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

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, you are quite today.

Your assertion was that "The British Mandate was not a state. It was a temporarily appointed administration."

Which is 100% correct. Palestine did not belong to Britain/Mandate, or the LoN, or the UN. If it was they could have just ceded it to Israel. Mission accomplished. However it was not theirs to give away and they did not.

(COMMENT)

Your statement was right, but the inference was wrong. You need to read the entire response I gave. Including: "Your hidden(unspoken) implication was that the State of Israel could not be a successor state because the British administration under the Mandate was not a "state." WRONG... "

So, whose land was it. Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs.

(COMMENT)

• 2359 hrs 14 May 1848: The territory was under the control of the Mandatory.

Military control does not mean ownership.

• Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Transferred to the UNPC (Successor Government).

Appointed government does not mean ownership.

• Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).

Resolution 181 was not implemented. There was no territory transferred to Israel by resolution 181.

• Morning 15 May 1948: Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack. Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan become fluid.

There again, there were no Partition Plan Boundaries.

• March/April 1949: Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.

The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. They did not define any Israeli territory.

On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.

Are you implying that Israel acquired Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors? Interesting legal concept.

Most Respectfully,
R

No they acquired it the same way Jordan, Syria and Iraq did, from the LoN mandate the land was part of. You confuse yourself with mandate and mandatory

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are trying to argue a point I did not make.

2359 hrs 14 May 1848: The territory was under the control of the Mandatory.

Military control does not mean ownership.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers assumed title and rights to the territory pursuant to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne. We are not talking about ownership. Your question was: "So, whose land was it? Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs." One thing we know 100% for sure, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic did NOT renounce the title and rights to any inhabitants in the Middle East Region. But Article 16 is very clear: "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." This covered the status at the time of the treaty, and into the future.

Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Transferred to the UNPC (Successor Government).

Appointed government does not mean ownership.

(COMMENT)

This is true, the Allied Powers did not have any intention of establishing ownership. I never mentioned ownership, simply because it was not relevant.

What happened in the Treaty was the establishment of a “succession of State” (in the name of the Allied Powers) that replaced of one State (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) with another (in the name of the Allied Powers) which became responsibility for the international relations of territory in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine.

Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).

Resolution 181 was not implemented. There was no territory transferred to Israel by resolution 181.

(COMMENT)

Yes, you keep saying that, but you have been consistently wrong on two counts:

• There is no requirement in the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii), Palestine for both parties to accept, or that all aspects must be accomplished. In fact, Part 1, Section F of the Partition Plan states: "When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 (Membership) of the Charter of the United Nations."

• See Chapter 2 --- THE PLAN OF PARTITION AND END OF THE BRITISH MANDATE
First Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 --- On 14 May 1948, the United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.

• The use of this particular complaint (implementation) is an outcome of Arab Aggression in violation of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter. In both customary and treaty law, there are a variety of internationally-recognized legal bases for the use of force in relations between States. Generally speaking, however, modern jus ad bellum (the law governing a State’s resort to force) is reflected in the United Nations (UN) Charter. The UN Charter provides two bases for a State’s choice to resort to the use of force: Chapter VII enforcement actions under the auspices of the UN Security Council, and self-defense pursuant to Article 51 (which governs acts of both individual and collective self-defense).
​

Note: this is essentially the same information that I gave you several times before, last time being in Posting #2618 of the Who Are The Palestinians? Discussion Thread.

Morning 15 May 1948: Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack. Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan become fluid.

There again, there were no Partition Plan Boundaries.

(COMMENT)

OH nonsense!!!

UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii) Part II. Boundaries

A. The Arab State
B. The Jewish State
​

Part III. City of Jerusalem
​

However, these boundaries were immediately made obsolete by the Attack on Israel by multiple Arab States. The Israeli borders expanded. The permanency of these expansions were made in treaties with both Jordan and Egypt.

March/April 1949: Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.

The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. They did not define any Israeli territory.

(COMMENT)

It is true, and Armistice Line is NOT a permanent International Boundary. However, an Armistice Line is respected in the very same way. They both are respected the identically. Although no one really expects the Hostile Arab to given them consideration.

Declaration on Principles of International Law --- A/RES/25/2625(XXV)

•• Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

•• Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
​

• Israel’s acceptance of the “Land for Peace” formula with Syria is considered a mistake by many. However, the current Civil War and Radical Islamic instability will, for the present, hold the status quo.

* The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
unilateral acts.

I don't think it is necessary to reopen the discussion on the blue. Needless to say that Article V, Section 1 states that "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine." The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations on 7 June 2000 for the purposes of determining whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.

On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.

Are you implying that Israel acquired Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors? Interesting legal concept.

(COMMENT)

Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. Israel was under attack, and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State. However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are trying to argue a point I did not make.

2359 hrs 14 May 1848: The territory was under the control of the Mandatory.

Military control does not mean ownership.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers assumed title and rights to the territory pursuant to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne. We are not talking about ownership. Your question was: "So, whose land was it? Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs." One thing we know 100% for sure, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic did NOT renounce the title and rights to any inhabitants in the Middle East Region. But Article 16 is very clear: "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." This covered the status at the time of the treaty, and into the future.

Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Transferred to the UNPC (Successor Government).

Appointed government does not mean ownership.

(COMMENT)

This is true, the Allied Powers did not have any intention of establishing ownership. I never mentioned ownership, simply because it was not relevant.

What happened in the Treaty was the establishment of a “succession of State” (in the name of the Allied Powers) that replaced of one State (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) with another (in the name of the Allied Powers) which became responsibility for the international relations of territory in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine.

Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).

Resolution 181 was not implemented. There was no territory transferred to Israel by resolution 181.

(COMMENT)

Yes, you keep saying that, but you have been consistently wrong on two counts:

• There is no requirement in the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii), Palestine for both parties to accept, or that all aspects must be accomplished. In fact, Part 1, Section F of the Partition Plan states: "When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 (Membership) of the Charter of the United Nations."

• See Chapter 2 --- THE PLAN OF PARTITION AND END OF THE BRITISH MANDATE
First Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 --- On 14 May 1948, the United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.

• The use of this particular complaint (implementation) is an outcome of Arab Aggression in violation of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter. In both customary and treaty law, there are a variety of internationally-recognized legal bases for the use of force in relations between States. Generally speaking, however, modern jus ad bellum (the law governing a State’s resort to force) is reflected in the United Nations (UN) Charter. The UN Charter provides two bases for a State’s choice to resort to the use of force: Chapter VII enforcement actions under the auspices of the UN Security Council, and self-defense pursuant to Article 51 (which governs acts of both individual and collective self-defense).
​

Note: this is essentially the same information that I gave you several times before, last time being in Posting #2618 of the Who Are The Palestinians? Discussion Thread.

Morning 15 May 1948: Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack. Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan become fluid.

There again, there were no Partition Plan Boundaries.

(COMMENT)

OH nonsense!!!

UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii) Part II. Boundaries

A. The Arab State
B. The Jewish State
​

Part III. City of Jerusalem​

However, these boundaries were immediately made obsolete by the Attack on Israel by multiple Arab States. The Israeli borders expanded. The permanency of these expansions were made in treaties with both Jordan and Egypt.

March/April 1949: Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.

The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. They did not define any Israeli territory.

(COMMENT)

It is true, and Armistice Line is NOT a permanent International Boundary. However, an Armistice Line is respected in the very same way. They both are respected the identically. Although no one really expects the Hostile Arab to given them consideration.

Declaration on Principles of International Law --- A/RES/25/2625(XXV)

•• Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

•• Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
​

• Israel’s acceptance of the “Land for Peace” formula with Syria is considered a mistake by many. However, the current Civil War and Radical Islamic instability will, for the present, hold the status quo.

* The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
unilateral acts.

I don't think it is necessary to reopen the discussion on the blue. Needless to say that Article V, Section 1 states that "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine." The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations on 7 June 2000 for the purposes of determining whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.

On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.

Are you implying that Israel acquired Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors? Interesting legal concept.

(COMMENT)

Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. Israel was under attack, and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State. However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

* The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
unilateral acts.​

Who are the two parties authorized to negotiate those borders?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are trying to argue a point I did not make.

2359 hrs 14 May 1848: The territory was under the control of the Mandatory.

Military control does not mean ownership.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers assumed title and rights to the territory pursuant to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne. We are not talking about ownership. Your question was: "So, whose land was it? Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs." One thing we know 100% for sure, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic did NOT renounce the title and rights to any inhabitants in the Middle East Region. But Article 16 is very clear: "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." This covered the status at the time of the treaty, and into the future.

Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Transferred to the UNPC (Successor Government).

Appointed government does not mean ownership.

(COMMENT)

This is true, the Allied Powers did not have any intention of establishing ownership. I never mentioned ownership, simply because it was not relevant.

What happened in the Treaty was the establishment of a “succession of State” (in the name of the Allied Powers) that replaced of one State (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) with another (in the name of the Allied Powers) which became responsibility for the international relations of territory in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine.

Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).

Resolution 181 was not implemented. There was no territory transferred to Israel by resolution 181.

(COMMENT)

Yes, you keep saying that, but you have been consistently wrong on two counts:

• There is no requirement in the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii), Palestine for both parties to accept, or that all aspects must be accomplished. In fact, Part 1, Section F of the Partition Plan states: "When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 (Membership) of the Charter of the United Nations."

• See Chapter 2 --- THE PLAN OF PARTITION AND END OF THE BRITISH MANDATE
First Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 --- On 14 May 1948, the United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.

• The use of this particular complaint (implementation) is an outcome of Arab Aggression in violation of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter. In both customary and treaty law, there are a variety of internationally-recognized legal bases for the use of force in relations between States. Generally speaking, however, modern jus ad bellum (the law governing a State’s resort to force) is reflected in the United Nations (UN) Charter. The UN Charter provides two bases for a State’s choice to resort to the use of force: Chapter VII enforcement actions under the auspices of the UN Security Council, and self-defense pursuant to Article 51 (which governs acts of both individual and collective self-defense).
​

Note: this is essentially the same information that I gave you several times before, last time being in Posting #2618 of the Who Are The Palestinians? Discussion Thread.

Morning 15 May 1948: Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack. Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan become fluid.

There again, there were no Partition Plan Boundaries.

(COMMENT)

OH nonsense!!!

UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii) Part II. Boundaries

A. The Arab State
B. The Jewish State
​

Part III. City of Jerusalem​

However, these boundaries were immediately made obsolete by the Attack on Israel by multiple Arab States. The Israeli borders expanded. The permanency of these expansions were made in treaties with both Jordan and Egypt.

March/April 1949: Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.

The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. They did not define any Israeli territory.

(COMMENT)

It is true, and Armistice Line is NOT a permanent International Boundary. However, an Armistice Line is respected in the very same way. They both are respected the identically. Although no one really expects the Hostile Arab to given them consideration.

Declaration on Principles of International Law --- A/RES/25/2625(XXV)

•• Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

•• Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
​

• Israel’s acceptance of the “Land for Peace” formula with Syria is considered a mistake by many. However, the current Civil War and Radical Islamic instability will, for the present, hold the status quo.

* The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
unilateral acts.

I don't think it is necessary to reopen the discussion on the blue. Needless to say that Article V, Section 1 states that "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine." The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations on 7 June 2000 for the purposes of determining whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.

On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.

Are you implying that Israel acquired Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors? Interesting legal concept.

(COMMENT)

Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. Israel was under attack, and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State. However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't think it is necessary to reopen the discussion on the blue. Needless to say that Article V, Section 1 states that "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine." The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations on 7 June 2000 for the purposes of determining whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.​

They use the blue line because Israel does not border Lebanon.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are trying to argue a point I did not make.

2359 hrs 14 May 1848: The territory was under the control of the Mandatory.

Military control does not mean ownership.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers assumed title and rights to the territory pursuant to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne. We are not talking about ownership. Your question was: "So, whose land was it? Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs." One thing we know 100% for sure, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic did NOT renounce the title and rights to any inhabitants in the Middle East Region. But Article 16 is very clear: "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." This covered the status at the time of the treaty, and into the future.

Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Transferred to the UNPC (Successor Government).

Appointed government does not mean ownership.

(COMMENT)

This is true, the Allied Powers did not have any intention of establishing ownership. I never mentioned ownership, simply because it was not relevant.

What happened in the Treaty was the establishment of a “succession of State” (in the name of the Allied Powers) that replaced of one State (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) with another (in the name of the Allied Powers) which became responsibility for the international relations of territory in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine.

Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).

Resolution 181 was not implemented. There was no territory transferred to Israel by resolution 181.

(COMMENT)

Yes, you keep saying that, but you have been consistently wrong on two counts:

• There is no requirement in the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii), Palestine for both parties to accept, or that all aspects must be accomplished. In fact, Part 1, Section F of the Partition Plan states: "When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 (Membership) of the Charter of the United Nations."

• See Chapter 2 --- THE PLAN OF PARTITION AND END OF THE BRITISH MANDATE
First Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 --- On 14 May 1948, the United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.

• The use of this particular complaint (implementation) is an outcome of Arab Aggression in violation of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter. In both customary and treaty law, there are a variety of internationally-recognized legal bases for the use of force in relations between States. Generally speaking, however, modern jus ad bellum (the law governing a State’s resort to force) is reflected in the United Nations (UN) Charter. The UN Charter provides two bases for a State’s choice to resort to the use of force: Chapter VII enforcement actions under the auspices of the UN Security Council, and self-defense pursuant to Article 51 (which governs acts of both individual and collective self-defense).
​

Note: this is essentially the same information that I gave you several times before, last time being in Posting #2618 of the Who Are The Palestinians? Discussion Thread.

Morning 15 May 1948: Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack. Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan become fluid.

There again, there were no Partition Plan Boundaries.

(COMMENT)

OH nonsense!!!

UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii) Part II. Boundaries

A. The Arab State
B. The Jewish State
​

Part III. City of Jerusalem​

However, these boundaries were immediately made obsolete by the Attack on Israel by multiple Arab States. The Israeli borders expanded. The permanency of these expansions were made in treaties with both Jordan and Egypt.

March/April 1949: Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.

The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. They did not define any Israeli territory.

(COMMENT)

It is true, and Armistice Line is NOT a permanent International Boundary. However, an Armistice Line is respected in the very same way. They both are respected the identically. Although no one really expects the Hostile Arab to given them consideration.

Declaration on Principles of International Law --- A/RES/25/2625(XXV)

•• Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

•• Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
​

• Israel’s acceptance of the “Land for Peace” formula with Syria is considered a mistake by many. However, the current Civil War and Radical Islamic instability will, for the present, hold the status quo.

* The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
unilateral acts.

I don't think it is necessary to reopen the discussion on the blue. Needless to say that Article V, Section 1 states that "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine." The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations on 7 June 2000 for the purposes of determining whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.

On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.

Are you implying that Israel acquired Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors? Interesting legal concept.

(COMMENT)

Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. Israel was under attack, and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State. However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

* The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
unilateral acts.​

Who are the two parties authorized to negotiate those borders?

Israel and the Palestinian government, which would succeed the Palestinian Authority after 5 years. In an attempt to negate the Oslo accords the Palestinians refused to create a government. Until the Palestinians make the move towards free determination and elect a government they will achieve nothing but the deaths of thousands of innocents

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are trying to argue a point I did not make.

2359 hrs 14 May 1848: The territory was under the control of the Mandatory.

Military control does not mean ownership.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers assumed title and rights to the territory pursuant to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne. We are not talking about ownership. Your question was: "So, whose land was it? Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs." One thing we know 100% for sure, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic did NOT renounce the title and rights to any inhabitants in the Middle East Region. But Article 16 is very clear: "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." This covered the status at the time of the treaty, and into the future.

Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Transferred to the UNPC (Successor Government).

Appointed government does not mean ownership.

(COMMENT)

This is true, the Allied Powers did not have any intention of establishing ownership. I never mentioned ownership, simply because it was not relevant.

What happened in the Treaty was the establishment of a “succession of State” (in the name of the Allied Powers) that replaced of one State (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) with another (in the name of the Allied Powers) which became responsibility for the international relations of territory in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine.

Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).

Resolution 181 was not implemented. There was no territory transferred to Israel by resolution 181.

(COMMENT)

Yes, you keep saying that, but you have been consistently wrong on two counts:

• There is no requirement in the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii), Palestine for both parties to accept, or that all aspects must be accomplished. In fact, Part 1, Section F of the Partition Plan states: "When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 (Membership) of the Charter of the United Nations."

• See Chapter 2 --- THE PLAN OF PARTITION AND END OF THE BRITISH MANDATE
First Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 --- On 14 May 1948, the United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.

• The use of this particular complaint (implementation) is an outcome of Arab Aggression in violation of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter. In both customary and treaty law, there are a variety of internationally-recognized legal bases for the use of force in relations between States. Generally speaking, however, modern jus ad bellum (the law governing a State’s resort to force) is reflected in the United Nations (UN) Charter. The UN Charter provides two bases for a State’s choice to resort to the use of force: Chapter VII enforcement actions under the auspices of the UN Security Council, and self-defense pursuant to Article 51 (which governs acts of both individual and collective self-defense).
​

Note: this is essentially the same information that I gave you several times before, last time being in Posting #2618 of the Who Are The Palestinians? Discussion Thread.

Morning 15 May 1948: Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack. Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan become fluid.

There again, there were no Partition Plan Boundaries.

(COMMENT)

OH nonsense!!!

UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii) Part II. Boundaries

A. The Arab State
B. The Jewish State
​

Part III. City of Jerusalem​

However, these boundaries were immediately made obsolete by the Attack on Israel by multiple Arab States. The Israeli borders expanded. The permanency of these expansions were made in treaties with both Jordan and Egypt.

March/April 1949: Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.

The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. They did not define any Israeli territory.

(COMMENT)

It is true, and Armistice Line is NOT a permanent International Boundary. However, an Armistice Line is respected in the very same way. They both are respected the identically. Although no one really expects the Hostile Arab to given them consideration.

Declaration on Principles of International Law --- A/RES/25/2625(XXV)

•• Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

•• Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
​

• Israel’s acceptance of the “Land for Peace” formula with Syria is considered a mistake by many. However, the current Civil War and Radical Islamic instability will, for the present, hold the status quo.

* The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
unilateral acts.

I don't think it is necessary to reopen the discussion on the blue. Needless to say that Article V, Section 1 states that "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine." The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations on 7 June 2000 for the purposes of determining whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.

On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.

Are you implying that Israel acquired Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors? Interesting legal concept.

(COMMENT)

Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. Israel was under attack, and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State. However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't think it is necessary to reopen the discussion on the blue. Needless to say that Article V, Section 1 states that "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine." The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations on 7 June 2000 for the purposes of determining whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.​

They use the blue line because Israel does not border Lebanon.

It does if you look at the maps lodged with the UN. And there are no maps in the UN archives showing the borders of the nation of Palestine. But there are maps showing the borders of the Mandate of Palestine

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are trying to argue a point I did not make.

2359 hrs 14 May 1848: The territory was under the control of the Mandatory.

Military control does not mean ownership.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers assumed title and rights to the territory pursuant to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne. We are not talking about ownership. Your question was: "So, whose land was it? Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs." One thing we know 100% for sure, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic did NOT renounce the title and rights to any inhabitants in the Middle East Region. But Article 16 is very clear: "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." This covered the status at the time of the treaty, and into the future.

Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Transferred to the UNPC (Successor Government).

Appointed government does not mean ownership.

(COMMENT)

This is true, the Allied Powers did not have any intention of establishing ownership. I never mentioned ownership, simply because it was not relevant.

What happened in the Treaty was the establishment of a “succession of State” (in the name of the Allied Powers) that replaced of one State (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) with another (in the name of the Allied Powers) which became responsibility for the international relations of territory in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine.

Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).

Resolution 181 was not implemented. There was no territory transferred to Israel by resolution 181.

(COMMENT)

Yes, you keep saying that, but you have been consistently wrong on two counts:

• There is no requirement in the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii), Palestine for both parties to accept, or that all aspects must be accomplished. In fact, Part 1, Section F of the Partition Plan states: "When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 (Membership) of the Charter of the United Nations."

• See Chapter 2 --- THE PLAN OF PARTITION AND END OF THE BRITISH MANDATE
First Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 --- On 14 May 1948, the United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.

• The use of this particular complaint (implementation) is an outcome of Arab Aggression in violation of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter. In both customary and treaty law, there are a variety of internationally-recognized legal bases for the use of force in relations between States. Generally speaking, however, modern jus ad bellum (the law governing a State’s resort to force) is reflected in the United Nations (UN) Charter. The UN Charter provides two bases for a State’s choice to resort to the use of force: Chapter VII enforcement actions under the auspices of the UN Security Council, and self-defense pursuant to Article 51 (which governs acts of both individual and collective self-defense).
​

Note: this is essentially the same information that I gave you several times before, last time being in Posting #2618 of the Who Are The Palestinians? Discussion Thread.

Morning 15 May 1948: Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack. Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan become fluid.

There again, there were no Partition Plan Boundaries.

(COMMENT)

OH nonsense!!!

UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii) Part II. Boundaries

A. The Arab State
B. The Jewish State
​

Part III. City of Jerusalem​

However, these boundaries were immediately made obsolete by the Attack on Israel by multiple Arab States. The Israeli borders expanded. The permanency of these expansions were made in treaties with both Jordan and Egypt.

March/April 1949: Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.

The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. They did not define any Israeli territory.

(COMMENT)

It is true, and Armistice Line is NOT a permanent International Boundary. However, an Armistice Line is respected in the very same way. They both are respected the identically. Although no one really expects the Hostile Arab to given them consideration.

Declaration on Principles of International Law --- A/RES/25/2625(XXV)

•• Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

•• Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
​

• Israel’s acceptance of the “Land for Peace” formula with Syria is considered a mistake by many. However, the current Civil War and Radical Islamic instability will, for the present, hold the status quo.

* The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
unilateral acts.

I don't think it is necessary to reopen the discussion on the blue. Needless to say that Article V, Section 1 states that "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine." The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations on 7 June 2000 for the purposes of determining whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.

On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.

Are you implying that Israel acquired Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors? Interesting legal concept.

(COMMENT)

Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. Israel was under attack, and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State. However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your post is full of holes like Swiss Cheese.

Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. (Both moves illegal.) Israel was under attack, (No it wasn't.) and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. (What does the position of armed forces inside Palestine have to do with Palestinian territory?) The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) (Of course not. Resolution 181 was never implemented.) set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State. (Call it what it was, Palestine.) However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% (i.e. occupied) — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians. (What state? Where was its defined territory?)

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are trying to argue a point I did not make.

2359 hrs 14 May 1848: The territory was under the control of the Mandatory.

Military control does not mean ownership.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers assumed title and rights to the territory pursuant to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne. We are not talking about ownership. Your question was: "So, whose land was it? Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs." One thing we know 100% for sure, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic did NOT renounce the title and rights to any inhabitants in the Middle East Region. But Article 16 is very clear: "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." This covered the status at the time of the treaty, and into the future.

Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Transferred to the UNPC (Successor Government).

Appointed government does not mean ownership.

(COMMENT)

This is true, the Allied Powers did not have any intention of establishing ownership. I never mentioned ownership, simply because it was not relevant.

What happened in the Treaty was the establishment of a “succession of State” (in the name of the Allied Powers) that replaced of one State (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) with another (in the name of the Allied Powers) which became responsibility for the international relations of territory in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine.

Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).

Resolution 181 was not implemented. There was no territory transferred to Israel by resolution 181.

(COMMENT)

Yes, you keep saying that, but you have been consistently wrong on two counts:

• There is no requirement in the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii), Palestine for both parties to accept, or that all aspects must be accomplished. In fact, Part 1, Section F of the Partition Plan states: "When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 (Membership) of the Charter of the United Nations."

• See Chapter 2 --- THE PLAN OF PARTITION AND END OF THE BRITISH MANDATE
First Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 --- On 14 May 1948, the United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.

• The use of this particular complaint (implementation) is an outcome of Arab Aggression in violation of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter. In both customary and treaty law, there are a variety of internationally-recognized legal bases for the use of force in relations between States. Generally speaking, however, modern jus ad bellum (the law governing a State’s resort to force) is reflected in the United Nations (UN) Charter. The UN Charter provides two bases for a State’s choice to resort to the use of force: Chapter VII enforcement actions under the auspices of the UN Security Council, and self-defense pursuant to Article 51 (which governs acts of both individual and collective self-defense).
​

Note: this is essentially the same information that I gave you several times before, last time being in Posting #2618 of the Who Are The Palestinians? Discussion Thread.

Morning 15 May 1948: Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack. Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan become fluid.

There again, there were no Partition Plan Boundaries.

(COMMENT)

OH nonsense!!!

UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii) Part II. Boundaries

A. The Arab State
B. The Jewish State
​

Part III. City of Jerusalem​

However, these boundaries were immediately made obsolete by the Attack on Israel by multiple Arab States. The Israeli borders expanded. The permanency of these expansions were made in treaties with both Jordan and Egypt.

March/April 1949: Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.

The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. They did not define any Israeli territory.

(COMMENT)

It is true, and Armistice Line is NOT a permanent International Boundary. However, an Armistice Line is respected in the very same way. They both are respected the identically. Although no one really expects the Hostile Arab to given them consideration.

Declaration on Principles of International Law --- A/RES/25/2625(XXV)

•• Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

•• Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
​

• Israel’s acceptance of the “Land for Peace” formula with Syria is considered a mistake by many. However, the current Civil War and Radical Islamic instability will, for the present, hold the status quo.

* The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
unilateral acts.

I don't think it is necessary to reopen the discussion on the blue. Needless to say that Article V, Section 1 states that "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine." The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations on 7 June 2000 for the purposes of determining whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.

On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.

Are you implying that Israel acquired Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors? Interesting legal concept.

(COMMENT)

Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. Israel was under attack, and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State. However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

* The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
unilateral acts.​

Who are the two parties authorized to negotiate those borders?

Israel and the Palestinian government, which would succeed the Palestinian Authority after 5 years. In an attempt to negate the Oslo accords the Palestinians refused to create a government. Until the Palestinians make the move towards free determination and elect a government they will achieve nothing but the deaths of thousands of innocents

Palestinians refused to create a government.​

Not true. The Amended Palestinian Basic Law of 2003 (constitution) defined the structure of the government. Presidential elections were held in January of 2005. Parliamentary elections (judged free and fair by all international observers) were held in January of 2006. The "National Unity Government" was legally constituted (in compliance with the constitution) in March of 2007.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I can hardly believe you asked this...

* The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
unilateral acts.​

​

Who are the two parties authorized to negotiate those borders?

(COMMENT)

A border or frontier is (normally) negotiated by the parties in which the boundary separates the political entities.

In the case of the Arab-Israeli Agreements, there is :

ARTICLE XVII --- Jurisdiction (Oslo II)

1. In accordance with the DOP, the jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory as a single territorial unit, except for:

a. issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, specified military locations, Palestinian refugees, borders, foreign relations and Israelis; and

b. powers and responsibilities not transferred to the Council.
​

5. For the purpose of this Agreement, "the Settlements" means, in the West Bank the settlements in Area C; and in the Gaza Strip - the Gush Katif and Erez settlement areas, as well as the other settlements in the Gaza Strip, as shown on attached map No. 2.
​

The dispute resolution aspect, for unreconcilable differences, are addressed in:

ARTICLE XXI --- Settlement of Differences and Disputes (Oslo II)

Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:

1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim period shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.

3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Your post is full of holes like Swiss Cheese.

Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. (Both moves illegal.)

(COMMENT)

Well, that is not exactly true. There are other considerations involved. The idea of Customary Law is based on the idea that a long established pattern of behavior that has resolved issue or questions of a similar nature has been objectively verified within the same (or very similar) conditions. That is simply not the case.

In the case of the Golan Heights (which is not even a matter of concern with the Palestinians), Syria was clearly the aggressor.

(2) Annexation: International Law: Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty

Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.
[/quote]
In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950. In 1980, Israel made the critical decision. Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem. This issue is unresolved at the international level. Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.

Israel was under attack, (No it wasn't.) and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. (What does the position of armed forces inside Palestine have to do with Palestinian territory?)

(COMMENT)

This is actually compound question.

The disposition of forces makes a difference in the case of belligerent aggressors that have not made peace with Israel. That is why UNIFIL, in its periodic update, outlines the force distribution. The last update was in 2015:

Even a blind Palestinians with a seeing-eye dog, can figure out where the Armistice Line is and where to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

Arab Forces initiated an aggressive and coordinated attack in May 1948. Technically even until today, Lebanon and Syria are still at war with Israel. The Armistice Agreement with them is merely a cessation of hostilities. The Armistice Line, not being a true border, can actually move and take a new shape based upon where the forces are situated and what territory is under their respective effective control. The same is true for the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Neither Lebanon, Syria, West Bank, and Gaza Strip have actually agreed upon a Treaty. However, the PLO did enter into the Oslo Accords ("Declaration of Principles"). However, there are a number of unresolved issues between the two parties.

Permanent status negotiations issues included issues such as: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest. The outcome of these permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or pre-empted by the parties.
​

The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) (Of course not. Resolution 181 was never implemented.)

(COMMENT)

This is absolutely inaccurate. The UNPC reported to the Western News Media that: "In fact the resolution of last 29 November has been implemented.

The UNSCOP recommended boundaries set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State. (Call it what it was, Palestine.) However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% (i.e. occupied) — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians. (What state? Where was its defined territory?)[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

In 1947, the Palestine Order in Council defined the meaning of "Palestine" as "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies." Of course today, Palestine is defined as, the territory occupied since 1967.

Hummm... I did not change the name or the faith in the wording. I think my phrasing was quite accurate. If you go to the Resolution you will find it in BOLD LETTERING and it said:

Part II. - Boundaries
A. THE ARAB STATE
The area of the Arab State in Western Galilee is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean and on the north by the frontier of the Lebanon from Ras en Naqura to a point north of Saliha. From there the boundary proceeds southwards, leaving the built-up area of Saliha in the Arab State, to join the southernmost point of this village.
.....
The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission, bearing in mind among other considerations the desirability of including the smallest possible number of its Arab inhabitants and the largest possible number of its Jewish inhabitants in the Jewish State.

B. THE JEWISH STATE
The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Trans-jordan.
.....
It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary line to 'Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.

C. THE CITY OF JERUSALEM
​

I would never "intentionally" mislead you or alter the facts in our discussion. I have, from time to time, been know to make a mistake. But I would like you to notice, that I acknowledge the mistake and apologize.

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I guess that I should have clarified myself; since the entire discussion was on events of the 20th Century.

In an attempt to negate the Oslo accords the Palestinians refused to create a government.

Not true. The Amended Palestinian Basic Law of 2003 (constitution) defined the structure of the government. Presidential elections were held in January of 2005. Parliamentary elections (judged free and fair by all international observers) were held in January of 2006. The "National Unity Government" was legally constituted (in compliance with the constitution) in March of 2007.

(COMMENT)

A decade later, when did the Palestinians have new elections?

One election does not make a working government. And the inability to actually coordinate another one is an indication that it cannot stand alone.

You can write as many Basic Laws as you wish and cite it as often as you want. It is not representative of a working government if the government cannot follow them.

The 1988 State of Palestine is a failed state.

Failed States, Collapsed States, Weak States: Causes and Indicators ROBERT I. ROTBERG Chapter 1, p.3

The state’s prime function is to provide that political good of security—to prevent cross-border invasions and infiltrations, and any loss of territory; to eliminate domestic threats to or attacks upon the national order and social structure; to prevent crime and any related dangers to domestic human security; and to enable citizens to resolve their disputes with the state and with their fellow inhabitants without recourse to arms or other forms of physical coercion.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I guess that I should have clarified myself; since the entire discussion was on events of the 20th Century.

In an attempt to negate the Oslo accords the Palestinians refused to create a government.

Not true. The Amended Palestinian Basic Law of 2003 (constitution) defined the structure of the government. Presidential elections were held in January of 2005. Parliamentary elections (judged free and fair by all international observers) were held in January of 2006. The "National Unity Government" was legally constituted (in compliance with the constitution) in March of 2007.

(COMMENT)

A decade later, when did the Palestinians have new elections?

One election does not make a working government. And the inability to actually coordinate another one is an indication that it cannot stand alone.

You can write as many Basic Laws as you wish and cite it as often as you want. It is not representative of a working government if the government cannot follow them.

The 1988 State of Palestine is a failed state.

Failed States, Collapsed States, Weak States: Causes and Indicators ROBERT I. ROTBERG Chapter 1, p.3

The state’s prime function is to provide that political good of security—to prevent cross-border invasions and infiltrations, and any loss of territory; to eliminate domestic threats to or attacks upon the national order and social structure; to prevent crime and any related dangers to domestic human security; and to enable citizens to resolve their disputes with the state and with their fellow inhabitants without recourse to arms or other forms of physical coercion.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

It's that darned illegal external interference. The Palestinians are trying to get those laws enforced but the criminal class is fighting them tooth and nail.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are trying to argue a point I did not make.

2359 hrs 14 May 1848: The territory was under the control of the Mandatory.

Military control does not mean ownership.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers assumed title and rights to the territory pursuant to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne. We are not talking about ownership. Your question was: "So, whose land was it? Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs." One thing we know 100% for sure, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic did NOT renounce the title and rights to any inhabitants in the Middle East Region. But Article 16 is very clear: "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." This covered the status at the time of the treaty, and into the future.

Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Transferred to the UNPC (Successor Government).

Appointed government does not mean ownership.

(COMMENT)

This is true, the Allied Powers did not have any intention of establishing ownership. I never mentioned ownership, simply because it was not relevant.

What happened in the Treaty was the establishment of a “succession of State” (in the name of the Allied Powers) that replaced of one State (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) with another (in the name of the Allied Powers) which became responsibility for the international relations of territory in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine.

Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).

Resolution 181 was not implemented. There was no territory transferred to Israel by resolution 181.

(COMMENT)

Yes, you keep saying that, but you have been consistently wrong on two counts:

• There is no requirement in the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii), Palestine for both parties to accept, or that all aspects must be accomplished. In fact, Part 1, Section F of the Partition Plan states: "When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 (Membership) of the Charter of the United Nations."

• See Chapter 2 --- THE PLAN OF PARTITION AND END OF THE BRITISH MANDATE
First Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 --- On 14 May 1948, the United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.

• The use of this particular complaint (implementation) is an outcome of Arab Aggression in violation of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter. In both customary and treaty law, there are a variety of internationally-recognized legal bases for the use of force in relations between States. Generally speaking, however, modern jus ad bellum (the law governing a State’s resort to force) is reflected in the United Nations (UN) Charter. The UN Charter provides two bases for a State’s choice to resort to the use of force: Chapter VII enforcement actions under the auspices of the UN Security Council, and self-defense pursuant to Article 51 (which governs acts of both individual and collective self-defense).
​

Note: this is essentially the same information that I gave you several times before, last time being in Posting #2618 of the Who Are The Palestinians? Discussion Thread.

Morning 15 May 1948: Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack. Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan become fluid.

There again, there were no Partition Plan Boundaries.

(COMMENT)

OH nonsense!!!

UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii) Part II. Boundaries

A. The Arab State
B. The Jewish State
​

Part III. City of Jerusalem​

However, these boundaries were immediately made obsolete by the Attack on Israel by multiple Arab States. The Israeli borders expanded. The permanency of these expansions were made in treaties with both Jordan and Egypt.

March/April 1949: Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.

The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. They did not define any Israeli territory.

(COMMENT)

It is true, and Armistice Line is NOT a permanent International Boundary. However, an Armistice Line is respected in the very same way. They both are respected the identically. Although no one really expects the Hostile Arab to given them consideration.

Declaration on Principles of International Law --- A/RES/25/2625(XXV)

•• Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

•• Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
​

• Israel’s acceptance of the “Land for Peace” formula with Syria is considered a mistake by many. However, the current Civil War and Radical Islamic instability will, for the present, hold the status quo.

* The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
unilateral acts.

I don't think it is necessary to reopen the discussion on the blue. Needless to say that Article V, Section 1 states that "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine." The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations on 7 June 2000 for the purposes of determining whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.

On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.

Are you implying that Israel acquired Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors? Interesting legal concept.

(COMMENT)

Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. Israel was under attack, and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State. However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Allied Powers assumed title and rights to the territory pursuant to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne. We are not talking about ownership.​

Wouldn't holding title and rights denote ownership. Perhaps I am not using the proper terminology.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Your post is full of holes like Swiss Cheese.

Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. (Both moves illegal.)

(COMMENT)

Well, that is not exactly true. There are other considerations involved. The idea of Customary Law is based on the idea that a long established pattern of behavior that has resolved issue or questions of a similar nature has been objectively verified within the same (or very similar) conditions. That is simply not the case.

In the case of the Golan Heights (which is not even a matter of concern with the Palestinians), Syria was clearly the aggressor.

(2) Annexation: International Law: Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty

Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.
​

In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950. In 1980, Israel made the critical decision. Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem. This issue is unresolved at the international level. Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.

Israel was under attack, (No it wasn't.) and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. (What does the position of armed forces inside Palestine have to do with Palestinian territory?)

(COMMENT)

This is actually compound question.

The disposition of forces makes a difference in the case of belligerent aggressors that have not made peace with Israel. That is why UNIFIL, in its periodic update, outlines the force distribution. The last update was in 2015:

View attachment 74176​

Even a blind Palestinians with a seeing-eye dog, can figure out where the Armistice Line is and where to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

Arab Forces initiated an aggressive and coordinated attack in May 1948. Technically even until today, Lebanon and Syria are still at war with Israel. The Armistice Agreement with them is merely a cessation of hostilities. The Armistice Line, not being a true border, can actually move and take a new shape based upon where the forces are situated and what territory is under their respective effective control. The same is true for the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Neither Lebanon, Syria, West Bank, and Gaza Strip have actually agreed upon a Treaty. However, the PLO did enter into the Oslo Accords ("Declaration of Principles"). However, there are a number of unresolved issues between the two parties.

Permanent status negotiations issues included issues such as: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest. The outcome of these permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or pre-empted by the parties.
​

The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) (Of course not. Resolution 181 was never implemented.)

(COMMENT)

This is absolutely inaccurate. The UNPC reported to the Western News Media that: "In fact the resolution of last 29 November has been implemented.

View attachment 74182​

The UNSCOP recommended boundaries set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State. (Call it what it was, Palestine.) However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% (i.e. occupied) — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians. (What state? Where was its defined territory?)[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

In 1947, the Palestine Order in Council defined the meaning of "Palestine" as "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies." Of course today, Palestine is defined as, the territory occupied since 1967.

Hummm... I did not change the name or the faith in the wording. I think my phrasing was quite accurate. If you go to the Resolution you will find it in BOLD LETTERING and it said:

Part II. - Boundaries
A. THE ARAB STATE
The area of the Arab State in Western Galilee is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean and on the north by the frontier of the Lebanon from Ras en Naqura to a point north of Saliha. From there the boundary proceeds southwards, leaving the built-up area of Saliha in the Arab State, to join the southernmost point of this village.
.....
The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission, bearing in mind among other considerations the desirability of including the smallest possible number of its Arab inhabitants and the largest possible number of its Jewish inhabitants in the Jewish State.

B. THE JEWISH STATE
The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Trans-jordan.
.....
It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary line to 'Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.

C. THE CITY OF JERUSALEM
​

I would never "intentionally" mislead you or alter the facts in our discussion. I have, from time to time, been know to make a mistake. But I would like you to notice, that I acknowledge the mistake and apologize.

Most Respectfully,
R​

[/QUOTE]

In 1947, the Palestine Order in Council defined the meaning of "Palestine" as "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies." Of course today, Palestine is defined as, the territory occupied since 1967.​

What treaty caused that to happen?

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I can hardly believe you asked this...

* The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
unilateral acts.​

​

Who are the two parties authorized to negotiate those borders?

(COMMENT)

A border or frontier is (normally) negotiated by the parties in which the boundary separates the political entities.

In the case of the Arab-Israeli Agreements, there is :

ARTICLE XVII --- Jurisdiction (Oslo II)

1. In accordance with the DOP, the jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory as a single territorial unit, except for:

a. issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, specified military locations, Palestinian refugees, borders, foreign relations and Israelis; and

b. powers and responsibilities not transferred to the Council.
​

5. For the purpose of this Agreement, "the Settlements" means, in the West Bank the settlements in Area C; and in the Gaza Strip - the Gush Katif and Erez settlement areas, as well as the other settlements in the Gaza Strip, as shown on attached map No. 2.​

The dispute resolution aspect, for unreconcilable differences, are addressed in:

ARTICLE XXI --- Settlement of Differences and Disputes (Oslo II)

Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:

1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim period shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.

3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Oslo was not a treaty. A treaty has not yet been agreed.

BTW, didn't that thing expire in 1999?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Your post is full of holes like Swiss Cheese.

Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. (Both moves illegal.)

(COMMENT)

Well, that is not exactly true. There are other considerations involved. The idea of Customary Law is based on the idea that a long established pattern of behavior that has resolved issue or questions of a similar nature has been objectively verified within the same (or very similar) conditions. That is simply not the case.

In the case of the Golan Heights (which is not even a matter of concern with the Palestinians), Syria was clearly the aggressor.

(2) Annexation: International Law: Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty

Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.
​

In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950. In 1980, Israel made the critical decision. Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem. This issue is unresolved at the international level. Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.

Israel was under attack, (No it wasn't.) and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. (What does the position of armed forces inside Palestine have to do with Palestinian territory?)

(COMMENT)

This is actually compound question.

The disposition of forces makes a difference in the case of belligerent aggressors that have not made peace with Israel. That is why UNIFIL, in its periodic update, outlines the force distribution. The last update was in 2015:

View attachment 74176​

Even a blind Palestinians with a seeing-eye dog, can figure out where the Armistice Line is and where to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

Arab Forces initiated an aggressive and coordinated attack in May 1948. Technically even until today, Lebanon and Syria are still at war with Israel. The Armistice Agreement with them is merely a cessation of hostilities. The Armistice Line, not being a true border, can actually move and take a new shape based upon where the forces are situated and what territory is under their respective effective control. The same is true for the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Neither Lebanon, Syria, West Bank, and Gaza Strip have actually agreed upon a Treaty. However, the PLO did enter into the Oslo Accords ("Declaration of Principles"). However, there are a number of unresolved issues between the two parties.

Permanent status negotiations issues included issues such as: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest. The outcome of these permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or pre-empted by the parties.
​

The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) (Of course not. Resolution 181 was never implemented.)

(COMMENT)

This is absolutely inaccurate. The UNPC reported to the Western News Media that: "In fact the resolution of last 29 November has been implemented.

View attachment 74182​

The UNSCOP recommended boundaries set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State. (Call it what it was, Palestine.) However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% (i.e. occupied) — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians. (What state? Where was its defined territory?)[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

In 1947, the Palestine Order in Council defined the meaning of "Palestine" as "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies." Of course today, Palestine is defined as, the territory occupied since 1967.

Hummm... I did not change the name or the faith in the wording. I think my phrasing was quite accurate. If you go to the Resolution you will find it in BOLD LETTERING and it said:

Part II. - Boundaries
A. THE ARAB STATE
The area of the Arab State in Western Galilee is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean and on the north by the frontier of the Lebanon from Ras en Naqura to a point north of Saliha. From there the boundary proceeds southwards, leaving the built-up area of Saliha in the Arab State, to join the southernmost point of this village.
.....
The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission, bearing in mind among other considerations the desirability of including the smallest possible number of its Arab inhabitants and the largest possible number of its Jewish inhabitants in the Jewish State.

B. THE JEWISH STATE
The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Trans-jordan.
.....
It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary line to 'Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.

C. THE CITY OF JERUSALEM
​

I would never "intentionally" mislead you or alter the facts in our discussion. I have, from time to time, been know to make a mistake. But I would like you to notice, that I acknowledge the mistake and apologize.

Most Respectfully,
R​

[/QUOTE]

In the case of the Golan Heights (which is not even a matter of concern with the Palestinians), Syria was clearly the aggressor.
(2) Annexation: International Law: Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty
Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.
[/quote]
In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950. In 1980, Israel made the critical decision. Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem. This issue is unresolved at the international level. Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.​

What means of acquiring territory did Israel use in 1948?

BTW, I thought it was illegal to annex occupied territory.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Your post is full of holes like Swiss Cheese.

Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. (Both moves illegal.)

(COMMENT)

Well, that is not exactly true. There are other considerations involved. The idea of Customary Law is based on the idea that a long established pattern of behavior that has resolved issue or questions of a similar nature has been objectively verified within the same (or very similar) conditions. That is simply not the case.

In the case of the Golan Heights (which is not even a matter of concern with the Palestinians), Syria was clearly the aggressor.

(2) Annexation: International Law: Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty

Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.
​

In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950. In 1980, Israel made the critical decision. Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem. This issue is unresolved at the international level. Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.

Israel was under attack, (No it wasn't.) and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. (What does the position of armed forces inside Palestine have to do with Palestinian territory?)

(COMMENT)

This is actually compound question.

The disposition of forces makes a difference in the case of belligerent aggressors that have not made peace with Israel. That is why UNIFIL, in its periodic update, outlines the force distribution. The last update was in 2015:

View attachment 74176​

Even a blind Palestinians with a seeing-eye dog, can figure out where the Armistice Line is and where to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

Arab Forces initiated an aggressive and coordinated attack in May 1948. Technically even until today, Lebanon and Syria are still at war with Israel. The Armistice Agreement with them is merely a cessation of hostilities. The Armistice Line, not being a true border, can actually move and take a new shape based upon where the forces are situated and what territory is under their respective effective control. The same is true for the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Neither Lebanon, Syria, West Bank, and Gaza Strip have actually agreed upon a Treaty. However, the PLO did enter into the Oslo Accords ("Declaration of Principles"). However, there are a number of unresolved issues between the two parties.

Permanent status negotiations issues included issues such as: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest. The outcome of these permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or pre-empted by the parties.
​

The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) (Of course not. Resolution 181 was never implemented.)

(COMMENT)

This is absolutely inaccurate. The UNPC reported to the Western News Media that: "In fact the resolution of last 29 November has been implemented.

View attachment 74182​

The UNSCOP recommended boundaries set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State. (Call it what it was, Palestine.) However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% (i.e. occupied) — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians. (What state? Where was its defined territory?)[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

In 1947, the Palestine Order in Council defined the meaning of "Palestine" as "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies." Of course today, Palestine is defined as, the territory occupied since 1967.

Hummm... I did not change the name or the faith in the wording. I think my phrasing was quite accurate. If you go to the Resolution you will find it in BOLD LETTERING and it said:

Part II. - Boundaries
A. THE ARAB STATE
The area of the Arab State in Western Galilee is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean and on the north by the frontier of the Lebanon from Ras en Naqura to a point north of Saliha. From there the boundary proceeds southwards, leaving the built-up area of Saliha in the Arab State, to join the southernmost point of this village.
.....
The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission, bearing in mind among other considerations the desirability of including the smallest possible number of its Arab inhabitants and the largest possible number of its Jewish inhabitants in the Jewish State.

B. THE JEWISH STATE
The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Trans-jordan.
.....
It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary line to 'Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.

C. THE CITY OF JERUSALEM
​

I would never "intentionally" mislead you or alter the facts in our discussion. I have, from time to time, been know to make a mistake. But I would like you to notice, that I acknowledge the mistake and apologize.

Most Respectfully,
R​

[/QUOTE]

defined the meaning of "Palestine" as "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies."​

Mandate for what?

Isn't that the place with international borders and citizens?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Your post is full of holes like Swiss Cheese.

Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. (Both moves illegal.)

(COMMENT)

Well, that is not exactly true. There are other considerations involved. The idea of Customary Law is based on the idea that a long established pattern of behavior that has resolved issue or questions of a similar nature has been objectively verified within the same (or very similar) conditions. That is simply not the case.

In the case of the Golan Heights (which is not even a matter of concern with the Palestinians), Syria was clearly the aggressor.

(2) Annexation: International Law: Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty

Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.
​

In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950. In 1980, Israel made the critical decision. Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem. This issue is unresolved at the international level. Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.

Israel was under attack, (No it wasn't.) and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. (What does the position of armed forces inside Palestine have to do with Palestinian territory?)

(COMMENT)

This is actually compound question.

The disposition of forces makes a difference in the case of belligerent aggressors that have not made peace with Israel. That is why UNIFIL, in its periodic update, outlines the force distribution. The last update was in 2015:

View attachment 74176​

Even a blind Palestinians with a seeing-eye dog, can figure out where the Armistice Line is and where to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

Arab Forces initiated an aggressive and coordinated attack in May 1948. Technically even until today, Lebanon and Syria are still at war with Israel. The Armistice Agreement with them is merely a cessation of hostilities. The Armistice Line, not being a true border, can actually move and take a new shape based upon where the forces are situated and what territory is under their respective effective control. The same is true for the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Neither Lebanon, Syria, West Bank, and Gaza Strip have actually agreed upon a Treaty. However, the PLO did enter into the Oslo Accords ("Declaration of Principles"). However, there are a number of unresolved issues between the two parties.

Permanent status negotiations issues included issues such as: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and co-operation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest. The outcome of these permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or pre-empted by the parties.
​

The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) (Of course not. Resolution 181 was never implemented.)

(COMMENT)

This is absolutely inaccurate. The UNPC reported to the Western News Media that: "In fact the resolution of last 29 November has been implemented.

View attachment 74182​

The UNSCOP recommended boundaries set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State. (Call it what it was, Palestine.) However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% (i.e. occupied) — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians. (What state? Where was its defined territory?)[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

In 1947, the Palestine Order in Council defined the meaning of "Palestine" as "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies." Of course today, Palestine is defined as, the territory occupied since 1967.

Hummm... I did not change the name or the faith in the wording. I think my phrasing was quite accurate. If you go to the Resolution you will find it in BOLD LETTERING and it said:

Part II. - Boundaries
A. THE ARAB STATE
The area of the Arab State in Western Galilee is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean and on the north by the frontier of the Lebanon from Ras en Naqura to a point north of Saliha. From there the boundary proceeds southwards, leaving the built-up area of Saliha in the Arab State, to join the southernmost point of this village.
.....
The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission, bearing in mind among other considerations the desirability of including the smallest possible number of its Arab inhabitants and the largest possible number of its Jewish inhabitants in the Jewish State.

B. THE JEWISH STATE
The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Trans-jordan.
.....
It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron Sub-District boundary line to 'Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.

C. THE CITY OF JERUSALEM
​

I would never "intentionally" mislead you or alter the facts in our discussion. I have, from time to time, been know to make a mistake. But I would like you to notice, that I acknowledge the mistake and apologize.

Most Respectfully,
R​

[/QUOTE]

Arab Forces initiated an aggressive and coordinated attack in May 1948.​

At what points did they enter Israel's defined territory?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are trying to argue a point I did not make.

2359 hrs 14 May 1848: The territory was under the control of the Mandatory.

Military control does not mean ownership.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers assumed title and rights to the territory pursuant to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne. We are not talking about ownership. Your question was: "So, whose land was it? Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs." One thing we know 100% for sure, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic did NOT renounce the title and rights to any inhabitants in the Middle East Region. But Article 16 is very clear: "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." This covered the status at the time of the treaty, and into the future.

Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Transferred to the UNPC (Successor Government).

Appointed government does not mean ownership.

(COMMENT)

This is true, the Allied Powers did not have any intention of establishing ownership. I never mentioned ownership, simply because it was not relevant.

What happened in the Treaty was the establishment of a “succession of State” (in the name of the Allied Powers) that replaced of one State (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) with another (in the name of the Allied Powers) which became responsibility for the international relations of territory in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine.

Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).

Resolution 181 was not implemented. There was no territory transferred to Israel by resolution 181.

(COMMENT)

Yes, you keep saying that, but you have been consistently wrong on two counts:

• There is no requirement in the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii), Palestine for both parties to accept, or that all aspects must be accomplished. In fact, Part 1, Section F of the Partition Plan states: "When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 (Membership) of the Charter of the United Nations."

• See Chapter 2 --- THE PLAN OF PARTITION AND END OF THE BRITISH MANDATE
First Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 --- On 14 May 1948, the United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.

• The use of this particular complaint (implementation) is an outcome of Arab Aggression in violation of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter. In both customary and treaty law, there are a variety of internationally-recognized legal bases for the use of force in relations between States. Generally speaking, however, modern jus ad bellum (the law governing a State’s resort to force) is reflected in the United Nations (UN) Charter. The UN Charter provides two bases for a State’s choice to resort to the use of force: Chapter VII enforcement actions under the auspices of the UN Security Council, and self-defense pursuant to Article 51 (which governs acts of both individual and collective self-defense).
​

Note: this is essentially the same information that I gave you several times before, last time being in Posting #2618 of the Who Are The Palestinians? Discussion Thread.

Morning 15 May 1948: Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack. Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan become fluid.

There again, there were no Partition Plan Boundaries.

(COMMENT)

OH nonsense!!!

UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii) Part II. Boundaries

A. The Arab State
B. The Jewish State
​

Part III. City of Jerusalem​

However, these boundaries were immediately made obsolete by the Attack on Israel by multiple Arab States. The Israeli borders expanded. The permanency of these expansions were made in treaties with both Jordan and Egypt.

March/April 1949: Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.

The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. They did not define any Israeli territory.

(COMMENT)

It is true, and Armistice Line is NOT a permanent International Boundary. However, an Armistice Line is respected in the very same way. They both are respected the identically. Although no one really expects the Hostile Arab to given them consideration.

Declaration on Principles of International Law --- A/RES/25/2625(XXV)

•• Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

•• Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
​

• Israel’s acceptance of the “Land for Peace” formula with Syria is considered a mistake by many. However, the current Civil War and Radical Islamic instability will, for the present, hold the status quo.

* The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
unilateral acts.

I don't think it is necessary to reopen the discussion on the blue. Needless to say that Article V, Section 1 states that "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine." The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations on 7 June 2000 for the purposes of determining whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.

On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.

Are you implying that Israel acquired Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors? Interesting legal concept.

(COMMENT)

Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. Israel was under attack, and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State. However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your post is full of holes like Swiss Cheese.

Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. (Both moves illegal.) Israel was under attack, (No it wasn't.) and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. (What does the position of armed forces inside Palestine have to do with Palestinian territory?) The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) (Of course not. Resolution 181 was never implemented.) set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State. (Call it what it was, Palestine.) However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% (i.e. occupied) — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians. (What state? Where was its defined territory?)

So when Jordan annexed Jerusalem and the west bank and Syria annexed the Golan heights it wast illegal ?

Yes it was as the arab league invaded starting in 1947

No Palestinian territory just mandate of Palestine territory, so the arab league attacked and invaded the UN in effect

No as the land was not claimed under any treaty until Israel declared independence under the UN rules

Read the preceding line again " everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians."


The Palestinians had to make the claim for themselves and any claim from Egypt, Jordan or another arab league nation would be invalid. That is why the Palestinians never had a nation until 1988, they allowed outside influence to prevail.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are trying to argue a point I did not make.

2359 hrs 14 May 1848: The territory was under the control of the Mandatory.

Military control does not mean ownership.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers assumed title and rights to the territory pursuant to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne. We are not talking about ownership. Your question was: "So, whose land was it? Remember, you yourself said in an earlier post that the land was not up for grabs." One thing we know 100% for sure, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic did NOT renounce the title and rights to any inhabitants in the Middle East Region. But Article 16 is very clear: "Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." This covered the status at the time of the treaty, and into the future.

Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Transferred to the UNPC (Successor Government).

Appointed government does not mean ownership.

(COMMENT)

This is true, the Allied Powers did not have any intention of establishing ownership. I never mentioned ownership, simply because it was not relevant.

What happened in the Treaty was the establishment of a “succession of State” (in the name of the Allied Powers) that replaced of one State (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) with another (in the name of the Allied Powers) which became responsibility for the international relations of territory in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine.

Midnight 14/15 May 1948: Israel Declares Independence (self-determination) on that territory outlined in GA/RES/181(II).

Resolution 181 was not implemented. There was no territory transferred to Israel by resolution 181.

(COMMENT)

Yes, you keep saying that, but you have been consistently wrong on two counts:

• There is no requirement in the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii), Palestine for both parties to accept, or that all aspects must be accomplished. In fact, Part 1, Section F of the Partition Plan states: "When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 (Membership) of the Charter of the United Nations."

• See Chapter 2 --- THE PLAN OF PARTITION AND END OF THE BRITISH MANDATE
First Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 --- On 14 May 1948, the United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan.

• The use of this particular complaint (implementation) is an outcome of Arab Aggression in violation of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter. In both customary and treaty law, there are a variety of internationally-recognized legal bases for the use of force in relations between States. Generally speaking, however, modern jus ad bellum (the law governing a State’s resort to force) is reflected in the United Nations (UN) Charter. The UN Charter provides two bases for a State’s choice to resort to the use of force: Chapter VII enforcement actions under the auspices of the UN Security Council, and self-defense pursuant to Article 51 (which governs acts of both individual and collective self-defense).
​

Note: this is essentially the same information that I gave you several times before, last time being in Posting #2618 of the Who Are The Palestinians? Discussion Thread.

Morning 15 May 1948: Palestinian Irregulars and Arab League Forces attack. Boundaries outlined in the Partition Plan become fluid.

There again, there were no Partition Plan Boundaries.

(COMMENT)

OH nonsense!!!

UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Ii) Part II. Boundaries

A. The Arab State
B. The Jewish State
​

Part III. City of Jerusalem​

However, these boundaries were immediately made obsolete by the Attack on Israel by multiple Arab States. The Israeli borders expanded. The permanency of these expansions were made in treaties with both Jordan and Egypt.

March/April 1949: Armistice Agreements and lines draw relative to the FEBA.

The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. They did not define any Israeli territory.

(COMMENT)

It is true, and Armistice Line is NOT a permanent International Boundary. However, an Armistice Line is respected in the very same way. They both are respected the identically. Although no one really expects the Hostile Arab to given them consideration.

Declaration on Principles of International Law --- A/RES/25/2625(XXV)

•• Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

•• Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
​

• Israel’s acceptance of the “Land for Peace” formula with Syria is considered a mistake by many. However, the current Civil War and Radical Islamic instability will, for the present, hold the status quo.

* The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
unilateral acts.

I don't think it is necessary to reopen the discussion on the blue. Needless to say that Article V, Section 1 states that "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine." The Blue Line is a border demarcation between Lebanon and Israel published by the United Nations on 7 June 2000 for the purposes of determining whether Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon.

On the establishment of the individual Armistice Agreements, Israel was sovereign and independent; and occupying territory acquired while in pursuit of retreating Arab Forces --- with the remainder of the territory occupied by the respective Arab League states.

Are you implying that Israel acquired Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors? Interesting legal concept.

(COMMENT)

Israel did not acquire the land from any other states; with the exception of the Golan Heights annexation and the annexation of West Jerusalem. Israel was under attack, and the territory over which Arab Forces withdrew --- and Israeli forces advanced upon. The UNSCOP recommended boundaries (not finalized by the UNPC) set-aside ≈ 56% of the territory under Mandate for the Jewish State. However, the Arab League attacked before the UNPC had the opportunity to finalize the allotments. In mid-1949 and cease-fire, the tactical success, coupled with Arab withdrawals positioned the FEBA such that Israeli controlled 77% — everything except the West Bank and the eastern quarter of Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan), as well as the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). It left Israelis with a state, but not Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

* The 1993 Oslo Agreements envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; wherein borders were to be decided by both parties themselves; NOT imposed by international consensus or by
unilateral acts.​

Who are the two parties authorized to negotiate those borders?

Israel and the Palestinian government, which would succeed the Palestinian Authority after 5 years. In an attempt to negate the Oslo accords the Palestinians refused to create a government. Until the Palestinians make the move towards free determination and elect a government they will achieve nothing but the deaths of thousands of innocents

Palestinians refused to create a government.​

Not true. The Amended Palestinian Basic Law of 2003 (constitution) defined the structure of the government. Presidential elections were held in January of 2005. Parliamentary elections (judged free and fair by all international observers) were held in January of 2006. The "National Unity Government" was legally constituted (in compliance with the constitution) in March of 2007.

That was the P.A. and it is still in existence today, it was never a fully formed government as it met outside of Palestine and its members were unable to enter Palestine