Would Israel attack a non violent neighbour ?

that's nice.

 

thats very nice

 

I think your answer is fandiddlytasticly nice!

 

The San Remo Mandate has no borders and was replaced by the League of Nations British mandate and in turn replaced by Resolution 181.

How do you see Israels borders as opossed to the founding fathers of Israel "Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present? Over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947. In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard." Reply from the state of Israel reply to the UN security council as found on page 3 of UN document number S/766 dated 22 May 1948 (a few days after the declaration of independence). Note the areas outside of the borders of the state of Israel

 

This is only the beginning for the Israelis feel they are at home...
The <THREE NOS> of Abu Mazen will haunt him for the rest of his short life...

In the meantime the Israelis are happy... watch the clip from the Capital of Israel <JERUSALEM>...


http://bit.ly/1h1G7Sq

 

[MENTION=64340]peter1973[/MENTION], et al,

These are complex multiple issues; not necessarily related.

(COMMENT)

I do not agree entirely. The Faisal-Weizman Agreement (1919), together with Article 22, of the League of Nations Covenant (1919), lead to the decisions that were made The San Remo Convention (1920) by the Allied Powers. And the tool that they chose to implement these concepts was a Type "A" Mandate over Palestine (The Mandate for Palestine)(1922). Within the Mandate for Palestine, was imbedded a policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" (1917); pertaining to the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH). The JNH concept was discussed as a "national aspiration" in the Faisal-Weizman Agreement, as well as a principle within the decisions of the San Remo Convention and passed directly as a Mandate.

In the mid-1940's, it became obvious that the Mandatory (the UK) was confronted with mandates that were conflicted: "We shall explain that the Mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice, and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable." The UK noted that they were "not prepared to continue indefinitely to govern Palestine." The UN established the Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), which submitted its recommendations to the General Assembly - which subsequently were adopted as Resolution 181(II); AKA: The Partition Plan. The UK, as the Mandatory, announced there intention to terminate their Administration (in accordance with the adopted Plan) and then announce the Successor Government; again, IAW the adopted Partition Plan.

(REFERENCES)

• S/766 22 May 1948 Palestine question/SecCo questions - UN letter, reply from Provisional Government of Israel in Tel Aviv
• A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947 Future government of Palestine
• MAP Annex A to Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947

Special Reference:

• Application of Israel for admission to membership in the United Nations (A/818.) A/AC.24/SR.45 5 May 1949
  

(COMMENT)

It should be noted at the outset, that this issue was not merely a topic in May 1948, but also a year later in May 1949 (as outlined in the Special Reference, supra A/81 during the UN Application process.

As you know, at the dawn of Independence, the Jewish State - called Israel, was declared essentially as agreed and depicted in Map Annex A, as linked above. However, that same morning, An external influence, consisting of military elements of five Arab League Armies attacked; crossing their established boundaries and entering into the former Mandate of Palestine under the Successor Government of the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC); and directly engaged Israeli Forces. The essentially created a state-of-war between Israel and the five Arab League Nations. At the time of the UN Security Council Questionnaire, being ask for the purposes of the Security Council Truce Commission mission, the forces for the State of Israel reported repelling aggressor Hostile Arab Forces and had outlined the established zones of control on the Israeli side of the FEBA (Forward Edge of the Battle Area); to the foremost limits in which ground elements were deployed and maintained such influence.

The borders of Israel, as allocated in Section B - The Jewish State, Part II - Boundaries, A/RES/181(II) and depicted in the Annex I - Map, links above, had been overtaken by hostile invasion and subsequent combat operations by the aggressor forces of the Arab League which occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The establishment of the Armistice Lines and the subsequent International borders Article II, Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979 --- and --- Article III, Treaty of Peace between The State of Israel and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 26 October 1994, approximate the current borders; less the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt).

The Special Reference above made the following observation:

I think they made the right decision. The aggressor Arab League Nations attempted to defy the UN implementation of A/RES/181(II). Facing opposition they could not overcome, the Arab League members occupied the West Bank (by Jordan) and the Gaza Strip (by Egypt). The remainder was controlled by the State of Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

What do you say about the following <Arab Melodrama> here...

Tawfiq Tirawi: "We have not cast down the rifle" Watch the Video with English translation

http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=797&fld_id=797&doc_id=11000

 

HBendor, et al,

Many thanks. I had not seen this video until you pointed it out.

(OBSERVATION)

Reference: MEMRI Video: #4127 - Fatah Official Tawfiq Tirawi: No Palestinian State in 20 Years; We Should Return to Resistance, Including Armed Struggle

(COMMENT)

The language and content of MG Tirawi is not all that surprising. It is consistent with Article 9 ("Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.") of the Palestine National Charter of 1968. He is a senior, Article 10, Palestinian Commando (Fedayeen). His purpose is to organize, instigate, facilitate, and encourage small scale and spontaneous terrorist activities intended to be committed against the State of Israel, its interest (including civilians taking no active part in the hostilities), and Israeli allies.

His role is to instill the concept and reaffirm the right of Palestinian peoples to combat the Israeli Occupation by whatever means, including armed struggle, in order to liberate their territories and secure their right to self-determination, and independence.

He is a terrorist.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

And, for a moment would anyone think that Israel is a <patsy> and would absorb the blows? hmmmmmmmmmmm
That would be the right time for Israel to organize fend and turn the table on the attackers... I personally long for that time...
In America it is called <pay back time>... 65 years of patience would be coming to an end after their first attack..

 

The Palestinians' Real Enemies
~by Efraim Karsh

Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2014

Be the first of your friends to like this.
For most of the twentieth century, inter-Arab politics were dominated by the doctrine of pan-Arabism, postulating the existence of "a single nation bound by the common ties of language, religion and history. &#8230; behind the facade of a multiplicity of sovereign states";[1] and no single issue dominated this doctrine more than the "Palestine question" with anti-Zionism forming the main common denominator of pan-Arab solidarity and its most effective rallying cry. But the actual policies of the Arab states have shown far less concern for pan-Arab ideals, let alone for the well-being of the Palestinians, than for their own self-serving interests. Indeed, nothing has done more to expose the hollowness of pan-Arabism than its most celebrated cause.

For the rest of the factual story click on the link
http://www.meforum.org/3766/palestinians-enemies