Gaza - A 5 Star Concentration Camp *****

[Thunder]

once again...what voided it? A wiki article?

1949 Armistice Line is reflected on Israeli maps, made by the Israeli govt.

if it was now "null & void", Israel would do no such thing.

nuff' said.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Backpedal what. Everyone knew what the accord meant, a gradual withdrawal of the settlements, and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the WB and Gaza, with a connecting corridor of some sort. Where in the accord did it say that Netanyahu could use his dishonesty to expand settlements?

You're caking on irrelevant points and pretending that this burden of proof that rests on your toes doesn't exist.

The issue here has been and will continue to be, in reference to the previous quote, is that you cannot find where it says that the 1949 armistice lines are de facto borders.

Going to consider this point done and dusted since you cannot provide evidence to support this position of yours.

 

[bigjelmapro]

1949 Armistice Line is reflected on Israeli maps, made by the Israeli govt.

if it was now "null & void", Israel would do no such thing.

nuff' said.

Its a voided armistice line. Displaying that it exists does not mean its in effect.

All previous points still apply. Perhaps a more concerted effort in rebutting the post would be in order.

Moving on unless you have something to add.

 

[Thunder]

Its a voided armistice line.

according to whom?

Israeli government maps seem to consider the line to be very much in effect. Perhaps your gripe is with Israel.

Have you emailed Prime Minister Netanyahu about your anger at his government for using the Green Line in many government issued maps of Israel?

 

[bigjelmapro]

All previous points still stand. Somehow the MFA website's statement of:

The maps contained in this publication are for illustrative purposes only and should not be considered authoritative.

And the displaying of an armistice line somehow translates to being 'in effect'.

Nice play of words.

The wiki and the CIA factbook source displaying the 1949 armistice lines and clearly stating that these lines aren't permanent borders also somehow translates to them also being 'in effect'.

Moving on and throwing another hapless argument of Parky on the pile. Thanks for playing.

 

[Thunder]

Its a voided armistice line.

which international body has stated that the 1949 Armistice Line between Israel and Jordan is now null & void?

did the UN say this?

did the International Court of Justice say this?

which body of authority has stated that the line is void?

a JREF member cannot simply decide that an Armistice line is null & void, simply because it fits his political agenda.

 

[Mycroft]

no...the crickets are chirping on this....

"what voided the green line?"

Bigjell likes to describe the Greenline as voided..I'm just curious as to how he reaches this conclusion.

That's already been discussed, most recently with FireGarden while discussing UNSCR 242.

On the flip side, why don't you tell us what you think certifies the Green Line as an official border?

 

[The Fool]

That's already been discussed, most recently with FireGarden while discussing UNSCR 242.

On the flip side, why don't you tell us what you think certifies the Green Line as an official border?

once again I politely reject your invitation to disprove bigjells claim.

he is the one spouting over and over that its voided and cannot say why.

maybe you could help him out??

 

[Thunder]

That's already been discussed, most recently with FireGarden while discussing UNSCR 242.

On the flip side, why don't you tell us what you think certifies the Green Line as an official border?

A very large section of the Green Line is indeed the international border between Israel and Jordan. The whole southern border falls on the Green Line, as does the northern border above the West Bank.

Additionally, the Green Line marks the seperation between the State of Israel and the Occupied Territories, except for the small part of the West Bank that was unilaterally annexed by Israel to become "East Jerusalem".

 

[Mycroft]

once again I politely reject your invitation to disprove bigjells claim.

Of course you do.

 

[bigjelmapro]

which international body has stated that the 1949 Armistice Line between Israel and Jordan is now null & void?

did the UN say this?

did the International Court of Justice say this?

which body of authority has stated that the line is void?

a JREF member cannot simply decide that an Armistice line is null & void, simply because it fits his political agenda.

You're right. How about the 1967 and 1973 war? Do you believe that a armistice line that was agreed two between Israel and Jordan three wars ago still applies until today?

One doesn't need an international body to void an armistice line set forth between two belligerents parties. Stating Hague coventions/statutes or whatnot wouldn't really function here, would it?

So we're still at the 1949 armistice line not being a de facto border which are supported by the links you provided.

 

[The Fool]

You're right. How about the 1967 and 1973 war? Do you believe that a armistice line that was agreed two between Israel and Jordan three wars ago still applies until today?

I wasn't aware that wars voided borders. Does that mean that the borders between France and Germany are voided? After all, there was WW1 and WW2......

 

[Thunder]

You're right.

Of course I am. JREF members can't just declare that an Armistice Line has been voided without providing any sources to back up such an assertion.

That is what we call a "baseless claim".

 

[bigjelmapro]

So you've given up the position of Israel, wikipedia source and CIA factbook sourcing the 1949 armistice lines as de facto borders that are 'in effect'. Done and dusted there.

I guess now you've gone forth with the dimwitted notion that armistice lines between 2 belligerent states, Israel and Jordan in post 1948 in this case, after 2 additional wars, is somehow transferrable to a 3rd party.

Perhaps you can point out the forward lines of deployment for both Israeli and Jordanian troops up to this date from the 1949 armistice lines, which is what an armistice line is. Jordan relinquished control, therefore these deployment lines are no longer in effect.

An American example used in the past from Lincoln's time and adopted in the Laws of War, which I'm sure you'll simply hand-wave away regardless:
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (Lieber Code). 24 April 1863.

Section VIII : Armistice -- Capitulation
...
Art. 136. If an armistice be declared, without conditions, it extends no further than to require a total cessation of hostilities along the front of both belligerents.
If conditions be agreed upon, they should be clearly expressed, and must be rigidly adhered to by both parties. If either party violates any express condition, the armistice may be declared null and void by the other.

An interesting article regarding the farce behind the '1967 borders':

"1967 Borders Never Existed"

There's absolutely nothing, including the sources you've provided, that supports this notion that the 1949 armistice lines between Israel and Jordan are still 'in effect'.

Commence with the handwaving....

 

[Thunder]

An interesting article regarding the farce behind the '1967 borders':

"1967 Borders Never Existed"

"Although the "1967 borders" denote lines of separation, they have no basis in history, law, or fact," Baker explained



Oh yes, the former ambassador to Canada, is clearly an authority on the subject of the 1949 Armistice Lines between Israel and Jordan.

http://mbkb.co.il/professionals

I bet you didn't know he was a Neo-Zionist, now did ya?

Oh, and it appears Mr. Baker's ideological agenda is very, very clear:

"Israel has never expressed any intention to colonize the territories, to confiscate land, nor to displace the local population for political or racial reasons, nor to alter the demographic nature of the area."

"Israel has not taken any step to alter the status of the territory, which is open for determination in the Permanent Status negotiations. Israel's settlement activity does not alter the status of the territory."


So it appears that Mr. Baker is a boldfaced liar.


Oh, and look, Mr. Baker is against Muslim immigration to Canada. And why? Because it may change Canadian policies in regards to Israel. Nice huh? Looking out for Canada's best interests.....ay?

http://mostlywater.org/israeli_ambassador_canada_makes_racist_comment_article_press_release



Wow Bigjel, your sources sure are self-defeating.

Why don't you be a team-player and find someone a little less biased and controversial, to back up YOUR claim that the 1949 Armistice Lines are "voided".

 

[Mycroft]

I wasn't aware that wars voided borders. Does that mean that the borders between France and Germany are voided? After all, there was WW1 and WW2......

So now you're ridiculing the idea that wars can change borders?

Oooh, good one!

 

[Thunder]

So now you're ridiculing the idea that wars can change borders?

Oooh, good one!

The 1949 Armistice Lines are still used by the Israeli govt. to demarcate the borders between Israel proper at the West Bank/Occupied Territories.

If Israel truly felt that these lines had no more political, civil, legal, or historic meaning, these lines would not appear on any of their maps. And yet they do.

Israel knows that only those section fo the West Bank that were annexed to become "East Jerusalem" are actually part of Israel. The rest of the WB is not part of Israel, and the 1949 Armistice Line demarcates the great majority of this territory.

 

[bigjelmapro]

So the concept of an armistice line, completely over your head. Duly noted Parky.

Israel doesn't use the 1949 armsitice line as a demarcation between Israel proper and the WB. The MFA source you provided states nothing of the sort.

Thanks for the laugh of linking http://mostlywater.org/ and accusing me of bias.

Alan Baker = Neo-zionism connection, just as non-existent as the 1949 armistice line and its application ('in effect') as a current border dermarcation.

This Alan Baker being against Muslim immigrations (and as mostlywater.org stated, racist comment), as non-existent as the Neo-zionism accusation.

The Globe and Mail article's title more adequately assesses the content of the article, "Israeli envoy fears policy shift"

Problem for you Parky, I read the links. Pity that you don't.

 

[a_unique_person]

It is not at all uncommon for cease fire lines to become borders, as everyone expected in this case.

 

[quixotecoyote]

It is not at all uncommon for cease fire lines to become borders, as everyone expected in this case.

Isn't there a bit you're leaving out, like that it's not at all uncommon for cease fire lines to break as soon as the cease fire does?

eta:l I think bigjelmapro summed it up pretty well as "the dimwitted notion that armistice lines between 2 belligerent states, after 2 additional wars, is somehow transferrable to a 3rd party."