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

[P F Tinmore]

Those treaty arranged borders and demarcations have to do with the Administration of the Mandates and the relationships between the three Mandates - and - the two Principle Allied Powers (France and Great Britain).

You are ducking out on the fact that the Mandates had no land, no territory, no borders, and no sovereignty.

The Armistice agreements referenced Palestine's international borders. They were still there after the Mandate left, after Resolution 181, and after the 1948 war.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Those treaty arranged borders and demarcations have to do with the Administration of the Mandates and the relationships between the three Mandates - and - the two Principle Allied Powers (France and Great Britain).

You are ducking out on the fact that the Mandates had no land, no territory, no borders, and no sovereignty.

The Armistice agreements referenced Palestine's international borders. They were still there after the Mandate left, after Resolution 181, and after the 1948 war.

You are ducking out on the fact that the Mandates had no land, no territory, no borders, and no sovereignty.

Just like Palestine, eh?

The Armistice agreements referenced Palestine's international borders. They were still there after the Mandate left, after Resolution 181, and after the 1948 war.

The treaties signed after the 1948 war were signed by Israelis for Israel.
Nary a Palestinian signature in sight.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Those treaty arranged borders and demarcations have to do with the Administration of the Mandates and the relationships between the three Mandates - and - the two Principle Allied Powers (France and Great Britain).

You are ducking out on the fact that the Mandates had no land, no territory, no borders, and no sovereignty.

The Armistice agreements referenced Palestine's international borders. They were still there after the Mandate left, after Resolution 181, and after the 1948 war.

You are ducking out on the fact that the Mandates had no land, no territory, no borders, and no sovereignty.

Just like Palestine, eh?

The Armistice agreements referenced Palestine's international borders. They were still there after the Mandate left, after Resolution 181, and after the 1948 war.

The treaties signed after the 1948 war were signed by Israelis for Israel.
Nary a Palestinian signature in sight.

And that matters how?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Those treaty arranged borders and demarcations have to do with the Administration of the Mandates and the relationships between the three Mandates - and - the two Principle Allied Powers (France and Great Britain).

You are ducking out on the fact that the Mandates had no land, no territory, no borders, and no sovereignty.

The Armistice agreements referenced Palestine's international borders. They were still there after the Mandate left, after Resolution 181, and after the 1948 war.

You are ducking out on the fact that the Mandates had no land, no territory, no borders, and no sovereignty.

Just like Palestine, eh?

The Armistice agreements referenced Palestine's international borders. They were still there after the Mandate left, after Resolution 181, and after the 1948 war.

The treaties signed after the 1948 war were signed by Israelis for Israel.
Nary a Palestinian signature in sight.

And that matters how?

Refutes your lie, again.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: Nothing I can say is going to change your mind.

Those treaty arranged borders and demarcations have to do with the Administration of the Mandates and the relationships between the three Mandates - and - the two Principle Allied Powers (France and Great Britain).

You are ducking out on the fact that the Mandates had no land, no territory, no borders, and no sovereignty.

The Armistice agreements referenced Palestine's international borders. They were still there after the Mandate left, after Resolution 181, and after the 1948 war.

(COMMENT)
REF: Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920.

You can believe some ambiguous reference to Palestine's borders, but the international community knows the intention of the boundaries associated with the mandates.

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: Nothing I can say is going to change your mind.

Those treaty arranged borders and demarcations have to do with the Administration of the Mandates and the relationships between the three Mandates - and - the two Principle Allied Powers (France and Great Britain).

You are ducking out on the fact that the Mandates had no land, no territory, no borders, and no sovereignty.

The Armistice agreements referenced Palestine's international borders. They were still there after the Mandate left, after Resolution 181, and after the 1948 war.

(COMMENT)
REF: Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920.

You can believe some ambiguous reference to Palestine's borders, but the international community knows the intention of the boundaries associated with the mandates.

Most Respectfully,
R

The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements called Palestine Palestine and called Palestine's international borders Palestine's international borders. This was the year after the Mandate left Palestine. The agreements did not mention the Mandate. It had already left.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: Believe what you will.

The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements called Palestine Palestine and called Palestine's international borders Palestine's international borders. This was the year after the Mandate left Palestine. The agreements did not mention the Mandate. It had already left.

(COMMENT)

Each Armistice Agreement terminated (no longer remains in force) after a Peace Treaty (or the equivalent) is established. So, whatever you believe about the Armistice to establish (which by the way is only the Forward Edge of the Battle Area), it has been overtaken by events. To use historical locations is not the same as an endorsement of the validity in any other respect.

For the purposes of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the current (2020) applicable Treaties are:

◈ Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace w/MAP (1979) •​

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, 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.​

​

◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •​

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan 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 co-ordinates specified therein.​

2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure, and recognized international boundary between Israel and Jordan, 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.​

​

​

Trying to use a 1949 Armistice Agreement as evidence of the existence of the State of Palestine is novel, but incorrect.

I'm not even sure that the use of the Armistice Lines, for other than historical purposes, is even valid. The Armistice Lines are a product of the Armistice Agreement. Once the Armistice is replaced by the Treaty - the Armistice dissolves, and so go the Armistice Lines. The Treaty establishes the new "international boundary."

Neither the Armistice or the follow-on Treaty between the same two parties (Israel and either Jordan or Egypt) have nothing to do with any obligation to a third party (the Arab Palestinians) concerning any promise of sovereignty or territorial statehood. The only exception to this is that the Treaties are established without prejudice to the territorial status of the territory that came under Israeli control in 1967.

The status has changed. since the 1967 Six-Day War. The Israelis unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip, leaving it in the hands of de facto Arab Palestinian regime. Similarly, in late July 1988, the Jordanian Government cut all ties with the West Bank Arab Palestinians and abandoning it to the de jure regime holding effective control; the Arab Palestinians having no government to take control.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Trying to use a 1949 Armistice Agreement as evidence of the existence of the State of Palestine is novel, but incorrect.

Was the UN lying, or do you believe Iasraeli bullshit over documented facts?

 

[Hollie]

Trying to use a 1949 Armistice Agreement as evidence of the existence of the State of Palestine is novel, but incorrect.

Was the UN lying, or do you believe Iasraeli bullshit over documented facts?

You presented no documented facts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements called Palestine Palestine and called Palestine's international borders Palestine's international borders.

The agreements that you claimed didn't mention Israel? DURR

 

[rylah]

Where is Israel's treaty releasing it from the Mandate?

There was no need for such a treaty,
and it's questionable wether it was legal.

The mandatory power terminted the mandate on May 15 1948.
Mandates were set to end with the independence of the Mandated territory.

Israel was already de-facto 'standing alone' a fully functional government,
as envisioned in the terms of the Mandate, minus policing that was still British,
about 3 years prior to that.

International law that defined this territory for independence,
already in 1920 vested national sovereignty exclusively with Israel.

Why king Abdullah would need such a treaty is rather questionable.
However British officers stayed to mange Abdullah's new kingdom,
and lead the Jordanian army against Israel all the way to 1949.

Was Jordan really that independent in 1946, doesn't seem so,
why would Abdullah even need such a treaty if he was the legal sovereign?

 

[rylah]

That Palestine exists or not is a matter of political opinion. The Palestinians and their supporters are changing that opinion.

Flat Earthers say the same...
and yet it's round.

 

[verker]

The Palestine has backing of Swedish Social Democrats in query.

Israel are swing states in occupation in the Middle East.

However the Jews called allied to Americans.

 

[Hollie]

Those treaty arranged borders and demarcations have to do with the Administration of the Mandates and the relationships between the three Mandates - and - the two Principle Allied Powers (France and Great Britain).

You are ducking out on the fact that the Mandates had no land, no territory, no borders, and no sovereignty.

The Armistice agreements referenced Palestine's international borders. They were still there after the Mandate left, after Resolution 181, and after the 1948 war.

The Mandate never left. You're confused as to what the Mandate actually was, an administrative body.

Resolution 181 was never implemented.

Israeli independence and sovereignty were settled after the 1948 war.

 

[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 Mandates were agreements between the Allied Powers. The boundries were between the Mandates associateed between the Allied Powers.

You are ducking out on the fact that the Mandates had no land, no territory, no borders, and no sovereignty.

The Armistice agreements referenced Palestine's international borders. They were still there after the Mandate left, after Resolution 181, and after the 1948 war.

(COMMENT)

The boundaries between the territories under the French mandate of Syria and Lebanon on the one hand and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine are outlined in Article 1 Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920.

The boundaries discussed in the Armistice Arrangement were separating the associated armed forces and NOT countries.

Don't confuse those boundaries as evidence of the establishment of any nation or state. When the British Mandate Terminated, the Mandate was assumed by the UN Trustees System (Article 77 UN Charter).

However, in the Armistice Agreements of 1949, there was no longer any territory to place in the trustee system. The entirety of the Mandate for Palestine less that granted Independence East of the Jordan River, was encapsulated in one of the four Armistice Agreements.

The West Bank, as an example, was territory occupied by the Jordanians (not Israel). The Gaza Strip was territory occupied by the Egyptians (not Israel).

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: The Mandates were agreements between the Allied Powers. The boundries were between the Mandates associateed between the Allied Powers.

You are ducking out on the fact that the Mandates had no land, no territory, no borders, and no sovereignty.

The Armistice agreements referenced Palestine's international borders. They were still there after the Mandate left, after Resolution 181, and after the 1948 war.

(COMMENT)

The boundaries between the territories under the French mandate of Syria and Lebanon on the one hand and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine are outlined in Article 1 Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920.

The boundaries discussed in the Armistice Arrangement were separating the associated armed forces and NOT countries.

Don't confuse those boundaries as evidence of the establishment of any nation or state. When the British Mandate Terminated, the Mandate was assumed by the UN Trustees System (Article 77 UN Charter).

However, in the Armistice Agreements of 1949, there was no longer any territory to place in the trustee system. The entirety of the Mandate for Palestine less that granted Independence East of the Jordan River, was encapsulated in one of the four Armistice Agreements.

The West Bank, as an example, was territory occupied by the Jordanians (not Israel). The Gaza Strip was territory occupied by the Egyptians (not Israel).

Most Respectfully,
R

The boundaries discussed in the Armistice Arrangement were separating the associated armed forces and NOT countries.

However, in the Armistice Agreements of 1949, there was no longer any territory to place in the trustee system.

So then, why was there no territory left if the armistice lines only separated foreign forces?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The West Bank, as an example, was territory occupied by the Jordanians (not Israel). The Gaza Strip was territory occupied by the Egyptians (not Israel).

Israel states that it does not occupy Palestine because there was no previous sovereignty. So then, what previous sovereignty did Egypt and Jordan occupy?

 

[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 - Strict Interpretation - the Hague Regulation defines occupation simply as:

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
SOURCE: Article 42 HR ICRC

There is no periphery issue of prior soveirenty. You have to document your claim a little distinctly.

The West Bank, as an example, was territory occupied by the Jordanians (not Israel). The Gaza Strip was territory occupied by the Egyptians (not Israel).

So then, why was there no territory left if the armistice lines only separated foreign forces?

(COMMENT)

That is not my call. The Armistice was the tool selected by the parties to establish a ceasefire.

Israel states that it does not occupy Palestine because there was no previous sovereignty. So then, what previous sovereignty did Egypt and Jordan occupy?

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure of the context or time period the Israeli claim is made. But when the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank, that was a case of no sovereign control, except for when the Israelis immediately filled that vacuum in the West Bank. I discusses this unique instance in the last Paragraph in Posting #947

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

But when the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank, that was a case of no sovereign control, except for when the Israelis immediately filled that vacuum in the West Bank.

You didn't answer the question. (No surprise.) What sovereign territory did Egypt and Jordan occupy. And when an occupation releases the occupied should the territory be maintained by the original sovereigns?

 

[Hollie]

But when the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank, that was a case of no sovereign control, except for when the Israelis immediately filled that vacuum in the West Bank.

You didn't answer the question. (No surprise.) What sovereign territory did Egypt and Jordan occupy. And when an occupation releases the occupied should the territory be maintained by the original sovereigns?

The Arabs-Moslems you call Pals never held sovereignty, so there's that.