The Two State Option Is Dying

[SherriMunnerlyn]

P F Tinmore; Hossfly; et al,

My point exactly.

Where is the treaty with Palestine to change Palestine's borders?

(REFERENCE)

• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Done at Vienna on 23 May 1969

(COMMENT)

Palestine (the Mandate) was not sovereign. It had no treaty because it had not borders beyond that defined by the Mandatory IAW Article 95 of the Treaty.

The Hashemite Kingdom and the State of Israel were partitioned out of the Mandate. But the Palestinians did not accept partition, and did not attempt to build a nation. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)(Article 6), every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties. But Palestine was not a state. Thus it has no capacity to enter into a Treaty.

So I ask again, where is it written or recorded that Palestine has borders beyond that established artificially by the Allied Powers for the purpose of the Mandate (Article 95 of the Treaty)?

Most Respectfully,
R

What you keep getting wrong is not acknowledging the indigenous people in Palestine had and still have sovereignty rights in the land of Palestine. That will never change.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; Hossfly; et al,

My point exactly.

Where is the treaty with Palestine to change Palestine's borders?

(REFERENCE)

• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Done at Vienna on 23 May 1969

(COMMENT)

Palestine (the Mandate) was not sovereign. It had no treaty because it had not borders beyond that defined by the Mandatory IAW Article 95 of the Treaty.

The Hashemite Kingdom and the State of Israel were partitioned out of the Mandate. But the Palestinians did not accept partition, and did not attempt to build a nation. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)(Article 6), every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties. But Palestine was not a state. Thus it has no capacity to enter into a Treaty.

So I ask again, where is it written or recorded that Palestine has borders beyond that established artificially by the Allied Powers for the purpose of the Mandate (Article 95 of the Treaty)?

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of your link is relevant to this discussion? Quotes please.

The 1949 UN armistice agreement took place after the end of the mandate, after resolution 181, after foreigners declared themselves to be a state inside Palestine's international borders, after Palestine declared its independence, and after the 1948 war. Palestine was still there and its international borders were still intact.

PALESTINE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE

CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT


28 September 1948


I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES

AHMED HILMI PASHA
PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY

A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

This is a case of "too little - too late."

What part of your link is relevant to this discussion? Quotes please.

(COMMENT)

Yes, of course. I forgot to put quotation marks in the citation above. I apologize.

Article 6 Capacity of States to conclude treaties

Every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties.​

Article 7 Full powers

1. A person is considered as representing a State for the purpose of adopting or authenticating the text of a treaty or for the purpose of expressing the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty if:

(a) he produces appropriate full powers; or
(b) it appears from the practice of the States concerned or from other circumstances that their intention was to consider that person as representing the State for such purposes and to dispense with full powers.​

2. In virtue of their functions and without having to produce full powers, the following are considered as representing their State:

(a) Heads of State, Heads of Government and Ministers for Foreign Affairs, for the purpose of performing all acts relating to the conclusion of a treaty;
(b) heads of diplomatic missions, for the purpose of adopting the text of a treaty between the accrediting State and the State to which they are accredited;
(c) representatives accredited by States to an international conference or to an international organization or one of its organs, for the purpose of adopting the text of a treaty in that conference, organization or organ.​

In the year 2000, when the Northern Border was secured, there was no Palestinian State that met Vienna Law criteria; the same can be said for the year 2005 when the Southern Border was re-affirmed with Egypt, or in 1994, when the Treaty with Jordan was created.

Believe me when I say, had there been a competent Palestinian authority that met the Vienna criteria, then they adjacent Arab nations would have included them in the treaty process. But in the Arab-Palestinian bid to establish a one-state solution (an All Palestinian Government), they lost successively more and more control.

The 1949 UN armistice agreement took place after the end of the mandate, after resolution 181, after foreigners declared themselves to be a state inside Palestine's international borders, after Palestine declared its independence, and after the 1948 war. Palestine was still there and its international borders were still intact.

PALESTINE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE

CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT


28 September 1948


I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES

AHMED HILMI PASHA
PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY

A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948

(COMMENT)

This is about as valuable as US Confederate Dollars. This was instigated by the Arab League after Israeli Independence, and after the outbreak of the 1948 War, but before the UN Security Council Armistice was in place. While it is a matter of record that the Arab Higher Committee (an Egyptian Proxy) transmitted the message, it was never really acknowledged or acted upon. Oddly enough, the Jericho Conference (AKA: the Second Arab-Palestinian Congress in December 1948) named King Abdullah I (Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan), "King of Arab Palestine." It would have effectively unified Arab Palestine (the Occupied Territories) and Jordan; annexing what was left of the Partition (Gaza and the West Bank) into the Kingdom. However, it never came to pass; the Arab League disapproved. The UN saw the September bid as a hopeless attempt to circumvent the Partition Plan that opened the door to the Jewish State (Israel). At the conclusion of the 1967 War, Israel effectively controlled the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights from Syria. Everything previously agreed upon up to that point was effectively made mute.

The September 1948 bid for an all Palestinian government (which you cite supra) was directly opposing the May 1948 Jewish Declaration of Independence for Israel. The two declarations could not simultaneously be operative over the same territory.

What you keep getting wrong is not acknowledging the indigenous people in Palestine had and still have sovereignty rights in the land of Palestine. That will never change.

(COMMENT)

Well --- possibly.

First, the Palestinian had the "right of self-determination" but not necessarily the territorial sovereignty over the land. I don't think anyone denies that their is a connection between the Palestinian and the land. But their ability to exercise some sort of control, that proves beneficial to the people, has been a miserable failure.

Second, the Palestinian wants to make war, yet it wanted surrender their "Palestine" immediately to the Partitioned Jordan and the Hashemite Kingdom.

Third, the Palestinian, given the opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination, rejected the offer of an Arab state, then created the conditions that reduced that offer over a series of failed wars.​

Don't you think that the Palestinian people, everyday - from the day they first rejected the opportunity to create an independent Arab State - to today, where they continue to reject every peace offer, have somehow squandered their rights? They have fritter away their sovereignty and self-determination, and replaced it with counterproductive and abnormal psychopathic behaviors.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

This is a case of "too little - too late."

What part of your link is relevant to this discussion? Quotes please.

(COMMENT)

Yes, of course. I forgot to put quotation marks in the citation above. I apologize.

Article 6 Capacity of States to conclude treaties

Every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties.​

Article 7 Full powers

1. A person is considered as representing a State for the purpose of adopting or authenticating the text of a treaty or for the purpose of expressing the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty if:

(a) he produces appropriate full powers; or
(b) it appears from the practice of the States concerned or from other circumstances that their intention was to consider that person as representing the State for such purposes and to dispense with full powers.​

2. In virtue of their functions and without having to produce full powers, the following are considered as representing their State:

(a) Heads of State, Heads of Government and Ministers for Foreign Affairs, for the purpose of performing all acts relating to the conclusion of a treaty;
(b) heads of diplomatic missions, for the purpose of adopting the text of a treaty between the accrediting State and the State to which they are accredited;
(c) representatives accredited by States to an international conference or to an international organization or one of its organs, for the purpose of adopting the text of a treaty in that conference, organization or organ.​

In the year 2000, when the Northern Border was secured, there was no Palestinian State that met Vienna Law criteria; the same can be said for the year 2005 when the Southern Border was re-affirmed with Egypt, or in 1994, when the Treaty with Jordan was created.

Believe me when I say, had there been a competent Palestinian authority that met the Vienna criteria, then they adjacent Arab nations would have included them in the treaty process. But in the Arab-Palestinian bid to establish a one-state solution (an All Palestinian Government), they lost successively more and more control.

The 1949 UN armistice agreement took place after the end of the mandate, after resolution 181, after foreigners declared themselves to be a state inside Palestine's international borders, after Palestine declared its independence, and after the 1948 war. Palestine was still there and its international borders were still intact.

(COMMENT)

This is about as valuable as US Confederate Dollars. This was instigated by the Arab League after Israeli Independence, and after the outbreak of the 1948 War, but before the UN Security Council Armistice was in place. While it is a matter of record that the Arab Higher Committee (an Egyptian Proxy) transmitted the message, it was never really acknowledged or acted upon. Oddly enough, the Jericho Conference (AKA: the Second Arab-Palestinian Congress in December 1948) named King Abdullah I (Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan), "King of Arab Palestine." It would have effectively unified Arab Palestine (the Occupied Territories) and Jordan; annexing what was left of the Partition (Gaza and the West Bank) into the Kingdom. However, it never came to pass; the Arab League disapproved. The UN saw the September bid as a hopeless attempt to circumvent the Partition Plan that opened the door to the Jewish State (Israel). At the conclusion of the 1967 War, Israel effectively controlled the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights from Syria. Everything previously agreed upon up to that point was effectively made mute.

The September 1948 bid for an all Palestinian government (which you cite supra) was directly opposing the May 1948 Jewish Declaration of Independence for Israel. The two declarations could not simultaneously be operative over the same territory.

What you keep getting wrong is not acknowledging the indigenous people in Palestine had and still have sovereignty rights in the land of Palestine. That will never change.

(COMMENT)

Well --- possibly.

First, the Palestinian had the "right of self-determination" but not necessarily the territorial sovereignty over the land. I don't think anyone denies that their is a connection between the Palestinian and the land. But their ability to exercise some sort of control, that proves beneficial to the people, has been a miserable failure.

Second, the Palestinian wants to make war, yet it wanted surrender their "Palestine" immediately to the Partitioned Jordan and the Hashemite Kingdom.

Third, the Palestinian, given the opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination, rejected the offer of an Arab state, then created the conditions that reduced that offer over a series of failed wars.​

Don't you think that the Palestinian people, everyday - from the day they first rejected the opportunity to create an independent Arab State - to today, where they continue to reject every peace offer, have somehow squandered their rights? They have fritter away their sovereignty and self-determination, and replaced it with counterproductive and abnormal psychopathic behaviors.

Most Respectfully,
R

You base your whole post on the false assumption that a military occupation trumps the rights of the people.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,et al,

Did I say this? I don't think so.

You base your whole post on the false assumption that a military occupation trumps the rights of the people.

(COMMENT)

However, it does raise an interesting question.

• When the Arab Armies invaded Israel and fired the opening salvo that began the Israeli War for Independence, was this not an attempt to use military force to secure territorial acquisition? Would they have not (if they had won) occupied Israel and then made it their own state?

• What this not an attempt, on the part of the Arab, to use military force in overturning the Jewish acceptance of UN GA Resolution 181(II)?

• Was this an example of the Arab League, attempting to use overwhelming military force to alter the right of self-determination of the Jewish People? The UN obviously did not think so when they voted to admit Israel as a member.

Each time the Arab/Palestinian (and most recently the with the assistance of the Iranians) opens up a military exchange, whether it be a conventional war, a short engagement, or terrorist act, for the purpose of defeating and disestablishment of Israel, AND lose, they make various claim that attempt to justify their actions.

• They talk about the Israeli being a foreign influence. Yet they overlook the use of Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian, Iraqi, Iranian, Saudi, and Egyptian forces on their side.
  
• They make the claim that the use of military force cannot be the means by which territorial acquisition is secured. Yet, that is the very thing Arab-Palestinian-Iranian alliance is attempting. To take from Israel, that independence offered by the UN, and recognized by the UN.
  
• They make the claim that Palestine was their country, yet there is not one record of this anywhere to be found. And when asked to produce such evidence of claim, they attempt to twist the language of Treaty, Covenant, Mandate, Resolution, and Declarations to fit their claim, knowing full well that they make assertions that were not the intent of the authors and writers. Yet, when the voice of opposition speaks and demonstrates that reality, they claim the record is somehow defective.

The argument here, is attempting to suggest that Israel is using the "might makes right" argument. Nothing has been asserted at all to warrant that accusation. In fact, if any side is attempting to make that assertion, it would be through the deeds demonstrated by the Arab/Palestinian/Iranian alliance. At a minimum, the Arab/Palestinian/Iranian alliance was either been the direct cause, or the provocateur, in the ignition of three major wars and to major insurrections.

The Arab/Palestinian/Iranian alliance has consistently attempted to suggest that they have an international right to pursue war, subversion, insurgency, and terrorism under the protection of the UN and Human Rights. That somehow the UN Human Rights Programs condone the indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israeli population centers, suicide bombings, hijackings, massacres, and armed assaults. That the UN Human Rights programs finds some redeeming aspect to the Palestinians continuous applications of these tactics. That the killing of athletes at an Olympic event, or killing an old man in a wheel chair and tossing him overboard, or the shooting of the unarmed captive on a plane and throwing the body on the tarmac, or dispatching a would-be martyr to a restaurant and detonating in a crowd of civilians, are all examples of tactics sanctioned by UN Human Right programs. And that the UN Human Rights programs would not consider (with a straight face - under the reasonable man concept) any member of the Arab/Palestinian/Iranian alliance as a potential security threat given the behaviors, histories, and public comments/published goals.

The Palestinian is the eternal victim. No reasonable man would ever consider the action, history, published intention, goal or objective of any Palestinian Resistance Movement to represents a threat or danger to the Israel. They should just be set completely free. None of them should be held accountable for anything they have done in the past. The Arab/Palestinian/Iranian alliance is exempt from pursuing peaceful means of dispute resolution.

It is an interesting concept. But without regard to how you spin the laws of man, the Arab/Palestinian/Iranian alliance is what it is; a danger to the public peace and a danger to the stability of regional security.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[irosie91]

Mr R in order to understand the word "foreigner"
in the jihadist lexicon----you have to know the
beauty of jihadist ideology. First and foremost---that
ideolgy included the concept of MUSLIM LAND----and
the actual repudiation of nationalism in favor
of DAR AL ISLAM Muslims are never
foreigners in DAR AL ISLAM----there is but
ONE UMMAH ----there is a special category
of non muslims which reside in MUSLIM LAND
-----those people are actually a "foreign
nation" within dar al islam which had
been vanquished and permitted to remain as
subdued "outsiders" as a "protected" nation
of "dhimmis" Tinsy eagerly asserts the rights
of the jews who were dhimmis to remain dhimmis.
but jews --even those who were dhimmis
in other parts of DAR AL ISLAM ----have no eligibility
to claim the right to the glorious
status of dhimmi in palestine.

if you are unable to accept these realities-----
and the fact that no law which violates the
divine law of the koran is a valid law ---
there is no reason for you to join the conversation

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,et al,

Did I say this? I don't think so.

You base your whole post on the false assumption that a military occupation trumps the rights of the people.

(COMMENT)

You did. You always side with the occupation.

However, it does raise an interesting question.

• When the Arab Armies invaded Israel and fired the opening salvo that began the Israeli War for Independence, was this not an attempt to use military force to secure territorial acquisition? Would they have not (if they had won) occupied Israel and then made it their own state?

The Zionists had long planned to take over Palestine. Did they expect the Palestinians to peacefully hand it over to them?

The Zionists cleansed about 300,000 Palestinians from their homes before any Arab country entered Palestine in their defense.

Israel had no land or borders. Where, exactly, was this Israel that you claim was invaded?

• What this not an attempt, on the part of the Arab, to use military force in overturning the Jewish acceptance of UN GA Resolution 181(II)?

• Was this an example of the Arab League, attempting to use overwhelming military force to alter the right of self-determination of the Jewish People? The UN obviously did not think so when they voted to admit Israel as a member.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,et al,

I think this needs clarification.

Did I say this? I don't think so.

You base your whole post on the false assumption that a military occupation trumps the rights of the people.

You did. You always side with the occupation.

(COMMENT)

Position One:

Depending on which pro-Palestinian I am talking to, at any one time, the term "Occupation" tends to mean something different.

When I'm talking to you, --- your definition of "occupation" includes the entire State of Israel. That is to say --- you have led me to believe that a State of Palestine exists and that the State of Israel is superimposed on top of it. That Israel is made of Occupied Palestine.

When I run up against this interpretation of events, I am forced to assume an opposing view.​

Position Two:

When we talk about the current reality, where Israel is a State, separate and distinct from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

• Gaza Strip is quarantined, but not occupied.
  
• The West Bank is Occupied, but with some limited self rule.

Now, from these view points, other concepts evolve. I do not always take the position that the Palestinian is wrong, or that Israel is right. But I do analyze the situation and the impact of accumulated effects; together with the whole-man view of reasonableness.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,et al,

There is some truth buried here.

The Zionists had long planned to take over Palestine. Did they expect the Palestinians to peacefully hand it over to them?

The Zionists cleansed about 300,000 Palestinians from their homes before any Arab country entered Palestine in their defense.

Israel had no land or borders. Where, exactly, was this Israel that you claim was invaded?

(COMMENT)

In the beginning, before Lord Balfour wrote his now famous declaration, it was not a foregone conclusion as to what form the Jewish National Homeland would take. An independent state was just one possible solution of many. What is true, is that there was an intent, on the part of the LoN/UN and Allied Powers to effect such immigration as to permit the Jewish people the opportunity to build a Jewish National Home.

The concept that the Arab had some inherent right to the sovereignty of the undefined territory called Palestine (made Mandate) is also not a foregone conclusion or some fact in evidence. The place we call today, Palestine, was not a country at all; but a regional name. It had no defined borders under the Ottoman Empire -- but "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers" (not some tribe called Palestinians). In fact, the boundaries that forms all the regional states (except Saudi Arabia in some measure), from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea, were established by the Allied Powers.

The term "ethnic cleansing" is not either a true description of what happened. It is a a eloquent euphemism made popular in the early 20th Century by the media. It is a phrase designed to invoke an emotion. There is a difference between a war triggered "refugee flow" and "ethnic cleansing." The systematic deportation and removal of 6 million Jews from the general population --- and then their murder is an example of "ethnic cleansing." The Palestinians that evacuated, left, fled or were expelled from region of conflict during the 1948/49 War (causing great controversy among historians, journalists and commentators even today) is not a case of ethnic cleansing.

The idea that Israel had no borders is merely subterfuge. The Allied Powers, the UN and the Mandatory knew exactly what borders were outline in the GA Resolution 181(II). The Arab chose to exercise the "Ostrich Effect." It doesn't make the reality any less real; only the Arab Palestinian all the more less reasonable. Granted, in the ensuing wars, the boundaries have moved and made the original less important, the fact of the matter is, the inability of the Arab/Palestinian to assimilate new information and apply it to the current situation speaks for itself.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,et al,

I think this needs clarification.

Did I say this? I don't think so.

You did. You always side with the occupation.

(COMMENT)

Position One:

Depending on which pro-Palestinian I am talking to, at any one time, the term "Occupation" tends to mean something different.

When I'm talking to you, --- your definition of "occupation" includes the entire State of Israel. That is to say --- you have led me to believe that a State of Palestine exists and that the State of Israel is superimposed on top of it. That Israel is made of Occupied Palestine.

When I run up against this interpretation of events, I am forced to assume an opposing view.​

I can only base my "interpretation" on the available facts.

Israel did not define its borders in 1948 and still has not done so. Israel cannot acquire borders inside Palestine until Palestine cedes land to Israel. This has never been done.

Palestine was mentioned many times in the 1949 UN armistice agreements. A place called Israel was not mentioned. Palestine's land and borders were referenced to define the position of the armistice lines. No land or borders were mentioned for Israel.

Position Two:

When we talk about the current reality, where Israel is a State, separate and distinct from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.​

​

There are no borders between Israel and Gaza or the West Bank. How can they be separate and distinct?

• Gaza Strip is quarantined, but not occupied.
  
• The West Bank is Occupied, but with some limited self rule.

Now, from these view points, other concepts evolve. I do not always take the position that the Palestinian is wrong, or that Israel is right. But I do analyze the situation and the impact of accumulated effects; together with the whole-man view of reasonableness.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,et al,

There is some truth buried here.

The Zionists had long planned to take over Palestine. Did they expect the Palestinians to peacefully hand it over to them?

The Zionists cleansed about 300,000 Palestinians from their homes before any Arab country entered Palestine in their defense.

Israel had no land or borders. Where, exactly, was this Israel that you claim was invaded?

(COMMENT)

In the beginning, before Lord Balfour wrote his now famous declaration, it was not a foregone conclusion as to what form the Jewish National Homeland would take. An independent state was just one possible solution of many. What is true, is that there was an intent, on the part of the LoN/UN and Allied Powers to effect such immigration as to permit the Jewish people the opportunity to build a Jewish National Home.

The concept that the Arab had some inherent right to the sovereignty of the undefined territory called Palestine (made Mandate) is also not a foregone conclusion or some fact in evidence. The place we call today, Palestine, was not a country at all; but a regional name. It had no defined borders under the Ottoman Empire -- but "within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers" (not some tribe called Palestinians). In fact, the boundaries that forms all the regional states (except Saudi Arabia in some measure), from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea, were established by the Allied Powers.

The term "ethnic cleansing" is not either a true description of what happened. It is a a eloquent euphemism made popular in the early 20th Century by the media. It is a phrase designed to invoke an emotion. There is a difference between a war triggered "refugee flow" and "ethnic cleansing." The systematic deportation and removal of 6 million Jews from the general population --- and then their murder is an example of "ethnic cleansing." The Palestinians that evacuated, left, fled or were expelled from region of conflict during the 1948/49 War (causing great controversy among historians, journalists and commentators even today) is not a case of ethnic cleansing.

The idea that Israel had no borders is merely subterfuge. The Allied Powers, the UN and the Mandatory knew exactly what borders were outline in the GA Resolution 181(II). The Arab chose to exercise the "Ostrich Effect." It doesn't make the reality any less real; only the Arab Palestinian all the more less reasonable. Granted, in the ensuing wars, the boundaries have moved and made the original less important, the fact of the matter is, the inability of the Arab/Palestinian to assimilate new information and apply it to the current situation speaks for itself.

Most Respectfully,
R

What does all that have to do with my post?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,et al,

Oh, come now! This is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.

Palestine was mentioned many times in the 1949 UN armistice agreements. A place called Israel was not mentioned. Palestine's land and borders were referenced to define the position of the armistice lines. No land or borders were mentioned for Israel.

(REFERENCES)

Listed are the links to the four main Armistice Agreement in 1949.

• ISRAELI-SYRIAN GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT
  
• HASHEMITE JORDAN KINGDOM - ISRAEL: GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT
  
• EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT
  
• LEBANESE-ISRAELI GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT

(COMMENT)

Please note, that each is titled an agreement between Israel and one of the four bordering nations. It would be helpful to note the signature blocks that form the binding agreement. Each is signed by "FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT" and "FOR AND ON BEHALF OF" one of the other four governments.

I was unable to find any reference to the Government of Palestine. That is because there wasn't one. Palestinian is an administrative name for the region, not a state or a people. It is a fancy little slight of hand by the signers to give you something to quibble about in the record.

The Armistice agreements, today, are a piece of history. The various treaties have taken their place.

You can call the territory by any name you wish. At the end of the day, the Armistice arrangements were signed by Israel. In fact, if we are in to elastic truth --- one interpretation is that since Israel acknowledged this arrangement, that all of the region of Palestine belongs to Israel. They would be fair and they would never do that. In fact, no one wants the Palestinians, least of all Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,et al,

Oh, come now! This is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.

Palestine was mentioned many times in the 1949 UN armistice agreements. A place called Israel was not mentioned. Palestine's land and borders were referenced to define the position of the armistice lines. No land or borders were mentioned for Israel.

(REFERENCES)

Listed are the links to the four main Armistice Agreement in 1949.

• ISRAELI-SYRIAN GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT
  
• HASHEMITE JORDAN KINGDOM - ISRAEL: GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT
  
• EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT
  
• LEBANESE-ISRAELI GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT

(COMMENT)

Please note, that each is titled an agreement between Israel and one of the four bordering nations. It would be helpful to note the signature blocks that form the binding agreement. Each is signed by "FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT" and "FOR AND ON BEHALF OF" one of the other four governments.

I was unable to find any reference to the Government of Palestine. That is because there wasn't one. Palestinian is an administrative name for the region, not a state or a people. It is a fancy little slight of hand by the signers to give you something to quibble about in the record.

The Armistice agreements, today, are a piece of history. The various treaties have taken their place.

You can call the territory by any name you wish. At the end of the day, the Armistice arrangements were signed by Israel. In fact, if we are in to elastic truth --- one interpretation is that since Israel acknowledged this arrangement, that all of the region of Palestine belongs to Israel. They would be fair and they would never do that. In fact, no one wants the Palestinians, least of all Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are grasping at straws. The preamble to all of the agreements state:

Responding to the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948,(2) calling upon them, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine...

"in Palestine" designates a place. Israeli forces and government of Israel are mentioned but a place called Israel is not mentioned anywhere.

All of the borders that are mentioned are between Palestine and the surrounding countries. Example:

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

Nowhere is there mentioned any borders for Israel.

Israel signed these agreements stating that the place was Palestine and the borders belong to Palestine. However, Israel claims the territory and borders to be theirs.

Now, you can believe what the actual documents say or you can believe what Israel says. I will go with the documents.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

P F Tinmore,et al,

Oh, come now! This is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.

Palestine was mentioned many times in the 1949 UN armistice agreements. A place called Israel was not mentioned. Palestine's land and borders were referenced to define the position of the armistice lines. No land or borders were mentioned for Israel.

(REFERENCES)

Listed are the links to the four main Armistice Agreement in 1949.

• ISRAELI-SYRIAN GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT
  
• HASHEMITE JORDAN KINGDOM - ISRAEL: GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT
  
• EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT
  
• LEBANESE-ISRAELI GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT

(COMMENT)

Please note, that each is titled an agreement between Israel and one of the four bordering nations. It would be helpful to note the signature blocks that form the binding agreement. Each is signed by "FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT" and "FOR AND ON BEHALF OF" one of the other four governments.

I was unable to find any reference to the Government of Palestine. That is because there wasn't one. Palestinian is an administrative name for the region, not a state or a people. It is a fancy little slight of hand by the signers to give you something to quibble about in the record.

The Armistice agreements, today, are a piece of history. The various treaties have taken their place.

You can call the territory by any name you wish. At the end of the day, the Armistice arrangements were signed by Israel. In fact, if we are in to elastic truth --- one interpretation is that since Israel acknowledged this arrangement, that all of the region of Palestine belongs to Israel. They would be fair and they would never do that. In fact, no one wants the Palestinians, least of all Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are grasping at straws. The preamble to all of the agreements state:

Responding to the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948,(2) calling upon them, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine...

"in Palestine" designates a place. Israeli forces and government of Israel are mentioned but a place called Israel is not mentioned anywhere.

All of the borders that are mentioned are between Palestine and the surrounding countries. Example:

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

Nowhere is there mentioned any borders for Israel.

Israel signed these agreements stating that the place was Palestine and the borders belong to Palestine. However, Israel claims the territory and borders to be theirs.

Now, you can believe what the actual documents say or you can believe what Israel says. I will go with the documents.

How about the documents of the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt, and Israel and Jordan? Rocco, you are wasting time arguing with him. He is living in a delusional, fantasy world. He is so concerned about his strange fixation with borders, that he doesn't even care about his own people, the Palestinians, much less Israeli civilians. It's like talking to a brick wall.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,et al,

Oh, come now! This is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.


(REFERENCES)

Listed are the links to the four main Armistice Agreement in 1949.

• ISRAELI-SYRIAN GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT
  
• HASHEMITE JORDAN KINGDOM - ISRAEL: GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT
  
• EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT
  
• LEBANESE-ISRAELI GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT

(COMMENT)

Please note, that each is titled an agreement between Israel and one of the four bordering nations. It would be helpful to note the signature blocks that form the binding agreement. Each is signed by "FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT" and "FOR AND ON BEHALF OF" one of the other four governments.

I was unable to find any reference to the Government of Palestine. That is because there wasn't one. Palestinian is an administrative name for the region, not a state or a people. It is a fancy little slight of hand by the signers to give you something to quibble about in the record.

The Armistice agreements, today, are a piece of history. The various treaties have taken their place.

You can call the territory by any name you wish. At the end of the day, the Armistice arrangements were signed by Israel. In fact, if we are in to elastic truth --- one interpretation is that since Israel acknowledged this arrangement, that all of the region of Palestine belongs to Israel. They would be fair and they would never do that. In fact, no one wants the Palestinians, least of all Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are grasping at straws. The preamble to all of the agreements state:


"in Palestine" designates a place. Israeli forces and government of Israel are mentioned but a place called Israel is not mentioned anywhere.

All of the borders that are mentioned are between Palestine and the surrounding countries. Example:

1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

Nowhere is there mentioned any borders for Israel.

Israel signed these agreements stating that the place was Palestine and the borders belong to Palestine. However, Israel claims the territory and borders to be theirs.

Now, you can believe what the actual documents say or you can believe what Israel says. I will go with the documents.

How about the documents of the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt, and Israel and Jordan? Rocco, you are wasting time arguing with him. He is living in a delusional, fantasy world. He is so concerned about his strange fixation with borders, that he doesn't even care about his own people, the Palestinians, much less Israeli civilians. It's like talking to a brick wall.

OK, but only an agreement between Israel and Palestine can change the land or borders.

 

[irosie91]

P F Tinmore; Hossfly; et al,

My point exactly.

Where is the treaty with Palestine to change Palestine's borders?

(REFERENCE)

• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Done at Vienna on 23 May 1969

(COMMENT)


Palestine (the Mandate) was not sovereign. It had no treaty because it had not borders beyond that defined by the Mandatory IAW Article 95 of the Treaty.


The Hashemite Kingdom and the State of Israel were partitioned out of the Mandate. But the Palestinians did not accept partition, and did not attempt to build a nation. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)(Article 6), every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties. But Palestine was not a state. Thus it has no capacity to enter into a Treaty.
So I ask again, where is it written or recorded that Palestine has borders beyond that established artificially by the Allied Powers for the purpose of the Mandate (Article 95 of the Treaty)?

Most Respectfully,
R

What you keep getting wrong is not acknowledging the indigenous people in Palestine had and still have sovereignty rights in the land of Palestine. That will never change.

Sherri is confused-----even the UN which has striven mightily to DEFINE
and describe "INDIGENOUS" peoples ----have failed to come up with anything
but a very very broad and vague definition-----which if used for the
people of the west bank would include all------and probably most
robustly ----the SAMARITANS which is a small group of
people ---members of a sect of judaism. The jews living
in the west bank would absolutely be described as 'indigenous"
based on self description. language, culture and historic link---
the people who lately call themselves "palestinians" have the
least robust claim to "indiginous" since they speak a language
introduced to the area but not native and have a religion introduced
but not native ----BUT based on the very broad definition
used by the UN----they TOO can be called "indigenous" in the same
way texans with remote ancestry in europe can TODAY be
called indigenous to texas. There are no FIRM or IMMUTABLE
or ETERNAL rights ------owned by indigenous people anywhere
in the world . According to the definition used by the UN ---and
the Universal Rights of Man------Shariah law would have to be abolished
in dozens of "islamic" lands Sherri's assertion turns out to be
meaningless

 

[RoccoR]

SherriMunnerlyn; et al,

I think you are making a false extrapolation.

What you keep getting wrong is not acknowledging the indigenous people in Palestine had and still have sovereignty rights in the land of Palestine. That will never change.

(COMMENT)

Nothing in the Charter says that self-determination is limited to "indigenous people." Nothing in the Charter says "in the land."

1. Reiterates that, by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and that every State has the duty to respect that right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter;

SOURCE: A/RES/50/172. Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes

Nothing in the Charter grants or recognizes "sovereignty rights in the land."

4. Reaffirms further that electoral assistance to Member States should be provided by the United Nations only at the request and with the consent of specific sovereign States, by virtue of resolutions adopted by the Security Council or the General Assembly in each case, in strict conformity with the principles of sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States, or in special circumstances such as cases of decolonization, or in the context of regional or international peace processes;

SOURCE: A/RES/50/172. Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.​

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

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

All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.​

Sovereignty has to do with member states; not the indigenous population over land.

The right of self-determination is extended to all people; not just indigenous people.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[irosie91]

SherriMunnerlyn; et al,

I think you are making a false extrapolation.

What you keep getting wrong is not acknowledging the indigenous people in Palestine had and still have sovereignty rights in the land of Palestine. That will never change.

(COMMENT)

Nothing in the Charter says that self-determination is limited to "indigenous people." Nothing in the Charter says "in the land."

1. Reiterates that, by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and that every State has the duty to respect that right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter;

SOURCE: A/RES/50/172. Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes

Nothing in the Charter grants or recognizes "sovereignty rights in the land."

4. Reaffirms further that electoral assistance to Member States should be provided by the United Nations only at the request and with the consent of specific sovereign States, by virtue of resolutions adopted by the Security Council or the General Assembly in each case, in strict conformity with the principles of sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States, or in special circumstances such as cases of decolonization, or in the context of regional or international peace processes;

SOURCE: A/RES/50/172. Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.​

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

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

All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.​

Sovereignty has to do with member states; not the indigenous population over land.

The right of self-determination is extended to all people; not just indigenous people.

Most Respectfully,
R

no one has come up with a DEFINITION of INDIGENOUS PEOPLE-----it is
a very vague notion-----even more vague than "race" The concept that
there are some INDIGENOUS PEOPLE somewhere who OWN WHOLE vast
LANDS MASSES
FOREVER ----exists no where either in history or in law. Short of being able to
do complete genome analysis of each person -----and tracing of ancestry---
I see no way to determine who is INDIGENOUS in GIANT
CONNECTED LAND MASSES ------remote islands might work -----
-but not the africa, asia, europe complex and certainly not a crossroad thing
like the LEVANT Based on religion and language----it is clear that
arab muslim in the ENTIRE LEVANT ----is a cultural transplant. Religion and
language IS sometimes considered the defining issues in PEOPLEHOOD
as opposed to genetics

 

[member]

"Israel occupies Palestine. Nobody is allowed to mention that."

You "mention that" every 2 seconds..............

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, member, et al,

Yes, this is a common claim. It doesn't mean it true.

"Israel occupies Palestine. Nobody is allowed to mention that."

You "mention that" every 2 seconds..............

(COMMENT)

I don't think that was the prevailing opinion when the Jewish State was offered by the General Assembly in 1948, and I don't think that was the prevailing opinion when Israel was admitted to the General Assembly in 1949.

You have your opinion and the rest of the world has their opinion.

All it shows is how unreasonable the Arab/Palestinian is, has been, and will be. It shows what a danger they have become.

Most Respectfully,
R