That map is outdated. Look at mine.As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That map is outdated. Look at mine.As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
Load of crap, Rocco.P F Tinmore, et al,
It is you that is attempting to skew the reality.
(COMMENT)So the Palestinians became citizens of what? A temporarily assigned administration?
You don't make any sense.
Palestine was (at that time) defined as the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies. And the Government of Palestine was that established by the Mandatory. The intent was to maintain that citizenship until the territory had met the Article 22 requirement of being able to stand alone. In 1948, the State of Israel was able to stand alone. The Arab State rejected the offer to participate in the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
Most Respectfully,
R
Load of crap, Rocco.P F Tinmore, et al,
It is you that is attempting to skew the reality.
(COMMENT)So the Palestinians became citizens of what? A temporarily assigned administration?
You don't make any sense.
Palestine was (at that time) defined as the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies. And the Government of Palestine was that established by the Mandatory. The intent was to maintain that citizenship until the territory had met the Article 22 requirement of being able to stand alone. In 1948, the State of Israel was able to stand alone. The Arab State rejected the offer to participate in the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
Most Respectfully,
R
The British prevented, at the point of a gun, the Palestinians from taking any steps.
That map is outdated. Look at mine.As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
That one is outdated too. Resolution 181 was a non binding recommendation. It was not implemented by the Mandate or the Security council. It never happened.That map is outdated. Look at mine.As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
I read that post. But those borders never really existed. Also, borders and internationally recognized boundaries are two different thing.That map is outdated. Look at mine.As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
If you read my earlier post, you would have been able to see that my position is that the borders of 181 have never changed, legally. That's why I posted the 181 map.
181 DID happen. Both countries used it as a basis to declare independence. In other words, the Palestinians DID accept the resolutionThat one is outdated too. Resolution 181 was a non binding recommendation. It was not implemented by the Mandate or the Security council. It never happened.That map is outdated. Look at mine.As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
(COMMENT)As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
The partition was never necessary for independence. With or without partition they still have the right for independence.Load of crap, Rocco.P F Tinmore, et al,
It is you that is attempting to skew the reality.
(COMMENT)So the Palestinians became citizens of what? A temporarily assigned administration?
You don't make any sense.
Palestine was (at that time) defined as the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies. And the Government of Palestine was that established by the Mandatory. The intent was to maintain that citizenship until the territory had met the Article 22 requirement of being able to stand alone. In 1948, the State of Israel was able to stand alone. The Arab State rejected the offer to participate in the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
Most Respectfully,
R
The British prevented, at the point of a gun, the Palestinians from taking any steps.
Load of crap Tinmore. The Palestinians said no to the partition plan which = saying no to independence.
The partition was never necessary for independence. With or without partition they still have the right for independence.Load of crap, Rocco.P F Tinmore, et al,
It is you that is attempting to skew the reality.
(COMMENT)So the Palestinians became citizens of what? A temporarily assigned administration?
You don't make any sense.
Palestine was (at that time) defined as the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies. And the Government of Palestine was that established by the Mandatory. The intent was to maintain that citizenship until the territory had met the Article 22 requirement of being able to stand alone. In 1948, the State of Israel was able to stand alone. The Arab State rejected the offer to participate in the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
Most Respectfully,
R
The British prevented, at the point of a gun, the Palestinians from taking any steps.
Load of crap Tinmore. The Palestinians said no to the partition plan which = saying no to independence.
(OBSEVATION)Load of crap, Rocco.
The British prevented, at the point of a gun, the Palestinians from taking any steps.
(COMMENT)The partition was never necessary for independence. With or without partition they still have the right for independence.
The Palestinians refused to take part in the colonial scheme.P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, yes... The Arab Palestinians always portrays themselves as the victim. (Gun Point)
(OBSEVATION)Load of crap, Rocco.
The British prevented, at the point of a gun, the Palestinians from taking any steps.
No Gun Point:
The text of this resolution was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:
No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.
“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”
SOURCE: The United Nations Palestine Commission renders to the Security Council its First Monthly Progress Report
Most Respectfully,
R
That is an inherent right for a people inside a defined territory. Inherent rights cannot be granted or taken away.P F Tinmore, et al,
The League of Nations, lead by the Allied Powers, had predetermined that the criteria: "their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
(COMMENT)The partition was never necessary for independence. With or without partition they still have the right for independence.
It says "can be" ---- NOT ---- 'will be' - or - "are." Provisional recognition was not automatic.
In that time period, where did the Arab Palestinians get their "right for independence?"
Most Respectfully,
R
montelatici, et al,
I don't think you understand the intent of the "conquest limitation" (inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war). The true intent is spelled-out in the context that "no territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful." The intent of the limitation includes the principle that "no consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression;" ie: you cannot justify the aggression exhibited by the Arab intrusion for any reason.
(COMMENT)As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
The 1949 Armistice Lines are not based on acts of aggression on the part of Israel. On the contrary, the act of aggression was on the part of the principle Arab combatants (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt) that crossed over their boundaries and unlawfully entered the territory outside their jurisdiction for the express purpose of conducting hostile operations, and engaging Israeli Forces. The limitation is addressing the Arab Aggressors and the Israelis. Since that time, the Treaties of Peace between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have established some international boundaries that essentially make your map obsolete.
Your insinuation that the legal borders must be based on the original Partition Plan has been altered (over taken by events) by the treaties.
Article 3 - International Boundary The Government of the State of Israel and the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.Most Respectfully,
- Article II The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of the State of Israel
The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.
R
montelatici, et al,
I don't think you understand the intent of the "conquest limitation" (inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war). The true intent is spelled-out in the context that "no territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful." The intent of the limitation includes the principle that "no consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression;" ie: you cannot justify the aggression exhibited by the Arab intrusion for any reason.
(COMMENT)As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
The 1949 Armistice Lines are not based on acts of aggression on the part of Israel. On the contrary, the act of aggression was on the part of the principle Arab combatants (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt) that crossed over their boundaries and unlawfully entered the territory outside their jurisdiction for the express purpose of conducting hostile operations, and engaging Israeli Forces. The limitation is addressing the Arab Aggressors and the Israelis. Since that time, the Treaties of Peace between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have established some international boundaries that essentially make your map obsolete.
Your insinuation that the legal borders must be based on the original Partition Plan has been altered (over taken by events) by the treaties.
Article 3 - International Boundary The Government of the State of Israel and the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.Most Respectfully,
- Article II The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of the State of Israel
The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.
R
(COMMENT)That is an inherent right for a people inside a defined territory. Inherent rights cannot be granted or taken away.P F Tinmore, et al,
The League of Nations, lead by the Allied Powers, had predetermined that the criteria: "their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
(COMMENT)The partition was never necessary for independence. With or without partition they still have the right for independence.
It says "can be" ---- NOT ---- 'will be' - or - "are." Provisional recognition was not automatic.
In that time period, where did the Arab Palestinians get their "right for independence?"
Most Respectfully,
R
montelatici, et al,
I don't think you understand the intent of the "conquest limitation" (inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war). The true intent is spelled-out in the context that "no territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful." The intent of the limitation includes the principle that "no consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression;" ie: you cannot justify the aggression exhibited by the Arab intrusion for any reason.
(COMMENT)As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
The 1949 Armistice Lines are not based on acts of aggression on the part of Israel. On the contrary, the act of aggression was on the part of the principle Arab combatants (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt) that crossed over their boundaries and unlawfully entered the territory outside their jurisdiction for the express purpose of conducting hostile operations, and engaging Israeli Forces. The limitation is addressing the Arab Aggressors and the Israelis. Since that time, the Treaties of Peace between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have established some international boundaries that essentially make your map obsolete.
Your insinuation that the legal borders must be based on the original Partition Plan has been altered (over taken by events) by the treaties.
Article 3 - International Boundary The Government of the State of Israel and the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.Most Respectfully,
- Article II The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of the State of Israel
The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.
R...unlawfully entered the territory outside their jurisdiction...
What was Israel's territory of jurisdiction?
Do you have a 1948 map of Israel?
(COMMENT)montelatici, et al,
I don't think you understand the intent of the "conquest limitation" (inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war). The true intent is spelled-out in the context that "no territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful." The intent of the limitation includes the principle that "no consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression;" ie: you cannot justify the aggression exhibited by the Arab intrusion for any reason.
(COMMENT)As immoral as the partition was, these are the borders unless taking territory by conquest can be considered legal.
The 1949 Armistice Lines are not based on acts of aggression on the part of Israel. On the contrary, the act of aggression was on the part of the principle Arab combatants (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt) that crossed over their boundaries and unlawfully entered the territory outside their jurisdiction for the express purpose of conducting hostile operations, and engaging Israeli Forces. The limitation is addressing the Arab Aggressors and the Israelis. Since that time, the Treaties of Peace between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have established some international boundaries that essentially make your map obsolete.
Your insinuation that the legal borders must be based on the original Partition Plan has been altered (over taken by events) by the treaties.
Article 3 - International Boundary The Government of the State of Israel and the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.Most Respectfully,
- Article II The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of the State of Israel
The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.
R...unlawfully entered the territory outside their jurisdiction...
What was Israel's territory of jurisdiction?
Do you have a 1948 map of Israel?
The right to independence and sovereignty are in UN resolutions as already existing rights.P F Tinmore, et al,
Who said it was a right and when?
(COMMENT)That is an inherent right for a people inside a defined territory. Inherent rights cannot be granted or taken away.P F Tinmore, et al,
The League of Nations, lead by the Allied Powers, had predetermined that the criteria: "their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
(COMMENT)The partition was never necessary for independence. With or without partition they still have the right for independence.
It says "can be" ---- NOT ---- 'will be' - or - "are." Provisional recognition was not automatic.
In that time period, where did the Arab Palestinians get their "right for independence?"
Most Respectfully,
R
I think you have your timelines confused.
Most Respectfully,
R