The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

[Hollie]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The Hostile Arab League Military Forces prevented the UN from taking control of the areas under the 1949 Armistice Agreements.

OK, but the Mandate left and the UN never picked up the ball. It was not under a foreign administration.

(COMMENT)

The Mandate did not leave, it terminated, and the authority transfer to the UN under Article 77a. However, the Arab League was not going to relinquish the territory they gained in the 1948 Israel War of Independence. There was nothing left for the UN to place under Administration.

Most Respectfully,
R

The mandate terminated before the 1948 war.

Do you have a YouTube video?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Don't exaggerate your point. It only adds to the perception that your contribution is corrupted.

The mandate terminated before the 1948 war.

(COMMENT)

King Abdullah of Jordan sent a cable that was released to the Press (Press Release PAL/167 16 May 1948) less than 12hrs after the British withdrawal (Mid-night 14/15 May) and the establishment of Israel as a Jewish State. It was a staged coordinated attack (early morning hours of the 15 May) that had been in the planning for some weeks.

The State of Israel came into being on the evening of Friday, 14 May 1948. On the night of 14-15 May, the regular forces of Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon invaded Palestine. The Egyptian Foreign Minister informed the Security Council that "Egyptian armed forces have started to enter Palestine to establish law and order" (his cable to the Security Council, S/743, 15 May 1948). The Governments of the Arab League States issued a statement on 15 May 1948, as their forces were advancing into Palestine.

The Mechanized assets of Lebanon. Syria, Jordan and Egypt were already stocked, fueled and supplied well before the announcement. The Arab League justification used was "to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres similar to those of Deir Yasin" from the previous month (9 April '48). Staging began in time to incorporate assets from Iraq into the first wave.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Don't exaggerate your point. It only adds to the perception that your contribution is corrupted.

The mandate terminated before the 1948 war.

(COMMENT)

King Abdullah of Jordan sent a cable that was released to the Press (Press Release PAL/167 16 May 1948) less than 12hrs after the British withdrawal (Mid-night 14/15 May) and the establishment of Israel as a Jewish State. It was a staged coordinated attack (early morning hours of the 15 May) that had been in the planning for some weeks.

The State of Israel came into being on the evening of Friday, 14 May 1948. On the night of 14-15 May, the regular forces of Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon invaded Palestine. The Egyptian Foreign Minister informed the Security Council that "Egyptian armed forces have started to enter Palestine to establish law and order" (his cable to the Security Council, S/743, 15 May 1948). The Governments of the Arab League States issued a statement on 15 May 1948, as their forces were advancing into Palestine.

The Mechanized assets of Lebanon. Syria, Jordan and Egypt were already stocked, fueled and supplied well before the announcement. The Arab League justification used was "to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres similar to those of Deir Yasin" from the previous month (9 April '48). Staging began in time to incorporate assets from Iraq into the first wave.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what did that have to do with my post?

 

[Hollie]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Don't exaggerate your point. It only adds to the perception that your contribution is corrupted.

The mandate terminated before the 1948 war.

(COMMENT)

King Abdullah of Jordan sent a cable that was released to the Press (Press Release PAL/167 16 May 1948) less than 12hrs after the British withdrawal (Mid-night 14/15 May) and the establishment of Israel as a Jewish State. It was a staged coordinated attack (early morning hours of the 15 May) that had been in the planning for some weeks.

The State of Israel came into being on the evening of Friday, 14 May 1948. On the night of 14-15 May, the regular forces of Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon invaded Palestine. The Egyptian Foreign Minister informed the Security Council that "Egyptian armed forces have started to enter Palestine to establish law and order" (his cable to the Security Council, S/743, 15 May 1948). The Governments of the Arab League States issued a statement on 15 May 1948, as their forces were advancing into Palestine.

The Mechanized assets of Lebanon. Syria, Jordan and Egypt were already stocked, fueled and supplied well before the announcement. The Arab League justification used was "to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres similar to those of Deir Yasin" from the previous month (9 April '48). Staging began in time to incorporate assets from Iraq into the first wave.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what did that have to do with my post?

Are you not paying attention?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The First use of armed force by a State (ie the Arab League) in contravention of the Charter (Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity) shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression (in this case - against Israel).

NOTE:
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
The Charter says: "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force."

So, what did that have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

In the late 1940's (and even to some degree today) the movement of forces (Jordan/Iraq Front for instance) on the scale of an array consisting of 2 mechanized Infantry brigades and 2 Independent Regiments elements cannot be staged and poised for an attack without some notice. And people noticed. Similarly, registration fire for artillery (QF 25 Pounder Short with a maximum range of 6 miles) is not going to go unnoticed (including its prime mover). And this towed artillery would have to be placed pretty far forward if it was going to of any use in covering the Regiments on the advance and crossing the Jordan River. Remember that the weather in a ground advance plays a role as well. The temperature in the Jordan Valley is 90º and on a fast rise.

Each of the Arab participants (Lebanon, Syria, Egypt) had their own unique problems, but each with through owe staging signature that would alert the Israelis. The Egyptian 3d Division was mostly Motorized Infantry supported by a few tanks. The advantages of the tank on the offense was lost because they cannot advance too far ahead of the infantry. The coordinated attack required that all the Arab League Forces cross the line of departure at once (all at the same time). It would be difficult indeed to hide an entire Brigade of the 3d Infantry Division which had to be lined-up along the Rafah-Tel Aviv Road.

The coming international armed conflict (IAC) was pretty-much known to be happening all during the 1946-1948 non-international armed conflicts (NIAC) (the Civil War). This is why the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instruction (CERI) places the first set of criteria on those Refugees in flight during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948.

Make no mistake! The Arab League "demonstrated" their "threat to use force" very early on in the conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The First use of armed force by a State (ie the Arab League) in contravention of the Charter (Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity) shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression (in this case - against Israel).

So, what were Israels declared borders?

I'll wait.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The First use of armed force by a State (ie the Arab League) in contravention of the Charter (Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity) shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression (in this case - against Israel).

NOTE:
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
The Charter says: "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force."

So, what did that have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

In the late 1940's (and even to some degree today) the movement of forces (Jordan/Iraq Front for instance) on the scale of an array consisting of 2 mechanized Infantry brigades and 2 Independent Regiments elements cannot be staged and poised for an attack without some notice. And people noticed. Similarly, registration fire for artillery (QF 25 Pounder Short with a maximum range of 6 miles) is not going to go unnoticed (including its prime mover). And this towed artillery would have to be placed pretty far forward if it was going to of any use in covering the Regiments on the advance and crossing the Jordan River. Remember that the weather in a ground advance plays a role as well. The temperature in the Jordan Valley is 90º and on a fast rise.

Each of the Arab participants (Lebanon, Syria, Egypt) had their own unique problems, but each with through owe staging signature that would alert the Israelis. The Egyptian 3d Division was mostly Motorized Infantry supported by a few tanks. The advantages of the tank on the offense was lost because they cannot advance too far ahead of the infantry. The coordinated attack required that all the Arab League Forces cross the line of departure at once (all at the same time). It would be difficult indeed to hide an entire Brigade of the 3d Infantry Division which had to be lined-up along the Rafah-Tel Aviv Road.

The coming international armed conflict (IAC) was pretty-much known to be happening all during the 1946-1948 non-international armed conflicts (NIAC) (the Civil War). This is why the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instruction (CERI) places the first set of criteria on those Refugees in flight during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948.

Make no mistake! The Arab League "demonstrated" their "threat to use force" very early on in the conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

The 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine's legal standing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The First use of armed force by a State (ie the Arab League) in contravention of the Charter (Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity) shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression (in this case - against Israel).

NOTE:
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
The Charter says: "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force."

So, what did that have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

In the late 1940's (and even to some degree today) the movement of forces (Jordan/Iraq Front for instance) on the scale of an array consisting of 2 mechanized Infantry brigades and 2 Independent Regiments elements cannot be staged and poised for an attack without some notice. And people noticed. Similarly, registration fire for artillery (QF 25 Pounder Short with a maximum range of 6 miles) is not going to go unnoticed (including its prime mover). And this towed artillery would have to be placed pretty far forward if it was going to of any use in covering the Regiments on the advance and crossing the Jordan River. Remember that the weather in a ground advance plays a role as well. The temperature in the Jordan Valley is 90º and on a fast rise.

Each of the Arab participants (Lebanon, Syria, Egypt) had their own unique problems, but each with through owe staging signature that would alert the Israelis. The Egyptian 3d Division was mostly Motorized Infantry supported by a few tanks. The advantages of the tank on the offense was lost because they cannot advance too far ahead of the infantry. The coordinated attack required that all the Arab League Forces cross the line of departure at once (all at the same time). It would be difficult indeed to hide an entire Brigade of the 3d Infantry Division which had to be lined-up along the Rafah-Tel Aviv Road.

The coming international armed conflict (IAC) was pretty-much known to be happening all during the 1946-1948 non-international armed conflicts (NIAC) (the Civil War). This is why the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instruction (CERI) places the first set of criteria on those Refugees in flight during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948.

Make no mistake! The Arab League "demonstrated" their "threat to use force" very early on in the conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

The 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine's legal standing.

The 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine's legal standing.

For once you're right.
Palestine had no legal standing before the war and no legal standing after the war.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The First use of armed force by a State (ie the Arab League) in contravention of the Charter (Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity) shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression (in this case - against Israel).

NOTE:
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
The Charter says: "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force."

So, what did that have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

In the late 1940's (and even to some degree today) the movement of forces (Jordan/Iraq Front for instance) on the scale of an array consisting of 2 mechanized Infantry brigades and 2 Independent Regiments elements cannot be staged and poised for an attack without some notice. And people noticed. Similarly, registration fire for artillery (QF 25 Pounder Short with a maximum range of 6 miles) is not going to go unnoticed (including its prime mover). And this towed artillery would have to be placed pretty far forward if it was going to of any use in covering the Regiments on the advance and crossing the Jordan River. Remember that the weather in a ground advance plays a role as well. The temperature in the Jordan Valley is 90º and on a fast rise.

Each of the Arab participants (Lebanon, Syria, Egypt) had their own unique problems, but each with through owe staging signature that would alert the Israelis. The Egyptian 3d Division was mostly Motorized Infantry supported by a few tanks. The advantages of the tank on the offense was lost because they cannot advance too far ahead of the infantry. The coordinated attack required that all the Arab League Forces cross the line of departure at once (all at the same time). It would be difficult indeed to hide an entire Brigade of the 3d Infantry Division which had to be lined-up along the Rafah-Tel Aviv Road.

The coming international armed conflict (IAC) was pretty-much known to be happening all during the 1946-1948 non-international armed conflicts (NIAC) (the Civil War). This is why the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instruction (CERI) places the first set of criteria on those Refugees in flight during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948.

Make no mistake! The Arab League "demonstrated" their "threat to use force" very early on in the conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

The 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine's legal standing.

The 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine's legal standing.

For once you're right.
Palestine had no legal standing before the war and no legal standing after the war.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The First use of armed force by a State (ie the Arab League) in contravention of the Charter (Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity) shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression (in this case - against Israel).

NOTE:
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
The Charter says: "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force."

So, what did that have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

In the late 1940's (and even to some degree today) the movement of forces (Jordan/Iraq Front for instance) on the scale of an array consisting of 2 mechanized Infantry brigades and 2 Independent Regiments elements cannot be staged and poised for an attack without some notice. And people noticed. Similarly, registration fire for artillery (QF 25 Pounder Short with a maximum range of 6 miles) is not going to go unnoticed (including its prime mover). And this towed artillery would have to be placed pretty far forward if it was going to of any use in covering the Regiments on the advance and crossing the Jordan River. Remember that the weather in a ground advance plays a role as well. The temperature in the Jordan Valley is 90º and on a fast rise.

Each of the Arab participants (Lebanon, Syria, Egypt) had their own unique problems, but each with through owe staging signature that would alert the Israelis. The Egyptian 3d Division was mostly Motorized Infantry supported by a few tanks. The advantages of the tank on the offense was lost because they cannot advance too far ahead of the infantry. The coordinated attack required that all the Arab League Forces cross the line of departure at once (all at the same time). It would be difficult indeed to hide an entire Brigade of the 3d Infantry Division which had to be lined-up along the Rafah-Tel Aviv Road.

The coming international armed conflict (IAC) was pretty-much known to be happening all during the 1946-1948 non-international armed conflicts (NIAC) (the Civil War). This is why the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instruction (CERI) places the first set of criteria on those Refugees in flight during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948.

Make no mistake! The Arab League "demonstrated" their "threat to use force" very early on in the conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

The 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine's legal standing.

The 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine's legal standing.

For once you're right.
Palestine had no legal standing before the war and no legal standing after the war.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

Like Israel being larger after the war than before the war? DURR

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Under the principles of international, even today, The International Boundaries the separated Israeli sovereignty from everything outside the sovereignty is fairly easy. The International Boundaries between Israel is that which is established by Israel. It is a demarcation that "denotes the means by which the described alignment is noted, or evidenced, on the ground, by means of cairns of stones, concrete pillars, beacons of various kinds, cleared roads in scrub, and so on.

◈ "A land boundary should be easy to identify and difficult to cross."

(See the cut'n'paste references below.)

The First use of armed force by a State (ie the Arab League) in contravention of the Charter (Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity) shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression (in this case - against Israel).

So, what were Israels declared borders?

I'll wait.

(COMMENT)

I'm sure I discussed this here just recently. I know that you want it to be something else, but you can't have everything your way. The delimited boundary that separated Canada from the CONUS and CONUS from Mexico are very similar to Isreal's demarcations.

(REFERENCES)
boundary delimitation, demarcation See delimitation .

​

boundary/ies The imaginary lines on the surface of the earth which separate the land territory​

or maritime zones ( continental shelf and EEZ ) of one State from that of another.​

Ideally, as a matter of common sense but little more, a land boundary should be easy​

to identify and difficult to cross: British Guiana Boundary Case ( 1899 ) 188 C.T.S. 76 ;​

Alaska Boundary Arbitration ( 1903 ) 15 R.I.A.A. 481 . In relation to land boundaries, there​

is no corpus of law especially for resolving boundary disputes, and recourse is made to​

the rules for acquiring title to territory in international law ( see territory, acquisition of ).​

​

​

​

delimitation ‘It is common practice to distinguish delimitation and demarcation of a​

boundary. The former denotes description of the alignment in a treaty or other written​

source, or by means of a line marked on a map or chart. Demarcation denotes the means by​

which the described alignment is noted, or evidenced, on the ground, by means of cairns​

of stones, concrete pillars, beacons of various kinds, cleared roads in scrub, and so on. The​

principle of the distinction is clear enough, but the usage of the draftsman of the particular​

international agreement or political spokesman may not be consistent. In fact the terms​

are sometimes used to mean the same thing’: Brownlie, African Boundaries. A Legal and​

Diplomatic Encyclopaedia ( 1979 ).​

​

​

Copyright © 2009
Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You're killing me.

The 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine's legal standing.

(COMMENT)

Palestine's legal standing on the termination of the Mandate was that of an "Entity." The International Armed Conflict (IAC) was the means by which the territory was taken by the Arab League. It destroyed the two-state (Arab State and Jewish State) solution. "Irrelevant! I don't think so... You could not be more wrong if you had crapped in your pants.
A/AC.21/UK/42 LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE” 25 February 1948

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The First use of armed force by a State (ie the Arab League) in contravention of the Charter (Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity) shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression (in this case - against Israel).

NOTE:
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
The Charter says: "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force."

So, what did that have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

In the late 1940's (and even to some degree today) the movement of forces (Jordan/Iraq Front for instance) on the scale of an array consisting of 2 mechanized Infantry brigades and 2 Independent Regiments elements cannot be staged and poised for an attack without some notice. And people noticed. Similarly, registration fire for artillery (QF 25 Pounder Short with a maximum range of 6 miles) is not going to go unnoticed (including its prime mover). And this towed artillery would have to be placed pretty far forward if it was going to of any use in covering the Regiments on the advance and crossing the Jordan River. Remember that the weather in a ground advance plays a role as well. The temperature in the Jordan Valley is 90º and on a fast rise.

Each of the Arab participants (Lebanon, Syria, Egypt) had their own unique problems, but each with through owe staging signature that would alert the Israelis. The Egyptian 3d Division was mostly Motorized Infantry supported by a few tanks. The advantages of the tank on the offense was lost because they cannot advance too far ahead of the infantry. The coordinated attack required that all the Arab League Forces cross the line of departure at once (all at the same time). It would be difficult indeed to hide an entire Brigade of the 3d Infantry Division which had to be lined-up along the Rafah-Tel Aviv Road.

The coming international armed conflict (IAC) was pretty-much known to be happening all during the 1946-1948 non-international armed conflicts (NIAC) (the Civil War). This is why the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instruction (CERI) places the first set of criteria on those Refugees in flight during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948.

Make no mistake! The Arab League "demonstrated" their "threat to use force" very early on in the conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

The 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine's legal standing.

The 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine's legal standing.

For once you're right.
Palestine had no legal standing before the war and no legal standing after the war.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point. ©

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You're killing me.

The 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine's legal standing.

(COMMENT)

Palestine's legal standing on the termination of the Mandate was that of an "Entity." The International Armed Conflict (IAC) was the means by which the territory was taken by the Arab League. It destroyed the two-state (Arab State and Jewish State) solution. "Irrelevant! I don't think so... You could not be more wrong if you had crapped in your pants.
A/AC.21/UK/42 LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE” 25 February 1948

Most Respectfully,
R

Britain called Palestine a legal entity because it was to be administered by the UN. That didn't happen.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: It was an "Entity" through the entire period of effective control by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) and through the entire period while under the Civil Administration of the British as the Mandatory Power. The only reason the status as an "Entity" did not continue more than a few hours after the termination was because it was effectively blocked by the invasion of the Arab League the following morning.

The 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine's legal standing.

Palestine's legal standing on the termination of the Mandate was that of an "Entity." The International Armed Conflict (IAC) was the means by which the territory was taken by the Arab League. It destroyed the two-state (Arab State and Jewish State) solution. "Irrelevant! I don't think so... You could not be more wrong if you had crapped in your pants.
A/AC.21/UK/42 LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE” 25 February 1948

Britain called Palestine a legal entity because it was to be administered by the UN. That didn't happen.

(COMMENT)

The Mandate was already part of the UN Trusteeship System under the Charter since 1945. Although the Mandate had not officially terminated, the British Mandatory was under UN oversight that was once the responsibility of the League of Nations.

It actually did transfer to the UN under Article 77a (April '45), and later (May '48) the UN Emissary, Count Folke Bernadotte (af Wisborg), Empowered as the UN Mediator in Palestine, arrived and relieved the UN Palestine Commission. Count Bernadotte established his Diplomatic Station in Jerusalem and had the responsibility for:

◈ Arrange for the operation of common services necessary to the safety and well-being of the population of Palestine;​

​

◈ Assure the protection of the Holy Places, religious buildings, and sites in Palestine;​

​

◈ Promote a peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine;[/quote]​

Again, the problem was the UN Mediator was not able to immediately establish peace, the invasion of the Entity being in full swing. The Arab League invasion was not brought under an Armistice until the Spring of 1949. By the entirety of the Entity was under Military Occupation by one party or the other to the conflict.

You cannot use "That didn't happen" as a justification in a prelude to the claim that somehow the Entity became a "state" due to Arab Intervention interfering with the continuation of the Trusteeship.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

It was an "Entity" through the entire period of effective control by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) and through the entire period while under the Civil Administration of the British as the Mandatory Power.

So Palestine was a non self governing territory?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The only reason the status as an "Entity" did not continue more than a few hours after the termination was because it was effectively blocked by the invasion of the Arab League the following morning.

OK, but the Arab League did not attack Palestine. They fought Israeli forces in Palestine. Palestine was not part of that war so I don't see how it could change Palestine's legal status as a state under colonialism/occupation. The UN Security Council called for an armistice so there were no winners or losers in that war.

If Palestine lost any land it had to be from a different event.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't know how you keep from connecting the dots.

[/QUOTE]

So Palestine was a non self governing territory?

(COMMENT)

Yes, the Territory was defined as that being subject to the Mandate. It was NOT a self-governing institution. And the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

OK, but the Arab League did not attack Palestine. They fought Israeli forces in Palestine. Palestine was not part of that war so I don't see how it could change Palestine's legal status as a state under colonialism/occupation. The UN Security Council called for an armistice so there were no winners or losers in that war.

If Palestine lost any land it had to be from a different event.

(COMMENT)

Palestine was the "short title" defined in Article 1, Palestine Order in Council (1922). It was the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."

No one claimed "Palestine" lost territory. The Independence of Israel took a partition and then the Arabs declined to take the remained. Instead the Arab League invaded through the trusteeship to attack Israel. On the cessation of hostilities, there were three types of territories remaining: →) Israeli Sovereignty, →) Israeli extended territory, and →) Article 42 (Hague Regulation) Territory Occupied (under the effective control) of parties to the Arab League. There was no territory under the effective control of trusteeship.

Once again, Palestine, formerly under the Mandate, was not a self-governing nation (country). Israel was not inside Palestine; is was a portion of the Trusteeship. It was a sovereignty established under the Right of Self-Determination which formed under the recommendation of the General Assembly and assisted by the UN Palestine Commission. The only Israeli Forces outside Israeli Sovereign Territory were those forces in hot pursuit of Arab League aggressors in retrograde movement. The adoption of the various Armistice Agreements, with demarcations agreed by the parties to the conflict (generally along the forward edge of the battle area) and which outlined the zones of effective control.

(CLARIFICATION)

War is an obsolete term. It implies a Win - (possible a draw) - Loss. People like yourself attempt to use these obsolete terms and make a banquet out of it. You are correct in a certain respect, the treaties thus far, agree on certain international boundaries, without prejudice to the Arab Palestinians. The Jordan River is the boundary between Israel and Jordan. A line, very rough approximation, between Rafah and Eilat, forms the Egyptian and Israeli international boundary.

Under the "without prejudice" clause and assisted by the Oslo Accords, the West Bank (Area "A," "B," "C"), the Gaza Strip and Jerusalem, were recognized. Since the time of the Oslo Accords, many changes have occurred. But to date, there is no such thing as a negotiated international boundary between Israel and the State of Palestine. And the only territory that the Arab Palestinians can possibly conceive as being sovereign to them is the Gaza Strip and Area "A".

Palestine never had a "legal status as a state under colonialism/occupation." Palestine was never under colonial occupation as tracked by the C-24. And no territories to which the Mandate for Palestine formerly applied is a territory under colonial occupation (non-Self-Governing).

(SEPARATE OPINION)

I think that the mechanism by which the Arab Palestinians call government is involved in sheltering, training, financing or supplying arms to enable terrorists to attack the State of Israel and the Jewish National Home. I believe that the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (1970) makes it clear, Arab Palestinians are prohibited from aiding terrorism in any way.

(TACTICS)

I recognize that there is such a thing as National Liberation Movements (NLM) using an irregular force to accomplish their goals can be lawful. I do not believe that tactics employed by the Hostile Arab Palestinians meet the criteria under international law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

And the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

That is a lie.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Independence of Israel took a partition and then the Arabs declined to take the remained.

Not true. there was no partition. All of the territory was by military conquest and nothing since then has made it legitimate.