Alright! I'm back. I'm full of piss, vinegar, subway, and Skyrim. I'm at my center, I'm unattached to the argument, I'm a leaf on the wind. Lets do this thing!
voted and approved at the final meeting of the League of Nations ending and not suspending the mandate as a nation was formed in each case.
I find that the differentiation between a mandate that is suspended and one that is ended is small. Effectively it became unenforceable after that year (realistically well before it) and was little more than a document with which borders had been built for half a century but which had little power over the nations it sought to define beyond tradition.
this contains two incorrect statements at least one of which I have already corrected for you before.
Capitalize that T!
1. The mandate was not suspended because of the partition plan the partition plan was a reaction to the announcement by Britain of it's intent to end the Mandate by 1 August 1948. Let's talk chronology. On 7 FEB 1947 Britain announced it's intention to end the Mandate no later than 1 AUG 1948. On 15 MAY1947 the UN Special Committee on Palestine was formed. The committee delivered it's report on 31 AUG 1947, the plan was voted on 29 NOV 1947. 8 months after the announcement from the Foreign Office. The mandate's termination was not related to the partition plan. You could say the plan was created specifically because of the impending termination of the mandate, but not the other way around
Without access to the inner workings of the bodies deciding upon British foreign and military policy you can't say for certain whether the Partition plan was a planned replacement designed to create international consensus on the borders for the Israeli state (which itself had been in the rough planing stages before the mandates announced suspension) or whether it was a reactionary drafting designed to replace it upon the empires intended withdrawal from the area. I personally err on the belief that the empire wasn't acting in a reactionary fashion here, and that the partition plan which they had a strong hand in crafting was meant to replace an aging and now unenforceable series of laws from an era that had come to an end rather then an effort to lay the burden of stability and border drawing upon the national community after realizing that there would be issues with the isreali states founding without British enforcement.
Both are viable but I'll cede that it's more conspiratorial to believe that these efforts were planned out beforehand, regardless of their eventual failure.
2. The Mandate remained in effect and binding until 14 MAY 1948 as announced in SEP 1947, again before the vote on UN 181 even occurred and just to reenforce the point that the partition plan is and was not a legitimate binding international document: from your favorite!
I just said it wasn't in effect in 1948 and you then quoted me and told me it wasn't in effect in 1948. After that you asserted that I was dumb for thinking that a document that I said wasn't binding was binding.
You had a valid point and then you lost it again by referring to the partition plan. For the last time and I'll even use caps THE PARTITION PLAN IS NOT, HAS NOT,AND WILL NEVER BE BINDING.
A non binding resolution doesn't
cease to exist just because it's non binding. I think that's where you keep tripping up here. No agreement is internationally binding to a region that doesn't recognize it. That doesn't mean it has no effect. Either way you're directly contradicting yourself now because apparently, being non binding is meaningless. Yet the mandate was somehow binding for a half century as a governing document determining borders despite
being suspended entirely.
It is a historical document that falls into the realm of "good idea" but not "legal document" The reason the Mandate instead of say the 49 Armistice is mentioned is partly because the borders of Transjordan were solidified based on the 22 Mandate that split the original Mandate and partly because the last level document establishing borders was the 22 Mandate. The 49 Armistice specifically stated it did not determine permanent borders. The 67 Armistice had become the de jure borders but were hotly contested so the Mandate supplemented by the 67 Armistice were used as the basis for the Egypt and Jordan treaties. Pack up your partition plan and dont bring it back to a discussion about Israels borders in the region.
I just said that the partition plan didn't have anything to do with Israels borders with Jordan and syria and that it partitioned Israel between natives and israelis while doing its best to respect pre determined borders. You quoted it. It is what you quoted.
You then yell at me for asserting that the partition plan carved up their borders as writ of law. Are you reading my posts through some sort of dark mirror?
No the treaties are the legitimate legal set that is enforced when discussing the subject of borders, which unless you decided to chang horse midstream was the core issue.
The core issue has been what determined the borders of Palestinian zones of control within the Israeli state. That's been the issue from post 1. It's been what i've attempted to cite in almost every one of my posts responding to you. I'm on the same horse, you just took the race into the
ocean. It all started with that little map that you didn't like because it used the partition plan and not the mandate (which wasn't applicable). Well tough cookies, the partition was the first legal document to set up the zones between Israel and Palestine and if it never existed then the Palestinians are stateless and israel is committing genocide inside of it's own borders. Something that
is actually much worse. The israelis recognized the document, despite the Arabs not. Whether its binding now is fairly irrelevant to the original point as is what Israels borders are with Syria.
I don't have to establish that, it's a fact.
Well then I guess the israeli state was drawn up by men whose briefcases were full of stardust and unicorns because the document that it was based on apparently doesn't count because the arabs (who weren't the ones setting up a state) didn't recognize it.
We were discussing borders, I specifically took issue with the statement that the 49 armistice was the closest thing to legal border Israel had. In the creation of the State of Israel you have a factual point in invoking the partition plan but not excluding the mandate. Both are referenced in the Declaration of Independance, and both are included in the declaratory clause; historically speaking its important to note that the Declaration was basically from the Jews TO the UN. 40 years later when it became apparent that the Palestinains would not be able to take "Palestine" the Modern state of Israel they appealed to the UN for statehood and were granted it on the same basis for which Israel had.
You're clearly glossing over the massive upheaval that the formal declaration and foundation of the state of isreal caused in the region. Their population surged, they had newly defined borders, they had a new government, a nation was created where none existed before. They didn't just suddenly decide one day that they needed affirmation for what they had been doing for half a century. That's silly.
I exclude the mandate in the creation of Palestine because it was suspended and because the partition plan was based
directly on it and penned by the people that suspended the mandate. The chicken and the egg causality discussion is certainly quite gray and you could be right. But this isn't really in contention. The mandate continued to be an important document as I have said now repeatedly, but it was not an enforced set of laws by this date and the wars that followed occurred specifically because of it's toothlessnesss. The partition was approved and then rejected, then a war happened. Between the approval and the war a state was founded. The rejection doesn't make the partition
dissapear and from the beginning I have been referencing it as a founding document for the Palestinians.
The Arab reaction was total rejection, it's documented. It does matter that they rejectd it as much as it matter they had a war over it, they lost. If I offer you say 75% stock in a company to which I will take 25% in the startup negotiations and you tell me to go pound sand. I build a multibillion dollar wholly and privatly owned business and 40, or even 20 years later you return to demand your 75%, its my turn to tell you to pound sand.
And if I put a tape line in our room and tell you which half is mine, you reject that, and then I punch you in the face until you stop crossing over it
all of a sudden that line is real whether you accepted it or not.
The "Palestinians" had an oppourtunity to create an Arab state in 1948, they got greedy and found thier hand caught in the bear trap. Any claim of legitmacy after that is questionable at best, it's an unwise position to support. Had the Palestinians created an Arab state in 1948 and been conquered we'd have a different kettle of fish, they didn't.
Whether its wise or unwise its just about all they have at this point. It's not like the Israelis aren't violating numerous lawsets that they are signatories under in the way that they treat the Palestinian zones and their other direct neighbors.
The discussion on the parition plan is all used up.
Why? Because you identified early on that you were wrong concerning the initial point (the borders of Palestinian zones of self governance)? Is that why you dragged this thing halfway across the universe into a chicken and egg debate concerning the end of the mandate and the origins of the partition plan?
See "business" above.
It's a pretty terrible analogy to use on a population that you are now coining as stateless. Were your analogy to hold up your multibillion dollar company would probably be broken up and would of had it's board either arrested or fined significantly for repeated illegal actions. That or the contract would of been declared null and void due to their breakage of it.
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
