Widening Of The Buffer Zone

[RandomVariable]

Challenger, RandomVariable, et al,

The actions of the Ansar Beit al-Maqdis are relative to their goals and objectives. The potential menu of retaliation are a measure of either conviction or resolve.

Ya, well, hey, don't let me interrupt these lovely chats everyone is having but about that Egyptian buffer zone mentioned in the OP. This in today's news regarding that buffer zone area:

Simultaneous attacks in Egypt s Sinai kill 27 - Israel News Ynetnews

An Islamic State affiliate previously known as Ansar Beit al-Maqdis claimed the attack, the group has launched several attacks against the police and the army in Sinai in recent years, particularly following the military overthrow of Islamist President Mohammed Morsi in 2013.

But the wide-ranging attacks late Thursday, which struck the Northern Sinai provincial capital el-Arish, the nearby town of Sheik Zuwayid and the town of Rafah bordering Gaza, indicate a previously unseen level of coordination.

The officials said Thursday's attacks included at least one car bomb set off outside a military base and mortar rounds fired at a hotel, a police club and more than a dozen checkpoints. At least 36 people were wounded in the attack, according to medical officials, who also confirmed the death toll.​

Fascinating. Egypt has closed the border created a buffer zone to keep Gaza sealed off, the Egyptian navy has joined in the favourite pastime of the Israeli navy and shoots up Palestinian fishing boats and then is surprised that it's own citzens, not Gazans, are so hacked off with this new dictatorship that they join al-Quaeda and/or IS. I wonder if the Gazans sat on sofa's watching the fireworks across the border, "nothing to do with us!" although I suspect the Zionists and Egyptian supporters od al-Sissy will try to find an excuse to bomb Gaza a bit more.

(COMMENT)

The situation here is more a complex question of moral relativism, political dilemma and consequence action than anything else. It is extremely hard to judge that reasoning behind the hostile action and jihadist approach without clearly understanding the process by which the Ansar Beit al-Maqdis came to the decision to take such a deadly and provocative action.

Most Respectfully,
R

The reasoning for the action is that the Ansar Beit al-Maqdis is now part of ISIS.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, --- a thought provoking questing. (Proverb: Home is where the heart is!)

Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?

Good question. My grandparents are from England, Scotland, and Germany. If I had to go "back home" where would that be?

(COMMENT)

The question was answered by the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920) --- nearly a century ago.

Whereas recognition has thereby been given
to the historical connexion of the Jewish people
with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting
their national home in that country;​

It is obvious --- the leaders at the opening of the 20th Century thought that the culture and protections should extend back to the beginning.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is really an irrelevant post. In none of the things that predated Israel, from the Balfour Declaration to the Mandate for Palestine was there ever a mention of an exclusive Jewish state.

The creation of Israel was outside the scope of everything previous. None of that had anything to do with the creation of Israel.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move with no legal standing to do so.

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, --- a thought provoking questing. (Proverb: Home is where the heart is!)

Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?

Good question. My grandparents are from England, Scotland, and Germany. If I had to go "back home" where would that be?

(COMMENT)

The question was answered by the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920) --- nearly a century ago.

Whereas recognition has thereby been given
to the historical connexion of the Jewish people
with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting
their national home in that country;​

It is obvious --- the leaders at the opening of the 20th Century thought that the culture and protections should extend back to the beginning.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is really an irrelevant post. In none of the things that predated Israel, from the Balfour Declaration to the Mandate for Palestine was there ever a mention of an exclusive Jewish state.

The creation of Israel was outside the scope of everything previous. None of that had anything to do with the creation of Israel.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move with no legal standing to do so.

Tinnies Statement is Completely True....Rocco,for heavens sake Stop Muddying the Waters,Please.steve

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, --- a thought provoking questing. (Proverb: Home is where the heart is!)

Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?

Good question. My grandparents are from England, Scotland, and Germany. If I had to go "back home" where would that be?

(COMMENT)

The question was answered by the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920) --- nearly a century ago.

Whereas recognition has thereby been given
to the historical connexion of the Jewish people
with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting
their national home in that country;​

It is obvious --- the leaders at the opening of the 20th Century thought that the culture and protections should extend back to the beginning.

Most Respectfully,
R

Stop this ridiculous prose...the real reason the leaders concocted all this,was because they wanted Rid of the Jews so they thought they could Dump them in Palestine.......IT WAS NOT LOVE FOR THE JEWS....IT WAS ANTI-SEMITIC BULLSHIT....get a grip Rocco and throw away those Rose coloured glasses of yours....steve

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, --- a thought provoking questing. (Proverb: Home is where the heart is!)

Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?

Good question. My grandparents are from England, Scotland, and Germany. If I had to go "back home" where would that be?

(COMMENT)

The question was answered by the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920) --- nearly a century ago.

Whereas recognition has thereby been given
to the historical connexion of the Jewish people
with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting
their national home in that country;​

It is obvious --- the leaders at the opening of the 20th Century thought that the culture and protections should extend back to the beginning.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is really an irrelevant post. In none of the things that predated Israel, from the Balfour Declaration to the Mandate for Palestine was there ever a mention of an exclusive Jewish state.

The creation of Israel was outside the scope of everything previous. None of that had anything to do with the creation of Israel.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move with no legal standing to do so.

Completely false. Rocco has provided information with links that prove otherwise, on several occasions. This is simply another example of you not being able to handle the truth.

BTW, the state of Palestine was created the same way, so....

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, --- a thought provoking questing. (Proverb: Home is where the heart is!)

Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?

Good question. My grandparents are from England, Scotland, and Germany. If I had to go "back home" where would that be?

(COMMENT)

The question was answered by the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920) --- nearly a century ago.

Whereas recognition has thereby been given
to the historical connexion of the Jewish people
with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting
their national home in that country;​

It is obvious --- the leaders at the opening of the 20th Century thought that the culture and protections should extend back to the beginning.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is really an irrelevant post. In none of the things that predated Israel, from the Balfour Declaration to the Mandate for Palestine was there ever a mention of an exclusive Jewish state.

The creation of Israel was outside the scope of everything previous. None of that had anything to do with the creation of Israel.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move with no legal standing to do so.

Tinnies Statement is Completely True....Rocco,for heavens sake Stop Muddying the Waters,Please.steve

Actually, Tinmore has no credibility whatsoever when posting about ISrael or the history of the I/P conflict.

 

[Mindful]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, --- a thought provoking questing. (Proverb: Home is where the heart is!)

Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?

Good question. My grandparents are from England, Scotland, and Germany. If I had to go "back home" where would that be?

(COMMENT)

The question was answered by the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920) --- nearly a century ago.

Whereas recognition has thereby been given
to the historical connexion of the Jewish people
with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting
their national home in that country;​

It is obvious --- the leaders at the opening of the 20th Century thought that the culture and protections should extend back to the beginning.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is really an irrelevant post. In none of the things that predated Israel, from the Balfour Declaration to the Mandate for Palestine was there ever a mention of an exclusive Jewish state.

The creation of Israel was outside the scope of everything previous. None of that had anything to do with the creation of Israel.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move with no legal standing to do so.

You seem to devote a lot of time dwelling on "irrelevant" posts, without saying anything substantive yourself.

 

[Challenger]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, --- a thought provoking questing. (Proverb: Home is where the heart is!)

Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?

Good question. My grandparents are from England, Scotland, and Germany. If I had to go "back home" where would that be?

(COMMENT)

The question was answered by the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920) --- nearly a century ago.

Whereas recognition has thereby been given
to the historical connexion of the Jewish people
with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting
their national home in that country;​

It is obvious --- the leaders at the opening of the 20th Century thought that the culture and protections should extend back to the beginning.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is really an irrelevant post. In none of the things that predated Israel, from the Balfour Declaration to the Mandate for Palestine was there ever a mention of an exclusive Jewish state.

The creation of Israel was outside the scope of everything previous. None of that had anything to do with the creation of Israel.

The creation of Israel was a unilateral move with no legal standing to do so.

Completely false. Rocco has provided information with links that prove otherwise, on several occasions. This is simply another example of you not being able to handle the truth.

BTW, the state of Palestine was created the same way, so....

"Prove otherwise"? Hardly. RoccoR has his opinions and interpretations, neither of which constitute "proof" of anything.

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, theliq, et al,

The question that sparked this segment of the discussion was: PF Tinmore's Posting #152: to the Question posed by Mindful's in Posting #141: Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?

Tinnies Statement is Completely True....Rocco,for heavens sake Stop Muddying the Waters,Please.steve

(COMMENT)

I stuck to the point. I was not trying to present a basis for an implicit or exclusive Jewish State. The final recommendation for a Jewish State was adopted by the General Assembly in Resolution 181(II), wherein the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) presented the "majority proposal" (partition) formed the basis for the resolution. This resolution set the conditions for BOTH Independent Arab and Jewish States, as well as the initial setup for the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this plan. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III. (See paragraph 3 of Preamble)

Having said that, proof of an implicit implication for an exclusive Arab and Jewish States was not the intent, but rather to demonstrate the intent of the San Remo Convention and the Allied Powers, as adopted by the League of Nations.

"Prove otherwise"? Hardly. RoccoR has his opinions and interpretations, neither of which constitute "proof" of anything.

(COMMENT)

Everyone's opinion in the discussion is based on interpretation and an evaluation based on what they see as facts.

In the beginning (the post-War period after the fall of the Ottoman Empire), there was no question as to the intent: The establishment of a Jewish National Home where the future of the Jewish People and culture could be free and secure from further trials and tribulations --- free from further distress and suffering resulting from oppression or persecution in the non-Jewish world. And the territory under the Mandate of Palestine, the point of origin for the Jewish People, was selected as that place. While it wasn't necessary that an exclusive Jewish State be established, it became evident by the demonstrated irreconcilable differences between the Arab Palestinian culture and the Jewish Culture, that the UNSCOP presented a solution --- "majority proposal" (partition).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Challenger]

Your "truth"= Hasbara, no thanks.

Your sort is prolific on the Internet. You all repeat the same rubbish, ad nauseum. Like you are clones.

Dear Pot...love Kettle.

You thrive on this sort of stuff, don't you?

It's obvious you're not too bright.

But still a Quasar compared to you, my sweet.

A what?

QED

 

[Mindful]

Your sort is prolific on the Internet. You all repeat the same rubbish, ad nauseum. Like you are clones.

Dear Pot...love Kettle.

You thrive on this sort of stuff, don't you?

It's obvious you're not too bright.

But still a Quasar compared to you, my sweet.

A what?

QED

Oh yes. That one again.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Challenger, theliq, et al,

The question that sparked this segment of the discussion was: PF Tinmore's Posting #152: to the Question posed by Mindful's in Posting #141: Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?

Tinnies Statement is Completely True....Rocco,for heavens sake Stop Muddying the Waters,Please.steve

(COMMENT)

I stuck to the point. I was not trying to present a basis for an implicit or exclusive Jewish State. The final recommendation for a Jewish State was adopted by the General Assembly in Resolution 181(II), wherein the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) presented the "majority proposal" (partition) formed the basis for the resolution. This resolution set the conditions for BOTH Independent Arab and Jewish States, as well as the initial setup for the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this plan. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III. (See paragraph 3 of Preamble)

Having said that, proof of an implicit implication for an exclusive Arab and Jewish States was not the intent, but rather to demonstrate the intent of the San Remo Convention and the Allied Powers, as adopted by the League of Nations.

"Prove otherwise"? Hardly. RoccoR has his opinions and interpretations, neither of which constitute "proof" of anything.

(COMMENT)

Everyone's opinion in the discussion is based on interpretation and an evaluation based on what they see as facts.

In the beginning (the post-War period after the fall of the Ottoman Empire), there was no question as to the intent: The establishment of a Jewish National Home where the future of the Jewish People and culture could be free and secure from further trials and tribulations --- free from further distress and suffering resulting from oppression or persecution in the non-Jewish world. And the territory under the Mandate of Palestine, the point of origin for the Jewish People, was selected as that place. While it wasn't necessary that an exclusive Jewish State be established, it became evident by the demonstrated irreconcilable differences between the Arab Palestinian culture and the Jewish Culture, that the UNSCOP presented a solution --- "majority proposal" (partition).

Most Respectfully,
R

the territory under the Mandate of Palestine,​

Propagandists use this term a lot to imply that the territory belonged to the mandate. It did not. It held Palestine in trust. Neither the mandate nor the UN had the authority to take any of that territory and give it to someone else. You, yourself, said a few months ago that the territory was not up for grabs.

You mention resolution 181 a lot. What you always miss is that if the Palestinians did not accept the resolution, partition could not happen. The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity as UN resolutions state. This is not unique to Palestine. It applies to all people inside defined territory. Related laws are that territory cannot be acquired by war and that it is illegal to annex territory under occupation.

The Palestinians have never ceded any land to Israel.

 

[RandomVariable]

Challenger, theliq, et al,

The question that sparked this segment of the discussion was: PF Tinmore's Posting #152: to the Question posed by Mindful's in Posting #141: Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?

Tinnies Statement is Completely True....Rocco,for heavens sake Stop Muddying the Waters,Please.steve

(COMMENT)

I stuck to the point. I was not trying to present a basis for an implicit or exclusive Jewish State. The final recommendation for a Jewish State was adopted by the General Assembly in Resolution 181(II), wherein the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) presented the "majority proposal" (partition) formed the basis for the resolution. This resolution set the conditions for BOTH Independent Arab and Jewish States, as well as the initial setup for the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this plan. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III. (See paragraph 3 of Preamble)

Having said that, proof of an implicit implication for an exclusive Arab and Jewish States was not the intent, but rather to demonstrate the intent of the San Remo Convention and the Allied Powers, as adopted by the League of Nations.

"Prove otherwise"? Hardly. RoccoR has his opinions and interpretations, neither of which constitute "proof" of anything.

(COMMENT)

Everyone's opinion in the discussion is based on interpretation and an evaluation based on what they see as facts.

In the beginning (the post-War period after the fall of the Ottoman Empire), there was no question as to the intent: The establishment of a Jewish National Home where the future of the Jewish People and culture could be free and secure from further trials and tribulations --- free from further distress and suffering resulting from oppression or persecution in the non-Jewish world. And the territory under the Mandate of Palestine, the point of origin for the Jewish People, was selected as that place. While it wasn't necessary that an exclusive Jewish State be established, it became evident by the demonstrated irreconcilable differences between the Arab Palestinian culture and the Jewish Culture, that the UNSCOP presented a solution --- "majority proposal" (partition).

Most Respectfully,
R

the territory under the Mandate of Palestine,​

Propagandists use this term a lot to imply that the territory belonged to the mandate. It did not. It held Palestine in trust. Neither the mandate nor the UN had the authority to take any of that territory and give it to someone else. You, yourself, said a few months ago that the territory was not up for grabs.

You mention resolution 181 a lot. What you always miss is that if the Palestinians did not accept the resolution, partition could not happen. The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity as UN resolutions state. This is not unique to Palestine. It applies to all people inside defined territory. Related laws are that territory cannot be acquired by war and that it is illegal to annex territory under occupation.

The Palestinians have never ceded any land to Israel.

What you say might be well and nice and all for the Palestinians but all factors have to be taken into consideration. Do you think the logic you are applying to this particular part of the world should be applied universally?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You assume I said more than I did.

the territory under the Mandate of Palestine,​

Propagandists use this term a lot to imply that the territory belonged to the mandate. It did not. It held Palestine in trust. Neither the mandate nor the UN had the authority to take any of that territory and give it to someone else. You, yourself, said a few months ago that the territory was not up for grabs.

(COMMENT)

The Mandate, under which the Administration of the Territory of Palestine (a territory defined and determined by the Allied Powers), was the tool and an instrument --- an official order --- the commission and the authority to act in a certain way, relative to a territorial plot that the Ottoman Empire had renounces formally the rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction to the Allied Powers.

You are correct, the territory does not and never did "belong to the Mandate." The Mandate was written (formalized in 1922) but having been agreed upon by the Allied Power (San Remo 1920) to Administer the region (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers) until such time as those territories were able to stand alone. You are again correct I did explicitly indicate that "the territory was not up for grabs." The destiny of the territory was in the care [full powers of legislation and of administration (placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home)] of the Mandatory on behalf of the Allied Powers to which the territory was forfeited --- by the Ottoman Empire.

Your implication where was that the Arab Palestinians had some legal authority over the territory; that would be wrong.

You mention resolution 181 a lot. What you always miss is that if the Palestinians did not accept the resolution, partition could not happen. The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity as UN resolutions state. This is not unique to Palestine. It applies to all people inside defined territory. Related laws are that territory cannot be acquired by war and that it is illegal to annex territory under occupation.

(COMMENT)

This is very misleading:

No League of Nation or United Nations resolution, prior to UN Resolution 181(II) stipulates any territorial integrity exclusively for the Arab Palestinian.

• Palestinian Declaration of Independence 1988
  • Despite the historical injustice done to the Palestinian Arab people in its displacement and in being deprived of the right to self-determination following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State, that resolution nevertheless continues to attach conditions to international legitimacy that guarantee the Palestinian Arab people the right to sovereignty and national independence.
• 
  
• Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General
  • For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.
• 
  
• Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations 4 December 2012
  • Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
  • 1. Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;
  • 
    
  • 2. Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice;
  • 
    
  • 3. Expresses the hope that the Security Council will consider favourably the application submitted on 23 September 2011 by the State of Palestine for admission to full membership in the United Nations;7
  • 
    
  • 4. Affirmsits determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;

The Palestinians have never ceded any land to Israel.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinian had no territory prior to 1988 for which they had any authority. Prior to 1988, the West Bank was Sovereign Jordanian territory which the Arab Palestinian ceded to the Hashemite Kingdom through a Parliamentary process; the use of their right of self-determination.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You assume I said more than I did.

the territory under the Mandate of Palestine,​

Propagandists use this term a lot to imply that the territory belonged to the mandate. It did not. It held Palestine in trust. Neither the mandate nor the UN had the authority to take any of that territory and give it to someone else. You, yourself, said a few months ago that the territory was not up for grabs.

(COMMENT)

The Mandate, under which the Administration of the Territory of Palestine (a territory defined and determined by the Allied Powers), was the tool and an instrument --- an official order --- the commission and the authority to act in a certain way, relative to a territorial plot that the Ottoman Empire had renounces formally the rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction to the Allied Powers.

You are correct, the territory does not and never did "belong to the Mandate." The Mandate was written (formalized in 1922) but having been agreed upon by the Allied Power (San Remo 1920) to Administer the region (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers) until such time as those territories were able to stand alone. You are again correct I did explicitly indicate that "the territory was not up for grabs." The destiny of the territory was in the care [full powers of legislation and of administration (placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home)] of the Mandatory on behalf of the Allied Powers to which the territory was forfeited --- by the Ottoman Empire.

Your implication where was that the Arab Palestinians had some legal authority over the territory; that would be wrong.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of this refutes my post?

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You assume I said more than I did.

the territory under the Mandate of Palestine,​

Propagandists use this term a lot to imply that the territory belonged to the mandate. It did not. It held Palestine in trust. Neither the mandate nor the UN had the authority to take any of that territory and give it to someone else. You, yourself, said a few months ago that the territory was not up for grabs.

(COMMENT)

The Mandate, under which the Administration of the Territory of Palestine (a territory defined and determined by the Allied Powers), was the tool and an instrument --- an official order --- the commission and the authority to act in a certain way, relative to a territorial plot that the Ottoman Empire had renounces formally the rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction to the Allied Powers.

You are correct, the territory does not and never did "belong to the Mandate." The Mandate was written (formalized in 1922) but having been agreed upon by the Allied Power (San Remo 1920) to Administer the region (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers) until such time as those territories were able to stand alone. You are again correct I did explicitly indicate that "the territory was not up for grabs." The destiny of the territory was in the care [full powers of legislation and of administration (placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home)] of the Mandatory on behalf of the Allied Powers to which the territory was forfeited --- by the Ottoman Empire.

Your implication where was that the Arab Palestinians had some legal authority over the territory; that would be wrong.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of this refutes my post?

All of it.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You assume I said more than I did.

the territory under the Mandate of Palestine,​

Propagandists use this term a lot to imply that the territory belonged to the mandate. It did not. It held Palestine in trust. Neither the mandate nor the UN had the authority to take any of that territory and give it to someone else. You, yourself, said a few months ago that the territory was not up for grabs.

(COMMENT)

The Mandate, under which the Administration of the Territory of Palestine (a territory defined and determined by the Allied Powers), was the tool and an instrument --- an official order --- the commission and the authority to act in a certain way, relative to a territorial plot that the Ottoman Empire had renounces formally the rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction to the Allied Powers.

You are correct, the territory does not and never did "belong to the Mandate." The Mandate was written (formalized in 1922) but having been agreed upon by the Allied Power (San Remo 1920) to Administer the region (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers) until such time as those territories were able to stand alone. You are again correct I did explicitly indicate that "the territory was not up for grabs." The destiny of the territory was in the care [full powers of legislation and of administration (placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home)] of the Mandatory on behalf of the Allied Powers to which the territory was forfeited --- by the Ottoman Empire.

Your implication where was that the Arab Palestinians had some legal authority over the territory; that would be wrong.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of this refutes my post?

Are you blind? He refuted, for the 100th time, your lie that the Palestinians did not use resolution 181. Sure, they rejected it at first, but then they used it as a legal basis to declare independence in 1988. I've also provided you with links that say that same thing. The Palestinians even admitted themselves that they used resolution 181.
Do you have memory issues or are you allergic to the truth? I'm leaning towards the latter.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You assume I said more than I did.

the territory under the Mandate of Palestine,​

Propagandists use this term a lot to imply that the territory belonged to the mandate. It did not. It held Palestine in trust. Neither the mandate nor the UN had the authority to take any of that territory and give it to someone else. You, yourself, said a few months ago that the territory was not up for grabs.

(COMMENT)

The Mandate, under which the Administration of the Territory of Palestine (a territory defined and determined by the Allied Powers), was the tool and an instrument --- an official order --- the commission and the authority to act in a certain way, relative to a territorial plot that the Ottoman Empire had renounces formally the rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction to the Allied Powers.

You are correct, the territory does not and never did "belong to the Mandate." The Mandate was written (formalized in 1922) but having been agreed upon by the Allied Power (San Remo 1920) to Administer the region (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers) until such time as those territories were able to stand alone. You are again correct I did explicitly indicate that "the territory was not up for grabs." The destiny of the territory was in the care [full powers of legislation and of administration (placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home)] of the Mandatory on behalf of the Allied Powers to which the territory was forfeited --- by the Ottoman Empire.

Your implication where was that the Arab Palestinians had some legal authority over the territory; that would be wrong.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of this refutes my post?

Are you blind? He refuted, for the 100th time, your lie that the Palestinians did not use resolution 181. Sure, they rejected it at first, but then they used it as a legal basis to declare independence in 1988. I've also provided you with links that say that same thing. The Palestinians even admitted themselves that they used resolution 181.
Do you have memory issues or are you allergic to the truth? I'm leaning towards the latter.

So then, since Israel and Palestine both accepted resolution 181 then the proposed borders are the international borders between the two.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You assume I said more than I did.

the territory under the Mandate of Palestine,​

Propagandists use this term a lot to imply that the territory belonged to the mandate. It did not. It held Palestine in trust. Neither the mandate nor the UN had the authority to take any of that territory and give it to someone else. You, yourself, said a few months ago that the territory was not up for grabs.

(COMMENT)

The Mandate, under which the Administration of the Territory of Palestine (a territory defined and determined by the Allied Powers), was the tool and an instrument --- an official order --- the commission and the authority to act in a certain way, relative to a territorial plot that the Ottoman Empire had renounces formally the rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction to the Allied Powers.

You are correct, the territory does not and never did "belong to the Mandate." The Mandate was written (formalized in 1922) but having been agreed upon by the Allied Power (San Remo 1920) to Administer the region (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers) until such time as those territories were able to stand alone. You are again correct I did explicitly indicate that "the territory was not up for grabs." The destiny of the territory was in the care [full powers of legislation and of administration (placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home)] of the Mandatory on behalf of the Allied Powers to which the territory was forfeited --- by the Ottoman Empire.

Your implication where was that the Arab Palestinians had some legal authority over the territory; that would be wrong.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of this refutes my post?

Are you blind? He refuted, for the 100th time, your lie that the Palestinians did not use resolution 181. Sure, they rejected it at first, but then they used it as a legal basis to declare independence in 1988. I've also provided you with links that say that same thing. The Palestinians even admitted themselves that they used resolution 181.
Do you have memory issues or are you allergic to the truth? I'm leaning towards the latter.

So then, since Israel and Palestine both accepted resolution 181 then the proposed borders are the international borders between the two.

Nope. There was no mention of permanent international boundaries in resolution 181. When the Palestinians declared independence 1988, they used resolution 181 as a legal basis to declare independence, however by then there was less land for them to declare. 50% less to be exact.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You assume I said more than I did.

the territory under the Mandate of Palestine,​

Propagandists use this term a lot to imply that the territory belonged to the mandate. It did not. It held Palestine in trust. Neither the mandate nor the UN had the authority to take any of that territory and give it to someone else. You, yourself, said a few months ago that the territory was not up for grabs.

(COMMENT)

The Mandate, under which the Administration of the Territory of Palestine (a territory defined and determined by the Allied Powers), was the tool and an instrument --- an official order --- the commission and the authority to act in a certain way, relative to a territorial plot that the Ottoman Empire had renounces formally the rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction to the Allied Powers.

You are correct, the territory does not and never did "belong to the Mandate." The Mandate was written (formalized in 1922) but having been agreed upon by the Allied Power (San Remo 1920) to Administer the region (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers) until such time as those territories were able to stand alone. You are again correct I did explicitly indicate that "the territory was not up for grabs." The destiny of the territory was in the care [full powers of legislation and of administration (placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home)] of the Mandatory on behalf of the Allied Powers to which the territory was forfeited --- by the Ottoman Empire.

Your implication where was that the Arab Palestinians had some legal authority over the territory; that would be wrong.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of this refutes my post?

Are you blind? He refuted, for the 100th time, your lie that the Palestinians did not use resolution 181. Sure, they rejected it at first, but then they used it as a legal basis to declare independence in 1988. I've also provided you with links that say that same thing. The Palestinians even admitted themselves that they used resolution 181.
Do you have memory issues or are you allergic to the truth? I'm leaning towards the latter.

So then, since Israel and Palestine both accepted resolution 181 then the proposed borders are the international borders between the two.

Nope. There was no mention of permanent international boundaries in resolution 181. When the Palestinians declared independence 1988, they used resolution 181 as a legal basis to declare independence, however by then there was less land for them to declare. 50% less to be exact.

Yes there was. You need to read up.

Resolution 181 never happened and never will happen. I don't know why anybody mentions it.