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

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: It is very convenient for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to selectively alter history, omit the actual annexation process, and customary practice so that they can claim it was not sovereign territory.

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
SOURCE: Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan History Website

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan now included nearly one and a half million people, more than half a million of whom were refugees evicted from Jewish-occupied Palestine. All automatically became citizens of Jordan, a right that had first been offered in December 1949 to all Palestinians who wished to claim it. Although the Arab League opposed this plan, and no other Arab government followed Jordan’s lead, the Hashemite Kingdom offered the possibility of normal life for many people who would have otherwise remained stateless refugees.
SOURCE: Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan History Website

ENDNOTE
◈ Jordanian Parliament Resolution Regarding the Annexation of the West Bank - English Text Jordanian Parliament Resolution Regarding the Annexation of the West Bank - English Text:

It is entangled in the complexities that have arisen since more than a decade before the Jordanian Sovereign Territory (JST) of the West Bank became effectively controlled by the Israelis.

Jordan occupied the West Bank. It was not Jordanian sovereign territory.

(COMMENT)

The West Bank and part of Jerusalem were annexed by Jordan. It does not matter what the UN may say about recognition. The self-determination and the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933, make it clear that foreign recognition is irrelevant.

Only the United Kingdom formally recognized the annexation of the West Bank, de facto in the case of East Jerusalem.[31] The United States Department of State also recognized this extension of Jordanian sovereignty.[32][33] Pakistan is often claimed to have recognized Jordan's annexation too, but this is dubious.[34][35]
SOURCE:
United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. page 921, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa (1950)

IT IS WHAT IT IS. The problem with this argument is that the HoAP position on whether or not Jordan extended the sovereignty is a loser either way. If the West Bank was not Annex in 1950, it then still be under the UN International Trustee System and the HoAP could not show Arab control either way.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: It is very convenient for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to selectively alter history, omit the actual annexation process, and customary practice so that they can claim it was not sovereign territory.

​

On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.​

SOURCE: Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan History Website​

​

​

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan now included nearly one and a half million people, more than half a million of whom were refugees evicted from Jewish-occupied Palestine. All automatically became citizens of Jordan, a right that had first been offered in December 1949 to all Palestinians who wished to claim it. Although the Arab League opposed this plan, and no other Arab government followed Jordan’s lead, the Hashemite Kingdom offered the possibility of normal life for many people who would have otherwise remained stateless refugees.​

SOURCE: Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan History Website​

​

​

ENDNOTE
◈ Jordanian Parliament Resolution Regarding the Annexation of the West Bank - English Text Jordanian Parliament Resolution Regarding the Annexation of the West Bank - English Text:

It is entangled in the complexities that have arisen since more than a decade before the Jordanian Sovereign Territory (JST) of the West Bank became effectively controlled by the Israelis.

Jordan occupied the West Bank. It was not Jordanian sovereign territory.

(COMMENT)

The West Bank and part of Jerusalem were annexed by Jordan. It does not matter what the UN may say about recognition. The self-determination and the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933, make it clear that foreign recognition is irrelevant.

​

Only the United Kingdom formally recognized the annexation of the West Bank, de facto in the case of East Jerusalem.[31] The United States Department of State also recognized this extension of Jordanian sovereignty.[32][33] Pakistan is often claimed to have recognized Jordan's annexation too, but this is dubious.[34][35]​

SOURCE:​

United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. page 921, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa (1950)​

​

​

IT IS WHAT IT IS. The problem with this argument is that the HoAP position on whether or not Jordan extended the sovereignty is a loser either way. If the West Bank was not Annex in 1950, it then still be under the UN International Trustee System and the HoAP could not show Arab control either way.

Most Respectfully,
R

Jordan occupied the West Bank. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

Whose territory did Jordan occupy? The UN? Or was it Palestine?

 

[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 need to teach me something.

Jordan occupied the West Bank. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

Whose territory did Jordan occupy? The UN? Or was it Palestine?

(QUESTION)

Can you point me to the exact enforceable citation? It is not in the criminal code. And please don't use this:

This is actually making the UN a party to the alleged crime.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a politically motivated "Advisory Opinion" and unenforceable. The demarcations were moved as a result from Acts of Aggression demonstrated since the 1948 Conflict initiated by Arab League Forces.

And, what Article 3 actually states is:

​

"The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;"​

This says one state against another state → resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force.

As I say in the last several comments:

​

Neither Egypt nor Jordan occupied territory sovereign to any other country. They both occupied Territory that was transferred and under the protection of the International Trustee System.

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: You need to teach me something.

Jordan occupied the West Bank. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

Whose territory did Jordan occupy? The UN? Or was it Palestine?

(QUESTION)

Can you point me to the exact enforceable citation? It is not in the criminal code. And please don't use this:

View attachment 415782​

This is actually making the UN a party to the alleged crime.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a politically motivated "Advisory Opinion" and unenforceable. The demarcations were moved as a result from Acts of Aggression demonstrated since the 1948 Conflict initiated by Arab League Forces.

And, what Article 3 actually states is:

​

"The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;"​

This says one state against another state → resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force.

As I say in the last several comments:

​

​

Neither Egypt nor Jordan occupied territory sovereign to any other country. They both occupied Territory that was transferred and under the protection of the International Trustee System.​

​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the administrative action and concept in international law relating to the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state and is generally held to be an illegal act. ... It usually follows military occupation of a territory.

Annexation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[P F Tinmore]

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a politically motivated "Advisory Opinion" and unenforceable. The demarcations were moved as a result from Acts of Aggression demonstrated since the 1948 Conflict initiated by Arab League Forces.

HUH???

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state

Sounds awful!!!

Which states were involved?

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: I have no problem with this definition. What I object to is the misrepresentation of the facts.

annexation The acquisition of title to territory ( scil . previously under the sovereignty
of another State) by a unilateral act of appropriation by a conqueror State subsequent to
subjugation: ‘At no period did conquest alone and ipso facto make the conquering state
the sovereign of the conquered territory …. Conquest was only a mode of acquisition if
the conqueror, after having firmly established the conquest, and the state of war having
come to an end, then formally annexed the territory’: I Oppenheim 699 .

Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the administrative action and concept in international law relating to the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state and is generally held to be an illegal act. ... It usually follows military occupation of a territory.

(COMMENT)

Arab Forces commit an act of aggression in May 1948.

• The use of force.
• Attempt to deny Israel's Right to Self-Determination.
• 1948 War did not end until Peace Agreements.

1. In the case of the West Bank, Israel did not annex it.
2. In the case of the West Bank, it was abandoned by Jordan.
3. In the case of the West Bank, there was no other government in waiting.
4. In the case of the West Bank, the 1948 War did not end until 1994 ◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •

(QUESTIONS)

• What was the identity of the previous state?"
• What State is claiming that Israel occupied it in 1967 or 1988?

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: I have no problem with this definition. What I object to is the misrepresentation of the facts.

​

annexation The acquisition of title to territory ( scil . previously under the sovereignty​

of another State) by a unilateral act of appropriation by a conqueror State subsequent to​

subjugation: ‘At no period did conquest alone and ipso facto make the conquering state​

the sovereign of the conquered territory …. Conquest was only a mode of acquisition if​

the conqueror, after having firmly established the conquest, and the state of war having​

come to an end, then formally annexed the territory’: I Oppenheim 699 .​

​

​

Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the administrative action and concept in international law relating to the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state and is generally held to be an illegal act. ... It usually follows military occupation of a territory.

(COMMENT)

Arab Forces commit an act of aggression in May 1948.

• The use of force.
• Attempt to deny Israel's Right to Self-Determination.
• 1948 War did not end until Peace Agreements.

1. In the case of the West Bank, Israel did not annex it.
2. In the case of the West Bank, it was abandoned by Jordan.
3. In the case of the West Bank, there was no other government in waiting.
4. In the case of the West Bank, the 1948 War did not end until 1994 ◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •

(QUESTIONS)

• What was the identity of the previous state?"
• What State is claiming that Israel occupied it in 1967 or 1988?

Most Respectfully,
R

1) The Arab states did not attack Israel.

2) You are ducking the question. What state did Jordan occupy after the 1948 war?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I have no problem with this definition. What I object to is the misrepresentation of the facts.

What misrepresentation are you talking about?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

BLUF: I have no problem with this definition. What I object to is the misrepresentation of the facts.

​

annexation The acquisition of title to territory ( scil . previously under the sovereignty​

of another State) by a unilateral act of appropriation by a conqueror State subsequent to​

subjugation: ‘At no period did conquest alone and ipso facto make the conquering state​

the sovereign of the conquered territory …. Conquest was only a mode of acquisition if​

the conqueror, after having firmly established the conquest, and the state of war having​

come to an end, then formally annexed the territory’: I Oppenheim 699 .​

​

​

Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the administrative action and concept in international law relating to the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state and is generally held to be an illegal act. ... It usually follows military occupation of a territory.

(COMMENT)

Arab Forces commit an act of aggression in May 1948.

• The use of force.
• Attempt to deny Israel's Right to Self-Determination.
• 1948 War did not end until Peace Agreements.

1. In the case of the West Bank, Israel did not annex it.
2. In the case of the West Bank, it was abandoned by Jordan.
3. In the case of the West Bank, there was no other government in waiting.
4. In the case of the West Bank, the 1948 War did not end until 1994 ◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •

(QUESTIONS)

• What was the identity of the previous state?"
• What State is claiming that Israel occupied it in 1967 or 1988?

Most Respectfully,
R

1) The Arab states did not attack Israel.

2) You are ducking the question. What state did Jordan occupy after the 1948 war?

1) The Arab states did not attack Israel.

They still managed to get their asses kicked, eh?

What state did Jordan occupy after the 1948 war?

What state did Israel occupy after the 1967 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: I've answered this qauestion several time. Twice in the last week.

1) The Arab states did not attack Israel.

2) You are ducking the question. What state did Jordan occupy after the 1948 war?

(COMMENT - ANSWERS)

Posting #983 and Posting #961

Neither Egypt nor Jordan occupied territory sovereign to any other country. They both occupied Territory that was transferred and under the protection of the International Trustee System.

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: I've answered this qauestion several time. Twice in the last week.

1) The Arab states did not attack Israel.

2) You are ducking the question. What state did Jordan occupy after the 1948 war?

(COMMENT - ANSWERS)

Posting #983 and Posting #961

Neither Egypt nor Jordan occupied territory sovereign to any other country. They both occupied Territory that was transferred and under the protection of the International Trustee System.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you impluing that Israel won Palestinian land in a defensive war with the UN?

 

[Hollie]

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

BLUF: I've answered this qauestion several time. Twice in the last week.

1) The Arab states did not attack Israel.

2) You are ducking the question. What state did Jordan occupy after the 1948 war?

(COMMENT - ANSWERS)

Posting #983 and Posting #961

Neither Egypt nor Jordan occupied territory sovereign to any other country. They both occupied Territory that was transferred and under the protection of the International Trustee System.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you impluing that Israel won Palestinian land in a defensive war with the UN?

Israel waged war with the UN?

Did you read that at the Hamas Daily?

 

[abu afak]

1) The Arab states did not attack Israel.

The Arabs states were imminently going to attack Israel, and said so publicly.
1967 was a pre-emptive war. No one claims/should claim "arab states attacked Israel."

2) You are ducking the question. What state did Jordan occupy after the 1948 war?

Jordan 'occupied' (and annexed) Undesignated/disputed territory as Arabs had rejected the partition and 'palestine.'
The Brits had won it from the Ottomans (who 400 year earlier had won it from the Mamluks). It then became part of the Mandate (purpose homeland for the Jews, with an Arab minority), and eventually thrown in the UN's lap. Arabs/'palestinians (leftover arabs) rejected the solution.
Had Jordan/the Arabs not lost it in the 1967 war there's no reason to think it would have become anything.

Israel offered back (to Jordan/the Arabs) the land conquered in 1967 in exchange for mere recognition in August 1967.
Arabs refused. (see '3 nos Khartoum')

The last self-ruling legitimate sovereign was Israel.. the first time.

`

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[abu afak]

For the record, and all of you who didn't see the earlier M-E section here, esp the older parts..
PF Tinmore CANNOT debate me.
He knows it.
He's an OCD Pallywood spammer of the lowest echelon.
He (others) can carry on for 1000 posts, and I ended it in a paragraph above.

PF Tinmore saw my last above answering him and could NOT answer.
So after several days we get the stupid, shallow, and Trite piece of propaganda to try and cover it up..
The infamous lie: "The Four Maps."
For me, another laugher/yawner.
See ie,

Daily Mail legitimises four Palestinian maps that lie

By presenting the map held by Abbas in the photo, with the caption “maps of historical Palestine”, the Daily Mail is promoting Palestinian propaganda, and legitimising an outrageous historical lie.

camera-uk.org

or

Andrew Sullivan Revises History (Again)

www.theatlantic.com

".. The first map in the series of four is most egregious.""
`
`

 

[P F Tinmore]

For the record, and all of you who didn't see the earlier M-E section here, esp the older parts..
PF Tinmore CANNOT debate me.
He knows it.
He's an OCD Pallywood spammer of the lowest echelon.
He (others) can carry on for 1000 posts, and I ended it in a paragraph above.

PF Tinmore saw my last above answering him and could NOT answer.
So after several days we get the stupid, shallow, and Trite piece of propaganda to try and cover it up..
The infamous lie: "The Four Maps."
For me, another laugher/yawner.
See ie,

Daily Mail legitimises four Palestinian maps that lie

By presenting the map held by Abbas in the photo, with the caption “maps of historical Palestine”, the Daily Mail is promoting Palestinian propaganda, and legitimising an outrageous historical lie.

camera-uk.org

or

Andrew Sullivan Revises History (Again)

www.theatlantic.com

".. The first map in the series of four is most egregious.""
`
`

Andrew Sullivan Revises History (Again)

www.theatlantic.com

The next map in the series is a rendering of the U.N. Partition Plan, which would have divided the British mandate into two equal parts, one part for Arabs and one part for Jews.​

They could not divide the British Mandate. The British Mandate was a temporarily appointed administration. It had no land, borders, or sovereignty.

 

[Hollie]

For the record, and all of you who didn't see the earlier M-E section here, esp the older parts..
PF Tinmore CANNOT debate me.
He knows it.
He's an OCD Pallywood spammer of the lowest echelon.
He (others) can carry on for 1000 posts, and I ended it in a paragraph above.

PF Tinmore saw my last above answering him and could NOT answer.
So after several days we get the stupid, shallow, and Trite piece of propaganda to try and cover it up..
The infamous lie: "The Four Maps."
For me, another laugher/yawner.
See ie,

Daily Mail legitimises four Palestinian maps that lie

By presenting the map held by Abbas in the photo, with the caption “maps of historical Palestine”, the Daily Mail is promoting Palestinian propaganda, and legitimising an outrageous historical lie.

camera-uk.org

or

Andrew Sullivan Revises History (Again)

www.theatlantic.com

".. The first map in the series of four is most egregious.""
`
`

Andrew Sullivan Revises History (Again)

www.theatlantic.com

The next map in the series is a rendering of the U.N. Partition Plan, which would have divided the British mandate into two equal parts, one part for Arabs and one part for Jews.​

They could not divide the British Mandate. The British Mandate was a temporarily appointed administration. It had no land, borders, or sovereignty.

A UN partition?

Link?

 

[abu afak]

They could not divide the British Mandate. The British Mandate was a temporarily appointed administration. It had no land, borders, or sovereignty.

So Jordan, Iraq, etc, are all illegitimate entities?
Not to mention French Mandate Lebanon.
Where's the state for the REAL people (separate language, history, ethnicity) Kurds.

Brits conquered it. It was at least or more legitimate than the disposition of any of the Ottoman Empire. (99% of which went to Arabs to rule over others like the Kurds, Druse, etc)
It was, in fact, the Only one a world body voted on.
The most legitimate state in the whole lot.

The Purpose of the original Mandate was a Homeland for the Jews in ALL of Palestine.
Over the years that eroded in the Arabs favor to roughly half of 'Territorial Palestine' and a separate state for leftover Arabs 'palestinians.'
But that wasn't enough.
They shot their load going for the whole enchilada.
They lost.
No do-overs in war.

In 1967 again, It was (as Eban said) the only time in history when the winners sued for peace, and the losers rejected it.

No answer on your BS maps you SICK palestinian-spamming/blogging FREAK.

`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For the record, and all of you who didn't see the earlier M-E section here, esp the older parts..
PF Tinmore CANNOT debate me.
He knows it.
He's an OCD Pallywood spammer of the lowest echelon.
He (others) can carry on for 1000 posts, and I ended it in a paragraph above.

PF Tinmore saw my last above answering him and could NOT answer.
So after several days we get the stupid, shallow, and Trite piece of propaganda to try and cover it up..
The infamous lie: "The Four Maps."
For me, another laugher/yawner.
See ie,

Daily Mail legitimises four Palestinian maps that lie

By presenting the map held by Abbas in the photo, with the caption “maps of historical Palestine”, the Daily Mail is promoting Palestinian propaganda, and legitimising an outrageous historical lie.

camera-uk.org

or

Andrew Sullivan Revises History (Again)

www.theatlantic.com

".. The first map in the series of four is most egregious.""
`
`

Andrew Sullivan Revises History (Again)

www.theatlantic.com

The next map in the series is a rendering of the U.N. Partition Plan, which would have divided the British mandate into two equal parts, one part for Arabs and one part for Jews.​

They could not divide the British Mandate. The British Mandate was a temporarily appointed administration. It had no land, borders, or sovereignty.

It had no land, borders, or sovereignty.

Like Palestine.