesn't care about Goyim
• Indiscriminate massacre and displacement of Palestinian people was and continues to be necessary for Zionist Israel to exist.
  
• That ongoing ethnic cleansing and military repression of Palestinians is a requirement for the Zionist state to exist.
• Zionist Israel commits crimes against humanity in order to maintain itself.

First, there is no on-going indiscriminate massacre, any on-going displacement of the Palestinian people, any on-going ethnic cleansing or any on-going military repression, or any on-going crimes against humanity. Falsehoods or exaggerations, all of them. (Well, not on the part of the Israelis, there certainly is the Palestinian side.

Second, I am the first one to agree to most of your points above. I AGREE that the Palestinians should be permitted to return to Palestine (not Israel). I AGREE that all those displaced should be compensated (including the nearly 1 million Jews). I AGREE that Israel must withdraw from the West Bank unconditionally (though in stages). I AGREE with the release of political prisoners (though not criminals). The only one I disagree with is the removal of the "settlements". THAT would be ethnic cleansing and a true crime against humanity, and especially so if only done unilaterally.

But BEFORE ANY of this can happen -- there needs to be an agreement of peace and mutual recognition. Unconditionally. By the Palestinians and the other Arab nations. There needs to be an end-of-conflict agreement. There needs to be an end to all acts of war, all belligerence, all terrorism both in promise and in practice. For an EXTENDED period of time.

And there needs to be a treaty determining which territory belongs to which nation.

And don't forget a mutual recognition of what constitutes Palestine, in other words its borders. Until that is done there will never be any nation of Palestine other than what exists today

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

While this might sound coherent, it is really a chaotic line of thought.

The bottom line is that Palestine had no military and had no official involvement in the war. Therefore Palestine could not lose any land in the war of others.

The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements, that dealt exclusively with the position of foreign troops, confirmed that Palestine's international borders were still intact and that Palestine lost no land as of the time of the agreements.

(COMMENT)

"Palestine had no military:" That is correct. There was no nation called Palestine. There were insurgents attempting to overcome Jewish self-determination to achieve total control of the territory. The insurgents were rendered combat ineffective.

"Palestine could not lose any land:" No entity called "Palestine existed. The Government of Palestine, at the time of the Arab Intervention, was the UN Palestine Commission. To say that "Palestine could not lose any land" is like saying non-existent people did not lose something they never had. How much sense does that make?

At the opening of the 1949 Armistice, the Armistice lines replaced the demarcations of the territory to which the Mandate formerly applied. While some of the Armistice lines followed the older Mandate demarcation, this in no way lends any further recognition of the old Mandate of Palestine territory. For instance, the territory for which the Mandate of Palestine formerly Applied, had no political subdivision called either the Gaza Strip or the West Bank.

Palestine lost no land because, other than the territory for which the Mandate for Palestine formerly Applied, there was no Palestine. The make believe country of Narnia could not lose any land because there was no make believe country called Narnia having a make believe sovereignty over any land.

(QUESTION)

If you are trying to suggest that the Arab Palestinians did not lose anything (over the last seven decades) because their was no such thing as Palestine, you are going about it the wrong way. There was never either a treaty or an armistice with a place called Palestine --- true. But if the Arab Palestinians lost nothing --- then --- what are they making a claim to? What are they fighting over?

It is hard for me to believe that the Arab Palestinian has been fighting over nothing they lost: "Palestine lost no land as of the time of the agreements."

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN says that the Palestinians "in Palestine" have the right to territorial integrity. As do the Palestinians and others.
Good list of Israel's bullshit talking points though. Good boy.

 

[Phoenall]

Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

The template for an Armistice Agreement (the BoilerPlate) is what it was for that period in time. Remember, the Armistice is a military arrangement between the military of the parties, signed by leadership of the respective militaries that have some operational and effective control to represent.

"P F Tinmore, et al,

You ask the question: "WHAT PALESTINIAN TERRITORY WAS OCCUPIED IN 1949 BY Israel IF PALESTINE NEVER TOOK UP SOVEREIGNTY OF ANY LAND"

So, to answer your question: The territory identified by the Order in Council.

The territorial identification and cartography designations has nothing at all to do with the effective control by the Forward Edge of the Battle Area on which much of the Armistice Arrangement were based upon.

Most Respectfully.
R

So what does all that have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

The answer explains the name. In fact, all of the territory that was not under Israeli self-determination was occupied by Aggressor Arab League Forces.

Most Respectfully,
R

That varies from my post. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. I can't find one word different among the three.

AND where do the say nation of Palestine in them ? and who signed for this nation of Palestine ?

(COMMENT)

First, there was NO Palestinian Force, Irregular or otherwise, that had (in March 1949) effective military control of any portion of the battlefield or territory formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine.

Second, both the Holy War Army (HWA), and the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) had either been decimated, disbanded, demilitarized or otherwise rendered combat ineffective. At the time the Armistice Commission was establishing the Agreements, there were NO force leaders representing the any Hostile Force remaining under Palestinian command with effective control over any stretch of the FEBA.

Third, in 1945 --- the Allied Powers instituted a thorough denazification process; which, in 1948, was largely transferred to the new Federal Republic of Germany. The HWA, ALA, and the All Palestine Government (APG) had direct connections or link to Nazi Germany. Going after the NAZIs was a priority. While the bulk of the denazification was considered complete by 30 April 1948, it was not until June 1958 that the Allied Law prohibiting NAZI association in governments was abolished [Annex K. Allied Control Authority, Control Council Directive No. 24 (Removal from Office and from Positions of Responsibility of Nazis and of Persons Hostile to Allied Purposes) 12 January 1946]. Any agreement reached between the HWA, ALA or APG would be inconsistant with the Directive #24 (Removal from Office and from Positions of Responsibility of Nazis and of Persons Hostile to Allied Purposes); even if there was a recognized entity.

Most Respectfully,
R

First, there was NO Palestinian Force, Irregular or otherwise, that had (in March 1949) effective military control of any portion of the battlefield or territory formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine.​

Indeed, there was no official involvement by the Palestinians in the 1948 war. Hence, they were not involved in the armistice agreements.

And, since they had no involvement they were in no position to lose any land in that war. You cannot lose land in somebody else's war.

How can you say that when the evidence points to the Palestinians being kicked out of Israel for being militia. Those were the only Palestinians that were ever dispossessed by the Jews.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

The template for an Armistice Agreement (the BoilerPlate) is what it was for that period in time. Remember, the Armistice is a military arrangement between the military of the parties, signed by leadership of the respective militaries that have some operational and effective control to represent.

"P F Tinmore, et al,

You ask the question: "WHAT PALESTINIAN TERRITORY WAS OCCUPIED IN 1949 BY Israel IF PALESTINE NEVER TOOK UP SOVEREIGNTY OF ANY LAND"

So what does all that have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

The answer explains the name. In fact, all of the territory that was not under Israeli self-determination was occupied by Aggressor Arab League Forces.

Most Respectfully,
R

That varies from my post. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. I can't find one word different among the three.

AND where do the say nation of Palestine in them ? and who signed for this nation of Palestine ?

(COMMENT)

First, there was NO Palestinian Force, Irregular or otherwise, that had (in March 1949) effective military control of any portion of the battlefield or territory formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine.

Second, both the Holy War Army (HWA), and the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) had either been decimated, disbanded, demilitarized or otherwise rendered combat ineffective. At the time the Armistice Commission was establishing the Agreements, there were NO force leaders representing the any Hostile Force remaining under Palestinian command with effective control over any stretch of the FEBA.

Third, in 1945 --- the Allied Powers instituted a thorough denazification process; which, in 1948, was largely transferred to the new Federal Republic of Germany. The HWA, ALA, and the All Palestine Government (APG) had direct connections or link to Nazi Germany. Going after the NAZIs was a priority. While the bulk of the denazification was considered complete by 30 April 1948, it was not until June 1958 that the Allied Law prohibiting NAZI association in governments was abolished [Annex K. Allied Control Authority, Control Council Directive No. 24 (Removal from Office and from Positions of Responsibility of Nazis and of Persons Hostile to Allied Purposes) 12 January 1946]. Any agreement reached between the HWA, ALA or APG would be inconsistant with the Directive #24 (Removal from Office and from Positions of Responsibility of Nazis and of Persons Hostile to Allied Purposes); even if there was a recognized entity.

Most Respectfully,
R

First, there was NO Palestinian Force, Irregular or otherwise, that had (in March 1949) effective military control of any portion of the battlefield or territory formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine.​

Indeed, there was no official involvement by the Palestinians in the 1948 war. Hence, they were not involved in the armistice agreements.

And, since they had no involvement they were in no position to lose any land in that war. You cannot lose land in somebody else's war.

How can you say that when the evidence points to the Palestinians being kicked out of Israel for being militia. Those were the only Palestinians that were ever dispossessed by the Jews.

Did you make that one up yourself?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is not exactly correct either. There was a Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW) component as well as tthe more conventional aspects. Just as the First UNPC Report to the UNSC acknowledged, there were a number of Arab Forces attempting to defy the resolution of the General Assembly. One 4Gw approach was Syria's attempt (through the (Arab League Military Committee, Headquarters (HQ) Damascus) at fielding a proxy irregular force that was somewhat responsible for funding, yet manned by Arab Palestinians. It was a deliberate attempt to twist political and military goals with regional objectives. It also attempts to confuse the use of civilian asymmetric forces with Arab Legion Forces.

First, there was NO Palestinian Force, Irregular or otherwise, that had (in March 1949) effective military control of any portion of the battlefield or territory formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine.

Indeed, there was no official involvement by the Palestinians in the 1948 war. Hence, they were not involved in the armistice agreements.

And, since they had no involvement they were in no position to lose any land in that war. You cannot lose land in somebody else's war.

(COMMENT)

Your inference that the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) and the Holy War Army (HWA) --> "had no involvement they were in no position to lose any land in that war" is not correct.

In late 1948, the ALA participated in a number of engagements and operations that caused a heavy loss of men and material --- which adversely impacted its combat effectiveness. The ALA began a series of retrograde movement to Lebanon and was demilitarised in a few short months afters. It was never refit and never returned to the field. The ALA participated in the following major battles before retirement.

• Operation Hiram
• Battle for Jerusalem
• Battle of Mishmar HaEmek
• Battle of Ramat Yohanan
​

The Holy War Army (HWA), HQs Bir Zeit, north of Ramallah, was in the area under the operational control of the Jordanian Arab Legion which disarmed and demilitarized HWA in late 1948. The HWA participated in the following major battles before it was dissolved by the Arab Legion.

• Battle of Al Qastal
• Siege of Jerusalem
​

This supposition is entirely wrong: "You cannot lose land in somebody else's war." This has never been true. In fact, in the pursuit of Arab League Military Committee Forces, territory which was originally earmarked for the Arab State, was lost by both retreating forces back into Lebanon and Syria.

Most Respectfully,
R

Were the ALA and the HWA Palestinian government armies?

No such thing back then, and you know it. Far too many Islamic nations had no "government" as we know it and were ruled by dictators and clerics

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a different issue; but, related

ANSWER: Neither the ALA or the HWA belonged to a single sovereignty.

Were the ALA and the HWA Palestinian government armies?

(COMMENT)

The ALA (volunteers from Arab countries) was established by the Arab League.

The HWA (mostly Arab Palestinian volunteers) was a quasi-independent insurgency with operations emanating from the West Bank; inside the Jordanian rear-area.

Remember, an Armistice does not have much to do with the national or political affiliation of the forces. An Armistice is an agreement between military forces, signed by military officers; having a common forward edge of battle area (FEBA); and an effectively controlled rear area.

Armistice Arrangements with one side, having a 4GW component, are not usually successful. It usually involves one side or another with a low-threshold for continual conflict at a low-intensity. It generally includes, but is not limited to, characteristics such as:

• Constantly evolving political foundations with multiple claims to leadership and long term conflict.
• The application of tactic and strategies usually associated with terrorist or asymmetric operations.
• A political foundation of nationalism, but a conflicting internal struggle – highly decentralized or factionalized.
• Involves direct attack on the enemy's culture, including attacks against civilians.
• Usually involves competing elements of opposing religions or political parties; that paralyzes economic or commercial advances.
​

(SHORT ANSWER)

The ALA and HWA were irregular forces; not representing the interest of any one particular political entity. However, each had direct support from one or more Arab League members.

Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that Palestine had no military and had no official involvement in the war. Therefore Palestine could not lose any land in the war of others.

The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements, that dealt exclusively with the position of foreign troops, confirmed that Palestine's international borders were still intact and that Palestine lost no land as of the time of the agreements.

They could not lose any land because they had no land to lose in the first place. They repeatedly refused to take part in any negotiations regarding the two palestines so lost the chance to claim any of the land. It was only in 1988 that the arab muslims saw they were losing ever more land that they could have taken as far back as 1948. They were always slow at coming forwards and getting what was offered to them.

The borders were those of the Mandate of Palestine as set by the LoN treaties, they were not the borders of an nation of palestine

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

While this might sound coherent, it is really a chaotic line of thought.

The bottom line is that Palestine had no military and had no official involvement in the war. Therefore Palestine could not lose any land in the war of others.

The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements, that dealt exclusively with the position of foreign troops, confirmed that Palestine's international borders were still intact and that Palestine lost no land as of the time of the agreements.

(COMMENT)

"Palestine had no military:" That is correct. There was no nation called Palestine. There were insurgents attempting to overcome Jewish self-determination to achieve total control of the territory. The insurgents were rendered combat ineffective.

"Palestine could not lose any land:" No entity called "Palestine existed. The Government of Palestine, at the time of the Arab Intervention, was the UN Palestine Commission. To say that "Palestine could not lose any land" is like saying non-existent people did not lose something they never had. How much sense does that make?

At the opening of the 1949 Armistice, the Armistice lines replaced the demarcations of the territory to which the Mandate formerly applied. While some of the Armistice lines followed the older Mandate demarcation, this in no way lends any further recognition of the old Mandate of Palestine territory. For instance, the territory for which the Mandate of Palestine formerly Applied, had no political subdivision called either the Gaza Strip or the West Bank.

Palestine lost no land because, other than the territory for which the Mandate for Palestine formerly Applied, there was no Palestine. The make believe country of Narnia could not lose any land because there was no make believe country called Narnia having a make believe sovereignty over any land.

(QUESTION)

If you are trying to suggest that the Arab Palestinians did not lose anything (over the last seven decades) because their was no such thing as Palestine, you are going about it the wrong way. There was never either a treaty or an armistice with a place called Palestine --- true. But if the Arab Palestinians lost nothing --- then --- what are they making a claim to? What are they fighting over?

It is hard for me to believe that the Arab Palestinian has been fighting over nothing they lost: "Palestine lost no land as of the time of the agreements."

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN says that the Palestinians "in Palestine" have the right to territorial integrity. As do the Palestinians and others.
Good list of Israel's bullshit talking points though. Good boy.

But first they need to show just what territory they want integrity over, then they need to accept they will need to negotiate these borders in good faith. Having a right is all well and good if you are prepared to exercise that right and all that goes with it

 

[Phoenall]

Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

The template for an Armistice Agreement (the BoilerPlate) is what it was for that period in time. Remember, the Armistice is a military arrangement between the military of the parties, signed by leadership of the respective militaries that have some operational and effective control to represent.

(COMMENT)

The answer explains the name. In fact, all of the territory that was not under Israeli self-determination was occupied by Aggressor Arab League Forces.

Most Respectfully,
R

That varies from my post. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. I can't find one word different among the three.

AND where do the say nation of Palestine in them ? and who signed for this nation of Palestine ?

(COMMENT)

First, there was NO Palestinian Force, Irregular or otherwise, that had (in March 1949) effective military control of any portion of the battlefield or territory formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine.

Second, both the Holy War Army (HWA), and the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) had either been decimated, disbanded, demilitarized or otherwise rendered combat ineffective. At the time the Armistice Commission was establishing the Agreements, there were NO force leaders representing the any Hostile Force remaining under Palestinian command with effective control over any stretch of the FEBA.

Third, in 1945 --- the Allied Powers instituted a thorough denazification process; which, in 1948, was largely transferred to the new Federal Republic of Germany. The HWA, ALA, and the All Palestine Government (APG) had direct connections or link to Nazi Germany. Going after the NAZIs was a priority. While the bulk of the denazification was considered complete by 30 April 1948, it was not until June 1958 that the Allied Law prohibiting NAZI association in governments was abolished [Annex K. Allied Control Authority, Control Council Directive No. 24 (Removal from Office and from Positions of Responsibility of Nazis and of Persons Hostile to Allied Purposes) 12 January 1946]. Any agreement reached between the HWA, ALA or APG would be inconsistant with the Directive #24 (Removal from Office and from Positions of Responsibility of Nazis and of Persons Hostile to Allied Purposes); even if there was a recognized entity.

Most Respectfully,
R

First, there was NO Palestinian Force, Irregular or otherwise, that had (in March 1949) effective military control of any portion of the battlefield or territory formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine.​

Indeed, there was no official involvement by the Palestinians in the 1948 war. Hence, they were not involved in the armistice agreements.

And, since they had no involvement they were in no position to lose any land in that war. You cannot lose land in somebody else's war.

How can you say that when the evidence points to the Palestinians being kicked out of Israel for being militia. Those were the only Palestinians that were ever dispossessed by the Jews.

Did you make that one up yourself?

No it is in the history books, unless you only read those that say Palestine was a nation in 1923 then they will miss that out.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is a case where some truth is mixed with some misinformation.

The UN says that the Palestinians "in Palestine" have the right to territorial integrity. As do the Palestinians and others.
Good list of Israel's bullshit talking points though. Good boy.

(COMMENT)

Where did the UN define the borders of the "Palestine" to which you are referring. And don't try to use the boundaries to which the Mandate was limited.

The right to territorial integrity means nothing if there is no sovereign territory to which it applies. Where is that sovereign territory to which the Arab Palestinians lays claim?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is a case where some truth is mixed with some misinformation.

The UN says that the Palestinians "in Palestine" have the right to territorial integrity. As do the Palestinians and others.
Good list of Israel's bullshit talking points though. Good boy.

(COMMENT)

Where did the UN define the borders of the "Palestine" to which you are referring. And don't try to use the boundaries to which the Mandate was limited.

The right to territorial integrity means nothing if there is no sovereign territory to which it applies. Where is that sovereign territory to which the Arab Palestinians lays claim?

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN does not define boundaries. It merely referenced already existing international boundaries. BTW, this was after the Mandate left Palestine.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is a case where some truth is mixed with some misinformation.

The UN says that the Palestinians "in Palestine" have the right to territorial integrity. As do the Palestinians and others.
Good list of Israel's bullshit talking points though. Good boy.

(COMMENT)

Where did the UN define the borders of the "Palestine" to which you are referring. And don't try to use the boundaries to which the Mandate was limited.

The right to territorial integrity means nothing if there is no sovereign territory to which it applies. Where is that sovereign territory to which the Arab Palestinians lays claim?

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN does not define boundaries. It merely referenced already existing international boundaries. BTW, this was after the Mandate left Palestine.

WRONG again you confuse the mandate with the mandatory. As far as the Mandate of Palestine is concerned it is still in place. All that has changed is the mandatory .



So how about you answer the question posed now