|From Haaretz – By Eran Azran and Reuters 22:09 14.12.14
Problem … Under which official agreement did Israel legally acquire the territories “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”?
Fact is, there is no such agreement and;
Put simply, Israel’s maritime borders with Egypt are not as claimed
Israel’s Mediterranean coastline extends only as far South as Ashdod and North as far as Acre!
December 15, 2014
December 10, 2014
You’ll see it again and again .. UN/UNGA and UNSC Chapt VI resolutions are non binding.
However, the UN Charter itself is binding on ALL Members in its entirety.
That matters be resolved peacefully in accordance with International Law and the UN Charter is binding.
UN Charter chapters re-affirmed and/or emphasized in an UN/UNGA/UNSC resolution are as a matter of course binding! They do not suddenly become non-binding just because they’re in a so called ‘non-binding’ resolution.
Similarly International and Customary International Law is binding. Laws re-affirmed and/or emphasized in an UN/UNGA/UNSC resolution are binding!
Likewise conventions that have been ratified by a majority of the International Comity of Nations automatically pass into Customary International Law and are thereby binding. The majority of Nations have ratified the Geneva Conventions. Geneva conventions re-affirmed and/or emphasized in an UN/UNGA/UNSC resolutions are binding!
December 6, 2014
Screen shot from Haaretz Dec 6th 2014
November 10, 2014
The Hasbara – World’s worst propaganda – There was no occupation or illegal settlements before 1967 – Israel vs Palestine
The Hasbara – World’s worst propaganda – There was no occupation or illegal Israeli settlers before 1967?
The following are not an unfounded accusations. The information is not from propaganda sites. They’re the official words of the Provisional Israeli Government 1948, as recorded by the UNSC and the Israeli Government web site and the opinion of the International Court of Justice. You decide.
Israel’s legal sovereign extent was defined by the Provisional Government of the State of Israel in its plea for recognition and it was immediately recognized as such while at war “outside the territory of the State of Israel .. in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel“ 
May 15, 1948
Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”
May 22nd 1948
“international regulations” at the time say;
Further to which as recently as 2004
3 Jun 1948 in the Knesset
12 Aug 1948
Occupation can actually be dated from May 22nd 1948.
|ShortLink to this Graphic http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk#googlemap
BIG detailed Google Earth overlay
Includes the UNGA text.
Load the kmz file into Google Earth
then use the properties in the left hand column
to vary the transparency
November 14, 2013
Israel agree to two states? Israel’s intentions were voiced to the Conciliation Commission on August 31st 1949. It’s actions since, show no change of plan.
…1948 …discussing the Declaration…
Ben-Gurion did not want to limit themselves from the outset: “We accepted the UN Resolution, but the Arabs did not. They are preparing to make war on us. If we defeat them and capture western Galilee or territory on both sides of the road to Jerusalem, these areas will become part of the state. Why should we obligate ourselves to accept boundaries that in any case the Arabs don’t accept?”
It should be noted that A) the resolution contained the proviso as envisaged in this plan, B) the Jewish Agency’s final acceptance of UNGA res 181 is enshrined in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel and C) the Israeli Government asked to be and indeed was recognized per the frontiers outlined in the resolution.
Furthermore, the resolution contained no clause requiring the Arab States to agree or co-sign, nor could it. It was an offer for “either” party to declare Sovereign Independence over a set of boundaries as envisaged in this plan, if they wished. It was not and could not be demanded or obligatory as it would go against the meaning of ‘independent’. The declaration of one could not be ‘dependent’ on the other.
This was confirmed by the Jewish Agency itself prior to declaration Friday, 19 March 1948 Rabbi Silver replacing Mr. Shertok at the Council table as representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine stated:
“We are under the obligation at this time to repeat what we stated at a [262nd meeting] meeting of the Security Council last week: The decision of the General Assembly remains valid for the Jewish people. We have accepted it and we are prepared to abide by it. If the United Nations Palestine Commission is unable to carry out the mandates which were assigned to it by the General Assembly, the Jewish people of Palestine will move forward in the spirit of that resolution and will do everything which is dictated by considerations of national survival and by considerations of justice and historic rights.”
“The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State.”
And again Security Council S/PV.271 19 March 1948 The representative of the Jewish Agency, Rabbi Silver:
“The statement that the plan proposed by the General Assembly is an integral plan which cannot succeed unless each of its parts can be carried out, is incorrect. This conception was never part of the plan. Indeed, it is contrary to the statement made by the representative of the United States during the second session of the General Assembly. The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State. Mr. Herschel Johnson, representing the United States delegation, speaking in a sub-committee of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question on 28 October 1947, stated, in discussing this very matter in connexion with economic union: “The element of mutuality would not necessarily be a factor, as the document might be signed by one party only.”
UNGA res 181 F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS
When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations. (Article 4 Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations)
So in order to be accepted into the UN through a recommendation by the UNSC, Israel had to declare its independence “as envisaged in” the UN plan enshrined in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel and; the International Community of Nations granted recognition as asked by the Provisional Government of Israel.
Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel… ” I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”
ShortLink to here
In the following letter of the 31st August 1949 to Conciliation Commission Israel reveals :
A) It’s intention to possess all the non-state (Palestinian) territories in the region.
B) It’s admission, by stating it’s intention, that the non-state territories it had acquired by war by 1949 were not it’s own
C) It’s admission, by stating it’s intention, that no part of Syria (the Golan) was Israeli.
D) It’s admission, by stating it’s intention, that there would be no form of self determination by the Palestinians, relating only to the surrounding Arab states
E) Via the final paragraph, if Israel didn’t get it’s way, it would not respect the recognized Sovereign integrity of the Arab states and their right to live in peace
31 August 1949
Addressed to the Chairman of the Conciliation Commission by Mr. Reuven. Shiloah
Head of the Delegation of Israel and containing
Replies to the Commission’s Questionnaire of 15 August 1949
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of the Conciliation Commission’s memorandum of August 15 and to convey to you the answers of the Delegation of Israel to the questions submitted therein,
1. The Delegation of Israel is prepared to sign a declaration along the general lines suggested in Chapter I of the Commission’ s memorandum, subject to precision on the following specific points:
(a) The Government of Israel considers that the solution of the refugee problem is to be sought primarily in the resettlement of the refugees in Arab territories, but it is prepared for its part, as already indicated to the Commission, to make it’s own contribution by agreeing to a measure of resettlement in Israel.
(b) While the Government of Israel cannot bind itself in advance to the implementation of such solutions as the survey group may propose, it will undertake to facilitate the task of this group and to give full consideration to any proposals the group may put forward
2. The Delegation of Israel wishes to offer certain further comments on Chapter I of the Commission’s memorandum, in order to make its attitude perfectly clear:
(a) The Delegation of Israel has taken note of the proviso that it is understood that the repatriated refugees will become ipso facto citizens of Israel and that no discrimination will be practised against them both with regard to the civil and political rights which they will exercise and to the obligation imposed upon them by the law of the land. The Delegation is astonished however,that there is no mention of any similar understanding with regard to the refugees to be resettled elsewhere.
(b) The Delegation of Israel desires to stress it’s understanding that any repatriation in Israel as indicated by the Commission,
would take place subject to financial assistance furnished by the International community and that such assistance would be
extended to include the. resettlement of Jewish refugees from the Arab-controlled areas of Palestine
(c The Delegation of Israel has already presented to the Commission a provisional estimate of the number of refugees which the Government of Israel would be ready to accept. It is desired, in this connection, to point out that the Government of Israel’s willingness to facilitate the task of the survey group rests within the framework of the contribution which it has declared itself ready to make to the solution of the refugee problem.
(d) The Delegation of Israel desires to take this opportunity of reiterating its earlier statement to the Commission that the Government of Israel can agree to the repatriation of refugees to Israel only as part of an overall settlement of the refugee problem and of the Palestine conflict.
Link this bit
3. With regard to the territorial adjustments of which the Commission treats in Chapter II of it’s memorandum, the Delegation of Israel considers that in addition to the territory indicated on the working document annexed to the Protocol of May 12, all other areas falling within the control and jurisdiction of Israel under the terms of the armistice agreements concluded by Israel with Egypt, the Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom and Syria should be formally recognized as Israeli territory. The adjustment of the frontiers so created will be subject to negotiation and agreement between Israel and the Arab Government in each case concerned.
4, In this connection the Delegation of Israel desires to offer a number of observations:
(a) The territorial adjustments proposed above has the following effects:
(i) No territory forming part of Egypt, the Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom or Syria is added to Israel by this adjustment
(ii) No territory ever awarded to Egypt, the Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom or Syria by any international instrument or held by them under any agreement is added to Israel by this adjustment.
(iii) No territory in which Egypt, the Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom or Syria exercises authority or jurisdiction under the armistice agreements concluded pursuant to the Security Councils resolution of November 16, 1948 and endorsed by the Security Council’s resolution of August 11, 1949 is added to Israel by this adjustment. If the territorial adjustment proposed were not effected, territory awarded to Israel under an international instrument or held by it under the terms of an agreement (viz: territory in which Israel exercises authority and jurisdiction under, the armistice agreements concluded pursuant to the Security Council’s resolution of November 16, I948 and endorsed by the Security Council’s resolution of August 11, 1949) would be added to one or more Arab States.
The Delegation of Israel holds, therefore, that only the territorial adjustment proposed above falls equally in its effects on the rights and position of each negotiating party, makes no encroachment upon existing sovereignties, and preserves the juridical status and actual, stability achieved by the existing agreements. This method of achieving a territorial settlement is furthermore, in precise accord with the resolution adopted by the General Assembly on December 11, 1948 calling upon the Governments concerned to extend the scope of the negotiations provided for in the Security Council’s resolution of November 16, 1948 and to seek agreement by negotiations conducted either with the Conciliation Commission or directly, with a view to the final settlement of all questions outstanding between them.
5, I venture to point out that paragraph 3 above is to be read in the light of the observations offered in paragraph 4, and to request that in any use which the Commission may make of this statement of the Israeli Delegations position, shall not be cited without the addition of paragraph 3.
THE REPLY: 3 September 1949 addressed to Mr. Reuven Shiloah, Head of the Delegation of Israel, by the Chairman of the Conciliation Commission, Emphatically dismisses the notion. referring Israel back to the armistice agreements. “2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question”
NB: (a) The territorial adjustments proposed above has the following effects: …etc etc The territorial adjustments proposed were not accepted, to the opposite effect.
Actions speak louder than words. The ‘effects’ have been Israel has:
A) failed to have “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”
B) illegally acquiring by war, Sovereign Syrian territory (Golan ’67). (Israel was requires, agreed and withdrew from Egyptian territory BEFORE peaceful relations were assumed)
C) illegally claimed non-state territories belonging to the Palestinians, prior to the question of Palestine being resolved.
D) illegally annexed “territories occupied”
E) illegally instituted Israeli Civil Law in “territories occupied”
F) illegally built Israeli civilian infrastructure and dwellings for illegal settlers in illegally acquired and illegally annexed “territories occupied”
G) illegally sold illegally acquired and illegally annexed “territories occupied” to illegal settlers
H) has yet to write a constitution
i) shown that it cannot be trusted
J) As a separate state, taken away the Jewish right to live in all of Palestine, limiting Israeli Jews to only Israeli Sovereign territory unless, they become ILLEGAL settlers or citizens o Palestine or Syria (in the Golan). Furthermore, under the 1948 Israeli military ordinance, still current, it is forbidden for Israeli citizens or residents to travel from Israel into the territories of a hostile entity. Contrary to the Hasbara, Israel prevented Israeli Jews and Israeli Muslims, Israeli Christians et al, from worshiping in Jerusalem from 1948 – 1967
September 16, 2013
If you examine the Israeli narrative on the issue of Arabs/Palestine, it never seems to add up.
E.g., “20% of the Israeli population was Arab” These kind of statements attempt to belittle Arab existence
By 1950 the population of Israel was 1,370,000
There were at least 156,000 non-Jewish Arabs in Israel and some 500,000 Arab Jewish refugees from the Arab states
That’s 656,000 Arabs of a population of about 1,370,000
Which is about 47% not including the indigenous Arab Jews of Israel!
The Arab population of Israel in 1948 was well in excess of 50%. A large number of Israeli Jews today are of Arabic descent.
The closer you look the more bullsh*t you find
May 10, 2013
The three No’s of Khartoum – no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel
The three no’s of the khartoum conference. “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel”
Right, wrong? Just, unjust? Reasonable? Biased? Antisemitic? Most importantly, what were the conditions that prompted the Arab states to adopt this stance?
2. The conference has agreed on the need to consolidate all efforts to eliminate the effects of the aggression on the basis that the occupied lands are Arab lands and that the burden of regaining these lands falls on all the Arab States.
3. The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.
This is simply a reflection of UNSC res 476 1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;
No peace with Israel: While territory sovereign to Egypt was under Israeli occupation the two states were technically at war. In the eventual Egypt Israel Peace Treaty Israel was first required and agreed to withdraw from all Egyptian territory before peaceful relations were assumed.
No recognition of Israel: There is no legal basis for demanding recognition.
B) ” ..in the view of the United States, International Law does not require a state to recognize another state; it is a matter for the judgment of each state whether an entity merits recognition as a state. In reaching this judgment, the United States has traditionally looked of the establishment of certain facts. The United States has also taken into account whether the entity in question has attracted the recognition of the International community of states.” There are numerous UN Member states who do not recognize other UN Member States.
All states are never the less required to show “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”. This is reflected in UNSC res 242.
No negotiations: Israel is in breach of numerous UNSC resolutions, International Law, the UN Charter, relative conventions. There is no legal requirement for negotiations. For example the words ‘negotiate’, ‘negotiations’ do not appear in UNSC res242 on which the Egypt Israel Peace Treaty is based. Israel was and still is required to adhere to the law, negotiations or not. Egypt and Jordan were correct in refusing negotiations while Israel was in breach of its legal obligations in respect to their sovereign territory.
The signing of a negotiated peace treaty between Egypt and Israel was by default an act of recognition and; after Israeli withdrawal peaceful relations were assumed. Likewise with Jordan. Both are examples of what UNSC res 242 was formulated to achieve. The end of hostilities between UN Member States.
However, while Israel occupies non-Israeli territories in Palestine, the Golan Heights, Shebaa Farms, the Alghajar village UNSC res 425 and UNSC res 426, Israel is technically at war and those states have a right to “restore” sovereignty over their territories. Professor Stephen M. Schwebel / Elihu Lauterpacht
The Palestinians meanwhile are under no legal obligation to sign a peace agreement with an Occupying Power, to recognize an Occupying Power or to negotiate with an Occupying Power. Negotiations mean only one thing, the Palestinians forgoing some of their legal rights so that Israel may keep non-Israeli territory illegally acquired by war, illegally annexed and illegally settled by Israel since 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)
May 28, 2012
The Hasbara. World’s worst propaganda – United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 was not binding and is irrelevant because the Arabs rejected it
How many times have you heard “the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 was not binding and is irrelevant because the Arabs rejected it”
Friday, 5 March 1948 Rabbi Silver stated to the UNSC
“Nevertheless, reluctantly but loyally, we accepted the decision which appeared fair and reasonable to the United Nations”
“We feel under the obligation to make our position unmistakably clear. As far as the Jewish people are concerned, they have accepted the decision of the United Nations. We regard it as binding, and we are resolved to move forward in the spirit of that decision. “
Friday, 19 March 1948 Rabbi Silver replacing Mr. Shertok at the Council table as representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine stated
“We are under the obligation at this time to repeat what we stated at a [262nd meeting] meeting of the Security Council last week: The decision of the General Assembly remains valid for the Jewish people. We have accepted it and we are prepared to abide by it. If the United Nations Palestine Commission is unable to carry out the mandates which were assigned to it by the General Assembly, the Jewish people of Palestine will move forward in the spirit of that resolution and will do everything which is dictated by considerations of national survival and by considerations of justice and historic rights.”
“The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State.”
Security Council S/PV.271 19 March 1948 The representative of the Jewish Agency, Rabbi Silver:
The statement that the plan proposed by the General Assembly is an integral plan which cannot succeed unless each of its parts can be carried out, is incorrect. This conception was never part of the plan. Indeed, it is contrary to the statement made by the representative of the United States during the second session of the General Assembly. The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State. Mr. Herschel Johnson, representing the United States delegation, speaking in a sub-committee of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question on 28 October 1947, stated, in discussing this very matter in connexion with economic union: “The element of mutuality would not necessarily be a factor, as the document might be signed by one party only.”
UNGA res 181 is enshrined in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel
Someone is lying … You decide
May 16, 2012
How many times have you heard “The UN is biased against Israel” ?
Rather odd if you consider the fact that the UNSC has offered Israel hundreds of opportunities to abide by binding Law, the UN Charter and relative conventions reaffirmed and emphasized in those resolutions. It has been Israel who has refused, preferring instead to increase its illegal fact on the ground!
Is the gas company biased for sending you a reminder when you haven’t paid your original bill? Of course it isn’t. It’s what you agreed to for being hooked up to the grid. Israel agreed to uphold International Law and the UN Charter in order to become a UN Member State.
Just one example of this so called “UN bias” is UNSC Resolution 252 which has EIGHT reminders, which only exist because Israel ignored the first. Are these reminders bias?
252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 452 (1979) 20 July 1979, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 June 30 1980 and 478 August 20 1980 …. Oh, and Israel’s annexation of the Golan was also condemned by the UNSC Res 497
The next step in the holey olde Hasbara is of course “Ah, but these are Chapter VI resolutions. Chapter VI resolutions are not binding”. Correct. However, the Laws (all law is binding), UN Charter (binding on all members in its entirety) and relevant conventions re-affirmed and emphasized in ANY UN/UNSC resolution, are by their very nature binding!
CHAPTER VI: PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.
Does “shall” mean: “may”? “might”? “could”? “would”? “do you want to”? “would you like to”?
The Charter isn’t posing a question like; “Shall we dance?”. Nor are the Chapter VI resolutions, which more often than not “reaffirm” and “emphasize” binding laws and conventions. All law, by it’s very nature, is obligatory and;
All UN Member States are obliged to adhere to the Charter in its entirety.
Far from being biased against Israel, the UN/UNSC has given the Jewish state HUNDREDS of opportunities to meet its legal obligations. Far more than any other country on the planet! Israel’s claims of bias are propaganda nonsense.
May 4, 2012
UNSC Resolution 476 is in agreement with Iran. ” the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased”
UNSC Resolution 476 is one of at least EIGHT reminders of UNSC Res 252
252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 452 (1979) 20 July 1979, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 June 30 1980 and 478 August 20 1980. None of which have anything to do with race or religion. They’re based on the UN Charter, International Law and the GC’s, all of which Israel obliged itself to uphold. Alas it hasn’t.
Is there any difference in the essence of the following two statements?
1) “Israel must end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem”
2) “The occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the pages of time”
Resolution 476 (1980) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2242nd meeting on 30 June 1980
The Security Council,
Having considered the letter of 28 May 1980 from the representative of Pakistan, the current Chairman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, as contained in document S/13966 of 28 May 1980,
Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for protection and preservation of the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy Places in the city,
Reaffirming its resolutions relevant to the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular resolutions 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980,
Recalling the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,
Deploring the persistence of Israel, in changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem,
Gravely concerned over the legislative steps initiated in the Israeli Knesset with the aim of changing the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem,
1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;
2. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly;
3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;
4. Reiterates that all such measures which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council;
5. Urgently calls on Israel, the occupying Power, to abide by this and previous Security Council resolutions and to desist forthwith from persisting in the policy and measures affecting the character and status of the Holy city of Jerusalem;
6. Reaffirms its determination in the event of non-compliance by Israel with this resolution, to examine practical ways and means in accordance with relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations to secure the full implementation of this resolution.
Not only does the UNSC agree with Iran that the Zionist/Israeli regime/Government illegally in Jerusalem must end, it also threatens action via Chapt VII. Iran merely predicted the Zionist regime in Jerusalem would be wiped from the pages of history. It didn’t threaten as the UNSC has, with “practical ways and means”.
Furthermore, UNSC Res 476 tells us Israeli actions “constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East”.
Meanwhile, Israel’s illegally acquired eggs are all in one basket. The precious US veto vote preventing a UNSC Chapt VII resolution giving the law its full effect through “practical ways and means”.
Israel has breached its position of trust as the Occupying Power
Make up your own mind who has the law on their side.
April 29, 2012
The Hasbara – The world’s most stupid propaganda – Israeli Palestine peace agreement and Palestinian Right of Return.
Israel says there must be a peace agreement with Palestine before there can be consideration given to any RoR.
Think about ….
Under the most basic Right of Return required of any state, a) the country of return has right of final veto on individuals and; b) those accepted are all required to agree to live in peace. They would then become; c) Israeli citizens! d) They would not be citizens of the Palestine with whom Israel has the peace agreement!
Furthermore, it is an individual right to decide to return or accept compensation. The PA/PLO/an Independent State of Palestine can only legally argue that RoR be respected on behalf of the individuals concerned. Any agreement curtailing those rights could set a ghastly precedent which could effect all RoR for all refugees and the right to self determination.
BTW This is the definition of a refugee used in UNGA Res 194. Interesting reading! It included Jewish refugees at the time.
December 16, 2010
Israel has no fixed borders? On May 22 1948 Israel confirmed it’s borders in a letter to the UNSC. The Hasbara does not explain, it justifies the usurping of the Palestinians
How many times have you heard the notion that Israel has no borders with Palestine? According to the Provisional Israeli Government’s May 15th 1948 plea for recognition, the State of Israel was declared
“within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,”
Israel was immediately recognized as such by the US followed by Russia and; recognized as such by the majority of the International Community of Nations before being accepted into the UN and; the extent of Israel’s sovereignty was confirmed by the Israeli Government in a statement to the UNSC on 22nd May 1948, before Israel was accepted into the UN as declared and recognized, before the Armistice Agreements and; before Israel made the first claims to territories the Israeli Government stated (n 22nd May ’48) were “outside the territory of the State of Israel”.
On May 15th 1948 the extent of Israel’s Sovereign territories were clearly defined in the Israeli Government’s official plea for recognition to the President of the USA.
May 15, 1948 Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”
The US immediately recognized Israel as such. No more, no less. The British also recognized Israel as such and considered non-declared territories under Israel’s control by the time of British recognition, as occupied.
On May 22nd 1948 the extent of Israel’s Sovereign territories were clearly stated again in the Israeli Government’s Reply to the UNSC.
May 22, 1948 The reply of the Provisional Government of Israel UNSC S/766 to the questions addressed to the “Jewish authorities in Palestine” was transmitted by the acting representative of Israel at the United Nations on May 22.
“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 . The Southern Negev is uninhabited desert over which no effective authority has ever existed.”
The Israeli Govt goes on to use these phrases in the document:
“the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel” — “outside the area of the State” — “beyond the frontiers of the State of Israel”
Four instances where the Israeli Government, after having declared and been recognized, acknowledged limits to it’s territory. aka Borders, delineating the state of Israel from Palestine!
On 12 Aug 1948 an Israeli Government Proclamation says Jerusalem was “occupied”.
 “international regulations” at the time say;
Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III
“Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. “
On June 15, 1949, Israel’s position on its frontiers, statement to the Knesset by Foreign Minister Sharett.
June 15, 1949 Israel-s position on its frontiers VOLUMES 1-2: 1947-1974
“As for the frontier between the State of Israel and the area west of the Jordan which is not included in Israel…”
ShortLink to this section http://wp.me/pDB7k-KL#firsclaims
On the 31st Aug 1949 Israel made it’s first official claim to territories beyond the extent of its sovereign frontiers. After accepting UNGA resolution without registering any reservations. After declaring Israel Independent of any other entity including Palestine, per the borders of UNGA Res 181 and; enshrining UNGA Resolution in the Declaration. After being recognized as asked & declared. After confirming what was “outside the territory of the State of Israel” to the UNSC and by proclamation declaring Jerusalem “Israeli-Occupied”. After being accepted into the UN, as recognized and based on the Israeli Government statements to the UNSC prior to the UNSC recommendation. Israel’s claim was rebuffed, citing the Armistice Agreements .
Chapt XI DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES . Israeli Declaration “Israel…will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations“ May 14th 1948.
Under the UN charter, the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible. The only manner in which territory can be acquired is by legal annexation. Israel has never legally annexed any territory
Consecutive Israeli Governments have been LYING to it’s own citizens and the world for 62 years.
Contrary to the opinions on why the British took so long to recognize Israel, the British waited until an Israeli Government was elected and waited until Israel was accepted into the UN as Declared and as recognized by the majority of Nations. The British also took into consideration the statements by the Israeli Government, granting de jure recognition of State and elected Government, with conditions.
ISRAEL (GOVERNMENT DECISION) HC Deb 27 April 1950 vol 474 cc1137-41 “His Majesty’s Government have also decided to accord de jure recognition to the State of Israel, subject to explanations on two points corresponding to those described above in regard to the case of Jordan. These points are as follows. First, that His Majesty’s Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies, though, pending a final determination of the status of the area, they recognise that Israel exercises de facto authority in it. Secondly, that His Majesty’s Government cannot regard the present boundaries between Israel, and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon as constituting the definitive frontiers of Israel, as these boundaries were laid 1139 down in the Armistice Agreements concluded severally between Israel and each of these States, and are subject to any modifications which may be agreed upon under the terms of those Agreements, or of any final settlements which may replace them.”
Nothing has yet replaced them. Israel has never legally annexed any territory to the “frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″. It’s two attempts at annexation were condemned by UNSC Res 252 (+ 5 reminders) and UNSC Res 497, the Golan.
These territories, “outside the territory of the State of Israel”, acquired by war, confirmed by the Israeli Government as occupied and never legally annexed to Israel, are quite simply not sovereign to Israel. As Professor Stephen M. Schwebel, after leaving office as a Judge of International Court of Justice, explains (citing Elihu Lauterpacht), a sovereign can ‘restore’ it’s own sovereign territory by war. It cannot ‘acquire’ territory by war.
Israel has never had to ‘restore’ any sovereign territory, it has never had any sovereign Israeli territory taken from it. In fact, failing to reach a peaceful settlement under Chapt VI of the UN Charter, Syria has a right to ‘restore’ the Golan by war. Likewise Egypt had the same right over the Sinai.
Overlay for Google Earth with borders marked according to text of UNGA Res 181 (included)
November 3, 2010
Israel vs Palestine. Contrary to the Hasbara, Palestine has existed far longer than any Jewish kingdom or Jewish State. By denying the existence of Palestine and the Palestinian people, the longer history of Jewish existence in the region, as Palestinian Jews, is being denied.
Apart from being irrelevant to the legal status of non-self governing territories and recognized extent of Israeli Sovereignty, by denying the existence of Palestine and the Palestinian people, the Jewish population who lived in Palestine throughout the diaspora
are being denied the longer history of Jewish existence in the region. As Palestinian Jews.
How many times have you heard “there were no such people as the Palestinians” or “No such country as Palestine”? To be correct, there was and still is no Independent Sovereign State of Palestine, nor for that matter was there an Independent Sovereign State, country or even a region called Israel until 1948. There was once a kingdom for a short period of time.
There was however Palestine.
The maps on linked on the sides of this page aren’t maps drawn in the era of the Hasbara. They’re of the region, drawn in 1480 & 1655 of the region at the time. From the Jewish National and University Library no less.
This was drawn in 1845
From the Zionism & Israel Information Center.
Basic maths: Since the Roman era, i.e., about 2,000 of the 3,200 year history of the Jewish people, the region in all it’s forms and under a number rules, has been known as Palestine. During this 2,000 year period, longer than there ever was a Jewish Kingdom or a Jewish State, Jewish folk living in Palestine were, like Palestine’s other folk, Palestinians. After having areas declared independent of it, TransJordan 1946, Israel 1948, what remains is still Palestine. The name has not changed for over two thousand years
In denying the existence of Palestine, the Jewish population who lived in Palestine throughout the diaspora are being denied their Jewish Palestinian history.
Herzl, who during his life time could have bought land and lived anywhere in Palestine as a Palestinian Jew, didn’t. Those who stayed in Palestine did. Tens of thousands who migrated in the late 1800’s did. That right was taken away by the formation of a separate state, independent of Palestine. Now Israeli Jews (and Israel’s other citizens) are prohibited from settling any where in Palestine by the laws Israel swore to uphold. Even under it’s own Law of Entry 1948 and still current, Israeli citizens are prohibited from entering a hostile entity. Not to mention the GC’s, Laws of War, UN Charter and numerous UNSC resolutions.
There is no logical reason for the notion that Palestine and the Palestinians did not exist except to justify the notion of a Greater Israel, at any cost. Even the history of the non-diaspora Palestinian Jews.
Contrary to the Hasbara twaddle
Have you actually read Twain’s “Innocents Abroad”? Or Bayard Taylor who wrote of the Jezreel Valley in 1852 “one of the richest districts in the world”
Some very nice pics
(thanks The Angry Arabs)
From Michael: Chairman of the Permanent Mandates Commission in 1937:
October 12, 2010
Is Israel actually a democratic state? Read the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. The words ‘democratic’ and ‘democracy’ simply do not appear.
then it’s the territory of what remains of Palestine since Jordan and Israel declared their Sovereign Independence from Palestine in 1946 & 1948. Neither are a part of Palestine, nor is Palestine a part of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel
How many times have you heard “Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East” ?
“WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948,”
An Israeli Government has never been elected in accordance with A) the Declaration B) in accordance with the Constitution. An Israeli constitution has yet to be written. It was a legal condition accepted by the Jewish People’s Council for declaring Independent statehood.
It is arguable that no Israeli law has ever been passed by a legally elected Israeli Government. The Provisional Government was not elected, was not put in place by a referendum, nor was the Zionist Federation or any other body representing the world’s Jewish population towards the formation of the State of Israel.
“THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel;”
The prophets of Israel are a religious notion = theocratic. shades of Deuteronomy 20:15 perhaps?
“it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex;”
Depending on who those inhabitants might be, based on the prior ‘as envisaged by the prophets of Israel’
” it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions;”
‘as envisaged by the prophets of Israel’
” and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”
‘as envisaged by the prophets of Israel’?
Israel was not a democracy for the first 8 months as an Independent Sovereign State. There was no elected Israeli Government between May 15th 1948 and the first Israeli election on 25 January 1949. No laws during this period were passed by a democratic Government.
62 years later, we see:
Not able to reconcile the two notions Democratic and Jewish State, successive Israeli Governments are still acting without a constitution.
Still usurping the Palestinians
Denying the Bedouin their nomadic culture
Ignoring the Geneva Conventions
Ignoring the Israeli High Court
Ignoring the UN Charter
Ignoring hundreds of UNSC Resolutions
Illegally ‘acquiring’ territory not sovereign to Israel
Illegally annexing “territories occupied”
Illegally instituting Israeli Civil Law in “territories occupied” and territories illegally acquired by war by 1950 and never legally annexed to Israel
Illegally building Israeli civilian infrastructure in “territories occupied” and territories illegally acquired by war by 1950
Illegally building AND illegally selling dwellings to Israeli citizens illegally in “territories occupied” and territories illegally acquired by war by 1950
Haaretz – [[ Rabbi Yosef, who has been known to make controversial comments in the past, cited rulings based on the Book of Deuteronomy related to the Jewish people’s inheritance of the land, the presence of other peoples on the land, and that the Jews should not make a covenant with them “nor show mercy unto them.”
According to Yosef, this has been understood to mean barring the sale of land to non-Jews, based on an interpretation by Rabbi Yosef Caro, the 16th-century author of the codification of Jewish law, the Shulhan Arukh. ]]
The International community, the UN, the UNSC has only ever asked that Israel adhere to it’s voluntary obligations under the law. The same laws guarantee Israel the right to defend itself from all comers. They do not require Israel to relinquish ANY sovereign territory.
However, Israel seems to operate under the assumption it’s only answerable to a higher power, perhaps that of the prophets of Israel?
The Palestinians have only asked that Israel recognize their rights, which are no more or less than the rights of every human granted under the UN Charter and International Humanitarian Law.
Have Israelis actually voted for policies resulting in the above? Or have they been duped into the current situation? At the time of writing this, two of the most pertinent documents relating to Israel’s actual recognized Sovereign territories are nowhere to be seen on the Israeli Govt web site. Ignorance is bliss?
Interesting essay by Amnon Rubinstein. Professor of law at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya and an Israel Prize laureate. (note the title though “The Curious Case of Jewish Democracy”)
October 11, 2010
then it’s the territory of what remains of Palestine since Jordan and Israel declared their Sovereign Independence from Palestine in 1946 & 1948 respectively. Neither are a part of Palestine, nor is it a part of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel
Could a peace agreement lead to an Israeli civil war? Inconceivable?
1) Consider the number of lawlessness illegal settlers who will very likely object to any peace agreement especially if they’re faced with either becoming Palestinian citizens or being re-settled in what might become or what is already actual sovereign Israeli territory.
2) Hundreds of thousands of Israelis, Jewish and non-Jewish, live in complete ignorance of the fact that they OUTSIDE of Israel’s actual sovereign territory.
Israel has never legally annexed any territories to it’s declared sovereign boundaries. It’s declared sovereign boundaries are those it accepted under UNGA Res 181 – the basis of Israel’s recognition by the majority of the International Community of Nations (democratically over riding the Arab states legal objections) : Letter from the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, May 15, 1948 “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” Also available as PDF from the Truman Library
Quite a vast section of Israel’s citizenry are simply not living in Israel. But for the sake of this article, let’s just consider the illegal settlers in “territories occupied” since 1967. These are not just small outposts set up by hardliners. They’re vast housing estates, whole townships. Israeli citizens in illegally annexed East Jerusalem are also illegal settlers.
Again, for the sake of this article, let’s for the moment consider were a civil war to break out. It would for the most part, likely be fought in areas outside of Israel’s sovereignty. Under the UN Charter events outside of the sovereign territory of states are of concern to A) Other Regional Powers, the Arab States. B) The UN/UNSC.
Under the UN Charter, which Israel voluntarily agreed to, the UN/UNSC and Regional Powers have a RIGHT to intervene when UN Member States act outside of their acknowledged sovereign territories. An Israeli civil war in “territories occupied” would be OUTSIDE of Israel’s sovereignty.
October 2, 2010
Thinking of buying land or an apartment in Israel? Buyers beware. The Israeli Land Fund engages in illegal activities, deceit, propaganda
it’s a territory of Palestine…
NOTHING on Israeli Land Fund History of Struggle page gives Israel any LEGAL right to sell land in “territories occupied” or anywhere outside of Israel’s actual Sovereign boundaries. Buying this land or any Israeli civilian structure/apartment from the Israeli Land Fund , in the knowledge that the territory is NOT Israeli under International Law, is to be complicit in a crime. Investing in the construction of Israeli civilian infrastructure, development or dwellings in “territories occupied” or outside of Israel’s Sovereign territories, is to be complicit in a crime.
The Israeli Land Fund is LYING: “The State of Israel today was built on land which was legally purchased by Jewish organizations such as the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and other private individuals.”
A) Private, corporate and institutionally owned land is NOT ‘territory’. It’s REAL ESTATE! B) Furthermore, only a tiny percentage of the ‘territory’ eventually allocated to and accepted on behalf of Israel under UNGA Res 181, was ever bought (as real estate). Israel received the ‘territory’ for the homeland state COMPLETELY FREE. GRATIS. NO CHARGE. It was declared a Sovereign state and recognized as such by the majority of the International Community of States, based on the information provided them by the Provisional Government of Israel May 14th 1948, over riding the Arab State’s legal objections. Sovereign States MUST have declared and defined boundaries in order that other states know where Sovereignty begins and ends. Israel’s Sovereign Boundaries were declared May 14th 1948. No more, no less.
Furthermore it is illegal to ‘acquire’ territory by either defensive or aggressive war. Territory must be legally annexed, i.e., by a bilateral agreement, even if ‘acquired’ in a defensive war. ‘acquisition’ of territory is different from “restoring the lawful sovereign”.
Israel’s wars: A preemptive war is started by the preemptor. The UNSC does not recognize a preemptive war as defensive. It is why Israel has never asked for UN/UNSC assistance in it’s wars. It would not have been forthcoming. When Israel says “we were alone”, it is because Israel preempted (started) war. Under the preemptive Plan Dalet, launched in the weeks preceding Israeli declaration, Jewish forces were OUTSIDE of Israel’s declared territories at the time they were being declared. What was a civil war pre-declaration, became a war waged by a Sovereign State, against what remained of Palestine the moment Israel declared it’s Sovereign territories and adopted the Jewish forces OUTSIDE of those declared territories.
Under the UN Charter, the Arab States, as Regional Powers, had a right to attempt to expel foreign forces from the territories of Palestine. The Arab States’ Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine was accepted as valid by the UNSC . There are no UNSC resolutions condemning the Arab States for starting any war with Israel OR for invading Sovereign Israeli territory. Israel’s wars have all been fought almost exclusively in the territories of Palestine or the neighbouring states . There are no UNSC Resolutions calling for a cessation of hostilities IN Israel.
territorial change cannot properly take place as a result of the unlawful use of force. But to omit the word “unlawful” is to change the substantive content of the rule and to turn an important safeguard of legal principle into an aggressor’s charter. For if force can never be used to effect lawful territory change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign.
In the Yom Kippur war, Syria had a right to attempt to restore it’s Sovereign territory, the Golan.
Shabtai Rosen - Professor of international law at Bar Ilan University “(a) Shortly after the signing of the Israel-Egyptian agreement, early in March. 1949, Israeli forces advanced south to the littoral into the area allocated to the Jewish State: in General Assembly resolution l8l (II) of 29 November 1947“
If it was not sovereign to Israel in 1948, not recognized by any member of the International Community of Nations and has never been legally annexed to Israel, it is, quite simply, NOT Israeli territory. It is not Israel’s to sell, lease or dispose of in any manner what so ever. It is ILLEGAL under International Law. People who break International Law are not going to care about you or your investment. You are serving the purpose of achieving a Greater Israel, illegally. Should International Law ever be enforced, by the withdrawal of the US UNSC veto vote, Israel could find itself forced to withdraw to it’s actual sovereign territory, leaving you and your investment in Palestine.
By all means invest in Israel. Just make sure it is IN Israel.
January 2, 2010
then it’s a territory of Palestine…
There is no legal basis in the demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel or Israel as the Jewish State. No other country in the world gave recognition to Israel as the “Jewish State” . They recognized Israel as the “State of Israel” as per the Declaration of the Establishment of “the State of Israel”
de jure and de facto recognition are recognitions of the legal status of States and/or Governments. Governments administer the State. Governments can change.
It is not within the mandate of the UN to recognize states. Already recognized states are admitted to the UN after they have been recommended by the UNSC, they must have been recognized as states before they can be recommended by the UNSC.
Recognition of statehood is not mandatory. ” ..in the view of the United States, International Law does not require a state to recognize another state; it is a matter for the judgment of each state whether an entity merits recognition as a state. In reaching this judgment, the United States has traditionally looked of the establishment of certain facts. The United States has also taken into account whether the entity in question has attracted the recognition of the International community of states.” There are numerous UN Member states who do not recognize other UN Member States.
What is required of states is the respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force. This is reflected in UNSC res 242
Sovereign Territories belong to Independent Sovereign States, regardless of which Government is in power. A sovereign has complete control over all it’s territories and what happens within them, regardless of which Government is in power.
Non-Sovereign States, States and non-state entities also have territories. They are not there just for the taking.
A state entity might have full control of it’s territories and still not declare itself an independent sovereignty.
A state might also only partially control it’s territories, in which case, it cannot declare independent sovereignty.
( See why Palestine has never declared itself an independent sovereignty)
The difference between state and non-state is: a state has declared itself to be a state. There is no obligation for any entity to declare either statehood or independent sovereignty. It is a matter of self determination. Unilateral by nature. Independence means not being under the control of any other entity, person or power.
‘real estate’ is not ‘territory’: Real estate is bought and sold by private individuals, businesses, corporations, institutions. ‘Territory’ is the stuff of States and entities. ‘Real estate’ is irrelevant to the status of the ownership of the ‘territories’ of states/non-states/sovereign-states, entities. A person who rents or even a landless bum, living under a bridge, is an equal part of a state or entity. Territories of an entity belong to all the citizens of the entity. Annexation is of territory and its citizens.
For there to be International recognition of an independent sovereign State, the boundaries of the sovereign state must be defined in order to know exactly the extent of the territory being claimed as sovereign. Israel’s boundaries were defined when the Jewish People’s Council accepted and declared sovereignty per UNGA res 181, in order to be recognized as an Independent Sovereign State. The Israeli Government confirmed it’s declared boundaries in statements to the UNSC on May 22nd 1948 and June 15th 1949
UNGA res 181:
The resolution set out conditions under which either party could declare independent sovereignty, if they wished. No one can demand an entity declare independence. It did not require the two parties to co-sign. This would have been against the notions of self determination. On the 14th of May 1948 the Provisional Government of Israel proclaimed the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel to the International Community of Nations.
Although UNGA Res 181 was a non-binding resolution, UN/UNSC resolutions remind parties of laws, the UN charter etc that are binding. A Declaration of Sovereignty IS binding. It is a statement to the International Community of Nations, signifying the intention of the party declaring. Israel implemented it’s part of UNGA resolution 181. UNGA Res 181 is STILL enshrined in the Declaration of a Jewish State.
The UN did not implement the corpus separatum, Jerusalem remained a part of Palestine
The Arab League refused to recognize UNGA Res 181 on legal grounds. Not because of hatred towards Jews.
The Palestinians COULD NOT declare on 15 May 1948, because Jewish forces under Plan Dalet, were already in control of territories slated for the new Arab State by the time the British Mandate ended, midnight 14th May 1948
Recognition – de facto or de jure?: (de facto – facts on the ground) – (de jure – in law).
A State must exist before a State Government can be instituted. The territories must be defined in order for other Nations to know the extent of the Sovereignty being declared and the declaring entity must have full control over those territories. (Independence)
Link to this section
Statements made by the Jewish Agency to the UN/UNSC prior to recognition in respect to UNGA res 181 made it quite clear The Jewish Agency was going to abide by UNGA res 181. Recognitions were based on the notion that Israel accepted UNGA res 181 and the Israeli Government’s pleas for recognition to states.
The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (entered into force on December 26, 1934), which required ” b ) a defined territory;” All those signatories would have required the same lest they breached the convention by recognizing a state without a defined territory.
Examples of recognition :
USA 15 May 1948 “… as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947…”
Russia 17 May 1948
Letter from Mr. Molotov stated: “Confirming receipt of your telegram of May 16, in which you inform the Government of the USSR of the proclamation, on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29, 1947, of the creation in Palestine of the independent State of Israel and make re-quest for the recognition of the State of Israel and its provisional government by the USSR. I inform yon in this letter that the Govern-ment of the USSR has decided to recognize officially the Stale of Israel and its Provisional Government.”
British 27 April 1950 The British Foreign Office issued a statement on May 17 to the effect that Great Britain would not recognize Israel for the time being because it had not fulfilled the “basic criteria” of an independent state. The British waited until a political party was elected to Govern the State of Israel, then granted de jure recognition, with conditions. The territories Israel had acquired by war, outside of it’s declared Sovereign Boundaries, were considered to be ‘occupied’. I.e., NOT Israeli Sovereign territory.
“His Majesty’s Government have also decided to accord de jure recognition to the State of Israel, subject to explanations on two points corresponding to those described above in regard to the case of Jordan. These points are as follows. First, that His Majesty’s Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies, though, pending a final determination of the status of the area, they recognise that Israel exercises de facto authority in it. Secondly, that His Majesty’s Government cannot regard the present boundaries between Israel, and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon as constituting the definitive frontiers of Israel, as these boundaries were laid down in the Armistice Agreements concluded severally between Israel and each of these States, and are subject to any modifications which may be agreed upon under the terms of those Agreements, or of any final settlements which may replace them.” Thus far nothing has replaced them.
Australia 28 January 1949 “… on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29, 1947…”
New Zealand 29 January 1949 “It is the understanding of the New Zealand Government that the settlement of boundaries and other outstanding questions will be effected in accordance with the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations of 11 December 1948.”
Israel has never legally annexed any territory. Unilateral annexation is not legal. It must be under a treaty or agreement via a referendum and; “territories occupied” and never withdrawn from or legally annexed, are still ‘occupied’.
December 5, 2014
So what? Like all Hasbara, where Arafat was born is irrelevant to the actual sovereign extent of Israel’s self proclaimed, Internationally recognized boundaries and Israel’s illegal activities as the Occupying Power over non-Israeli territories over the last 66 years. That’s right 66 years! Not since 1967 as often claimed!
Applying the same stupid criteria to Israel, we find that only one of the signatories to Israel’s Declaration of statehood was born in the region
David Ben-Gurion – Płońsk, Poland
Rabbi Kalman Kahana – Galicia (Ukraine)
Aharon Zisling – Minsk, Belarus
Yitzhak Ben-Zvi – Poltava (Ukraine)
Saadia Kobashi – Yemen
Daniel Auster – Knihinin (Ukraine)
Rachel Cohen – Odesa
David-Zvi Pinkas – Sopron, Austria/Hungary
Mordechai Bentov = Grodzisk Mazowiecki, Poland
Moshe Kol – Pinsk, Belarus
Eliyahu Berlignee – Russia
Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Levin – Góra Kalwaria, Russia
Eliezer Kaplan – Minsk, Russia
Peretz Bernstein – Meiningen, Germany
Abraham Katznelson – Bobruisk, Belorussia
Rabbi Wolf Gold – Stettin, Germany (Poland)
Meir David Loewenstein – Copenhagen, Denmark
Pinchas Rosen – Berlin, Germany
Meir Grabovsky – Rîbniţa, Russia
David Remez – Kopys, Belorussia
Yitzhak Gruenbaum – Warsaw, Poland
Zvi Luria (Lurie) – Lodz, Poland
Berl Repetur – Ruzhyn, Ukraine
Dr. Abraham Granovsky – Făleşti, Russia
Golda Myerson – Kiev, Ukraine
Mordekhai Shattner – Chernovitz ? ( Czernowitz ?), Ukraine ?
Nachum Nir – Warsaw, Poland
Ben-Zion Sternberg – Czernowitz, Austria/Hungary
Eliyahu Dobkin – Babruysk, Russia
Zvi Segal – Lithuania
Bechor-Shalom Sheetrit – Tiberias, Ottoman Empire
Meir Wilner-Kovner – Vilnius, Lithuania
Rabbi Yehuda Leib Hacohen Fishman – Mărculești, Russia
Haim-Moshe Shapira – Grodno, Belarus
Zerach Warhaftig – Volkovysk, Russia
July 13, 2014
Who does Israel think it’s fooling with fake photos?
1) The water pipes either side are completely un-damaged. It simply DOES NOT look like a rocket of that diameter has buried the majority of its length in the earth!
It’s OBVIOUSLY fake!
2) A rocket might have struck this house at some time, but there’s no signs of charring from a grad explosion WHAT SO EVER!!!
Is it a photo of demolition work?
The amount of damage it seems, was caused by the explosion of two gas cylinders allegedly set off by a grad rocket. Oddly there are no photos of the remnants of the alleged rocket. If it completely disintegrated, one would expect far more damage and a lot of charring.
Compare the kind of destruction wrought on Palestine to that on Israel
The Palestinians have no where to flee the war zone, not even the sea. Under the 2005 agreement and the Israeli/Egypt Peace Treaty Israel has had all the crossings closed including those with Egypt. Only an Occupying Power has this right.
In the bigger picture, the Palestinians ask for far less than their LEGAL rights under the Laws and UN Charter which Israel is obliged to follow. Abbas offered in front of the world at the UN to concede 78% of their rightful territory for peace, Meanwhile while Israel offers nothing and makes demands that have absolutely no legal basis what so ever and continues its illegal expansionist policies.
May 30, 2014
An analysis of some of the information available relating to the deaths of Nadim Nuwara and Mohammad Abu Thaher in Beitunia on May 15th 2014 in the occupied State of Palestine
“He fell forward. A bullet would have knocked him away from the fire, he should have fallen back…” Bullsh*t! A rabbit isn’t even knocked away from the fire of a .22 bullet
The Palestinians ask for their legal rights under the Laws and UN Charter Israel agreed to uphold.
Meanwhile, “Israel, the Occupying Power” makes demands that have no legal basis what so ever. Read UNSC res 476, one of EIGHT reminders to Israel of its legal obligations and giving Israel the OPPORTUNITY to adhere to the law. Unfortunately the Jewish state has failed to live up to the promises it made when it was proclaimed and when it became a UN Member state.
April 8, 2014
Civilians who have RoR and wish to return to what was “proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ had at the very least a right to have become full Israeli citizens under the notions of Self Determination Israel had embraced by becoming a UN Member state!
If they fled before Israel proclaimed its borders, they were Palestine refugees. Refugees from Palestine. Under UNGA resolution 181 accepted “as binding” by the Jewish Agency, they had an equal right to be citizens of the Jewish state (Israeli) or; citizens of what remained of Palestine (Palestinians) or; take citizenship in a country other than the country of return, thereby forgoing refugee status.
Refugees who have RoR to become Israeli citizens to Israel as proclaimed and recognized (ibid), are not Palestinian refugees!
Palestinian refugees, citizens of the territory “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine” do not have a right of return to Israel. They do however have RoR to Palestinian territories Israel has illegally acquired by war and never legally annexed since proclaiming its sovereign extent and obligations to International Law to the world on May 15th 1948 (ibid).
October 24, 2013
Conditions: Honesty, no propaganda, no WikI/Pedia, stay on topic
fnlevit says: October 23, 2013 at 6:40 pm“My latest posts are viciously blocked one after another – posts with links, honest research and references.”
October 12, 2013
September 27, 2013
May 24, 2013
Kerry and the Question of Palestine.
UNSC res 252 has EIGHT reminders…. Does Kerry really think they care?
March 28, 2013
Propagandists trying to justify Israel’s illegal acquisition of non-Israeli territory are so stupid they beggar belief
Their narrative goes something like this: “Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Quran”
So what? It is entirely irrelevant to the Internationally recognized sovereign extent of the State of Israel and Israel’s responsibilities & illegal activities as the Occupying Power over non-Israeli territories.
Never the less …
I’ve been shown to be incorrect. Edited accordingly
March 27, 2013
The wholly holey olde Hasbara – Palestine vs Israel the I/P conflict – Israeli propaganda is really weird
The wholly holey olde Hasbara, is really weird
The Israeli narrative goes something like this: “The international court only gave an advisory opinion, not a binding legal decision” Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Request for advisory opinion)
Quite true and the court’s advisory opinion was that had they been asked to make a legal decision, binding law would not fall in Israel’s favour!
Only an idiot would proudly hold up the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice pointing to the illegality of Israel’s actions… while claiming it as some kind of evidence in one’s favour…
A state which according to the UNSC is in breach of laws, the UN Charter and relative conventions adopted at the end of WWII in large part because of the treatment of Jewish folk under the Nazis is in respect to those laws behaving no better than the Nazis. That some folk seem to be as oblivious as the German population of their state’s crimes, should be ringing alarm bells.
March 23, 2013
Dedicated to those Israeli propagandistas who, when asked to provide evidence of their claims, simply can’t … or when they try, they show just the opposite
|Take the Mandate for Palestine.
The propagandist narrative goes like this. “Under the British Mandate Jews have a right to settle anywhere in Palestine” … ” the British Mandate still applies”
However the Mandate for Palestine (the correct title), doesn’t say there should be a Jewish ‘state’. Article 7 Jewish immigrants could get “Palestinian” citizenship.
Furthermore, the Israeli Government web page on the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, tells us the Mandate “expired” on the night of May 14th 1948 (ME time)
On the May 15th 1948 the Israeli Government’s request for recognition stated:
A declaration of Independent Statehood as envisaged by UNGA res 181 which is enshrined in the Jewish People’s Council Declaration, could not have come into effect if any of that state’s territories were under the authority of another power. One must be ‘independent’ to declare independence. The British administration of Palestine had to end.
However, by 00:01 May 15th 1948 and before 1 October 1948 Jewish forces were already occupying territory in what remained of Palestine, none of which has ever been legally annexed to Israel. Including Jerusalem.
64 years on Israel is still preventing an Independent Palestinian State
March 22, 2013
Israel vs Palestine. The Hasbara. There’s something odd about this alleged rocket attack during Obama’s visit to Israel
There’s something odd about this alleged rocket attack during Obama’s visit to Israel
There’s the obvious: a NINE minute commentary on steroids, Pres Obama was 40 miles away. The silly speculation on the Palestinian intention in respect to Obama’s visit, reporters’ speculations are not news. Plus the additional footage of explosions, that had nothing to do with the incident.
Then there’s the obvious: The explosion was enough to almost entirely disintegrate a steel rocket casing, yet the chair …
… is completely unscathed
The damage to the wall is quite minor and;
the steel shutter shows no signs of damage and;
there’s no mention of Iron Dome
… wasn’t it turned on?
The cease fire had already been broken BTW. Within days of signing it, Israel was killing Palestinian civilians and militants on the Gaza side of the Armistice Demarcation Line
January 30, 2013
Antisemitism was coined by one Wilhelm Marr. It is specific to the hatred of Jews.
(“Anti-semitism” is technically incorrect)
Gerald Scarfe – Netanyahu depiction 27 Jan 2013 Sunday Times
|The day UK Sunday Times published the cartoon on the left happened to be the day set aside by the United Nations A/RES/60/7, 1 November 2005 as an annual International Day of Commemoration in memory of all victims of the Holocaust.
The cartoon contains no Jewish symbols. It depicts Netanyahu building a wall. Israel IS building a wall outside the Internationally recognized extent of Israeli sovereignty. The cartoon depicts mortar tainted with blood. Thousands of Palestinian civilians HAVE been killed by Israel in its illegal acquisition of non-Israeli territory.
Board of Deputies of British Jews appalled by Sunday Times Cartoon
We immediately lodged a complaint with the Press Complaints Commission following the appalling cartoon by Gerald Scarfe in yesterday’s Sunday Times. It depicts Benjamin Netanyahu bricking up Palestinians and using blood for mortar, which is shockingly reminiscent of the blood libel imagery more usually found in parts of the virulently antisemitic Arab press. Its use is all the more disgusting on Holocaust Memorial Day, given the similar tropes levelled against Jews by the Nazis.
However, neither the the Sunday Times or Mr Scarf actually made “any comparison”. It’s just another nonsense statement common to the defense of Israel’s illegal policies, where the Board of Deputies of British Jews themselves attempted to make the comparison!
However, if we do compare it with the Assad depiction and Mr Scarfe’s other work we can see both cartoons are in keeping with the criticism Mr Scarfe expresses of other world leaders.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews have produced their own “trope” by A) leveling an accusation of Antisemitism against well deserved criticism of Israeli policies and; B) attempting a comparison accusation.
Statement from Gerald Scarfe – January 29, 2013
First of all I am not, and never have been, anti-Semitic. The Sunday Times has given me the freedom of speech over the last 46 years to criticise world leaders for what I see as their wrong-doings. This drawing was a criticism of Netanyahu, and not of the Jewish people: there was no slight whatsoever intended against them. I was, however, stupidly completely unaware that it would be printed on Holocaust Day, and I apologise for the very unfortunate timing.
Mr Scarfe ought not be apologizing, Israel didn’t bother to stop it’s illegal activities for Holocaust Day, despite the fact that the UN Charter, International Law and Conventions on human rights were in large part adopted because of what befell the Jewish people under the Nazis! Israel has been engaged in military activities “outside the State of Israel” for the last 64 years.
Gerald Scarfe – Assad depiction
I wonder if this is OK?