Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Even sympathy votes can become very important; especially when they come in the official format and protocol.

A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine ​

Recognition of the 1988 State of Palestine was a sympathy vote.

Then why does everyone keep bringing this up when it is meaningless?

The Palestinians had more standing in 1948. They were not officially occupied until 1949.

(COMMENT)

• The West Bank was occupied by the Jordanian (1949); not Israelis. And it was the Palestinians that voted to accept Jordanian annexation and rule.
• The Gaza Strip was occupied by the Egyptians (1949); not Israelis.

Israel was defending its Declaration of Independence. "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." [United Nations Palestine Commission (A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948)]

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Even sympathy votes can become very important; especially when they come in the official format and protocol.

A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine ​

Recognition of the 1988 State of Palestine was a sympathy vote.

Then why does everyone keep bringing this up when it is meaningless?

The Palestinians had more standing in 1948. They were not officially occupied until 1949.

(COMMENT)

• The West Bank was occupied by the Jordanian (1949); not Israelis. And it was the Palestinians that voted to accept Jordanian annexation and rule.
• The Gaza Strip was occupied by the Egyptians (1949); not Israelis.

Israel was defending its Declaration of Independence. "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." [United Nations Palestine Commission (A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948)]

Most Respectfully,
R

I already knew Israel's version. But thanks anyway.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore et al,

And you just demonstrated my point.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, this is your interpretation, not reality.

So that if the Palestinians attack "Israel" they are not crossing any borders.

That's good to know.

(COMMENT)

The State of Israel has established sovereignty over their national territory. If the "Palestinians attack Israel," the Palestinians are demonstrating the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of Israel. [Article 2(4)]

Relative to the issue of borders, the Palestinians do not have a unified political position. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (sole representative of the Palestinian People) Negotiation Affairs Department (NAD), openly acknowledges that the "June 4, 1967 border, also known as Green Line, is the internationally recognized border between the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) (i.e. West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip) and the State of Israel."

The June 4, 1967 border, also known as green line, is the internationally recognized border between the occupied Palestinian territory (i.e. West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip) and the State of Israel. The occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) represents an area equivalent to 22 percent of historic Palestine.

2. Key Facts PLO-NAD

• The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.

• A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.

• The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.
​

The PLO recognition of the 1967 Border (pre-establishment of the Palestinian State), varies from the position that the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS); which is all the territory previously subject to the British Mandate. This cannot be negotiated or argued until the Palestinians themselves come to agreement amongst themselves as to what their position is.

If one reference the "UNTERM Database," one the annotation that: "A principle enunciated for the first time in Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 in reference to the Palestinian people, and subsequently reiterated, in the same context, in several United Nations documents of other organs."

Seen in phrase:

• the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war
• the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force

​

This comes after the 1967 Six-day War. But it also is important to note that no "Palestinian Territory" was occupied in 1967. The territory was sovereign Jordanian Territory (West Bank) and the Egyptian Military Governorship (Gaza Strip).

UN Security Council Resolution 242 cannot retroactively apply the "Emphasis." The conflict between the actions of Israel and Article 2(4) of the Charter, was resolved by Treaties; as outlined in previous Posting.

What territory did the APG have control when it declared Independence?

What control of territory did the PLO have in 1988?

(COMMENT)

Recognition of the 1988 State of Palestine was a sympathy vote. It was unopposed by Israel. The PLO had no effective territorial control anywhere. It is for this reason that the State of Palestine has only achieved "Observer Status."

Most Respectfully,
R

The State of Israel has established sovereignty over their national territory. If the "Palestinians attack Israel," the Palestinians are demonstrating the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of Israel. [Article 2(4)]

You always crack me up with that one.

You constantly bring it up.

Then you always duck the issue of Israel's territory.

(COMMENT)

As I said above, while the 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt; there are die hard Hostile Arab Palestinians that continue the justification of the armed conflict by subscribing to your unsupported theory.

Israel's territorial integrity and political independence extends to the limit of its sovereign control. Everything the Palestinians bring-up is merely a territorial dispute. Your position is the essential key position. If the pro-Hostile Arab Palestinian where to admit that the physical existence of the borders were real, then the justification for the continued struggle would be invalidated. (No reason to continue the struggle.)

One facet of the issue is --- In fact, the Palestinians don't actually know what they are looking for in terms of "proof of territorial integrity." They have no way of articulating the required proof (don't know what to ask for).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, this is an example of the Palestinians trying to reframe the historical facts.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Even sympathy votes can become very important; especially when they come in the official format and protocol.

A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine ​

Recognition of the 1988 State of Palestine was a sympathy vote.

Then why does everyone keep bringing this up when it is meaningless?

The Palestinians had more standing in 1948. They were not officially occupied until 1949.

(COMMENT)

• The West Bank was occupied by the Jordanian (1949); not Israelis. And it was the Palestinians that voted to accept Jordanian annexation and rule.
• The Gaza Strip was occupied by the Egyptians (1949); not Israelis.

Israel was defending its Declaration of Independence. "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." [United Nations Palestine Commission (A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948)]

Most Respectfully,
R

I already knew Israel's version. But thanks anyway.

(COMMENT)

What is incorrect?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore et al,

And you just demonstrated my point.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, this is your interpretation, not reality.

So that if the Palestinians attack "Israel" they are not crossing any borders.

That's good to know.

(COMMENT)

The State of Israel has established sovereignty over their national territory. If the "Palestinians attack Israel," the Palestinians are demonstrating the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of Israel. [Article 2(4)]

Relative to the issue of borders, the Palestinians do not have a unified political position. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (sole representative of the Palestinian People) Negotiation Affairs Department (NAD), openly acknowledges that the "June 4, 1967 border, also known as Green Line, is the internationally recognized border between the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) (i.e. West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip) and the State of Israel."

The June 4, 1967 border, also known as green line, is the internationally recognized border between the occupied Palestinian territory (i.e. West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip) and the State of Israel. The occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) represents an area equivalent to 22 percent of historic Palestine.

2. Key Facts PLO-NAD

• The 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt.

• A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.

• The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the oPt, including East Jerusalem.
​

The PLO recognition of the 1967 Border (pre-establishment of the Palestinian State), varies from the position that the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS); which is all the territory previously subject to the British Mandate. This cannot be negotiated or argued until the Palestinians themselves come to agreement amongst themselves as to what their position is.

If one reference the "UNTERM Database," one the annotation that: "A principle enunciated for the first time in Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 in reference to the Palestinian people, and subsequently reiterated, in the same context, in several United Nations documents of other organs."

Seen in phrase:

• the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war
• the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force

​

This comes after the 1967 Six-day War. But it also is important to note that no "Palestinian Territory" was occupied in 1967. The territory was sovereign Jordanian Territory (West Bank) and the Egyptian Military Governorship (Gaza Strip).

UN Security Council Resolution 242 cannot retroactively apply the "Emphasis." The conflict between the actions of Israel and Article 2(4) of the Charter, was resolved by Treaties; as outlined in previous Posting.

What territory did the APG have control when it declared Independence?

What control of territory did the PLO have in 1988?

(COMMENT)

Recognition of the 1988 State of Palestine was a sympathy vote. It was unopposed by Israel. The PLO had no effective territorial control anywhere. It is for this reason that the State of Palestine has only achieved "Observer Status."

Most Respectfully,
R

The State of Israel has established sovereignty over their national territory. If the "Palestinians attack Israel," the Palestinians are demonstrating the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of Israel. [Article 2(4)]

You always crack me up with that one.

You constantly bring it up.

Then you always duck the issue of Israel's territory.

(COMMENT)

As I said above, while the 1967 border is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the oPt; there are die hard Hostile Arab Palestinians that continue the justification of the armed conflict by subscribing to your unsupported theory.

Israel's territorial integrity and political independence extends to the limit of its sovereign control. Everything the Palestinians bring-up is merely a territorial dispute. Your position is the essential key position. If the pro-Hostile Arab Palestinian where to admit that the physical existence of the borders were real, then the justification for the continued struggle would be invalidated. (No reason to continue the struggle.)

One facet of the issue is --- In fact, the Palestinians don't actually know what they are looking for in terms of "proof of territorial integrity." They have no way of articulating the required proof (don't know what to ask for).

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestinians that continue the justification of the armed conflict by subscribing to your unsupported theory.​

Every time I ask you to prove your point you duck the question.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you know that is not true.

Every time I ask you to prove your point you duck the question.​

​

(COMMENT)

I've answered directly every question you have put forth. You don't like the answers.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, this is an example of the Palestinians trying to reframe the historical facts.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Even sympathy votes can become very important; especially when they come in the official format and protocol.

A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988 Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine ​

Recognition of the 1988 State of Palestine was a sympathy vote.

Then why does everyone keep bringing this up when it is meaningless?

The Palestinians had more standing in 1948. They were not officially occupied until 1949.

(COMMENT)

• The West Bank was occupied by the Jordanian (1949); not Israelis. And it was the Palestinians that voted to accept Jordanian annexation and rule.
• The Gaza Strip was occupied by the Egyptians (1949); not Israelis.

Israel was defending its Declaration of Independence. "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." [United Nations Palestine Commission (A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948)]

Most Respectfully,
R

I already knew Israel's version. But thanks anyway.

(COMMENT)

What is incorrect?

Most Respectfully,
R

Not the question. How did it relate to my post?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you know that is not true.

Every time I ask you to prove your point you duck the question.​

​

(COMMENT)

I've answered directly every question you have put forth. You don't like the answers.

Most Respectfully,
R

How and when did Israel acquire its territory again?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Humm --- This is a trick question.

How and when did Israel acquire its territory again?

(COMMENT)

• HOW: The exercise of the "Right to Self-determination (Article 1(2) of Charter)," using the "Steps Preparatory to Independence," as recommended by the UN General Assembly, as a quasi-guide and template; and by expanding and extending of sovereignty over territory.

• WHEN:

• May 1948.
• June 1967.
• December 1967.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Humm --- This is a trick question.

How and when did Israel acquire its territory again?

(COMMENT)

• HOW: The exercise of the "Right to Self-determination (Article 1(2) of Charter)," using the "Steps Preparatory to Independence," as recommended by the UN General Assembly, as a quasi-guide and template; and by expanding and extending of sovereignty over territory.

• WHEN:

• May 1948.
• June 1967.
• December 1967.

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN has no authority to transfer land.

Expanding territory (from what) by military force is illegal.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, not exactly correct.

The UN has no authority to transfer land.

(COMMENT)

First, I did not say that the UN did anything, other than adopt the "Steps Preparatory to Independence." I did not say the UN transferred anything. I think I said the acquisition was achieved through the "Right of Self-Determination."

Expanding territory (from what) by military force is illegal.

(COMMENT)

AS PREVIOUSLY STATED (Posting #1037), If one refers to the "UNTERM Database," one will notice the annotation that: "A principle enunciated for the first time in Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 in reference to the Palestinian people, and subsequently reiterated, in the same context, in several United Nations documents of other organs."

Seen in phrase:

• the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war
• the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force

​

This maybe a logical extension of Chapter I, Article 2(4), of the Charter; but not specifically prohibited. This is not to be confused with acts of aggression (Wars of Conquest) without the justification of Article 51 conditions. Acts of Aggression have largely gone undefined until 14 December 1974, in A/RES/29/3314. Under the 1974 definition, the interpretation should be: "No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful."

What the Charter said at the time of the 1967 Six-Day War, was:

"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."
​

The Security Council made this momentous statement some four (+) month after the fact and after the conclusion of the War. And then, it did not specifically address (was ambiguous) to which side the new interpretation applied. All the parties to the 1948 War thru 1973, had used military force in the attempt to achieve their political agenda. However, there were three states that used military force to acquire territory.

• Israel recaptured the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967.
• Jordan captured the West Bank in 1949.
• Egypt captured the Gaza Strip in 1949.
​

Contrary to what the pro-Palestinians say, prior to November 1967, in international law, the acquisition of territory through force, especially by a victorious state in a war --- was customary. It is how the Allied Powers made disposition of all the territories formerly subject to the Ottoman Empire. Today, the international interpretation is different yet again.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, not exactly correct.

The UN has no authority to transfer land.

(COMMENT)

First, I did not say that the UN did anything, other than adopt the "Steps Preparatory to Independence." I did not say the UN transferred anything. I think I said the acquisition was achieved through the "Right of Self-Determination."

Expanding territory (from what) by military force is illegal.

(COMMENT)

AS PREVIOUSLY STATED (Posting #1037), If one refers to the "UNTERM Database," one will notice the annotation that: "A principle enunciated for the first time in Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 in reference to the Palestinian people, and subsequently reiterated, in the same context, in several United Nations documents of other organs."

Seen in phrase:

• the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war
• the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force

​

This maybe a logical extension of Chapter I, Article 2(4), of the Charter; but not specifically prohibited. This is not to be confused with acts of aggression (Wars of Conquest) without the justification of Article 51 conditions. Acts of Aggression have largely gone undefined until 14 December 1974, in A/RES/29/3314. Under the 1974 definition, the interpretation should be: "No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful."

What the Charter said at the time of the 1967 Six-Day War, was:

"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."
​

The Security Council made this momentous statement some four (+) month after the fact and after the conclusion of the War. And then, it did not specifically address (was ambiguous) to which side the new interpretation applied. All the parties to the 1948 War thru 1973, had used military force in the attempt to achieve their political agenda. However, there were three states that used military force to acquire territory.

• Israel recaptured the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967.
• Jordan captured the West Bank in 1949.
• Egypt captured the Gaza Strip in 1949.
​

Contrary to what the pro-Palestinians say, prior to November 1967, in international law, the acquisition of territory through force, especially by a victorious state in a war --- was customary. It is how the Allied Powers made disposition of all the territories formerly subject to the Ottoman Empire. Today, the international interpretation is different yet again.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think it is that we cannot see the forest for the trees. Let's narrow this down for a closer look.

Najd was an agricultural village of about three hundred people at the beginning of the Ottoman Empire. It had grown to about seven hundred people by the end of the mandate period.

Before the beginning of the 1948 war, Najd was attacked and occupied by Zionist forces driving the Palestinians out of their homes. In 1951 Israel built a Jewish only settlement on Najd land.

It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force and it is illegal to annex occupied territory.

So, how did Israel acquire that land?

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, not exactly correct.

The UN has no authority to transfer land.

(COMMENT)

First, I did not say that the UN did anything, other than adopt the "Steps Preparatory to Independence." I did not say the UN transferred anything. I think I said the acquisition was achieved through the "Right of Self-Determination."

Expanding territory (from what) by military force is illegal.

(COMMENT)

AS PREVIOUSLY STATED (Posting #1037), If one refers to the "UNTERM Database," one will notice the annotation that: "A principle enunciated for the first time in Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 in reference to the Palestinian people, and subsequently reiterated, in the same context, in several United Nations documents of other organs."

Seen in phrase:

• the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war
• the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force

​

This maybe a logical extension of Chapter I, Article 2(4), of the Charter; but not specifically prohibited. This is not to be confused with acts of aggression (Wars of Conquest) without the justification of Article 51 conditions. Acts of Aggression have largely gone undefined until 14 December 1974, in A/RES/29/3314. Under the 1974 definition, the interpretation should be: "No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful."

What the Charter said at the time of the 1967 Six-Day War, was:

"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."
​

The Security Council made this momentous statement some four (+) month after the fact and after the conclusion of the War. And then, it did not specifically address (was ambiguous) to which side the new interpretation applied. All the parties to the 1948 War thru 1973, had used military force in the attempt to achieve their political agenda. However, there were three states that used military force to acquire territory.

• Israel recaptured the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967.
• Jordan captured the West Bank in 1949.
• Egypt captured the Gaza Strip in 1949.
​

Contrary to what the pro-Palestinians say, prior to November 1967, in international law, the acquisition of territory through force, especially by a victorious state in a war --- was customary. It is how the Allied Powers made disposition of all the territories formerly subject to the Ottoman Empire. Today, the international interpretation is different yet again.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think it is that we cannot see the forest for the trees. Let's narrow this down for a closer look.

Najd was an agricultural village of about three hundred people at the beginning of the Ottoman Empire. It had grown to about seven hundred people by the end of the mandate period.

Before the beginning of the 1948 war, Najd was attacked and occupied by Zionist forces driving the Palestinians out of their homes. In 1951 Israel built a Jewish only settlement on Najd land.

It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force and it is illegal to annex occupied territory.

So, how did Israel acquire that land?

What grants Arab invaders a special exception from the arbitrary standards you insist Israel must adhere to?

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, not exactly correct.

The UN has no authority to transfer land.

(COMMENT)

First, I did not say that the UN did anything, other than adopt the "Steps Preparatory to Independence." I did not say the UN transferred anything. I think I said the acquisition was achieved through the "Right of Self-Determination."

Expanding territory (from what) by military force is illegal.

(COMMENT)

AS PREVIOUSLY STATED (Posting #1037), If one refers to the "UNTERM Database," one will notice the annotation that: "A principle enunciated for the first time in Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 in reference to the Palestinian people, and subsequently reiterated, in the same context, in several United Nations documents of other organs."

Seen in phrase:

• the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war
• the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force

​

This maybe a logical extension of Chapter I, Article 2(4), of the Charter; but not specifically prohibited. This is not to be confused with acts of aggression (Wars of Conquest) without the justification of Article 51 conditions. Acts of Aggression have largely gone undefined until 14 December 1974, in A/RES/29/3314. Under the 1974 definition, the interpretation should be: "No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful."

What the Charter said at the time of the 1967 Six-Day War, was:

"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."
​

The Security Council made this momentous statement some four (+) month after the fact and after the conclusion of the War. And then, it did not specifically address (was ambiguous) to which side the new interpretation applied. All the parties to the 1948 War thru 1973, had used military force in the attempt to achieve their political agenda. However, there were three states that used military force to acquire territory.

• Israel recaptured the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967.
• Jordan captured the West Bank in 1949.
• Egypt captured the Gaza Strip in 1949.
​

Contrary to what the pro-Palestinians say, prior to November 1967, in international law, the acquisition of territory through force, especially by a victorious state in a war --- was customary. It is how the Allied Powers made disposition of all the territories formerly subject to the Ottoman Empire. Today, the international interpretation is different yet again.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think it is that we cannot see the forest for the trees. Let's narrow this down for a closer look.

Najd was an agricultural village of about three hundred people at the beginning of the Ottoman Empire. It had grown to about seven hundred people by the end of the mandate period.

Before the beginning of the 1948 war, Najd was attacked and occupied by Zionist forces driving the Palestinians out of their homes. In 1951 Israel built a Jewish only settlement on Najd land.

It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force and it is illegal to annex occupied territory.

So, how did Israel acquire that land?

What grants Arab invaders a special exception from the arbitrary standards you insist Israel must adhere to?

?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are making a timeline mistake. Let me chop a few trees down for you, so you can see better.

I think it is that we cannot see the forest for the trees. Let's narrow this down for a closer look.

Najd was an agricultural village of about three hundred people at the beginning of the Ottoman Empire. It had grown to about seven hundred people by the end of the mandate period.

Before the beginning of the 1948 war, Najd was attacked and occupied by Zionist forces driving the Palestinians out of their homes. In 1951 Israel built a Jewish only settlement on Najd land.

It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force and it is illegal to annex occupied territory.

So, how did Israel acquire that land?

(COMMENT)

Implied Data:

• Before the beginning of the 1948 war:

∆ The Arab-Israeli War began on 15 May 1948.
∆ There was no State of Israel at that time. The Declaration of Independence was mid-night 14/15 May 1948, declared by cable.
∆ Mandate ends mid-night 14/15 May.​

• Najd was attacked and occupied by Zionist:

∆ Zionist, at that time, were Palestinians under the Citizenship Order.
​

This specific event describes a conflict between two factions of the same territory, under the same citizenship.

√ It is an engagement between Arab and Jewish faction of the territory under the Mandate for Palestine.
​

Implied Accusations:

• illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force
• illegal to annex occupied territory
• driving the Palestinians out of their homes
​

There was no declared state of Israel at that time. So there was not "state" to accuse of violating Article 2(4) of the Charter. At that time, the principle of "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war (force) would not be "enunciated for the first time in Security Council resolution 242 (1967)," nearly two decades into the future.

Article 2(4) did not apply to non-international conflicts (NIAC) (Palestinian Citizen on Palestinian Citizen). Article 2(4) applied only to members of the UN. That condition would not be true until 11 May 1949, a year after your "BEFORE" date.

Article 49, of the Geneva Convention does not apply.

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
​

At the time of the described event:

• The was NO forcible transfer from "occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country."
√ No Arabs were transfer or deported outside the territory to which the Mandate applied.
​

Nothing was illegal under international law, as you imply; as you have described the event.

(SIDE NOTE)

Yes, I acknowledge that Professor Benny Morris (Israeli Historian) mentions the village Najd and the event. I acknowledge that the Israel village of Sredot was built just south of that village. In 1951, the State of Israel had been proclaimed and admitted to the UN. Any village, constructed inside the territory to which Israel claimed sovereignty (inside the Armistice Lines), is infrastructure for Israeli's. Just as any city built in the US is infrastructure for Americans. There is nothing unusual in that.

EXCERPT: PLO-Negotiation Affair Department Version

Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote (November 1947), organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Challenger]

Any village, constructed inside the territory to which Israel claimed sovereignty (inside the Armistice Lines), is infrastructure for Israeli's.

This is interesting. Can you provide a link or other information, I could look up as to when and how exactly Israel claimed sovereignty over the territory it had captured and occupied by 1948-9?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are making a timeline mistake. Let me chop a few trees down for you, so you can see better.

I think it is that we cannot see the forest for the trees. Let's narrow this down for a closer look.

Najd was an agricultural village of about three hundred people at the beginning of the Ottoman Empire. It had grown to about seven hundred people by the end of the mandate period.

Before the beginning of the 1948 war, Najd was attacked and occupied by Zionist forces driving the Palestinians out of their homes. In 1951 Israel built a Jewish only settlement on Najd land.

It is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force and it is illegal to annex occupied territory.

So, how did Israel acquire that land?

(COMMENT)

Implied Data:

• Before the beginning of the 1948 war:

∆ The Arab-Israeli War began on 15 May 1948.
∆ There was no State of Israel at that time. The Declaration of Independence was mid-night 14/15 May 1948, declared by cable.
∆ Mandate ends mid-night 14/15 May.​

• Najd was attacked and occupied by Zionist:

∆ Zionist, at that time, were Palestinians under the Citizenship Order.
​

This specific event describes a conflict between two factions of the same territory, under the same citizenship.

√ It is an engagement between Arab and Jewish faction of the territory under the Mandate for Palestine.
​

Implied Accusations:

• illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force
• illegal to annex occupied territory
• driving the Palestinians out of their homes
​

There was no declared state of Israel at that time. So there was not "state" to accuse of violating Article 2(4) of the Charter. At that time, the principle of "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war (force) would not be "enunciated for the first time in Security Council resolution 242 (1967)," nearly two decades into the future.

Article 2(4) did not apply to non-international conflicts (NIAC) (Palestinian Citizen on Palestinian Citizen). Article 2(4) applied only to members of the UN. That condition would not be true until 11 May 1949, a year after your "BEFORE" date.

Article 49, of the Geneva Convention does not apply.

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
​

At the time of the described event:

• The was NO forcible transfer from "occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country."
√ No Arabs were transfer or deported outside the territory to which the Mandate applied.
​

Nothing was illegal under international law, as you imply; as you have described the event.

(SIDE NOTE)

Yes, I acknowledge that Professor Benny Morris (Israeli Historian) mentions the village Najd and the event. I acknowledge that the Israel village of Sredot was built just south of that village. In 1951, the State of Israel had been proclaimed and admitted to the UN. Any village, constructed inside the territory to which Israel claimed sovereignty (inside the Armistice Lines), is infrastructure for Israeli's. Just as any city built in the US is infrastructure for Americans. There is nothing unusual in that.

EXCERPT: PLO-Negotiation Affair Department Version

Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote (November 1947), organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Nice load of verbosity there, Rocco, but you didn't answer the question.

So, how did Israel acquire that land?

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

Well, let's see if we can help.

Sovereignty is established by the nation that will place a claim sovereignty over a specific territory. By claim, we mean, Israel states its intention to extend and defense it exclusive jurisdiction.

The [United Nations] Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members” (UN Charter, Article 2.1). This principle was elaborated in the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law (GA Res 2625(XXV)(1970)) in the following terms:

All States enjoy sovereign equality. They have equal rights and duties and are equal members of the international community, notwithstanding differences of an economic, social, political or other nature.

In particular, sovereign equality includes the following elements:

(a) States are juridically equal;

(b) Each state enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty;

(c) Each state has the duty to respect the personality of other states;

(d) The territorial integrity and political independence of the state are inviolable;

(e) Each state has the right freely to choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural systems;

(f) Each state has the duty to comply fully and in good faith with its international obligations and to live in peace with other states.”

Any village, constructed inside the territory to which Israel claimed sovereignty (inside the Armistice Lines), is infrastructure for Israeli's.

This is interesting. Can you provide a link or other information, I could look up as to when and how exactly Israel claimed sovereignty over the territory it had captured and occupied by 1948-9?

(REFERENCES)

I generally start my my research from the standpoint of what the Arab Palestinians believe to be true.

• PLO-NAD (Borders)
​

It is also important to understand what was discussed. Included in the recognition process, and enclosed as part of A/RES/273 (III) 11 MAY 1949, were TWO important notions and references: 1) The Declaration and Explanations, and 2) implementation of the of resolutions [A/RES/181 (II) and A/RES/194 (III)]:

• Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 and 11 December 1948 and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions. Including the State of Israel, in its 1949 form, which Mr. C. MALIK (Lebanese Representative) brought to the floor of the Assembly for examination and discussion, and which Lebanon (and other members of the Arab League) believed were in direct contravention to the recommendations of the United Nations in at least 3 important respects:

∆ In its attitude on the problem of Arab refugees,
∆ On the delimitation of its territorial boundaries,
∆ On the question of Jerusalem.
​

And it is important to the discussion on the position of the outcome of the Armistice in 1949:

History - The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
Unification of the Two Banks:

As a result of the war, many Palestinian Arabs from the Jordanian-controlled areas found that union with Jordan was of vital importance to the preservation of Arab control over the “West Bank” territories which had not fallen to the Israelis. Consequently, in December 1948, a group of Palestinian leaders and notables from the West Bank convened a historic conference in Jericho, where they called for King Abdullah to take immediate steps to unite the two banks of the Jordan into a single state under his leadership.

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

(COMMENT)

Israel has established a physical border, and performs daily protection of that border (Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty). Sovereignty (Eric Brahm September 2004, Beyond Intractability) (See complete citation below) is inherent to the government of Israel. It is not awarded by an outside authority and it is not a contract between authorities. Sovereignty:

1) It is that influence of governance that extends supreme dominion, exclusive authority, and jurisdiction over a territory.
2) The supreme political authority of the Independent State of Israel.
3) A sovereign state "is not subject, within its territorial jurisdiction, to the governmental, executive, legislative, or judicial jurisdiction of a foreign State or to the external authority of any foreign power; without its consent.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

• Brahm, Eric. "Sovereignty." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: September 2004 <Sovereignty | Beyond Intractability>.
• Posted 24th November 2012 by abdul qadir Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty. International law generally recognizes five modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty,
• State Territory and Territorial Sovereignty, Dr. WALID ABDULRAHIM, Professor of Law, Beirut Arab University, Faculty of Law and Political Science​

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

one more time.

Nice load of verbosity there, Rocco, but you didn't answer the question.

So, how did Israel acquire that land?

(COMMENT)

Exercised the Right of Self-determination, and established control over the territory. See Posting #1049 where I answered the question directly.

You keep asking the question as if you expect to get a different answer.

Most Respectfully,
R

REPRINT: Your question and the answer.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Humm --- This is a trick question.

How and when did Israel acquire its territory again?

(COMMENT)

• HOW: The exercise of the "Right to Self-determination (Article 1(2) of Charter)," using the "Steps Preparatory to Independence," as recommended by the UN General Assembly, as a quasi-guide and template; and by expanding and extending of sovereignty over territory.

• WHEN:

• May 1948.
• June 1967.
• December 1967.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Challenger, et al,

Well, let's see if we can help.

Sovereignty is established by the nation that will place a claim sovereignty over a specific territory. By claim, we mean, Israel states its intention to extend and defense it exclusive jurisdiction.

The [United Nations] Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members” (UN Charter, Article 2.1). This principle was elaborated in the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law (GA Res 2625(XXV)(1970)) in the following terms:

All States enjoy sovereign equality. They have equal rights and duties and are equal members of the international community, notwithstanding differences of an economic, social, political or other nature.

In particular, sovereign equality includes the following elements:

(a) States are juridically equal;

(b) Each state enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty;

(c) Each state has the duty to respect the personality of other states;

(d) The territorial integrity and political independence of the state are inviolable;

(e) Each state has the right freely to choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural systems;

(f) Each state has the duty to comply fully and in good faith with its international obligations and to live in peace with other states.”

Any village, constructed inside the territory to which Israel claimed sovereignty (inside the Armistice Lines), is infrastructure for Israeli's.

This is interesting. Can you provide a link or other information, I could look up as to when and how exactly Israel claimed sovereignty over the territory it had captured and occupied by 1948-9?

(REFERENCES)

I generally start my my research from the standpoint of what the Arab Palestinians believe to be true.

• PLO-NAD (Borders)
​

It is also important to understand what was discussed. Included in the recognition process, and enclosed as part of A/RES/273 (III) 11 MAY 1949, were TWO important notions and references: 1) The Declaration and Explanations, and 2) implementation of the of resolutions [A/RES/181 (II) and A/RES/194 (III)]:

• Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 and 11 December 1948 and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions. Including the State of Israel, in its 1949 form, which Mr. C. MALIK (Lebanese Representative) brought to the floor of the Assembly for examination and discussion, and which Lebanon (and other members of the Arab League) believed were in direct contravention to the recommendations of the United Nations in at least 3 important respects:

∆ In its attitude on the problem of Arab refugees,
∆ On the delimitation of its territorial boundaries,
∆ On the question of Jerusalem.
​

And it is important to the discussion on the position of the outcome of the Armistice in 1949:

History - The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
Unification of the Two Banks:

As a result of the war, many Palestinian Arabs from the Jordanian-controlled areas found that union with Jordan was of vital importance to the preservation of Arab control over the “West Bank” territories which had not fallen to the Israelis. Consequently, in December 1948, a group of Palestinian leaders and notables from the West Bank convened a historic conference in Jericho, where they called for King Abdullah to take immediate steps to unite the two banks of the Jordan into a single state under his leadership.

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

(COMMENT)

Israel has established a physical border, and performs daily protection of that border (Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty). Sovereignty (Eric Brahm September 2004, Beyond Intractability) (See complete citation below) is inherent to the government of Israel. It is not awarded by an outside authority and it is not a contract between authorities. Sovereignty:

1) It is that influence of governance that extends supreme dominion, exclusive authority, and jurisdiction over a territory.
2) The supreme political authority of the Independent State of Israel.
3) A sovereign state "is not subject, within its territorial jurisdiction, to the governmental, executive, legislative, or judicial jurisdiction of a foreign State or to the external authority of any foreign power; without its consent.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

• Brahm, Eric. "Sovereignty." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: September 2004 <Sovereignty | Beyond Intractability>.
• Posted 24th November 2012 by abdul qadir Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty. International law generally recognizes five modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty,
• State Territory and Territorial Sovereignty, Dr. WALID ABDULRAHIM, Professor of Law, Beirut Arab University, Faculty of Law and Political Science​

Israel has established a physical border, and performs daily protection of that border (Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty). Sovereignty (Eric Brahm September 2004, Beyond Intractability)

Do you mean like this? From your link.

(1) Occupation​

: When a particular territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation. The territory may never have belonged to any state, or it may have been abandoned by the previous sovereign. The PCIJ( permanent court of international justice) held that the occupation to be effective must consist of the following two elements
(i) intention to occupy. Such intention must be formally expressed and it must be permanent.
(ii) occupation should be peaceful, continuous.​