What the Palestinian Authority Thinks Concerning a Palestinians State in the WB

[toastman]

From the opinion section.

Is there any documentation to prove that point?

LOL. That is enough documentation as you need. You used the same source and link to prove your point !


You're unbelievable, you just can't stand it when you're wrong...


Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine.


Again


Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine.

One more time



Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine.

The comments I posted can be sourced to documents.

Where are the documents to back up your post?

You are asking the question knowing that I probably can't find those documents. Who knows if they exist. It doesn't change the fact that Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine.
You're just delaying everything by trying to push for more information, when none is needed.
Rocco provided you with the statement that Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine. and you are the one that needs to proof it wrong

And once again, you used THE SAME LINK to prove your point. So it looks extremely bias on your part when you say that only the part of that link that fits your agenda is the truth..

You are extremely bias. and you're acting ridiculous

 

[toastman]

pbel, et al,

Only partly correct.

What do you mean they opted for war, defending themselves? The treaty of Severs did not give Israel the lands.

(COMMENT)

They did opt for war.

They were not defending themselves; but, acting in defiance of the UN Resolution. Their language was very specific. They may frame it as "self defense" but it was in opposition to the decisions made by the trusteeship.

No one said that the Treaty of Sevres gave Israel land. What was said is that the LoN (the UN being the successor) and the Allied Powers were given trusteeship via Mandate by means of the Treaty. The indigenous population was given no authority or independence. Relative to the issue of self-determination, our friend P F Tinmore points the way:

The right to self-determination in Palestine

The right to self-determination of both peoples living in Palestine, namely the Palestinians and the Jews, was confirmed by the UN General Assembly in Resolution 181 of 29 November 1947, which included the plan to divide the British Mandate of Palestine into one Jewish and one Palestinian state. The resolution was not legally binding, but merely recommended what the GA considered to be a legitimate mode of self-determination for Palestine. Nevertheless, it did express that a majority of states were of the opinion that one Jewish and one Palestinian state should be created in the area.

After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan. By entering into the Armistice Agreement with Egypt in 1949, Israel, demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN. Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine. A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict.

SOURCE: IHL in the occupied Palestinian territory » The right to self-determination

Most Respectfully,
R

Damn, Tinmore just got really owned. Of course he will make a futile attempt to refute this quote with something completely irrelevant.

 

[P F Tinmore]

pbel, et al,

Only partly correct.

What do you mean they opted for war, defending themselves? The treaty of Severs did not give Israel the lands.

(COMMENT)

They did opt for war.

They were not defending themselves; but, acting in defiance of the UN Resolution. Their language was very specific. They may frame it as "self defense" but it was in opposition to the decisions made by the trusteeship.

No one said that the Treaty of Sevres gave Israel land. What was said is that the LoN (the UN being the successor) and the Allied Powers were given trusteeship via Mandate by means of the Treaty. The indigenous population was given no authority or independence. Relative to the issue of self-determination, our friend P F Tinmore points the way:

The right to self-determination in Palestine

The right to self-determination of both peoples living in Palestine, namely the Palestinians and the Jews, was confirmed by the UN General Assembly in Resolution 181 of 29 November 1947, which included the plan to divide the British Mandate of Palestine into one Jewish and one Palestinian state. The resolution was not legally binding, but merely recommended what the GA considered to be a legitimate mode of self-determination for Palestine. Nevertheless, it did express that a majority of states were of the opinion that one Jewish and one Palestinian state should be created in the area.

After the 1948 war, Israel was established on a more extensive territory than recommended in the partition plan. By entering into the Armistice Agreement with Egypt in 1949, Israel, demonstrated a sufficient level of stable and effective government of the territory to be recognised as a state by other states and the UN. Israel was effectively and lawfully established as a state, on the armistice territory, by secession from the Mandate of Palestine. A state for the Palestinians living in the Mandate of Palestine was never created and this unrealised goal still constitutes one of the core issues of the conflict.

SOURCE: IHL in the occupied Palestinian territory » The right to self-determination

Most Respectfully,
R

The resolution was not legally binding,

That is correct. Resolution 181 has no legal standing. The Palestinians could not violate resolution 181 because there was nothing to violate.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

GA/RES/181(II) was implemented through the UN Palestine Commission.

pbel, et al,

Only partly correct.

What do you mean they opted for war, defending themselves? The treaty of Severs did not give Israel the lands.

(COMMENT)

They did opt for war.

They were not defending themselves; but, acting in defiance of the UN Resolution. Their language was very specific. They may frame it as "self defense" but it was in opposition to the decisions made by the trusteeship.

No one said that the Treaty of Sevres gave Israel land. What was said is that the LoN (the UN being the successor) and the Allied Powers were given trusteeship via Mandate by means of the Treaty. The indigenous population was given no authority or independence. Relative to the issue of self-determination, our friend P F Tinmore points the way:

Most Respectfully,
R

The resolution was not legally binding,

That is correct. Resolution 181 has no legal standing. The Palestinians could not violate resolution 181 because there was nothing to violate.

(COMMENT)

The formal resolution was implemented by the UN Security Council. At the outbreak of hostilities by the Arab League, the Arab League was trying to take the territory Declared Independent as Israel and the unapportioned territory under Mandate to the UNPC.

In effect, the Arabs were trying to steal territory under the Sovereignty of Israel and the Mandate transferred to the UNPC.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

GA/RES/181(II) was implemented through the UN Palestine Commission.

pbel, et al,

Only partly correct.


(COMMENT)

They did opt for war.

They were not defending themselves; but, acting in defiance of the UN Resolution. Their language was very specific. They may frame it as "self defense" but it was in opposition to the decisions made by the trusteeship.

No one said that the Treaty of Sevres gave Israel land. What was said is that the LoN (the UN being the successor) and the Allied Powers were given trusteeship via Mandate by means of the Treaty. The indigenous population was given no authority or independence. Relative to the issue of self-determination, our friend P F Tinmore points the way:

Most Respectfully,
R

The resolution was not legally binding,

That is correct. Resolution 181 has no legal standing. The Palestinians could not violate resolution 181 because there was nothing to violate.

(COMMENT)

The formal resolution was implemented by the UN Security Council. At the outbreak of hostilities by the Arab League, the Arab League was trying to take the territory Declared Independent as Israel and the unapportioned territory under Mandate to the UNPC.

In effect, the Arabs were trying to steal territory under the Sovereignty of Israel and the Mandate transferred to the UNPC.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course you have documents that say that.

Links?

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

GA/RES/181(II) was implemented through the UN Palestine Commission.

That is correct. Resolution 181 has no legal standing. The Palestinians could not violate resolution 181 because there was nothing to violate.

(COMMENT)

The formal resolution was implemented by the UN Security Council. At the outbreak of hostilities by the Arab League, the Arab League was trying to take the territory Declared Independent as Israel and the unapportioned territory under Mandate to the UNPC.

In effect, the Arabs were trying to steal territory under the Sovereignty of Israel and the Mandate transferred to the UNPC.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course you have documents that say that.

Links?

Why do you keep asking for documents ? What you're doing now is just playing stupid ??

What part of his last post do you disagree with?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

GA/RES/181(II) was implemented through the UN Palestine Commission.


(COMMENT)

The formal resolution was implemented by the UN Security Council. At the outbreak of hostilities by the Arab League, the Arab League was trying to take the territory Declared Independent as Israel and the unapportioned territory under Mandate to the UNPC.

In effect, the Arabs were trying to steal territory under the Sovereignty of Israel and the Mandate transferred to the UNPC.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course you have documents that say that.

Links?

Why do you keep asking for documents ? What you're doing now is just playing stupid ??

What part of his last post do you disagree with?

1) The formal resolution was implemented by the UN Security Council.
2) the Arab League was trying to take the territory Declared Independent as Israel
3) the unapportioned territory under Mandate to the UNPC.

I just want to see the documents that say that.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, to the extent possible.

1) The formal resolution was implemented by the UN Security Council.
2) the Arab League was trying to take the territory Declared Independent as Israel
3) the unapportioned territory under Mandate to the UNPC.

I just want to see the documents that say that.

(REFERENCE)

1. Establishment of the Commission

The resolution on the Future Government of Palestine, as adopted by the General Assembly at its one hundred twenty-eighth meeting on 29 November 1947, in paragraph 1, Section B, Part I, that “A Commission shall be set up consisting of one representatives of each of five Member States.” This Commission was charged with direct responsibility for implementing the measures recommended by the General Assembly.​

Section B --- STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE

1. A Commission shall be set up consisting of one representative of each of five Member States. The Members represented on the Commission shall be elected by the General Assembly on as broad a basis, geographically and otherwise, as possible.

2. The administration of Palestine shall, as the mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission; which shall act in conformity with the recommendations of the General Assembly, under the guidance of the Security Council. The mandatory Power shall to the fullest possible extent co-ordinate its plans for withdrawal with the plans of the Commission to take over and administer areas which have been evacuated.

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...​

13. With a view to ensuring that there shall be continuity in the functioning of administrative services and that, on the withdrawal of the armed forces of the mandatory Power, the whole administration shall be in the charge of the Provisional Councils and the Joint Economic Board, respectively, acting under the Commission, there shall be a progressive transfer, from the mandatory Power to the Commission, of responsibility for all the functions of government, including that of maintaining law and order in the areas from which the forces of the mandatory Power have been withdrawn.​

Article 77

The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:

a. territories now held under mandate;
b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.​

Article 83

1. All functions of the United Nations relating to strategic areas, including the approval of the terms of the trusteeship agreements and of their alteration or amendment shall be exercised by the Security Council.
2. The basic objectives set forth in Article 76 shall be applicable to the people of each strategic area.
3. The Security Council shall, subject to the provisions of the trusteeship agreements and without prejudice to security considerations, avail itself of the assistance of the Trusteeship Council to perform those functions of the United Nations under the trusteeship system relating to political, economic, social, and educational matters in the strategic areas.​

SOURCE: INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEESHIP SYSTEM

SOURCE: A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947

The Palestine Commission, at its 75th Meeting today, adjourned sine die. The action came at 4:06 P.M. after a thirty-five minute meeting. The first meeting of the Commission had been on January 9.

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...​

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."

The General Assembly,

Having adopted a resolution 2/ providing for the appointment of a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, which relieves the United Nations Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities,

Resolves to express its full appreciation for the work performed by the Palestine Commission in pursuance of its mandate 3/ from the General Assembly.
__________________

1/ See document A/533.

2/ See resolution 186 (S-2), page 5.

3/ See Official Records of the second session of the General Assembly, Resolutions, No. 181 (II), page 131.

SOURCE: A/RES/189 (S-2) 14 May 1948

SOURCE: PAL/169 17 May 1948

SOURCE: A/AC.21/7 29 January 1948

The Subsequent communication of 6 February to the Secretary-General from the representative of the Arab Higher Committee set forth the following conclusions of the Arab Higher Committee Delegation:

“b. The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power or group of powers to establish a Jewish State in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense by force.

c. It is very unwise and fruitless to ask any commission to proceed to Palestine because not a single Arab will cooperate with the said commission."​

SOURCE: A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948

(COMMENT)

Question 1: The formal resolution was implemented by the UN Security Council.

• Answer: The bolding in ADJOURNS SINE DIE 17 MAY 1948, you will notice that statement of "implementation." At the outbreak of hostilities, the invasion of Arab Armies, and the Declaration of Independence, the Commission was relieved of further responsibilities.

Question 2: the Arab League was trying to take the territory Declared Independent as Israel.

• Answer: You will notice (in the First Special Report) that the Arab Higher Committee declared prior to invasion that Arab Resistance will be mounted against any attempt to allow Israel to form. In fact, the Arab Armies can not use self-defense as a reason to invade. They become external influences obstructing self-determination.

Question 3: the unapportioned territory under Mandate to the UNPC.

• Answer: You will notice that, included in the Steps Preparatory to Independence, that as the mandatory Power (the UK) withdraws its armed forces, administration of Palestine shall (Mandatory Powers) will be progressively turned over to the UN Palestine Commission. It is the United Nations Mediator in Palestine assumes the responsibility from the UNPC. Notice that the UNPC is never actually dissolved; but, is indefinitely adjourned.

I hope this answers your questions.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, to the extent possible.

1) The formal resolution was implemented by the UN Security Council.
2) the Arab League was trying to take the territory Declared Independent as Israel
3) the unapportioned territory under Mandate to the UNPC.

I just want to see the documents that say that.

(REFERENCE)

1. Establishment of the Commission

The resolution on the Future Government of Palestine, as adopted by the General Assembly at its one hundred twenty-eighth meeting on 29 November 1947, in paragraph 1, Section B, Part I, that “A Commission shall be set up consisting of one representatives of each of five Member States.” This Commission was charged with direct responsibility for implementing the measures recommended by the General Assembly.​

SOURCE: A/AC.21/7 29 January 1948

The Subsequent communication of 6 February to the Secretary-General from the representative of the Arab Higher Committee set forth the following conclusions of the Arab Higher Committee Delegation:

“b. The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power or group of powers to establish a Jewish State in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense by force.

c. It is very unwise and fruitless to ask any commission to proceed to Palestine because not a single Arab will cooperate with the said commission."​

SOURCE: A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948

(COMMENT)

Question 1: The formal resolution was implemented by the UN Security Council.

• Answer: The bolding in ADJOURNS SINE DIE 17 MAY 1948, you will notice that statement of "implementation." At the outbreak of hostilities, the invasion of Arab Armies, and the Declaration of Independence, the Commission was relieved of further responsibilities.

Question 2: the Arab League was trying to take the territory Declared Independent as Israel.

• Answer: You will notice (in the First Special Report) that the Arab Higher Committee declared prior to invasion that Arab Resistance will be mounted against any attempt to allow Israel to form. In fact, the Arab Armies can not use self-defense as a reason to invade. They become external influences obstructing self-determination.

Question 3: the unapportioned territory under Mandate to the UNPC.

• Answer: You will notice that, included in the Steps Preparatory to Independence, that as the mandatory Power (the UK) withdraws its armed forces, administration of Palestine shall (Mandatory Powers) will be progressively turned over to the UN Palestine Commission. It is the United Nations Mediator in Palestine assumes the responsibility from the UNPC. Notice that the UNPC is never actually dissolved; but, is indefinitely adjourned.

I hope this answers your questions.

Most Respectfully,
R

I see a lot of monkey motions, but:

When did the proposed borders become international borders?
When did Jerusalem become an international city?
Why was there no action by any UN body, including the UNPC, to protect the rights of the Palestinians?

I don't see any implementation.

 

[toastman]

lol Tinmore you're gonna make Rocco's head explode ! I read his post and I think he did an excellent job answering your questions

 

[toastman]

You're just straight up playing games and asking unnecessary questions

 

[Billo_Really]

You're just straight up playing games and asking unnecessary questions

Did you know Kobe Bryant had some jewish ancestry?

It happened to be an "away game", so Vanessa doesn't really know about it.


Now back to our thread...

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

These are questions often asked. I see them quite frequently.

I see a lot of monkey motions, but:

• When did the proposed borders become international borders?
• When did Jerusalem become an international city?
• Why was there no action by any UN body, including the UNPC, to protect the rights of the Palestinians?

I don't see any implementation.

(COMMENT)

I'll answer the last comment first:

• I don't see any implementation.

Answer:

• You don't see "implementation" because the Arab-Palestinian (the Arab Higher Committee) chose not to participate in the "implementation process" and refused to recognize GA Resolution 181(II); and “anything deriving therefrom.” They took the position that that they oppose any power to enforce the partition. The Arab Higher Committee really has very little ground on this point. The Arab cannot complain about the outcome of a process that they declined to participate, muting themselves and absent their voice, the means to effect the change.

• Second, since the Arab Higher Committee rejected the offer, the implementation process focused on the Steps Preparatory to the Independence of the Jewish State, not the Arab State.

• When did the proposed borders become international borders?

Answer: At mid-night 14/15 May 1948, the borders pursuant to PART II, Boundaries, Section B - THE JEWISH STATE, GA Resolution 181 (II) - Future government of Palestine, under Map No. 103.1 (b), UN BASE MAP: Survey of Palestine, April 1946. However, due to the invasion by external influence of the Arab Armies, the tactical outcomes (Arab Losses) immediately altered Israel territory under its control, as annotated by the Armistices arrangements (the Green Line) between Israel and the warring parties of the Arab League.​

• When did Jerusalem become an international city?

Answer: Jerusalem internationalization was altered by the Arab Invasion.​

• Why was there no action by any UN body, including the UNPC, to protect the rights of the Palestinians?

Answer: What protections did the Arab-Palestinian expect after the outbreak of hostilities initiated by the invasion of the Arab Armies?​

There would be no issue on Israeli Borders if it were not for the failed Arab Army invasion.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

These are questions often asked. I see them quite frequently.

I see a lot of monkey motions, but:

• When did the proposed borders become international borders?
• When did Jerusalem become an international city?
• Why was there no action by any UN body, including the UNPC, to protect the rights of the Palestinians?

I don't see any implementation.

(COMMENT)

I'll answer the last comment first:

• I don't see any implementation.

Answer:

• You don't see "implementation" because the Arab-Palestinian (the Arab Higher Committee) chose not to participate in the "implementation process" and refused to recognize GA Resolution 181(II); and “anything deriving therefrom.” They took the position that that they oppose any power to enforce the partition. The Arab Higher Committee really has very little ground on this point. The Arab cannot complain about the outcome of a process that they declined to participate, muting themselves and absent their voice, the means to effect the change.

• Second, since the Arab Higher Committee rejected the offer, the implementation process focused on the Steps Preparatory to the Independence of the Jewish State, not the Arab State.

• When did the proposed borders become international borders?

Answer: At mid-night 14/15 May 1948, the borders pursuant to PART II, Boundaries, Section B - THE JEWISH STATE, GA Resolution 181 (II) - Future government of Palestine, under Map No. 103.1 (b), UN BASE MAP: Survey of Palestine, April 1946. However, due to the invasion by external influence of the Arab Armies, the tactical outcomes (Arab Losses) immediately altered Israel territory under its control, as annotated by the Armistices arrangements (the Green Line) between Israel and the warring parties of the Arab League.​

• When did Jerusalem become an international city?

Answer: Jerusalem internationalization was altered by the Arab Invasion.​

• Why was there no action by any UN body, including the UNPC, to protect the rights of the Palestinians?

Answer: What protections did the Arab-Palestinian expect after the outbreak of hostilities initiated by the invasion of the Arab Armies?​

There would be no issue on Israeli Borders if it were not for the failed Arab Army invasion.

Most Respectfully,
R

Interesting re-write of history there, Rocco.

Would you care to revise your post first or should I critique it as is?

 

[toastman]

You're just straight up playing games and asking unnecessary questions

Did you know Kobe Bryant had some jewish ancestry?

It happened to be an "away game", so Vanessa doesn't really know about it.


Now back to our thread...

Oh, so you're back from hiding in your hole after the Dodgers lost ???

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I should not expect less.

Interesting re-write of history there, Rocco.

Would you care to revise your post first or should I critique it as is?

(COMMENT)

Critique away my friend.

v/r
R

 

[toastman]

Tinmore's critiques are as useful as used toilet paper

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

These are questions often asked. I see them quite frequently.

I see a lot of monkey motions, but:

• When did the proposed borders become international borders?
• When did Jerusalem become an international city?
• Why was there no action by any UN body, including the UNPC, to protect the rights of the Palestinians?

I don't see any implementation.

(COMMENT)

I'll answer the last comment first:

• I don't see any implementation.

Answer:

• You don't see "implementation" because the Arab-Palestinian (the Arab Higher Committee) chose not to participate in the "implementation process" and refused to recognize GA Resolution 181(II); and “anything deriving therefrom.” They took the position that that they oppose any power to enforce the partition. The Arab Higher Committee really has very little ground on this point. The Arab cannot complain about the outcome of a process that they declined to participate, muting themselves and absent their voice, the means to effect the change.

• Second, since the Arab Higher Committee rejected the offer, the implementation process focused on the Steps Preparatory to the Independence of the Jewish State, not the Arab State.

Resolution 181 was a plan to have Palestine cede half of its country to Israel. The Palestinians rejected the plan. Neither the Mandate nor the UN had the authority to cede Palestinian land to Israel and neither one did. No further action was legitimate. The UN did nothing to create Israel.

Ceding land to Israel and redrawing borders is a final status issue in the current peace process.

• When did the proposed borders become international borders?

• Answer: At mid-night 14/15 May 1948, the borders pursuant to PART II, Boundaries, Section B - THE JEWISH STATE, GA Resolution 181 (II) - Future government of Palestine, under Map No. 103.1 (b), UN BASE MAP: Survey of Palestine, April 1946. However, due to the invasion by external influence of the Arab Armies, the tactical outcomes (Arab Losses) immediately altered Israel territory under its control, as annotated by the Armistices arrangements (the Green Line) between Israel and the warring parties of the Arab League.

Not true. The UN never implemented the proposed borders. Israel never claimed or recognized those borders. Palestine never recognized those borders. The UN never recognized those borders.

Again, ceding land to Israel and redrawing borders is a final status issue in the current peace process.

• When did Jerusalem become an international city?

• Answer: Jerusalem internationalization was altered by the Arab Invasion.

Not true. The UN never implemented resolution 181 including the establishment of the international city. Israel had already invaded Jerusalem before any Arab army entered Palestine.

• Why was there no action by any UN body, including the UNPC, to protect the rights of the Palestinians?

Answer: What protections did the Arab-Palestinian expect after the outbreak of hostilities initiated by the invasion of the Arab Armies?​

There would be no issue on Israeli Borders if it were not for the failed Arab Army invasion.

Not true. About 300,000 Palestinians were cleansed from their homes before any Arab army entered Palestine.

Where was the UN?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

Giving half their country to foreigners ?? How can they do that when they didn't have a country? The whole point of the partition plan was to GIVE the Palestinian Arabs a country !!
My goodness, what's the point of debating with you if you're going to lie so compulsively.

Rocco wins, you lose . Get over it already. Swallow your pride

As far as not having the authority to cede Palestinians land, that was not necessary in order for Israel to create it's state in the land proposed in the partition plan. Unless you have a LINK FOR THAT

Your response to him regarding Jerusalem has nothing to do with his comment, and is a lie as well. You provided no link.

Finally, your last comment regarding the cleansing of 300 000 Palestinians from their homes before the Arab invasion appears to be another lie as well. Link please ?


So , Tinmore. You need to provide three links to prove your statements

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Implementation was with respect to the Parts of the plan that were accepted.

Resolution 181 was a plan to have Palestine cede half of its country to Israel. The Palestinians rejected the plan. Neither the Mandate nor the UN had the authority to cede Palestinian land to Israel and neither one did. No further action was legitimate. The UN did nothing to create Israel.

(COMMENT)

The apportionment is another issue (the why), although that was not an original reason cited by the Arab Higher Committee; but an issue tacked on later.

Legitimacy is what the Allied Powers, the League of Nations, the UN and Security Council said it is, and not what the Arab-Palestinians claim. The authority rested in the Treaty.

Ceding land to Israel and redrawing borders is a final status issue in the current peace process.

(COMMENT)

Yes, that is correct; six plus decades and three wars later. But at the time, in 1948, the Partition Plan was it, and on the morning of 15 May 1948, the Declaration of Independence was announced and the State of Israel was established in accordance with the specifications outlined in the Resolution.

The War, triggered by the foreign invasion of Arab Armies, then began to alter the specifications.

Not true. The UN never implemented the proposed borders. Israel never claimed or recognized those borders. Palestine never recognized those borders. The UN never recognized those borders.

Again, ceding land to Israel and redrawing borders is a final status issue in the current peace process.

(COMMENT)

The UN doesn't implement borders. The established the Partition Plan which the Israelis agreed to, and established within. The borders were recommended by the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), and the Plan was approved by the General Assembly, then implemented through the UN Security Council via the UN Palestine Commission. Which the Jewish Agency used as the basis for Independence.

This is all a matter of record; which I've shown you.

Not true. The UN never implemented resolution 181 including the establishment of the international city. Israel had already invaded Jerusalem before any Arab army entered Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Armies immediately invaded and occupied the City of Jerusalem in the days that followed. The Arabs Occupied portions of Jerusalem and prevented internationalization.

The Jewish Army was not in Jerusalem. The Jewish quarter was virtually undefended, and the Arab Army sacked the quarter. Over 30 Temples were destroyed (only one survived).

Not true. About 300,000 Palestinians were cleansed from their homes before any Arab army entered Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Yes, yes, we heard all about it.

There is rarely a war that doesn't have refugee columns moving one way or another. No war is fought with perfect adherence to the humanitarian side of the issue. And in most cases, the side with the upper-hand on the military situation, is blamed.

Yes, there are all sorts of Reconciliation Reports on file that I read on the issue. I must of read 30 or 40 such reports on the "right of return" and "reparations, restitution, reconciliation, and claim settlements" from that period. Arabs are always exaggerating the refugee claims and the numbers; it's part of their culture.

Someday, when they decide to make peace, a final accounting will be agreed upon.

(EPILOG)

So! What else you got...?

Remember, you cannot complain about the outcome of a process that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) declined to participate in and have their voice be heard. You cannot complain about portions of the Partition Plan that were not implemented because they were obstructed by HoAP force from being completed. You cannot complain about borders disputes that were subsequently altered because of field military victories on the part of the Israelis repulsing the Foreign Arab Invasions (three times now).

So! What else you got...?

Most Respectfully,
R