Who Are The Palestinians?

[Phoenall]

Show me a map of Palestine that clearly identifies all her internationally recognized boundaries. Not a map that says partition plan.

So what exactly does this prove as it has no legend to say what it shows.

Oh jeese, why do you want to embarrass yourself? Obviously the dotted lines are the international borders.

Article V

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

The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949​

You can look in the other armistice agreements and see the same thing.

Firstly it is not obvious as there are no words to say these are the International borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. No legend means it does not tell you anything at all

If you look at the armistice agreements you will see that they very clear state that these are not to be seen as international borders.


So once again you let yourself be shown as a complete idiot as usual.

That is correct. The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders.

The armistice lines were to follow, not erase or replace, the existing international borders.

So why did you claim that they were the international borders of Palestine.

Still waiting for the map of palestines international borders, that is the nation of Palestine and not the Mandate of Palestine.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So what exactly does this prove as it has no legend to say what it shows.

Oh jeese, why do you want to embarrass yourself? Obviously the dotted lines are the international borders.

Article V

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

The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949​

You can look in the other armistice agreements and see the same thing.

Firstly it is not obvious as there are no words to say these are the International borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. No legend means it does not tell you anything at all

If you look at the armistice agreements you will see that they very clear state that these are not to be seen as international borders.


So once again you let yourself be shown as a complete idiot as usual.

That is correct. The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders.

The armistice lines were to follow, not erase or replace, the existing international borders.

So why did you claim that they were the international borders of Palestine.

Still waiting for the map of palestines international borders, that is the nation of Palestine and not the Mandate of Palestine.

So why did you claim that they were the international borders of Palestine.​

I didn't.

 

[toastman]

So once again, Tinmore has failed to provide proof of the alleged internationally accepted boundaries of 'Palestine'

 

[RoccoR]

toastman, Phoenall, et al,

This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition." There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:

• the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied (less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan) was under (some heretofore unknown) Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
  • and govern by an unknown Arab body,
  • which exercised some unknown Arab law,
  • over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.

(COMMENT)

This loose knit Arab entity, making such claims (the nature of which they themselves argue over), --- attempts to establish the veracity of the claim through the use of the evolving laws and treaties, ethical concepts, and philosophical principles, --- which were all written by --- and established relevant to --- these very disputes and issues by the Allied Powers (not the undefined Arab Leadership which is attempting to establish claim over the territory in question).

In 1918 and 1919, there was but one recognized Arab Leader extending Arab authority over the area designated Palestine by the Allied Powers (when the Ottoman Empire surrendered their remaining garrisons outside Anatolia), as representing the Arab interests. And leader, HRH the Emir FAISAL, representing and acting on behalf of the Sharif of Mecca and Arab Kingdom of Hejaz, was the only Arab Leaders in alliance with the British Forces. This was even before the League of Nations wrote its Covenant.

It should be noted that the Sharifian Army of the Hejaz were the Arab Allies in the Middle East against the Forces of the Ottoman Empire; NOT Arab Palestinians. And it was HRH Emir Faisal (son to King Hussein bin Ali of the Hejaz and Sharif of Mecca) that negotiated with Chaim Azriel Weizmann (Principle Representative for the Zionists) matters pertaining to their national aspirations in the region. The first agreement pledged by Emir Faisal and Representative Weizmann (and the first pledge to be broken) was:

"The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in their respective territories. (ARTICEL 1)"​

While the Allied Force were obligated to Emir Faisal (and King Hussein bin Ali) for their contribution to the war effort, King Hussein bin Ali was the head of the Hashemite Family of the Bedouins from the central Arab Arabian Peninsula (all together different from the collaborating Arab of Palestine). While King Hussein bin Ali was the Sharif of Mecca and Medina (the most holy cities in Islam), the Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini, was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and Muslim leader in Mandatory Palestine and served in the Ottoman army in WWI (as did many Arab Palestinians - opposing forces of the Allied Powers); accepting a commission in the Ottoman Army as an officer (Combat Arms) and was assigned to the 47th Arty Brigade. After the transition of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) terminated operations in Palestine and passed its authority to the Civil Administration for the Mandate, all Forces of the Ottoman Empire had been repatriated. In return to civilian life --- Hajj Mohammed al-Husseini became an anti-Mandate Political Activist and Islamic Leader, eventually becoming the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. In addition to the Grand Mufti having a direct hand in the encouragement of the riots in 1929, the Grand Mufti also provided direct cover for Izz ad-Din al-Qassam by approving his appointment as an Imam to a Haifa Mosque and provided material and financial assistance so that al-Qassam could better conduct his clandestine activities as the leader of the Palestinian Black Hand against Jewish activities.

[NOTE into the FUTURE: During WWII (1941) Grand Mufti Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini with Adolf Hitler and Ribbentrop (Foreign Minister of Germany), the Grand Mufti expressed Arab allegiance with Germany against their common enemy the English, the Communists and (of course) the Jewish. The Grand Mufti had also encouraged young Muslims to take-up arms against the Allied Powers in WWII as he had done in WWI.]​

The Arab Leadership that had cooperated and not betrayed the Allied causes in the Middle East, were the Arab Leaders which realized the promise of Independence. The was no general promise made to the Arabs either by treaty of covenant. It was "certain communities" and "provisional recognition;" not a specific obligation or promise to Arabs that opposed the Allied Forces (either in WWI, the Mandate Period, or WWII). Few nations in the world reward Arab Nations that raised arms against them.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]

 

[MJB12741]

toastman, Phoenall, et al,

This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition." There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:

• the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied (less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan) was under (some heretofore unknown) Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
  • and govern by an unknown Arab body,
  • which exercised some unknown Arab law,
  • over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.

Palestine has mutual and undisputed borders with all of its neighbors.
What is there to negotiate?

Show me a map of Palestine that clearly identifies all her internationally recognized boundaries. Not a map that says partition plan.

QUOTE]
So what exactly does this prove as it has no legend to say what it shows.

It proves that Tinmore cannot handle the truth that 'Palestine' does not have internationally recognized boundaries.

(COMMENT)



This loose knit Arab entity, making such claims (the nature of which they themselves argue over), --- attempts to establish the veracity of the claim through the use of the evolving laws and treaties, ethical concepts, and philosophical principles, --- which were all written by --- and established relevant to --- these very disputes and issues by the Allied Powers (not the undefined Arab Leadership which is attempting to establish claim over the territory in question).

In 1918 and 1919, there was but one recognized Arab Leader extending Arab authority over the area designated Palestine by the Allied Powers (when the Ottoman Empire surrendered their remaining garrisons outside Anatolia), as representing the Arab interests. And leader, HRH the Emir FAISAL, representing and acting on behalf of the Sharif of Mecca and Arab Kingdom of Hejaz, was the only Arab Leaders in alliance with the British Forces. This was even before the League of Nations wrote its Covenant.

It should be noted that the Sharifian Army of the Hejaz were the Arab Allies in the Middle East against the Forces of the Ottoman Empire; NOT Arab Palestinians. And it was HRH Emir Faisal (son to King Hussein bin Ali of the Hejaz and Sharif of Mecca) that negotiated with Chaim Azriel Weizmann (Principle Representative for the Zionists) matters pertaining to their national aspirations in the region. The first agreement pledged by Emir Faisal and Representative Weizmann (and the first pledge to be broken) was:

"The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in their respective territories. (ARTICEL 1)"​

While the Allied Force were obligated to Emir Faisal (and King Hussein bin Ali) for their contribution to the war effort, King Hussein bin Ali was the head of the Hashemite Family of the Bedouins from the central Arab Arabian Peninsula (all together different from the collaborating Arab of Palestine). While King Hussein bin Ali was the Sharif of Mecca and Medina (the most holy cities in Islam), the Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini, was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and Muslim leader in Mandatory Palestine and served in the Ottoman army in WWI (as did many Arab Palestinians - opposing forces of the Allied Powers); accepting a commission in the Ottoman Army as an officer (Combat Arms) and was assigned to the 47th Arty Brigade. After the transition of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) terminated operations in Palestine and passed its authority to the Civil Administration for the Mandate, all Forces of the Ottoman Empire had been repatriated. In return to civilian life --- Hajj Mohammed al-Husseini became an anti-Mandate Political Activist and Islamic Leader, eventually becoming the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. In addition to the Grand Mufti having a direct hand in the encouragement of the riots in 1929, the Grand Mufti also provided direct cover for Izz ad-Din al-Qassam by approving his appointment as an Imam to a Haifa Mosque and provided material and financial assistance so that al-Qassam could better conduct his clandestine activities as the leader of the Palestinian Black Hand against Jewish activities.

[NOTE into the FUTURE: During WWII (1941) Grand Mufti Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini with Adolf Hitler and Ribbentrop (Foreign Minister of Germany), the Grand Mufti expressed Arab allegiance with Germany against their common enemy the English, the Communists and (of course) the Jewish. The Grand Mufti had also encouraged young Muslims to take-up arms against the Allied Powers in WWII as he had done in WWI.]​

The Arab Leadership that had cooperated and not betrayed the Allied causes in the Middle East, were the Arab Leaders which realized the promise of Independence. The was no general promise made to the Arabs either by treaty of covenant. It was "certain communities" and "provisional recognition;" not a specific obligation or promise to Arabs that opposed the Allied Forces (either in WWI, the Mandate Period, or WWII). Few nations in the world reward Arab Nations that raised arms against them.

Most Respectfully,
R

toastman, Phoenall, et al,

This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition." There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:

• the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied (less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan) was under (some heretofore unknown) Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
  • and govern by an unknown Arab body,
  • which exercised some unknown Arab law,
  • over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.

Palestine has mutual and undisputed borders with all of its neighbors.
What is there to negotiate?

Show me a map of Palestine that clearly identifies all her internationally recognized boundaries. Not a map that says partition plan.

QUOTE]
So what exactly does this prove as it has no legend to say what it shows.

It proves that Tinmore cannot handle the truth that 'Palestine' does not have internationally recognized boundaries.

(COMMENT)

This loose knit Arab entity, making such claims (the nature of which they themselves argue over), --- attempts to establish the veracity of the claim through the use of the evolving laws and treaties, ethical concepts, and philosophical principles, --- which were all written by --- and established relevant to --- these very disputes and issues by the Allied Powers (not the undefined Arab Leadership which is attempting to establish claim over the territory in question).

In 1918 and 1919, there was but one recognized Arab Leader extending Arab authority over the area designated Palestine by the Allied Powers (when the Ottoman Empire surrendered their remaining garrisons outside Anatolia), as representing the Arab interests. And leader, HRH the Emir FAISAL, representing and acting on behalf of the Sharif of Mecca and Arab Kingdom of Hejaz, was the only Arab Leaders in alliance with the British Forces. This was even before the League of Nations wrote its Covenant.

It should be noted that the Sharifian Army of the Hejaz were the Arab Allies in the Middle East against the Forces of the Ottoman Empire; NOT Arab Palestinians. And it was HRH Emir Faisal (son to King Hussein bin Ali of the Hejaz and Sharif of Mecca) that negotiated with Chaim Azriel Weizmann (Principle Representative for the Zionists) matters pertaining to their national aspirations in the region. The first agreement pledged by Emir Faisal and Representative Weizmann (and the first pledge to be broken) was:

"The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in their respective territories. (ARTICEL 1)"​

While the Allied Force were obligated to Emir Faisal (and King Hussein bin Ali) for their contribution to the war effort, King Hussein bin Ali was the head of the Hashemite Family of the Bedouins from the central Arab Arabian Peninsula (all together different from the collaborating Arab of Palestine). While King Hussein bin Ali was the Sharif of Mecca and Medina (the most holy cities in Islam), the Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini, was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and Muslim leader in Mandatory Palestine and served in the Ottoman army in WWI (as did many Arab Palestinians - opposing forces of the Allied Powers); accepting a commission in the Ottoman Army as an officer (Combat Arms) and was assigned to the 47th Arty Brigade. After the transition of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) terminated operations in Palestine and passed its authority to the Civil Administration for the Mandate, all Forces of the Ottoman Empire had been repatriated. In return to civilian life --- Hajj Mohammed al-Husseini became an anti-Mandate Political Activist and Islamic Leader, eventually becoming the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. In addition to the Grand Mufti having a direct hand in the encouragement of the riots in 1929, the Grand Mufti also provided direct cover for Izz ad-Din al-Qassam by approving his appointment as an Imam to a Haifa Mosque and provided material and financial assistance so that al-Qassam could better conduct his clandestine activities as the leader of the Palestinian Black Hand against Jewish activities.

[NOTE into the FUTURE: During WWII (1941) Grand Mufti Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini with Adolf Hitler and Ribbentrop (Foreign Minister of Germany), the Grand Mufti expressed Arab allegiance with Germany against their common enemy the English, the Communists and (of course) the Jewish. The Grand Mufti had also encouraged young Muslims to take-up arms against the Allied Powers in WWII as he had done in WWI.]​

The Arab Leadership that had cooperated and not betrayed the Allied causes in the Middle East, were the Arab Leaders which realized the promise of Independence. The was no general promise made to the Arabs either by treaty of covenant. It was "certain communities" and "provisional recognition;" not a specific obligation or promise to Arabs that opposed the Allied Forces (either in WWI, the Mandate Period, or WWII). Few nations in the world reward Arab Nations that raised arms against them.

Most Respectfully,
R

All true what you say. Bottom line is as an internatioanlly recognized country ISRAEL IS. And PALESTINE IS NOT.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a child-like answer to an incredibly complex issue.

That is correct. The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders.

The armistice lines were to follow, not erase or replace, the existing international borders.

(COMMENT)

Armistice Lines are in the family of "demarcation lines."

Our friend "P F Tinmore" is correct in that by stipulation in these particular Agreements (the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and neighboring states of Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria) were NOT permanent border arrangements but were intended to serve only as interim agreements until replaced by permanent peace treaties. There have been two treaties signed since the Armistice Arrangements were put in place. The one between Israel and Egypt (1979)(See Article II pertaining to the permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel) and the one between Israel and Jordan (1995)(See Article 3 pertaining to the international boundary between Israel and Jordan). The original four Armistice Agreements were protected by the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 between the United States, Britain and France.

• NOTE: There is an argument to be made that the internationally recognized border between Egypt and Israel is not totally resolved based on the insert phrase that "without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip." This is a small sector of the border in the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. However, the PLO (the sole representative if the Palestinian People) had not established independence (PLO DoI 1988). Thus the meaning or impact is unclear.

• NOTE: The border between Israel and Jordan (except for Jordan's border with the post-1967 West Bank) was similarly affected by the insertion of the phrase "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967." However, the PLO had declared independence and there was an acknowledgement in 1988 by the UN that "Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967."

Then there is the introduction of the Oslo Accords:

• Oslo I: Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (1993) Recognition of each other's existence.
  • Israel agreed to recognize Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
  • Palestinians agreed to renounce the use of terrorism.

• Oslo II: Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (1995) divided into three areas:
  • Area "A" --- one under exclusive Palestinian control;
  • Area "B" --- one where Palestinians had civilian control and Israelis controlled security;
  • Area "C" --- one area that would be controlled exclusively by Israel.

The importance of this, RELATIVE TO THE QUESTION of borders and recognition is that Israel and the PLO/State of Palestine agreed to recognize one and the other. This goes back to the importance of understanding Post #828 and the difference between the "declarative view" and the "constitutive view." It also helps explain the difference between those Palestinians that understand the PLO-NAD Position on borders --- and those that only pursue the Jihadis and Fedayeen view.

Remember, under international law, it does not require the Palestinians to recognize the borders of Israel, nor does it require the recognition of any of the adjancent Arab Nations. All the is required is that Israel be able to defend the borders it claims --- the difference between "declarative" (Palestinian talk) and "constitutive" (Israeli ability).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a child-like answer to an incredibly complex issue.

That is correct. The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders.

The armistice lines were to follow, not erase or replace, the existing international borders.

(COMMENT)

Armistice Lines are in the family of "demarcation lines."

Our friend "P F Tinmore" is correct in that by stipulation in these particular Agreements (the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and neighboring states of Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria) were NOT permanent border arrangements but were intended to serve only as interim agreements until replaced by permanent peace treaties. There have been two treaties signed since the Armistice Arrangements were put in place. The one between Israel and Egypt (1979)(See Article II pertaining to the permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel) and the one between Israel and Jordan (1995)(See Article 3 pertaining to the international boundary between Israel and Jordan). The original four Armistice Agreements were protected by the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 between the United States, Britain and France.

• NOTE: There is an argument to be made that the internationally recognized border between Egypt and Israel is not totally resolved based on the insert phrase that "without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip." This is a small sector of the border in the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. However, the PLO (the sole representative if the Palestinian People) had not established independence (PLO DoI 1988). Thus the meaning or impact is unclear.

• NOTE: The border between Israel and Jordan (except for Jordan's border with the post-1967 West Bank) was similarly affected by the insertion of the phrase "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967." However, the PLO had declared independence and there was an acknowledgement in 1988 by the UN that "Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967."

Then there is the introduction of the Oslo Accords:

• Oslo I: Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (1993) Recognition of each other's existence.
  • Israel agreed to recognize Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
  • Palestinians agreed to renounce the use of terrorism.

• Oslo II: Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (1995) divided into three areas:
  • Area "A" --- one under exclusive Palestinian control;
  • Area "B" --- one where Palestinians had civilian control and Israelis controlled security;
  • Area "C" --- one area that would be controlled exclusively by Israel.

The importance of this, RELATIVE TO THE QUESTION of borders and recognition is that Israel and the PLO/State of Palestine agreed to recognize one and the other. This goes back to the importance of understanding Post #828 and the difference between the "declarative view" and the "constitutive view." It also helps explain the difference between those Palestinians that understand the PLO-NAD Position on borders --- and those that only pursue the Jihadis and Fedayeen view.

Remember, under international law, it does not require the Palestinians to recognize the borders of Israel, nor does it require the recognition of any of the adjancent Arab Nations. All the is required is that Israel be able to defend the borders it claims --- the difference between "declarative" (Palestinian talk) and "constitutive" (Israeli ability).

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, does the State of Palestine have internationally recognized borders? Yes, or No ??

 

[RoccoR]

toastman, et al,

Yes!!! It can be viewed from several different perspectives.

Rocco, does the State of Palestine have internationally recognized borders? Yes, or No ??

(ANSWER Perspective Relevant)

UN Recognition:
A/RES/43/177 Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;

Israel-PLO Recognition:
Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat

Published PLO Negotiation Affairs Bureau
2. Key Facts

• 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.

v/r
R

 

[montelatici]

toastman, Phoenall, et al,

This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition." There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:

• the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied (less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan) was under (some heretofore unknown) Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
  • and govern by an unknown Arab body,
  • which exercised some unknown Arab law,
  • over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.

(COMMENT)

This loose knit Arab entity, making such claims (the nature of which they themselves argue over), --- attempts to establish the veracity of the claim through the use of the evolving laws and treaties, ethical concepts, and philosophical principles, --- which were all written by --- and established relevant to --- these very disputes and issues by the Allied Powers (not the undefined Arab Leadership which is attempting to establish claim over the territory in question).

In 1918 and 1919, there was but one recognized Arab Leader extending Arab authority over the area designated Palestine by the Allied Powers (when the Ottoman Empire surrendered their remaining garrisons outside Anatolia), as representing the Arab interests. And leader, HRH the Emir FAISAL, representing and acting on behalf of the Sharif of Mecca and Arab Kingdom of Hejaz, was the only Arab Leaders in alliance with the British Forces. This was even before the League of Nations wrote its Covenant.

It should be noted that the Sharifian Army of the Hejaz were the Arab Allies in the Middle East against the Forces of the Ottoman Empire; NOT Arab Palestinians. And it was HRH Emir Faisal (son to King Hussein bin Ali of the Hejaz and Sharif of Mecca) that negotiated with Chaim Azriel Weizmann (Principle Representative for the Zionists) matters pertaining to their national aspirations in the region. The first agreement pledged by Emir Faisal and Representative Weizmann (and the first pledge to be broken) was:

"The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in their respective territories. (ARTICEL 1)"​

While the Allied Force were obligated to Emir Faisal (and King Hussein bin Ali) for their contribution to the war effort, King Hussein bin Ali was the head of the Hashemite Family of the Bedouins from the central Arab Arabian Peninsula (all together different from the collaborating Arab of Palestine). While King Hussein bin Ali was the Sharif of Mecca and Medina (the most holy cities in Islam), the Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini, was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and Muslim leader in Mandatory Palestine and served in the Ottoman army in WWI (as did many Arab Palestinians - opposing forces of the Allied Powers); accepting a commission in the Ottoman Army as an officer (Combat Arms) and was assigned to the 47th Arty Brigade. After the transition of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) terminated operations in Palestine and passed its authority to the Civil Administration for the Mandate, all Forces of the Ottoman Empire had been repatriated. In return to civilian life --- Hajj Mohammed al-Husseini became an anti-Mandate Political Activist and Islamic Leader, eventually becoming the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. In addition to the Grand Mufti having a direct hand in the encouragement of the riots in 1929, the Grand Mufti also provided direct cover for Izz ad-Din al-Qassam by approving his appointment as an Imam to a Haifa Mosque and provided material and financial assistance so that al-Qassam could better conduct his clandestine activities as the leader of the Palestinian Black Hand against Jewish activities.

[NOTE into the FUTURE: During WWII (1941) Grand Mufti Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini with Adolf Hitler and Ribbentrop (Foreign Minister of Germany), the Grand Mufti expressed Arab allegiance with Germany against their common enemy the English, the Communists and (of course) the Jewish. The Grand Mufti had also encouraged young Muslims to take-up arms against the Allied Powers in WWII as he had done in WWI.]​

The Arab Leadership that had cooperated and not betrayed the Allied causes in the Middle East, were the Arab Leaders which realized the promise of Independence. The was no general promise made to the Arabs either by treaty of covenant. It was "certain communities" and "provisional recognition;" not a specific obligation or promise to Arabs that opposed the Allied Forces (either in WWI, the Mandate Period, or WWII). Few nations in the world reward Arab Nations that raised arms against them.

Most Respectfully,
R

[/QUOTE]

Rocco et al.

In all cases, whether "certain communities" of the former "Turkish Empire" that received "provisional recognition" or not, the Covenant of the League of Nations issued Mandates to further the development of the inhabitants. To wit:

"To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

The Mandates did not give the Mandatories the right to displace the inhabitants in order to establish a colony for Europeans.

 

[toastman]

toastman, Phoenall, et al,

This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition." There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:

• the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied (less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan) was under (some heretofore unknown) Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
  • and govern by an unknown Arab body,
  • which exercised some unknown Arab law,
  • over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.

(COMMENT)

This loose knit Arab entity, making such claims (the nature of which they themselves argue over), --- attempts to establish the veracity of the claim through the use of the evolving laws and treaties, ethical concepts, and philosophical principles, --- which were all written by --- and established relevant to --- these very disputes and issues by the Allied Powers (not the undefined Arab Leadership which is attempting to establish claim over the territory in question).

In 1918 and 1919, there was but one recognized Arab Leader extending Arab authority over the area designated Palestine by the Allied Powers (when the Ottoman Empire surrendered their remaining garrisons outside Anatolia), as representing the Arab interests. And leader, HRH the Emir FAISAL, representing and acting on behalf of the Sharif of Mecca and Arab Kingdom of Hejaz, was the only Arab Leaders in alliance with the British Forces. This was even before the League of Nations wrote its Covenant.

It should be noted that the Sharifian Army of the Hejaz were the Arab Allies in the Middle East against the Forces of the Ottoman Empire; NOT Arab Palestinians. And it was HRH Emir Faisal (son to King Hussein bin Ali of the Hejaz and Sharif of Mecca) that negotiated with Chaim Azriel Weizmann (Principle Representative for the Zionists) matters pertaining to their national aspirations in the region. The first agreement pledged by Emir Faisal and Representative Weizmann (and the first pledge to be broken) was:

"The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in their respective territories. (ARTICEL 1)"​

While the Allied Force were obligated to Emir Faisal (and King Hussein bin Ali) for their contribution to the war effort, King Hussein bin Ali was the head of the Hashemite Family of the Bedouins from the central Arab Arabian Peninsula (all together different from the collaborating Arab of Palestine). While King Hussein bin Ali was the Sharif of Mecca and Medina (the most holy cities in Islam), the Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini, was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and Muslim leader in Mandatory Palestine and served in the Ottoman army in WWI (as did many Arab Palestinians - opposing forces of the Allied Powers); accepting a commission in the Ottoman Army as an officer (Combat Arms) and was assigned to the 47th Arty Brigade. After the transition of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) terminated operations in Palestine and passed its authority to the Civil Administration for the Mandate, all Forces of the Ottoman Empire had been repatriated. In return to civilian life --- Hajj Mohammed al-Husseini became an anti-Mandate Political Activist and Islamic Leader, eventually becoming the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. In addition to the Grand Mufti having a direct hand in the encouragement of the riots in 1929, the Grand Mufti also provided direct cover for Izz ad-Din al-Qassam by approving his appointment as an Imam to a Haifa Mosque and provided material and financial assistance so that al-Qassam could better conduct his clandestine activities as the leader of the Palestinian Black Hand against Jewish activities.

[NOTE into the FUTURE: During WWII (1941) Grand Mufti Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini with Adolf Hitler and Ribbentrop (Foreign Minister of Germany), the Grand Mufti expressed Arab allegiance with Germany against their common enemy the English, the Communists and (of course) the Jewish. The Grand Mufti had also encouraged young Muslims to take-up arms against the Allied Powers in WWII as he had done in WWI.]​

The Arab Leadership that had cooperated and not betrayed the Allied causes in the Middle East, were the Arab Leaders which realized the promise of Independence. The was no general promise made to the Arabs either by treaty of covenant. It was "certain communities" and "provisional recognition;" not a specific obligation or promise to Arabs that opposed the Allied Forces (either in WWI, the Mandate Period, or WWII). Few nations in the world reward Arab Nations that raised arms against them.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco et al.

In all cases, whether "certain communities" of the former "Turkish Empire" that received "provisional recognition" or not, the Covenant of the League of Nations issued Mandates to further the development of the inhabitants. To wit:

"To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

The Mandates did not give the Mandatories the right to displace the inhabitants in order to establish a colony for Europeans.[/QUOTE]

Israel is a sovereign state , not a colony.

 

[toastman]

toastman, et al,

Yes!!! It can be viewed from several different perspectives.

Rocco, does the State of Palestine have internationally recognized borders? Yes, or No ??

(ANSWER Perspective Relevant)

UN Recognition:
A/RES/43/177 Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;

Israel-PLO Recognition:
Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat

Published PLO Negotiation Affairs Bureau
2. Key Facts

• 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.

v/r
R

Let me rephrase the question: Does Palestine have internationally recognized boundaries with anyone besides Israel ?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, you are are somewhat correct.

The Mandates did not give the Mandatories the right to displace the inhabitants in order to establish a colony for Europeans.

(COMMENT)

• QUESTIONS:
  • Did the Mandate for Palestine actually prohibit the displacement of inhabitants?
  • Did the influence of the Mandate end just because the Mandatory terminated its association and responsibilities?
    • When did the Mandate for Palestine end its authority?
    • Is the Mandate still a legacy authority under Article 80 of the UN Charter?

What actually prohibits the Jewish People from immigrating anywhere in the territory formerly under the Mandate, less Article 25 Territory (Jordan)?

Israel is a sovereign state , not a colony.

(COMMENT)

The Mandate (1922) is a subordinate directive to the Covenant (1919); directing that Mandatory to take any action which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. However, the Covenant has no prohibition on the "displacement or relocation of the inhabitants." And the Covenant does not define the "civil and religious rights" held common in 1919.

The Covenant (Article 23) directs that "just treatment" of the native inhabitants of territories under Member control; in accordance with the provisions of "international conventions" existing or hereafter to be agreed upon.

I am wondering if you can tell me what the 1919 interpretation of "civil and religious" rights were.

You say, that "The Mandates did not give the Mandatories the right to displace the inhabitants in order to establish a colony for Europeans." The argument is that two prong:

• First Prong: that Customary Law in the 18th 19th and early 20th Century did not (including the Covenant and Mandates):
  • prohibit colonizations.
  • prohibit an established sovereignty from making internal population realignments.
  • prohibit an established sovereignty from making internal land reforms.
• Second Prong:
  • The Articles of the Mandate, include the requirement of establishing a Jewish national home.
  • Until the establishment of the Mandate, Palestine’s boundaries had not been defined as a distinct political unit.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

toastman, et al,

'This is the difficult question.

toastman, et al,

Yes!!! It can be viewed from several different perspectives.

Rocco, does the State of Palestine have internationally recognized borders? Yes, or No ??

(ANSWER Perspective Relevant)

UN Recognition:
A/RES/43/177 Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;

Israel-PLO Recognition:
Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat

Published PLO Negotiation Affairs Bureau
2. Key Facts

• 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.

v/r
R

Let me rephrase the question: Does Palestine have internationally recognized boundaries with anyone besides Israel ?

(COMMENT)

• Under the general recognition, the 1988 State of Palestine has borders with Egypt and Jordan.
  • The Allenby Bridge is the only crossing point for Palestinians traveling through the West Bank to Jordan.
  • The Rafah border crossing, between southern Gaza Strip and Egypt.

v/r
R

 

[toastman]

toastman, et al,

'This is the difficult question.

toastman, et al,

Yes!!! It can be viewed from several different perspectives.

Rocco, does the State of Palestine have internationally recognized borders? Yes, or No ??

(ANSWER Perspective Relevant)

UN Recognition:
A/RES/43/177 Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;

Israel-PLO Recognition:
Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat

Published PLO Negotiation Affairs Bureau
2. Key Facts

• 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.

v/r
R

Let me rephrase the question: Does Palestine have internationally recognized boundaries with anyone besides Israel ?

(COMMENT)

• Under the general recognition, the 1988 State of Palestine has borders with Egypt and Jordan.
  • The Allenby Bridge is the only crossing point for Palestinians traveling through the West Bank to Jordan.
  • The Rafah border crossing, between southern Gaza Strip and Egypt.

v/r
R

I'm familiar with those borders, but I don't think they are internationally recognized boundaries

 

[P F Tinmore]

toastman, Phoenall, et al,

This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition." There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:

• the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied (less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan) was under (some heretofore unknown) Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
  • and govern by an unknown Arab body,
  • which exercised some unknown Arab law,
  • over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Who are you trying to fool. I never said any of that.

I don't see any border disputes. I see a lot of say so and lies.

With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).20 The British High Commissioner of Palestine and the French High Commissioner of Syria and Lebanon reached, at Jerusalem on 16 December 1923, a complementary agreement on border issues.21 On 2 February 1926, the agreement was replaced by the Bon Voisinage Agreement to Regulate Certain Administrative Matters in Connection with the Frontier between Palestine and Syria [including Lebanon].22

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

What was the status of these borders in 1949? (After the Mandate left Palestine.)

2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.

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

Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line

The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949
The Avalon Project Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement July 20 1949​

Note that the armistice lines did not divide Israel from the other countries. They were merely lines that the armed forces could not cross. They did not define territory. The international boundaries defined territories.

The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a de facto basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906. The first came in the form of an Exchange of Notes between Britain [which was controlling Egypt since 1882] and Turkey relative to the Maintenance of the Status Quo in the Sinai Peninsula, signed in Constantinople on 14 May.28 The second and more detailed border agreement, was the Agreement between Egypt and Turkey for the fixing of an Administrative Line between the Vilayet [province] of Hejaz and the Governorate [district] of Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula, signed in Rafah, on 1 October.29 The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

What was the status of this border in 1949? (After the Mandate left Palestine.)

1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...

2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the Egypt-Palestine frontier to the point of origin.

4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of entering Palestine.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

Note that the Palestine side of the Egypt-Palestine frontier was still called Palestine in 1949.

The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.8 The Palestine Mandate originally incorporated the territory of Trans-Jordan within the scope of ‘Palestine.’ Article 25 of the Mandate accorded Britain the power, “with consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as… may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions.” Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.10

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

Due to the occupation of the West Bank and other previously arranged demilitarized zones, the armistice line did not follow the border between Jordan and Palestine. However there was an interesting statement.

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions...

The Avalon Project Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement April 3 1949​

The southernmost tip of Palestine was still called Palestine in 1949.

This confirms the creation of Palestine's international borders and that they remained unchanged in 1949. This is the start point of any discussions on land and borders not some political say so decades in the future..

 

[Phoenall]

So what exactly does this prove as it has no legend to say what it shows.

Oh jeese, why do you want to embarrass yourself? Obviously the dotted lines are the international borders.

Article V

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

The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949​

You can look in the other armistice agreements and see the same thing.

Firstly it is not obvious as there are no words to say these are the International borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. No legend means it does not tell you anything at all

If you look at the armistice agreements you will see that they very clear state that these are not to be seen as international borders.


So once again you let yourself be shown as a complete idiot as usual.

That is correct. The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders.

The armistice lines were to follow, not erase or replace, the existing international borders.

So why did you claim that they were the international borders of Palestine.

Still waiting for the map of palestines international borders, that is the nation of Palestine and not the Mandate of Palestine.

So why did you claim that they were the international borders of Palestine.​

I didn't.

Your very own words



Oh jeese, why do you want to embarrass yourself? Obviously the dotted lines are the international borders.

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

The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949

You can look in the other armistice agreements and see the same thing.


Why LIE when the evidemce is just a few posts back.

 

[Phoenall]

toastman, et al,

Yes!!! It can be viewed from several different perspectives.

Rocco, does the State of Palestine have internationally recognized borders? Yes, or No ??

(ANSWER Perspective Relevant)

UN Recognition:
A/RES/43/177 Affirms the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;

Israel-PLO Recognition:
Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat

Published PLO Negotiation Affairs Bureau
2. Key Facts

• 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.

v/r
R

When did these 1967 borders get negotiated and agreed by all parties ?

I say Palestine has no borders until it meets with the requirements of 242 and agrees with Israel, Egypt and Jordan these borders

 

[Phoenall]

toastman, Phoenall, et al,

This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition." There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:

• the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied (less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan) was under (some heretofore unknown) Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
  • and govern by an unknown Arab body,
  • which exercised some unknown Arab law,
  • over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.

(COMMENT)

This loose knit Arab entity, making such claims (the nature of which they themselves argue over), --- attempts to establish the veracity of the claim through the use of the evolving laws and treaties, ethical concepts, and philosophical principles, --- which were all written by --- and established relevant to --- these very disputes and issues by the Allied Powers (not the undefined Arab Leadership which is attempting to establish claim over the territory in question).

In 1918 and 1919, there was but one recognized Arab Leader extending Arab authority over the area designated Palestine by the Allied Powers (when the Ottoman Empire surrendered their remaining garrisons outside Anatolia), as representing the Arab interests. And leader, HRH the Emir FAISAL, representing and acting on behalf of the Sharif of Mecca and Arab Kingdom of Hejaz, was the only Arab Leaders in alliance with the British Forces. This was even before the League of Nations wrote its Covenant.

It should be noted that the Sharifian Army of the Hejaz were the Arab Allies in the Middle East against the Forces of the Ottoman Empire; NOT Arab Palestinians. And it was HRH Emir Faisal (son to King Hussein bin Ali of the Hejaz and Sharif of Mecca) that negotiated with Chaim Azriel Weizmann (Principle Representative for the Zionists) matters pertaining to their national aspirations in the region. The first agreement pledged by Emir Faisal and Representative Weizmann (and the first pledge to be broken) was:

"The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in their respective territories. (ARTICEL 1)"​

While the Allied Force were obligated to Emir Faisal (and King Hussein bin Ali) for their contribution to the war effort, King Hussein bin Ali was the head of the Hashemite Family of the Bedouins from the central Arab Arabian Peninsula (all together different from the collaborating Arab of Palestine). While King Hussein bin Ali was the Sharif of Mecca and Medina (the most holy cities in Islam), the Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini, was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and Muslim leader in Mandatory Palestine and served in the Ottoman army in WWI (as did many Arab Palestinians - opposing forces of the Allied Powers); accepting a commission in the Ottoman Army as an officer (Combat Arms) and was assigned to the 47th Arty Brigade. After the transition of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) terminated operations in Palestine and passed its authority to the Civil Administration for the Mandate, all Forces of the Ottoman Empire had been repatriated. In return to civilian life --- Hajj Mohammed al-Husseini became an anti-Mandate Political Activist and Islamic Leader, eventually becoming the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. In addition to the Grand Mufti having a direct hand in the encouragement of the riots in 1929, the Grand Mufti also provided direct cover for Izz ad-Din al-Qassam by approving his appointment as an Imam to a Haifa Mosque and provided material and financial assistance so that al-Qassam could better conduct his clandestine activities as the leader of the Palestinian Black Hand against Jewish activities.

[NOTE into the FUTURE: During WWII (1941) Grand Mufti Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini with Adolf Hitler and Ribbentrop (Foreign Minister of Germany), the Grand Mufti expressed Arab allegiance with Germany against their common enemy the English, the Communists and (of course) the Jewish. The Grand Mufti had also encouraged young Muslims to take-up arms against the Allied Powers in WWII as he had done in WWI.]​

The Arab Leadership that had cooperated and not betrayed the Allied causes in the Middle East, were the Arab Leaders which realized the promise of Independence. The was no general promise made to the Arabs either by treaty of covenant. It was "certain communities" and "provisional recognition;" not a specific obligation or promise to Arabs that opposed the Allied Forces (either in WWI, the Mandate Period, or WWII). Few nations in the world reward Arab Nations that raised arms against them.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco et al.

In all cases, whether "certain communities" of the former "Turkish Empire" that received "provisional recognition" or not, the Covenant of the League of Nations issued Mandates to further the development of the inhabitants. To wit:

"To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

The Mandates did not give the Mandatories the right to displace the inhabitants in order to establish a colony for Europeans.[/QUOTE]





All done with the first partitioning of Palestine into Arab Palestine and Jewish Palestine. This placed the arab muslims under the control of the Hashemite prince for their well being and development. The Mandates did give the mandated powers the right to relocate inhabitants to any part of the mandate they wished.
AND STOP YOUR RACIST LIES AS THERE WAS NO EUROPEAN COLONY

 

[Phoenall]

toastman, Phoenall, et al,

This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition." There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:

• the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied (less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan) was under (some heretofore unknown) Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
  • and govern by an unknown Arab body,
  • which exercised some unknown Arab law,
  • over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Who are you trying to fool. I never said any of that.

I don't see any border disputes. I see a lot of say so and lies.

With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).20 The British High Commissioner of Palestine and the French High Commissioner of Syria and Lebanon reached, at Jerusalem on 16 December 1923, a complementary agreement on border issues.21 On 2 February 1926, the agreement was replaced by the Bon Voisinage Agreement to Regulate Certain Administrative Matters in Connection with the Frontier between Palestine and Syria [including Lebanon].22

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

What was the status of these borders in 1949? (After the Mandate left Palestine.)

2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.

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

Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line

The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949
The Avalon Project Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement July 20 1949​

Note that the armistice lines did not divide Israel from the other countries. They were merely lines that the armed forces could not cross. They did not define territory. The international boundaries defined territories.

The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a de facto basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906. The first came in the form of an Exchange of Notes between Britain [which was controlling Egypt since 1882] and Turkey relative to the Maintenance of the Status Quo in the Sinai Peninsula, signed in Constantinople on 14 May.28 The second and more detailed border agreement, was the Agreement between Egypt and Turkey for the fixing of an Administrative Line between the Vilayet [province] of Hejaz and the Governorate [district] of Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula, signed in Rafah, on 1 October.29 The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

What was the status of this border in 1949? (After the Mandate left Palestine.)

1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...

2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the Egypt-Palestine frontier to the point of origin.

4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of entering Palestine.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

Note that the Palestine side of the Egypt-Palestine frontier was still called Palestine in 1949.

The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.8 The Palestine Mandate originally incorporated the territory of Trans-Jordan within the scope of ‘Palestine.’ Article 25 of the Mandate accorded Britain the power, “with consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as… may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions.” Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.10

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

Due to the occupation of the West Bank and other previously arranged demilitarized zones, the armistice line did not follow the border between Jordan and Palestine. However there was an interesting statement.

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions...

The Avalon Project Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement April 3 1949​

The southernmost tip of Palestine was still called Palestine in 1949.

This confirms the creation of Palestine's international borders and that they remained unchanged in 1949. This is the start point of any discussions on land and borders not some political say so decades in the future..

Once again you confuse Mandate of Palestine borders with the borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. Those same borders were the proposed borders of the Jewish National Home and entered into International law as such. This answers many of your questions including what are the borders of Israel under International law, what treaty set them up and what land does Israel have.

Try reading the notes attached to all the links you produce and see where you are getting things wrong.

 

[P F Tinmore]

toastman, Phoenall, et al,

This is back to the disputes on "border issue" and the arguments on the scope and nature of "recognition." There are people like "P F Tinmore" who desperately attempt to hold onto the notion that:

• the territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied (less that territory recognized by the HM the King of England as sovereign unto the Emir of Trans-Jordan) was under (some heretofore unknown) Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, and surrendered to the Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory to which was once described as formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by Allied Powers, was under Arab Sovereignty;
• the territory Short-Titled and named "Palestine" by the Allied Powers was somehow granted sovereignty to an unknown Arab Leader:
  • and govern by an unknown Arab body,
  • which exercised some unknown Arab law,
  • over a people granted citizenship and a nationality by the law of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Who are you trying to fool. I never said any of that.

I don't see any border disputes. I see a lot of say so and lies.

With regard to the northern border of Palestine, Britain and France (the occupying powers at the time, and later the mandatory powers over Syria and Lebanon respectively) signed an agreement which settled key aspects relating to the Palestinian-Syrian-Lebanese border (Paris, 23 December 1920).20 The British High Commissioner of Palestine and the French High Commissioner of Syria and Lebanon reached, at Jerusalem on 16 December 1923, a complementary agreement on border issues.21 On 2 February 1926, the agreement was replaced by the Bon Voisinage Agreement to Regulate Certain Administrative Matters in Connection with the Frontier between Palestine and Syria [including Lebanon].22

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

What was the status of these borders in 1949? (After the Mandate left Palestine.)

2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move.

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

Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line

The Avalon Project Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement March 23 1949
The Avalon Project Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement July 20 1949​

Note that the armistice lines did not divide Israel from the other countries. They were merely lines that the armed forces could not cross. They did not define territory. The international boundaries defined territories.

The southwestern border of Palestine with Egypt dates back to the late 19th century. Originally, this border was drawn up on a de facto basis, as the Ottoman Empire recognized Egypt’s autonomy.27 Formally, however, two border agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt were reached in 1906. The first came in the form of an Exchange of Notes between Britain [which was controlling Egypt since 1882] and Turkey relative to the Maintenance of the Status Quo in the Sinai Peninsula, signed in Constantinople on 14 May.28 The second and more detailed border agreement, was the Agreement between Egypt and Turkey for the fixing of an Administrative Line between the Vilayet [province] of Hejaz and the Governorate [district] of Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula, signed in Rafah, on 1 October.29 The separation of Egypt from Turkey (Palestine, in this instance), as of 5 November 1914, was ultimately recognized by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

What was the status of this border in 1949? (After the Mandate left Palestine.)

1. The principle that no military or political advantage should be gained under the truce ordered by the Security Council is recognized.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...

2. The area thus demilitarized shall be as follows: From a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres north-west of the intersection of the Rafah-El Auja road and the frontier (MR 08750468), south-east to Khashm El Mamdud (MR 09650414), thence south-east to Hill 405 (MR 10780285), thence south-west to a point on the Egypt-Palestine frontier five (5) kilometres southeast of the intersection of the old railway tracks and the frontier (MR 09950145), thence returning north-west along the Egypt-Palestine frontier to the point of origin.

4. The road Taba-Qouseima-Auja shall not be employed by any military forces whatsoever for the purpose of entering Palestine.

The Avalon Project Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement February 24 1949​

Note that the Palestine side of the Egypt-Palestine frontier was still called Palestine in 1949.

The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance.8 The Palestine Mandate originally incorporated the territory of Trans-Jordan within the scope of ‘Palestine.’ Article 25 of the Mandate accorded Britain the power, “with consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as… may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions.” Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory.9 Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain.10

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel​

Due to the occupation of the West Bank and other previously arranged demilitarized zones, the armistice line did not follow the border between Jordan and Palestine. However there was an interesting statement.

(d) In the sector from a point on the Dead Sea (MR 1925-0958) to the southernmost tip of Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall be determined by existing military positions...

The Avalon Project Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement April 3 1949​

The southernmost tip of Palestine was still called Palestine in 1949.

This confirms the creation of Palestine's international borders and that they remained unchanged in 1949. This is the start point of any discussions on land and borders not some political say so decades in the future..

Once again you confuse Mandate of Palestine borders with the borders of the non existent nation of Palestine. Those same borders were the proposed borders of the Jewish National Home and entered into International law as such. This answers many of your questions including what are the borders of Israel under International law, what treaty set them up and what land does Israel have.

Try reading the notes attached to all the links you produce and see where you are getting things wrong.

I'm not going down a rabbit hole looking for something that isn't there. If you can't tell me what I am looking for I won't be able to find it.