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

[RoccoR]

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al,

Some of this is semantics and some of this is unnecessary confusion,

There was never any intention to allow the non-Jews of Palestine to be sovereign over any part of the territory of Palestine. The citizenship offer with respect to the inhabitants of Gaza is just a further confirmation that the Jews of Israel have never had any intention of allowing any other state, other than the Jewish state to rule in the territory of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The offer of Citizenship for the People of Gaza was mutually exclusive of any other negotiated terms under consideration at the time..

What it does imply, since it was UN mediated, that there was no "inherent" or "inalienable" quality between the people of Gaza and the Gaza Strip itself. It was all negotiable.

There was no expression of intend on the part of the Israelis as to the political negotiation limitation pertaining to a two-state solution. While the Israelis did not see this two-state solution as an ideal outcome, it was not beyond discussion. The reverse was not true. It was the expressed and implicit political position that the "Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression."

Since that time (May 1949) until the present, the negotiations with the Egyptians and Jordanians have progressed and culminated in formalized permanent international boundaries between them​

​

That seems strange because the 1949 UN armistice agreements with Egypt and Jordan (that Israel signed) calls the territory behind those borders Palestine.

By signing those treaties Israel agreed that the territory is Palestine yet later comes by and declares borders on Palestinian territory.

(COMMENT)

In so far as the intention of the term Palestine, as used for the intervening period between 1922 and 1948, were the territory to which the Mandate applied, within such boundaries as may have been affixed by the Allied Powers and transferred to UN Administration in 1946.

Israel declared independence in May 1948. The Armistice Arrangements of which you speak were negotiated along the lines of the "Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA)" as recognized by the Military Commanders for each party to the conflict at the time of the cease-fire. There was no political meaning to the demarcation lines beyond the normal recognition of any Armistice Arrangement. The issue of borders and boundaries were an issue to be taken-up at the peace negotiations.

• First:

The entire territory was "Palestine" as defined by the Palestine Order in Council and within the boundaries that were originally defined by the Allied Powers. Don't make the mistake or become confused with some entity that inherently links the people of Gaza; it was a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine was (at that time) a territory transferred under Article 77, of the UN Charter for administered.
​

• Second:

Nowhere in Article 3 - International Boundary, Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan, is any derivation of Palestine even mentioned.

Within the General Armistice Agreement between the Hashemite Kingdom and Israel, Palestine is mentioned as the territory determined by the Allied Powers. The Armistice deals with the separation of forces with a view towards a more permanent peace established by treaty. No where does the Armistice establish the boundaries of a country of Palestine as a legal entity.
​

Nowhere within Article II - Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel is a new entity of Palestine established and described by boundary. I does say: "Permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine." That is the "FORMER" mandate territory. No new legal entity is established by the borders.

Within the General Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel, there is NO new entity describe as Palestine. It again refers to the Palestine as defined by the Order in Council.
​

Now you may have notice that I list the Treaties first and the Armistice second; why? Because without regard to what the Armistice says, the Armistice dies and is replace by the treaty in accordance with Article XII of the respective Arguments.

And that the tactical losses of the Intervening Arab League force, together with the military losses of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, created the negotiated expansion of Israeli controlled territory.

Negotiated by Whom?

(COMMENT)

The Armistice Agreements which establish the various demarcation lines were negotiated with the assistance of the United Nations Acting Mediator on Palestine and the United Nations Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization, but the parties did the negotiations to the Armistice were Israel and the respective military commanders of the Arab governments (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt). Nothing unusual. With minor adjustment, the Armistice Lines followed the FEBA at the cease-fire.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al,

Some of this is semantics and some of this is unnecessary confusion,

There was never any intention to allow the non-Jews of Palestine to be sovereign over any part of the territory of Palestine. The citizenship offer with respect to the inhabitants of Gaza is just a further confirmation that the Jews of Israel have never had any intention of allowing any other state, other than the Jewish state to rule in the territory of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The offer of Citizenship for the People of Gaza was mutually exclusive of any other negotiated terms under consideration at the time..

What it does imply, since it was UN mediated, that there was no "inherent" or "inalienable" quality between the people of Gaza and the Gaza Strip itself. It was all negotiable.

There was no expression of intend on the part of the Israelis as to the political negotiation limitation pertaining to a two-state solution. While the Israelis did not see this two-state solution as an ideal outcome, it was not beyond discussion. The reverse was not true. It was the expressed and implicit political position that the "Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression."

Since that time (May 1949) until the present, the negotiations with the Egyptians and Jordanians have progressed and culminated in formalized permanent international boundaries between them​

​

That seems strange because the 1949 UN armistice agreements with Egypt and Jordan (that Israel signed) calls the territory behind those borders Palestine.

By signing those treaties Israel agreed that the territory is Palestine yet later comes by and declares borders on Palestinian territory.

(COMMENT)

In so far as the intention of the term Palestine, as used for the intervening period between 1922 and 1948, were the territory to which the Mandate applied, within such boundaries as may have been affixed by the Allied Powers and transferred to UN Administration in 1946.

Israel declared independence in May 1948. The Armistice Arrangements of which you speak were negotiated along the lines of the "Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA)" as recognized by the Military Commanders for each party to the conflict at the time of the cease-fire. There was no political meaning to the demarcation lines beyond the normal recognition of any Armistice Arrangement. The issue of borders and boundaries were an issue to be taken-up at the peace negotiations.

• First:

The entire territory was "Palestine" as defined by the Palestine Order in Council and within the boundaries that were originally defined by the Allied Powers. Don't make the mistake or become confused with some entity that inherently links the people of Gaza; it was a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine was (at that time) a territory transferred under Article 77, of the UN Charter for administered.
​

• Second:

Nowhere in Article 3 - International Boundary, Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan, is any derivation of Palestine even mentioned.

Within the General Armistice Agreement between the Hashemite Kingdom and Israel, Palestine is mentioned as the territory determined by the Allied Powers. The Armistice deals with the separation of forces with a view towards a more permanent peace established by treaty. No where does the Armistice establish the boundaries of a country of Palestine as a legal entity.
​

Nowhere within Article II - Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel is a new entity of Palestine established and described by boundary. I does say: "Permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine." That is the "FORMER" mandate territory. No new legal entity is established by the borders.

Within the General Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel, there is NO new entity describe as Palestine. It again refers to the Palestine as defined by the Order in Council.
​

Now you may have notice that I list the Treaties first and the Armistice second; why? Because without regard to what the Armistice says, the Armistice dies and is replace by the treaty in accordance with Article XII of the respective Arguments.

And that the tactical losses of the Intervening Arab League force, together with the military losses of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, created the negotiated expansion of Israeli controlled territory.

Negotiated by Whom?

(COMMENT)

The Armistice Agreements which establish the various demarcation lines were negotiated with the assistance of the United Nations Acting Mediator on Palestine and the United Nations Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization, but the parties did the negotiations to the Armistice were Israel and the respective military commanders of the Arab governments (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt). Nothing unusual. With minor adjustment, the Armistice Lines followed the FEBA at the cease-fire.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is an unexplained jump in here.

In a subsequent case Palestine was found to be a foreign state notwithstanding the fact that it was under a British mandate. Kletter v. Dulles, D.C.D.C. 1953, 111 F. Supp. 593.

Blair Holdings Corporation v. Rubinstein, 133 F. Supp. 496 (S.D.N.Y. 1955)​

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

The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 201 RN 3 says “The United States will treat States the territory of which is under foreign military occupation as continuing to exist.”

Opinio Juris » Blog Archive M.B.Z. v. Clinton: Getting to the Merits on the Recognition Power - Opinio Juris​

The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. The armistice lines were to define where Jordanian forces, Egyptian forces, and Israeli forces could not cross.

So, when did this transfer of land from Palestine to Israel occur?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep looking for a "transfer" from some to some. That is not how self-determination and declarative sovereignty works. It is not a real estate process.

The State of Palestine never had a property transfer either.

How are you applying these cases, to the question at hand. State your case.

There is an unexplained jump in here.

In a subsequent case Palestine was found to be a foreign state notwithstanding the fact that it was under a British mandate. Kletter v. Dulles, D.C.D.C. 1953, 111 F. Supp. 593.

Blair Holdings Corporation v. Rubinstein, 133 F. Supp. 496 (S.D.N.Y. 1955)​

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

The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 201 RN 3 says “The United States will treat States the territory of which is under foreign military occupation as continuing to exist.”

Opinio Juris » Blog Archive M.B.Z. v. Clinton: Getting to the Merits on the Recognition Power - Opinio Juris​

The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. The armistice lines were to define where Jordanian forces, Egyptian forces, and Israeli forces could not cross.

So, when did this transfer of land from Palestine to Israel occur?

(COMMENT)

You are mixing US Law domestic law with Customary and International Law. Whatever or However the US may treat Occupied Territory, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Practical application of law.

• There was no transfer. Armistice Agreements do not change sovereignty. The actions of other countries change sovereignty through the assumption of absolute authority.
• Kletter v. Dulles, D.C.D.C. 1953, 111 F. Supp. 593. Is an old case. At that time --- US law did not know how to interpret what a Mandate Government was. But in any event it was a foreign government subject to the same liabilities as any other foreign government. Except in the of a Mandate Government, the Mandatory was responsible.
• M.B.Z. v. Clinton Is a 21st Century Case that pits Congressional Authority against Constitutional Authority. Again this is a US Domestic Law case.
• Foreign Occupation does not automatically mean there is a change in the state. It may impact on which country has absolute authority (the definition of Sovereignty).
​

You are fishing here. What's more is that you are trying to confuse the issue as if US Domestic interpretation somehow changes the international impact of some laws. The US has a definition for terrorism, but that does not impact international law which does not have a definition.

Tell me how you want to apply the cases you have cited. OR, ask a very specific question.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep looking for a "transfer" from some to some. That is not how self-determination and declarative sovereignty works. It is not a real estate process.

The State of Palestine never had a property transfer either.

How are you applying these cases, to the question at hand. State your case.

There is an unexplained jump in here.

In a subsequent case Palestine was found to be a foreign state notwithstanding the fact that it was under a British mandate. Kletter v. Dulles, D.C.D.C. 1953, 111 F. Supp. 593.

Blair Holdings Corporation v. Rubinstein, 133 F. Supp. 496 (S.D.N.Y. 1955)​

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

The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 201 RN 3 says “The United States will treat States the territory of which is under foreign military occupation as continuing to exist.”

Opinio Juris » Blog Archive M.B.Z. v. Clinton: Getting to the Merits on the Recognition Power - Opinio Juris​

The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. The armistice lines were to define where Jordanian forces, Egyptian forces, and Israeli forces could not cross.

So, when did this transfer of land from Palestine to Israel occur?

(COMMENT)

You are mixing US Law domestic law with Customary and International Law. Whatever or However the US may treat Occupied Territory, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Practical application of law.

• There was no transfer. Armistice Agreements do not change sovereignty. The actions of other countries change sovereignty through the assumption of absolute authority.
• Kletter v. Dulles, D.C.D.C. 1953, 111 F. Supp. 593. Is an old case. At that time --- US law did not know how to interpret what a Mandate Government was. But in any event it was a foreign government subject to the same liabilities as any other foreign government. Except in the of a Mandate Government, the Mandatory was responsible.
• M.B.Z. v. Clinton Is a 21st Century Case that pits Congressional Authority against Constitutional Authority. Again this is a US Domestic Law case.
• Foreign Occupation does not automatically mean there is a change in the state. It may impact on which country has absolute authority (the definition of Sovereignty).
​

You are fishing here. What's more is that you are trying to confuse the issue as if US Domestic interpretation somehow changes the international impact of some laws. The US has a definition for terrorism, but that does not impact international law which does not have a definition.

Tell me how you want to apply the cases you have cited. OR, ask a very specific question.

Most Respectfully,
R

I am not confusing domestic issues. I posted that as one of many examples showing that Palestine is a state. External interference is illegal, attacking a country is illegal, taking land by force is illegal, and more. Occupying another state is not a transfer of sovereignty.

I did ask a specific question. You keep ducking it.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't tell me I've ducked a question. Tell me what the specific question is. Don't pretend to play some intellectual game.

What is the question?

I am not confusing domestic issues. I posted that as one of many examples showing that Palestine is a state. External interference is illegal, attacking a country is illegal, taking land by force is illegal, and more. Occupying another state is not a transfer of sovereignty.

I did ask a specific question. You keep ducking it.

(COMMENT)

Ever since the Region was relinquished from the Ottomans, the Occupying Powers maintained a government; not necessarily a "state." There are several cases that use commercial judgments in which the Mandate government is treated as a "state." That does not mean anything in particular politically. I know that some pro-Palestinians love to throw these oddities into the game just for confusion. But it actually does not change anything.

At no time in the last 100 years, have the Arab Palestinians, exercised "absolute and perpetual power" of a the territory; no matter what it is called.

Both the concepts of state and sovereignty are territorial conceptions. The ‘Westphalian state’ has distinct boundaries, and until recently, its ideal of sovereignty emphasized the right of non-intervention and the inviolability of borders.

What is interesting about the Palestinian Claim, is that one the one hand, Israel is accused of being and Occupation Power --- holding effective control. The classical definition of sovereignty centers on the state as a legal entity. In this respect, the state is a legal person with all the rights and obligations under international law. Palestine has been a legal entity since the end of the Great War (WWI). But is has not been self-governing. And there is a significant difference between what the Palestinian actually govern and what a self-governing entity is. For the Palestinians to merely contend that Palestine (alla 1988) is some sort of self-governing institution; the actual reality (as opposed to the conceptual assignment of self-government) proves differently.

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't tell me I've ducked a question. Tell me what the specific question is. Don't pretend to play some intellectual game.

What is the question?

I am not confusing domestic issues. I posted that as one of many examples showing that Palestine is a state. External interference is illegal, attacking a country is illegal, taking land by force is illegal, and more. Occupying another state is not a transfer of sovereignty.

I did ask a specific question. You keep ducking it.

(COMMENT)

Ever since the Region was relinquished from the Ottomans, the Occupying Powers maintained a government; not necessarily a "state." There are several cases that use commercial judgments in which the Mandate government is treated as a "state." That does not mean anything in particular politically. I know that some pro-Palestinians love to throw these oddities into the game just for confusion. But it actually does not change anything.

At no time in the last 100 years, have the Arab Palestinians, exercised "absolute and perpetual power" of a the territory; no matter what it is called.

Both the concepts of state and sovereignty are territorial conceptions. The ‘Westphalian state’ has distinct boundaries, and until recently, its ideal of sovereignty emphasized the right of non-intervention and the inviolability of borders.

What is interesting about the Palestinian Claim, is that one the one hand, Israel is accused of being and Occupation Power --- holding effective control. The classical definition of sovereignty centers on the state as a legal entity. In this respect, the state is a legal person with all the rights and obligations under international law. Palestine has been a legal entity since the end of the Great War (WWI). But is has not been self-governing. And there is a significant difference between what the Palestinian actually govern and what a self-governing entity is. For the Palestinians to merely contend that Palestine (alla 1988) is some sort of self-governing institution; the actual reality (as opposed to the conceptual assignment of self-government) proves differently.

Most Respectfully,
R​

At no time in the last 100 years, have the Arab Palestinians, exercised "absolute and perpetual power" of a the territory; no matter what it is called.​

Why all the smoke. You know that the sovereign rights of a people includes non self governing territories including occupation and colonialism.

BTW, the question was:

So, when did this transfer of land from Palestine to Israel occur?

 

[montelatici]

I believe that there is a failure to communicate. Rocco basically believes that because a native people did not have a sovereign state, removing the native people to make room for a "deserving" foreign population is absolutely moral and legal. But, the issue of having or not having a sovereign state is just subterfuge on Rocco's part.

The fact is, Rocco would defend the colonization of Hawaii by the U.S., even though it was a sovereign state. He supports colonization of lands inhabited by people he believes are less advanced than the colonizers, whatever the situation of the native people. It is a point of view reflected in "manifest destiny". It makes no sense arguing with someone that believes in "manifest destiny", it is futile.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Well, I don't think I addressed removal of people other than in the context of Rear Area Security.

I believe that there is a failure to communicate. Rocco basically believes that because a native people did not have a sovereign state,

(COMMENT)

I'm saying that the successor government to the territory was NOT THE ARAB, but the Allied Powers.

removing the native people to make room for a "deserving" foreign population is absolutely moral and legal. But, the issue of having or not having a sovereign state is just subterfuge on Rocco's part.

(COMMENT)

I said that the Arab set the conditions for removal. They essentially attempted an insurrection after the State of Israel was declared. They lost the bid to take by force the territory.

The fact is, Rocco would defend the colonization of Hawaii by the U.S., even though it was a sovereign state. He supports colonization of lands inhabited by people he believes are less advanced than the colonizers, whatever the situation of the native people. It is a point of view reflected in "manifest destiny". It makes no sense arguing with someone that believes in "manifest destiny", it is futile.

(COMMENT)

I believe Hawaii was a concession in the outcome of the Spanish-American War; and was unilaterally annexed as part of the US. Before the turn of the 20th Century, that is how business was done. You cannot applied 21st Century thinking to evaluate a 19th Century political-economic decision.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Article 73 of the Charter applied equally well to the Jewish people 1948.

Why all the smoke. You know that the sovereign rights of a people includes non self governing territories including occupation and colonialism.

(COMMENT)

There is no smoke. You just want some easy answer. There is no easy answer.

At every opportunity, the Arab Palestinian attempted to obstruct progress. Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, attempted to defy the Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly; and engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the the establishment of the State of Israel.

You keep throwing up the colonialism issue --- and a war (several wars) were fought over that issue, and in each case, the outcome was consistent. When the smoke cleared, the Arab Palestinian lost control of more territory.

By 1923 the British had offered the opportunity for the Arab Palestinians to participate in the establish of an institution through which the Arab Palestinian could be brought closer to self-governing institutions. The Arab Palestinian then, as the Arab Palestinian does today, take the non-peaceful option and has yet to accomplish anything productive for the Arab People or the territory politically.

So, when did this transfer of land from Palestine to Israel occur?

(COMMENT)

For the umpteenth time. THERE WAS NO TRANSFER. It was not a real estate purchase. The territory and Mandate was in the hands of the UN (Trusteeship).

There was a completion of the Steps Preparatory to Independence; THEN there was a Declaration of Independence; THEN there was War of Independence initiated the external Arab Forces; THEN there was UN Membership admission.

For the Arab Palestinians --- nothing.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Article 73 of the Charter applied equally well to the Jewish people 1948.

Why all the smoke. You know that the sovereign rights of a people includes non self governing territories including occupation and colonialism.

(COMMENT)

There is no smoke. You just want some easy answer. There is no easy answer.

At every opportunity, the Arab Palestinian attempted to obstruct progress. Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, attempted to defy the Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly; and engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the the establishment of the State of Israel.

You keep throwing up the colonialism issue --- and a war (several wars) were fought over that issue, and in each case, the outcome was consistent. When the smoke cleared, the Arab Palestinian lost control of more territory.

By 1923 the British had offered the opportunity for the Arab Palestinians to participate in the establish of an institution through which the Arab Palestinian could be brought closer to self-governing institutions. The Arab Palestinian then, as the Arab Palestinian does today, take the non-peaceful option and has yet to accomplish anything productive for the Arab People or the territory politically.

So, when did this transfer of land from Palestine to Israel occur?

(COMMENT)

For the umpteenth time. THERE WAS NO TRANSFER. It was not a real estate purchase. The territory and Mandate was in the hands of the UN (Trusteeship).

There was a completion of the Steps Preparatory to Independence; THEN there was a Declaration of Independence; THEN there was War of Independence initiated the external Arab Forces; THEN there was UN Membership admission.

For the Arab Palestinians --- nothing.

Most Respectfully,
R

When the smoke cleared, the Arab Palestinian lost control of more territory.​

It is illegal to acquire territory by war.

The Palestinians lost all of those wars? What were the terms of surrender? Where are the peace treaties ceding that land?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Article 73 of the Charter applied equally well to the Jewish people 1948.

Why all the smoke. You know that the sovereign rights of a people includes non self governing territories including occupation and colonialism.

(COMMENT)

There is no smoke. You just want some easy answer. There is no easy answer.

At every opportunity, the Arab Palestinian attempted to obstruct progress. Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, attempted to defy the Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly; and engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the the establishment of the State of Israel.

You keep throwing up the colonialism issue --- and a war (several wars) were fought over that issue, and in each case, the outcome was consistent. When the smoke cleared, the Arab Palestinian lost control of more territory.

By 1923 the British had offered the opportunity for the Arab Palestinians to participate in the establish of an institution through which the Arab Palestinian could be brought closer to self-governing institutions. The Arab Palestinian then, as the Arab Palestinian does today, take the non-peaceful option and has yet to accomplish anything productive for the Arab People or the territory politically.

So, when did this transfer of land from Palestine to Israel occur?

(COMMENT)

For the umpteenth time. THERE WAS NO TRANSFER. It was not a real estate purchase. The territory and Mandate was in the hands of the UN (Trusteeship).

There was a completion of the Steps Preparatory to Independence; THEN there was a Declaration of Independence; THEN there was War of Independence initiated the external Arab Forces; THEN there was UN Membership admission.

For the Arab Palestinians --- nothing.

Most Respectfully,
R

By 1923 the British had offered the opportunity for the Arab Palestinians to participate in the establish of an institution through which the Arab Palestinian could be brought closer to self-governing institutions.​

Only if they signed on to the colonial project.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, the restriction in the Charter does not say that at all. Read it again..

When the smoke cleared, the Arab Palestinian lost control of more territory.​

It is illegal to acquire territory by war.

The Palestinians lost all of those wars? What were the terms of surrender? Where are the peace treaties ceding that land?

(COMMENT)

That is a misinterpretation of what happened.

You cannot go to war for the purpose of conquering a territory or nation. This is a variation of Article 2(4) if the Charter.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

This is use in concert with Article 51 of the Charter.

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective selfdefense if an armed attack occurs against a Memher of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
​

In 1948, the Arab League attacked. In 1967, the Arab were preparing for an attack, having as the UN Force to leave, and having closed the Straits. In 1973, the Arab League attacked again. In each case the Arab League was the aggressor.

It is NOT illegal to hold territory lost by the aggressor.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, the restriction in the Charter does not say that at all. Read it again..

When the smoke cleared, the Arab Palestinian lost control of more territory.​

It is illegal to acquire territory by war.

The Palestinians lost all of those wars? What were the terms of surrender? Where are the peace treaties ceding that land?

(COMMENT)

That is a misinterpretation of what happened.

You cannot go to war for the purpose of conquering a territory or nation. This is a variation of Article 2(4) if the Charter.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

This is use in concert with Article 51 of the Charter.

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective selfdefense if an armed attack occurs against a Memher of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
​

In 1948, the Arab League attacked. In 1967, the Arab were preparing for an attack, having as the UN Force to leave, and having closed the Straits. In 1973, the Arab League attacked again. In each case the Arab League was the aggressor.

It is NOT illegal to hold territory lost by the aggressor.

Most Respectfully,
R

You cannot go to war for the purpose of conquering a territory or nation. This is a variation of Article 2(4) if the Charter.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​

So the foreign colonists were in Palestine defending themselves from the native's aggression? Who was using force against the territorial integrity of Palestine?

Rocco, you are a hoot.

 

[Challenger]

You seem to be having trouble following the conversation. You'd asked where the Canaan valley was so I provided you with a map of Canaan.

Maybe this one from the 1690s will help you discover your error

You might take note that this one doesn't make any mention of a place called palestine.

So the question is, can you find the valley ? Or are you seriously suggesting there are no valleys in canaan ;--)

Its also of note that the Judaic people today inhabit the exact same area where their ancestors first developed from the more primitive stone age inhabitants something like 6500 years ago.

As I'm sure the rest of us can recall in your post # 384 you asked

Quote

"Canaan valley"? Where's that? The only major valley in the area is the Jordan valley

End Quote

But my favorite part was you followed that up in post # 389 with

Quote

Wow, what a spectacular display of historical ignorance.

End Quote

A statement I can wholeheartedly agree with, but of course not for the reasons you intended when you made that statement. Particularly if you are going to insist the Arab conquest didn't involve the slaughter or forced expulsion of the lands it conquered. The Judaic people have always been highly resistive to forced conversions..

In any case, maybe now that you know where Canaan is, you can point out the Canaan valley to us.

Canaan had a lot of valleys, which one would you like me to point to? The Jordan River has one valley and as far as I know it's always been called the Jordan River (or River Jordan if you want to nitpick).

The Arab conquest of Palestine and several other places, like Egypt was remarkably free of wholesale slaughter. The Rashidun Arab armies would engage and defeat the Roman and Persian field armies sent against them as at Yarmouk and Qadesiyah and the cities left without hope of relief mostly surrendered after a token resistance. The only records on both sides of "expulsions" were the Roman governing elites/nobles, whose estates and accompanying tenant farmers were promptly siezed by the Arab elites/nobles who became the new landed gentry. Life remained much the same for the average peasant under Muslim rule as it had been under Roman rule; they were free to practice their own religion as before and were largely autonomous so long as they paid their tributes/taxes to the new regime.

There is no record of forced conversions, (nor of anything called "Judaic" for that matter) the native population gradually converted over the next 100 years voluntarily, for the most part, as Muslims didn't have to pay taxes. Judaism in Palestine and most of the rest of the Levant had all but disappeared by the 13th century according to Moses ben Nahman Girondi, replaced by Islam.

 

[Challenger]

In 1948, the Arab League attacked. In 1967, the Arab were preparing for an attack, having as the UN Force to leave, and having closed the Straits. In 1973, the Arab League attacked again. In each case the Arab League was the aggressor.

Really, so why didn't the UN declare the Arab League to be the aggressor and condemn the aggression? You're talking bollocks, RoccoR. The Arab League tried to intervene in what was becoming a secession war in Palestine, the league was not condemned by the U.N. for agression. In 1967 the U.N. was deadlocked regarding who was the agressor due to Cold War politics, but it is now clear that Zionist Israel initiated hostilities when they knew there was no immediate threat from the UAR. In 1973, Egypt and Syria exercised their legal right to regain their own territory, again they were not condemned as aggressors.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, that is exactly correct. P F Tinmore, please just jump right on down to the "SUMMATION" below. I don't want you to get confused by the facts and claim "smoke inhalation."

You cannot go to war for the purpose of conquering a territory or nation. This is a variation of Article 2(4) if the Charter.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

​

So the foreign colonists were in Palestine defending themselves from the native's aggression? Who was using force against the territorial integrity of Palestine?

Rocco, you are a hoot.

(COMMENT)

• Point One:
The Jewish People were invited and encouraged to Immigrate by the Palestine Government. This Jewish Immigration was controlled (and during the war, blocked as an Holocaust escape route by the British Mandatory) under Article 4. The purpose of the immigration was to bring the fulfillment of a Jewish National Home, established by the all the Jewish People willing to assist in that Allied Power objective.

(PALESTINIAN FORCES NOT CONSIDERED EXTERNAL)(Leadership was external.)

• Point Two:
There were two Hostile Arab Palestinian activities that came together as an irregular force

∆ Army of the Holy War (HWA): A composite paramilitary organization consisting of two sub-elements:

ø HWA Jihad
ø HWA Irregulars
​

∆ Arab Liberation Army (ALA): The ALA was loosely task organized along two groups:

ø Popular Resistance Fighters
ø Foreign Fighters

The HWA loss of its principle commander at the Battle of al-Qastal, had such a devastating impact on the ALA remnant, as to become an ineffective fighting force that never recovered. The Arab Higher Committee had formed the All Palestine Government and attempted to reconstitute the HWA for its use. This was seen by King Abdullah (Jordan) as a move to undermine the Kings authority as the Commander of all forces; and erode secret political negotiations with Israel. HM King Abdullah ordered Lieutenant General Sir John Glubb (British Military Advisor to the Jordanian Army and Trainer) to demilitarize the HWA and disband it such that it could not be brought back into service.

The ALA, after a number of initial successes, essentially fought its last battle against Israeli Carmeli Brigade. While the ALA mounted a formidable defense and defeated the Carmeli Brigade counter attack, the ALA (believing it was about to the surrounded) withdrew and retired north across the Lebanese Border; never to enter the War afterwards.
​

Together, the ALA and the HWA fought in the 1947-1948 Civil War and the first-half of 1948 Arab-Israeli War. While they both answered to HM King Abdullah, they were the only operational elements of Palestinian origin. Thus could be considered indigenous or (non-external influences).

However, the introduction of the Arab League Forces cannot be considered anything other than foreign influences. Those forces included:

​

At the time of the Armistice (1949), there were no active Palestinians on the Battlefield. The Jordanians established a military occupation over the West Bank and the Egyptian established a military occupation over the Gaza Strip, and the Lebanese and Syrian were pushed back to their point of embarkation.

(SUMMATION)

At the time of the Armistice, there were NO PALESTINIANS FORCES defending any space on the battlefield.

There was NO INVASION OF PALESTINE. From 1918 (Armistice of Mudros) until Israeli Independence (1948) and through to the establishment of the Occupied Territories (Armistice 1949), the Jewish People had official recognition in the territory subject to the Mandate and transferred to the Trusteeship. There was no violation of sovereign territory on the Part of the Jewish Immigrants (before self-determination and Independence) OR on the Part of the Israeli's (after Independence from the successor government).

The only armed forces to cross internationally recognized borders into the Palestine Trusteeship and Israel were the Arab League Forces listed in the box above. No Israeli force cross any internationally recognized borders to any Arab League Nation.

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, that is exactly correct. P F Tinmore, please just jump right on down to the "SUMMATION" below. I don't want you to get confused by the facts and claim "smoke inhalation."

You cannot go to war for the purpose of conquering a territory or nation. This is a variation of Article 2(4) if the Charter.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

​

So the foreign colonists were in Palestine defending themselves from the native's aggression? Who was using force against the territorial integrity of Palestine?

Rocco, you are a hoot.

(COMMENT)

• Point One:
The Jewish People were invited and encouraged to Immigrate by the Palestine Government. This Jewish Immigration was controlled (and during the war, blocked as an Holocaust escape route by the British Mandatory) under Article 4. The purpose of the immigration was to bring the fulfillment of a Jewish National Home, established by the all the Jewish People willing to assist in that Allied Power objective.

(PALESTINIAN FORCES NOT CONSIDERED EXTERNAL)(Leadership was external.)

• Point Two:
There were two Hostile Arab Palestinian activities that came together as an irregular force

∆ Army of the Holy War (HWA): A composite paramilitary organization consisting of two sub-elements:

ø HWA Jihad
ø HWA Irregulars
​

∆ Arab Liberation Army (ALA): The ALA was loosely task organized along two groups:

ø Popular Resistance Fighters
ø Foreign Fighters

The HWA loss of its principle commander at the Battle of al-Qastal, had such a devastating impact on the ALA remnant, as to become an ineffective fighting force that never recovered. The Arab Higher Committee had formed the All Palestine Government and attempted to reconstitute the HWA for its use. This was seen by King Abdullah (Jordan) as a move to undermine the Kings authority as the Commander of all forces; and erode secret political negotiations with Israel. HM King Abdullah ordered Lieutenant General Sir John Glubb (British Military Advisor to the Jordanian Army and Trainer) to demilitarize the HWA and disband it such that it could not be brought back into service.

The ALA, after a number of initial successes, essentially fought its last battle against Israeli Carmeli Brigade. While the ALA mounted a formidable defense and defeated the Carmeli Brigade counter attack, the ALA (believing it was about to the surrounded) withdrew and retired north across the Lebanese Border; never to enter the War afterwards.
​

Together, the ALA and the HWA fought in the 1947-1948 Civil War and the first-half of 1948 Arab-Israeli War. While they both answered to HM King Abdullah, they were the only operational elements of Palestinian origin. Thus could be considered indigenous or (non-external influences).

However, the introduction of the Arab League Forces cannot be considered anything other than foreign influences. Those forces included:

View attachment 61110
​

At the time of the Armistice (1949), there were no active Palestinians on the Battlefield. The Jordanians established a military occupation over the West Bank and the Egyptian established a military occupation over the Gaza Strip, and the Lebanese and Syrian were pushed back to their point of embarkation.

(SUMMATION)

At the time of the Armistice, there were NO PALESTINIANS FORCES defending any space on the battlefield.

There was NO INVASION OF PALESTINE. From 1918 (Armistice of Mudros) until Israeli Independence (1948) and through to the establishment of the Occupied Territories (Armistice 1949), the Jewish People had official recognition in the territory subject to the Mandate and transferred to the Trusteeship. There was no violation of sovereign territory on the Part of the Jewish Immigrants (before self-determination and Independence) OR on the Part of the Israeli's (after Independence from the successor government).

The only armed forces to cross internationally recognized borders into the Palestine Trusteeship and Israel were the Arab League Forces listed in the box above. No Israeli force cross any internationally recognized borders to any Arab League Nation.

Most Respectfully,
R​

However, the introduction of the Arab League Forces cannot be considered anything other than foreign influences.​

Indeed, but not external interference. They went into Palestine to defend Palestine. Well, Jordan was a different story.

No Israeli force cross any internationally recognized borders to any Arab League Nation.​

But Israeli forces were created and controlled by foreigners. The government of Israel was established by foreigners in complete disregard of the inhabitants.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, that is exactly correct. P F Tinmore, please just jump right on down to the "SUMMATION" below. I don't want you to get confused by the facts and claim "smoke inhalation."

You cannot go to war for the purpose of conquering a territory or nation. This is a variation of Article 2(4) if the Charter.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

​

So the foreign colonists were in Palestine defending themselves from the native's aggression? Who was using force against the territorial integrity of Palestine?

Rocco, you are a hoot.

(COMMENT)

• Point One:
The Jewish People were invited and encouraged to Immigrate by the Palestine Government. This Jewish Immigration was controlled (and during the war, blocked as an Holocaust escape route by the British Mandatory) under Article 4. The purpose of the immigration was to bring the fulfillment of a Jewish National Home, established by the all the Jewish People willing to assist in that Allied Power objective.

(PALESTINIAN FORCES NOT CONSIDERED EXTERNAL)(Leadership was external.)

• Point Two:
There were two Hostile Arab Palestinian activities that came together as an irregular force

∆ Army of the Holy War (HWA): A composite paramilitary organization consisting of two sub-elements:

ø HWA Jihad
ø HWA Irregulars
​

∆ Arab Liberation Army (ALA): The ALA was loosely task organized along two groups:

ø Popular Resistance Fighters
ø Foreign Fighters

The HWA loss of its principle commander at the Battle of al-Qastal, had such a devastating impact on the ALA remnant, as to become an ineffective fighting force that never recovered. The Arab Higher Committee had formed the All Palestine Government and attempted to reconstitute the HWA for its use. This was seen by King Abdullah (Jordan) as a move to undermine the Kings authority as the Commander of all forces; and erode secret political negotiations with Israel. HM King Abdullah ordered Lieutenant General Sir John Glubb (British Military Advisor to the Jordanian Army and Trainer) to demilitarize the HWA and disband it such that it could not be brought back into service.

The ALA, after a number of initial successes, essentially fought its last battle against Israeli Carmeli Brigade. While the ALA mounted a formidable defense and defeated the Carmeli Brigade counter attack, the ALA (believing it was about to the surrounded) withdrew and retired north across the Lebanese Border; never to enter the War afterwards.
​

Together, the ALA and the HWA fought in the 1947-1948 Civil War and the first-half of 1948 Arab-Israeli War. While they both answered to HM King Abdullah, they were the only operational elements of Palestinian origin. Thus could be considered indigenous or (non-external influences).

However, the introduction of the Arab League Forces cannot be considered anything other than foreign influences. Those forces included:

View attachment 61110
​

At the time of the Armistice (1949), there were no active Palestinians on the Battlefield. The Jordanians established a military occupation over the West Bank and the Egyptian established a military occupation over the Gaza Strip, and the Lebanese and Syrian were pushed back to their point of embarkation.

(SUMMATION)

At the time of the Armistice, there were NO PALESTINIANS FORCES defending any space on the battlefield.

There was NO INVASION OF PALESTINE. From 1918 (Armistice of Mudros) until Israeli Independence (1948) and through to the establishment of the Occupied Territories (Armistice 1949), the Jewish People had official recognition in the territory subject to the Mandate and transferred to the Trusteeship. There was no violation of sovereign territory on the Part of the Jewish Immigrants (before self-determination and Independence) OR on the Part of the Israeli's (after Independence from the successor government).

The only armed forces to cross internationally recognized borders into the Palestine Trusteeship and Israel were the Arab League Forces listed in the box above. No Israeli force cross any internationally recognized borders to any Arab League Nation.

Most Respectfully,
R​

Together, the ALA and the HWA fought in the 1947-1948 Civil War and the first-half of 1948 Arab-Israeli War.​

I think it was Israel who coined the term civil war that is not true. A civil war would be between two groups of Palestinians

The settlers had no intent on being a part of Palestine. They did not identify themselves as Palestinians.The Palestinians did not accept them as Palestinians. They lived separate lives from Palestinians in their own settlements.

The war was between the Palestinians and foreign colonial settlers.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure whether we read from the same books or not. I thought we covered this once, but I may be wrong.

Together, the ALA and the HWA fought in the 1947-1948 Civil War and the first-half of 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
​

​

I think it was Israel who coined the term civil war that is not true. A civil war would be between two groups of Palestinians

The settlers had no intent on being a part of Palestine. They did not identify themselves as Palestinians.The Palestinians did not accept them as Palestinians. They lived separate lives from Palestinians in their own settlements.

The war was between the Palestinians and foreign colonial settlers.

(COMMENT)

There are a complex number of Different types of non-international armed conflicts (the general category in which Civil Wars fall).

A "Civil War" is a generalized layman's term. It cannot be used in the technical and propaganda form in which you just used it. I think you need to go back to the basics:

Non-international armed conflict

26-03-2012 Book Chapter
You will no doubt note that when the ICRC wrote this chapter, one of the examples it used were:

• The Israeli/Lebanon/Hezbollah Conflict of 2006 which is definitionally placed in the NIAC Problems of qualifications group.

Even more confusing, you will see that there are some which were categorized as "foreign intervention not directed against government forces." It was the one they were studying at the time, and the one in which the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs was dealing with, in the shadow of frivolous allegations made by the Palestinians.

• Israel Operation Cast Lead 2008/2009
• Israel/Lebanon/Hezbollah, Conflict in 2006

In the practical sense, a Civil War has less to do with your preoccupation indigenous or long term inhabitance and more to do with citizenship, nationality and the intention of the party that initiated the conflict. In the case of the US Civil War, the parties to the conflict were of the same citizenship and from within the same general territory. It is all debatable at the layman's level. For the purpose of Customary and IHL, the 1946-1948 outbreak of hostilities would be NIAC.

Just a Thought - throwing it out there.
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you are just playing with the vocabulary.

But Israeli forces were created and controlled by foreigners. The government of Israel was established by foreigners in complete disregard of the inhabitants.​

(COMMENT)

The Israeli Forces were not under foreign control.
The ALA and HWA were under Jordanian control.
Only the members of the ALA and HWA were Palestinian Citizens under the Palestine Order in Council and the Citizenship Order of 1925. None of the Arab League Armies crossing the line of departure into the territory formerly under the Mandate held Palestinian Citizenship; fighting under a different flag and country command.

Whether you want to call it foreign or external interference, the fact is, it was a clear violation of Chapter I, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.

Most Respectfully,
R​